JonnyF

By definition it is extortion. Previously it was Pay or go to jail. Now it is Pay or we send the bailiffs round. Obtaining funds via threats. For a service many people do not even want or watch. Hard to call it anything else. I believe the public can expect better from a man paid from public money. The level of salary is not particularly relevant but the fact that the public pay it, is. It is in the public interest if someone in the publicly funded state broadcaster is accused of abuse of power by other employees in the organization. Why? They knew who it was. They suspended him. Why do they have to try to hush it up? Just made themselves look stupid again.

No. This is not about The Sun's behaviour. The Sun isn't the only source. There are many now including other ex-BBC employees. This is is about the BBC and Huw Edwards seedy behaviour. As I already stated the BBC is a publicly funded company. They have a duty to the people who they extort in order to fund it. The story is in the public interest since the public pay this guy's huge salary. If they want a private business where they can keep their sordid stories hidden from the public then they can stop taking the public's money and stand on their own 2 feet like other media companies. Until then, the public has a right to know what is happening there especially when it involves abuse of power and threatening behaviour.

There are 3 separate accusations from 3 different sources. The BBC has seen the messages, so clearly they exist. If the police have thoroughly invesigated all 3 cases and concluded there is no case to answer after only a few days then yes I suspect another coverup. These things can take months. The BBC is not just "an employer" as you well know. It is a publicly funded organization with a clear mission statement. I would point you towards the words Trust. Truthful. Respect. Accountability. That's why they need to name the accused. They have a duty to the public since they are funded by the public. It's not some private family run business answerable to nobody, although they often act like it is. This is very much in the public interest. It is news. https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission Time to defund them. The current model belongs in a previous century. "We're kind" lol.

The BBC had seen the messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766 Perhaps you oft posted visceral hatred of the tabloids is blinding your judgement.

It seems like the Police already know the result of the vote. Sad times for Thailand.

If the police have already decided not to charge him then that would be very concerning. They need to do a through investigation before reaching such a conclusion. It is not unsubstantiated. Even the BBC admit to seeing the messages. Wrong about what? Are you accusing the victims of lying? Victim blaming in sexual harrassment cases isn't really a great look. The BBC have a long history of covering for sexual abuse in their ranks, the lack of action against a certain cigar smoking, shellsuit wearing individual is testament to that. They kept that covered up until his demise. If there is a pattern emerging, there it is.

The name of the presenter for starters. Didn't end too well for them.

His wife is also ex-BBC so possibly familiar with the culture of ignoring poor behaviour and sweeping things under the carpet in the hope that this day would never arrive.

Californian Psycho babble. Popular among left wingers who profess to have more knowledge on subjects than they really do.

It does seem to be a deep rooted problem, prevalent over many decades. They just don't seem to be able to "fix it". ITV are also doing pretty well lately.

I'd say it's absolutely in the public interest when someone paid a huge salary with public money is found to be breaking the guidelines of the tax payer funded public service broadcaster that employs him (and professes to hold themselves to such lofty standards).

The BBC covering for their own. Not for the first time either (Now then Now then).

Who cares who reported it? It is the actions of Edwards that are being discussed, not The Sun newspaper (and once again referring to them as The Scum is against forum rules but well, you know...). Edwards was harrassing the young person for a date, the person refused and tried to make him stop by saying he'd expose his poor behaviour so Edwards threatened them.

I'd suggest a crackdown on crime by locals first, seeing as that is much more prevalent.

Possibly followed by the "I need to protect my family" card. Oh hang on, the wife has already played that one.

How so? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html They are aware that thay are victims. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

My point is a lot more relevant i.e. the BBC covering up allegations of abuse from within the organization.

Maybe you should read the mission statement and core values of the BBC again. "We're kind" (except when someone is going to expose our deviant behaviour and then we threaten them). "We're accountable" (except when our leacherous behaviour is called out). "We respect each other" (except when abusing our power with subordinates). And yes, threatening people via SMS, messaging apps etc. is illegal. https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Sending Threatening Emails-,What's the law%3F,as well as other legislation.

The victim hasn't been named but the BBC has verified the existence of the messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

I haven't reported it. Nor will I. No point. My posts about a certain man in a shell suit who could "fix it" for children were deemed off topic so if I assume some level of consistency then yours must be as well.

If Edwards sued The Sun all the messages would be laid bare for everyone to see. Victims would get their day in court to speak out. No, Edwards will go quietly.

That's the problem with abuse of power. Victims can be intimidated into silence until others speak out. It's no laughing matter. Sending threatening digital messages is a criminal offence. https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Both criminal penalties and civil,to know amounts to harassment. Off topic again.

Predictable. The only surprise is that they didn't directly reference Caroline Flack like Schofield did. Maybe that will come during the heartfelt softball interview on BBC prime time once most of this has been swept under the carpet. All aboard the BBC gravy train. Extorting cash from the British public for decades. Toot toot... Oh what was that? Fresh allegations??? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html

Fresh allegations today from BBC colleagues. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html Oh and the BBC itself confirmed the existence of the threatening messages. Strange that the police are ignoring them then, giving the illegality of sending threatening digital messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

Highly unlikely. Suing The Sun would mean all the evidence laid bare for the public to see. No chance of that happening when they want it all swept under the carpet. No. This will all just go away so the gravy train known as The BBC can continue.