Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding nonces. He pleaded guilty, knew he was guilty, and still took the money. He should’ve resigned as soon as he was arrested if he knew he was guilty or planned to plead that way.
Why would he? He won't be able to ever work again. I'm not defending him on a moral level, but unless there's legal grounds for forcing him to return the money, from a logical POV, it seems highly unlikely that he'd volunteer it back. Is anyone going to think any higher of him if he does? Sorry, the BBC made its bed. Now it has to lie in it.
This is such a daft question. Water company bosses pollute rivers and don't return salaries or bonuses. MPs once sacked don't return salaries or expenses. It's a clickbait question that's designed to strike up a conversation that won't actually affect change, it’ll just wind everyone up, I'm so sick of content like this. I hope Edwards is punished under the law, the conversation should be about the conduct of corporations that effectively tax the public to continue running their operations and the BBC evidently needs either alot more oversight or the TV licence should be suspended indefinitely. My preference is for the latter.
You are absolutely correct on with everything you said and came on to say similar and to ask the host if he would return his salary. Such a ridiculous nonsense.
how will defunding the bbc lead to less clickbait? one of the only saving graces about the bbc is it is not profit motivated so it does not need to "clickbait" its content.
Contract clauses, that dictate you will not bring disrepute to an organisation, are designed to insulate employers from scandals like this - I'd say post-Sa-vile, the BBC may well have such a clause in their contracts. If they haven't, I'd like to know, why not?
Putting aside everything, why the heck do the bbc pay that sort of high money for reading the news anyway a highly qualified surgeon would not reach anywhere near the bbc is an ole boys club?
How much do you think the top sky or itv news presenters get paid? A lot more. The difference is they are not obligated to tell you. Most of the beebs top earners could earn more elsewhere.
They have perhaps learned when not to wade in? Yeah, right. More likely, they know that they have no way of justifying riots (there's no justification for rioting) over this, because the offender in question/ the dock, is a white Welshman.
0:50 This is an idiotic take. Of course BBC News should question and report on matters of public interest concerning the BBC. It would show great bias if they didn’t.
Should he return it? Yes. Will he return it? No. When he gets out of prison (assuming that happens) he'll need that money to survive, no one is going to employ him are they?
Well... if the Beeb want him to pay back the money supplied by those who still pay the licence fee... better get it back quick... before he tops himself
Excellent coverage, Matthew. A particular thanks for exploring the legal angle to this claw back = true fact checking. Asking for repayment under a moral argument is totally totally different from the legal stance, and this lawyer's answer was clear: the BBC has no legal argument, which leaves only the moral route.... with an improbable result. The courts will deal with the crime and may sanction in £ as well as with reclusion.
You know, I just don't give two s**ts about the money, I just want the BBC to properly acknowledge that they keep hiring these bad people and sort it out.
This is how it goes… BBC - Can we have our money back Huw as the public think we should not have paid you? Huw - No. I need the money to buy some pics and I will never do the right thing regardless of what anyone might think.
lol do the right thing lol they would have paid him regardless lol they don’t care they were hoping he could return to his job after! He will not and should not they messed up!
I cannot understand why he has to return part of his salary. Is it because the salary scale for all the paedophiles working there is paid at a lower rate?
The beeb did right in continuing to pay him after his arrest, presumed innocent until proved guilty. Will he return the £200K? I don't see what difference it makes, he's still a disgusting human being and it won't restore confidence in the BBC either.
to me, there is no real difference until a person is "Proven Guilty"... nothing short of that should effect his right to employment or to the receipt of salary in any way... once the guilt is proven a person who considers himself guilty maybe has some obligation to pay back some of the money for time he was unable to work, but it really depends on the charges and how much his company initially did to defend him.
I'm not defending what Huw Edwards did. But how can the BBC defend paying him his full salary for only 3 months work one week, and then a few weeks later come out and say, "He's a villain for taking that money and keeping it for himself". I believe he should have had a reduction in salary to reflect the work he had done, but to take it back? Is it legal for an employer to do that?
