The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2003
Posts
11,565
Location
Northants
It's all over the hole that is Twitter. If true though, I suspect they'll not be anonymous Furlong.
They won't stay anonymous for long just by the fact the person in question has been suspended. If x doesn't turn up on show y next week then they'll soon be getting the finger pointed at them!

If you're one of the names being libelled on social media I imagine you're making damn sure you're on your normal show next week!
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
10,185
That doesn't say what you think it says. I'll repeat, do you have a source that says they paid for sexual images when the person was 17?
The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
Sure, the "sordid" images may not meet the definition of indecent, we have no idea, but there is enough there to warrant an investigation by law enforcement, hence why the BBC have contacted the police.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
6,774
Location
Krypton
The BBC won't generally comment on any HR matter, and this sounds very much like it's a HR matter if not a police one until there has been some sort of investigation, At most they'll generally confirm a complaint has been made and it's under investigation, they won't usually add any more information that isn't already known.
This is, I believe fairly standard practice for HR departments all over, as the company cannot do anything that is seen to be prejudicial to the HR investigation.

"the mother complained in May", that means there has been between 5 and 9 weeks since the complaint was made, that's not long for what could be a complicated complaint with lawyers and potential police involvement, especially at this time of year when there is a good chance the person being complained about may have other commitments or may not be available due to things like holidays, or other key personal may not be immediately available.
IIRC I've heard of cases of blatant gross misconduct in very simple instances where the employee of a private company has had the appointment with HR scheduled for 1-2 weeks after the event, simply because from memory the law requires the employee gets a chance to have representation and the companies have wanted to make sure they've done everything to not only the legally required standard, but best practice (so they avoid getting sued for unfair dismissal).
I suppose the counter to that is "it's the bbc and they love a cover up, bit strange they upped their game after the story broke friday"
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,091
Location
Panting like a fiend
I suppose the counter to that is "it's the bbc and they love a cover up, bit strange they upped their game after the story broke friday"
Once the story broke externally HR was not on the hook for it, and it could be reported like anything else, indeed the news side would have been remiss not to report what was being reported elsewhere, especially if HR confirmed there had been a complaint.

The chances are, at least if things were functioning as they should in any company, the only people that would know of the complaint would be those that needed to in order to do a properly documented HR investigation and if need be contact the police. And it sounds like that is exactly what has happened,. HR got a complaint, started looking into it and involved the police when it appeared that there may have been anything illegal going on.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
10,695
Location
Shropshire
I am beginning to wonder if a CV presented to the BBC by a male without any implication they are in Dorothy's Gang is a none starter for career prospects. What a carry on for the supposed pinnacle of British television media.

They seemingly just can't help their staff swirling around in cesspits of their own making, despite the strong suggestions the hierarchy are aware of what's occurring. Maybe the hierarchy have a propensity to be a member of Dorothy's Gang too, who knows... ?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,799
Location
Oldham
It doesn't say that at all! It says they started paying them for images, not that the images were sexual at that point. How many times does it take for you to actually read what i've written?
Because what you are saying is very naive at the very least.

If your position is the truth then why have the bbc approached the police?

In your version no criminal act happened.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,290
Location
7th Level of Hell...
I'm asking you to back your claims up with facts. It's not my position. Your position is the unsupported one.

The issue you have is that you make a decision on something then defend that position till the bitter end even when other evidence is shown to you that brings doubt on that

Any rational person will look at it and concede parts of their argument is wrong and move on. Not you. You fight tooth and nail whereby the actual discussion plays 2nd place and thee most important thing is @Dis86 being right and everyone else was wrong.

It's the same in pretty much all of your posts of a similar vein. It's narcissistic TBH...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,290
Location
7th Level of Hell...
To the topic in hand - it seems silly if the presenter knew the other person was under 18 and asked for images (sexual or otherwise) whilst also showing themselves with apparently no care in the World...

There's a strong likelihood that said person perhaps misrepresented their age and said they were 18 from the off?
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,942
Location
Northern England
The issue you have is that you make a decision on something then defend that position till the bitter end even when other evidence is shown to you that brings doubt on that

Any rational person will look at it and concede parts of their argument is wrong and move on. Not you. You fight tooth and nail whereby the actual discussion plays 2nd place and thee most important thing is @Dis86 being right and everyone else was wrong.

It's the same in pretty much all of your posts of a similar vein. It's narcissistic TBH...

Asking for facts and evidence is narcissistic? If you had sense you'd realise the point is I haven't made a decision and i'm calling out those who have despite what evidence is or isn't available. Rationality is acting on facts and evidence, not feelings.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2006
Posts
8,753
Location
Around Town
To the topic in hand - it seems silly if the presenter knew the other person was under 18 and asked for images (sexual or otherwise) whilst also showing themselves with apparently no care in the World...

There's a strong likelihood that said person perhaps misrepresented their age and said they were 18 from the off?
Leslie Grantham on his webcam and a later scandal springs to mind
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
24,082
Location
In the middle
To the topic in hand - it seems silly if the presenter knew the other person was under 18 and asked for images (sexual or otherwise) whilst also showing themselves with apparently no care in the World...

There's a strong likelihood that said person perhaps misrepresented their age and said they were 18 from the off?
Once they get their **** involved all sense goes out the window.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom