Huw and cry over Edwards’ pay
RI’VE STAYED away from the Huw Edwards story on these pages since it broke last July like a summer thunderclap. By “Huw Edwards story”, I of course mean the newsreader’s abrupt departure from our TV screens after claims that he’d paid £35,000 to a much younger person in exchange for nude photographs. (There is no suggestion the recipient was under 18 when the money is said to have been paid).
Edwards was suspended by the BBC on the spot, and remains so. On full pay.To the tune of £439,000 last year, despite his suspension. More of that in a moment.
The reason I hesitated to write about Huw is simple human consideration.The BBC’s former chief news presenter – he was the man chosen to announce the Queen’s death – remains “too unwell” to take part in the broadcaster’s stalled investigation into the claims. When The Sun published lurid details of the allegations, Huw reportedly suffered “a serious episode”.
His wife,Vicky Flind, eventually named her husband in a statement following the initial revelations, saying he was being treated in hospital for “serious mental health issues”.
So as I had nothing remotely useful to add to the matter, I kept quiet. Not kicking a man when he’s
down and all that. But nearly a year on, and the “Huw story” has hit the headlines again – and not just in the tabloids.The broadsheets have been covering it too.The reason being that Edwards is expected to be officially named as the BBC’s highest-earning newsreader almost a year after he became the nearest thing to a non-person at the corporation.
The problem is, Huw no longer reads the news.And let’s face it, he’s unlikely to ever again.
The deeper problem is that he’s actually paid by us, not the BBC. His
£439,000 comes out of the TV licence fee (just hiked by ten pounds to a record high of £169.50). So whether viewers pay that grand sum gladly or grumpily, they are entitled to ask what their money is being spent on.
And they may be wondering why a paycheque not that far south of half a million is going to a man who seemingly had £35,000 to spare to buy private nude photos.
Unnamed BBC presenters have been making their feelings clear – anonymously. One told The Daily Telegraph this week: “It’s terrible for the licence-fee payer if Huw is earning so much but not working. The BBC is getting so much value from other people who are working endless hours.”
Others speculate that his pay disclosure in the BBC’s annual report “will not go down well”. Whether they mean internally, or with the public, or both, isn’t clear.
If Edwards worked for a commercial broadcaster, none of this would be anyone’s business but theirs and his. But his job – now his non-job – was, and is, publicly-funded.
Just one more example of why the licence fee should be consigned to history.