Accountability is what's totally missing. And Huw only just resigned yesterday, probably taking quite a heft 'sick-leave' in the meantime

Be honest. Did you suspect anything before the story broke for any of those? Savile always seemed weird to me but was also regarded as a national treasure by many. Bashir’s piece seemed authentic. Lineker isn’t liked here but the type of contract he, and others, are able to get has both advantages and disadvantages for the BBC. One of the disadvantages being they cannot really discipline him. They can only stop using him. Edwards was a trusted and respected journalist. The BBC have acknowledged they have learned from the Savile episode and ensured that staff with concerns have ways to raise them.

The BBC does need defending. Not at all costs but from the type of attacks that are whipped up by the right wing press who try to undermine them at every opportunity.

Without knowing what he would’ve been contractually entitled to we don’t know but if he is ill, as it seems he is, then he is entitled to it.

This caused a wry smile. Because clearly, white women stealing bottles of white wine is the crux of this issue....

[Link]

Weak management.

You seem to be one of the few people who believe Hugh was innocent. It is quite clear that he had an unhealthy relationship with a young person although not criminal and was paying them money for p***.

People going on the sick when in trouble with their employers is an old story that the courts have ruled on many times. I have no idea if he is sick or sick that he got caught. Either way he should have been dealt with and once the facts were established told to resign or face the sack.

He did not receive a pay off from the BBC but then he did receive 9 months salary before he offered to resign.

All this does is send a message to other BBC employees if you get caught go on the sick.

As to how you deal with a person who is sick or claiming to be sick. You ask them to co-operate with the inquiry either in person or via Zoom if they can't do that you send them a letter with questions asking them for their version of events etc.

If the person still claims to be unable to respond in anyway and in a reasonable time frame you proceed without them and assuming the facts are correct sack them.

Any employment tribunal will consider the steps taken by an employer to hear the other side and as long as they can show they tried to be fair, reasonable and flexible will support that.

This hasn't done Hugh any favours. He could have resigned when this came out apologised and done a Mea Culpa but because he has said next to nothing and appears to have tried to cling onto his job I think this will blight his chance of a media comeback.

Let's not forget that other innocent staff at the BBC were fingered whilst he remained silent. I doubt they have warm and fuzzy feeling for him.

As for being hounded by the tabloids it's what they do, it's not just right wing BBC bashing. Just ask Phillip Scolfied and any number of Tory MPs.

Edited by Badger11 (24 Apr 2024 7.40am)

You can be as cynical as you wish but the truth is you don’t know any more than I do. It’s not that I believe him to be innocent! It’s that everyone is entitled to be unless guilt has been established. Nothing is “quite clear”, other than that the tabloids have their teeth into him.

Of course if the facts were established then the BBC would have acted on them. Until then if the doctors say he is sick they are bound by the contract they signed. Not recognising that is what would really send a message to their staff. No employment tribunal would listen to a claim that someone was sacked fairly when no actual evidence exists.

Why didn’t he resign? He was sick. Sick people get treated, recover and return to work. Assuming it’s all a fraud to get money is pure assumption. He could me much more seriously ill than we imagine. We just don’t know. Resigning now on medical advice tends to suggest to me there is something seriously wrong.

That other staff were suspected is not his fault. He and his family were trying to maintain their privacy and are due credit for deciding to go public because of the harm being done to others.

That the tabloids hound others too is no excuse at all.