Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

cee-bee

VIP Member
The whole “bringing into disrepute” argument seems flimsy. It was the Sun who brought them into disrepute. If that story turns out to be defamatory and false, could the BBC claim Huw brought the BBC into disrepute?

If for example Huw had either a consensual relationship with another adult or he went on an app and bought legal photos, is having your privacy taken away and be made into tabloid fodder legitimate grounds for bringing your employer into disrepute?

Paging Harbottle & Lewis for advise, please.
I think a lot of people are getting confused of what is meant by bringing a company into “disrepute”.

by reporting on a story with sources, the sun would absolutely NOT be bringing anyone into disrepute. The sun hasn’t committed any offences against the BBC or Huw by reporting an account from a family. They didn’t even name Huw in the story. The “disrepute” thing would be an agreement between an employer and their employee. The sun has no such contract with the BBC and doesn’t owe them any sort of protection or conduct. What they are obligated to do though, is report within their own guidelines and operate within the law. They didn’t name Huw, or provide details which could reasonably be assumed to be him. So they haven’t committed any offence on that basis.

as for Huw - the issue with bringing the BBC into disrepute is layered.

in the first instance, there is a code of ethics that journalists adhere and subscribe to. This isn’t a flimsy ideological thing, it’s something supported by the Council of Europe and which any respectable journalist will be aware of. In a nutshell though, the code of ethics is about impartiality and integrity. Because journalists cannot effectively report the truth if they themselves are bias and aren’t inherently honest.

Huw was for all intents and purposes living a double life… but sexuality is deeply personal. And his right to a private life is protected by law. And he has the right to live a life free from concerns of persecution and so on. So I think there’s a fair argument that Huw’s sex life didn’t impede on his integrity in this instance. This is of course assuming no illegal activity has taken place and this ignores any discomfort around the young person being vulnerable and much younger than Huw. These rights to personal life and so on, aren’t absolute though.

and… that isn’t the only thing Huw bas been accused of

to date, there have been allegations of 1. Breaking lockdown and 2. Abuses of power/inappropriateness at work.

if number 1 happened (and I believe it’s likely it did) he absolutely did not behave with integrity. What’s worst, he was actively reporting on lockdown whilst himself allegedly breaking the rules. And 2. Inappropriate behaviour in a work setting is inherently lacking in integrity.

So let’s look at it from the BBC angle.

the BBC isn’t any run of the mill employer. It’s a public institution, with a royal charter and agreement with government. It is funded by the public.

in a nutshell, this charter gives the BBC permission to operate on the basis of some rules. Among these rules is the insistence that the BBC use the “highest calibre” of journalists and that they protect the welfare of staff.

if hypothetically, Huw has shown himself to be lacking in integrity by breaking lockdown and being inappropriate to junior members of staff - is he still being a journalist of the highest calibre? And would the BBC be fulfilling their legal obligation to protect their staff if they continued to employ him?

he almost certainly has a “disrepute” clause in any employment contract, which is an open ended term. It’s not hard to google and find copies of terms of contract for employees of the BBC. But perhaps more specifically is the BBC code of conduct, which is explicit

“Trust is the foundation of the BBC”


there are multiple issues at hand here. If Huws actions contravene the rules as set out in the BBC chatter, then surely that brings the BBC into disrepute, at a minimum?
And what about the guidance and rules the BBC sets for itself and expects its employees to adhere to. If Huw has broken lockdown - then at a minimum he has gone against the guidelines set out by the BBC which he agreed to adhere to? In essence, breaking his own contract.

The guidelines also mentioning protecting the vulnerable. By procuring sex work from a young, vulnerable person - has Huw gone against those guidelines?

The BBC are in a difficult position for sure. No doubt Huw is well regarded by many seniors. No doubt his contributions are very much valued. He’s part and parcel of the bbc brand and if they drop him now, it’ll reflect as badly on them anyway.

but a lot of very uncomfortable allegations have come out against Huw, and I just don’t think anyone - employee or not - can ignore that. At face value at the moment, it really does seem like he has fallen very, very short of the standard expected of him.

the BBC have an ongoing investigation for which I hope Huw will be well enough soon to cooperate with. But I do have a sinking feeling that there haven’t been any outright denials on the lockdown breaking or inappropriate behaviour because… it’s the truth.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 11

neroli

VIP Member
Me neither....I'm not surprised you are so furious, cee-bee and I'm sorry about the loss of your grandmother and the isolation she experienced.

HE was a sneaky, sleazy hypocrite...He deserves his fall from grace imo. Actions have consequences for everyone including those in the public eye who should have standards of behaviour to uphold.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 11

Gym&Tonic

VIP Member
Early retirement once he has


Bob on!
Once retired he has freedom to shamelessly have his fill of bums and willies. He could hang out with Schofe 👍🏻
Nah. Schofe‘s ego won’t allow that. He likes to be top dog, and he won’t want to compete with a similar aged bloke who has a better arse than he does.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 11

neroli

VIP Member
It's the first anniversary of the Queen's death on Friday so could be tricky for the BBC if they are planning to mark the day as we all know who officially broke the news to the nation..

I can't see HE wanting to remain "silently retired"..He's hardly a shrinking violet.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 11

Gym&Tonic

VIP Member
Looks like he didn’t have enough time to get the sharp fade back and sides done which works for me. Looks a bit more uhm, dare I say, fit for the somber occasion. 😅

I bet he was *pissed*. Most memorable moment of his career without his signature cut! 😩
Imagine how pissed he’d have been if he hadn’t got the message and Clive had announced HMQ’s death instead of him?😂
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 10

ItsDatCuw

VIP Member
What has happened at those schools is terrible but I don’t think Vicky Flind, on the board of directors, could have known what random, depraved employees (a canteen worker that she had likely never met) were doing online in the seedy privacy of their homes?

She and Huw live in Dulwich and their sons attended Dulwich College, so I don’t think it’s necessarily unusual that she’s involved with the school, or that Huw gave a talk there.

I think one of the most shocking things about this is the video’s comment section and the number of people who are shaming her for her appearance. I’ve also seen hoards of similar comments on Twitter and Facebook which is just awful really.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 10

ItsDatCuw

VIP Member
what's the latest on the investigation?
Well since he’s been in rehab, Huw has tried angry therapeutic gardening; given Clive the evil eye through the TV screen; learned how to paint bums in art class; had a go at giving himself a haircut; and is now possibly having a bit of a panic over his stolen phone and the possibility that pics of his sore eye will be made public 😶🌫
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 10

LadyMuck

VIP Member
What is a sensible amount then? Pay too little and you lose all your best talent to commercial TV.
BBC have talent?!

If he's still on the sick, isn't there a cut off point. In Local Government they pay 6 months full pay then 6 months half pay. Then start the 'Incapacity' procedure where you have to decide to return or terminate your contract of employment.

It's disgusting the licence payers are still funding his full salary
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10

Gym&Tonic

VIP Member
I wonder if he’s separated from his wife if he’s staying with his mum? I’m surprised he hasn‘t been seen in public yet, but then maybe the press are scared to publish anything because of his mental health. I suppose compared with Brand and to a lesser Schofield, he’s just been an idiot rather than an out and out perve, but how can anyone ever take him seriously reading the news and presenting important national event again when we’ve all seen his backside?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10

Tofino

VIP Member
How’s he been stitched up? Presuming it’s true he’s treated colleagues terribly and also broke lockdown laws and they are the minimum reasons he’s lost his job. Who knows about the other things like money for explicit photos etc. It’s entirely his own behaviour that has resulted in the situation he’s found himself in. There is nobody else to blame but himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10

Multi-21

VIP Member
Oh I’ve worked with plenty of people who have “resigned” but have done so because the only alternative was to be sacked. Or they came to some sort of settlement agreement. We may never know the truth here but Huw resigning “for medical reasons” was definitely the easiest way out of this mess on both sides. I would lean towards a settlement agreement here where bbc allowed him to say he resigned. I doubt he would wait this long to just walk away from them with nothing.
Maybe he just waited long enough until he stopped getting sick pay and then resigned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10

Multi-21

VIP Member
I can’t see him going down the reality tv route
I don’t think he is like Paul Burrell where anything to be in the public eye is better than nothing

I think he might go into writing books or be on the radio instead

I said on the Schofield thread he’d be on the most shocking celebrity moments of the year list in December but I guess Huws appearance on that might be limited by whether he is out of treatment by that stage. Personally I don’t think we need or should get updates on how he is until he is finished with that and issues his own statement. Interesting there have been no leaks at all compared to Schofield who seems to have new stories/sightings every week
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10

FakeSmile

VIP Member
If it was only a case of him breaking lockdown and sending ‘inappropriate texts’ (from what we’ve been told, he complimented someone’s dress, and added ‘xx’ to the end of some casual messages?), then I don’t think he would have been let go from the BBC at all. Disciplined maybe but not sacked. People will likely disagree but I can’t help but feel that there’s a lowkey sense of homophobia about all this, and that the “BBC inquiry” was just a formality to gloss over this fact. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Huw will eventually take legal action against the BBC.
I think it must be difficult because of the position that Huw held at the BBC. If he presented The One Show for example, it could probably be glossed over. The fact that he was the lead news anchor means that it would be difficult for him to lead on certain news stories.

I just hope that because he’s “not done anything wrong” the BBC don’t whitewash him out of history. If there’s need for archive footage of which Huw was there, it should be used. Can you imagine never seeing the footage of the announcement of the Queens death again?!

I’m gutted to be honest. Loved Huw 🤷‍♀️
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10

Gym&Tonic

VIP Member
I remember the night when ‘the bum’ photo first appeared. The forum temporarily crashed.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10