Scott Mills scandal: BBC warned a year ago and did nothing

The telegraph. Ländå lejfär. Ett äpple kan ju vara gott, men om du samlar ihop en massapplen kan du göra en äpp. Likadant kan man tänka med smålån och krediter, de kan man också samla ihop på ett och samma ställe. Ja, en lånepaj. Samla dina lån till ä. Sveriges största jämförelsetjänst för lån. Hallo, hallo. Får jag be dig om legitimation, tack? Ja. Har du en legitimation? Ja, du har ett leck, jag kan försöka på. Okej, har du ett leck, tack? När det kommer till hålla.

Till alkohol må folk hälsan bättre. Hittar du lägget heller? Så. Anorlunda av en anledning.

The DJ Scott Mills has been sacked from Radio Two's Breakfast Show after historic allegations of sexual offenses with an underage teenage boy. But a new exclusive telegraph investigation reveals that the BBC was warned about Mills's behavior almost a year ago. Not take action. Our associate editor Gordon Rayner joins us. And with the new drama about Hugh Edwards finally released last week, we speak to his self-appointed publicist to ask what Hugh Edwards made of it all.

Welcome to the Daily Tea with me Tim Stanley and me Rachel Johnson. Another humiliating scandal for the BBC. Last Tuesday, people tuning in to listen to BBC Radio 2's breakfast show will have heard Scott Mills sign off in the same way he always does, like this. Yeah, we need to finish. The next day, Scott was gone. Fifty-three-year-old Mills, it was announced over the weekend, had been sacked from his 355,000 pound a year job.

hosting Radio Two Breakfast and Eurovision, after allegations emerged of serious sexual offenses committed against a teenage boy between nineteen ninety seven and two thousand. Now the police did not become involved in this story until the late 2010s, and the CPS did not charge Scott Mills when it investigated him between twenty sixteen and twenty nineteen. So if you think about the timeline.

Nineteen ninety seven to two thousand is the relationship. Sixteen years later you get the beginning of a police investigation, and then another ten years after that, the BBC finally lets him go. He may, of course, be completely innocent. But obviously what we want to know is when did the BBC become aware of this relationship? And what actions did it take in relation to it? Now to answer some of those questions, I'm joined by our Telegraph Associate Editor, Gordon Rayner, who is like a bus.

Uh you don't see him for a while and then there's two of you in two straight days. That's right. And you, I believe, received an email which shone some new light on this story.

Yes, that's right. So I was contacted by a former BBC presenter called Anna Brees and she was told by somebody in twenty twenty five about what she was told was inappropriate conduct by Scott Mills. with someone and she contacted the BBC to ask them about this. Can I just ask you that this relationship that she was contacting them about, do we think that's the one that was reported to the police?

No, we don't. Okay. No. But she contacted the BBC in May twenty twenty five and she said that she had received information regarding alleged inappropriate communications involving Scott Mills. She asked the BBC whether they had ever received any formal or informal complaints about Mills relating to safeguarding, inappropriate conduct or harassment.

And had there been any internal investigations carried out into his behaviour. They did not respond to that. Uh and it would appear, in fact we now know, that they basically ignored that. Right, okay, so you did what all good journalists do and you asked the BBC about it. And in fact let in a trade secret, we've had to record and re record this programme several times. Um because we were waiting for their response. And finally, you got one from the BBC. And what did they say? I did.

So the BBC have said in response to this, we received a press query in twenty twenty five which included limited information. This should have been followed up and we should have asked further questions. We apologize for this and we'll look into why this did not happen. More broadly, we would always urge anyone who has concerns or information to raise it with us.

That is remarkable because that opens up a whole new dimension to this drama, which is the question not just of why they let Scott Mills go now, But why they didn't act sooner on information that we can show they were provided with. Yes, I I think the BBC will probably if they're asked about this by others, they will try to play up the idea that the information that was in that email that I just read out from Anna

didn't contain a specific allegation of, you know, he did this to this person or he did this with this person. But It's very clear in that email that she has information which is would be worrying to an any employer if they were made aware of that. She talks about safeguarding, she talks about harassment. Any sort of

switched on employer would look at that and think, hold on a minute, we need to check this out. She is a journalist and she's a former B B C journalist. Exactly. And there are a lot of warning lights that should have gone off. in the BBC and they seem to have just

sort of dismissed it out of hand. Well and even if the information she provided was partial, they acknowledge in their email to you that they should have looked into it anyway. Yeah. Which which follows the same pattern of behaviour that I'm afraid we've seen Yn ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â'r Ymwneud â

it comes to a point where they have to act uh rather belatedly. So, you know, this is another example of the BBC knowing about something for longer than they have let on. and there's been a failure to do something about it.

There are shades too of the Hugh Edwards story. Uh you'll recall that uh the parents of the boy, who he is alleged to have groomed, said they took that complaint to the BBC And that didn't go up the ladder in the way that it should have done, which is why they had to go to the papers instead. And we will pick up on that later on when we talk about Power, the new docudrama, about Edwards starring Martin Clunes.

How do you think this will reflect on on the state broadcast on BB on the BBC? Whose inbox does this land in? Tim Davy, the outgoing Director General? Or the incoming Director General Matt Britton? Well, clearly it it would be Tim Davy, inasmuch as this all happened before the incoming D G had anything to do with the BBC, so it's not it's not his problem.

I think the the timing of it is interesting in as much as it's happened just after they've announced a new D G who's going to be starting the job.

the the fact they've done this now does mean that it's it's not an in his intray, so that is helpful to him obviously. I don't know if those two things are in any way related. And as far as where it leaves the BBC, well There is a history at the BBC of being aware of what they regard as talent, being accused of various types of inappropriate behavior, going all the way back to Jimmy Savile and the BBC

not responding to that in the right way. So it's tempting to speculate that he's gone at this time. so that the incoming dire new Director General does not have to take responsibility for it. All I'm all I would say is it's an inevitable question that pops into one's head uh when you think of the timing of this.

sacking and the fact that it's come just at the time when they have announced the new D G and by doing this now it means that that is not going to be his problem. But also there is a history of powerful male presenters Getting into hot water and people saying the corporation has not done enough to police their behavior. You mentioned Jimmy Savile, another example is Greg Wallace.

uh who was accused of many things. And again people said that there was a culture of of feeling, well, that's just Greg being Greg and we don't wish to intervene and sort of let the genie out of the bottle by messing around with a celebrity. And I think Rachel may disagree with me, but I think this is a reflection in part of how the BBC relies too much upon celebrities.

and upon single presenters, that it sort sort of puts all its eggs in one basket. Uh well I don't know if the word celebrity is right. The celebr I mean These are people who've become famous because of their work within the BBC. Scott Mills was a jobbing local radio DJ and then hit the big time.

He's had the biggest jobs in in BBC radio, in popular radio that you don't listen to. We know radios one and two, Tim. I think the timing I think it's going to be I don't think a scandal like this has ever happened at Classic F M, I just want to say that. I think this is all gonna hinge on timing. When did the B B C know about Scott Mills and why did they act sack him on whenever it was Tuesday?

And I think there may be more than one factor at play. I think we can see the the crossover of the DGs. I think we can see the release of the Hugh Edwards documentary. And I think I mean this is my lizard brain, journalistic lizard brain working here, is they're trying to preempt more bad news, more bad news coming out about whatever it is that the police investigated. in twenty sixteen and whatever it is Anna Bree

BBC viewers and listeners want is honesty and transparency. I I think that people understand that if you have a huge organisation, you know, with tens of thousands of employees, you're gonna have a few bad apples and it's the question is what do you do about that?

And then once you do do something, are you being honest with the people who pay the licence fee about what actually happened? And what people don't like is when they feel that they they are somehow being lied to, that there's been somehow a cover up that the BBC has tried to obscure the truth about, you know, maybe when they knew about things, uh, rather than just coming clean about the whole thing. They also want to see fairness though.

And at the same time as the BBC has been accused of covering things up, it has also in the past been accused of overreacting or sensationalising. One thinks of when they worked with the police. to cover the the raid of Cliff Richards' house to film the Alicia Cliff Richards House. It's very un British as well. But also Paul Gambacini is an example of a man who turned out to be completely innocent, but whose name was sort of thrown out there.

Uh and there will be some people right now thinking, well, whether Scott Mills had a relationship with uh someone underage or not, it was not proven. Uh it was investigated and not proven. And therefore we're sort of obliged to assume innocence. In which case is it fair to dismiss the man uh when nothing came of a police investigation? Which which raises the question if somebody is an employee or a star presenter on the B B C as opposed to a commercial, another

commercial network or broadcaster, are they held to a higher standard? Should they be h held to a higher standard? and has what the BBC has done with regard to Scott Mills shows they are determined to tell the r the licensed Vpayers and the viewing public that they do want to be whiter than white and this is this is a new broom coming in.

