Huw Edwards named as BBC presenter accused of paying teenager for explicit photos

Volunteer Team, Clearing and Applications Advisor

BBC Suspends Male Staffer Over Paying Teenager for Explicit Photos - Variety

You can find live updates here:
BBC presenter claims latest: Jeremy Vine says 'developments may come today'; police to meet corporation over scandal | UK News | Sky News

Update: Huw Edwards's wife has named him as the presenter involved in the allegations. Her full statement was:

In light of the recent reporting regarding the 'BBC Presenter' I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult days for our family.

I am doing this primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children.

Huw is suffering from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years.

The events of the last few days have greatly worsened matters, he has suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he'll stay for the foreseeable future.

Once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published.

To be clear Huw was first told that there were allegations being made against him last Thursday.

In the circumstances and given Huw's condition I would like to ask that the privacy of my family and everyone else caught up in these upsetting events is respected.

I know that Huw is deeply sorry that so many colleagues have been impacted by the recent media speculation. We hope this statement will bring that to an end.

Moderation note: Please ensure that this thread contains no speculation over the identity of the presenter.

As stated in TSR guidelines - You should not write anything which could prejudice pending or on-going court proceedings of which you are aware. For example, if you have any personal knowledge about someone who has been arrested or charged or being prosecuted for an offence, you must not mention it. If you do, you could be in contempt of court, which is an extremely serious matter.

Please come into the Ask the Community Staff forum if you have any queries. Thanks!

(edited 2 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Guru Jason

And cos its the BBC we wont know their name. Literally anyone else and the bbc would have named and shamed.

I'm glad I don't pay for a TV license anymore. They couldn't **** up in a brewery.

Reply 2

ageshallnot

Original post by Guru Jason

And cos its the BBC we wont know their name. Literally anyone else and the bbc would have named and shamed.

I'm glad I don't pay for a TV license anymore. They couldn't **** up in a brewery.

Rubbish. Many, many people in the media industry know who it is, especially at papers like The Sun and Mail. They would love to embarrass the BBC and will undoubtedly revel in the corporation's embarrassment when/if the person is named. The fact that the paoers haven't named him is a clear sign that there are some doubts about the evidence that a crime has been committed.

Reply 3

Admit-One

Universities Forum Helper

Most media sources are keen to avoid another Cliff Richard situation, understandable.

Reply 4

Guru Jason

Original post by ageshallnot

Nah bbc would just sue them. That's why they ain't released it. Bbc is the biggest scam and most fall for it.

Reply 5

ageshallnot

Original post by Guru Jason

Nah bbc would just sue them. That's why they ain't released it. Bbc is the biggest scam and most fall for it.

Oh dear. The BBC couldn't sue them for naming him. The presenter could.

Reply 6

Guru Jason

Original post by ageshallnot

Oh dear. The BBC couldn't sue them for naming him. The presenter could.

Wanna bet. Since when has the bbc cared about the law and sticking to the rules.

Reply 7

ageshallnot

Original post by Guru Jason

Wanna bet. Since when has the bbc cared about the law and sticking to the rules.

That's simply a fact. If you named him, for example, the BBC could not sue you. The presenter could.

Reply 8

Barbu

Apparently the police aren't even looking into this anymore.

Does this mean there wasn't a crime?

Reply 9

ageshallnot

Original post by Barbu

Apparently the police aren't even looking into this anymore.

Does this mean there wasn't a crime?

That's not what the police said at all. They are assessing what they've been told so far and will then decide whether to launch a formal investigation.

Reply 10

Barbu

Lawyer to the young person in the case has said that the mother's claims are "rubbish".

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

Reply 11

Talkative Toad

Volunteer Team, Clearing and Applications Advisor

Live updates from BBC here (live updates from Sky News is in the OP): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560

Reply 12

StriderHort

Original post by Barbu

Lawyer to the young person in the case has said that the mother's claims are "rubbish".

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

Wouldn't be surprised, whole thing is a bit iffy.

Reply 13

Choreomania

Original post by Guru Jason

And cos its the BBC we wont know their name. Literally anyone else and the bbc would have named and shamed.

I'm glad I don't pay for a TV license anymore. They couldn't **** up in a brewery.

Why should they be named and shamed? Are you privy to information that is not in the public sphere that makes you believe they are responsible for what they have been accused of?

Or are you engaging in the same mob mentality that has seen several BBC presenters have to issue denials because idiots on Twitter are making accusations against?

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 14

Welltemut

It's a complete hoax apparently???

"Looks like the Sun has been set up and fell for it by not checking facts, brilliant" - from twitter

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 15

Napp

Original post by Guru Jason

And cos its the BBC we wont know their name. Literally anyone else and the bbc would have named and shamed.

I'm glad I don't pay for a TV license anymore. They couldn't **** up in a brewery.

Errr the Sun broke it and didn't name the person. Its called the law, you dont slander people because of a vague allegation in a tabloid unless you want to lose absolutely everything that you own.

Reply 16

Napp

Original post by StriderHort

Wouldn't be surprised, whole thing is a bit iffy.

The idea of someone paying 40k or so for a couple of nudes always sounded somewhat unlikely, to be extremely polite on the matter.
Not to say its definitely not true, stranger things have happened, but if were being blunt here child pornography is not hard to come by (at least according the BBC's own articles on it) so why anyone would pay an amount equivalent to an exceptionally nice care is bizarre.