the same investigation presumed. at the same time, if you edwards�*s wife issued a statement saying you edwards was the presenter involved. she said he was in hospital after what she called a serious mental health episode. she added that her husband intended to respond to the stories that have been published once he was able to. the metropolitan police has said there's no information to indicate a criminal offence has been committed. another police force work contacted, they said nothing is to be done. there are more allegations and from within the bbc. the met police tonight has ended its investigation, which means the case or cases now

revert to an internal inquiry. why has it taken so long for these allegations to come out? should the bbc be looking more closely into into the dynamics between well—paid presenters and junior staff? we will talk later in the programme about nato, the end of a two—day summit, where all the talk was about a country that is not yet a member. this is bbc news. so the bbc presenter accused of a series of misconduct claims has been named as huw edwards. his identity was revealed by his wife. the statement from vicky flind said...

the statement came shortly after police confirmed they have ended their inquiry into the sun's allegations against him. the police said they'd found no evidence indicating a criminal offence had been committed. but there is reporting within the bbc today that he had made contact with three other employees here — two of them have since left the corporation — and there is an allegation from at least one, that inappropriate and suggestive messages were sent. with me is our media and arts correpsondent david sillito in studio. there was pressure mounting for him to make a statement, and now we understand why that statement wasn't

forthcoming. we will come to the allegations in a second, but ijust want to talk about him, because it will come as a huge shock i think, this, to his friends and colleagues in the newsroom, and i think you and i would count him as one, and also to millions of people around the world who are so familiar with the face of you edwards. i world who are so familiar with the face of you edwards.— world who are so familiar with the face of you edwards. i was looking back, face of you edwards. i was looking back. when _ face of you edwards. i was looking back. when he _ face of you edwards. i was looking back, when he presented - face of you edwards. i was looking back, when he presented the - face of you edwards. i was looking | back, when he presented the bbc's back, when he presented the bbc�*s election coverage in 2019, it was the first change of presenter on thatjob the first change of presenter on that job for the first change of presenter on thatjob for a0 years. he occupies a unique role, and there is usually only one of them in the bbc, and these are the people who are the faces of the great moments — the elections, state occasions, royal events — the number of people who are 70 years who have held that position really in the bbc, you can

probably count on one hand and two of those names are double be's —— dimple so for his name to be the one revealed, it was revealed that one in six of the british population had guessed, they knew the name, they had gone on various bits of social media and thought they knew enough, that still means five out of six didn't. and an utter shock, because the public face — this is a man for whom it was all about respect, trust, and above all dignity. that is what he brought to those moments. if you are presenting the 10pm news on bbc for 20 years, you are there because you are utterly reliable and trustworthy, and somebody the bbc hopes the audience trusts and

respects. go back to the 1990s, he was one of the presenters of the 6pm news since the 1990s. this is 30 years he's been a part of people's daily lives, so to hear all this in the statement today, and really for anyone who knew him, and we both knew him, you can only feel a sadness that this has happened, you can feel in norma's sadness for his wife and children. how has it reached this stage? and whatever he's done for a person to be in hospital and entreated, he has a long history of depression —— can feel enormous sadness. his wife says he'll be there for the foreseeable future, but there are many questions to answer. , , future, but there are many questions to answer. ,, , , to answer. sadness, because he remains a _ to answer. sadness, because he remains a friend _ to answer. sadness, because he remains a friend and _ to answer. sadness, because he remains a friend and a _ to answer. sadness, because he. remains a friend and a colleague, but also concern for those people who have come forward who didn't feel able to come forward for some

reason until the last week. what have we learned today about former employees within the bbc who have made allegations?— made allegations? there have been one story after _ made allegations? there have been one story after another. _ made allegations? there have been one story after another. it - made allegations? there have been one story after another. it began i one story after another. it began with a story about allegations of sexually explicit photos, a young person who was said to have been paid £35,000. now the statement from the police says that they have spoken to the young person and their family, and they say there is no information that they can see at the moment to suggest a criminal offence has taken place. but it does not mean that a line has not been crossed in terms of a relationship with a young person of some form or another. another story that came from the sun talking about a meeting that may have happened during one of the covid lockdowns, and also

further revelations today about what seemed to be certainly inappropriate messages, the allegations that these were inappropriate messages, to people within the building — all of which has added beyond the initial allegation that there are questions to be answered. now the bbc had put its investigation on paul's because there was the police looking into possible illegality. but there are many other questions now for it to look at. but it is mindful it has a responsibility to its staff, to huw edwards, who seems to be in a terrible situation at the moment, but also a responsibility towards its staff and people who may feel they couldn't say anything but now they couldn't say anything but now they can. so what is the truth of it? but this will not be a quick process. it? but this will not be a quick rocess. �* , , ., it? but this will not be a quick rocess. h , ., , .,

process. it's been on pause for several days — process. it's been on pause for several days because - process. it's been on pause for several days because the - process. it's been on pause for several days because the met. process. it's been on pause for - several days because the met police were conducting their investigation and ask the internal inquiry to be put on hold. but one presumes it restarts, and it now becomes what, and abuse of power inquiry? a man who was very well—paid in a very well respected position lording it over younger members of staff? you have to look — over younger members of staff? you have to look at _ over younger members of staff? 7m, have to look at the situation of employment. first of all, has he broken the contract? has he broken guidelines? but also, behaviourat work. if you cross the line — this has been the ongoing story for the last ten years, hasn't it? you go back to the scandal ofjimmy savile and everything that took place there, the central issue and also with phillip schofield more recently, it's about power and

relationships, and it's whether or not people question and are able to question if you have lots of power. and in the media industry, the people who sit in these seats are the ones deemed often to have the power. so that is a question, whether or not there has been this abuse of power in some way. but it's im ortant abuse of power in some way. but it's important for — abuse of power in some way. but it's important for people _ abuse of power in some way. but it's important for people watching, - abuse of power in some way. but it's important for people watching, i - important for people watching, i never detected that, and i know i've spoken to you about it, it wasn't obvious, in fact quite the reverse. entirely the obvious democrat opposite. he entirely the obvious democrat o- osite. ., entirely the obvious democrat o- osite. . ., entirely the obvious democrat o- osite. . . ., entirely the obvious democrat ouosite. . . ., ., opposite. he had a lot of information _ opposite. he had a lot of information and - opposite. he had a lot of information and help - opposite. he had a lot of - information and help through the ranks, he was always found very approachable. he ranks, he was always found very approachable-— ranks, he was always found very approachable. ranks, he was always found very a- roachable. . , ., ., ., ., approachable. he was a man who would seak u- approachable. he was a man who would speak up for _ approachable. he was a man who would speak no for you — approachable. he was a man who would speak no for you and — approachable. he was a man who would speak up for you and i _ approachable. he was a man who would speak up for you and i did _ approachable. he was a man who would speak up for you and i did situation - speak up for you and i did situation —— in a difficult situation, he would be by your side. that's why it's a shock to people in the building because so many people liked and respected him, and they can only feel sadness. at the question of course is, was there

something happening? that's what we are all looking at, but they are all allegations, nothing is proved at the moment, that's why there is an investigation. and at the moment, there is a man we know who is suffering a very serious mental health episode in hospital, and i think there needs to be some definite sympathy especially for his family in a situation such as this. david, for the moment, thank you for that, more analysis in a minute. let's pause to look at how we got to this point. on friday last week, the sun published its first report carrying a mother's claims that an unnamed bbc presenter paid thousands to their 20—year—old child for explicit images over three years. they claimed it started when they were 17 — a potential criminal offence. further allegations are published by the sun newspaper on saturday, and on sunday, the bbc suspended a male member of staff, now known to be huw edwards.

on monday, bbc executives met with the metropolitan police, which started work to assess evidence, whilst the 20—year—old mentioned in the first sun story denies the claims through lawyers. yesterday, the sun published further allegations that the presenter broke lockdown rules to visit a younger man, and other allegations of direct messages with someone under 18. 0n the same day, bbc news published claims that the presenter sent "menacing" messages to a person in their early 20s. then, just before 6pm this evening, the met police confirmed they had assessed there was no evidence of criminal activity after speaking to people involved in the initial allegations. the paused bbc investigation resumed. at the same time, huw edwards' wife, vicky flind, issued her statement confirming he was the presenter involved. she said that huw was in hospital after a serious

mental health episode. she added that her husband intended to respond to the stories that have been published once he was able to. let's bring in roger bolton, former bbc executive and independent producer. roger, thank you for being with us. i want to focus if we can now on the victims. police say they have not discovered anything that has risen to criminality, but there are plenty of allegations now that the bbc are looking at — what will be uppermost in their mind? i’m looking at - what will be uppermost in their mind?— in their mind? i'm not sure, and i have real — in their mind? i'm not sure, and i have real reservations _ in their mind? i'm not sure, and i have real reservations about - in their mind? i'm not sure, and i have real reservations about youri have real reservations about your previous interview and what you've just been doing. this man is now clearly mentally unwell. before you put forward further allegations about him, you need to be testing him in some way. but we are now in danger of having a litany of

