BBC presenter

[danumdon]

Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.

If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.

Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.

I don't remember you saying that about the BBC presenter/Huw Edwards when this story first broke? Your right of course but...

As far as I am aware none of these alleged incidents have taken place in relation to his employment at the Daily Mail - so they are not investigating him. So nor will they be disciplining him. It was whilst he was with The Sun.

The Heil and The Sc*m were very prominnat discussing alleged sexual impropriety by a major media figure emplyed by the BBC. They have yet to mention alleged sexual impropriety by one of their employees. Like people here putting a defence up for one rather than the other.

Which makes you think it's not the actions they are bothered about.

You don't remember me saying anything about Hugh Edwards because like you and others i've made no comments about him at all.

It's usually best to get your facts straight before engaging brain.

Ive got no time for people like Wooton (or Edwards) but they have a right to explain their side of any story, if its then proven that they acted as charged then they deserve whatever sanction is coming their way.

[normal rules]

Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged  last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .

Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news,  the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.

[SydneyRover]

Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged  last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .

Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news,  the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.

Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?

[normal rules]

Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged  last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .

Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news,  the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.

Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?

I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.

[SydneyRover]

Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged  last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .

Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news,  the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.

Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?

I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.

''The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday''

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go

fish in a barrel.

[normal rules]

Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged  last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .

Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news,  the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.

Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?

I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.

''The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday''

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go

fish in a barrel.

Do you not think I read that? Seriously?
I find it incredulous that the news of charges of this nature involving someone as high profile as him has take a month, anctually just over a month to be released.  Whilst not employed by the bbc anymore, I struggle to believe they would not have know about this.
He was actually charged on 26 June.
Perhaps the question I should be asking if that’s the case, is why was this not released by the Met on the 26th June? It’s pretty much in the public interest given the recent allegations made against the third biggest earner the bbc had.

[SydneyRover]

Yes take it up with the police.

[normal rules]

Edwards has pleaded guilty to all charges relating to indecent images. I hope they lock him up.

 The Crown Prosecution Service said most of the category A images were estimated to show children aged between 13 and 15. Two clips showed a child aged about seven to nine.
Category A images show the most serious abuse including penetrative sexual activity.

[Ldr]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c880zykre4lo

[BillyStubbsTears]

Simply disgusting behaviour. He deserves all he gets. And if the BBC knew about this months ago and didn't suspend him without pay, there's some very serious questions to ask if the senior management.

[danumdon]

As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.

What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?

And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!

And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.

Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.

[ncRover]

The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.

“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”

Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.

“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”

Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?

I'd guess this was the phone of the person sending him the images, but that's just a guess.

[ChrisBx]

The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.

“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”

Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?

I'd guess this was the phone of the person sending him the images, but that's just a guess.

Yes, Edwards' phone number was identified during the investigation into an offender called Alex Williams.

[SydneyRover]

As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.

What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?

And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!

And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.

Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.

Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?

[selby]

  Getting to be quite a high profile list down at the BBC perhaps a qualification of getting set on in the first place, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville and now Hugh Edwards.
  Be interesting to know where the interviews take place.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep.
Because the BBC has only employed 3 people in the past 60 years.

[danumdon]

As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.

What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?

And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!

And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.

Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.

Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?

Big difference between someone like me and an organisation that sucks on the nations teat.

They need to be whiter than white, but always fail in every aspect of their governance.

Its also clear that they will close ranks and protect some of the very worst paedophiles and wrong uns at the expense of the general public.

In my book that's an organisation that's not fit for purpose and a direct danger to the general public.

If their not spouting piss wet bol*ocks their rapeing and molesting the general public. It actually looks like you need to be some sort of "strange outsider" to be even considered for a post.

Rancid shape shifting weirdos, have you applied?

[selby]

  I wouldn't know Billy, I fell out with them when they stopped Muffin the Mule and Andy Pandy.

[SydneyRover]

As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.

What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?

And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!

And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.

Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.

Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?

Big difference between someone like me and an organisation that sucks on the nations teat.

They need to be whiter than white, but always fail in every aspect of their governance.

Its also clear that they will close ranks and protect some of the very worst paedophiles and wrong uns at the expense of the general public.

In my book that's an organisation that's not fit for purpose and a direct danger to the general public.

If their not spouting piss wet bol*ocks their rapeing and molesting the general public. It actually looks like you need to be some sort of "strange outsider" to be even considered for a post.

Rancid shape shifting weirdos, have you applied?

So no preconceptions blurring your vision dd?

[DRFC_AjA]

6 months, suspended!!! 

Don't do it again you very naughty boy

[danumdon]

6 months, suspended!!! 

Don't do it again you very naughty boy

Quite amazing the affect of what mentioning "mental health issues" can do for your sentencing.

With this being the case perhaps 95% of the prison population ought to ask for a re-trail!

[Petche]

He will need to keep a very low profile for some time now, imagine walking down the street and some undesirable nutcase recognises him!

[DRFC_AjA]

All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim...

[Nudga]

And yet if say hurty words on social media then expect 2 years in jail.

[pib]

All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim...

It’s nothing to do with the fact he’s rich though.

https://x.com/barristersecret/status/1835673864614887851?s=46&t=oRfX1WiRiEXeMOmtN1TPDA

I agree the justice system should be much harsher on this type of thing, but to suggest it’s because he’s rich appears to be far from correct.