HUW EDWARDS wasn’t just another bloke off the telly.
He was the presenter of the BBC’s News At Ten, the most senior anchor at our national broadcaster and a much admired national treasure.
He was there, on our screens, for every momentous occasion.
A general election, a royal wedding or the late Queen’s funeral, Edwards would guide us through them with his authoritative Welsh lilt.
Now that edifice has come crumbling down.
Now we know that, all that time, Huw Edwards was living a lie.
Far from being a happily married father of five and the trusted voice of the nation, he was, in reality, leading a dark secret life of sexual perversion and exploitation.
This week, Edwards pleaded guilty to wilfully receiving 41 illegal images and videos of under-age boys in WhatsApp messages to his phone from a paedophile.
We now know the truth about Huw Edwards.
But there are still many more questions that need to be answered by his employer of many years, the BBC, about what bosses knew and when they knew it.
Because Edwards’ downfall did not come out of the blue.
His fall from grace began a year ago when The Sun exposed an unnamed “top BBC star” for allegedly paying a vulnerable teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit photos of themselves.
Since that exposé, which led to his own wife publicly naming Edwards as he took sick leave from his job, other young people have come forward to reveal troubling behaviour towards them from the BBC veteran, such as pestering them for photos and sending inappropriate messages.
Former colleagues have spoken of how he would openly browse a well-known “hook up” app in the open-plan office they shared.
BBC bosses have been quick to point out that, by the time he was charged with a crime in June, Edwards had already left the BBC.
But he was kept on the payroll — on a whopping £480,000 salary — for many months after he’d been arrested.
And BBC chiefs knew last November that Edwards had been arrested on suspicion of serious offences.
He remained off air, but on the payroll, and even got a £40,000 pay rise — all paid for by long- suffering licence fee payers.
His guilty plea this week wasn’t only a vindication of the mother of the vulnerable teen allegedly paid by Edwards, who was ignored by the BBC when she begged them to stop him.
It is also a vindication of the vital importance of a free Press.
If it wasn’t for The Sun first breaking this story, his crimes may never have been exposed.
This week, the Corporation claimed to have been “shocked” by the details that emerged in court, but the real shock is how BBC management has handled this.
No wonder Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has demanded a meeting with the director-general Tim Davie.
Once again, the BBC faces accusations it has used its power and influence to cover up the wrongdoings of another big star.
Because the BBC hasn’t just turned a blind eye to the behaviour of Huw Edwards.
The list of big BBC names who have behaved badly — and even criminally — while the broadcaster stood by and looked the other way is alarmingly long.
Claims about Jimmy Savile abusing children were known for years at the BBC before his death, yet nothing was ever done to stop him.
Rolf Harris, a long-time BBC favourite, was found guilty years later on 11 counts of indecent assault, including attacks on young children.
And It’s A Knockout host Stuart Hall was jailed for indecently assaulting 13 girls.
A number of BBC DJs have also faced allegations and charges — with some cases still ongoing.
Nor are the BBC’s failings just linked to sexual abuse cases.
There’s also the handling of the claims against Martin Bashir, who was accused of lying to obtain his bombshell 1995 Panorama interview with Princess Diana.
An independent report in 2021 concluded that the BBC knowingly covered up “deceitful behaviour” by Bashir.
Time and again, the BBC has failed to act when bad behaviour has been brought to its attention.
And time and again, the BBC has seemingly sought to cover up wrongdoing by its biggest names.
The most famous stars become the Untouchables, who must be protected at all costs to save not just their good name but the reputation of the Corporation.
Huw Edwards has lost his job, his salary and his good name. He now faces sentencing for his crimes.
Meanwhile, BBC bosses must answer to us — the licence fee payers — over why they failed to act sooner.
And ultimately, the price for these crimes has not been paid by a high-waged TV star, but by the innocent children cruelly abused for his perverted pleasure.
FRIENDS of Prince Harry have claimed that the King is no longer answering his son’s phone calls or responding to his letters.
The Duke of Sussex and Charles last met in person in February – for just 45 minutes – when Harry flew to London after the King’s cancer diagnosis.
We’re told by these mysterious “friends” that the tensions are about Harry’s court battles over his personal security while in the UK.
But why would Harry be surprised if his father was wary of private conversations being made public when the prince has revealed deeply personal exchanges with his family in his autobiography and in interviews in a bid to make money?
Meghan disowned her father after he spoke to the media without her permission.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to Harry if his own father is shunning him when the King knows that anything he says or writes may just be fodder for his son’s next blockbuster memoir.
YOU would have to be made of stone not to have felt the anguish of the parents whose three little girls were stabbed to death – and of the other children left fighting for their lives – in the knife attack in Southport this week.
The tears quickly turned to anger for hundreds who joined violent protests in Southport, Hartlepool, Manchester and London to demand action.
Throwing bricks at the police doesn’t solve anything.
But neither will ignoring and gaslighting all the many millions of people who would never raise a fist, but who are just as angry as those on the streets.
Who no longer believe that the law and the police are on their side.
Sometimes, candlelit vigils and not looking back in anger just aren’t enough.
Sometimes, anger is absolutely the right response to heinous crimes.
It’s time for our politicians to seize back control and make our streets safe again.