allegations to which he cannot respond. wouldn't it be more sensible in these circumstances to let the bbc investigate these things, and then publish the results, ratherthan things, and then publish the results, rather than outlining them at this point? do you know whether these allegations are correct, have you evidence to support it? i think you've got to be very careful. i think you make a very important point, roger, because a lot of people have questioned whether a person who of high profile such as huw edwards is entitled to a public life —— private life. and we've talked very much over the last few days, post the cliff richard trial, that a person in this position is entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy. do you feel the prominence we are given to it is too much? i do, ithink we are given to it is too much? i do, i think it's very important that the bbc news demonstrated their

independence and that they would report unflinchingly, and i think frankly you've done that. but i think over the last day or so, it's become almost self obsessed, your coverage. i think the problem is there's so much going on else in the world, and you keep on reporting this, but at great length. but now we know, we ought to have known from the beginning that the family involved in the first particular complaint clearly have issues, and it's a family and difficulty there. we know the family in this case must be suffering, the presenter�*s family, there's no evidence at the moment to go forward with criminal prosecution, we know the bbc has continued its private investigation, then let it publish what there is.

meanwhile, why are we not saying to the sun newspaper, "you publish these allegations, you ask for the bbc to give the detail you wouldn't give, what is the son's response?" doesn't have details of back transfers and so —— bank transfers? so i think it's time first of all that you reduce the level of coverage you've got on this issue, you test allegations much more than you test allegations much more than you are, and secondly, you focus and put the questions to the sun newspaper about what they were doing in the first place. another thing you might do is ask all those mps who very quickly, nadine dories, priti patel, lee edwards and so on who quickly said "let's name this person," some of whom said they would name him in the house of commons, to reflect upon the two tragedies we've got in this case. we should be very careful. let tragedies we've got in this case. we

should be very careful.— should be very careful. let me read ou this should be very careful. let me read you this statement _ should be very careful. let me read you this statement that's _ should be very careful. let me read you this statement that's just - should be very careful. let me read you this statement that's just come from the sun, they say they have no plans to publish further allegations, and they will now cooperate with the bbc�*s internal investigation process. so inevitably there will be questions asked about the sun and whether they published prematurely. you the sun and whether they published prematurely-— prematurely. you say prematurely, the ma prematurely. you say prematurely, they may not _ prematurely. you say prematurely, they may not have _ prematurely. you say prematurely, they may not have the _ prematurely. you say prematurely, they may not have the evidence. i prematurely. you say prematurely, i they may not have the evidence. the sun has refused to comment, the editor has refused to be interviewed — either they are big questions to ask about their behaviour and the behaviour of some mps and others about this. this is a personal tragedy, it was blown into being a great scandal, the bbc�*s future at stake, whatever. isn't that at all, and never in my view has been. mi and never in my view has been. all that said, roger, you're a former bbc executive, ijust

that said, roger, you're a former bbc executive, i just want to get an idea in your mind —— in my bbc executive, ijust want to get an idea in your mind —— in my mind, your brightest, best talent faces allegations, a variety of allegations, a variety of allegations from different people — where do you start with the inquiry, and what are you trying to ascertain? people will want to know now through the internal inquiry, what questions is the bbc trying to answer? i what questions is the bbc trying to answer? ~ . answer? i think there are allegations _ answer? i think there are allegations all _ answer? i think there are allegations all the - answer? i think there are allegations all the time l answer? i think there are l allegations all the time on answer? i think there are - allegations all the time on the internet, the bbc said it was dealing with 250 at the time this one came up. we are about to move into a situation where we will have deep fake videos and ai, so this problem will come up again and again. first of all, you have to find out, is there any evidence and you have to test it. then you have to give the presenter the opportunity of answering that, then you have to make the difficult decision between his right to privacy and whether or not it's in

the interest of everyone that the person should be taken off air. the bbc took that decision by taking the person off air. i'm not sure the bbc could've done anything else. you are balancing your responsibility to the public with their responsibility to the individual involved, and also you're concerned about things that have happened with the mental health people, you have to be externally careful. but you have to have some real evidence and test that before you can move into something career threatening. i agree with the general points made earlier about we've had a lot of very powerful men who have behaved in ways that they've abused their power, that's true and we must be aware of it. but we shouldn't automatically assume that every allegation is true. roger is riaht, that every allegation is true. roger is right. nothing — that every allegation is true. roger is right, nothing is _ that every allegation is true. roger is right, nothing is proven - that every allegation is true. roger is right, nothing is proven yet, - is right, nothing is proven yet, david, but the allegations that have

