The BBC Broadcasting Building in London, England, on July 10, 2023.
Vuk Valcic/Sopa Images | Light Rocket | Getty Images
LONDON — The BBC’s Huw Edwards, named by his wife as a TV anchor, is accused of paying a teenager more than £35,000 ($45,430) for sexually explicit photos .
according to A report in The Sun The newspaper last week quoted the victims’ mothers as saying the payments were said to have started when their children were 17 — they are now 20.
The wife of the previously unnamed TV anchor released a statement to the Palestinian Authority five days after a crisis-ridden period for the BBC.
Vicky Flind said: “In light of the recent reports about the ‘BBC presenter’, after five extremely difficult days for our family, on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards Make this statement.”
“I did this primarily out of concerns for his mental health and to protect our children… Hugh suffers from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been receiving treatment for major depression in recent years. treat.”
She added that her husband Edwards “had another severe attack and is now hospitalized.”
Flinder added: “As soon as he is in good health, he will respond to the reports that have been published.”
The story happened earlier this week when bbc report A lawyer for the young man contacted the company, saying the allegations made by the young man’s mother were “rubbish” and that “nothing inappropriate or illegal happened”.
In response to a request for comment on the BBC report, The Sun referred CNBC to its current reporting on the subject as well as previous statements from a spokesperson for the newspaper.
“We report the stories of two very concerned parents complaining to the BBC about the conduct of the presenters and their children’s welfare,” the statement said.
“The BBC failed to act on their complaint,” it added. “We have seen evidence to support their concerns. It is now up to the BBC to investigate properly.”
Edwards was suspended and taken off the air after the news broke last week. New allegations of the anchor’s behavior by others have emerged since the original Sun report was published on July 7.
BBC Newscaster Hugh Edwards
Chris Jackson | The Chris Jackson Collection | Getty Images
For its part, the BBC was “asked to suspend its investigation into these allegations while police consider future work”. On Wednesday afternoon, just before Edwards was called by his wife, London’s Metropolitan Police reportedly concluded that “there is no information to suggest that a criminal offense has been committed”.
Main Progress Timeline
BBC instructs CNBC timeline Events on their website when contacted for comment.
In response to the complainant’s contact with BBC Audience Services on 19 May, the BBC said its corporate investigations team had assessed that “based on the information provided, the complaint does not contain allegations of crime but still merits further investigation.” ”
The BBC said it tried to contact the complainant in May and June but received no reply.
The Sun subsequently contacted the broadcaster on July 6. The newspaper’s statement “contains new allegations”, according to the BBC, which the TV anchor learned of on the same day.
The BBC contacted the complainant and the police on 7 July and confirmed on 9 July that the anchor had been suspended.
speculation and law
The reports have sparked intense speculation on social media about who the anchor is and some high-profile BBC stars have publicly distanced themselves from the allegations.
In addition to the seriousness of the allegations being made, there can be serious consequences when defamation and privacy laws are involved.
“Individuals who post allegations against anyone, including the BBC hosts linked to those allegations, do bear personal responsibility for these posts,” Matthew Gill said. Senior Attorney and Media Dispute Lawyer London-based law firm Howard & Kennedy told CNBC.
“If these posts cause damage to the BBC presenter’s reputation and the allegations are found to be untrue – whether related to the presenter at the center of this incident or to someone else unrelated – these tweets people, or who made these posts on social media … could face legal action,” he added.
They could also be “ordered to pay substantial damages and costs,” Gill explained.
“The reality now is that if a person is posting the names of famous people online in connection with these allegations, it’s very unlikely that they will face legal action,” he said. Such allegations were published on
“However, celebrities who have nothing to do with … these allegations but are associated with them online may consider filing a lawsuit, for example, against the first person whose name is mentioned online,” Gill said.
They could also take action against “people who decide to run a campaign in an attempt to link the wrong host to these allegations.”