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.
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.
Kamala Harris is now more popular than Joe Biden or Donald Trump have been at any point in the 2024 election cycle, according to a new survey.
A Morning Consult poll of 11,538 registered voters between July 26 and 28 found 50 percent have a favorable view of Harris, while 46 percent have an unfavorable view. According to the pollster, “Harris’s 4-point net favorability is a higher rating than Biden or Trump have posted all cycle.”
Harris quickly established herself as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee after President Biden announced he was pulling out of the race and gave her his endorsement on July 21. The vice president has picked up the support of enough Democratic National Convention delegates to have herself confirmed as the party’s 2024 nominee, along with endorsements from prominent leaders like former President Barack Obama.
The latest Morning Consult survey gives Harris a 50 percent approval rating, significantly higher than the one conducted a week before, when her favorability was 43 percent and 51 percent had an unfavorable perception of her.
The 12-point swing in net approval was primarily driven by a surge in Harris’s popularity with Democrats from 80 percent approval to 89 percent and independents from 31 percent to 48 percent. When Morning Consult asked respondents who they would vote for in a presidential election, 47 percent said Harris against 46 percent for former President Trump. According to the pollster, the Harris figure was higher than the support Biden recorded when he was seen as the most likely Democratic nominee going back to late 2022.
Notably, the poll showed support for third-party candidates, such as independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had shrunk to 4 percent of the vote, well below the 8 percent it was at in Morning Consult’s final survey for Biden v. Trump before the incumbent president announced he was not seeking reelection.
According to the poll, 47 percent of voters said they had heard something positive about Harris over the past week, compared to 35 percent who’d heard something negative.
On Monday, during an appearance on The Ingraham Angle on Fox News, Trump declined to guarantee he would debate with Harris ahead of the 2024 election.
Speaking to host Laura Ingraham, the Republican candidate said he will “probably end up debating” but “can also make a case for not doing it.”
In a response on X, Harris spokesperson Ammar Moussa asked: “Why won’t Donald Trump give a straight answer on debating Vice President Harris?”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington in December 2022 was treated with the utmost importance, featuring extraordinary security measures. Hundreds of law enforcement and intelligence officials were activated, with the U.S. Secret Service leading the effort as Zelenskyy visited the White House and addressed Congress. From the moment he landed, Zelenskyy was accompanied by a Secret Service detail, and this protection continued until his departure. His motorcade was also provided by the Secret Service, assisted by local law enforcement.
Former Secret Service agent Don Mihalek explained that the agency is responsible for protecting all visiting foreign heads of state on U.S. soil. Zelenskyy’s visit was seen as particularly sensitive due to the ongoing war with Russia, raising concerns about potential threats from Russian agents or collaborators.
Security for Zelenskyy’s trip to Capitol Hill was akin to State of the Union preparations, with significant measures implemented. The Secret Service consulted with the Capitol Police, CIA, FBI, and other agencies to ensure safety. Every Capitol Police officer was on standby, given the potential threats.
In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump’s security detail has faced significant challenges in obtaining the same level of resources and personnel. Over the past two years, the Secret Service acknowledged denying multiple requests for increased security at Trump’s events. While the agency provided alternative measures, such as local sniper teams and hand-held magnetometers, Trump’s team felt these were insufficient and inadequate to address the security risks involved.
The recent attempted assassination of Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, has intensified scrutiny. A sniper managed to get rooftop access roughly 150 meters from Trump’s position, raising serious questions about security lapses. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is facing calls for her resignation, including from House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Despite these assurances, the disparity in security measures for Zelenskyy and Trump has raised significant concerns about the Secret Service’s prioritization and ability to adequately protect high-profile individuals. Trump’s security detail and advisers have repeatedly voiced their frustrations over what they perceive as an unequal allocation of resources and attention.
The decision to prioritize Zelenskyy’s security to such an extent, while denying crucial security enhancements for a former U.S. president, suggests a troubling inconsistency in the Secret Service’s approach to protection. The assassination attempt on Trump highlights the severe consequences of these decisions and underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of priorities and resource allocation within the agency.
The handling of security for Trump, particularly in light of the recent assassination attempt, exposes significant gaps and inconsistencies within the Secret Service. As scrutiny intensifies, the agency must address these failures, ensure equitable security measures for all high-profile individuals, and restore confidence in its protective capabilities. Director Kimberly Cheatle’s leadership and decisions are now under intense examination, and calls for her resignation reflect the gravity of the situation and the demand for accountability.
Trending1 week ago
Trending2 weeks ago
Trending1 week ago
You must be logged in to post a comment Login