The BBC faces questions over why it did not sack Edwards
August 1, 2024
The BBC faces questions over why it did not sack Edwards
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4yr3xyv8lo
by Alert-One-Two
24 comments
Because everyone said “he’s lovely he’s innocent” and shouted down anyone who dared say otherwise. Well until this week then they suddenly knew all along.
Presumably because he hadn’t been charged with anything and he had a contract?
Because he hid behind “mental health” pretending he was hospitalised when actually he paid to check into the priory as anyone with money can do.
The BBC was instrumental in organising this to kill the original story.
Anyway, the rotten truth is out now – the BBC seemingly loves protecting paedos in its ranks and needs root and stem clean out.
They literally have a sculpture of a naked child that was made by a paedo on the entrance to broadcasting house ffs. And they’ve just spent more public money to restore it. You couldn’t make this shit up.
It sounds like quite dodgy ground for employers to be sacking employees because of arrests.
BBC faces questions over why it didn’t have a crystal ball
It would have ascribed guilt to him and prejudiced prosecution.
You all happy with your license fee being used to protect another paedophile?
I’m not, that’s why I stopped paying it when the Saville scandal broke.
Where will you draw the line?
People equivocating need to ask why they are doing so.
Would they do it if this were Farage or boris ? No fucking chance.
People are surprisingly open to defending paedos who they like it turns out.
This is all we know about what he’s done as well, god knows what else he’s done – he was willing to lie to the country through his teeth hiding behind “mental health” when the original story broke to try and save his reputation. History of predators like this will tell us there is much much more we don’t know about.
What did he get the £40k raise for? They could answer that one.
What confuses me is why he was treated so much better than Phillip Schofield.
And what would have happened if they HAD sacked him, but later on all charges had been dropped, or if it had gone to trial and he would have been found not guilty?
They would have been sued for wrongful termination or breach of contract
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
TL;DR
* He is innocent until proven guilty (or an admission of guilt) * Therefore he had to be suspended on full (contractual) pay until proven guilty (or an admission of guilt) * Unless of course his contact contained a clause that said “we can cancel with zero notice and zero penalty, if you get arrested/charged etc” which it likely didn’t. But maybe all future contracts will?
Because the BBC promote, support and protect pedos, we know this already.
Because of their long, glorious history of protecting nonces.
I would hope that everyone is entitled to some level of protection until they are found actually guilty. There have been cases of people being falsely accused and it has ruined their lives as it was tried in the public domain. Once someone is actually found guilty then different matter, chuck them in a hole and melt the key before dropping it in the Mariana’s Trench.
In this instance now that he has been found guilty I’d hope that they would go back and recoup salary payments.
I loathe when “famous people” are tried in the public domain, let the legal system deal with it, then afterwards respond to the verdict appropriately. I hate Trump but until I see a verdict or an actual genuine piece of evidence, he’s a disgusting man but he’s not yet proven to be guilty.
Because innocent until proven guilty? They did suspend and it’s advisable to maintain contractual obligations until such time as you can break the contract off
The BBC clearly took the very safe path legally. Hopefully they now sue to recover the wages paid over the course of his suspension at the very least. Frankly they should sue for far more but at minimum that money since being suspended should be recovered
I think those who raised internal complaints about his conduct will feel a bit aggrieved with it all too.
So now people *should* lose their job over allegations before they are proven?
I can’t keep up.
And they want to come into my house to check I’m not watching the telly. The hubris.
Why would they sack a nonce? Its basically required to get hired you have to be one at the bbc
What ever way the BBC acted they were going to be criticised, and dammed if they do dammed if they don’t, so they went ahead and sacked him without having the full facts then, wouldn’t that open them to a lawsuit?
Whilst Huw still needs to go through the justice system, there are cases on the other side of this that “weren’t proven.” I don’t think the justice system is the right “tool” to decide if someone should have the priveleged position as a public figure.
Take William Roache. Multiple women (at least five), largely underage at the time, accused him of abuse. The case went to court, but the defence’s (notably aggressive) interrogation of these now older, traumatized women caused the case to fall apart due to the lack of any supporting physical evidence from 50 years ago.*
**I personally believe** the five independent women whose independent yet consistent stories suggested a pattern of grooming that meant it was **more likely than not** they were true. I would not allow a child of mine or under my supervision to be left alone with Roache. However, Roache remains on TV because his defence team discredited these women’s traumatic experiences in court and people took that as ‘proven innocent’.
Please note he has never tried to sue any of the women or win any kind of case with a lower bar to ‘prove’ his innocence which presumably an innocent man would want to do? (He had no problem suing the Sun because they claimed he was “boring”)
We need some kind of objective check for public figures’ suitability, lower than criminal court culpability and independent of the whims of the public too.
* I have no problem with defence barristers doing their job, and everyone deserves the best and most robust defence they can get. But it does feel like shouting at old women and making them cry and have breakdowns over being raped 50 years prior needs the barrister to go look at themselves in the mirror.
He works for the BBC!!! They protect sex offenders it’s what they do. Not my opinion just historical fact.
Because he hadn’t been convicted of any wrongdoing.
