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!!

I don’t see how the BBC can legitimately recoup any money. They could have terminated his employment any time after November and they didn’t, presumably because it could have left them open to being sued for wrongful dismissal. They made the decision to keep him on the payroll.

I don't even think he did the queen announcement well: he was wearing a black tie, even before the official announcement of her death, so it was a bit of a giveaway!
The death of the longest serving monarch is indeed a moment in history, but it's of little importance who announced it on the BBC. I don't know who announced any other moments in history and it doesn't lessen their importance or impact.

Perverted old bastard. I'm guessing his 'depression' won't be that bad that he finishes himself off.
And there is no fucking link to be made between his mental health and child abuse anyway.

Yes, it's too late to recover any money now and there's no legal way they can reclaim his pension. With the court case it was innocent until proven guilty- BUT I would have thought that they could have legitimately got rid of him when admitted that he paid 35k to a vulnerable teenager for sexual images on a bringing the BBC into disrepute/ morality clause basis. Most media contracts have something of that nature- if his didn't, why didn't it?!

The powers that be didn't do that and it sounds like the investigation into his working practices ( asking young men out for drinks/ share his hotel room) must have been less than rigorous too.

Omg he didn't let 'the based side take over' it was who he was. Can we stop with this mysterious 'based side' crap. He has pleaded guilty to having child sex offence images. Wtf is 'based' about that? 'Fatal flaw' 🙄

Reading the news is not highly skilled. He should not have been paid his ridiculous salary for reading an autocue. Once again the bbc have cocked up massively.

Of course there have not been criminal charges. It was initially rugswept by the demonstrably corrupt and institutionally sexist Met police. The later action was a civil case.

I'm well-versed in the frivolous objections of a 'witch hunt': untrue and highly ironic in the circumstances. Witch hunts persecuted women. And, consistently with this, the one whose reputation was mostly attacked was - as ever - the victim. As for Andrew Windsor, he convicted himself out of his own mouth on national television.

It IS legitimate to point out how endemic the problem of men's predilections are, the way in which society will do almost anything not to blame them but is happy automatically to believe victims are lying, and the lengths certain privileged institutions will go to to cosset and protect these men. This thread is ample evidence of the lack of concern some people have about the cost to victims.

The point about the power of the monarchy and BBC and the role they played in protecting predatory men is important - not least post-Operation Yewtree when people naively hoped that #TimesUp.

If only.

The parallels are unmistakable here in the light of that particular broadcast of Huw Edwards', and they still need to be pointed out. People's denial and discomfiture with unpalatable facts shouldn't preclude that - conversely, they illustrate why such discussion necessary. The BBC knew. It admits it knew. These cover-ups are STILL happening despite this no longer being such a hidden problem.

Likewise. Anything that can possibly be done to excuse, rugsweep, declare 'witch hunt!', deflect blame onto victims or suggest that they are lying, is done, every time, in situations like this. Or, failing that, the victims have 'ruined' the perpetrators' lives.

The privileged institutions protecting them can rely on their reverence from the public to excuse their actions. All are to varying degrees actively complicit in emboldening and enabling these predators. But the guilty ones are the predatory men.

Anything, absolutely anything, but blame the men responsible.

I have to ask, when I see these tediously predictable responses: who stands to gain by keeping the status quo exactly as it is?

I have already said I am aware that it is a huge historical event - after 90yrs the death of an extremely rich woman from an extremely wealthy family who has never had to cook, clean, shop, barely needs to dress herself, has staff to raise her children, has the access to the best medical care, travels in private cars/trains/planes, makes small talk at dinners, cuts ribbons, occasionally waves from a balcony and occasionally gives a speech (written by someone else).

It’s not lacking emotional intelligence to call out that in modern times the RF add very little to our society and seeming have very poor judgement in running their own lives with any decency.

It’s certainly lacking in intelligence to wail “but he announced the Queen’s death to the nation”. So fucking what if he did.

(It was probably on twitter first anyway)

The point about him announcing the death of the queen isn't about being a sycophantic royal-worshipper, it's about Huw Edwards being chosen by the BBC to be the face and voice of national events. Events have happened over the last few years that have entered the national archive - the 2012 Olympic opening and closing ceremonies, the coronation, royal weddings and funerals - events that are going to be part of UK history, and this skeevy, nasty creep is all over them. You'd like to think that if he had the whiff of scandal about him, if anyone at the BBC knew about his habit of contacting young fans online or coming on to young male staffers, then they might have anticipated some kind of fallout one day.

It also misses the clear parallels between what we now know of Huw Edwards, what we previously knew about the BBC, and what we saw of the behaviour of the Windsors surrounding Andrew, his mother's protection of him, some of the company that family keeps, and a particular, supportive letter written by Charles to Peter Ball (now convicted of a similar offence).

For all the wrong reasons, Edwards was entirely the most 'appropriate' man to make such an announcement. Of course, where the sycophants come in is that those who revere powerful, privileged institutions will become irate and deny these connections for all they are worth. Such a sleazy, depraved man should have no place near the 'higher' institution of the above-the-law monarchy.

Except he should. The rest of us see those parallels for exactly what they are. They throw the abuse of those power embodied within those institutions into stark relief. The BBC are not alone: other elite institutions are just as bad, and the monarchy falls sharply into that category. If entry into the national archives shames our nation, so much the better.

Because, somehow, this needs to stop.

@SerafinasGoose - you said it much better than me.

I know people really will excuse category A criminality which is highest level because he could read an autocue with a sombre expression and good accent

What madness am I even reading

Edwards was very good at what he did. Otherwise he wouldn't have been lead presenter on so many national occasions.

He's now fallen from grace.

That's it really.

He's now fallen from grace

He’s now been charged with a serious crime ie category A making of imagery

That’s it really. Without the soft sell downplaying

He's pleaded guilty to making indecent images and thus has fallen from grace.

But he'd fallen already due to the entirely separate issue of paying a youngster, possibly a vulnerable youngster, for naked pictures.

Fallen from grace!!. It's up there with he 'debased himself' with his 'fatal flaws' isn't it. He had such a nice voice though before he was betrayed by himself .

He was a pervert folks, viewing child sex abuse. He might have had a nice voice but you must stop with the yeah but no but the Queen’s death coverage was so nicely done sycophancy.

It’s not sycophancy. Not everyone sees life in monochrome.

This is really is monochrome.

Doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t do in his career. Doesn’t matter whether he cleaned toilets, saved lives or provided the voice over for pointless events in our history.

Nobody on here is sticking up for him but you do need to separate fact from fiction and there is a lot of fiction being posted as fact.

Everything that is coming out now about him soliciting photos from young people is as sleazy as hell and frankly repulsive but not illegal. Why is it that so many older men do this? He was investigated for this and cleared. I find this disgusting and maybe the BBC had an inkling but ignored it, tricky to fire someone for being a revolting sleaze but not impossible.

The images that he was sent, looked at, and deleted is his only crime for not reporting the sender the first time. There will be more to this that we will never know, he asked for images, specifically asked for nothing illegal but got them and looked at them anyway. He will be punished by the courts for this but I doubt it will be anything very much as in the eyes of the law it is not a huge crime, maybe this is what everyone should concentrate on and petition for change.

His reputation is destroyed, his family destroyed, there is no coming back from this and nor should there be. They must be deeply ashamed of him.

@DysonSphere yes I totally agree on all those points- he clearly is a sleazy twat and deserves everything coming
my response was more about the specifics of 'receiving' of non solicited posts . I am not sure those aspects should be relevant in a court case- because sadly it's pretty common amongst the male population -

People keep saying young men but is there any actual evidence the pictures he paid for were of a teenage man?

Well some were children as young as 7-9, so definitely not men.
The final category A image was definitely described as being a young boy of 7-9.

@Molly499 - I broadly agree with what you posted but not sure which parts you are referring to when you say there is a lot of fiction being posted as fact

My understanding is that young men under 18 cannot legally share photos of themselves for sexual purposes. So technically it was illegal for him to solicit photos from the 17 year old.

I don't know why nothing was actually done about that.

Possible, if it's actually true that the person was under 18, that they wouldn't cooperate with a prosecution and/or there was nothing to be gained from it.