EXCLUSIVE: Disgraced BBC star Huw Edwards has sparked outrage from child abuse campaigners with his latest attempt at rehabilitation. And now even his former rep has slammed the move as 'disgusting'14:37, 16 Jul 2026Huw Edwards' latest attempt to inch himself back into the public eye has sparked so much outrage that even his most trusted ally has turned on him.‌Once one of the most trusted faces on our television screens, the disgraced broadcaster's life is now a far cry from the glittering career he once knew. In 2024, Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.‌He was handed a six-month sentence, suspended for two years, after being found guilty of accessing 41 images of children. Seven of those images were classified category A, the most serious category, while two of the images showed victims between the ages of seven and nine years old.‌Two years on, while living a reclusive life vaping and spluttering in a rural Welsh town, Edwards has launched his own blog to promote his views on politics, current affairs and his own abhorrent crimes. Child abuse campaigners have fiercely criticised the decision, citing Edwards' galling lack of self-awareness and 'disrespect' to victims.The fallen newsreader, who has repeatedly vowed to 'tell his own side of the story' after his conviction, published a Substack post this week titled 'On Hatred'. Speaking about his offending for the first time on the platform, he complains about the hatred he has recieved online, claims the legal term for his offence is 'misleading' and baulks at comparisons to "Jimmy Savile, a serial rapist and defiler of corpses". The post is also littered with bizarre references to philosophy, from Plato quotes about 'truth' to Aristotle.‌Ranting about legal terminology, he claims: "The misleading legal term for the offence - 'making an indecent image' - is also problematic. People assume, quite reasonably, that the accused has been involved in taking photographs: in fact, 'making' includes downloading, receiving an image in an email attachment, or accessing a website where images can appear. 'Accessing an image' might well be a more accurate - and more reliable - definition, less prone to widespread misunderstanding.""A person clicking on a file - the content of which may be unclear - is committing an offence if that file contains illegal imagery. That offence is not the same as a case involving someone who has, often over a long period, deliberately searched for, collected and even traded unlawful images with others.""In my case, a three-month forensic examination of my mobiles, computers and storage devices found not a single illegal image. A survey of my internet searches found nothing unlawful. My crime was to click on files sent to me by someone else."‌Richard Scorer, Head of Abuse Law at Slater and Gordon and a significant campaigner on child safety, says that the post reveals "a man completely devoid of shame or self-reflection". He tells The Mirror: "In my experience, sex offenders constantly attempt to deny or minimise their offences and the serious harm they cause. This is exactly what Edwards tries to do in his blog – the whole piece is a disgusting attempt to whitewash his own behaviour."The reality is that Edwards admitted to having 41 indecent images, including some showing children as young as seven. The blog merely demonstrates his complete lack of remorse and his unwillingness to engage with any difficult questions about his own offending. It is, no doubt unintentionally, extremely revealing about the kind of person he is – a man completely devoid of shame or self-reflection."‌Edwards also writes: "It is perfectly normal to hate a crime which involves the abuse of children. I have written previously about the sense of abhorrence I feel about these crimes. It is the failure to separate the crime from the perpetrator which fuels mindless hatred — a hatred which impedes society's ability to understand why some people behave in ways that are destructive and shameful."Gabrielle Shaw, Chief Executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), says of the post: "No one should be subjected to threats or abuse. But accountability is not hatred, and the two should not be confused. Child sexual abuse images show real children being abused. Viewing them is not victimless - it is vile."The issue is not that Edwards has chosen to speak, but that he has focused on his own suffering while saying so little about the children harmed. Rehabilitation matters, but it requires an honest recognition of harm. A public platform should not be used to recast the person responsible as the principal victim".‌When approached for comment by the Mirror, Edwards' former publicist Barry Tomes gave an astonishing response to the new blog post. He says: "He shouldn't have gone on Substack, I'd said that originally. I don't think he's right since the court case. I think he should be stepping back."So, I absolutely agree [with the criticism], it's disgusting what he's put in and he should not be on Substack. He should stay quiet, come out and tell us the truth that you say is the truth, and then let people judge. Basically, he's drip-feeding it, in my opinion, on Substack, and that's wrong."‌Edwards and Tomes parted ways in April, with the publicist claiming he had only agreed to work for the former newsreader for seven days on a pro bono basis. Before resigning, the rep made a number of high-profile appearances to defend Edwards, including on Good Morning Britain. Many of the interviews were deemed a 'car crash' by viewers, but he continued to represent the ex BBC star. Now, the tide has changed.In May, The Times reported that Edwards was in talks with Channel 4 regarding a potential documentary or podcast laying out his version of events. A source told the publication that this possible doc could address Edwards' pre-sentencing psychiatric assessments, medical conditions, and difficult relationship with his late father, the academic Hywel Teifi Edwards. Channel 4 declined to comment at the time.Hinting at the show in his response to the Substack fury, Tomes said: "[Edwards] always made it clear to me that 'I intend to say my piece, I intend to make a documentary of my own'. And I agree, he's got the right to do that, it doesn't matter whether you like him or not, he has the right to do it. But he can't keep making comments if he's not made that statement or made that documentary. And I think he's being badly advised by some people, I assume."‌In response to initial criticisms when his blog launched last month, Edwards pointed to a statement issued in March that "conveys 'deep regret and remorse' and includes 'sincere and profound apologies'". The statement, given in response to the Channel 5 drama, said he "took full responsibility for my reprehensible actions".The outrage follows recent reports that Edwards has been offered his first job since leaving the BBC, having reportedly turned down the opportunity to play himself in an upcoming film. According to the Mail, producers of The Janitor, which will focus on the downfall of a fictional broadcaster, approached the former presenter with the suggestion that he appear in a cameo role.‌This offer, from Big Bear Little Bear Productions, was reportedly made on the understanding that Edwards' fee would be given to charity. Edwards, who once raked in £520,000 a year at the top of his profession, is said to have turned down the offer, while remaining keen to share "his side of the story on his terms".A source told the publication: "Huw could change his mind, but as it stands, he doesn’t feel this film role is the right way to come back into the spotlight. He wants to tell his side of the story on his terms."‌Back in March, Channel 5 drama Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards sparked fury from the veteran broadcaster, who claimed the production company Wonderhood "made no attempt" to contact him. He also announced plans to share his own version of events in a statement at the time.Edwards said: "I am making an effort to produce my own account of these terrible events. This is a slow process, given the fragile state of my health. have been open about my struggle with persistent mental illness over a period of 25 years."What is less well known is the severity of that condition, which was managed successfully until the downward spiral which led to an appalling outcome. Mental illness is misunderstood by many, but can never be an excuse for criminality. It can, however, at least help explain why people sometimes behave in shocking and reprehensible ways, and why things fell apart for me in the way they did."‌The sentencing report notes that Edwards has arteriosclerosis, a degenerative neurocognitive disorder which results in the hardening and furring of the arteries. The judge considered this condition during sentencing. Edwards has also been diagnosed with small vessel disease (arteriosclerosis), described as a cognitive disorder with behavioural disturbance.As the production team search for an actor to step into Edwards' shoes ahead of this latest TV venture, the former news anchor appears intent on continuing to have his voice heard. Whether this last, lingering channel will, too, in time be stripped from him remains to be seen.The Mirror has reached out to Substack and Channel 4 for comment.Article continues belowIf you've been the victim of sexual assault, you can access help and resources via www.rapecrisis.org.uk or by calling the national telephone helpline on 0808 802 9999Do you have a story to share? Email me at julia.banim@reachplc.com