BBC Presenter and yet more allegations

[friendlycat]

It would appear that the front page of tomorrow’s The Sun has further allegations about messages with a new 17 year old. Creepy hearts etc

Scrolling through Sky news and seeing front pages of the papers. This appears bottom right on The Sun front page.

We don't know he's committed no crime. I have no righteous fury on his behalf- don't do things that are career ending or threatening. Don't risk your career, fairly simple rule to live by.

Tons of public figures have had rumours about them for years and people laughed at for believing there is anything to them and later turns out they actually committed horrendous crimes for decades

Now perhaps Huw is entirely innocent of sexual exploitation but the BBC have bloody reported and confirmed threatening communication to a 20 year old.

How hard is it to pick people for sexual contact who there's less of an imbalance of power with? Like are men in their 40s/50s not available? If no, I wonder why. Clearly more sense that involving themselves with a public figure romantically

We do know he's had regular contact with 20 year olds romantically. Is it a crime? No. Is it breathtakingly stupid and career threatening? Yes.

Yep, very worrying attitudes.

I’ve commented on this thread throughout. Maybe you should try reading it.

Person 2 didn't go to the media though. It was reported on the News at 10 last night that actually journalists from the BBC itself discovered the person during their investigative reporting and approached them!

The BBC have seen messages that they've gone on record as saying problematic.

That doesn't say criminality and the BBC haven't claimed that (and neither have I).

It will have been passed by lawyers for the BBC to state that the messages from his phone number were 'abusive and expletive laden'.

I think it would be very hard for Huw's lawyers to dispute this. He shouldn't have sent them even if under pressure. That automatically puts him in a position where questions about his conduct are difficult to avoid. They may be able to argue something about his state of mind but it doesn't stop it being inappropriate and not acceptable.

Beyond that I think there are question marks. The Sun must have 'something'. Again cos lawyers. The backtracking undermines their position to a degree but they clearly have enough to cite concerns if not criminality even at this point.

However multiple people coming forward willing to say something isn't a good sign. It suggests a high probability of a pattern of behaviour. How far that goes is the question. Is it likely that every person he has acted inappropriately towards will have come forward (law of probabilities says no here. Only a percentage will). I think more will come out before this is done unfortunately for that reason.

So far I think the earliest allegation dates back to 2018. That's pretty recent. You have to ask the question about whether that's the start. It could well be but he has had a long career and why would it only start in 2018. Was there a trigger?

He does still to have had a good reputation and good working relationships. There are some big names still willing to stick their necks out and offer support even if they are still saying 'inappropriate'. That's interesting. Will that last? (Keeping in mind how few people did similar for Schofield who by all accounts has an utterly appalling reputation which contrasts considerably with Edwards - I find the difference notable).

Quite!

what on earth is going on here with all the defending and deflecting? 3 colleagues have now come forward with allegations of inappropriate behaviour at work as well. He’s famous, and he’s got caught acting like a vile sleaze. In light of his role it’s a public interest matter. The Sun and the parents are irrelevant. He did this to himself by his own behaviour.

It's not ok at 17, I think legal age is 18 for sending/receiving explicit photos

The bbc reported it themselves- it was the BBC who defined it as "threatening"

But if the individual concerned doesn't make a complaint to the police then erm police won't deal with it. And they probably won't even if they had - ask any woman on here who's been abused by an ex partner... you are told to block and say not to contact you again because you can't argue harassment unless you have proof of request to stop communicating. It's not like people get convicted for having a bloody row.

A 20 year old rowing with one of the most famous public figures however probably did feel pretty scared

You're not the only one!

So the Sun are trying to say their story was just about the BBC not handling a complaint very well when the BBC actually tried to contact the parents twice and the parents didn’t even follow up with them once? Hardly seems like front page news to me.

The BBC must receive hundreds of malicious complaints from people with a loose grip on reality every week, how could they know this one was any different if the parents don’t return their call or email and they have no evidence?

@Sunnydays42

lemmein
As a mum, if I found out a 60 year old rich man was paying my 17 year old for explicit pics I'd ruin him by any means possible - even if I had to use The Scum to do it!

You're not the only one!

Join the queue

Add me to the queue

Pretty much.

3 colleagues have now come forward with allegations of inappropriate behaviour at work as well.

Why have they waited until now? At the point where he’s not in a position to defend himself.

