Disgraced broadcaster Huw Edwards asked to return BBC Salary
The BBC has asked Huw Edwards to return the salary he was paid during the period following his arrest in November last year, after his guilty plea to charges of having indecent images of children.
It comes after the Culture Secretary had urged the disgraced newsreader to “return his salary”, while she also asked the BBC to look into whether it can recoup an estimated £200,000 paid to Edwards between his arrest and resignation.
A statement from the corporation said if Edwards had “been up front when asked by the BBC about his arrest, we would never have continued to pay him public money” and added he had “undermined trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute”.
Resigned
The corporation was informed that Edwards had been arrested in November 2023 but continued to employ the veteran broadcaster until April, when Edwards resigned on medical advice.
The BBC veteran pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children on July 31, with the court hearing he had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
The BBC statement said: “There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the BBC; the BBC board is the custodian of that trust.
“The board has met a number of times over the last week to review information provided by the executive relating to Huw Edwards. The board’s focus has been principally around two issues.
“Firstly, what was known in the lead up to Mr Edwards being charged and pleading guilty last Wednesday to making indecent images of children; and, secondly, the specifics of the BBC’s handling of the complaints and the BBC’s own investigations into Mr Edwards, prior to his resignation on April 22 2024”.
‘Appalling crime’
The statement added: “Today, the board has authorised the executive to seek the return of salary paid to Mr Edwards from the time he was arrested in November last year. Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to an appalling crime.”
It continued: “Whilst the nature of the charges against Mr Edwards is related to his own personal life, the board believes these events have also put a spotlight on the question of power imbalances in the workplace.
“We remain concerned about the potential for inappropriate workplace behaviour, particularly in creative and editorial environments.
“Whilst challenges related to power imbalances in the workplace are a challenge for multiple employers, the BBC must hold itself to the highest standards.”
It also announced the board has commissioned an independent review that will “make recommendations on practical steps that could strengthen a workplace culture in line with BBC values” and said the corporation will set out terms of reference and leadership of this review in early September.
In response, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said: “Public trust in the BBC is essential, and so I welcome the BBC’s decision to launch an independent review into the culture within the organisation following the Huw Edwards case and his abhorrent actions.
“The BBC is a hugely valued and important player in the public service broadcasting landscape that reaches millions every day and it is vital that the public has complete trust and faith in the organisation and in how it is run.
“BBC staff must be able to feel safe in the workplace and be confident that if non-editorial complaints are raised they will be acted upon and dealt with fairly and decisively.
“The BBC is operationally and editorially independent of the Government, however I have spoken to the BBC chair in the past week to convey these points in the interests of the public.”
Pay rise
Before Edwards resigned, he was the broadcaster’s highest-paid newsreader, with a pay bracket between £475,000 and £479,999 for the year 2023-24, according to the BBC’s latest annual report.
It marked a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.
The BBC previously said after Edwards’ guilty plea that if he 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.
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.
I wonder who advised the BBC in 2023 when this matter first broke. There may be a discreet period where it is advisable to keep paying the salary but a break point was long past by the time Huw resigned. Asking for the money back is a hollow gesture and he could legally refuse. Maybe the BBC Board of idiot directors should chip in part of their big fat salaries to cover the “loss”.
Seeing the £200k he received is licence fee payers money disgraced Huw Edwards should repay back what he received. Sadly his sickening perversion will now mean he will join the perverted pantheon of paedophiles along with Jimmy Saville , Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter and Stuart Hall.
John Peel as well, though he was never charged with anything.
No chance of this happening…
A chief executive of a council I was employed by you bankrupted them tried to recover salary & pensions contributions off them & were advised by lawyers they were wasting their money with the decision likely to favour the chief executive…
3tier justice..
The BBC should also return some of the licence fee to the public.
Given the high profile both of the BBC and of Huw Edwards himself and the humungous salary which he was paid, my guess would be that his contract of employment will have been very precisely and minutely drawn up. So, in the end, the outcome is likely to hang on any breach of his contact’s terms.
Frustration of contract ?
Maybe something of that nature, if the contract supports it, would give the Beeb leverage?
“Disgraced broadcaster Huw Edwards asked to return BBC Salary”
The key word is “asked” Huw can just say No!
The desperate BBC board desperately try to save face! A rearguard action so absurd that if it was any further back they’d be in the guards van at Newport while the train was already at Paddington. They know they’ll never recover this money, it’s just a PR exercise & blame transference. Why did they pay it in the first place, and equally to the point, why was his salary at such a ludicrous level? Which he apparently did not think was enough to the very end! If you want to create media gods that fail, empower them financially and reputationally… Read more »
Cough up Huw
Grandstanding by the BBC, trying to spin the situation when they sat on their hands for so long. They’ve supported or failed to act on sexual predators over victims on so many occasions.
Surely someone suspended by their employer should be on full pay, without the ability to be sacked on the strength of as yet untested allegations? This principle must be defended, rather than use this as a way to change things to make it easier for employers to sack people.
You can argue whether there should be a different standard for very prominent well-paid people, but where does this begin, and would this be an argument for even higher salaries because of their forgoing of certain employment rights?