Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A reminder, Edwards is no longer employed by the BBC.

 

Correct, he was reluctantly suspended on full pay and reluctantly finally let go.

 

Now the BBC want him to pay back the salary they paid him.

 

It appears he may be reluctant to do so.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

Correct, he was reluctantly suspended on full pay and reluctantly finally let go.

 

Now the BBC want him to pay back the salary they paid him.

 

It appears he may be reluctant to do so.

Reluctantly suspended, reluctantly let go?

 

 

[JonnyF]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A reminder, Edwards is no longer employed by the BBC.

 

Yes, eventually he resigned because the BBC was too cowardly to sack him even after he brought them into disrepute. But not after claiming his salary for months on end.

 

They probably didn't think it was a big deal. Just another one to add to the long list of child abusers that worked there. 

 

They've "requested" the salary be repaid. I won't hold my breath. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

They probably didn't think it was a big deal.

More supposition with zero backing.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

More supposition with zero backing.

 

Well they didn't sack him. So clearly they didn't think it was a big enough deal to do so. That is self evident. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Well they didn't sack him. So clearly they didn't think it was a big enough deal to do so. That is self evident. 

It’s not unusual not to sack someone when they are charged with crimes but not yet convicted.

 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not unusual not to sack someone when they are charged with crimes but not yet convicted.

 

 

 

Certainly if you are the BBC and the crime is Paedophilia. 

[rocketboy2]

One more BBC perv.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Certainly if you are the BBC and the crime is Paedophilia. 

Particularly if the allegation has been made but a conviction not yet handed down.

 

 

[Bday Prang]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, eventually he resigned because the BBC was too cowardly to sack him even after he brought them into disrepute. But not after claiming his salary for months on end.

 

They probably didn't think it was a big deal. Just another one to add to the long list of child abusers that worked there. 

 

They've "requested" the salary be repaid. I won't hold my breath. 

 

He actually  recieved a pay rise of around £40,000 whilst suspended,   I won't be holding my breath whilst I wait for him to hand it back either.  He is apparently also  due a pension of  £300,000 per year  rolls of the tongue easily,  but its  nearly £6000 per week for gods sake !     

[Bday Prang]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Particularly if the allegation has been made but a conviction not yet handed down.

That may be true , but he knew what he was guilty of and he knew full well what the probable outcome would be.   Any  man of the "highest character"  would have done the decent thing and resigned instantly,  he chose not to,  preferring to trouser the £200,000 that the BBC are now asking him to return.    I have no sympathy for him or the BBC   they deserve each other

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

He actually  recieved a pay rise of around £40,000 whilst suspended,   I won't be holding my breath whilst I wait for him to hand it back either.  He is apparently also  due a pension of  £300,000 per year  rolls of the tongue easily,  but its  nearly £6000 per week for gods sake !     

Pensions are held in trust, they are not under the control of the beneficiary and hence not subject to confiscation.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

That may be true , but he knew what he was guilty of and he knew full well what the probable outcome would be.   Any  man of the "highest character"  would have done the decent thing and resigned instantly,  he chose not to,  preferring to trouser the £200,000 that the BBC are now asking him to return.    I have no sympathy for him or the BBC   they deserve each other

We now know Edwards is not ‘of the highest character’.

 

I expect the BBC took legal counsel on the matter.

 

Had the BBC dismissed him before the verdict and he had been found innocent, I expect the same perpetual BBC critics would be complaining about the cost of the ensuing legal settlement.

[Bday Prang]

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We now know Edwards is not ‘of the highest character’.

 

I expect the BBC took legal counsel on the matter.

 

Had the BBC dismissed him before the verdict and he had been found innocent, I expect the same perpetual BBC critics would be complaining about the cost of the ensuing legal settlement.

He was caught pretty much red handed, he had "images" on his computer. No way could he have been found innocent. Even if he was found  not guilty on some technicality his behaviour was abhorrent,   his contract would have had  clauses regarding causing disrepute and unacceptable behaviour.  They could easily have sacked him without repercussions,  they chose not to. They were protecting him for as long as possible

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Reluctantly suspended, reluctantly let go?

 

 

By the BBC.

 

The BBC were reluctant to suspend him as they were reluctant to let him go (accept his resignation).

 

Per my earlier post, the Met pre-empted his first public acknowledgement that something was goine pear-shaped by saying there was nothing to investigate.

 

Hope this helps.

