Yesterday Huw Edwards was named as the BBC presenter who was alleged by The Sun to have paid a youth for explicit photographs.
But his naming did not end the swirl of questions and claims prompted by the story; if anything it intensified them.
Every day the BBC is deluged with feedback and complaints about its output and its staff. Many of them will concern matters of editorial judgement, a few will be more serious and concern allegations of misconduct or worse. Some of those allegations will in turn be spurious, while a few will be well-founded. How it sorts the wheat from the chaff is central to this story.
Timeline
Matters began bubbling to the surface in the spring when in April a police force was contacted by the parents of the young person but said that it had identified no criminality.
Then, according to the BBC, on May 18th a family member went to the BBC building to complain about the presenter.
The next day a family member rang up the BBC audience services team and spoke to them for 29 minutes. The complaint was referred to its corporate investigations team. Again it was determined that the complaint was not of criminality but necessitated further investigation. The team emailed the complainant to ask for further details, the BBC said.
The following month is where the Sun’s account and the BBC’s diverge. The BBC said that on June 6 having had to reply to an email its corporate investigations team tried calling the number left by the complainant but the number didn’t connect. But the Sun reported the family saying that no-one from the corporation rang them for a proper interview after the initial complaint.
On July 6, the Sun contacted the BBC with the allegations, which the BBC said these were different to the claims it had received from the complainant. Tim Davie, the director general, was informed of the allegations for the first time and an incident management group was set up.
On July 7 the Sun published its first story. It said a household name BBC presenter, whom it didn’t name, had paid a young person who was addicted to crack more £35,000 for explicit pictures.
On July 9 Edwards was suspended
The story had by then taken on a momentum of its own, leaving a trail of questions in its wake about who knew what, when and whether they had responded appropriately.
The BBC said: “We treat any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to proactively deal with them. As part of that, if we receive information that requires further investigation or examination we will take steps to do this. That includes actively attempting to speak to those who have contacted us in order to seek further detail and understanding of the situation.”
It added: “If we get no reply to our attempts or receive no further contact that can limit our ability to progress things but it does not mean our enquiries stop. If, at any point, new information comes to light – including via newspapers – this will be acted upon appropriately, in line with internal processes.”
But the corporation appeared to be on the back foot and The Sun wondered why the BBC appeared to have been slow in getting to grips with the allegations.
“Why on earth did its armies of managers not immediately question the presenter, or launch a full inquiry?
Why was it only when The Sun contacted the BBC that any meaningful action was taken, well over a month after the first complaint?”
The parents allege that, in the intervening period, the payments to their crack-addicted child continued.
It was only because nothing was happening, and the household name continued appearing on their TV screens, that they reached out to this newspaper in total desperation. They did not seek any payment. They just wanted the payments harming their child to stop.”
But there were questions of the Sun too, namely, why hadn’t it named the presenter and had it attempted to contact the young person before running its story?
Richard Scorer, head of the abuse law team at Slater and Gordon, said the difficulty in responding to the story is that we don’t yet know exactly what the BBC knew and when.
He said: “We don’t have a mandatory reporting law in this country so there was no legal requirement on the BBC to pass any allegations of criminal behaviour to the police. But a responsible organisation, if presented with information which might suggest criminal activity, should inform the police and it appears the BBC has now done so, albeit it appears somewhat late.”
Scorer added: “If based on the information presented the matter was plainly not criminal, then given the nature of the allegations the BBC should still have investigated the matter internally. Presenters are entitled to private lives, provided they act within the law, but a responsible employer such as the BBC with public responsibilities should certainly investigate conduct which might be exploitative and an abuse of the person’s status.”
Plot twists
July 12 was a day of twists and turns.
Huw Edwards’ wife, Vicky Flind, made a dramatic statement naming her husband as the subject of the allegations.
Moments later the Metropolitan Police also issued a statement saying that it had found that no criminal offence had been committed.
The Sun announced it had no plans to publish further allegations about Edwards.
But then the BBC’s Newsnight programme reported that Edwards had been the subject of internal complaints at the corporation for inappropriate behaviour.
Amid a clamour of questions and criticism of The Sun’s reportage, another dimension was added to the debate: media ethics.
Former BBC correspondent, Jon Sopel, called it an awful and shocking episode, where there was no criminality, but perhaps a complicated private life.
He went on to say: “There are a number of people in the tabloid press and dare I say it, in BBC news, who need to give themselves a good hard look in the mirror.”
But the Huw Edwards story was still not done with plot twists. Today, Deadline reported that t months before The Sun’s story appeared, BBC journalists had started digging into a potential expose on Edwards.
It wasn’t clear if BBC bosses were aware that Newsnight presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, was investigating Edwards’ behaviour.
Sopel was withering in his appraisal: “A BBC news presenter using BBC resources to investigate another BBC news presenter. Does it get any weirder or madder?” he tweeted.
For its part, the BBC said that its own internal probe was ongoing.
In a statement it said: “The police had previously asked us to pause our fact-finding investigations and we will now move forward with that work, ensuring due process and a thorough assessment of the facts, whilst continuing to be mindful of our duty of care to all involved.”
As far as we know Huw Edwards remains in hospital but his story clearly has some way to go yet.
