RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: The BBC has led the charge on Huw Edwards… But that hasn’t stopped the Left from turning the story on its head and using it to attack free speech
The more we learn about the Huw Edwards affair, the murkier it becomes. Well, I say ‘learn’ but there are still more questions than answers.
If truth is the first casualty of war, the stretcher bearers have certainly been busy since the story broke a week ago.
One thing we can be sure of is that this has become the latest battleground in the determined assault on freedom of speech.
Reporting has been hampered by Britain’s draconian libel laws and the prospect of an incoming Labour government co-opting the Edwards case to impose state control of the Press.
The questions are fairly straightforward. Did a powerful BBC presenter, trusted by millions, abuse his position to take advantage of much younger individuals — both within and without the Corporation?
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: The more we learn about the Huw Edwards affair, the murkier it becomes
We don’t know.
When Edwards’s wife Vicky Flind issued a statement on Wednesday confirming that her husband was the presenter in question, she said he would respond to the stories ‘in good time’. When that will be is anyone’s guess.
He’s currently in hospital being treated for ‘mental health issues’. Edwards has a well-known history of depression. His latest episode has been brought on following the allegations published in The Sun on Saturday. No doubt he has been under intolerable pressure, especially as his first instinct to remain anonymous caused several of his high-profile BBC colleagues to be falsely accused of being the mystery man.
It’s important to acknowledge that the turmoil suffered by his family must be overwhelming. Vicky Flind displayed enormous courage naming her husband. But our natural sympathy for the Edwards family must not lead to the truth being swept under the carpet tiles at Broadcasting House.
Huw Edwards is not the victim here. He is being accused of impropriety, including by some BBC colleagues. And while he must be given the benefit of the doubt, there are questions he must answer eventually.
OK, so the police have decided in relation to the initial allegation that he paid £35,000 to a young person in exchange for sexually explicit photographs, no crime has been committed. It may not be a matter for a court of law, but the court of public opinion will have to be convinced if and when the full facts are known.
The young person, through lawyers, said the claim was ‘rubbish’, but their parents insist it is true.
Among the unanswered questions here is: where’s the proof? If bank statements and screen grabs exist, why haven’t they been published? Another unanswered question: where did a 20-year-old crack addict from South Wales get the money to hire an expensive London law firm?
We can’t even state categorically whether the young person in question is male or female, nor the gender of other complainants who have subsequently come forward.
Since the Sun story broke, other alleged ‘victims’ have emerged, claiming to have had ‘inappropriate’ advances from Edwards.
And here’s the rub. The Edwards case is being turned on its head by the Left and exploited by enemies of free speech, Keir Starmer is pictured last Friday
And although the red-top made the early running, the baton has been picked up enthusiastically by the BBC itself. While the institutional instinct of the Beeb’s top brass is always to circle the wagons, obfuscate and suffocate any complaint in committee, journalists at Broadcasting House have shown no such compunction in not just covering the Edwards story, but in digging deeper.
In recent days, there have been further allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Edwards towards junior colleagues. Current and former employees have said he sent them abusive, flirtatious and creepy messages.
Yesterday it was reported that even before the Sun story was published last week, investigations into Edwards were being carried out by Newsnight presenter Victoria Derbyshire and other BBC staff.
Derbyshire is said to have contacted ‘multiple individuals’ within the organisation regarding rumours of inappropriate approaches towards members of staff. One told her they had received late night messages on social media containing kisses, which they considered an abuse of power. Another said a message from Edwards gave them a ‘cold shudder’.
This may explain why, when reporting the latest developments on air earlier this week, Derbyshire said questions were being asked about ‘Huw, who knew what when?’ Deliberate, or Freudian slip? Again, your guess is as good as mine.
Edwards is said by old friends such as former BBC man Jon Sopel to be ‘very angry’ about the way the story has been covered by the Beeb. His supporters maintain his private life should remain private and since there is no evidence of criminality it should not have been reported either by the BBC or the Press in general.
And here’s the rub. The Edwards case is being turned on its head by the Left and exploited by enemies of free speech — like Hugh Grant’s Hacked Off rabble — to attack the Press and demand the revival of state regulation, first proposed by the Leveson Inquisition and subsequently dropped by the Conservative Government in 2018.
Restraints on free reporting have been growing since Tony Blair introduced the pernicious European yuman rights act into British law, his self-proclaimed ‘proudest act in politics’, which set us along the road to a privacy law.
Huw Edwards is not the victim here. He is being accused of impropriety, including by some BBC colleagues
But can anyone remember the self-appointed defenders of privacy rushing to condemn the scandalous treatment of other prominent public figures by Operation Midland?
Far from it, the BBC in particular was cheering on the persecution of leading Conservatives and ageing show business personalities falsely accused of child sex crimes and worse. Talk about hypocrisy. Those currently howling about lack of ‘evidence’ against Edwards were strangely silent when Nonce Finder General Tom Watson was promoting the claims of ‘Nick’ — aka Carl Beech — alleging he had been abused by everyone from former Home Secretary Leon Brittan to war hero Lord Bramall, without a scintilla of credible evidence.
The lives of innocent men and their families were destroyed, yet Watson is now sitting in the Lords. He was elevated to the Upper House by Labour leader Keir Starmer, who waged war on innocent journalists at The Sun during his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. Most Labour MPs are said to support state regulation of the Press.
When someone of whom the Left approves finds himself on the ducking stool, it’s always a ‘personal tragedy’ and they should be entitled to their privacy.
But when it’s a Tory minister, or a Conservative-supporting comedian such as Jim Davidson, it’s an automatic hanging offence.
The lack of corroborative evidence didn’t hold back the #MeToo campaign, either. Tory minister Damian Green had to resign after sending suggestive emails to a female journalist, who alleged he fleetingly brushed her knee over a quiet drink. It was his word against hers.
Most recently, the prospective Tory candidate for London mayor, Daniel Korski, was forced to stand down after TV producer Daisy Goodwin claimed he touched her breast a decade ago. Both women were given a platform by the BBC to air their grievances.
Nor should we forget Newsnight had to pay out £185,000 to the late Tory treasurer Lord McAlpine after a programme which led to him being falsely accused of being a paedophile. He was then named on social media by Labour-supporting Sally Bercow, wife of ex-speaker John Bercow, and holier-than-thou Guardian journalist George Monbiot.
The Guardian is now trying to turn the Edwards affair into an attack on The Sun.
But the tabloid had every right to publish a story about a prominent BBC presenter, which it believed to be firmly in the public interest. Clearly, there are many in the BBC newsroom who agree this is a legitimate story which warrants further investigation.
Yes, it has been headline news for a week, but I’d argue the Press has behaved responsibly — with restraint even. What we don’t know, or haven’t been able to confirm, we haven’t published. The sewer of social media may have been awash with speculation and condemnation but newspapers have to behave with more caution.
No one wants to get hit unnecessarily with a costly libel action or claim for breach of privacy. We operate in a climate of growing hostility from the political class and a judiciary ever eager to impose restraints on free speech.
As for Huw Edwards, the truth will out, probably, though for now it remains murky.
But be in no doubt. The real battle here isn’t about the future of a BBC newsreader, it’s about the very survival of our Free Press.
Source: Read Full Article