Absolutely he should, but that’s not the point. The real question is why he was paid it the first place, knowing what they knew. Asking him to pay it back now feels like a shallow attempt from the BBC to distract from its own poor handling of this
Putting aside everything, why the heck do the bbc pay that sort of high money for reading the news anyway a highly qualified surgeon would not reach anywhere near the bbc is an ole boys club? There are loads of people who could read the news on a reasonable salary not mega bucks.
your all sinners your sins is the same as them stop trying to make out your not like that edward we are not above 👆 no one else your sin will remain if you don’t forgive your enemies
I think it unrealistic to ask someone to return wages actually. Fine him sure but if my boss comes looking for my paycheque months after i have cashed it: kinda like taking away the citizenship of someone born in the country
Why does anyone care? It won’t go towards the public or lesser TV license. The CEOs will get it. I’m still confuse what mr Edwards actually did or what crime he committed?
Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding nonces. He pleaded guilty, knew he was guilty, and still took the money.
He should’ve resigned as soon as he was arrested if he knew he was guilty or planned to plead that way.
Why would he? He won't be able to ever work again. I'm not defending him on a moral level, but unless there's legal grounds for forcing him to return the money, from a logical POV, it seems highly unlikely that he'd volunteer it back. Is anyone going to think any higher of him if he does? Sorry, the BBC made its bed. Now it has to lie in it.
This is such a daft question. Water company bosses pollute rivers and don't return salaries or bonuses. MPs once sacked don't return salaries or expenses. It's a clickbait question that's designed to strike up a conversation that won't actually affect change, it’ll just wind everyone up, I'm so sick of content like this. I hope Edwards is punished under the law, the conversation should be about the conduct of corporations that effectively tax the public to continue running their operations and the BBC evidently needs either alot more oversight or the TV licence should be suspended indefinitely. My preference is for the latter.
👍👍👍💯
You are absolutely correct on with everything you said and came on to say similar and to ask the host if he would return his salary. Such a ridiculous nonsense.
how will defunding the bbc lead to less clickbait? one of the only saving graces about the bbc is it is not profit motivated so it does not need to "clickbait" its content.
Really valid points
Agreed. I’m more strident in my views.
The BBC should be abolished.
Stop paying tv licence
"Huw"...? That's not a real name
Let's get the PPE money back from the Tories friends and donors first.
Any updates on that story? It actually makes my blood boil
@@sskengineering8474 Labour have said they're going after them... We'll see I guess.
No The beeb should refund the TV lisence to all users .
Perhaps not pay for their nouncy service instead
It will be very difficult to reclaim the money unless there was a specific clause in his contract - which is highly unlikely.
Contract clauses, that dictate you will not bring disrepute to an organisation, are designed to insulate employers from scandals like this - I'd say post-Sa-vile, the BBC may well have such a clause in their contracts. If they haven't, I'd like to know, why not?
No riots because of this story
That should be down to the courts, and not the BBC. If the courts think you should lose a years salary , they would fine you that amount.
Putting aside everything, why the heck do the bbc pay that sort of high money for reading the news anyway a highly qualified surgeon would not reach anywhere near the bbc is an ole boys club?
It's a valid point.
How much do you think the top sky or itv news presenters get paid? A lot more. The difference is they are not obligated to tell you. Most of the beebs top earners could earn more elsewhere.
@@Ryancooper13Another difference is the TV licence paying for the BBC and it's BS. I'm tired of it and cancelled last year.
Did Farage and Tommy,had any words to say about, about this case?! Just asking.
No need to because the media doesn’t cover up cases and crimes concerning white people!
They have perhaps learned when not to wade in? Yeah, right. More likely, they know that they have no way of justifying riots (there's no justification for rioting) over this, because the offender in question/ the dock, is a white Welshman.
Why would he care about being honourable now? Are we that naive! Unless they make him, I dont see him giving him it back.
Michael Cole sums it up. As an old age pensioner I now object to paying my TV Licence
Yes return the moneys and he ought to be behind bars 🤷♂️
0:50 This is an idiotic take. Of course BBC News should question and report on matters of public interest concerning the BBC. It would show great bias if they didn’t.
Should he return it? Yes. Will he return it? No. When he gets out of prison (assuming that happens) he'll need that money to survive, no one is going to employ him are they?
I’m sure he has amassed a fortune over the years
@@1Thedairy and probably spent it
What about the presenter not investigating the news presenter of BBC before he was caught red handed.
