Forum Topic

Huw Edward

Pretty shocking but what really upsets is that we the tax payer funded his salary after he was charged and even more appalling we will be funding his pension at approx £300K PA…..that is just plain wrong talk about the tax payer being mugs BBC need to change….how many of their so called high earning ‘stars’ have very strange behaviour for young children 😱😱😱😱 truly shocking. I sincerely hope he reflects on his behaviour and the impact on his family words fail me.

Jayne Thorburn ● 203d44 Comments

Robert Fish the liar. “ You  inserted your obsession with cyclists into this thread. “

Steve Taylor ● 201d

My imagination's boggling, Richard!

Robert Fish ● 202d

Use your imagination, Robert.

Richard Greenhough ● 202d

“Was it payments for services rendered ? “Presumably the lad would have had to charge him VAT too. I wonder if HMRC was reimbursed?

Steve Taylor ● 202d

Still no apology, coward?

Steve Taylor ● 202d

No doubt you have a TV licence, Steve, so who's the hypocrite?

Anne England ● 202d

What services did you have in mind, Richard?

Robert Fish ● 202d

Was it payments for services rendered ? That potentially could attract income tax.

Richard Greenhough ● 202d

“ Thank you for your candour Steve.”No problem, Andrew. I always call a spade a spade and believe in total honesty. It seems that Mr Fish is incapable of apologising for his mistakes due to the narcissistic, Trumpian makeup of his DNA. He just can’t stomache being proven wrong. Very sad, if not sick. I think it’s a mental illness actually.

Steve Taylor ● 202d

I think you'll find there's no income tax on gifts. The £3000 limit on gifts to children is the annual exemption for Inheritance Tax purposes.

Robert Fish ● 202d

Is HMRC involved? It is alleged he gave someone £35000 over two years. A parent can give their children £3000 a year tax free. A personal allowence is £12500 which this would exceed, was tax paid?

Nicholas Beard ● 202d

Thank you for your candour Steve.

Andrew Jones ● 202d

Still can’t apologise can you Robert. Sad cowardly old man. Unbelievably weak. Man up old boy and admit your mistakes.

Steve Taylor ● 202d

Yes, Andrew, and I am happy to advocate some laws being broken, (BBC Licence Fee) whilst advocating prosecution of those who kill or injure others. Hence I am happy to be labelled a hypocrite by you in that context. However, I will not accept being labelled a hypocrite by Mr Fish for using this thread to introduce cyclists breaking the law.

Steve Taylor ● 202d

Oh horror, horror, horror! Poor traduced Steve "Moron" Taylor!

Robert Fish ● 202d

Steve is correct (I'm pretty sure) that I was the person who first used the word cyclists in a post on this thread and Steve's post that Robert (or whoever) quoted was in reply to my post.However, my post wasn't about cyclists per se. My post was intended to illustrate Steve's hypocrisy as regards breaking the law, in particular that he is happy to advocate some laws being broken, while advocating prosecution of others who break different laws. As such, it was not changing the subject to anything about cyclists, but demonsrating that Steve's attitude to law breaking by cyclists, is different to his attitude to others breaking different laws, and that Steve is hypocritical in this regard. I will happily admit to bringing up the concept of Steve's hypocrisy to this thread.

Andrew Jones ● 202d

I’ll give you a clue, Robert, because it seems you are too stupid to follow this thread. Have a look at the post by Andrew Jones 04/08/24 23:09:00 to understand who, quite ridiculously, introduced cyclists into this thread and perhaps, just perhaps, even you will understand my reply to Andrew and my admonishment of him for doing so.  Await your apology, Bob!

Steve Taylor ● 202d

No, not really,  moron. Keep up. Have a look at who introduced ‘cyclists’ into this thread on Huw Edwards and then apologise for falsely accusing me of hypocrisy.

Steve Taylor ● 202d

Yes, really: 'There’s no chance of you killing somebody by watching TV without a licence but  There’s a chance of a cyclist killing someone by going through a red light.' Totally gratuitous.

Robert Fish ● 202d

Really Robert?  Where did I insert  anything about ‘cycling’ in this thread?

Steve Taylor ● 202d

More of your shameless hypocrisy! You  inserted your obsession with cyclists into this thread. It takes some brass neck to then suggest to others who comment on your obsession that they should stick to the focus of the thread.

Robert Fish ● 202d

'I am quite happy to pay a licence fee,but reserve the right to comment on how it is spent.The BBC still produces many very good TV and radio programmes,but they need to get their house in order and be much more accountable.'Agree - and I would just point out that almost everyone, if suspended from their job while an investigation takes place - would be so on full pay. Still innocent until proven guilty - even in this day and age, an arrest is just that, not a slam dunk guilty verdict.

Vanessa Smith ● 202d

Indeed - expunging Huw Edwards (and for that matter Jimmy Savile) from our screens makes absolutely no difference to what they got up to off-screen. Providing that no fees are payable for repeats of their appearances, they should remain in the BBC archives and be shown on screen when appropriate.

Richard Greenhough ● 203d

I read yesterday that Huw Edwards is being 'expunged from the BBC archive', presumably meaning that images of him that would now be seen as sensitive or embarrassing are being removed from the records. This puts the BBC in a somewhat Orwellian light, since it embodies precisely the Party slogan that O'Brien forces Winston Smith to repeat in Part III of '1984': 'Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.'

Colin Jordan ● 203d

Please focus on the subject of this thread. Happy to debate the issue of cyclists breaking the law but this thread is about Huw Edwards and the Licence Fee payers funding his enormous salary for months. It questions the competence of the BBC Director General and certainly the fact that the interim Chairperson publicly gave Edwards full support is called into question. A Welsh clique?

Steve Taylor ● 203d

So what? The law is the law.You (from memory) advocate breaking speed limits (in particular 20 mph speed limits), you are a self-confessed law breaker, and yet you have a concern/obsession about cyclists going through red lights.Yes, of course there is a chance of a cyclist killing someone after going through a red light. It's particularly small, but yes, I agree there is a chance. There is also a chance of a cyclist killing someone without any co-timed red light offence.The likelihood of someone being killed by a cycle is massively smaller than that of someone being killed by a car, regardless of whether there is a co-times red light offence.You advocate the prosecution of cyclists while condoning the law breaking by drivers exceeding the speed limit, even though there is unrefutable evidence that excess speed when a collision occurs considerably increases the risk of death/serious injury.I have no issue with cyclists being targeted to get them to improve their adherence and compliance with the laws, but you are a car-brain hypocrite as far as your attitude to obeyance of the law goes.

Andrew Jones ● 203d

I am quite happy to pay a licence fee,but reserve the right to comment on how it is spent.The BBC still produces many very good TV and radio programmes,but they need to get their house in order and be much more accountable.

Keith Iddon ● 203d

You've become a parody of yourself.

David Burke ● 203d

There’s no chance of you killing somebody by watching TV without a licence but  There’s a chance of a cyclist killing someone by going through a red light.

Steve Taylor ● 203d

Ha, ha … you want cyclists to be prosecuted for going through red lights, but you’re quite happy to advocate breaking the law when it comes to needing to have a TV license.Hypocrisy springs to mind.

Andrew Jones ● 203d

SteveSerious question.How can i not pay the license fee if i subscribe to sky sports only and I state only through NOW TV.I think it stinks but its what it is

Julian Pavey ● 203d

But you don’t have to pay it. Just cancel your direct debit. The BBC can’t justify paying these £million salaries to people like Gary Lineker and Zoe Ball. How can they pay someone over £ 1million to play records for a few hours a day! It’s ridiculous. Likewise Huw Edwards didn’t interview anyone as Ch4 newsreaders do. All he did was read from the teleprompter. And not very well either. He was a bit of a mumbler and particularly dour.

Steve Taylor ● 203d

The BBC has one big issue.To ignore and keep the current license going with the backing of the labour party.Ever wondered why the BBC is full or repeats including such progs like bargain hunt ? No money for content,just the one big one here and there.But it will carry on while others get even bigger and better and possibly on the technical side aswell. The BBC will fall so far behind even drastic change might not be enough in time.23m paying but constantly these days loosing 500k a year means in 10 years time that will be 18M If the BBC keeps stating things like stating that it is £1billion worse off since 2010 and facing “funding pressure”then surely it cant keeo going as it stands. You cant raise the fee constantly but outgoings riseway faster above that increase while numbers dwindle even more. And the younger you are the less likely your watch the BBC or pay the license fee,so that will dwindle numbers furtherOne day someone will be brave enough to admit it cant carry on.I pay the fee but rarely watch the BBC as content that i like is non existant. But i pay for other service providers which means i have to pay it. Madness

Julian Pavey ● 203d

The BBC has lost hundreds of thousands of licence paying customers over the last year. They will lose many more over this issue and there’s nothing the corporation can do about it because if they send inspectors to your house to see if you have a TV you don’t have to let them in. You are legally entitled to tell them to go away and you don’t have to answer any questions. If, on the rare occasion they obtain a court order to enter your home and they find that you have a working TV and can prove that you are watching regular TV channels rather than just streaming Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV etc, you are given the option of simply buying a licence from that date. There is no fine or penalty!!! So in a nutshell, if you are unhappy with paying the licence fee because of the excessive salaries paid to many presenters, don’t pay it. Cancel your debit order

Steve Taylor ● 203d

He'll be punished for his crimes by the Court, so I say let him keep his money..

Michael Brown ● 203d

Saville!

Nicholas Beard ● 203d

Richard,If it's anything like a public service pension,employers contributions can usually be reclaimed without any legal difficulty.

Keith Iddon ● 203d

Unless there was some clause in his BBC contract that said that if he brought the corporation into dispute he would lose his pension entitlements, then cancelling them after he has paid in his contributions might be a legal nightmare.

Richard Greenhough ● 203d

I don't want any element of my tax or licence fee paid to paedophiles or any other criminal for that matter,Caroline.If you don't care,that's up to you but you may be in the minority on that one.I don't really follow your drift..we all are appalled that children's lives have been destroyed,but there is nothing we,as outsiders to the situation can do about that.But we can hold Edwards and the BBC to account and we can insist on getting our money back.You can't expect taxpayers to pay abusers while they destroy the lives of children,who are the offspring of taxpayers.

Keith Iddon ● 203d

What really saddens me is all the children damaged by these sik individuals who our society is to scared to expose often because they don't want us to know just how many are out there and how many children's lives are destroyed.  What really really saddens me is the adults who think how much money is involved is the most important thing not the real study and education about this human disease.  I don't care about his pension or his salary I care about the people who knew and did nothing.  They are equally guilty and should be jailed also and not for a few months but for 100 years minus the child's age for every child they abused and never let out again.  That's what I want but I am just a survivor and no one really cares about what we want unless they use us as a career move

Caroline Carney ● 203d

He should lose his tax funded pension he has pleaded guilty that should be the end of any funding on any level. He was a highly paid new presenter 😂😂😂 agree not a star.

Jayne Thorburn ● 203d

Sadly it seems almost like paedophiles are able to hide in plain sight at the BBC over these last donkey's years.If he had worked in  public service or local government had been up to these despicable shenanigans,epsecially on works time,he would have been suspended,sacked,prosecuted and would lose the employers contributionns to his pension.Let's keep his 'celebrity' in perspective...he reads the news.End of story.

Keith Iddon ● 203d

Dont ask Jon Sopel or Emily Maitlis on that one. Silence from them reguards huw. Never a good thing to come out and support on mutiple occasions without evidence,it can backfire big time.

Julian Pavey ● 203d

How would this have been any different if he had worked for some other large employer?

Christopher Shea ● 203d