The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) announced Wednesday they had fired top presenter Huw Edwards following reports he illegally paid tens of thousands of dollars to a teenager in exchange for sexually explicit photos.
The allegations against Edwards, whose almost 40-year career includes announcing Queen Elizabeth’s passing on television, came over the weekend in an article from The Sun. The post didn’t specifically name Edwards, instead referring to him as a “familiar face who is known to millions.”
The Sun reported that it had spoken to the child’s family, who claimed that Edwards had paid their child upwards of £35,000 ($45,400 USD) over the course of three years for filthy images and sexual performances, which the boy had used to support a crack cocaine addiction. The child is now 20 years old.
The furious mother told last night how her child had gone from “a happy-go-lucky youngster to a ghost-like crack addict” in just three years.
They approached The Sun, making it clear they wanted no payment.
The mother said: “All I want is for this man to stop paying my child for sexual pictures and stop him funding my child’s drug habit.”
She told how her child, now 20, had shown her an online bank statement that had numerous deposits from the star.
Holding back tears, she added: “There were huge sums, hundreds, or thousands of pounds at a time.
“One time he had sent £5,000 in one lump. The money had been in exchange for sexually explicit photographs of my child.”
When the child was 17 years old in 2020, shady messages allegedly began.
According to the presenter’s family, he never concealed his name and even shared photos of himself at work.
She said she was told the star requested “performances” and, heartbreakingly, her child said they would “get their bits out”.
Seven weeks ago, the family informed the BBC about the allegations, and the BBC assured them that they would be investigated. Edwards remained on broadcast during this time.
Several BBC presenters came forward to publicly defend themselves as rumors about the identity of the unknown “household name” spread.
After reading the allegations from The Sun on Saturday, the BBC fired Edwards. The network was also mandated to “urgently” look into the claims by the UK government.
The BBC said Edwards was the person of interest and had been fired on Wednesday. They also said at least three other BBC employees had lodged claims against him alleging “inappropriate behavior.”
Following the announcement, Edwards’ wife came forward to say that her husband suffers “from serious mental health issues” and “has been treated for severe depression in recent years.”
In a statement released to the PA news agency, Vicky Flind, the wife of BBC news reader Huw Edwards said: "In light of the recent reporting regarding the 'BBC Presenter' I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult…
“The events of the last few days have greatly worsened matters, he has suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he’ll stay for the foreseeable future.
“Once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published.
“To be clear Huw was first told that there were allegations being made against him last Thursday.
“In the circumstances and given Huw’s condition I would like to ask that the privacy of my family and everyone else caught up in these upsetting events is respected. I know that Huw is deeply sorry that so many colleagues have been impacted by the recent media speculation. We hope this statement will bring that to an end.”
The wife’s statement bizarrely came just moments after the Metropolitan Police released a statement claiming there was no evidence a criminal offense was committed.
“The Met Police said detectives from its specialist crime command have ‘concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed’,” reported Sky News.
However, the matter may only get worse for Edwards as The Sun has subsequently suggested he’s possibly a serial offender and also allegedly sent “threatening and abusive messages” to another person who threatened to reveal his identity.
The newspaper reported Wednesday that “Since The Sun revealed the allegations a further three youngsters have come forward.”
Yesterday, a second person claimed they received “threatening messages” from the suspended presenter.
The person in their early 20s claimed to the BBC that Edwards contacted them anonymously using a dating app before pressuring them to meet up.
They said that after striking up a chat on a dating app, Edwards’ name was disclosed.
Edwards is then accused of sending the “menacing” and “abusive” messages after the second youngster suggested naming him online.
BBC News claimed it has seen the messages from the presenter to the young person and verified the phone number of Edwards.
A third youngster approached The Sun and claimed the star broke Covid lockdown laws to meet them, while a fourth told us they received inappropriate messages from the broadcaster from when they were 17.
The BBC presenter’s ousting was mocked by none other than male empowerment guru Andrew Tate, who shared a video of Edwards reporting on fake news involving him.
This TV presenter, who works for the BBC, has just been ousted as a sexual predator. https://t.co/LAJ7GbRZqb
The BBC’s lack of immediate action despite the seriousness of the allegations is eerily reminiscent of their alleged efforts to cover-up the sordid acts of now-deceased former broadcaster and notorious pedophile Jimmy Savile.
Savile, who passed away in 2011, was a well-known BBC DJ who served as the show’s host twice, first from 1964 to 1973 and subsequently from 1975 to 1984. He was suspected of abusing hundreds of victims throughout that time, some of whom were youngsters as young as eight.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is ramping up pressure on the FBI and IRS to release unredacted records related to Jeffrey Epstein, insisting the public deserves full transparency regarding his associates and financial dealings.
In a letter addressed to newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Blackburn, 72, demanded the agencies provide “complete, unredacted records” regarding Epstein, including flight logs, surveillance footage, and financial documents.