And to kind of all th those sorts of allegations about that sort of behaviour will no longer be tolerated, whether proven or not. But the heads of of of these public bodies also have to think about the pastoral needs. of their employees. I mean we're assuming a lot in this discussion. But let us say that someone was innocent of something they were accused of. They have an obligation towards the public, yes,

But they also have an ab obligation towards that innocent employee. You have a relationship with your employer and the so-called bosses at the company may like this person and they don't want simply to throw him under a bus in order to appease the ravening wolves. of the media who who love a scalp. Once they smell blood in the water mm then they want to ha they go for the kill. I don't know who you're referring to, Rachel.

Also that takes us back to Hugh Edwards because in c in that documentary and you we you've talked about this, Tim,'cause you met Hugh Edwards. I mean, you were saying that you you know That some of his behaviour was in plain sight, but it was overlooked b by bosses because he was the broadcaster's kind of marquee name and and the one who announced the death of the Queen. And so you kind of even though he uh some some of what he did. Oh, we all knew this about Hugh.

And Well, I've met one or two producers who said he contacted them on Instagram, but you know, yes. Right. And gr and great though the docudrama is, b because of the narrowness of its focus and people really should watch it, it's really excellent with a chilling Just give him all the BAFTAs. It is an un uncannily good impression of Hugh Edwards.

But partly because of its narrow focus on his relationship with the boy and I suspect the script is based around the text communications that they had, so that they're showing stuff which they can factually prove was said. It doesn't give the wider picture, which I don't think

in any way lets Edwards off the hook. On the contrary, from what I understand, there was a lot more that he was doing that was really quite transparent and open, despite being married and being a Christian and being a public figure.

everyone apparently knew about Hugh Edwards. That was Hugh being Hugh. That was Hugh being Hugh. On the other hand, one does also want to exercise prudence and not rush to judgement on people. One reason why I always urge caution this is because of the I I was a leader writer in the years of Lord Brammel. Oh poor Lord May God rest. That turned out to be totally false and totally cleared was the former Tory MP Harvey Proctor. Now he has said this, which I think is really interesting on X.

I am deeply concerned by the Scott Mills story following his sacking. Mills was allegedly investigated by the Metropolitan Police with a file handed to the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If an individual can be investigated, cleared of prosecution due to insufficient evidence, and still face professional ruin, then we are entering dangerous territory. I I know for instance a Catholic cleric who was accused of rape by someone in a foreign country.

that person in the foreign country had never been to England, and the cleric had never been to that foreign country. Nonetheless, the church has certain processes Once it's reported, it has to be treated seriously. You are suspended from ministry for six months and not even allowed near certain places. And of course it just destroys your life.

So I I have some sympathy for instinctive sympathy for people who are accused. I think there should be a moment in which we prudentially weigh up are they definitely guilty or not before we all rush to judgment against them.

Well, the BBC has judged. That's the bottom line. Uh I think that one of the questions we don't know the answer to yet, we're trying to find out from the BBC, is whether their staff and particularly presenters have an obligation to inform the BBC as their employer if they, let's say, are arrested, if there anything that happens that could potentially bring the organisation into uh disrepute.

So that is a possibility here. Uh you know, we could be talking about him being sacked because he's failed to tell them rather than because he's been found guilty of doing something. So we we're trying to find that out. We don't know the answer to that yet. But maybe the BBC never asked him. It seems to me that the BBC has come to a conclusion that the Crown Prosecution Service didn't.

Which seems at the moment a dissonance. But there may be an obligation on the employee to tell the employer if for example I worked at the BBC. I never remember having I mean I've been through positive vetting and uh for the Foreign Office and then you are asked. if there's anything in your background or past that is compromising any blackmail pornography habits and so on.

And then you are you are supposed to tell. But I don't think when you join the B B C or you're given a freelance contract or even a staff contract with the BBC, you have to go through that sort of procedure at all. He was had he did go through developed vetting, but after he was given the job. Well, next we're going to speak to someone who is a self-appointed publicist for Hugh Edwards, Barry Tomes.

who says that he can give us some view on what motivated Hugh Edwards and what really happened. How whether or not you choose to believe him is up to you. Du har hört nyheterna, men det finns alltid mer att säga. I polisens nya podd, bortom rubrikerna, går vi längre. I aktuella händelser, brottsutveckling och polisens arbetssätt. Lyssna på bortom rubrikerna där podd finns. Hej, det här är Anton Berg från spår.

Vår nya säsong Lovets fall finns ute nu och handlar om ett mystiskt dödsfall i Bangkok. Östen 2025 påträffas en kropp nedanför ett lyxhotell. Polisen påstår att det är 21-årige Louva Engström. Men kroppen är 7 cm kortare än Loven, och den hittas på norra sidan av hotellet. Loven borde på södra. Följ med spår till Bangkok för att ta reda på sanningen om lovets fall.

Hello, I'm William Sitwell, and as a proud ambassador of the Telegraph Save Our Pubs campaign, I'm here to tell you about our nationwide competition. Nominate your favourite pub and tell us in 200. What it means to you and your community. thousand pound round for punters like you to enjoy on our national pub day on the 16th of May. Entries close on the 11th of April, so mark your calendars and get nominating. Visit telegraph.co.uk slash pubs today.

Welcome to Barry Tomes. You are the self-described, self-appointed publicist for Hugh Edwards, the sacked and former BBC presenter, who's been the subject. of a very well publicised documentary called Power on Channel 5. Can I start by asking you, what do you mean by self-appointed? Uh did you approach Hugh Edwards and is he paying you? I mean what what is the nature of your relationship with Hugh Edwards? Okay, well yeah, thanks for the question. I

Self appointed came from Good Morning Britain, not me, I've never used that word. I only made them correct the fact they were calling me an agent and I'm a publicist, that's my role, that's what I do. In regards to Mr Edwards, I approached him originally about nine months ago. And at that time it was through a a third party, because obviously nobody could find him, or certainly nobody was able to talk to him. That was declined. I tried again three months later, that was declined.

And I still had the same motivation. I wanted to meet him to see if he would tell me something or something nobody else knew. It was really a case study. The whole reason was just a case study. That was it for me. And did you meet him? I met him last Saturday, you know, just over a week ago. Um, and how that came about, as I said, my my expectation at the beginning of this would be he'll agree to meet me or not. If he agrees to meet me, I'll ask him about

leading up to it, the past. Just try and get a little bit of information about what what causes this kind of behaviour from people. That was my total motivation. There was never any plan to be involved in any media storm. Um The only reason that changed was my last communication with them was probably about three months ago. And I sent a message to say I've been told or I've been made aware that a production company are making um a drama about the the whole U Ed was down for.

I didn't know it was on channel five. That's all I knew was some insider told me. I let them know that. They were aware of that. And very quickly the um production team and channel five um went into the best publicist thing you could ever want. They were amazing. Their work was terrific as a publicist. So I c I can admire that. Um At that point I got a call. I was in Hong Kong about two weeks ago working for a company over there just for ten days. And I got a call to say

m my friend would like to speak to you. And that was that was the word. My friend would like to speak to you. The person wasn't even named. But I I got it straight away. The story was, well we're going to release a statement Rydyn ni'n ei wneud y cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio They said to me, What do you advise? I said, Well, would you mind? And this was my request, not theirs.

If I handled the media for just seven days, just seven days, that was my offer. It ended on Saturday, my role ended on Saturday. And I said, but the only condition of which I'll do it there are two conditions. Number one, I don't want any money. I want it made clear, I don't want any money. And secondly, you have to keep out of the way while I'm doing it. I just want to gather the information.

And that's how we got to the start of the whole media storm, really. Barry, that's very generous of you. Why would you choose to represent someone like Hugh Edwards for free? I don't consider I'm representing you, Edwards, actually. I think I'm representing all the victims out there that don't get answers and they don't get answers at all. And the amount of things have happened in my life where you say, Well, what caused it of mental health?

There's no explanation as to what mental health means and you do know and you're aware In his statement he said that mental health was not a an excuse for committing crime. And he agrees. I would agree with that. And I think the f second part was something like um

It may be a, you know, part of the reason why people do these things. Well, that's my question really. So generosity it isn't got nothing to do with it. I could have very uh easily earned five thousand pounds that week, but you and everybody else would have said I'm only doing it for the money. And I'm absolutely not. The money's the irrelevant. Do you see c sorry, it this is interesting because it seems that you see and Hugh Edwards. sees himself as the victim here.

I didn't say that. You said you wanted to represent victims. Okay. I in that case if he is a victim then I would be that would be right. But I'm not calling a victim. I'm talking about the the other people around him. Think in a young man that we you know, that we know of. I think he was played by somebody called Ryan in the in the drama.

So that's what I'm referring to. And and a lot of this is based on sixty years of things that have gone on in my life. But I wasn't if if I was representing um Mr. Edwards. I would be out there getting loads of TV shows. I'll be getting press, I'll be getting paid for the press. We could have only earned easily earned£25,000 in a couple of days last week. Stuff has been offered to me. I'm inundi with offers for him to do things. So I thought very quickly and I thought I did it well.