Still hasn’t 🤷♂️
think this is a bit silly. if they knew about this, clearly he was done for. do people expect the bbc to announce this before the police have announced charges?
24 comments
Because everyone said “he’s lovely he’s innocent” and shouted down anyone who dared say otherwise. Well until this week then they suddenly knew all along.
Presumably because he hadn’t been charged with anything and he had a contract?
Because he hid behind “mental health” pretending he was hospitalised when actually he paid to check into the priory as anyone with money can do.
The BBC was instrumental in organising this to kill the original story.
Anyway, the rotten truth is out now – the BBC seemingly loves protecting paedos in its ranks and needs root and stem clean out.
They literally have a sculpture of a naked child that was made by a paedo on the entrance to broadcasting house ffs. And they’ve just spent more public money to restore it. You couldn’t make this shit up.
It sounds like quite dodgy ground for employers to be sacking employees because of arrests.
BBC faces questions over why it didn’t have a crystal ball
It would have ascribed guilt to him and prejudiced prosecution.
You all happy with your license fee being used to protect another paedophile?
I’m not, that’s why I stopped paying it when the Saville scandal broke.
Where will you draw the line?
People equivocating need to ask why they are doing so.
Would they do it if this were Farage or boris ? No fucking chance.
People are surprisingly open to defending paedos who they like it turns out.
This is all we know about what he’s done as well, god knows what else he’s done – he was willing to lie to the country through his teeth hiding behind “mental health” when the original story broke to try and save his reputation. History of predators like this will tell us there is much much more we don’t know about.
What did he get the £40k raise for? They could answer that one.
What confuses me is why he was treated so much better than Phillip Schofield.
And what would have happened if they HAD sacked him, but later on all charges had been dropped, or if it had gone to trial and he would have been found not guilty?
They would have been sued for wrongful termination or breach of contract
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
TL;DR
* He is innocent until proven guilty (or an admission of guilt)
* Therefore he had to be suspended on full (contractual) pay until proven guilty (or an admission of guilt)
* Unless of course his contact contained a clause that said “we can cancel with zero notice and zero penalty, if you get arrested/charged etc” which it likely didn’t. But maybe all future contracts will?
Because the BBC promote, support and protect pedos, we know this already.
Because of their long, glorious history of protecting nonces.
I would hope that everyone is entitled to some level of protection until they are found actually guilty. There have been cases of people being falsely accused and it has ruined their lives as it was tried in the public domain. Once someone is actually found guilty then different matter, chuck them in a hole and melt the key before dropping it in the Mariana’s Trench.
In this instance now that he has been found guilty I’d hope that they would go back and recoup salary payments.
I loathe when “famous people” are tried in the public domain, let the legal system deal with it, then afterwards respond to the verdict appropriately. I hate Trump but until I see a verdict or an actual genuine piece of evidence, he’s a disgusting man but he’s not yet proven to be guilty.
Because innocent until proven guilty? They did suspend and it’s advisable to maintain contractual obligations until such time as you can break the contract off
The BBC clearly took the very safe path legally. Hopefully they now sue to recover the wages paid over the course of his suspension at the very least. Frankly they should sue for far more but at minimum that money since being suspended should be recovered
I think those who raised internal complaints about his conduct will feel a bit aggrieved with it all too.
So now people *should* lose their job over allegations before they are proven?
I can’t keep up.
And they want to come into my house to check I’m not watching the telly. The hubris.
Why would they sack a nonce? Its basically required to get hired you have to be one at the bbc
What ever way the BBC acted they were going to be criticised, and dammed if they do dammed if they don’t, so they went ahead and sacked him without having the full facts then, wouldn’t that open them to a lawsuit?
Whilst Huw still needs to go through the justice system, there are cases on the other side of this that “weren’t proven.” I don’t think the justice system is the right “tool” to decide if someone should have the priveleged position as a public figure.
Take William Roache. Multiple women (at least five), largely underage at the time, accused him of abuse. The case went to court, but the defence’s (notably aggressive) interrogation of these now older, traumatized women caused the case to fall apart due to the lack of any supporting physical evidence from 50 years ago.*
**I personally believe** the five independent women whose independent yet consistent stories suggested a pattern of grooming that meant it was **more likely than not** they were true. I would not allow a child of mine or under my supervision to be left alone with Roache. However, Roache remains on TV because his defence team discredited these women’s traumatic experiences in court and people took that as ‘proven innocent’.
Please note he has never tried to sue any of the women or win any kind of case with a lower bar to ‘prove’ his innocence which presumably an innocent man would want to do? (He had no problem suing the Sun because they claimed he was “boring”)
We need some kind of objective check for public figures’ suitability, lower than criminal court culpability and independent of the whims of the public too.
* I have no problem with defence barristers doing their job, and everyone deserves the best and most robust defence they can get. But it does feel like shouting at old women and making them cry and have breakdowns over being raped 50 years prior needs the barrister to go look at themselves in the mirror.
He works for the BBC!!! They protect sex offenders it’s what they do. Not my opinion just historical fact.
Because he hadn’t been convicted of any wrongdoing.
Still hasn’t 🤷♂️
think this is a bit silly. if they knew about this, clearly he was done for. do people expect the bbc to announce this before the police have announced charges?