According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
Btw: not sure if you are aware but it looks like you are copying and
pasting subject headlines directly from news web pages which include formatting that can upset some newsreaders. Is it possible you could copy these to a benign environment (such as a text editor) before re-copying to the Subject line? That should lose the formatting.
eg. this is how your current subject line appears to me:
Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Huw_Edwards_=E2=80=98refuses_to_repay_=C2=A3200=2C000_to_?=
=?UTF-8?B?QkJD4oCZ?=
On 5 Mar 2025 at 09:27:41 GMT, The Todal wrote:
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties
properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
I think Edwards has lost any shred of dignity he once had. To return money he didn't earn is the least he should do. I dread to think what his family and friends think of him - if they associate with him at all, that is.
On 5 Mar 2025 at 09:27:41 GMT, The Todal wrote:
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties
properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
I think Edwards has lost any shred of dignity he once had. To return money he didn't earn is the least he should do. I dread to think what his family and friends think of him - if they associate with him at all, that is.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:m2qjodFoj9lU1 @mid.individual.net:
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
I couldn't agree more, "suspension with pay" is suspension with pay as per contract and I imagine he was bound by other terms of contract during that period that precluded outside activities too. To retain that pay is an obvoius and unambiguous right that any accused person should be entitled
to. The reason for the suspension should have no effect on the so called morality or otherwise of the retention of pay, however unsavoury.
Parallels with police pay on suspension under very serious circumstances noted.
Btw: not sure if you are aware but it looks like you are copying and
pasting subject headlines directly from news web pages which include formatting that can upset some newsreaders. Is it possible you could copy these to a benign environment (such as a text editor) before re-copying to the Subject line? That should lose the formatting.
eg. this is how your current subject line appears to me:
Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Huw_Edwards_=E2=80=98refuses_to_repay_=C2=A3200=2C000_to_?= =?UTF-8?B?QkJD4oCZ?=
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
On 5 Mar 2025 at 09:27:41 GMT, The Todal wrote:
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there
is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties
properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
I think Edwards has lost any shred of dignity he once had. To return money he didn't earn is the least he should do. I dread to think what his family and friends think of him - if they associate with him at all, that is.
On 05/03/2025 12:55, RJH wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 at 09:27:41 GMT, The Todal wrote:
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there >>> is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at
an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes,
there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties
properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
I think Edwards has lost any shred of dignity he once had. To return
money he
didn't earn is the least he should do. I dread to think what his
family and
friends think of him - if they associate with him at all, that is.
You don't earn your pension yet you will accept it as is your
contractual right.
Huw Edwards has every right to retain his pay. I don't understand why
people think they are exempt from the same accepted rule as indeed
pensioners do, especially when he was suspended by the BBC. He did the
decent thing and resigned.
The BBC are now telling any future criminals on their books not to
resign, or if they do there is a non-blame/disclosure agreement.
On 05/03/2025 01:13 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/03/2025 12:55, RJH wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 at 09:27:41 GMT, The Todal wrote:
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked ‘many times’ to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he >>>> earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has >>>> said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the >>>> pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation >>>> in April last year.
unquote
I would expect Edwards to have taken legal advice and to have been
advised that he is under no obligation to return the money, unless there >>>> is some clause in his contract requiring him to do so. His career is at >>>> an end, he has lost his livelihood and whilst he has committed crimes, >>>> there seems to be no suggestion that he did not perform his BBC duties >>>> properly and well.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right >>>> thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's >>>> the point?
I think Edwards has lost any shred of dignity he once had. To return
money he
didn't earn is the least he should do. I dread to think what his
family and
friends think of him - if they associate with him at all, that is.
You don't earn your pension yet you will accept it as is your
contractual right.
Whether or not you earn or pay for a pension is a moot point at best.
There are some situations where the payment is very obvious (the police
are a good example).
Huw Edwards has every right to retain his pay. I don't understand why
people think they are exempt from the same accepted rule as indeed
pensioners do, especially when he was suspended by the BBC. He did the
decent thing and resigned.
Quite so. He was suspended on pay. If he had to give the money back,
that would have been meaningless.
The BBC are now telling any future criminals on their books not to
resign, or if they do there is a non-blame/disclosure agreement.
Not so sure about that. Resigning early would be better for the BBC.
According to the Times today.
Huw Edwards, the former newsreader, has not paid back the £200,000 he
earned between his arrest and resignation, the chairman of the BBC has
said. Edwards, 63, was given a suspended prison sentence last year
after admitting that he had accessed indecent images of children as
young as seven. After his guilty plea, the BBC asked him to return the
pay he received between his arrest in November 2023 and his resignation
in April last year.
unquote
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:48:04 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |