True and I expect that to be written into contracts.

Balanced against it is the duty of care every employer has to its staff and when someone has mental health issues I suspect the waters get muddy. Much better to handle things quietly and away from public scrutiny but that becomes impossible when it’s the BBC.

It’s a similar scenario to when I was diagnosed with anxiety and suddenly the reasoning behind my walking into several banks, post offices and bookies with a sawn-off shotgun became all too clear. As opposed to being arrested I asked the police for privacy at that most difficult time.

Unless his depression caused a psychotic episode where he mistook himself for Phillip Schofield, it has nothing to do with the price of fish.

He's also dealing with the issue of not being able to spell his own first name.

Is interesting reading some of the views on here and I mean that genuinely.

At risk of slings and arrows I like the BBC, have news, sports and weather apps on my phone and use all frequently. I must say much of the ire and contempt I see for it as well as some defence is often quite obviously driven by subjectivity, political in this instance.

Personally, with no assertion I am correct, I do see the BBC as being the victim of numerous of its own employees as opposed to this representing some sort of culture and/or the organisation itself, with ol’ Huw the latest example. Such a massive organisation which even reports its own ‘news’ and therefore scandal, within the field it operates, is almost inevitably going to have some wrongdoing within. It is almost reminiscent of the NHS for me, yes there’ll be plenty wrong and it is important to scrutinise it and hold it to account where necessary however we should all be extremely grateful for the service provided. I disagree however on it becoming redundant or out of date, it’s a terrifying thing to imagine the likes of Twitter becoming the main source of news, it needs to be kept just to combat that proposed eventuality.

As for Huw Edwards, the mere mentioning of ‘no illegality’ is both bizarre and bonkers. On any moral or objective analysis scale it’s awful and his mental health is a separate matter. It may factor into thinking however should not cloud the narrative in condemning his behaviour. Even more shameful to use mental health issues as a tool for excusing or mitigating commentary and judgment on this kind of behaviour. It’s a bit like saying I have no legal recourse to remove Garth Crooks from any football musing or commentary whatsoever, doesn’t mean his continued digs at Palace are acceptable however.

At least I posted to links to back up my assertions. Where is the evidence for yours?

It’s certainly an opinion but one that Ofcom appears to have established as being correct:-

[Link]