BBC knew severity of Huw Edwards allegations, he should go now!

[nrohzap]

Here we go again, white powerful men cover the arse of another. I am really sick of this. If my boss found out or was told same about me (and any other ordinary folk) I would be sacked on the spot, or removed temporarily from the workplace with little care in the world. I don't see why BBC boss couldn't have suspended H while the allegations are being investigated and all these lame excuses coming out of his mouth making me sick!

They said they had a 'duty of care' and have been sensitive to his mental health... well I am sure if he was someone else it would have been handled very differently and with less empathy! Hearing him on the news last night spinning stories and trying to defend his poor and biased decision is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. It's so obvious they couldn't quite believe it or shit scared to loose their superstar.

The BBC needs to stop saying 'it was a complicated decision'. Nothing is complicated here. if you are determined to act with integrity it is amazing how you can find ways to justify your actions.

BBC boss needs to be sacked himself and now, before more public money is being paid to the wrong person.

I am furious of how so many white powerful man always gets away with so much shit in this country.

The Met asked the BBC not to sack him while they were investigating. The BBC didn't know the details nor any of the evidence. I'm not sure from a legal point of view the BBC could have sacked him earlier.

He needed to be suspended when the allegations are of such nature. What about the BBC reputation damage if he was found guilty, as eventually happened

They were aware there was serious allegations. They were asked not to investigate or sack him while the Met investigated. They were reminded that they have a duty of care to him as an employee. His employment rights were still relevant.

They'd have fucked the investigation and he would have been able to go after a big money payout if they’d broken the law.

There’s no legal protection for the BBC’s reputation.

There is for the man, who was being investigated, but hadn’t yet been charged.

Its a horrific crime and it’s horrible that he was being paid while it went on and then continued to be paid as it was investigated, but the BBC’s hands were tied here, as any other employers would have been.

He was suspended during the investigations - until he resigned.

Anyone who is suspended stays on full pay. In any job. It's the law and rightly so. The person (and HE) could have been innocent.

The BBC followed the law, as we all have to. They aren’t in the wrong here.

Stop looking for someone else to blame.

So glad I’m not the only one talking back to the TV as reporters with clearly no employment law knowledge comment on the case.

And often slim knowledge of media law too, about what you can and can't report after a trial but pre arrest.
The whole thing is driving me mad.
Of course it feels icky, but the process would be the same if he was a cleaner at broadcasting house on £15k.

After arrest but pre trial obviously

Can the Met decide for the BBC? What do you mean by 'asked them?'
If they suspected something or wanted to disassociate themselves for the avoidance of a doubt if he is indeed later found guilty I can't believe their hands were tied or that nothing couldn't have been done sooner. These are serious allegations!
My point is - was there a bias here somewhere right from the start??? Yes or no?

No. Don't go for a job in HR. You won't last 2 minutes

Well they are in each other's pockets aren't they. They all knew Jimmy Savile was a prolific sex offender but did bugger all about it

I don't disagree, just strongly feel if it was someone else the course of action would have been different, and no one was asking all these questions of the BBC. I hope I am wrong.

I'm not sure what is unclear with the term asked them . I suspect a high level meeting where the met would have laid out what the process would be and where the BBC boundaries are legally.
I think the point is that as you say yourself they were allegations . And yes there hands were tied legally. Thankfully we as a country have processes in place and don't use Facebook knee jerk pitch fork justice.

You can’t sack someone for being arrested for something. Doesn’t matter if it’s Huw Edwards or the post boy. BBC did nothing wrong but everyone enjoys kicking them.

This.

I appreciate the baying mob thinks that we should hang draw and quarter everyone from the start, but if we’re going to abandon due process then the mob won’t actually like the result. The BBC cooperated with the police and did as they asked. The BBC was correct to do so.

Didn’t he leave the BBC yesterday?

My point is - was there a bias here somewhere right from the start??? Yes or no?

Alright Paxman, no.

He was suspended and he has gone.

No one questions the BBC? I hear nothing else. It’s relentless.

The law says that employees are suspended on full pay pending investigation. To do anything else opens the BBC up to Edwards claiming unfair dismissal. I listened to the rubbish on Newsnight last night with no legally qualified person to say anything in the poorly informed debate. The BBC just allow this to happen and fuel their own fire.

The hysteria being whipped up is partly down to their being unable to state the legal position. Plus what’s Lisa Nandy doing? What does she know? Obviously nothing. The BBC is not above employment law and neither is public opinion.

He was suspended.

And what about the damage to his reputation (and career and mental health) if they had sacked him and he was then released without charge?

Edwards resigned in April. The reporting of this case has been poor. Radio 5 interviewed both an employment lawyer and a criminal barrister and ignored both of them in subsequent reporting. Why get accurate advice and then continue to have people on the radio who just get away with spouting complete rubbish?

He was suspended.

I should imagine due process was followed even if it’s galling.
A teacher at my DC’s old school was arrested for similar - we knew nothing about it until it came to court (obviously he left straight away but we didn’t know why), the school wasn’t allowed to tell us. Idk if he was fired or suspended but reading this if must’ve been the latter.

How do we get to the point where the information about Edwards and the BBC and employment law are completely opaque to most of the public? Why do people think we dismiss employees based on no confirmed evidence of wrongdoing? What if someone is innocent? Investigation is not proof of guilt.