This was in public interest
IREAD a great letter in a newspaper this week saying that, instead of dumping a barge full of illegal immigrants in Portland, in Dorset, why not just crane it into Gary Lineker’s back garden instead. Sounds like a plan!
T (ALMOST) beggars belief that the narrative on the Huw Edwards debacle has been kidnapped by the elitist Left which is now screaming “Poor Huw” and making this whole story an attack on the paper that broke the news, while ignoring the disturbing allegations that have been made against the BBC presenter.
Huw Edwards is not the victim here. His wife and children very definitely are.
The young people who have alleged he pestered them may be. But he is not.
So why are those on the Left screaming “witch hunt” choosing to ignore the serious allegations that have been made by a series of vulnerable young people both inside and outside the BBC?
Are the Leftists and their skewed sense of morality actually suggesting that, if troubling allegations are made by vulnerable young people, there shouldn’t be a vigorous investigation?
They also claim this is all Edwards’ personal business.
No, the fact that he’s paid £435,000-a-year courtesy of our licence fee AND because the BBC is funded to the tune of £4billion a year by us, and so accountable to us, it IS of legitimate public interest to know about lewd and serious allegations against a supposed family man who comes into our homes every evening via our TV screens.
And last week, eventually, to its credit, the BBC accepted that and itself reported that Edwards not only faces accusations of impropriety from young people outside the Corporation, one of whom claimed the news anchor pressured him to meet (they never did) and sent him expletive-filled messages which a BBC correspondent said she verified came from Edwards phone.
It also reported that three young BBC employees (one a former staff member), had also made complaints.
One of the individuals contacted by Edwards said he believed the anchor was guilty of an “abuse of power”.
Another said that receiving a private message about their physical appearance had given them a “cold shudder”.
It also emerged that, inside the BBC, journalists were investigating accusations about Edwards’ conduct even before the Sun newspaper’s claims.
So, this was very definitely a story in the public interest, and for the Left to claim that whatever Edwards did or didn’t do should have remained a private matter is farcical.
Not least because had it been a Tory politician accused of what Edwards has been, they’d be calling for his head on a platter.
They certainly weren’t screaming “witch hunt” when the lives of Tory ministers were wrecked by the lies of fantasist Carl Beech..
I’m sorry, but when one of the state broadcaster’s top newsreaders, a devout Christian, and a self-proclaimed family man with five kids, is accused of betraying that family and sexually exploiting young people, it is very definitely in the public interest.
Or should the claims of the young people at the heart of these allegations be ignored? Should the mother and step-father of the young person – who stands by their story that Edwards paid their crack cocaine-addicted child £35,000 for sexually explicit images – be ignored? Should Edwards’ behaviour – as the Left insist – be a personal matter? How can it be personal when people working with him claim his behaviour has impacted on them?
Huw Edwards’ exalted position within the BBC should not protect him against being investigated over claims of impropriety. Victoria Derbyshire, a BBC Newsnight presenter, said on Wednesday’s show that present and former BBC staff had been sent “inappropriate messages” by the anchor, and that junior staff felt “totally intimidated by him”. And THAT is what Edwards’ own employers are reporting. Ms Derbyshire is understood to have started work on her story before the Sun published its allegations. Police say Edwards’ behaviour wasn’t criminal, but what the BBC have to decide is whether it was appropriate. Maybe they should ask BBC licence payers – especially those with teen children – what they think?
AS FOR Edwards’ mate, Jon Sopel, saying a BBC news presenter being investigated by the BBC with corporation resources is “mad and weird”, why is it? Is he seriously saying Edwards shouldn’t have been investigated after colleagues made complaints of inappropriateness against him?
He knows the BBC has a strict Code of Conduct relating to the treatment of children, young people and vulnerable adults. Should that have been ignored?
And, yes, of course we feel compassion for Edwards’ wife and children, for whom the past week must have been hell.
But their pain cannot be used to sweep this under the carpet. Vulnerable people’s fears and complaints must be taken seriously.
And because there is pain for all of those at the heart of this, shame on the Left for trying to weaponise that pain and use it to gag the media.
People claiming to be victims of anything must be heard.