My post is described as a “word salad”, which seems to be the current favourite insult among those unable to comprehend truth in any circumstances they find distaceful, then this is served up.

If this is a “word salad” it wilted overnight! It contains not one word on the issue and is just a tired bunch of insults.

No one needs to either read my posts and have even less need to respond. Ignore buttons are not required. Just self discipline is. No one should read anything accidentally and certainly cannot reply by accident.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yet more allegations of inappropriate (as opposed to illegal) behaviour about Edwards.

The BBC has a lot of explaining to do, my own bone of contention is that he should have been fired after the Sun story. His actions clearly damaged the BBC's reputation which is grounds for dismissal. Instead they allowed him to continue drawing his salary.

As for the argument that the BBC had a duty of care and that he had not broken that law so could not be sacked, this is covered under reputational damage.

What the BBC should have done is given Edwards or his legal team the opportunity to explain his actions. If he failed to engage with them or did not provide a satisfactory response you fire him and then face the next hurdle.

Edwards would have been entitled to take the BBC to court but would he really want his behaviour gone over in forensic detail. And yes he might have won. In that case I suspect that public sympathy would be with the BBC and not Edwards.

Instead they failed to act and now his criminal behaviour has caught up with him making the BBC's position even worse.

One more point

The reputational damage to the BBC is only one factor but it seems significant after the "lessons learned" mantra following the other high profile cases.

Agreed. Media companies are quick to sack people for inappropriate comments about race or gender.

Sometimes the best course of action is to take a bullet.

When I worked in the bank we sacked a guy who took us to court and won. It made the tabloids not because of the pay out (he got 20k) but because of his excuse which the tribunal believed.

The tabloids and people I spoke to all said what a ridiculous decision so instead of the usual "evil bankers" story it was all about the Tribunal and the guy and his pathetic excuse.

As I said above I would have sacked him after the Sun story and said sue us and be dammed. I'm pretty sure the public would have supported the BBC in that case. Instead the BBC have prevaricated and it's only made it worse.

One more point

I condemn all such activity. I see no reason to keep confirming it. All I have done is look at the BBC's response and tried to analyse it, whilst suggesting we need to allow the judge and whoever will advise him to do their jobs.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Perhaps he meant after he'd received the pictures.