Huw Edwards Refuses to Return £200,000 in BBC Wages Despite Repeated Requests

[Social Media]

 

Former newsreader Huw Edwards has not repaid the £200,000 he earned between his arrest and resignation, despite repeated requests from the BBC, according to the corporation’s chairman, Samir Shah. Edwards, 63, was handed a suspended prison sentence last year after admitting to accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.  

 

Following his guilty plea, the BBC requested that he return the wages he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation in April 2024. However, Shah disclosed on Tuesday that Edwards has remained "unwilling" to repay the money, even though the corporation has asked him "many times."  

 

Appearing before the Commons culture, media, and sport committee, Shah was asked whether any of the funds had been recovered. "We have not," he confirmed. "We’ve obviously asked, and we’ve said it many times, but he seems unwilling. There was a moment that we thought he might just do the right thing for a change, then he decided not to."  

 

Expressing frustration over the situation, Shah added: "It’s quite frustrating because I think he should have done it. He could still do it. It’s not right. He’s taken licence fee payers’ money and he knew what he’d done and should return it now."  

 

BBC director-general Tim Davie confirmed that legal advice had been sought on the matter, but there were no further actions the corporation could take at this stage.  

 

During the committee hearing, Shah also addressed various conduct reviews concerning high-profile former BBC employees, including Russell Brand and Tim Westwood. "No one is untouchable. No one is bigger than the BBC. It’s really, really important. It’s 2025, we can’t have this kind of behaviour and find it acceptable," he stated. "We just have to make sure that the BBC is a modern organisation. People who work for it feel able to voice their concerns, if they have any, and that they will be dealt with, and that no one in the BBC is untouchable."  

 

Additionally, Davie provided an update on the external review of complaints against MasterChef host Gregg Wallace. The review, conducted by the show’s production company Banijay UK, is expected to conclude within "weeks, not months." Wallace stepped away from hosting the BBC1 cooking show amid an investigation into historical allegations of misconduct, which he has denied.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-07

 

 

[BritManToo]

Seems odd, why should he give them his wages back?

[JonnyF]

Why would anyone expect a convicted Paedo to do the "right thing"?

 

I doubt the BBC will do anything, this is just for public consumption. A dog and pony show to cover up the fact they did nothing about this degenerate for so long. 

[BangkokReady]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I doubt the BBC will do anything, this is just for public consumption. A dog and pony show to cover up the fact they did nothing about this degenerate for so long. 

 

Weren't they fully supportive of Jimmy Saville until it all went public?

[Patong2021]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why would anyone expect a convicted Paedo to do the "right thing"?

 

I doubt the BBC will do anything, this is just for public consumption. A dog and pony show to cover up the fact they did nothing about this degenerate for so long. 

What would you like them to do? If the  law allows for the man to keep his pay, then their hands are bound. No point in wasting legal fees to pursue a case they cannot win.

[faraday]

18 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Weren't they fully supportive of Jimmy Saville until it all went public?

As the daily fail was too.

 

I didn't know that H.E. charges were so bad. 

Disgusting person 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

What would you like them to do? If the  law allows for the man to keep his pay, then their hands are bound. No point in wasting legal fees to pursue a case they cannot win.

 

He should have been suspended without pay as soon as he was arrested for Paedophilia. 

 

It's not like they don't have experience with this type of thing. Saville, Harris, Edwards etc. They are synonymous with kiddie fiddlers. 

[Patong2021]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

He should have been suspended without pay as soon as he was arrested for Paedophilia. 

 

It's not like they don't have experience with this type of thing. Saville, Harris, Edwards etc. They are synonymous with kiddie fiddlers. 

Until the charge is proven, a worker cannot be suspended without pay.  It applies to everyone.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

Until the charge is proven, a worker cannot be suspended without pay.  It applies to everyone.

 

Depends on the employment contract.

 

[jippytum]

He should not return the money to the BBC.  He should have been sacked. Instead was kept on the payroll until he decided to resign. The fault for any overpayment was caused by indecisive action by the woke BBC protecting pedophiles

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

He should not return the money to the BBC.  He should have been sacked. Instead was kept on the payroll until he decided to resign. The fault for any overpayment was caused by indecisive action by the woke BBC protecting pedophiles

 

Forget the individual in this case, and the crime he was eventually convicted of; is it right that people might be sacked in the event that unproven allegations are levelled against them? There are semi-regular cases of men being falsely accused of rape by people with malicious intent. Is it right that these men be sacked?

 

I understand the frustration around a guilty person continuing to receive a salary after serious allegations are made about them, but for those who are innocent the effect of not only being falsely accused but also losing their employment could be devastating. 

[Watawattana]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Depends on the employment contract.

 

Exactly.  Whatever the wrongs are in this the only question is "what does his contract state".   And none of us on the forum appear to know for sure.

 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

Appearing before the Commons culture, media, and sport committee, Shah was asked whether any of the funds had been recovered. "We have not," he confirmed. "We’ve obviously asked, and we’ve said it many times, but he seems unwilling. There was a moment that we thought he might just do the right thing for a change, then he decided not to."

 

Having said that, this quote tells me he is not contractually obliged else there'd have been legal action started already.  And the BBC was accountable for the content of that contract.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Watawattana said:

Exactly.  Whatever the wrongs are in this the only question is "what does his contract state".   And none of us on the forum appear to know for sure.

 

 

Having said that, this quote tells me he is not contractually obliged else there'd have been legal action started already.  And the BBC was accountable for the content of that contract.

 

Would you agree that morally speaking, the Paedophile "should" return the money paid to him by licence payers while he was suspended for his Paedophilia?

[Watawattana]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Would you agree that morally speaking, the Paedophile "should" return the money paid to him by licence payers while he was suspended for his Paedophilia?

Yes.  And be sued by the BBC for the reputational damage caused.

[ElwoodP]

Off topic and bickering posts removed.

Topic is Huw, BBC and wages.

[digger70]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Huw Edwards has not repaid the £200,000 he earned between his arrest and resignation, despite repeated requests from the BBC 

 

Why would he pay back  the money they say he earned at  the time he was arrested and up to his resignation.

If they wanted the money that  was paid as what he earned , Why did the BBC pay him at the time They should've stopped paying at the time of his arrest  .

Not ask for the money now  it's too late they paid  it's his now  no matter what he done .