BBC ‘told by police not to share details of Huw Edwards’ arrest’
The BBC was told by police not to share details of Huw Edwards’ arrest for child abuse image offences in November 2023, the corporation has reported.
The veteran broadcaster was arrested on November 8 but that was not made public until this week, when he was ultimately charged with making indecent photographs of children and pleaded guilty in court.
The corporation has said it knew of the veteran broadcaster’s arrest on “suspicion of serious offences” in November, but continued employing him until April.
A BBC source told BBC News that the police told the corporation not to share the information.
The source said: “The information was given in strict confidence by the police and was not to be shared.”
Questions
However, questions are still likely be raised about why Edwards continued to receive his large salary – as the highest paid newsreader at the corporation – for five months after his arrest.
Before he resigned in April on medical advice, he was paid between £475,000 and £479,999 for the year 2023/24, according to the BBC’s latest annual report.
This last salary marked a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and 439,999.
The BBC has said that if Edwards had been charged while he was still an employee it would have sacked him, but at the point of charge he no longer worked for the corporation.
After his guilty plea on Wednesday, a BBC spokesperson said: “In November 2023, whilst Mr Edwards was suspended, the BBC as his employer at the time was made aware in confidence that he had been arrested on suspicion of serious offences and released on bail whilst the police continued their investigation.
“At the time, no charges had been brought against Mr Edwards and the BBC had also been made aware of significant risk to his health.”
Shocked
The corporation added: “The BBC is shocked to hear the details which have emerged in court today. There can be no place for such abhorrent behaviour and our thoughts are with all those affected.
“Today we have learnt of the conclusion of the police process in the details as presented to the court.
“If at any point during the period Mr Edwards was employed by the BBC he had been charged, the BBC had determined it would act immediately to dismiss him. In the end, at the point of charge he was no longer an employee of the BBC.
“During this period, in the usual way, the BBC has kept its corporate management of these issues separate from its independent editorial functions.”
Davie was expected to hold urgent talks with Ms Nandy over the phone on Thursday, according to BBC News.
The public currently pays £169.50 a year for the licence fee and questions will surely be raised if Edwards’ salary was the best use of that money.
Charlotte Rees-John, an employment law partner at legal firm Irwin Mitchell, told the PA news agency: “It would have been possible to dismiss Huw Edwards after he was arrested, but it is not without risk.
“I suspect this was considered but the safer approach was taken, which was to wait until charged.
“Suspension on full pay was then appropriate as was the pay rise if contractual.
“Many other organisations would have taken the risk to protect their reputation, but the BBC is under a greater level of scrutiny and they also had to consider that he was suffering with his mental health and as such at risk of serious harm.”
However, the fact Edwards has now admitted three charges of making indecent photographs – after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams – will also likely raise serious questions of trust in figures at the BBC.
The scandal with Edwards comes in the wake of the crimes of Jimmy Savile, the TV star and serial sexual abuser who managed to conceal his crimes until after his death in 2011.
Tim Westwood
It also comes weeks after the BBC delayed publishing a report in the conduct of former Radio 1 presenter Tim Westwood because of an ongoing police investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct going back four decades.
Westwood “strongly denies all allegations of inappropriate behaviour” and refutes all accusations of wrongdoing. He has not been charged with a criminal offence.
At the time the annual report was published, Davie defended Edwards’ £40,000 pay rise, saying: “We are always trying to be very judicious with the spending of public money and no-one wants to waste a pound.
“But what you’re trying to do, and from the onset of that affair, was trying to act proportionally, fairly and navigate this appropriately.
“I think that’s what we did… but I think we wouldn’t have wasted money if we weren’t doing the right thing.”
Edwards resigned from the BBC in April “on the basis of medical advice from his doctors” after unrelated allegations that he paid a young person for sexually explicit photos.
Police found no evidence of criminal behaviour in relation to this matter.
Edwards will next appear in court on September 16.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
In a new item on radio four on the 31st of July I heard a police spokesperson giving a definition of the word “making“.
it does not mean creating them, as in for example using Photoshop or cutting and pasting. It’s simply means looking at.
The word “making“ is being used universally on all news reports. I’m not condoning whatever Huw Edwards may or may not have done, only that the language being used to describe his what he has apparently done I think will make people think that he did something even worse!
Yes he did something far worse, he was on a WhatApp group that was sharing sexual abuse videos/images of children as young as 7. He did not leave that group even after he received those videos/images. To receive video/images is in the eyes of the law as bad as if you made those images yourself, hence the terminology.
I’m glad your not condoning what he did.
Presumably this is because when dealing with images from the Internet viewing them on your own computer or smartphone necessarily involves creating a copy of the image.
From the wording of the article it seems the BBC may have not known what kind of offence he had been arrested on suspicion of so can understand why they might not have wanted to act on limited information.
The so called elites looking after fellow elites….
Unless Huw Edwards was working with children, why would the police tell his employer the BBC and also in confidence?
I thought you innocent until you are charged and you plead guilty or the case go to court and you are found guilty?
Something rather fishy going on here……
Establishment cover – up yet again……