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!!

Why the reverence of journalists anyway?

Very much doubt you know anything about that either!

Are we at a pantomime now?

😂 I think we can safely say this is guaranteed.

High five! 😂

So you are assuming i know nothing about journalism or brain surgery? Ok

It's a pretty reasonable deduction, yeah.

Youve deduced that from four sentences? Are you confusing me with another poster?

@Runnerinthenight ..” Presumably all his devices were forensically searched and these images were the full extent of what was found,”… .

I read in one of the newspaper articles that the police didn’t find the young child abuse on HE’s devices when they first investigated him. That first investigation had not revealed that to which he subsequently pleaded guilty.

It was when they were checking the other chap from the paedophile network (the one who sent him the stuff) they discovered that HE was one of his contacts. They were able to trace it back to HE that way. HE had used some sort of ‘burner’ phone/device in connection with the paedophile/child abuse stuff.

I didn't realise that. I did think it would be very risky to have such material on a personal phone.

From reading the tattle thread, didn't he tell the boy to communicate with him using the signal app- I think that says it all and presumably Huw didn't just have that app for one boy.

Nobody said it was.

😂🤣 good point. My daughter is a broadcast Journalist and has been known to get quite indignant about the difference in her younger days (she’s more mellow now)!

As a pp said it’s awful that so many milestones in recent history are now tainted.

Still don't understand this view. No events in history are tainted.
BBC coverage - the reporting by one organisation out of many - is not an integral part of any historic event. There would, in the UK alone, be ITV coverage, Sky, Channel 4... as well as everything else worldwide.
The BBC can easily revoice their film footage should they wish.

You are the first person to mention a burner phone, where is this information coming from? It has been reported that the police did not find any pictures on his phone because he deleted them when he received them. It was only later when they found the guy that sent the pictures and did a full forensic search of devices that they found the deleted pictures. This is why it was explained that he did not save the images or share them making it a lesser crime in the eyes of the law.

You are eulogising him somewhat, I didn't watch the coverage of the queens death, nor ever would, so my abiding memories of him are his crimes

Extract from article in The Daily Mail, on 2nd August, Alison Boshoff and Paul Revoir.

“Yesterday, a former colleague alleged that Edwards, married with five children and apparently the soul of respectability, used a 'burner' phone, one with prepaid minutes which the user can dispose of at will as they are free of any contract.
One said: 'I am told that his phone and [computer] devices did not belong to the BBC, they were his.'”
“All these devices had been wiped clean by the time Scotland Yard examined them last November.’
“They were able to bring a case against Edwards only because the phone belonging to Alex Williams, given a suspended sentence earlier this year for possessing and distributing indecent images, showed that he had sent the TV presenter 377 images, 41 of which were indecent.”
“As Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC said in court: 'It is important to remember — for context —that, as you would expect, the devices were seized and searched and there's nothing on those devices. He didn't keep any images.'”

I think I read it in more than one place, but I now see from this article extract that it may be only an allegation made by one of his former work colleagues. However, I suppose unless HE stated it was true, it would be impossible to prove. By the nature of a burner phone. Very ‘The Wire’ vibes.

I dont think he's an employee, i think like most presenters he's self employed, but happy to be proven wrong.

I think a lot of them are/were in some kind of limbo land between employee and self employed. Several presenters were more or less coerced into SE and then caught out when the Revenue decided they were actually employed.

Paul Lewis of Radio 4 Money Box fame did a powerful session as a witness before on of the select committees on the subject.

Even if Edwards was technically SE his contract may have included provision for time off in ill-health or whatever. Subject to contract terms it could be legally troublesome to end his contract if he was under investigation for criminal activity, even if arrested/charged. Several stars, Paul Gambacini for one, spent months or years under a cloud for investigation into allegations that were false and/or incapable of substantiation.

Of course he’s entitled to full pay if he’s suspended under review. That’s the law and thems the rules. What if he’d been found innocent?
Now however, I truly hope that money ends up being spent by his wife - on therapy and on her kids. God knows what kind of misery it must be to find out your husband or dad is so utterly reprehensible. When they’ve managed to come to better terms with it they’d do well to donate the remainder to survivor charities. That’ll help them mentally too.

He knew he was guilty. He pleaded guilty. Therefore he should've done the right thing and informed the bbc that he would be pleading guilty and resigned earlier without any severance pay. He was charged in Nov but didn't resign until April.

As for his wife yes the child abuse images must've been a shock but he seemed to have a habit of inviting men to his hotel room. Surely a wife would have some idea that their dh was gay? I wonder if like Schofield's wife the lifestyle made up for it.

@Janiie that's all well and good in theory but (a) it's reported that he was in a mess MH wise and (b) he's got the right to wait for, see, and then take legal advice on the totality of the evidence against him.

Ah yes. A convenient mess mh wise as it all caught up with him. He wife's inappropriate 'leave him alone' statement 'he's ill' 🙄.

He knew. He knew fine well what was coming and should have resigned sooner. He is a money grabbing, vein fool. I hope we've heard the last of the odious creep.

I agree with your last sentence entirely @Janiie.

But his wife isn't responsible for his behaviour. She's not the one facing charges here: he is. She should never have been put in the position of releasing that statement in the first place - another example of his craven cowardice when his past caught up with him - but it's entirely possible that at that time she was unaware of the gravity of the accusations against him. We can have no idea how much she knew or suspected.

Well, she knows now. And she's left him. For that, I applaud her.

Always the woman’s fault. 🙄