|
|
Post by mick on Aug 1, 2024 8:11:51 GMT
I'm genuinely interested in your opinions.
My question, expressed very simply, is whether the BBC really do have serious questions to answer about their handling of the case?
Trying to put aside the obvious revulsion about his actions, it seems to me that the BBC acted more or less properly and, in fact, more harshly (at the time) than if he was an MP. The rules for MP's about suspension if they were charged with a serious crime were only changed in April or May this year.
Edwards was arrested, but not charged. In the UK one is innocent until PROVED guilty. Arrest is not a proof of guilt.
Because of the circumstances (reputational damage to the BBC for example) he was suspended. ACAS recommends that suspended employees receive full pay and benefits. Being arrested, AFAIK, is not a reason for automatic suspension - in employment law.
He resigned and was not fired. Remember that in the eyes of the law, he was still innocent at that point. He didn't get a payout! Eventually he pleads guilty.
I'm no expert on the subject and have done a bit of Googling - but not much. I still have a nagging feeling that there's's a bit of a witch hunt going on. What do you think?
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 8:23:42 GMT
Anything the BBC does is wrong.
Look at Savile, Harris, Glitter, Hall etc. The BBC should have rooted them out years before they had the chance to do harm.
It's the same with police forces who don't go around arresting murderers who have outstanding arrest warrants, hospitals who release mentally ill patients who attack innocent people.
Everyone has to find somebody to blame. If you're a newspaper editor/proprietor the opportunities are endless.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 1, 2024 8:31:29 GMT
May I assume that there's a degree of irony there?
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Aug 1, 2024 8:37:04 GMT
If what I read on the BBC news web site is correct, one can be guilty if one receives an image, whether on request or unsolicited. This, to my mind, is a very dangerous piece of legislation. If someone receives an image, by what ever means, how are they suppposed to report the receipt and thus the sender, without themselves being guilty of having the image?
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 8:53:54 GMT
May I assume that there's a degree of irony there? Mick No irony, the first couple of lines might seem like it but the last sentence says it all. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 1, 2024 8:59:31 GMT
May I assume that there's a degree of irony there? Mick No irony, the first couple of lines might seem like it but the last sentence says it all. OK. I wasn't thinking of the media. I was thinking of the government jumping onto what I suspect might be a witch hunt bandwagon. However I'm (relatively) ignorant of the applicable employment law and stand to have my opinion changed if necessary.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 9:06:07 GMT
No irony, the first couple of lines might seem like it but the last sentence says it all. OK. I wasn't thinking of the media. I was thinking of the government jumping onto what I suspect might be a witch hunt bandwagon. However I'm (relatively) ignorant of the applicable employment law and stand to have my opinion changed if necessary.
Mick
The Government will react if forced by the media. See the Post Office scandal. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Aug 1, 2024 9:13:32 GMT
We don't know BBC policies and terms of employment. Arrest may be deemed (by nature of the public image etc.) under their policies and terms to be just grounds for suspension. If he signed off on that, that's that. Lots of "ifs" but the point is all we can do is speculate.
And why on earth would anyone resigning get a pay off?
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 9:19:31 GMT
And why on earth would anyone resigning get a pay off? The nearest thing that fits is voluntary redundancy |
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Aug 1, 2024 10:04:22 GMT
The 10% pay rise (£40K) whilst under investigation for the first alleged offence was the bit that surprised me.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 10:21:46 GMT
The 10% pay rise (£40K) whilst under investigation for the first alleged offence was the bit that surprised me. Mr Angry from Purley probably said that in a slightly different tone... |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 1, 2024 10:47:44 GMT
We don't know BBC policies and terms of employment. Arrest may be deemed (by nature of the public image etc.) under their policies and terms to be just grounds for suspension. If he signed off on that, that's that. Lots of "ifs" but the point is all we can do is speculate. And why on earth would anyone resigning get a pay off? They wouldn't but I'm sure that 'no payoff' is being said just to try to head off the witch hunters.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Aug 1, 2024 10:47:51 GMT
The 10% pay rise (£40K) whilst under investigation for the first alleged offence was the bit that surprised me. Mr Angry from Purley probably said that in a slightly different tone... Not Tunbridge Wells? |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 1, 2024 10:50:19 GMT
The 10% pay rise (£40K) whilst under investigation for the first alleged offence was the bit that surprised me. I think that one is easy. ACAS recommends that anyone under suspension gets full pay and all benefits. The BBC were just following the official advice that would apply to anyone under suspension.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by daves on Aug 1, 2024 10:52:22 GMT
Mr Angry from Purley probably said that in a slightly different tone... Not Tunbridge Wells? I think he's disgusted. |
|
