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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 😉

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.

Not his fault what the teenager spends his money on. The teenager was an adult not a child.

It really shouldn't be. Once he's paid it is up to him how he spends his money. Are you just jealous because he's paid more than you?

Yes. What has RB being accused of rape got to do with HE?

Some extraordinary responses that, more than anything else, illuminate how it is that RB flourished for so long. Britain's top broadcaster paid from public funds spending his time soliciting sleazy images from those many years younger than him, and people think its fine. Reporting on and possibly interviewing those involved in sex scandals on behalf of the public - not a problem, apparently, just something to fit in between covering the King's coronation. Britain is lost.

No one has supported him in what he's done. And of course anyone would be furious if it was their offspring involved. But he has committed no crime.

Who has said it is fine? Please quote whoever it was.

I don’t condone Huw Edwards’ behaviour, but are you seriously implying that no one working in the public sector is entitled to a private life?

Look, that is just silly. Let me turn it back on you - are you seriously saying that whatever a BBC presenter does in his private life is perfectly alright? I'm sure you aren't saying that anymore than I am saying no to privacy. But surely you can see that with high office comes responsibility. He is the most high profile BBC presenter and (apart from the odious Lineker) the highest paid. He speaks for the nation when he presents events of national significance such as the Queen's funeral and the King's coronation. He interviews national leaders and reports on events of importance. We are surely entitled to expect some degree of probity in such people?

If you can't see that it is impossible to have 62 year old bloke who buys sexual images from youngsters reporting on problems of a similar nature in another high profile figure, then I cant possibly explain.

Yes, I am saying that. Provided it’s legal, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, other than those directly involved. He’s a newsreader, not anyone making big, important decisions about the country.

This comment is so daft I can't respond.

Thanks for your honesty. I can't agree. Using his best sepulchral tones to convey the gravity of the death of our much-loved Queen, before adjourning to sex messaging somebody's young son or daughter? Not for me, I'm afraid.

How many times, he's not paid from public funds. His salary comes from the licence fee, so individuals who pay the licence fee. That's not the same as public funds.

Why waste your time thinking about other people's sex lives or preferences. Should anyone who announces the death of the late Queen be asexual or is there a list of things that are suitable for them to have indulged in? Is sex in the missionary position the gold standard? I think it is a bit bizarre to be dwelling on what goes on in someone else's head or bedroom.

There is nothing similar about looking at naked photographs and raping women. I think that is a very strange thing to say and frankly very dismissing of rape and the women who have been subjected to it.

@teddyandgypsy - your hysteria is ridiculous. And you clearly have an agenda, mentioning the 'odious Lineker'. Maybe you should try GB News, sounds more up your street. Just don't watch Dan Wootton.

Never mentioned rape. Not once.

Clearly this forum has different values to my own. I can quite see why RB has so successfully operated as a Grade 1 sleazebag in this climate. Over and out.

By mentioning the Russel Brand case, you are mentioning rape. That’s literally what he has been accused of.

You’re suggesting that a bloke who looks at consensually shared explicit images is somehow unsuitable to cover a news story about a (alleged) rapist. Do you really think these “crimes” are equivalent? Because that is what your comments on this thread would suggest.

Before you question other people’s morals, I’d have a good long look at your own.

This