Huw Edwards #13

[90sGal]

Good question! Any HR people on Tattle? Maybe if he resigns himself, they’re allowed to close the investigation stating that the subject of allegations was not available for interview?

Also, going to guess that if it turns out he’s unable to return to work due to ongoing MH issues but he refuses to resign, they have grounds for terminating his contract?

I think...I THINK it depends....

If an employee resigns and they are under investigation then it closes if there is no notice period worked....but say you give 4 weeks notice you would still conduct the investigation within the notice period.

If they resign and there is no notice period you should still keep info on file (not sure of GDPR timescales though) in case of re-employment.

I'm thinking also there is a judgement call.to be had...so if the complaint is considered minor then possibly suspend it and don't continue. (In the case of HE proof of the actual misconduct against the BBC)

But more severe cases, gross misconduct, illegal, it could damage the reputation of business and also involves employees that haven't resigned you would still conduct the investigation?

In the case of HE if he is not fit for work then there could be termination on medical incapacity, though obvs go through correct timescales and OH. The longer he remains an employee he would be eligible for sick pay and benefits.

Also there is a reputational perspective. What employer wants to sack someone who is off sick (if gross misconduct could be proved) ? And the reputation on the other side how do we view the BBC if they do nothing...?


Mmmm short answer I'm not sure ... its great rather than black and white

Long answer above and hinges I think on proving gross misconduct....

 

[thegossboss92]

Coulson is earning his keep :

Coram James noted that because public sentiment seems at the moment largely supportive of Edwards – who has since been admitted to hospital for mental health issues – it is The Sun that is most likely to face a backlash.

“At present, the controversy looks worse for The Sun than it does either for Edwards or the BBC. In short, the public has largely cemented the view that, if no further accusations of illegality are made, then the matter is a private one to be dealt with by Edwards and his family, and that The Sun’s coverage represents an egregious overstepping into the private life of a much-loved British anchor, and at a time when he is suffering from well documented mental health issues.

“Broadly speaking, from a PR point of view, the public has rallied around Edwards in support and appears to believe that The Sun went too far in its reporting.”

Royal Family warned over responding to Huw Edwards allegations

Huw Edwards has been the BBC's face of many major royal events, a PR expert breaks down for Yahoo UK what impact the recent controversy could have on the Royal Family

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[barabra cundy]

You're walking a fine line. If I were to say to the police "I believe Barabra has committed a crime" and the police investigated and found there was no evidence of illegality, would it then be fair to say that you Barabra are not innocent, just not yet proven guilty?

The presumption of innocence is a human right but whatevs right?

By investigation - do you mean the police search for evidence and ask me questions ?

you do know the police have NOT spoken to Huw or conducted any search for illegal images ?

 

[Squittel]

Coulson is earning his keep :

Coram James noted that because public sentiment seems at the moment largely supportive of Edwards – who has since been admitted to hospital for mental health issues – it is The Sun that is most likely to face a backlash.

“At present, the controversy looks worse for The Sun than it does either for Edwards or the BBC. In short, the public has largely cemented the view that, if no further accusations of illegality are made, then the matter is a private one to be dealt with by Edwards and his family, and that The Sun’s coverage represents an egregious overstepping into the private life of a much-loved British anchor, and at a time when he is suffering from well documented mental health issues.

“Broadly speaking, from a PR point of view, the public has rallied around Edwards in support and appears to believe that The Sun went too far in its reporting.”

Royal Family warned over responding to Huw Edwards allegations

Huw Edwards has been the BBC's face of many major royal events, a PR expert breaks down for Yahoo UK what impact the recent controversy could have on the Royal Family

uk.news.yahoo.com

I mean, it’s a perfect spin isn’t it? If nothing else comes out he could very well come out of this fairly well. Not unscathed - I think he will still have to resign but I can see a couple of documentaries on the cards. Maybe a book.

 

[neroli]

I mean, it’s a perfect spin isn’t it? If nothing else comes out he could very well come out of this fairly well. Not unscathed - I think he will still have to resign but I can see a couple of documentaries on the cards. Maybe a book.

I hope he doesn't follow in the footsteps of a certain Mr Hancock and seek to redeem himself in the public's eyes in the jungle..Or is that space reserved for good old BoJo?

 

[VielleFemme]

I still don’t understand why they went to The Sun? FFS it’s only about one step up from the Beano and is red by people who are to be very blunt, as thick as two short planks. They should have gone to the police if they felt a crime was being committed.

They did go to the police.

The police who have been repeatedly, and recently, found to be institutionally corrupt, sexist and racist.

 

[Gym&Tonic]

They did go to the police.

The police who have been repeatedly, and recently, found to be institutionally corrupt, sexist and racist.

Yes that Met have but not all other police forces are the same, funnily enough.

 

[cee-bee]

Yes that Met have but not all other police forces are the same, funnily enough.

it’s not just the met. A police watchdog report last Nov which conducted a survey across all police officers found that sexism was widespread and rampant

“Among its findings were male officers stopping cars driven by women they regarded as pretty in a practice they called "booty patrol", senior officers pestering junior ranked women for sex and officers watching pornography at work.”

only this morning I saw the body cam footage of officers who were called out to the docmestic abuse case of Kellie Sutton. They give her abuser the benefit of the doubt, call him “reasonable” and say they don’t want to have to fill in paperwork. Despite Kellie saying she was scared of him, that he had a temper and despite being hospitalised twice in a short space of time with serious injuries - they considered her low risk. An inquest into her death has ruled that her partner Steven, unlawfully killed her because he drove her to sucicide. Those police officers were casually and subtlety sexist and were Hertfordshire police I believe.

sexism in policing is a nationwide problem.

 

[ItsDatCuw]

I hope he doesn't follow in the footsteps of a certain Mr Hancock and seek to redeem himself in the public's eyes in the jungle..Or is that space reserved for good old BoJo?

“Huw…..it MIGHT be you.”

 

[LadyMuck]

I think it will all go extremely quiet now, til the Autumn when hopefully the bbc's investigation is concluded

 

[thegossboss92]

Y’all, I just had a total shock: I was watching a recorded episode of the Great British Sewing Bee and I had fallen asleep and just woke up to Huw presenting the news!! I literally had about 10 seconds of thinking “no way have they unsuspended him already!!! He looks really well?!” and then I realized it was the recording still running 🫣

 

[ItsDatCuw]

Y’all, I just had a total shock: I was watching a recorded episode of the Great British Sewing Bee and I had fallen asleep and just woke up to Huw presenting the news!! I literally had about 10 seconds of thinking “no way have they unsuspended him already!!! He looks really well?!” and then I realized it was the recording still running 🫣

 

[Sami Lee]

Exactly this. I can make a good comparison instead of a rubbish one.

A senior Clinical Psychologist and Psychotherapist who had initially been head-hunted to set up the entire NHS Personality Disorders Treatment Service for two large central London boroughs, took his own life aged 59 years old. Google 'NHS trust criticised after psychologist arrested 2010' on the Independent Newspaper site.

He had been senior and founding member of staff of that service, aimed at treating exceptionally vulnerable women, often severely traumatised with a history of childhood abuse. Turned out he was having sex with the vulnerable female clients during their 1:1 sessions at the 'clinic' (actually a hospital building in the grounds of a large north London NHS mental health unit). He had moved one woman who was actively in the treatment programme into his home and bestowed expensive gifts and money. This 'relationship' only came to light when she tried to leave him and he panicked, wouldn't let her go, and bombarded her with hundreds of angry and controlling text messages. At which point she became so scared she reported and confessed to her psychiatric nurse.