I did my best live on television, uh, against two very good, you know, the presenters that are are well known for getting things out of people. I said, This is not about the money, is not about getting in work. He has no intention at all at coming back, making a comeback. And if that's what he wanted, then I I'm not his publicist. I'm the publicist for seven days because I knew there would be a media storm. And if he if he wasn't available or he hit away or his lawyers didn't want to speak

We'd get no further. We'd just get no further. I infer that what you're saying is that you were seeking to explain what happened with Hugh Edwards rather than just a Oh yeah, I was no no justification at all. I can see that and I can and I can I can see there'll be some value in that too. All that all that we have seen, or all I know of it, is the Hugh Epwoods drama starring Martin Klu.

I've seen that too. Right, which I thought was very good and of course was focused upon the victim and also told the story through the text messages, through the the evidence that we have of the communications between him and Hugh Edwards. I won't say one sided, but that that's necessarily uh s i i it inevitably saw things very much from the boy's point of view. Is there something you can bring to this that might give us a a bigger picture of why Hugh Edwards was grooming this young man?

I I can't get into the mind of of of that or the legals. I know he was guilty when I met him, I know he was a sentence and I believe he's still serving that sentence. For me personally, I did watch the whole programme, beginning to end, very uncomfortable watching, as you can imagine. It's also a factual drama. Now I I make documentaries. I do uh been around it quite a long time. And

As long as the facts are correct, then you've got a factual drama. Now I don't know if the facts are correct or not. If you read the entire statement, which you haven't had the full statement, I'm happy to send to you. N the full statement hasn't been printed at all or or discussed. And I think part of that he does refer to, you know, being misrepresented in some way. So that's for him to say, not me. I just said I would collect all the evidence.

And then we'll have another meeting which I'm due to have this week. Right. I suppose my my point is because the drama does not in does not contain an interior monologue. Hugh Edwards does not explain why he's doing what he's doing. Some of what I saw him doing in the in the drama just seemed really strange. And I and I am assured that that is how people who are grooming people behave. Uh are you suggesting that there is a context of mental ill health?

that we need to understand. That Hugh Edwards was actually borderline insane when he did what he did. I can't quote to as to his mental ability. I didn't know him at the time. All I know, as you would know, during the whole trial during the last eighteen months where it's been relatively quiet, and certainly during the media storm this week.

It's been referred that mental health and depression were part of the issue. And I think he does describe in the um statement saying it's well known or well documented for the last twenty five years. So there is it's there. It's not something I've made up. It's not something he's told me. It just exists as a thing. So m me for my own personal reasons, I want to try and understand mental health because just because there's some things that have gone on in my life a a lot over a sixty year period.

And um so I'm not saying he was mentally insane, I'm not saying he was ill. I don't even know if he was extremely well in telling lies. I don't know. I honestly don't know. I was never involved with him. I wasn't there, I wasn't involved in the court case. I spoke to him three times.

on the phone and I met him in person once uh last Saturday and I said to him let me do this to collect the information a lot of which which has come my way um also Four specialists have come my way, uh to do with mental health. A victim, very strangely, uh who and I didn't know this story, who camped outside the BBC for seven months.

prior to the U Edwards thing and not connected to Edwards, has come forward and said I might be part of the black box. Would you be willing to meet me? So in just seven days, I've gained a lot of information, which was always my intent.

Okay. For those who haven't seen, had sight of Hugh Edwards' statement at all... Can you can you just summarize what his statement says in reaction to the documentary that I presume he has sat down and watched, and tell us how is I I've met the person once and at that point um he was calm, perfectly polite. is we haven't entered into conversations this week deliberately, although I've checked in two or three times a day to say, Are you okay? Just as a you know duty of care really. So I would say

He's probably very, very anxious, you w you would be at this point. Until I meet him on Thursday, I won't really get a true sense of how his past week has been, but I will I will ask that question. He seemed to be saying in in a summary. that he wasn't allowed to see the drama. Right. He seems to be saying that prior to to um broadcast. He wasn't asked to comment it.

on the the drama until it was already filmed. That you know, that's his statement. And he he doesn't understand how not being able to give his side of the story um is not fair. It's not for me to decide if it's fair, guys. All all I can say is I made sure the statement got out and I got to everybody so everybody every single person could have their say and ask questions like you are and I respect why you need to do this.