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

He was caught pretty much red handed, he had "images" on his computer. No way could he have been found innocent. Even if he was found  not guilty on some technicality his behaviour was abhorrent,   his contract would have had  clauses regarding causing disrepute and unacceptable behaviour.  They could easily have sacked him without repercussions,  they chose not to. They were protecting him for as long as possible

I agree his behavior is abhorrent.

 

There may or may not have been these clauses you refer to in his contract, we neither of us know.

 

We do know that dismissing people on the basis of unproven allegations ones with legal risks.

 

The court is the arbiter of guilt, not the BBC.

Edited Tuesday at 11:59 AM by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

By the BBC.

 

The BBC were reluctant to suspend him as they were reluctant to let him go (accept his resignation).

 

Per my earlier post, the Met pre-empted his first public acknowledgement that something was goine pear-shaped by saying there was nothing to investigate.

 

Hope this helps.

No it does.

 

You have stated the BBC were reluctant to let him go.

 

This deserves some evidence to back it up.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Particularly if the allegation has been made but a conviction not yet handed down.

 

 

He brought the organisation into disrepute.

 

Although I accept the bar is set pretty low at our beloved BBC. It's pretty much the norm there. 

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree his behavior is abhorrent.

 

There may or may not have been these clauses you refer to in his contract, we neither of us know.

 

We do know that dismissing people on the basis of unproven allegations ones with legal risks.

 

The court is the arbiter of guilt, not the BBC.

They'd seen the texts with the teenage drug addict that he was paying for explicit photos.

 

Enough to suspend without pay.

 

The BBC has form covering up these things. Enablers. Interesting that you support it. 

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, rocketboy2 said:

One more BBC perv.

 

One in a long list.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pensions are held in trust, they are not under the control of the beneficiary and hence not subject to confiscation.

 

What about the pay rise? 

 

For upholding company values? 

[Chomper Higgot]

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

They'd seen the texts with the teenage drug addict that he was paying for explicit photos.

 

Enough to suspend without pay.

 

The BBC has form covering up these things. Enablers. Interesting that you support it. 

 

 

Support what Jonny?

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

What about the pay rise? 

 

For upholding company values? 

Perhaps one of those clauses in contracts that people imagine.

[herfiehandbag]

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take the view there are 4 purposes behind prison, your three and setting a deterrent.

Hmm, but I don't think prison is much of a deterrent, Edwards is certainly an intelligent man, was an accomplished broadcaster and journalist, yet knowing the potential for a prison sentence if he was caught he was not deterred.

 

I could perhaps have put my comments about losing reputation and career more, umh, accurately. I wanted to convey that from very high up, the absolute pinnacle, he fell rapidly and completely. I have no sympathy, but it is a punishment. Ego and savouring public approval play an important part in such people's lives, it has suddenly, and quite rightly, been ripped from him. That must hurt.

 

If, as have been suggested, there were suspicions, or even knowledge of his proclivities amongst the BBC management then that certainly needs investigating - after Saville and Harris it would be astonishing if that were to be the case, and if so the BBC, holding it's unique place in British society, should be held to account.

 

One or two have mentioned his pension: as you pointed out, I don't think that could be removed as the law stands, - so much to some peoples chagrin he will be a wealthy disgraced man. If he were in prison he would be a wealthy disgraced prisoner. The same is true as regards his - generous - salary. Until the BBC terminated his contract they were duty bound to pay him. Of course the BBC's possible tardiness in sacking him may repay close scrutiny, but that won't effect Edwards.

Edited Tuesday at 01:30 PM by herfiehandbag

[JonnyF]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Support what Jonny?

 

The BBC attempting to cover up Paedophilia.

[JonnyF]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps one of those clauses in contracts that people imagine.

 

After bringing the BBC into disrepute? 

 

If it was in his contract why are they asking for the money back? They finally read it?

 

But you keep shilling for Huw... Lefties tend to stick together.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The BBC attempting to cover up Paedophilia.

That’s a very serious allegation.

 

Do you think you could comply with the forum rules and produce some credible evidence to back it up?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

After bringing the BBC into disrepute? 

 

If it was in his contract why are they asking for the money back? They finally read it?

 

But you keep shilling for Huw... Lefties tend to stick together.

Shilling for Huw, the pervert I say should be in prison? 

 

Do you think you could comply with the forum rules and produce some credible evidence to back it up?

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a very serious allegation.

 

Do you think you could comply with the forum rules and produce some credible evidence to back it up?

 

 

 

Check the Saville report findings. Systemic failures. 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Shilling for Huw, the pervert I say should be in prison? 

 

 

Do you think you could comply with the forum rules and produce some credible evidence to back it up?

 

 

 

Back it up?

 

Your posts are open for everyone to read.