With Huw Edwards in hospital with "serious mental health issues" and going through no additional motion by police, the newspaper that broke the story is now underneath the highlight.

The Sun is going through questions over its protection of allegations in opposition to the 61-year-old newsreader - with some asking whether or not the claims ought to have been reported in any respect.

After Edwards's wife Vicky Flind publicly named him and police mentioned there was no proof of prison offences on Wednesday night, the paper launched its personal assertion, stating it had "no plans to publish further allegations".

Huw Edwards newest: 'Complicated' Edwards 'not impressed' by BBC coverage

Described as a "very carefully crafted legal statement" by former Mirror editor Paul Connew, it mentioned: "The Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations."

The phrases are strictly true as there was no reference to any police involvement or allegations {that a} particular crime was dedicated when the story was damaged in Saturday's paper.

However, it did initially report {that a} "top BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated", "the well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images" and "sleazy messages are alleged to have started in 2020, when the youngster was 17".

While the authorized age of consent within the UK is 16, it's a crime to make or possess indecent photographs of anybody underneath 18, and the small print prompted hypothesis from different news organisations about whether or not the allegations might quantity to a possible crime.

The Sun appropriately recognises this in its assertion, which mentioned: "Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC."

The Sun on Sunday carried a remark from former Home Secretary Priti Patel that the BBC "must cooperate with the police if they are contacted to investigate".

A narrative on the paper's web site revealed the identical day was headlined "BBC SEX PROBE Top BBC star who 'paid child for sex pictures' could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says".

The piece reported feedback made by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal to the Times - which is owned by the identical firm as The Sun - that the presenter might doubtlessly be charged with sexual exploitation underneath the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

By Monday, when the Metropolitan Police mentioned it was "assessing information" equipped by the BBC, the headline on the paper's unfold learn "At Last, BBC Calls in the Cops - Politicians furious over delay".

The story within the subsequent day's Sun repeated the declare that the younger individual's mom had mentioned "the household name star paid her child more than £35,000 for sordid images, starting when they were 17".

Read extra:What friends and colleagues have said about Huw EdwardsThe Sun says it has dossier of 'serious' claims but has 'no plans' to publishPolice not taking action against Huw Edwards

This time it was adopted by: "Under the Protection of Children Act it is a criminal offence to make, distribute or possess an indecent image of anyone under 18.

"The Met Police have been final night time assessing the allegations."

Wednesday's paper carried fresh allegations that Edwards - who was still not named - sent "creepy" messages to a different 17-year-old and broke lockdown rules to meet them, while Thursday's splash, with Edwards now named by his wife, made clear: "Cops mentioned that they had discovered no proof her husband had dedicated any crime."

The Independent Press Standards Organisation, the UK's newspaper and magazine regulator, said on Thursday the "complicated, fast-moving and really severe story" had attracted around 80 complaints, adding: "We are watching the developments fastidiously."

Mr Connew told Sky News that Edwards could potentially take legal action because The Sun's original story "did counsel" an offence might have taken place, even though he wasn't identified.

David Yelland, who was editor of the paper from 1998 to 2003, tweeted: "The Sun inflicted terror on Huw regardless of no proof of any prison offence.

"This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper."

Allegations have been 'garbage'

And Jon Sopel, former North America editor of BBC News, known as the scandal "an awful and shocking episode" and mentioned the presenter's "complicated private life" doesn't "feel very private now".

The Sun had already confronted criticism after the lawyer representing the younger individual dismissed the preliminary allegations as "rubbish" in a letter to the BBC on Monday, telling the broadcaster a denial had been despatched to the paper on Friday night.

There was no reference to the obvious denial within the authentic protection of the story.

But The Sun has defended its journalism, reporting that the younger individual's dad and mom approached the paper - "making it clear they wanted no payment" - after changing into "frustrated" that Edwards remained on air and was nonetheless allegedly sending cash after they complained to the BBC on 19 May.

"The allegations published by The Sun were always very serious. Further serious allegations have emerged in the past few days," the paper's assertion mentioned.

"From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person.

"We reported that the dad and mom had already been to the police who mentioned that they could not assist. The dad and mom then made a grievance to the BBC which was not acted upon."

Story 'still legitimate'

Adam Boulton was among senior media figures to defend the paper for covering the story in the face of a "lot of recriminations".

Speaking to The Take with Sophy Ridge, he said: "I might take the counter view... individuals equivalent to your self, equivalent to ourselves, on tv who maintain others to account for his or her behaviour need to be ready to be held accountable for behaviour - not simply criminality.

"There's a lot of careers ended a long way short of criminality because it was felt that they were bringing the organisation which they represented into disrepute."

Boulton mentioned most individuals would see it as "fairly reprehensible" for a person in his 60s to pay massive quantities of cash to an adolescent for illicit materials, and to telephone the youth threatening them afterwards - claims which have been made in opposition to Edwards.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of The Sun, additionally backed the tabloid, telling Sky News: "They broke a story of massive public interest. They handled it with, as far as I can see, discretion.

"They gave determined dad and mom a possibility to cease what they noticed as a horrible factor."

Speaking to Sky News, the former chief executive of ITN Stewart Purvis said the story is "nonetheless reliable" but argued The Sun should have run the young person's denial.

He said the story poses some "massive questions for journalism", and asked whether it is legitimate for other news organisations to repeat the allegations or make their own investigations.

The BBC had its own story that another young person felt "threatened" by messages they received from its then unnamed presenter and aired further allegations from one current and one former BBC worker, who said they had received "inappropriate messages" from Edwards, after he had been named.

"I do not suppose it is for broadcasters to level the finger at newspapers or vice versa. All of journalism has to ask itself some fairly awkward questions this morning," mentioned Mr Purvis on Thursday.