So the perpetrator is the face of the BBC and of the Establishment? I guessed at someone rather more louche. Most people were surely as surprised as I was at the identity of the man who solicited indecent photographs of young men and who bullied them into not revealing their relationship. However, a number of radio presenters, before today's revelation, stated that it was an open secret in Broadcasting House and that the man fingered but not named by the Sun newspaper should come forward.
The evidence presented to the police did not warrant criminal proceedings, nor has anyone accused Edwards of paedophilia. His behaviour has, though, brought the BBC into disrepute. BBC News accepts that he was responsible for threatening and "abusive, expletive-filled messages" sent to a young man who had provided sexually-explicit pictures and was in dispute with Edwards about payment for them. It would not be surprising if other young men, hitherto cowed by Edwards' status and threats, now were emboldened to come forward. It has to be admitted that there will be false accusations also, but it should be easy to separate the true from the false.
There is a BBC internal investigation. Is it too much to hope that it will not be conducted by those who knew about Edwards' proclivities and protected him? Given that many in the corporation were quickly able to put a name to the subject of the Sun's scoop, how long have people known about Edwards' extra-marital activities, and why was nothing done earlier? How many other presenters have carried on in a way which has clearly been regarded as normal? It seems that the BBC had learned nothing from the Jonathan King and Jimmy Savile affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment