TV license

[Lord Tyrion]

Hammering the BBC over the Edwards payment is knee jerk and ignoring employment law and the like. It may not sit right but their hands were tied.

 

[PJ87]

Hammering the BBC over the Edwards payment is knee jerk and ignoring employment law and the like. It may not sit right but their hands were tied.

Don't let fact, law and stuff get in the way of a good rant tho!

We should be grateful organisations can't go right your fired. Imagine it had all be incorrect, been arrested then proven to be fine but they had fired him, he say lost his house or whatever (relate to normal life)

Should focus on the fact the process was followed correctly and he will now be punished for his crimes.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Disagree. The BBC has a long history of this kind of behaviour, so much so it's actually part of it's culture. It's one of the first things you associate it with after the license fee.

There are a few things that stopped the BBC from firing him -

1. The law

2. Innocent until proven guilty

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Don't let fact, law and stuff get in the way of a good rant tho!

We should be grateful organisations can't go right your fired. Imagine it had all be incorrect, been arrested then proven to be fine but they had fired him, he say lost his house or whatever (relate to normal life)

Should focus on the fact the process was followed correctly and he will now be punished for his crimes.

And the outcry if he had then sued for wrongful dismissal

 

[Orikoru]

Hammering the BBC over the Edwards payment is knee jerk and ignoring employment law and the like. It may not sit right but their hands were tied.

I only brought it up tongue in cheek, and obviously they still had to pay him before he was proven guilty - but now that he has, I should get my money back so I haven't paid him!

 

[Robster59]

Hammering the BBC over the Edwards payment is knee jerk and ignoring employment law and the like. It may not sit right but their hands were tied.

There are a few things that stopped the BBC from firing him -

1. The law

2. Innocent until proven guilty

I was saying this to my missus yesterday. And of course some people (including on this forum) will take it as a great opportunity to do BBC bashing. But you have to follow the letter of the law, and there are times when it can stick in your craw, but there are procedures that must be followed to ensure that you are covered.

 

[Fade and Die]

The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster that makes brilliant programmes, and out of all the money I spend on various TV subscriptions the TV licence is easily the best value for money but to deny that they have a reputation for covering up paedophiles in their own ranks is beyond ridiculous.

 

[4LEX]

There are a few things that stopped the BBC from firing him -

1. The law

2. Innocent until proven guilty

I never said anything different, if you actually read my first post and then my second one.

I said as a high profile employee of the BBC, that I disagreed his crimes weren't linked to them.

We both know what I was referring to

The over payment is fair enough, even if it doesn't sit well in hindsight.

In fairness to the BBC, there's been two separate incidents. The first he wasn't charged for, this second one only emerged after the contact was arrested and implicated him while he was on a mental health break. It's just a very bad look for the BBC who are on their knees and losing money hand over fist. I'd argue it would've been better for them to bin him off and risk losing a million or two in unfair dismissal, than losing a lot more revenue in cancelled license fees.

Bolded for your convenience.

 

[4LEX]

Don't let fact, law and stuff get in the way of a good rant tho!

We should be grateful organisations can't go right your fired. Imagine it had all be incorrect, been arrested then proven to be fine but they had fired him, he say lost his house or whatever (relate to normal life)

Should focus on the fact the process was followed correctly and he will now be punished for his crimes.

Given the person who sent him the pics got a 12 month suspended sentence and Huw has some heavyweights defending him, I suspect he'll get off very lightly and be left to enjoy his huge pension.

 

[Robster59]

I never said anything different, if you actually read my first post and then my second one.

I said as a high profile employee of the BBC, that I disagreed his crimes weren't linked to them.



Bolded for your convenience.

How do you make that out? He works for them, but the crimes weren't carried out in his job. You can't blame any company for what their employees do in their own time. Or are you saying that just because it's the BBC? If he had worked for Bloggs & Co would you have blamed them?

 

[4LEX]

How do you make that out? He works for them, but the crimes weren't carried out in his job. You can't blame any company for what their employees do in their own time. Or are you saying that just because it's the BBC? If he had worked for Bloggs & Co would you have blamed them?

I'm not blaming them, just saying it's linked to them as he's one of their highest profile employees.

 

[Voyager EMH]

During my 12 years working in a prison I came across well over 100 prisoners in the isolation-for-their-own-protection unit.
Very diverse in terms of social upbringing, age, occupation, wealth and income.

That is an awful lot of employers that were "linked" to crimes of this nature.
And that is just one prison in a country of many such prisons.

There must be thousands of employers that are linked to sex offending in the way described above.
And I doubt they are any different from the employers who are not linked to sex offending.
I just don't see the "link" at all.

Crimes of this nature can crop up anywhere. Completely irrespective of employment.
Shops, offices, law enforcement, football clubs, education, clergy - just about anything.
BBC are not a special case in this regard.

 

[Fade and Die]

During my 12 years working in a prison I came across well over 100 prisoners in the isolation-for-their-own-protection unit.
Very diverse in terms of social upbringing, age, occupation, wealth and income.

That is an awful lot of employers that were "linked" to crimes of this nature.
And that is just one prison in a country of many such prisons.

There must be thousands of employers that are linked to sex offending in the way described above.
And I doubt they are any different from the employers who are not linked to sex offending.
I just don't see the "link" at all.

Crimes of this nature can crop up anywhere. Completely irrespective of employment.
Shops, offices, law enforcement, football clubs, education, clergy - just about anything.
BBC are not a special case in this regard.

I know you like to be quite erudite with your posts but this is utter nonsense.

 

[Robster59]

I know you like to be quite erudite with your posts but this is utter nonsense.

It seems very logical to me.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I know you like to be quite erudite with your posts but this is utter nonsense.

Can you explain how the BBC is linked to pornography crime any more than any other employer who has had an employee convicted of such a crime?
There must be many thousands of such employers in all sorts of occupations.
Why is it worth pointing out the BBC as a special case in amongst those many thousands?
I say that it is unfounded and pointless to attempt to do so.

 

[Fade and Die]

Can you explain how the BBC is linked to pornography crime any more than any other employer who has had an employee convicted of such a crime?
There must be many thousands of such employers in all sorts of occupations.
Why is it worth pointing out the BBC as a special case in amongst those many thousands?
I say that it is unfounded and pointless to attempt to do so.

The accusation is they covered it up. Do you really think any other employer would do that for one of their employees?

 

[Voyager EMH]

The accusation is they covered it up. Do you really think any other employer would do that for one of their employees?

I don't have to think...

Many have.
Clergy, entertainment business, political organisations, charities. Quite a big list.

 

[Fade and Die]

I don't have to think...

Many have.
Clergy, entertainment business, political organisations, charities. Quite a big list.

Hmm that is quite a deviant list.

Do you think because others do it the BBC should be above criticism then?

 

[PaulMdj]

Hmm that is quite a deviant list.

Do you think because others do it the BBC should be above criticism then?

The reason the BBC stands out is because, sadly, the ones caught are household names.

Other big establishments get less criticism because on the whole they are less known to us, the Catholic Church being one example that gets less attention.

 

[Pin-seeker]

The reason the BBC stands out is because, sadly, the ones caught are household names.

Other big establishments get less criticism because on the whole they are less known to us, the Catholic Church being one example that gets less attention.

The reason the bbc stand out is because they allegedly turned a blind eye to Saville,who let’s be honest was one seriously sick individual.
But he was also good friends with the Royals,so maybe he fooled a few.
Or maybe be not