He was immediately suspended from work and then quickly sacked and struck off the medical register. The NHS did their utmost to cover it up and keep it quiet - to this day there are people who work for that service who have no idea - but it reached the national press and some people know about it. At his dismissal hearing, he told the panel that the women were inappropriately sexually behaved due to their issues and it wasn't his fault. Imagine.

It was later found out that he had been doing this sexual activity and inappropriate behaviour with multiple women several of whom had already taken their own lives. Their case files were handed over to the police for full investigation and he was charged and bailed. Then it went quiet. I was tracking this invesigation and couldn't work out why it never went anywhere. Then I did an online search of deaths and it turned out he had been found dead after going missing, aka seems to have taken his own life.

ALL of those women were well over the age of 18. But they were vulnerable and he abuse his power, status, advantage, and psychological knowledge to abuse them. Some are dead. He didn't directly murder them no doubt but he sure as heck put nails in their coffins.

When faced with the consequences of his actions, I'm sure he did have a mental breakdown and he surely did take his own life.

At what point do we make it all about him and his welfare and how his family must feel and -not- about the crimes and immoral, unethical, and toxic behaviour? Ditto HE and ditto PS and all of their ilk IMO.

And please, let's not forget that there are many more psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists who are equally culpable of such wrongdoing. Most of which cases are kept very very quiet. This practice extends to countless others who hold positions of power, wealth, influence etc. or who have powerful supporters.

That is, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable people, children and adults, is endemic in our culture. Equally endemic is the concomitant cover up culture which employs the sort of strategies we sadly see playing out in this current case.

I agree, we need a national discussion on where we should draw the line vis a vis our sympathy and tolerance of those who behave in potentially harmful, toxic, immoral, unethical ways towards others.

 

[Too Much]

Thank you. There’s a lot of emphasis on him being gay when there’s no basis for that.
It doesn’t make any difference what his sexuality is, really. It doesn’t change anything that he’s done.

If he's straight then I have much less sympathy for him because he hasn't had to suffer the tyrannical shame of society/the Church shaming him for who he is and preventing him from living authentically as a younger man. And if he is straight then it negates this 'exploring his sexuality in later life' (putative) narrative that seems to explain - although not justify - his behaviour somewhat.

His sexuality is an important part of the puzzle, I think.

In any case, I think we've heard enough snippets from posters here/elsewhere regarding his encounters with (young) men to suggest that he is definitely at least bi, if not gay.

[I'm celebrating finally being caught up enough that I'm reading the current thread and can comment! ]

 

[Sami Lee]

If he's straight then I have much less sympathy for him because he hasn't had to suffer the tyrannical shame of society/the Church shaming him for who he is and preventing him from living authentically as a younger man. And if he is straight then it negates this 'exploring his sexuality in later life' (putative) narrative that seems to explain - although not justify - his behaviour somewhat.

His sexuality is an important part of the puzzle, I think.

In any case, I think we've heard enough snippets from posters here/elsewhere regarding his encounters with (young) men to suggest that he is definitely at least bi, if not gay.

[I'm celebrating finally being caught up enough that I'm reading the current thread and can comment! ]

To be scrupulously frank, I couldn't give a flying fig about HE's sexuality...it's what he may or may not have done with it, expressed it, explored it that concerns me.

I would be disgusted if anyone shamed him for being gay or any one of the apparently vast range of lawful sexualities reportedly on offer these days. We're better than that now, surely?

Also, I really felt your phew! got there! relief at catching up.

 

[Dr.CM]

I think...I THINK it depends....

If an employee resigns and they are under investigation then it closes if there is no notice period worked....but say you give 4 weeks notice you would still conduct the investigation within the notice period.

If they resign and there is no notice period you should still keep info on file (not sure of GDPR timescales though) in case of re-employment.

I'm thinking also there is a judgement call.to be had...so if the complaint is considered minor then possibly suspend it and don't continue. (In the case of HE proof of the actual misconduct against the BBC)

But more severe cases, gross misconduct, illegal, it could damage the reputation of business and also involves employees that haven't resigned you would still conduct the investigation?

