Licence payers of BBC ..are presenters accountable to British Viewers?

Two men ?

Casdon, yes it does mean, identifying the young person who didn’t want to go public, why didn’t the parents think of that?

I’ve read of threats about removal of anonymity even on GN. Investigative journalism, in the public interest will all be put up as reasons for removing anonymity of the family unless revealing the name is made illegal.

Which brings us back to Did anything illegal happen (apart from the alleged drug use of the young person)?

And if something illegal did happen, HE’s anonymity does not exist, but if the young person is charged with taking drugs, why would they be granted anonymity when it comes to court?

Doesn’t that mean identifying the young person though Mollygo, who presumably doesn’t want to go public, and who can blame them given how the Schofield story played out and how that poor young man was hounded, quite inappropriately? I really hope that doesn’t happen again.
I find it very hard to forgive the parents, not so much for going to the Sun, although the paper should not have published without the young person’s permission - but selling their story on Talk TV is just awful.
I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but this is exactly what I was getting at when I talked about speculation on 'both sides' of this debate.

I haven't heard that the story was 'sold' - either to the Sun or Talk TV. In fact The Sun specifically said that the parents hadn't asked for money.

We don't know whether the young man in this or the PS case was paid off, or whether the son in the HE case doesn't want to be identified - again, that is speculation.

When we know so few facts, and when two very rich and famous men, and two very young and (in their own ways) vulnerable young ones are involved, I find it easier to believe that a lot is being hushed up by expensive lawyers than I am to think that everyone has just decided to lie low.

You (generic) may think differently, but there is no way of knowing (yet) so it is all speculation, and one version of events has no more credibility (and neither is it more damaging) than the other.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Annie*, I don’t know who you’re talking about but it isn’t me, I have never had an eating disorder. My first husband was abusive but not unfaithful, nor has my second husband been unfaithful. I have never failed to turn up for work except when I had food. My first husband left me with debts but not due to shopping sprees.
I would appreciate a full apology, otherwise I will report you.

That should have read ‘except when I had food poisoning’.
Annie’s accusation has been deleted after I reported it but I await the apology and admission of confusing me with someone else.

Mollygo

I want to know the outcome of all aspects of this matter.
I didn’t, but since the parents have apparently gone against their offspring’s wishes and gone public (even under the shelter of anonymity which as we have seen on GN, allows all sorts of statements, accusations and threats), the public, of which I am a member, will want to know everything.
Since threats can apparently be used to remove anonymity. I don’t suppose we will have too long to wait.

Doesn’t that mean identifying the young person though Mollygo, who presumably doesn’t want to go public, and who can blame them given how the Schofield story played out and how that poor young man was hounded, quite inappropriately? I really hope that doesn’t happen again.
I find it very hard to forgive the parents, not so much for going to the Sun, although the paper should not have published without the young person’s permission - but selling their story on Talk TV is just awful.

I want to know the outcome of all aspects of this matter.
I didn’t, but since the parents have apparently gone against their offspring’s wishes and gone public (even under the shelter of anonymity which as we have seen on GN, allows all sorts of statements, accusations and threats), the public, of which I am a member, will want to know everything.
Since threats can apparently be used to remove anonymity. I don’t suppose we will have too long to wait.

The public persona can be so different from that on television
- a children's TV presenter was very unpleasant indeed to a child who asked for her autograph when he was waiting for his mother in the BBC canteen.

They are acting.

I have given you fair warning Annie that not a word you have said about me is true, and asked for an apology. You have possibly confused me with one of your Black Doggers - certainly with someone else- but as you have not apologised I have screenshotted your extremely defamatory post and reported it. My solicitors will also be in touch with GN to establish your identity and location. You are the last person I expected to say this to.

People are respected when they behave in a respectable manner. Personally, I feel that everyone should be paid respect, and that in this case that should apply to the family and colleagues accusing HE, as well as to HE himself.

There is nothing wrong with having doubts and questioning people’s accounts of a situation, but why not apply doubts that the mother is telling the truth to HE’s version of events, and to the papers who ran the story when they did? Conversely, if people are happy to take HE’s account at face value then why not take the claims of the parents in the same way? Something must be getting in the way of people believing one and not the other - what is that?

The son has said the events as reported are not true, but why are people believing that, when he is apparently an addict with a need to buy drugs, and when he may be ashamed of his own part in all of this? It seems odd to me that the story of parents saying that their son is being exploited is disbelieved, but the man accused of that exploitation by several young men, as well as of inappropriate behaviour by colleagues is believed. Why is the benefit of the doubt given to the accused and not to the accusers? Obviously at this stage we have no idea as to how the parents going on GB News (or is it Talk TV?) will play out - badly, quite probably - but their having a say is already condemned on here as ‘vile and dangerous’ before they have even spoken. HE’s wife had her statement read out on every news bulletin for days - should we not be allowed to even hear the other side of the story? Why not?

It is true that the police have said that so far there is no evidence of criminality, but do those saying that evidence is the only thing that matters think that no crimes are ever committed where there is no evidence? In that case, why is the clear-up rate for rape, burglary etc so low? Do you think that the police are incapable of getting things wrong, or of failing to get to the root of a matter where famous people are concerned? What about the review of the misogyny in the Met, or the findings of institutional racism? Or the findings that there was a police cover-up of their involvement in not catching Jimmy Savile? We don’t know how far they looked to find evidence either, but people seem happy to take their word that the job was done. Was there a search of HE’s computers and phone(s)? Or of deletions that may have happened in the days between the accusations and the statement about his illness?

Yes, HE is paying a high price for his indiscretions, but why is that considered a bad thing, when the family of the first young man to be mentioned, the others who came forward and the BBC colleagues also risk paying a high price for speaking out. Should they have just stayed quiet? Of course it's possible that they could all be lying to make money, but why is that more likely than that HE (one man) is lying about the situation to protect his income and reputation? Because he is famous and they are not? There is a huge risk of damage to all concerned here, and just because HE earned a huge salary doesn’t mean that he has most to lose. If one of the junior colleagues loses their job it will still be 100% of their income, just as HE will lose 100% of his if he is sacked. Whether that income is half a million a year or £30k a year doesn’t matter, and the reputation of a sex worker or drug addict is as important as that of someone paying for their services. Why is the reputation of one man more important than the well-being of several others who may have been victims of his behaviour?

Finally, I agree with those saying that workplace affairs etc are the business only of those involved, as are sexual kinks of any legal persuasion. In answer to the question in the thread title, however, the fact that HE is being paid out of licence payers’ money does make a difference. He is alleged to have paid £35k for videos (has this been repudiated by a check of bank accounts and however fees are charged on the platform that was used?) Also, accusations of workplace bullying should, IMO be taken seriously. My understanding is that HE is a journalist, not just a newsreader, hence his high salary. He has already presented a programme about how to check sources - how seriously could people now take him if he were to make one about sexual harassment or the exploitation inherent in sex work? That matters, if the BBC is to maintain its own reputation as a reliable source of news and information.

Annie, I don’t know who you’re talking about but it isn’t me, I have never had an eating disorder. My first husband was abusive but not unfaithful, nor has my second husband been unfaithful. I have never failed to turn up for work except when I had food. My first husband left me with debts but not due to shopping sprees.
I would appreciate a full apology, otherwise I will report you.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I would not be a world expert on this, but I would say that in the Bible, we are told to pay respect to whom it is due.

Is/was Huw Edwards classed as a previous respected figure? I would say he was.
Depends on a person's personal point of view on that one.

You are projecting your experience of depression onto somebody else who you don’t know, and only know a little about their condition, and then judging them based on your experience Germanshepherdsmum. That is not logical.

One strike? This seems to have been going on for some years. I would call a single transgression ‘one strike’ or ‘one episode’.

The allegations are not of antisocial behaviour and the severe mental illness has been triggered by the publication of the allegations. As a severe depressive I don’t accept that as a valid excuse for the alleged behaviour. It is insulting to everyone suffering with depression that anyone should think it would lead to the behaviour alleged. That is an appalling supposition.

I’m pleased to say that despite suffering from severe depression I don’t have any embarrassing, slightly disreputable or serious events in my life MOnica. If I had had such allegations made against me I would have lost my job and my living, proven or not. I am surprised to find that we have extremely different moral compasses and appalled to discover your opinion of depression and what its sufferers might do.

I find the 'onestrike and your out' culture deeply unpleasant. Is their anyone who does not have some kind of embarrassing or slightly direputable event in their life, or even something serious? Should anyone at any age have their life ruined their ability to earn their living destroyed because of one episode of antisocial behaviour, especially when it occurs when someone is suffering from a severe mental illness?

I hope HE will get all the medical treatment he needs, face up to the disreputable events that he took part in during his illness and then resume his career.

It’s a fine line between disreputable and illegal Katie59 - but there is a line. It’s quite clear from all the threads about this on here that there are many different views about what people believe he has done, and to what extent they condemn him for what they believe he has done.
I think this story has some way to run yet. I don’t think we will ever know ‘the truth’, whatever it is. As to whether he returns, I guess that will be done to whatever version of ‘the truth’ becomes prevalent, and what his bosses at the BBC decide on that basis.

Not directly accountable but all celebrities are accountable to the organization they represent, there are many that have crossed the line, from footballers to Royalty.
Wether or not they are guilty, allowing yourself to be involved in disreputable behavior has consequences.

I would class Huw Edwards behavior as disreputable

Many of us have an interest in the case which is by no means prurient. I have held HE in high esteem for years. I certainly don’t take a prurient interest but I want to know the outcome of the allegations as if they are correct I hope not to see him on my television again.

M0nica

Bea65 Why should we know 'all the facts', unless a crime has been committed? We know the police will re-open cases (on anyone) if further evidence comes available that might change the situation. So what?

You do seem to have an interest in this case, that verges on the prurient.

I’m afraid I thought so too.

PRURIENT...REALLY!!

Bea65 Why should we know 'all the facts', unless a crime has been committed? We know the police will re-open cases (on anyone) if further evidence comes available that might change the situation. So what?

You do seem to have an interest in this case, that verges on the prurient.

I’m in the
Private lives are private and when no crime has been committed and no laws broken, they should remain private.

We still don't know all the facts...and police have to re-open investigations when evidence comes to light...

He reads and presents the news and other current affairs programmes; he doesn't tell us how to behave, nor should he. His private life is his own business and that of those most closely involved, unless he breaks the law - which seemingly he hasn't done.

As far as I am concerned, a presenter's accountability to us licence payers (as long as behaviour has not broken any laws) begins and ends with whether his bosses (the BBC) decide that he is now deemed toxic, a negative presence within the company rather than a positive one.

I would imagine that public reaction will play a big part in that decision, so one way or another there will be a degree of accountability.