Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

When is the BBC going to square up to Huw Edwards?

106 replies

teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 11:42

I gather HW is still in hiding in some convenient private facility whilst he waits for the BBC and the public to forgive and forget. I hope this is not going to happen and I would like to know how much longer the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster is going to keep the guy on full salary, yet suspended from duty. For me this is a matter of public concern.

I have no interest in whether HW has committed criminal acts - I rather suspect he is far too buttoned-up to do anything other than look - but he is suspended pending an investigation into behaviour incompatible with his position and that has brought his employer into disrepute. The BBC seem to be locked in limbo on this one but it needs an end.

OP posts:
Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 18:08

LakeTiticaca · 19/09/2023 16:11

The public pay his wages.
He may not have done anything actually illegal but I think that a 62 year old man paying teenagers for sexual pictures is pretty much up there in the sleazeball stakes

Show quote history

It's nothing to do with his job. We can't go round sacking people because you
don't like what they do in their private life. If everyone who is considered to be a sleazeball lost their jobs we'd struggle to pay the benefits.

LakeTiticaca · 19/09/2023 17:35

Awful lot of women on here giving support to naughty old Huwy 😕
Would they be so charitable if it was their teenage son/daughter exposing their genitalia to fund their crack cocaine habit?
Nah didn't think so 😉

BIossomtoes · 19/09/2023 17:13

teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 16:28

Unfortunately, a public figure paid from the public purse paying for salacious pictures from young people is a public matter.

Edited
Show quote history

He’s not paid from the public purse, ie the taxpayer. He’s paid by licence payers - a group that’s diminishing all the time. Why should he resign? Have you seen what politicians do without resigning? People who really are paid from the public purse?

AGoodDayForSomebodyElseToDie · 19/09/2023 17:07

I can’t for the life of me see how it’s any of your business what goes on between HE and the BBC, nor why you think it would be “surreal” for him, were he still in his role, to be reporting on allegations of rape.

YeOldeBuxomWench · 19/09/2023 16:45

Has it not crossed your mind OP that dragging up old news stories along with the current hysteria might be a bit much for people that have been through sexual violenc? The media are constantly dragging up sexual misdemeanors and I and probably a lot of other people are finding it hard to put behind us a lot of things from our past. All of the recent ones have not been through criminal justice system yet even. They were allegations yet to be formally investigated by the police or HR issues over conduct. It's just constant.

What would have been helpful is if they reported it to the police in the first instancsnand quietly suspended the alledged perpetrator while the investigation took place and then if they are convicted it becomes a story.

I think this is actually to the victims detriment, not really helping them to all. Convicting offenders is. It is to sell papers or get viewing numbers or clicks. It's not about those who have been abused at all.

Original poster
teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 16:28

Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 14:18

Or the public could do the decent thing and keep their noses out of other people's private business.

Show quote history

Unfortunately, a public figure paid from the public purse paying for salacious pictures from young people is a public matter.

OP posts:
Original poster
teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 16:27

IClaudine · 19/09/2023 15:19

Teddy, you have the timeline all wrong. What HE did was awful and sleazy but he committed no crime and @Ponoka7 is spreading malicious lies about him.

No I dont think I do. And nobody is spreading any lies. HE is in enough trouble already, there is no need to elaborate on anything. All that needs to happen now is for him to do the decent and honourable thing and resign from the BBC. No need for any further enquiries unless there is criminality, in which case it is a matter for the police. The fact that he hasn't done this says much about the man.

OP posts:
Original poster
teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 16:24

If he was still in place, we could have the surreal situation of him reporting on the RB situation. Anybody still think his position is tenable?

OP posts:
LakeTiticaca · 19/09/2023 16:11

Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 14:18

Or the public could do the decent thing and keep their noses out of other people's private business.

Show quote history

The public pay his wages.
He may not have done anything actually illegal but I think that a 62 year old man paying teenagers for sexual pictures is pretty much up there in the sleazeball stakes

StrongandNorthern · 19/09/2023 15:52

You're a real joy aren't you?
Get a life.

BIossomtoes · 19/09/2023 15:47

Ponoka7 · 19/09/2023 15:38

Yeah ok, we can rest assured the BBC and MET are on it, both are on the side of women and girls and against sex offenders.

Show quote history

The inference in this case was that the alleged victim was male.

Ponoka7 · 19/09/2023 15:40

CasperGutman · 19/09/2023 14:20

You might want to take care stating as a fact that HE has "committed a criminal offence". I'm pretty sure the police stated that nothing illegal occurred.

Show quote history

Was that the MET? Given today so many siblings officers are suspended on top of the numbers that have already been shed, I think that historical decisions really need to be looked at again.

