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!!

His wife is a professional woman herself so hardly needed him to maintain her lifestyle as some have suggested above. She is/was the editor on Preston show and an intelligent woman who is well regarded and respected.

Can only assume she was unaware of his “double life”.

The Mail has an article on him today.
It's very tough on his ex wife and family.
I wonder had they any idea of this side of his life ?

what a fall from grace

BBC seems to really embrace predators.

True the BBC has got things badly wrong with at least two predators. It's a massive organisation though, with more than its share of big egos. Like Parliament really - but much bigger
The common denominator is men tbh

Bear in mind that predators are common. A large organisation will inevitably have some.

I don't think you get to make the rules?

The BBC has 21000 employees. Just saying. And other TV channels have had issues too. Do you think it might be men?

You believed the Mail? Hahahaha. They make it up.

By your logic, The Mail must be making it up here too...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13746473/BBC-Huw-Edwards-news-sexual-assault.html

I think dislike against something clouds people's overall judgment sometimes, like when The Sun first reported that incident with the lad who now believes he was groomed but people believed that it was an anti-BBC witch-hunt against Huw and the newspaper made it all up.

It's madness and entirely Trumpian that they wholeheartedly believed it was fake news and its indeed madness and entirely Trumpian that you believe it to be fake news in this case as well.

Wouldn’t trust it at all until fact checked.

@Sharptonguedwoman . Maybe, maybe not. I am not at all surprised at your allegation, or even that news outlets make things up sometimes. Vis a vis the article on Edwards, it was apparently a comment/allegation by a colleague of his. I stated that in a post further down from my first, but maybe you didn’t get that far. I checked their website just now. They stated that (a) Meghan Markle spoke in Spanish. (b)Bad weather is on its way as the remnants of a hurricane is about to bring bad weather to the UK. Also (c) US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinkin, has landed in Israel for Gaza ceasefire talks. Of course, as you have alleged, the Mail just makes it up. So for a, b and c, I went Hahahaha. Just like yourself. And even Hahahahahahahahahaha.

However, you are quite right to point out that newspapers can print articles/ opinion pieces if it corresponds with their ideological bent/bias or sensationalism, whether it is true or not. The Guardian for example. My husband read an article about males in women’s boxing during the Olympics which turned out to be more anti-science/flat earth rubbish than a news article. Poor chap was very disappointed (we would in the past have been Guardian during the week/ Observer at weekend). The veil had been lifted from my eyes quite a while ago when they didn’t correct an article (indeed let it stand) which turned out to be misinformation.

Not to worry, I am suitably aware that newspapers/news outlets can be less than reliable/truthful/ and also can be happy to let lies stand uncorrected.

Isn't Imane Khelif a woman though not a man?

Isn't she going to caught to sue JK and Musk?

This is the problem with all the transvestigations

Joe Public doesn't have the faintest clue how long some employees can be suspended. Years in some cases!

Really YEARS??!!

Years. I had a job where a guy was suspended for nearly four years.

That is crazy! 😧 Well you learn something new everyday.

Nobody should be suspended for longer than it takes for the employer to investigate and go through due process which I guess could run into weeks if it's complicated and HR/Legal involved.

It's not just the money/principle. If the employee is ultimately cleared how, in the name of all that is holy, do they return after weeks or months, never mind years?

IMO BBC seems to have leadership style which emboldens complete A-holes, they (the a-holes) break the impartiality rules, harass staff and misbehave and BBC seems to give them more & more money for fear of what? Losing licence fees? Puh-leeze.
Perhaps should having a 5 year maximum in BBC employment, prob takes exactly that long for BBC to create a toxic a-hole.

It shouldn't happen but it can and does. If there is a police investigation, the employer typically will not investigate until that's concluded. Then there's the investigation itself, which can take months easily. You could then have a couple of internal appeals, an external appeal. The person in my organisation would remain suspended on full pay until that process has been exhausted. Then there could be an industrial tribunal after all that.

I don't think that's confined to the BBC though. Money, power and status can embolden people to misbehave in a way that they might not have done had they not been in that position. They think they're untouchable, and sometimes they are, because of the power they wield.