Steve Lai has made his presenting debut from the London studio - he usually presents Newsday from Singapore
Huw Edwards charged just over 12 months after he was suspended
another (alleged) nonce at the BBC. colour me shocked
Letās not go all GB News here. Over 21,000 people are employed by the BBC.
My question would be why did they pay him - and give him a raise - for the last 12 months when heās been off the air due to all this
Standard procedure. Apparently not even the BBC knew what was going on.
The scandal is over a. year old.
We knew 12 months ago he has been sexting with a minor and came off air almost immediatly. He then got paid for the last 12 months
Couple of things - and trying to tread very carefully, for obvious reasons:
a) The minor thing was only ever alleged, by the Sun newspaper. The Met Police said at the time that no criminal offences had been committed. Obviously Iām not saying that makes it right morally, but the Met were very clear that at that point, there was nothing to investigate.
b) Itās not clear - and probably wonāt be, for obvious reasons - if the images Huw has been arrested for, are of the same person whose family kicked off the initial scandal. Going by the above, it sounds like it isnāt. All we know is that Huw has been arrested for sharing CSAM in a WhatsApp chat. Thatās it.
(Again, I know we have to be extremely careful when discussing cases like this, so mods, please feel free to delete anything Iāve written if you need to, or let us know if thereās anything we can or canāt say)
The key thing to remember is that these are only allegations, he hasnāt been put on trial in a impartial court yet. At the time the police said that they did not have reason to investigate further. Obviously either this is a separate thing, or further evidence has come to light.
Not defending Huw, just defending the system of innocent before guilty.
Yep, got all that. But if youāve been accused of inappropriate behaviour with a minor and youāre removed from hosting role on the air due to the nature of the allegations - and you are not working - you should not be getting paid.
especially on the tax payer dime
A newsreader is meant to be the beacon of trust.
Again, itās innocent until proven guilty. The BBC had to keep him on the payroll until their own investigation was completed, otherwise he could potentially have had grounds to sue for unfair dismissal. The Met said at the time of the initial scandal that there was nothing to investigate.
Obviously now - and I canāt believe Iām quoting The Big Lebowski here - new shit has come to light.
If they sacked him without actually having proof, then it would be grounds for unfair dismissal.
Iām no lawyer - but surely having the trust of the nation is a major prerequsite of the job. If you donāt have that - you donāt qualify for the job - surely.
Iām not entirely famililar with UK employment law - but if I was accused of the same things he was - I have a client / business facing role here with my job in the UK - if I was accused of the same thing and it was detrimental for my company and their image / brand - Im sure Iād be off the payroll pretty quick.
Surely BBC could argue (with good lawyers) he brought tarnish and bad reputation to the corporation?
Itās a fair point. And Iām not a lawyer either. Iām just trying to make sense of why the BBC acted how they did, at the (yes, probably glacial) pace they did.
They could - but the thing is, if he could prove he didnāt do it, then they had no reason to dismiss him. Apologies if anything I say is wrong, I am a law student, but only first year.
Conversely, is it cheaper for the BBC to keep a presenter off-air than it is to defend a wrongful termination lawsuit?
Not saying I agree or disagree, but just because an employer has a clause in their contracts about ābringing the organisation into disreputeā (for example; we donāt actually know if the BBC does, but letās assume they do) doesnāt mean it is practically enforceable.
Last yearās story is very different to the allegations reported this week. The police said last year no criminal offence took place.
Unlikely. You would be suspended while the usual investigation takes place. UK and Australian employment law is very different to that of the US. Everyone is entitled to procedural fairness and the right to return if the investigation found you did nothing wrong.
Given Huwās profile and the salary he was on, he could bring a huge lawsuit for lost earnings and reputational damage if he was found to be sacked without cause or unfairly. The money the BBC paid him while on suspension would not have even covered the BBCās legal fees let alone compo.
Until this weekās allegations, no crime seemingly took place as the Sun backtracked their story very quickly and the cops publicly said no crime was committed. Whether itās inappropriate is another matter.
Ok, fair enough to many points you raise. I do get legally itās a minefield.
That said, you donāt have to commit a crime to be terminated.
You can be terminated for not doing your job well, or other reasons.
A whole bunch of 7 News employees were just terminated. People in media both on air and off air are terminated for a variety of reasons every day.
Perhaps bbc should have had it his contract or any on air news talent or jour that if they are involved in any sort of public scandal that brings disrepute to the news organisation or challenges the trust the public puts in news anchors and journalists- then bbc has the right to claw back any money.
The guy was on sick leave from stress for 9 months. Most uk contracts give sick days - maybe 10-20 - but not 9 months worth. People have income insurance protection to cover that. So Iām not sure how he can be on sick leave and get paid almost $1.5 million.
Also he resigned in April. So once you resign you should defi not be getting paid.
BBC needs better contracts to protect the tax payers pound and make public figures accountable. Now that heās been charged for a crime - and he was off work āsickā for 9 months - hopefully bbc lawyers can claw back that money
Heās plead guilty
Update: Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty