Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Huw Edwards

184 replies

Iamacatslave · 12/07/2023 18:03

Wife of Huw Edwards names him as presenter.

OP posts:
cansu · 12/07/2023 22:53

Agree.

neilyoungismyhero · 12/07/2023 22:57

Hobnobswantshernameback · 12/07/2023 18:28

Oh goody yet another fucking thread

To be fair you didn't have to engage in it did you? If I'm not interested in a post I don't open it.

TomorrowToday · 12/07/2023 23:03

BlueKaftan · 12/07/2023 18:07

I think he’s openly discussed his mental health problems

And men are always buying pictures of females young enough to be their grandchild.

TomorrowToday · 12/07/2023 23:06

supersonicginandtonic · 12/07/2023 18:24

Whatever he has done it is absolutely disgusting people are making light of mental health issues

He's got the money for yehrpahy

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:20

No I don't. I think the privacy laws apply very strongly to them because there is no reasonable "public interest" angle about who they are. They aren't the story either. He is.

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:21

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:20

No I don't. I think the privacy laws apply very strongly to them because there is no reasonable "public interest" angle about who they are. They aren't the story either. He is.

Oops I was replying the comment about the young persons name getting out

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:24

MayThe4th · 12/07/2023 21:30

Well I find it somewhat of a coincidence that after the male in question had come out to say that it was lies, the Sun had suddenly been contacted by others about the same (unnamed at the time) presenter. Very coincidental that. After all, anyone making allegations wouldn’t have known who it was, just because it was all over twitter didn’t make it true at the time. Jeremy vine/Rylan/Nicky campbell’s names were all over twitter too, and had the twitter mood been different, any one of those could have been named as certainly the one, even though we know now that they weren’t.

As for downplaying Hugh Edwards’ mental health, that is just despicable. This is someone with a history of mental health issues, and regardless of what has gone on in their private life (if anything), accusing someone of using their mental health is pretty low. Or are people not going to be happy until he kills himself. Unlike Philip Schofield who brought that up unexpectedly, this is a person with a known history of mental health issues, who is now in hospital because of said issues. I imagine that harm probably isn’t that much of an unlikelihood here.

I don't think its a coincidence - I think other people had been subject to the behaviour and recognised the pattern so came forward.
Maybe those other presenters haven't done anything like this, so there was nothing to come out of the woodwork.

Blossomtoes · 12/07/2023 23:31

CountingMareep · 12/07/2023 20:31

The Telegraph online was very cunning with its headline placement the other day, running a story about Edwards being in the top ten highest paid BBC presenters immediately above the ‘unnamed presenter scandal’. 🤔

It was absolute shocking.

mastertomsmum · 12/07/2023 23:35

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:20

No I don't. I think the privacy laws apply very strongly to them because there is no reasonable "public interest" angle about who they are. They aren't the story either. He is.

Actually, the parents are the story. They went to The Sun, that’s like a red flag of a bad choice of news outlet. Presumably, more reputable, non red top papers would have investigated the story more before printing.

In The Guardian tonight:

> it is the Sun which is now facing serious questions – and a potential legal risk>

it could face libel actions

MrsPapadopolis · 12/07/2023 23:56

mastertomsmum · 12/07/2023 23:35

Actually, the parents are the story. They went to The Sun, that’s like a red flag of a bad choice of news outlet. Presumably, more reputable, non red top papers would have investigated the story more before printing.

In The Guardian tonight:

> it is the Sun which is now facing serious questions – and a potential legal risk>

it could face libel actions

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/12/sun-in-firing-line-over-report-on-huw-edwards

The Sun finds itself in line of fire over report on Huw Edwards

Days after publication, the newsreader is in hospital with mental health issues and the paper is rapidly backtracking

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/12/sun-in-firing-line-over-report-on-huw-edwards

Calliecaterpillar · 13/07/2023 03:17

Everywhere there's this poor guy attitude - and on his mental health crisis, yes poor guy

But beyond that no not poor man for being held to account for his poor moral standards and inappropriate behaviour bc everyone behaves badly once in a while and usually survives without anyone knowing

Can't everyone just fucking do better?! (Rhetorical question) why should we lower the expectations for public figures than raise them for everyone? It's so not fucking hard to NOT behave badly- do we really need sympathy for those who do?

MayThe4th · 13/07/2023 03:34

That guardian article makes for interesting reading.

And I stand by what I said. Far too much of a coincidence that other anonymous allegations were allegedly made to the sun after their initial allegation was shot down by the person they were claiming to be at the heart of it. A person who, according to their lawyer, is estranged from the people making the allegations.

There is absolutely 0 proof that any of this ever happened. None what so ever, and even the Sun are doing a hasty backtrack.

But it doesn’t matter whether there’s proof now, people have already branded Hugh Edwards a pervert. We don’t actually know whether that is true. It seems evidence is no longer required, all someone has to do is say “x did y” and it clearly must be true.

Jeremy Vine has publicly spoken out about being named as the individual, clearly he was robust enough to do it. Perhaps Hugh Edwards’ response to being named is to have a breakdown, because it doesn’t matter now whether it was true or. Not, it was in the Sun and on Twitter, a place where even the biggest amount of bullshit is upheld as truth, and that’s all that matters.

If it’s found to be true then fair enough, but if it isn’t it doesn’t matter, because people will always believe that it is.

And in the meantime someone is in hospital with serious mental health issues, but apparently that doesn’t matter either.

Nomoreheroics · 13/07/2023 06:36

HuckingFellHire · 12/07/2023 20:31

If nothing illegal occured - however morally wrong - then it's a private matter between him and his wife and absolutely fuck all do with any of us.

Leave the man alone before he tops himself.

Agree with this. I think it’s a very sad situation for him and his family. He’s behaved in a morally repugnant way but he clearly is deeply troubled and needs help. This witch-hunt is beyond horrible. We as a society are becoming a pack of baying blood hounds.

passiveaggressivenonsense · 13/07/2023 06:53

Just Murdoch and his political allies using the sun to trash the BBC. They don't give ce a shot who they destroy in the process.

Moonsun88 · 13/07/2023 06:56

Hedjwitch · 12/07/2023 20:15

People having been buying and selling sex since time began. Two consenting adults involved. Feel for his wife and kids but he's hardly Ian Brady!

Was it in adult though?

heartsinvisiblefury · 13/07/2023 07:11

Nothing illegal has happened. Are we now going to ask about the private sex lives of everyone on our tv? What about the private sex lives of all the Sun journalists?!

The only people this concerns are his family.

People have sex and all different kinds of sex - this is not news.

RebelR · 13/07/2023 07:15

I imagine living a lie for 4 decades or more would be pretty harmful for your mental health. It's all very sad, but I still don't think his behaviour was OK.

okiedokie1 · 13/07/2023 07:18

heartsinvisiblefury · 13/07/2023 07:11

Nothing illegal has happened. Are we now going to ask about the private sex lives of everyone on our tv? What about the private sex lives of all the Sun journalists?!

The only people this concerns are his family.

People have sex and all different kinds of sex - this is not news.

You are assuming all the claimed actions are not true. That's not what's been said. Several young (always young) men who work for the BBC have said he sent them inappropriate messages. A young man has said he travelled during lockdown to meet with him. The police have found no evidence of illegality. That doesn't mean it didn't start when he was 17. It's that the police haven't found evidence. No one denies he did have communications with the very young man. It is accepted that HE did send money paying for images. He's just not an appropriate person to be holding his position at the BBC. Disrepute and al that.

okiedokie1 · 13/07/2023 07:20

I'm interested in why more people are supporting HE than Philip Schofield. Both involved young men. Both involved a married man.

FrenchFancie · 13/07/2023 07:21

From what I understand from his wife’s statement, he’s not actually saying that he’s done it (or anything wrong) but that he’s the one being talked about.

the police has said there was no offence
the ‘victim’ has said that the allegations were rubbish

the only people saying that something happened are the estranged mum and stepfather.

it sounds to me more like the mum and stepfather fancied trying to earn a quick buck from the sun and it’s all gone tits up.

But now Huw Edwards’ reputation is ruined, everyone thinks he’s a pedophile and is involved in a sex scandal, and the BBCs reputation is tarnished a bit more.

CarlaTheGnome · 13/07/2023 07:22

cansu · 12/07/2023 22:19

Why does someone who reads the news need to be more moral than others?

The same standards should apply to all. If Gary nextdoor was sexting the babysitter it would be just as despicable as this. The only difference is most people in the UK don't know who Gary is. His friends, family and colleagues would think he was a louse and rightly so, but it wouldn't be front page news. This is only front page news because Huw is a public-facing figure working for a public-serving employer. Whether a person is a king or a kebab-seller, nobody should behave like this. Sadly, we probably all know someone who does.

Superdupes · 13/07/2023 07:24

It's grim IMO how many women want to stand up for dirty old men who carelessly completely destroy their family - because 'mental health'.

You never hear of women with mental health problems doing these sleazy disgusting things do you - when was the last time you heard of a 60 year old women with mental health issues paying very young men or women for pictures.

Inkanta · 13/07/2023 07:28

Yes Superdupes - why is anyone enabling/defending this guy. Why did the wife he betrayed have to speak on his behalf. Because he couldn't face it. Couldn't face taking responsibility and being accountable.

TreesWithLeaves · 13/07/2023 07:28

N0ëlle · 12/07/2023 18:36

he is using the status of victim to distance accusers though. Classic drama triangle switcharoo. He was the persecutor but now he's made the public the persecutors and placed himself literally in a victim position. Classic move. Subconscious sometimes but it works, it avoids accountability.

But of course. Like PS did and any other manipulative abuser.

It must be so sad to be caught out abusing their power 😭they didn't mean it, it was nothing, no harm done, no crime comitted, and look at how they're now losing their job and good name. With all their privilege and money and power, and PR firms on speed dial, let's all feel sorry for him, poor man.

NerrSnerr · 13/07/2023 07:30

the only people saying that something happened are the estranged mum and stepfather.

And the other people who have reported to have had contact with, like the young person he allegedly met during lockdown. There are also reports of messages to younger colleagues too coming out.

If you're in the public eye you do run the risk of having your behaviour scrutinised. If he did send money to a vulnerable teenager for sexual pics then why shouldn't he face scrutiny? (no 17/18 year old is on crack cocaine without serious issues).

It's setting such a low bar for male behaviour when people say 'it's legal so it's fine'.

I would have thought his wife would have absolutely denied any wrongdoing on his behalf if the allegations were false. I know I would.