But he he then um I said, Well, the only way to have your say is to have your say. There's no you can't employ people like me to have your say. We can only gather the information and maybe give some quotes. Well, I'm not here to defend a criminal. Uh I'm not here to defend the crimes. The main thing is

He said he wants to have his say and I said, then you have to have your say. And I also said, going forward, after the seven days, which ended on Saturday effectively, I said Unless you answer questions that I've got, which could be one, three, five, ten questions, unless you agree to answer those questions in full. I I won't be involved in the slightest'cause I know I know and I know the big question that keeps coming up and up and up.

Is is he gonna pay the money back? And that's fair, there's no no reason to argue with that. This is the salary. The two hundred salary and the two hundred thousand. You advised him not to. I don't know why. No, no, let no no, let's I said I wouldn't. You wouldn't pay a bad for feeling him.'Cause it's do you think that's an a further admission of guilt or what?

No, what what well these are my thoughts. First of all, let's make it absolutely clear. I said I wouldn't pay it back. It's up to him what he does, and he has to make the decision. That is out there, it's recorded. Now, is it a mission of guilt? Um, I I don't know. Because guilt of what? He's been found guilty of the crime. He's been sentenced for the crime. So passing money across the table doesn't change a single thing, only the public's perception. So here we go. Let's say

I suggest, and I'm not suggesting, let's be clear. Let's say I suggest it gives the money back. Because the public will be happier with it and the BBC needs the cash, right? Let's say that's my advice. It is not, but let's say I give that advice. I know, you know, and the rest of the media know, all that will be said is, you know, is the public will say he's just trying to gain favour with the public. Well that's for him to decide if he thinks handing back money.

would gain favour with the public, that's his decision. These decisions aren't mine. I've I've gained enough information in the seven days and I said I will have questions. And unless you're willing to go on screen personally and make your statement, make your claims, counterclaims, rebuckings, whatever you want to do. I'm not your lawyer, but unless you agree to do that. I wouldn't be involved. Now, it could be Do you think that Hugh Edwards is likely to do that?

He's told me that he he fully intends to, yes. Right. Yes. He wouldn't have to be a good idea going to do an interview at some point. He has told me that's what he wants to do. Absolutely. Yes. And I advise him to do that as well because you can't not say anything and not and then complain when lots of people are coming at you one sided. You gotta have your say and and that that's I think that was his motivation. Now

But there are various ways of doing that, you know that, I know that. And he could write a book. Right. He could do a TikTok because that's very popular. He could do a documentary. It could do I've had One TV channel offered to clear their entire show if I'd get him on to say his piece. Now they're the ones that are saying he doesn't want to come back. But they all want him to come back and I've got nine, maybe eleven offers.

for that at the moment. Well I don't think they want to pick him back. I think they want to grill him and get the ratings for having done it. I d I don't think people are invested in in Hugh Edwards' return. But does he think he might have a role to play in public life? Absolutely not. There's no intention, no indication. And I've I have asked that question directly, you know.

And and I started the question by saying, do you want your old job back at the BBC? No. Do you want to work for Sky News? No. Do you want to work for GB News? No. So you're not really interested in going back and reading the news? No. Are you any interest in television at all? No. What is what is the thing you'll be doing mostly in in the coming weeks? That was my I think that was probably my last question. He said, focusing on my mother who I'm looking after.

Can we ask about Hugh Edwards' family? Uh are they in contact with him? Is he in contact with them? Do you mean all of his family or Well, is he still together with his wife? I think they're going through a divorce from what I know. He's he's definitely in contact with his mother because he's he's living with and looking after her. The rest of the family, including his mother, who I and I do feel for hers particularly'cause

She's at an elderly stage and was probably very proud of her son for a long time and is now not proud or upset or heartbroken. He's I don't know his family. I don't know the names of his family. I don't know where they live. All I did offer to him, which he didn't comment either way, was when this starts Please keep out of my way, but you are in talk to give my number to any family or friend that you think might just need a help.

Because of the media, you know, turning off doorstepping. And and I I offered that. It wasn't declined. It wasn't accepted. But I made the offer because I thought that was the right thing to do as a human being. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be back tomorrow at five PM.

Ahead of May's critical local elections, we're taking the daily tea on the road, visiting key battlegrounds across Britain and answering your questions with four special live events. Join me and Camilla, plus special guests, in London on april twenty seventh. Cardiff on April the twenty-eighth, Warwick on April the twenty-ninth, and Worthing on April the thirtieth. You can buy tickets now at telegraph.co.uk forward slash daily tea live.