been made and now it made public, and you can argue with us as to whether the bbc should be putting this in the public domain, but the allegations in the public domain is that they felt uncomfortable, the comments were about people's dress and that it strayed over a line. what do you think the bbc will be looking at? what do you think the bbc will be lookin: at? f what do you think the bbc will be lookin: at? j , ., ., ~' what do you think the bbc will be lookin: at? j , ., ., ~ ., looking at? they'll be looking at otential looking at? they'll be looking at potential abuse _ looking at? they'll be looking at potential abuse of _ looking at? they'll be looking at potential abuse of power, - looking at? they'll be looking at i potential abuse of power, whether looking at? they'll be looking at - potential abuse of power, whether or not there is a breach of guidelines, especially the issues of safeguarding, and there will also be theissue safeguarding, and there will also be the issue of someone in huw edwards's position, there probably is an extra requirement for someone in his position to conduct themselves in a certain way. it might be a reprimand at the end of it or something more serious, or nothing at all in the end. it is

about going through all of this litany of allegations. in the interest of —— and the interesting thing about it is that the source of some the allegations, the sun, some of it is the work of bbcjournalists who have published stories about it, and these have been made public rather than to the bbc, so the bbc itself now corporately has to carry out the investigation, and it'll be fair to all sides. but out the investigation, and it'll be fair to all sides.— fair to all sides. but how do you answer roger's _ fair to all sides. but how do you answer roger's point _ fair to all sides. but how do you answer roger's point - - fair to all sides. but how do you i answer roger's point - anecdotally fair to all sides. but how do you - answer roger's point - anecdotally a answer roger's point — anecdotally a lot of people have asked me this, it is a strange position when the bbc starts to run investigations and, in a sense, is trolling for allegations now, there are news programmes within the building who were looking for this — none of them are rising to criminality, they have yet to be tested, and yet we are putting them on a news bulletin.— on a news bulletin. these are questions _ on a news bulletin. these are questions for _ on a news bulletin. these are questions for the _ on a news bulletin. these are

questions for the individual . on a news bulletin. these are . questions for the individual parts of the bbc. it's interesting because for many people it's very confusing, often times i find myself standing outside the building at the moment, saying "the bbc is not available for comment," and i think people say, "sorry, aren't you the bbc?" it's the difference between bbc news, which is a very independent organisation, than the corporate bbc which carries out the investigations. the chinese walls that existed in the organisation are complicated even to those who are in it, but it's an interesting situation whereby people carry on without fear or favour investigating the story and publishing elements to it, but it's the corporate side of bbc that has to go, "hang on, what's true, what boundaries have been crossed, and what do we decide at the end of the day?" stiiiii crossed, and what do we decide at the end of the day?"— the end of the day?" still waiting for the corporation's _ the end of the day?" still waiting for the corporation's response i the end of the day?" still waiting l for the corporation's response and we've asked for it, the bbc corporate office still has not answered.

let's look now at the legal aspects of this story and bring in steve kuncewicz, media partner in the law firm glaisyers, based in manchester. thank you for being with us. we've talked in recent days about the reasonable right someone has to privacy who is under investigation, it is now the family who has put the name in the public domain. i can well expect it will now be open season, what do people have to consider? i season, what do people have to consider? ~ , ., , ., ., consider? i think people have to consider? i think people have to consider very — consider? i think people have to consider very carefully _ consider? i think people have to consider very carefully what - consider? i think people have to i consider very carefully what comes next, i'm sure the press will. the sun seems to indicate they will go slightly quiet, even though there will be pressure on them to justify their reporting and sources, and justify their approach they took with this particular story. but we will now have — the debate will rage on, hopefully whilst huw edwards gets himself some much needed help and much needed support. the bbc�*s investigation should then continue, and i would imagine steps will be

