Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[NanLaew]

  On 9/17/2024 at 8:25 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 8:39 AM, 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.

Expand  

Reluctantly suspended, reluctantly let go?

 

 

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 8:25 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:14 AM, JonnyF said:

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

Expand  

More supposition with zero backing.

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:16 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

More supposition with zero backing.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:16 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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

 

 

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:21 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Expand  

 

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

[rocketboy2]

One more BBC perv.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:25 AM, JonnyF said:

 

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

Expand  

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

 

 

[Bday Prang]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:14 AM, 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. 

 

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:42 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:48 AM, 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 !     

Expand  

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

 

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:57 AM, 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

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 10:14 AM, 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.

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 8:50 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Reluctantly suspended, reluctantly let go?

 

 

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 11:13 AM, 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

Expand  

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/17/2024 at 11:52 AM, 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.

Expand  

No it does.

 

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

 

This deserves some evidence to back it up.

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:42 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 11:54 AM, 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.

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 9:27 AM, rocketboy2 said:

One more BBC perv.

 

Expand  

One in a long list.

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 10:10 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

Expand  

What about the pay rise? 

 

For upholding company values? 

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/17/2024 at 12:11 PM, 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. 

 

 

Expand  

Support what Jonny?

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/17/2024 at 12:15 PM, JonnyF said:

What about the pay rise? 

 

For upholding company values? 

Expand  

Perhaps one of those clauses in contracts that people imagine.

[herfiehandbag]

  On 9/17/2024 at 1:23 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Expand  

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.

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 12:52 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Support what Jonny?

Expand  

 

The BBC attempting to cover up Paedophilia.

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 12:53 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps one of those clauses in contracts that people imagine.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 1:29 PM, JonnyF said:

 

The BBC attempting to cover up Paedophilia.

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 1:32 PM, 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.

Expand  

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]

  On 9/17/2024 at 1:32 PM, 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?

 

 

Expand  

 

Check the Saville report findings. Systemic failures. 

[JonnyF]

  On 9/17/2024 at 1:34 PM, 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?

 

 

 

Expand  

Back it up?

 

Your posts are open for everyone to read.