In the case of HE if he is not fit for work then there could be termination on medical incapacity, though obvs go through correct timescales and OH. The longer he remains an employee he would be eligible for sick pay and benefits.

Also there is a reputational perspective. What employer wants to sack someone who is off sick (if gross misconduct could be proved) ? And the reputation on the other side how do we view the BBC if they do nothing...?


Mmmm short answer I'm not sure ... its great rather than black and white

Long answer above and hinges I think on proving gross misconduct....

I believe you legally cannot sack someone, ie discuss that with them or contact them directly, who is off sick if they have been determined as mentally incapacitated, in hospital, and 'off bounds' - that would be because he's non contactable by his employer - any form of communication direct to him would surely be construed as outrageous harassment. So they have to tread carefully.

However, it might be the case that the BBC employment lawyers and HE's lawyers plus the union are in discussion in his absence and his solicitors may have been notified that HE is no longer employed with immediate effect and should be notified as soon as he is well enough to receive the news. As he has worked so long in such a high profile job, he knows the score anyway.

In my strong opinion there is literally zero chance the BBC are either waiting for a chance to speak in person to HE -or- leaving it up to HE to decide to hand in resignation when he's well again. Nor have any agency over whether he is employed by them whatsoever - he's a 100% goner and he's already gone IMO. Were that not to be the case, effectively it means that HE is still employed in his role, on a full salary / sick pay plus pension contributions etc and an active member of staff who so happens to be on sick leave. No chance, they would never leave the wiggle room for that dynamic.

 

[Too Much]

Huw looks so fresh faced and like a Fox News anchor here which incidentally could be a feasible career move for him...

He's giving George Bush [apols if someone's already said this - I'm still 10ish pages behind]

 

[Dr.CM]

And please, let's not forget that there are many more psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists who are equally culpable of such wrongdoing. Most of which cases are kept very very quiet. This practice extends to countless others who hold positions of power, wealth, influence etc. or who have powerful supporters.

That is, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable people, children and adults, is endemic in our culture. Equally endemic is the concomitant cover up culture which employs the sort of strategies we sadly see playing out in this current case.

I agree, we need a national discussion on where we should draw the line vis a vis our sympathy and tolerance of those who behave in potentially harmful, toxic, immoral, unethical ways towards others.

100% agree. What knocked me sick about this specific incident is that this man was 59 years old when this was discovered. People don't suddenly start predating the vulnerable at his age. He must have been doing it for decades. The case files that were handed to the police were only from recent history and not spanning his entire work life or even entire time at that service. Also he would have been in contact with even far more vulnerable and even younger women and children plus the very elderly in other contexts outside of that one specific service, for example on locked psychiatric wards, on juvenile wards, maybe refugees or immigrants who speak no English, or maybe even dealing with children.

Had he not topped himself he would have kept his pension, I assume his pension went to his next of kin. And for what, pension contributions paid by the NHS for a life time career of abusing people? So sick.

 

[Too Much]

Party for One
I'm caught up



Now we wait for the next piece of the story...

 

[Ndrangheta]

100% agree. What knocked me sick about this specific incident is that this man was 59 years old when this was discovered. People don't suddenly start predating the vulnerable at his age. He must have been doing it for decades.

But this kind of stuff goes on in Hollywood ALL THE TIME and has been for DECADES. Yet movie 'stars' are mostly celebrated ... how many bloody headlines have there been where Leo DiCaprio who is almost 50 has a different 20-something starlet on his arm? And those are just the girls we see in public. duck knows what goes on behind closed doors. Hugh's hardly the first man to be sexually attracted to a much younger person. I mean if it's an issue maybe films by Polanski should be banned, maybe all films produced in Hollywood should be banned for that matter! Talk about an absolute cess-pit of moral depravity. Speaking of which, it'll be interesting to see what happens to Kevin Spacey ...