It doesn't have to be criminal to be a problem though.

If Edwards has a contract saying about conduct and disrepute it's not ok.

The BBC in having evidence of abusive messages have a problem.

Even if being put under pressure, Edwards response should have been to ignore or raise with a senior manager. Not send potentially intimidating messages.

Bottom line is it's unprofessional. That matters in a high profile job. You couldn't have a senior manager in a company selling shit or providing another service, sending abusive messages to a customer could you?

It would be gross misconduct.

It's the issue that causes Edwards the biggest problem at this point.

Colleagues putting in official complaints as is being suggested this evening, would compound that problem. It'll be pretty easy to verify their concerns too by the sound of what's being reported tonight.

Absolutely this.

No denying that HE acted in an inappropriate, predatory way, deliberately targeting extremely young and vulnerable men.

Why have they waited until now? At the point where he’s not in a position to defend himself

Maybe they were scared of it being covered up or losing their jobs 🤷‍♀️

So if the Sun is saying that they they were reporting on how they didn’t like how a complaint is handled does that mean the facts of the complaint aren’t possibly correct

Why have they waited until now? At the point where he’s not in a position to defend himself

Ooh, maybe because he was a lot more senior and powerful than them and they felt that they might not be believed, or that their job might be at risk. Do you think that might be possible? Do you understand abuse of power?

BBC News verified it themselves. They read the messages and verified they had come from HE's phone. In fact, they were the ones who called them 'abusive and expletive-ridden', not the young person.

And you obviously had special information where you have seen all the proof of his guilt the whole story. That other mere mortals are not allowed to view. Until the facts are known maybe you should shut up.

The Huw Edwards I know — and saw last week

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/07cab412-1f0d-11ee-a0e9-e23dc75d995a?shareToken=d3263beaac179c01d49cdd5318895adf

From the Times. See the part where the writer met him last week for lunch, where he was outwardly in great form, and the writer notes could only have been hours or minutes away from the phone call bringing the matters to light.

The idea that behind this is some MH crisis which Flind alludes to as if it were an ongoing challenge of magnitude underpinning his actions is ludicrous & disrespectful to the situation.

I don't doubt that now he is in a deeply distressed mental state; or that he has previously suffered from anxiety / low mood / depressive episodes.

But they aren't any reason or excuse for sordid shocking treatment of (it appears) vulnerable young people and it's so wrong that that is being suggested.

I can’t believe people are still asking ‘Why have they waited until now?’ in a post Savile world.

It shows a profound absence of understanding and empathy for victims.

Because of power imbalances in the work place! There are comments about managers not being effectively approachable.

Lucy Manning, special correspondent said this evening: 'A current BBC employee said this year they had received suggestive messages on social media from the presenter.

BBC News has seen the messages which refer to the BBC staff member's appearance and they are flirtatious.

'The BBC employee wants managers to be more proactive specifically towards younger staff who work with the presenter and to address who senior and junior members of staff interact.

'They haven't yet put in a formal complaint because of a desire to remain anonymous but might consider it.

She added: 'Another BBC worker and a former one have also told Newsnight they received what they perceived to be more inappropriate social media messages from the presenter that made them feel uncomfortable

Tbh people I know who work for the BBC have had issues with culture and management before. So it doesn't surprise me to see this. There is clearly something of a culture issue.

Whistleblowing isn't easy and this is a person regarded as 'a national treasure'.

Can you imagine trying to speak up against that?

I think we will see more on these lines.

Odd how some posters have tonnes of sympathy for HE and none for a vulnerable young person who takes drugs; none for parents trying to help that young person; none for another young person who received threatening messages; none for HE's wife and DCs.
When your sympathy lies with a man getting caught out - you tell on yourself. And, in case it needs to be stated, you're in the minority. The majority of people actually do care about safeguarding; about calling out abuse; and about facts. When you have to resort to lying about everything connected to this (from the media involved to the ages of the young people to how HE made contact with them to what the BBC has confirmed happened) then you know you're talking shit. Don't be surprised then that your opinions are dismissed.
Apologists and spreaders of disinformation have no place in discussions about safeguarding or complaints processes. Your views are irrelevant.

Until the facts are known maybe you should shut up.

😵‍💫

What do you mean? Surely some of the facts are both established & in the public domain? Including the engagement with a young person at risk regarding sexually explicit images?