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!!

The disgraced broadcaster earned more than £200,000 between his arrest last November and leaving the corporation in April.
The BBC has said that if Edwards had been charged while he was still an employee it would have sacked him, but at the point of charge he no longer worked for the corporation.

I doubt it..

I can't believe the conversation has quite taken this turn but, since we're on the subject, I think Huw Edwards was a safe pair of hands as a broadcaster but not particularly brilliant or interesting or irreplaceable. Sometimes it's perplexing why media companies cleave to well-paid presenters whom the public don't exactly tune in for.

@Runnerinthenight wrote:

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

The correct word is 'disgusted', Runner. Disgusted at the excoriating of a victim of trafficking by Windsor's lawyers and the press. Disgusted at the way victims are always blamed to save the reputation of powerful, privileged men. Institutional, systemic power in the form of the monarchy and the BBC has protected Windsor and Edwards respectively, as reported extensively in both cases.

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

Irrelevant to the point I am making. But since you raised it, any idea of 'giving up her life' is over-romanticised conjecture.

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?

Would I condone the exploitation of trafficking victims in other words? No. Provide a shield of power and privilege to enable him to evade justice? Absolutely not. Pay off his accuser? Not in a million years. I

Do me a favour!

Willingly. By pointing out that every word in my former post is demonstrably the case, and that a logical conclusion of this is that power corrupts, and that too much privilege is harmful if it provides a cover for the wilful exploitation of others.

You're welcome.

There's a deliberate separation between BBC news and the BBC corporation. Raworth was saying that the newsroom I.e. Close colleagues didn't know until it got into the media more widely. The BBC corporation higher management did know

(BTW I'm not saying the BBC did right or wrong here, just explaining this confusion)

He should have to pay it back now he's been found guilty

But legally someone can’t be made to do that. If it was someone on £20,000 a year, it would all have been spent and rules/laws don’t vary according to the amount of money. Since he was prepared to contribute to the sexual abuse of 7-year-old children by receiving, then sharing stills and videos of their abuse, we can’t expect any moral fibre that might lead to him repaying part of his salary.

Again, it’s the law. Monies into a persons pension by the employer is then legally part of their pension. Changing this sort of thing would be a dangerious slippery slope. A ‘be careful what you wish for’ situation. He should go to prison and that should be the punishment.

He did not share stills and videos - check your facts. He received the images in a whatsapp message have requested to not have illegal images. Such a load of incorrect information on here stated as facts.

Not defending what he has done by the way but people are assuming that it's far worse than it has been proved to be. I'm sure there is more to the story of course but we will never know. It's a disgusting world to have been involved in. People comparing him with Sutcliffe and Saville are just ridiculous.

But maybe that's what a successful broadcaster needs to be?

Whatever.

If we were to apply the same principle as we do to public sector workers then the actions of the BBC with regard to pay are consistent and adhere to employment law. As far as pensions go the employee has contributed and should be entitled to their pension. Once we start introducing all sorts of rules then I can see this being applied to people in the public sector who are falsely accused, or suspended and sometimes are convicted on evidence which is later found to be unsafe.

With regard to the comments about the Queen, there has been not criminal charge and therefore I believe that people have a right to be treated as innocent. Again if we apply this to general members of the public I think we would be appalled if there were witch hunts. We need to be fair and measured.

It's crazy isn't it. You'd almost think these so called top news and radio presenters have dirt on the bosses.
It's so weird they give millions to people and every show going for years when we the public aren't that fussed.

I actually think we are on a sticky wicket here. Not condoning his actions- very foolish and sleazy - but how many men could fall foul of receiving seriously dodgy stuff sent by mates 'As a laugh ' - even when they haven't asked for it

😲 🫨 🫢 😮 😲 🫨

Huw Edwards is disgusting. I fully resent my tax paying him.

Write to the BBC.

I don't believe that was the case here. I'm pretty sure he invited it, welcomed it and was probably paying for it too.

Agree!
And why anyone gives a shit about who told them the Queen died is beyond me

It was a moment in history. Sorry if you don't get it.

Child abuse images isn't seriously dodgy. It's 10000000000 x worse than that.

What is all this BS about him being multifaceted and complex etc just because he was a half decent journalist?
Paedophiles generally do not go around advertising themselves as such but exist throughout all levels of society outwardly conforming to the usual norms - marriage, careers etc.

No way will they get the money back.
Director general said they knew he was arrested / charged for category A and it was as serious as it gets.
But didn't sack him. Just waited till he resigned.