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

[teddyandgypsy]

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.

Please point out the untruths

I would hope that if anyone was in hospital on sick leave, their employer would not harass them. They have a duty of care as employers. I can't even ring a colleague who is off sick to ask them a simple admin query! And there is no proof he sent an underage person naked pictures, because the person involved denied it. He also has a long publicised history of droression. This is not equivalent to the Brand case.

Haven't you been doing enough pitch fork polishing this week already? It's a HR matter now. No police charges.

You are hoping everyone jumps on your thread and froths making you the centre of attention after already being angered by the allegations about Brand.

This world is becoming more tragic by the day.

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

All of you stating that's what he did. I presume you personally have proof of his criminal activity then?
The matter that the site he was on was for 18+ only immaterial then?
You are now the morality police? That is where the Taliban put themselves took

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4900102-when-is-the-bbc-going-to-square-up-to-huw-edwards?reply=129304723&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.