Ponoka7 · 19/09/2023 15:38

IClaudine · 19/09/2023 15:20

Timeline:

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66081060#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16951328042450&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Yeah ok, we can rest assured the BBC and MET are on it, both are on the side of women and girls and against sex offenders.

IClaudine · 19/09/2023 15:19

Teddy, you have the timeline all wrong. What HE did was awful and sleazy but he committed no crime and @Ponoka7 is spreading malicious lies about him.

luckylavender · 19/09/2023 14:42

@teddyandgypsy - it's not debate though is it? It's uniformed tittle tattle

BIossomtoes · 19/09/2023 14:35

teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 13:54

Lets keep the facts straight. The 'witch hunt' did not happen until after he had been suspended, claimed he was ill and went straight into hiding. It may be that the enormity of what he'd done suddenly dawned on him, but to claim it was the public interest that caused a breakdown is simply factually incorrect. As I recall, when he fled the scene, he was quite content to remain anonymous, leaving all his fellow presenters twisting in the wind of public curiosity. This does not seem to me to be a principled man

The witch hunt started with the Sun article five days before he was suspended. It led to various men - including Russell Brand, oh the irony - popping up to say “It isn’t me”. The Sun tried to involve the police who pretty swiftly found no crime had been committed, it also harassed the young person who said it never happened. Those are the facts. Of course it was the witch hunt that triggered the breakdown. It’s a very sordid and unpleasant episode in which both Edwards and his wife have behaved with perfect dignity.

CasperGutman · 19/09/2023 14:20

Ponoka7 · 19/09/2023 11:58

Well he's committed a criminal offence by trying to pay a underage teen for sexually explicit photos, so yes, he needs further punishment.
He developed MH issues after being caught. He might not have the appearance of Russell Brand, so everyone is ok with H m being a sex offender, but some of us don't judge on appearance. You wouldn't get this consideration in any other job. You'd have to be giving them a point of return or hand in your resignation. I agree OP that he's giving it enough time for his victims to be over a acceptable age and his wife public forgiveness.

Show quote history

You might want to take care stating as a fact that HE has "committed a criminal offence". I'm pretty sure the police stated that nothing illegal occurred.

Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 14:18

LakeTiticaca · 19/09/2023 13:47

He knew, as a highly respected public figure indulging in very risky behaviour, that if (when ) he was caught out there would be a big storm of publicity.
He should probably just do the decent thing and resign

Show quote history

Or the public could do the decent thing and keep their noses out of other people's private business.

Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 14:09

teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 13:43

I am afraid I don't understand your comment at all. He may or may not have committed a crime - I simply do not know. But what must surely be obvious is that his behaviour is incompatible with his job and responsibilities.

Show quote history

Personally I couldn't care less what he does in his personal life as long as he isn't breaking the law. He reads the news he isn't some moral crusader.

YeOldeBuxomWench · 19/09/2023 14:02

teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 13:54

Lets keep the facts straight. The 'witch hunt' did not happen until after he had been suspended, claimed he was ill and went straight into hiding. It may be that the enormity of what he'd done suddenly dawned on him, but to claim it was the public interest that caused a breakdown is simply factually incorrect. As I recall, when he fled the scene, he was quite content to remain anonymous, leaving all his fellow presenters twisting in the wind of public curiosity. This does not seem to me to be a principled man

I didn't realise you were telepathic and knew what his intentions were.

Iwasafool · 19/09/2023 14:02

Ponoka7 · 19/09/2023 12:14

Well he put on a bloody good act if he was mentally ill enough to use it as an excuse to coerse a minor into sexual acts. This happened recently, not twenty years ago, so why is he blameless, but Brand, who speaks out about his MH struggles isn't? There's three allegations outstanding against HE, all teenagers. He's forty five years older and married.

Show quote history

I thought the police investigated it and it wasn't true that the young man was under age so no crime?

Original poster
teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 13:58

luckylavender · 19/09/2023 13:55

Why post this drivel? And maybe do some research on Employment Law.

Show quote history

May we please debate civilly? Many people have different views, all of which are valid as long as they don't break the website rules. There is absolutely no need to resort to personal abuse or ridiculing people. Debate is and should be stimulating, not about shouting others down or trying to drive them off.

OP posts:
Original poster
teddyandgypsy · 19/09/2023 13:56

With all companies there is a balance in duty of care. And it doesn't include paying full salary for an indefinite period of time. The employer also has a duty of care to other employees and to share-holders. In this case the emphasis is heightened because Mr Edwards is paid an enormous amount of money, all of which comes from the public purse.

OP posts: