Huw Edwards

[Aquarius1234]

To think he shouldn't have been paid in full while off long term. As its more like being self employed.
But mainly cos it was 475k upwards of our TV licence money!
Another example is when a famous radio presenter s decide to go off for an extended break to film another show or something. Surely they don't get normal pay when they have extra weeks off not on air!!

Huw’s whole life is an act pretending to be a decent person - putting on an act for his family and BBC viewers. You fell for his phoney caring man Acting. He is an actor!

Acting a role of decent man so that he can continue his pedo life.

I was and am impressed by the quality of his journalism @Qanat53. That has absolutely nothing to do with his qualities as a human being. One of the worst failings of modern society is its inability to distinguish between the quality of someone’s work and their decency or otherwise as a human being.

Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.

This.

But they would have no choice but to pay in full if an employee is suspended and under investigation. You can not pre judge whoever you are. The rules are the same for any employed person as it should be

You can't sack someone on the basis of being "camp, weird and contrary" though!!

It pain me that he was paid that much for so long and out of public money, but yes YABU. If people were fired in the face of unproven/unadmitted allegations, then Teachers etc would be out of their jobs left, right and centre. False allegations are made and suspension is appropriate until they are proven to be valid.

He’ll have done so to avoid all the horrible details of his grubby life coming out in a trial.

I agree with this. It's such a shame and so disappointing that such a skilled presenter - and he was good! - would let this base side of himself take over and destroy everything that was positive in his life.

It taints the occasions he was on screen at 'big' events. He did so many big Royal events - he told us that the Queen was dead ffs! He had just the right tone, said all the right things. He was a master of his craft, whatever he was like as a person, rude or arrogant or whatever.

There is no excusing the depravity of his actions. That goes without saying. I don't think though that it's wrong to think it's a shame that someone so skilled in his career, who had talked us through many tragic, euphoric or terrible times, was hiding such a fatal flaw.

I envisage that his resignation was the choice he was given. The alternative would have been dismissal. That’s usually how it goes.

Nobody is being an apologist in any shape or form for HE. Not one person.

It's not unreasonable in deploring what he has done, to feel disappointed that he wasn't the person people thought he was. That someone who regularly appeared on our TV screens was nothing but a depraved bastard.

I totally understand the concept of full pay on suspension. Of course if someone is accused and found innocent they should not be penalised....innocent until proven guilty etc etc.

Buy where I'm coming from is until recently we didn't know he was guilty. He has since pleaded guilty and accepted full salary knowing he indeed WAS guilty.

Would there be some reasoning to him having to return a percentage? If he'd pleaded innocent and been found guilty it might be different but he's basically stalled for a year knowing he was accepting a salary, then poof! He's guilty!

He should pay a large chunk back.

No.

Then again, I didn't give a shit about the queen's funeral, either. The queen who used her own elevated position and fantasy magisterial status to protect, cover up for, and pay off the accuser of her repulsive son.

This is what a lifetime's over-privilege, over-entitlement and an inflated sense of your own grandiosity buys you. The belief that you are entitled to take precisely what you like and use other human beings as commodities. To hell with the cost to them.

A surfeit of privilege is certainly a thing Edwards and the late queen had in common.

The pension is more interesting. Not sure he should be allowed to hold onto the employer contributions.

There's no mechanism in law for that. I'm aware of a case where someone was suspended and the evidence was pretty incontrovertible, from an employment law perspective. Individual was suspended on full pay for years pending the outcome of a criminal trial. The evidence was not sufficient for prosecution so we're left with this employee that in our heart of hearts we know is guilty as sin, but because the legal process has a different guilt to a disciplinary, it comes down to the employer to throw the book at them.

I don't believe the BBC could have legally sacked him when he was charged, because there was always the potential for a 'not guilty' verdict. The employer can't interfere with the legal process by doing their own investigation, not until after legal proceedings have concluded.

Plenty of employees accept full pay knowing they're guilty, because they can.

That is actually disgusting.

No mechanism in law for that either.

He worked for x amount, and received y amount in pension contributions. I'm not aware of any way they could take that from him.

That is actually disgusting.

I could not agree more, @Runnerinthenight.

The employer contribution is part of his employment contract. You can’t just play fast and loose with people’s terms and conditions and remuneration because you think they don’t deserve it.

runner that’s not strictly correct as it’s a public sector pension.

www.pensionsage.com/pa/Convicted-rapist-and-ex-police-officer-stripped-of-pension.php

Yes that makes sense and i did work in that area so shouldn't even have raised the point!

It's of course unfair of him to accept it then plead guilty anyway but as you say in law it's pretty common.

And actually now I think of it I don't know why I'm mentioning dosh, as its a thin end of what he's actually done!

Oh I am absolutely not agreeing with your vicious little post. Quite the contrary.

The Queen gave up the life she would probably have rather lived, to duty for 70 years.

If you believed your son wasn't guilty and was being unfairly accused, wouldn't you support him? Or would you throw him to the kerb at the first sniff of anything controversial?

Do me a favour!

It seldom happens in practice though, and I can't see it happening here.

BBC boss admits he knew Huw Edwards' arrest was over most serious level of child images.