taken as to what to do next, about how the story has been reported, about the fact that allegations have spread widely over social media, and also the fact that the met have indicated there's no criminal activity here. so questions will be answered over the next few days and weeks, but it will still be some time yet before we know all the details of the story. tim time yet before we know all the details of the story.— time yet before we know all the details of the story. tim devi said the other day _ details of the story. tim devi said the other day it's _ details of the story. tim devi said the other day it's a _ details of the story. tim devi said the other day it's a very _ details of the story. tim devi said the other day it's a very difficult l the other day it's a very difficult balance, privacy, duty of care, investigating the allegations, and answering legitimate public interest in the story — why do you think, given the statement tonight and specifically the detail we've had on hugh's health, why do you think the sun newspaper has decided not to publish further allegations —— huw edwards's health? it’s publish further allegations -- huw edwards's health?— edwards's health? it's a privacy war, edwards's health? it's a privacy war. there's — edwards's health? it's a privacy war, there's been _ edwards's health? it's a privacy war, there's been lots - edwards's health? it's a privacy war, there's been lots of - edwards's health? it's a privacy - war, there's been lots of discussion over the fact that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy

when an investigation is under way, starting with the cliff richard case, the bloomberg case fairly recently as well, and they will be thinking very carefully about the fact that this is clearly doing some harm and has potentially done irreparable harm to an awful lot of people, not least huw edwards. that will affect any potential claim going forward, obviously a legal claim might be the last thing on his mind, he'll be wanting to get himself well, everyone involved will want some support. but it's been reported very carefully for a number of different reasons, he's not been named, and a lot of confidence hasn't been shared, we will find out why that might be over the course of the days and weeks to come, but we will see may be more speculation. these allegations will unfortunately carry across social media and we certainly haven't heard the last of this issue. . ~ certainly haven't heard the last of this issue. ., ,, , ., ., , this issue. thank you, david, last few seconds. _ this issue. thank you, david, last few seconds, huw _ this issue. thank you, david, last few seconds, huw edwards - this issue. thank you, david, last few seconds, huw edwards has . this issue. thank you, david, last i few seconds, huw edwards has not resigned and remains an employee,

and he is innocent at the moment? certainly, there remains a process, but when i first heard about this — the person i know is a man of charm, decency and kindness. i was utterly bamboozled, shocked when i heard this, and i think many other people will be today when they hear this name. and he's obviously in a very difficult situation at the moment, but there is a process.— difficult situation at the moment, but there is a process. david, thank ou ve but there is a process. david, thank you very much. _ but there is a process. david, thank you very much. plenty _ but there is a process. david, thank you very much, plenty more - but there is a process. david, thank you very much, plenty more to - but there is a process. david, thank. you very much, plenty more to come, you're watching bbc news. you're watching bbc news. huw edwards has been named as the bbc presenter facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images. his wife issued a statement. the statement said, that he was suffering mental health issues and is now receiving

inpatient hospital care. this is a man who has embodied bbc values, has been the face of the bbc, has held the viewers' hands through so many of the kind of momentous, significant parts of our nation's history. the metropolitan police have ended their inquiry into the allegations. thank you forjoining us here on bbc news is we bring you that developing story, huw edwards is named as the bbc presenter who is facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images. and we have of course heard today

from the metropolitan police and the bbc in the past half hour, the sun newspapers, which has run a number of front—page stories since saturday, has said that there are no plans to publish further allegations about huw edwards and will cooperate with the bbc�*s internal investigation process, according to a spokesperson for the newspaper. huw edwards's wife, vicky flind, issued a statement on his behalf, saying...

so that was the statement from huw edwards's wife, coming very shortly previous interviews, talking about how he has struggled w very shortly after the metropolitan police issued previous interviews, talking about how the as struggled w very shortly this statement. they said... previous interviews, talking about how the metropolitan v very shortly previous interviews, talking about how the metropolitan v very issued after the metropolitan police issued this statement. they said...

so that is the statement that we so that is that we received from the metropolitan received from the metropolitan police. with more on this, i'm police. with more on this, i'm joined by laura trant from the bbc joined by laura trant from the bbc news room. take is how we got to news room. take is how we got to this point. he this point. news room. take is how we got to this oint. . , , news room. take is how we got to news room. take is how we got to this point- — news room. take is how we got to this point-— this point. he was very interesting when ou this point- _ this point. he was very interesting when ou this point. he was very interesting when you are _ this point. he was very interesting when you are speaking _ this point. he was very interesting when you are _ this point. he was very interesting when you are speaking about - this point. he was very interesting when you are speaking about the i when you are speaking about the statement from huw edwards's wife, which gave quite a lot of detail about his mental health, about the state he is currently in and how he has battled with his mental health in the past, and that's actually something that huw edwards himself has been quite candid about in previous interviews, talking about how he has struggled with his