ROD Liddle has defended The Sun’s conduct over the BBC presenter row, claiming that the newspaper behaved “impeccably”.
The Spectator associate editor made the comments on Newsnight after Huw Edwards was named in a statement by his wife as the presenter at the centre of the allegations.
Vicky Flind said her husband Edwards was “suffering from serious mental health issues” and was now receiving treatment in a statement issued on Wednesday evening.
It comes as the Metropolitan Police said no criminal offence had been committed by Edwards and that no further police action would be taken “at this time”, allowing an internal BBC investigation to resume.
READ MORE: Rod Liddle 'devastated' after discovering his Scottish roots
Following the revelation that Edwards is at the centre of the claim, many have criticised The Sun’s conduct regarding the story.
However, Liddle, a columnist at The Sun and Sunday Times, both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, was quick to defend his employer.
“The problem is, is that The Sun has behaved impeccably throughout this and it's done exactly the right thing,” he told the programme.
“It has done the sort of tabloid, acceptable tabloid journalism, which is holding the powerful to account.
“It has done so with a degree of measured carefulness. It has tried not to hurt people in the way that it's done. It didn't name Huw Edwards.
“It came down to Huw Edwards family to do that, as you say very bravely.
“There is absolutely no case to answer from The Sun whatsoever.”
Jacqui Hames, a former police officer and now a journalist at Hacked Off, disagreed with Liddle’s take on the issue.
“It is very difficult to hold someone like The Sun newspaper to account because they are completely unaccountable,” she said.
READ MORE: BBC Scotland issues third correction over reporting in a month
“Those screaming headlines by any normal person's assumption [were] this unknown presenter was responsible for criminality.”
Liddle attempted to talk over Hames but was chastised by host Victoria Derbyshire.
Hames added: “The fact that they omitted in that very first article that the young person involved had denied any criminality, was very telling in the slanted way it was produced.”
The Sun, which first reported allegations against the then-unnamed presenter last week claiming they had paid a young person tens of thousands of pounds for explicit images, said it had no plans to publish further allegations and would cooperate with the BBC’s internal investigation process.
Later editions of the story would suggest that Edwards started communication with the young person when they were aged 17, omitting the alleged payment.
Earlier in the programme, Liddle responded to criticism of The Sun by stating: “I’ve never heard so much idiocy in my life.
“The reason that The Sun broke this story is because it was in the public interest, and the fact that every single newspaper and the BBC and ITV have followed it and made it their number one story is because they also considered it was in the public interest.
“The reason criminality was involved in the story is because the family of the young person who was at the centre of the very first allegation went to the police and the BBC referred the matter to the police."
READ MORE: Skye AUOB march: Kate Forbes and Ian Blackford confirmed to speak
Derbyshire pointed out the difference in language from The Sun in the first story regarding the claims against the then-unnamed presenter, and the removal of the mention of cash.
“How is that different, I don’t understand how that’s different?” Liddle said in response.
“I mean, what the Sun did, it seems to be entirely right and I think Adam [Boulton] got this exactly right because a friend of a Huw, and I'm a former colleague of the chap and I wish him all the best, is that illegality was raised.
“It wasn't raised by The Sun, it was raised by the police, and it was raised by the family and it was raised by the BBC. I mean, you can't get away from that.
“The Sun’s point was a more basic point which was about the BBC after Savile, which was that people who have serious complaints about safeguarding at the BBC are given short shrift.”
It comes as David Yelland, who was in charge at The Sun from 1998 to 2003, wrote on Twitter: “The Sun inflicted terror on Huw despite no evidence of any criminal offence.
“This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper. Huw’s privacy must now be respected.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel