|
|
Post by zx9 on Aug 1, 2024 11:06:04 GMT
True. Next question, how could I forget Steve Wright so quickly? |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 11:16:53 GMT
Mr Angry from Purley probably said that in a slightly different tone... Not Tunbridge Wells? It's his twin sister...well up until the transition  |
|
|
|
Post by petrochemist on Aug 1, 2024 12:32:04 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
A pay rise well above inflation is not a standard benefit. I'm with Keith on this one, it's a surprise & somewhat inappropriate. Holding any above inflation portion of the pay rise until after the investigation was over (IF it cleared him) would make far more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Aug 1, 2024 12:41:31 GMT
Booting out immediately for this sanctimonious hypocrite (yes, I never liked him) would be appropriate as far as I'm concerned. March him off the premises with no benefits. I'm sick of people in the BBC who are totally undeserving, getting my money!!
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Aug 1, 2024 13:01:42 GMT
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
A pay rise well above inflation is not a standard benefit. I'm with Keith on this one, it's a surprise & somewhat inappropriate. Holding any above inflation portion of the pay rise until after the investigation was over (IF it cleared him) would make far more sense. Discriminating before procedures are held is not appropriate and likely would result in a successful claim against the employer. In this case it seems obvious as we know the outcome but as a general rule that's so so wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Aug 1, 2024 15:29:39 GMT
Booting out immediately for this sanctimonious hypocrite (yes, I never liked him) would be appropriate as far as I'm concerned. March him off the premises with no benefits. I'm sick of people in the BBC who are totally undeserving, getting my money!!
I have to say that I never liked him, either, Kate... even when he was being lauded as the BBC's 'dependable and trustworthy' broadcaster.  At that time, I seemed to be in the minority, but now feel somewhat vindicated in my opinion.
Having said that, I agree with zou's comment about "discriminating before procedures are held", since everyone is (supposedly, at least) innocent until proven guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Aug 1, 2024 15:40:22 GMT
While one must give him a fair trial before "giving him a good hanging", one would think in all the circumstances a fast track procedure would be justified. Surely there are still some circumstances still merit summary dismissal?
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 1, 2024 17:34:40 GMT
While one must give him a fair trial before "giving him a good hanging", one would think in all the circumstances a fast track procedure would be justified. Surely there are still some circumstances still merit summary dismissal? As a lawyer you know it depends what is in the contract and the code of conduct (if they have one). Any slip ups and other lawyers would have a field day. That's not say the lynch mob would be wrong...but they should wait for proper authorisation |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Aug 1, 2024 17:40:42 GMT
While one must give him a fair trial before "giving him a good hanging", one would think in all the circumstances a fast track procedure would be justified. Surely there are still some circumstances still merit summary dismissal? As a lawyer you know it depends what is in the contract and the code of conduct (if they have one). Any slip ups and other lawyers would have a field day. That's not say the lynch mob would be wrong...but they should wait for proper authorisation Your saying the Beeb does not have a "bringing into disrepute Clause? Oh, wait a minute this is auntie we are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Aug 1, 2024 19:23:58 GMT
While one must give him a fair trial before "giving him a good hanging", one would think in all the circumstances a fast track procedure would be justified. Surely there are still some circumstances still merit summary dismissal?
What about if he were a Tory voter? That should be enough.  |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Aug 1, 2024 19:43:00 GMT
While one must give him a fair trial before "giving him a good hanging", one would think in all the circumstances a fast track procedure would be justified. Surely there are still some circumstances still merit summary dismissal?
What about if he were a Tory voter? That should be enough. Neutering is too good for them. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 2, 2024 9:31:56 GMT
The more I read the more I think that the BBC probably handled the issue properly. Note the probably - covering myself in case further revelations pop up! I'm not going to write pages, but here are a few points that stick in my mind. 1. The police requested and confirm that they requested secrecy. They also confirm that they found nothing illegal after the Sun newspaper allegations. The police also requested (July 2023) that the BBC suspend its internal investigation pending the police investigation. 2. Being arrested is not necessarily a sacking offence 3. Being charged moves the issue to a much higher level because, at that point, the police (or is it CPS) think that there's enough evidence to prosecute. Even at this stage it's not per se a sacking offence but in this particular case, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence and the likely reputational damage to the BBC it almost certainly would be. 4. Suspension on full pay and full benefits is the norm - for anyone not just Edwards and, again, it seems that the BBC acted properly.
5. It must have been in their minds that it cost a great deal of money when they screwed up the Cliff Richard affair.
I'm thoroughly fed up with politicians posturing and spouting what they think the public might want to hear, and equally fed up with commentators talking about 'the optics'. What a loathsome turn of phrase. That's my colours nailed to the mast, but I reserve the right to change my mind should other facts emerge. Mick |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Aug 2, 2024 10:14:54 GMT
The more I read the more I think that the BBC probably handled the issue properly. Note the probably - covering myself in case further revelations pop up! I'm not going to write pages, but here are a few points that stick in my mind. 1. The police requested and confirm that they requested secrecy. They also confirm that they found nothing illegal after the Sun newspaper allegations. The police also requested (July 2023) that the BBC suspend its internal investigation pending the police investigation. 2. Being arrested is not necessarily a sacking offence 3. Being charged moves the issue to a much higher level because, at that point, the police (or is it CPS) think that there's enough evidence to prosecute. Even at this stage it's not per se a sacking offence but in this particular case, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence and the likely reputational damage to the BBC it almost certainly would be. 4. Suspension on full pay and full benefits is the norm - for anyone not just Edwards and, again, it seems that the BBC acted properly.
5. It must have been in their minds that it cost a great deal of money when they screwed up the Cliff Richard affair.
I'm thoroughly fed up with politicians posturing and spouting what they think the public might want to hear, and equally fed up with commentators talking about 'the optics'. What a loathsome turn of phrase. That's my colours nailed to the mast, but I reserve the right to change my mind should other facts emerge. Mick That seems a fair summary. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 2, 2024 10:22:46 GMT
The more I read the more I think that the BBC probably handled the issue properly. Note the probably - covering myself in case further revelations pop up! I'm not going to write pages, but here are a few points that stick in my mind. 1. The police requested and confirm that they requested secrecy. They also confirm that they found nothing illegal after the Sun newspaper allegations. The police also requested (July 2023) that the BBC suspend its internal investigation pending the police investigation. 2. Being arrested is not necessarily a sacking offence 3. Being charged moves the issue to a much higher level because, at that point, the police (or is it CPS) think that there's enough evidence to prosecute. Even at this stage it's not per se a sacking offence but in this particular case, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence and the likely reputational damage to the BBC it almost certainly would be. 4. Suspension on full pay and full benefits is the norm - for anyone not just Edwards and, again, it seems that the BBC acted properly.
5. It must have been in their minds that it cost a great deal of money when they screwed up the Cliff Richard affair.
I'm thoroughly fed up with politicians posturing and spouting what they think the public might want to hear, and equally fed up with commentators talking about 'the optics'. What a loathsome turn of phrase. That's my colours nailed to the mast, but I reserve the right to change my mind should other facts emerge. Mick There's not much to disagree with, especially point 5 and your next line. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 4, 2024 8:42:46 GMT
|
|
At that time, I seemed to be in the minority, but now feel somewhat vindicated in my opinion.
