Hugh Edwards hates the television representation of his life. Maybe he should have thought of that before… you know | Marina Hyde

I See Hugh Edwards is still not the subject of any of his actions. The popular former BBC newsreader (brand: Hugh Edwards) has emerged from a mini break in the wilderness to criticize Channel 5’s upcoming dramatization of his downfall. “Mental illness is misunderstood by many, but it cannot be an excuse for criminality,” Hugh told the audience, the overwhelming majority of whom had already made that very point. “However, it could at least help explain why people sometimes behave in shocking and reprehensible ways, and why things fell apart for me the way they did.” I collapsed because From you, I believe you will find.

However, there were a lot of lengthy statements by Edwards. “I have been open about my struggle with mental illness over 25 years,” he continued. “What is less known is how serious this condition was, which was successfully managed until a downward spiral that led to a horrific outcome.” Again, note the tragic negativity of the “horrific outcome,” as if it was a flowchart, not a person, that led us to a place we would rather not be.

Not apologizing for your Interacting with a teenager and instead using mental illness as an explanation in 2026 would be more understandable if Hugh Edwards had spent the last eighteen months in solitary confinement, or been cryogenically frozen, rather than spending time as a free man in some nice Welsh village or other. Ironically, it seems he hasn’t kept up with the news, in this case the development that these things don’t work like a charm anymore. Edwards first put forward this interpretation at the end of the Peak Woke era, when portraying various things as mental illness was still – just – a form of victimhood indefensible. Which is why his defense was initially treated with such mad enthusiasm by elements of the reflexively misguided media when The Sun first started running stories about him secretly paying huge sums of money to a teenager. At first it was a private matter. Then it was a vile witch hunt by the tabloids. Then it was the witch hunt that brought a vulnerable man into the preventative care of medical professionals.

Ultimately, of course, it was a conviction for possession of multiple indecent images of children, including Category A images, a crime that fuels and perpetuates child suffering and sexual exploitation and traumatizes these victims for life.

Edwards still has not repaid a penny of the £200,000 license fee payers’ money he was happy to continue taking while suspended from the BBC awaiting trial for a crime to which he may plead guilty. He preferred to talk about a different media organization than the BBC – Channel 5, with whose production values ​​he disagreed. He does not believe the new drama is likely to “convey the truth of what happened.” Furthermore, he suggests, the producers “also refused to reveal whether any of those who made these claims were paid for their contributions.” Hefalutin’s words, especially coming from someone who paid more than £35,000 to a teenager who was left homeless, before asking if there was something he could get in return (police said they found no evidence of criminality). Then again, most sex offenders have some sort of dysfunction, right? I have a feeling that “freeing yourself from the screw” is no longer considered an acceptable term for talking about these things – however, it describes the mentality of all types of sex offenders much better than “mental illness”.

At this point, I have to say that I haven’t seen anything other than the trailer for the Channel 5 show, so I have no idea what it’s like. I have deep reservations about “true story” dramas, which have become their own genre and the most successful television success story in recent years. However, making shows about real-life criminals is nothing new, and you could argue that Edwards’ dramas traditionally fall into this basket. This is not a point Hugh disputes, of course, preferring to criticize Channel 5 for not checking their account with him at the script stage. Again, TV show producers tend not to be interested in asking criminals to provide feedback on the scenario. But Hugh could certainly make the leap from sex offender to story consultant to one of those unfair barriers to entry in the creative industries if he’s looking for a new path to being a victim.

However, I can imagine Huw delivering a lot of the classic executive notes that all writers love to hate. “Can we make the character more likable?” “I don’t understand why now?” Of everything. Why never? “I don’t really feel the risk because right now the character comes back in a couple of years to show that he has no agency at all?”

According to some publicity talk, Edwards plans to speak more in the future. Edwards himself declares: “I am making an effort to produce my own account of these terrible events.” No rush. “It’s a slow process” – finally, some good news – “given the fragile state of my health.” Here is. This serves as a reminder that Hugh, and many of the difficult TV men who have been forcibly resigned from our screens in recent years, see their issues as better addressed than owned. But are they all just victims of the disease? Or, more pertinently, are they the ones who create the victims?

• Marina Hyde is a columnist for The Guardian

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to email a response of up to 300 words for consideration for publication in our letters section, please click here.