BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 435 of 435 << First < 431 432 433 434 435

Badger11 Beckenham 10 Aug 24 12.14pm
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly Asking for Edwards to pay back £200,000 ? and doing it very publicly. Appealing to his better nature ? his moral compass ? The BBC followed expert legal advice in steering through Huw's departure. Legally, they did entirely the correct thing. What they didn't do in hiring Huw and having periodic reviews, was pick up on the fact he was a nonce. For that, the BBC are entirely to blame for not having conducted due diligence, at any stage. Leaving it to a newspaper to 'out' him, is also tragically inept journalism. Huw has probably spunked the money anyway, on home security and renewing his membership of the Cub Scouts. Just makes the BBC look a sad and desperate place, not deserving of the licence fee Loathed though I am to defend the BBC I don't think you can blame them for that. How are they expected to know that he was engaged in that type of activity, it wasn't as though he was using his BBC email account or a PC at work. Where I take issue with the BBC is how they dealt with him once the Sun scandal came out. They did take legal advice but lawyers will tell you what you want to hear. Now the BBC is saying they want their money back as being a convicted sex offender damaged their reputation. So does that mean that being involved in an inappropriate relationship with a young vulnerable man didn't? The chances of Edwards ever getting work again are nil so there is no incentive for him to reach an accommodation with the BBC. If they sue they will win but that is not the same as getting their money back. I think it's obvious why Edwards went sick he knew there was more damaging and criminal stuff and it was only a matter of time before it came out so he used delaying tactics to earn as much as he could. The best thing they can do now is review their disciplinary procedures to ensure that when (not if) this happens again they get rid without compensation and in a timely manner. Edited by Badger11 (10 Aug 2024 12.16pm) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 10 Aug 24 12.14pm

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

Asking for Edwards to pay back £200,000 ? and doing it very publicly.

Appealing to his better nature ? his moral compass ?

The BBC followed expert legal advice in steering through Huw's departure. Legally, they did entirely the correct thing.

What they didn't do in hiring Huw and having periodic reviews, was pick up on the fact he was a nonce. For that, the BBC are entirely to blame for not having conducted due diligence, at any stage.

Leaving it to a newspaper to 'out' him, is also tragically inept journalism.

Huw has probably spunked the money anyway, on home security and renewing his membership of the Cub Scouts.

Just makes the BBC look a sad and desperate place, not deserving of the licence fee

Loathed though I am to defend the BBC I don't think you can blame them for that. How are they expected to know that he was engaged in that type of activity, it wasn't as though he was using his BBC email account or a PC at work.

Where I take issue with the BBC is how they dealt with him once the Sun scandal came out. They did take legal advice but lawyers will tell you what you want to hear. Now the BBC is saying they want their money back as being a convicted sex offender damaged their reputation. So does that mean that being involved in an inappropriate relationship with a young vulnerable man didn't?

The chances of Edwards ever getting work again are nil so there is no incentive for him to reach an accommodation with the BBC. If they sue they will win but that is not the same as getting their money back.

I think it's obvious why Edwards went sick he knew there was more damaging and criminal stuff and it was only a matter of time before it came out so he used delaying tactics to earn as much as he could.

The best thing they can do now is review their disciplinary procedures to ensure that when (not if) this happens again they get rid without compensation and in a timely manner.

Edited by Badger11 (10 Aug 2024 12.16pm)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 435 of 435 << First < 431 432 433 434 435

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors