BBC Scandal - Huw Edwards formally suspended over payment of explicit images of teenager Read OP*

Interesting article.There don't seem to be any comments ,though.

Might that be for legal reasons?

We had a teacher at school who used to invite pupils back to his house for tea parties.

He used to take medication (as the gossip went) for his affliction.

That was back in the 60s.

Interesting queston but I have no idea.For us it was a topic of conversation/banter as to who would be invited to the next one.

He was quite open about it and would offer advice in class as to how we should not cut our hair(presumably bc he thought it looked attractive on some of us)

I never got an invite but would not have entertained the idea .But some of us seemingly did (some of us were boarders and maybe they went more readily)

I was a day pupil.

Another in our class was actually murdered by a man he was seeing**(think he killed himself as well).

No connection to the school

**I assumed he must have been doing it for money but have no idea really.It wasn't in the papers.

The texts must have been particularly bad to get fired so quickly

This didn't become public until they fired him. So it was handled by the HR department, I presume. Who else would have handled it and investigated it?

It's a massive blow for JJ.

He was on the pigs back at the Beeb, huge money and in cushy jobs.

He was tipped as favourite to take over presenting MOTD after Lineker.

Now looks like it's all gone, all over a few texts, allegedly.

No excuses, he's married, he's in a position of power, then why be hitting up young members of staff. I'm sure Shearer, Ian Wright, Lineker don't do these things. Good riddance

''Sacked BBC presenter Jermaine Jenas has “not got a leg to stand on” according to BBC insiders who claim he has no grounds to challenge being axed by The One Show and Match of the Day. The 41-year-old presenter was dropped from both shows with immediate effect after it emerged he had abused his position by sending “suggestive” messages to juniors on staff . And BBC bosses are confident they have “absolute evidence” that he will struggle to refute.''

I guess if they refer to someone as ''junior'' they must be under 18. Junior age range is 14- 17, unless they are using the word junior to reflect someone who is not in the job long.

If true, that would totally explain the rapid and ruthless response from the BBC and his management company - he might win a legal technicality on process in a Labour court but it doesn’t sound like he has a chance in hell of getting his job no less a broadcasting career back - as we’ve seen it takes a lot to get sacked by the Beeb

They should all have training on what is and what is not acceptable. Maybe the culture in these organisations is the issue but times have moved in rightfully - even the terminology of ‘juniors’ is archaic.

Jenas insisted "I did nothing illegal" and argued the messages were with "two consenting adults". "With one she made it clear she was interested," he added.

Well Jermaine that's only 1 consenting adult isn't it?

Running off to The Sun to do an exclusive is peak cringe and just a bad idea.

That said the hotel room he looks like he is now living in looks nice.

He’d be an idiot to sue the BBC- he obviously hasn’t read the staff handbook and code of conduct which every corporation has in place - if you “bombard” a fellow employee with the sort of texts alleged in this case, don’t expect to keep your job- a 5 day investigation might not sound a long time before sacking someone but this behaviour obviously wasn’t on the low end of the scale if this is the outcome - corporations don’t tend to fire people without just cause - it’s not worth the hastle in the Labour courts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13775537/Jermaine-Jenas-considers-suing-BBC-Axed-star-insists-did-illegal-sex-texted-female-One-staffers-battles-save-career-marriage-ex-model-wife-Ellie.html

The OH is standing by him.

Interesting, but not a great piece, about Huw Edwards. It could do without the opening and closing few sentences at least

This bit struck me

Just last week, he apparently updated his Linkedin profile to say he is "available for no charge to charities and not-for-profit organisations" (the profile appears to have since been deleted). That raised eyebrows among some colleagues - an insight perhaps into the mind of someone they once thought they knew.

reminded me of a documentary I saw about Gary Glitter, he was asking the interviewer before they sat down to properly start "should I wear the wig, or not…? which looks best?" and the interviewer was thinking 'it doesn't **** matter what the **** you wear, you're still a **** *****'

It hopefully reflects the vantage point of his colleagues who are also wordsmiths.

Would be interesting to know if her piece was edited by the BBC for any reason other than legal.

It is a "shame" that there were real victims in this case (thinking of the underage pictures and how they were obtained) or this trial might be a really fascinating insight into the mindset of man who seemed intimately known to the general public and was very gifted and articulate it seems.

He does still seem to consider himself a public figure. Was his offer to appear for charity intended (or genuinely meant) as an act of contrition?

Clearly nobody would want him so it seems strange to me that it was put up at all.