AIBU to suggest a mass boycott of TV licence payments?

[BoycottBBC]

"He received between £435,000 and £439,999 in the year 2022/2023, which rose to £475,000 - £479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, the BBC's latest annual report shows.
Edwards remained on the payroll while suspended, which is normal BBC policy."

See attached article.

He has been charged with three accounts of making indecent images of children. Six category A images. 12 category B images. 19 category C images on his WhatsApp.

Do you think the BBC will try and clawback any of that huge amount or wages?

Do you think we can clawback any of our financial support of this organisation? Because I sure as fuck don't want to pay my licence fee towards this. It's sickening. (And I realise it's "optional" but for those who do need access to iplayer or live TV for education purposes or similar, it's effectively enforced)

Sorry I forgot the link and I'm not very coherent either at the moment so apologies for any SPaG errors.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng8glnljyo.amp

YABVU. The BBC doesn't deserve to be bashed for this. Public service broadcasting is under threat and we need to understand what it means to have a publicly funded broadcaster before we throw this away.

I've never paid it and I refuse to fill in the form to say I don't need one, so their sad little letters keep coming. It's been 8 years now and so far no sign of the enforcement officer they keep threatening me with.

No other service insists that you either pay, be prosecuted or fill in a form to opt out of their service. Can you imagine if Netflix did it? Nope. They can feck all the way off.

They supported Jimmy Saville and covered up for him so this is hardly surprising!
I’ve not paid a licence for many years as they’re clearly a corrupt organisation

Haha yes this!!

Agreed.

I don’t think what you say makes that much sense. They had to pay him while suspended, so they did. Now they’ll obviously fire him and no longer pay him. But they can’t claw back money they had to pay him when he was suspended. Wish this had all been pushed through much quicker, then he wouldn’t have been getting paid all this time.

It's a ridiculous archaic system but I dint think we can blame the BBC for his actions .

How is an employer to be blamed for their employee's actions that were only disclosed by the cps today months after he left?

It's normal to be paid whilst suspended .

Bugger, I will be back but maybe not until morning now - I hate it when OPs just post and never come back, wanted to reassure I am not one of those posters!

Thanks for replies to date I sometimes wish the app could enable voting (but then there's no nuance to it, I like seeing peoples reasoning)

Aren't you the little martyr.

If I could only pay for one thing media wise it would be the BBC licence fee - BBC sounds, the website, the TV content. I use it multiple times a day and it’s worth every penny. The crimes of Huw Edwards don’t make it less worthwhile.

No, I won’t be supporting this. The BBC isn’t the first organisation to find out that one of its senior employees has allegedly broken the law, and it won’t be the last. They are not responsible for Edwards’ alleged proclivities any more than my employer is responsible for the speeding fine I got last year.

I would happily pay my licence fee for R4 & TMS on their own. As long as they don’t ruin these things, the BBC has my support and my £14 per month.

Don't be silly

Every company employs sex offenders, and every company pays them while suspended.

You are being VV unreasonable to expect the BBC to be different.

The law says you have to pay someone who's suspended while they are under investigation, so you can't blame the BBC for that.
And you can't sack someone without an investigation either - you have to give people the chance to defend themselves.
It probably wasn't the case but Huw's pc might have been compromised or something.

The BBC is a wonderful thing. It's not their fault. Should be boycott every organisation with an employee who commits crimes?

YABVU. I don't have a TV licence but that us because the BBC is a biased uninformative corrupt and evil organisation full of smug patronising middle class twats. Why is it their fault I don't think they actually covered up for HE did they (unlike Jimmy Savile).

The BBC is the largest, best and most comprehensive educational resource in the country. Many schools rely on it. People don't realise what a massive hole it would leave if it lost its funding.

10 million school children matter rather a lot more than one lousy newsreader

Ironically, a few years ago, he'd have been self employed and not an employee, so the BBC wouldn't have had to pay him a bean if he wasn't doing the work.

HMRC wanted "disguised employees" in the BBC to be put on the payroll, and that's what the BBC did. Now they're on the hook for his wages, employers NIC etc during his suspension.

HMRC's ruling worked out well for Huw!!

That's your opinion @boombang I personally believe the country would improve immeasurably if it lost its funding and people would be less brainwashed. It bears no relation to the quality channel of my youth with top rate journalists and programming (apart from benefiting from association with that legacy by its name).

I’ve always been happy to pay it. It’s a few quid a month for a lot of ad free services. Not so keen on funding the people who watch but don’t pay though. Of all the things to get het up about the BBC isn’t anywhere near the top of my list.

Due to the unique way our nonces are funded.....

Fuck the BBC and every nonce they enable.

This. Don't be so silly OP. If you don't want to pay the licence fee then don't, but not because they've engaged in a normal practice of employers.