Still reading? Check out the full article here.īefore the presenter was identified as Huw Edwards, several members of BBC staff were being thrown into the firing line on social media. "This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper." Mr Connew told Sky News that Edwards could potentially take legal action because The Sun's original story "did suggest" an offence might have taken place, even though he wasn't identified.ĭavid Yelland, who was editor of the paper from 1998 to 2003, tweeted: "The Sun inflicted terror on Huw despite no evidence of any criminal offence. Wednesday's paper carried fresh allegations that Edwards - who was still not named - sent "creepy" messages to a different 17-year-old and broke lockdown rules to meet them, while Thursday's splash, with Edwards now named by his wife, made clear: "Cops said they had found no evidence her husband had committed any crime." "The Met Police were last night assessing the allegations." This time it was followed by: "Under the Protection of Children Act it is a criminal offence to make, distribute or possess an indecent image of anyone under 18. The story in the next day's Sun repeated the claim that the young person's mother had said "the household name star paid her child more than £35,000 for sordid images, starting when they were 17". The piece reported comments made by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal to the Times - which is owned by the same company as The Sun - that the presenter could potentially be charged with sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.īy Monday, when the Metropolitan Police said it was "assessing information" supplied by the BBC, the headline on the paper's spread read "At Last, BBC Calls in the Cops - Politicians furious over delay". While the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, it is a crime to make or possess indecent images of anyone under 18, and the details prompted speculation from other news organisations about whether the allegations could amount to a potential crime.Ī story on the paper's website published the same day was headlined "BBC SEX PROBE: Top BBC star who 'paid child for sex pictures' could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says". However, it did originally report that a "top BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated", "the well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images" and "sleazy messages are alleged to have started in 2020, when the youngster was 17".
The words are strictly true as there was no reference to any police involvement or allegations that a specific crime was committed when the story was broken in Saturday's paper. The Sun is facing questions over its coverage of allegations against the 61-year-old newsreader- with some asking whether the claims should have been reported at all.Īfter Edwards's wife Vicky Flind publicly named him and police said there was no evidence of criminal offences on Wednesday evening, the paper released its own statement, stating it had "no plans to publish further allegations".ĭescribed as a "very carefully crafted legal statement" by former Mirror editor Paul Connew, it said: "The Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations." With Huw Edwards in hospital with "serious mental health issues" and facing no further action by police, the newspaper that broke the story is now under the spotlight. I don't think anyone is suggesting there was no wrongdoing done," Mr Wallis added. The police have since said there was no evidence of a crime being committed. They got nowhere there either," Mr Wallis said.Īfter The Sun's story was released, a lawyer representing the young person involved said the claims made by their parents were "rubbish" and nothing "inappropriate or unlawful" took place. They went to the BBC and begged them to stop this man from giving his money to their son.
"They went to the police and got no help there. The Sun first published allegations made by the parents of a young person that a BBC presenter, who was later named as Edwards, had paid their child around £35,000 for sexually explicit photos. "They gave desperate parents an opportunity to stop what they saw as a terrible thing." They handled it with, as far as I can see, discretion," he said. "They broke a story of massive public interest. Speaking to Sky News, Neil Wallis defended the tabloid's coverage after many people took aim at its reporting over the Huw Edwards allegations. The Sun told a story of "massive public interest" and handled it with "discretion, a former deputy editor of the paper has said.
0 kommentar(er)
