YESTERDAY Huw Edwards pleaded guilty to receiving vile images of child abuse, including a video of a boy aged as young as seven.
In order for him to be sent the 41 indecent images he received from a paedophile, children had to suffer horribly in their making.
Our thoughts are with these most vulnerable young victims, whose pain must never be forgotten.
The ex-newsreader’s reputation is in tatters. His crimes are so serious that a man who until very recently was the face of the BBC is now facing prison.
His conviction comes 13 months after we first revealed disturbing allegations that Edwards had received sexual images from a young person, who he had paid £35,000.
Our original reporting triggered a firestorm of knee-jerk abuse from the liberal left.
Allies of Edwards rushed to denounce our journalism, and insist he was a man of great integrity.
The full, frenzied might of the BBC machine was turned upon us.
Yesterday, in its own inimitable way, the same BBC was instead raising questions the BBC itself has to answer.
Our investigation was separate from yesterday’s conviction.
As a piece of public interest journalism it was, in fact, vindicated long ago.
It was a story about a desperate couple who approached us with firm evidence that the star was paying large sums to their child, and receiving explicit pictures.
All they wanted was for Edwards’ payments to stop – but they had drawn a blank with the BBC, which failed to act on their detailed complaint.
We held the BBC to account for this abject dereliction of duty. Edwards was taken off air.
The Corporation eventually apologised to the parents.
In April, Edwards left without pay-off, or thanks for his 40 years’ of service.
We gave the parents a voice – and finally they got listened to.
Nevertheless, they suffered hugely – having to endure months of having their motives and recollections sneered at by social media know-it-alls.
The period of time when Edwards was receiving grotesque paedophile images corresponds with the dates in which he was exploiting their own child.
They knew the truth – but were made to feel like they were going mad or people didn’t believe them.
As the mum tells today’s Sun: “Now the whole world can see the kind of man Edwards is.”
Their complaint – and our own investigations – suggested a pattern of behaviour which is now fully out in the open.
We were right to publish, and we did so responsibly and carefully.
So what now for the BBC, which finds itself once again mired in scandal about a high-profile presenter?
The period of his offending was December 2020 to August 2021, during which time he was anchoring the BBC News and guiding the country through lockdown.
He would go on to announce the death of Her Majesty the Queen, and lead the coverage of her funeral.
Did nobody at the BBC have any clue as to how he was behaving in private? Were any warning signs ignored? Was BBC equipment used to receive the sick images?
We know staff complained about some aspects of his behaviour, albeit unrelated to child sex abuse images.
What we do NOT know is the findings of the BBC’s internal probe into his conduct, since bosses refuse to make it public.
Last night, the BBC admitted that it did know in November 2023 about Edwards’ arrest, which was over the child sex pic allegations.
So how do they justify continuing to pay him his annual salary of between £475,000 and £479,999, which included a recent pay rise?
From the time of arrest to departure, Edwards pocketed more than £150,000 of licence fee payers’ money.
Will the BBC’s armies of HR managers now try to claw any of the money back?
The cops and Crown Prosecution Service face questions, too.
When journalists approached the Met at the end of last year for confirmation that Edwards had been arrested, they were met with stony silence. Why?
The top brass knew there was huge public interest in the case, but – even when he was charged in June this year – police said nothing.
Nor did the CPS, despite the fact that publicity can encourage others to come forward with evidence.
It was only on Monday, when The Sun discovered Edwards’ name on a court list, that they came clean.
So much for the principle of open justice.
As for Hacked Off, and the rest of the tabloid-haters who attacked the Sun last year?
We’ll leave them to examine their own consciences, and now ridiculous-looking Twitter feeds.
