Huw Edwards named as BBC anchor accused of paying teen for explicit pictures

LONDON — TV presenter Huw Edwards is accused of paying a teenager more than £35,000 (about $45,430) for sexually explicit images, his wife announced.

according to report in the sun Last week’s newspaper, citing the alleged victim’s mother, said the payments began when their child was 17 – they are now 20.

Five days after the crisis for the British broadcaster, the wife of the previously unnamed TV presenter issued a statement to the Palestinian News Agency.

“In light of recent reports regarding the BBC presenter, I am making this statement on behalf of my husband, Hugh Edwards, after five very difficult days for our family,” Vicki Flend said.

“I am doing this primarily out of concern for his sanity and to protect our children… Huw has serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years.”

She added that her husband, Edwards, “suffered another serious seizure and is now receiving medical care in hospital.”

“Once he is well enough to do that, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published,” Flend added.

The story developed earlier this week, when BBC reported that the young man’s lawyer had called her to say that the young man’s mother’s allegations were “nonsense” and that “nothing improper or illegal had happened.”

In response to a request for comment on the BBC story, The Sun referred CNBC to its current reporting on the matter and an earlier statement from a spokesperson for the newspaper.

“We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the programme’s presenter’s behavior and the welfare of their child,” the statement said.

“The BBC has not taken action on their complaint,” she added. “We’ve seen evidence to support their concerns. Now the BBC needs to investigate properly.”

Edwards has been suspended and taken off the air after word broke last week. New allegations about the broadcaster’s conduct from other individuals have continued to surface since The Sun’s original story was published on 7 July.

For its part, the BBC said it had been “asked to halt its investigations into the allegations while the police do their work in the future”. On Wednesday afternoon, just before his wife named Edwards, the Metropolitan Police in London reportedly concluded that “there was no information to suggest that a criminal offence had been committed”.

Timeline of major developments

BBC directed CNBC to Timetable of events on its website when contacted for comment.

In response to the complainant’s contact with the BBC’s Public Services on 19 May, the BBC said the company’s investigations team had made an assessment “on the basis of the information provided, it does not contain an allegation of an offence, but nonetheless merits further investigation.”

The BBC said it tried to contact the complainant in May and June, but received no response.

The Sun then contacted the broadcaster on 6 July. According to the BBC, the newspaper’s allegations “contained new allegations” and on this day they were reported to the TV presenter.

The BBC contacted the complainant and the police on 7 July, with the complainant’s comment confirmed on 9 July.

Speculation and the law

The reports led to intense speculation on social media about the identity of the presenter, and as a result a number of high-profile BBC stars distanced themselves from the allegations.

Besides the seriousness of the allegations being made, there are also potentially serious consequences when it comes to defamation and privacy laws.

“Individuals who post allegations about anyone, including BBC presenters whose names have been linked to those allegations, face personal liability for those posts,” Matthew Gill, Senior associate and media disputes attorney at the London-based law firm Howard Kennedy, told CNBC.

“And if such postings would damage the reputation of the BBC presenters and the allegations are found to be untrue – either in relation to the presenter at the center of this, or in relation to others unrelated to it – the person tweeting those tweets, or the postings of those postings on social media …you may face legal action.”

Gill explained that they may also be required to pay “significant damages and costs”.

“The reality now is that an individual is less likely to face legal action if they tweet a celebrity’s name once online in connection with these allegations,” he said. This was because, “Honestly, many people have been posting these kinds of allegations online over the past few days.”

“However, celebrities who are not associated with … these allegations but have been linked to them on the Internet might consider suing, for example, against the first people to mention their name online,” Gill said.

They can also take action “against people who have decided to launch a campaign to try to link the wrong presenter to these allegations.”