“This critical information identifying every individual who could have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abhorrent conduct is long overdue,” Blackburn wrote. “The survivors of Mr. Epstein’s horrific crimes want transparency and accountability, and they—and the American people—deserve nothing less.”
Epstein, a disgraced financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in July 2019 on federal child sex trafficking charges. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell a month later, with the official ruling being suicide. His death has fueled years of speculation and demands for answers regarding his extensive network of associates.
Demands for Full Disclosure
Blackburn is specifically seeking the unredacted flight logs from Epstein’s private jet and helicopter, along with his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s records, including the infamous “little black book.” Additionally, she is calling for the release of surveillance footage from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, which was allegedly a hub for his illicit activities.
While redacted versions of these documents have previously surfaced online or been included in lawsuits, Blackburn argues that the full versions must be made public. “Since Mr. Epstein’s death in 2019, there is still much about this tragic case that is not known—including the names of his associates that are listed in the flight logs of his private jet and in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book,’” she wrote.
Beyond the FBI, Blackburn is also pressing the IRS for records detailing Epstein and Maxwell’s financial dealings. She is requesting “any and all” documents revealing individuals and entities that had financial relationships with them.
FBI Director Patel’s Pledge
During his confirmation hearing last month, Patel assured Blackburn that he would “absolutely” work with her to bring more transparency to Epstein’s case files. However, it remains unclear how far he will go in releasing sensitive documents, particularly given past concerns over revealing the names of individuals who met with Epstein but were not implicated in criminal activity.
Blackburn has been a consistent advocate for obtaining these records. She previously urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the files and pressed former FBI Director Christopher Wray on the issue. In December 2023, Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team would “figure out if there’s more information we can provide” on Epstein, but no follow-up information was ever released.
“Director Wray never provided any such follow-up information,” Blackburn noted in her letter to Patel. “Over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have all of the necessary information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.”
The demand for transparency on Epstein’s network is gaining momentum. Last week, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list is “sitting on my desk” as it undergoes review for potential release.
As the pressure mounts, Patel and O’Donnell now face a crucial decision: whether to follow through on their promises of transparency or continue withholding key documents that could shed light on one of the most notorious criminal cases of the century. The American people, as Blackburn asserts, are watching—and waiting.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed doubts about Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) ability to retain the gavel, stating that he remains undecided on whether he can support Johnson in the upcoming Friday floor vote, despite the endorsement from President-elect Trump.
“I remain undecided, as do a number of my colleagues, because we saw so many of the failures last year that we are concerned about that might limit or inhibit our ability to advance the president’s agenda,” Roy said during an appearance on “Varney & Co.” on Fox Business.
Roy went on to clarify that Johnson does not currently have enough support to secure the position of Speaker.
“Right now, I don’t believe he has the votes on Friday,” Roy said.
Several Republicans, including Reps. Andy Harris (Md.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), are withholding their support for Johnson, despite Trump’s endorsement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has signaled he will vote for someone other than Johnson, indicated that Trump’s backing hasn’t changed his stance.
With only one Republican defection allowed in the January 3 Speaker election, assuming all members are present and voting, Johnson’s chances of retaining the gavel are precarious. The House’s incoming 215 Democrats are all expected to vote for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and Republicans are anticipated to have 219 members in attendance that day.
Roy mentioned alternatives to Johnson, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
“People say, well, Chip, who would you choose otherwise? Mike’s a friend and maybe he can answer the call and deliver an agenda and a plan. Byron Donalds is a good man and a good friend. I nominated him two years ago. Jim Jordan’s a good man and a good friend. There are other members of leadership in the conference who could do the job,” Roy said.
While Jordan has shown support for Johnson following Trump’s endorsement, and Donalds expressed his support for Johnson in December, Roy remains firm in his concerns about Johnson’s leadership.
Despite respecting Trump’s endorsement of Johnson and considering him a friend, Roy highlighted several actions by Johnson over the past year that have raised alarm, particularly the short-term spending deal that went through multiple iterations before being passed just before Christmas.
“We violated the 72-hour rule twice, which means we didn’t have time to read a bill. We had to have Elon [Musk] and Vivek [Ramaswamy] and the president and JD [Vance] come in to kill a 1,500-page monstrosity, cut it down to 100 pages. It still spent $110 billion unpaid for,” Roy said.
He added that the spending deal before Christmas is indicative of the challenges that lie ahead, emphasizing the need for a change in how the conference organizes to effectively deliver for the American people.
“The failure before Christmas, I cannot overstate, it’s a glimpse to come if we don’t organize the conference to be able to deliver for the American people. We are not going to be able to bend on the things that matter. We must cut spending if you want inflation to go down and for people to afford to live in this country.”
In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.
Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.
As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.
Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.
The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.
For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.
Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.
The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login