“Entirely entitled…” I like that play of words 😂
He is under no obligation to return the money. The BBC should not have paid him in the first place!!!
I don't think legally he has to send it back to them. He probably won't given the legal fees he is facing. The lawyers are probably taking it all
You can be arrested for anything, when he was charged is when payment should stop.
His entire life is in tatters. No, he won’t return our money.
Exactly
I'm bald if
He hand that back I'll grow
A perm
Well... if the Beeb want him to pay back the money supplied by those who still pay the licence fee... better get it back quick... before he tops himself
Why is he not being arrested
Who even pays TV licence now
Should he maybe morally yes but we know his morals now and it is unlikely he will do so and unless he is contractually obliged why would he.
I blame the immigrants
They'll find a way, don't worry. Some people seem to be able to shoehorn immigration in to every single story.
It's painful.
He should give it to charity
not really the issue that needs looking into.
No coming back from what he did what incentive does he have to return it?
Huw Edwards an BBC nouncy royal corispondence, no suprise then. Perhaps he can find Phil scoffields shoulder to cry on
The BBC paid him,not in error ,they have no legal right to ask for the money back
I hope the BBC donate the money to children affected by the content he was looking at.
Excellent coverage, Matthew. A particular thanks for exploring the legal angle to this claw back = true fact checking. Asking for repayment under a moral argument is totally totally different from the legal stance, and this lawyer's answer was clear: the BBC has no legal argument, which leaves only the moral route.... with an improbable result. The courts will deal with the crime and may sanction in £ as well as with reclusion.
You know, I just don't give two s**ts about the money, I just want the BBC to properly acknowledge that they keep hiring these bad people and sort it out.
11:13 - Professional broadcaster says "could of".
500k for tv for presenting 🤦🏽
Noo he shouldn’t
Restore faith in the BBC never.
i never give bbc a penny
This is how it goes…
BBC - Can we have our money back Huw as the public think we should not have paid you?
Huw - No. I need the money to buy some pics and I will never do the right thing regardless of what anyone might think.
Yes, but the water company bosses should also return their bonuses for the same reason and all the members of OFWAT should consider their position.
lol do the right thing lol they would have paid him regardless lol they don’t care they were hoping he could return to his job after! He will not and should not they messed up!
Why will he return the money, I dont think he has to, they paid him it could end up in court but I think he will win
Protest outside the bbc
I cannot understand why he has to return part of his salary. Is it because the salary scale for all the paedophiles working there is paid at a lower rate?
Sue him.
Usual suspect
No Riots for peado's 😂😂😂
Oh he will return that salary.
In fact, he should be BANKRUPTED!
The beeb did right in continuing to pay him after his arrest, presumed innocent until proved guilty. Will he return the £200K? I don't see what difference it makes, he's still a disgusting human being and it won't restore confidence in the BBC either.
What about the 300k pensions contribution?
As if he’s going to return the money. Are you living in cloud cuckoo land?
He should go & live in Isreal
That's silly.
to me, there is no real difference until a person is "Proven Guilty"... nothing short of that should effect his right to employment or to the receipt of salary in any way...
once the guilt is proven a person who considers himself guilty maybe has some obligation to pay back some of the money for time he was unable to work, but it really depends on the charges and how much his company initially did to defend him.
Do you think the BBC would be this generous if euw Edwards was a black man.🤔🤔.
If he was black he'd have never gotten away with it for as long as he did
It's an easy thing to check. They publish the top earners every year.
Highest paid non-white reporter was earning about £350k iirc.
TV license is a joke I never have and never will pay it
Bet you you pay a massive sky contract though.
@@Ryancooper13 how much you betting?
Is it me.... but if you resign your job from any employer why would said employer continue to pay you a wage at all?
Was he actually employed by the BBC, as a lot of presenters are contracted, eg Lineker.
Every man who put the hours in, must be paid, giving his pay away will not solve a single thing.if he didn't earn it, then that's a different story
I'm not defending what Huw Edwards did.
But how can the BBC defend paying him his full salary for only 3 months work one week, and then a few weeks later come out and say, "He's a villain for taking that money and keeping it for himself".
I believe he should have had a reduction in salary to reflect the work he had done, but to take it back? Is it legal for an employer to do that?
Absolutely he should, but that’s not the point. The real question is why he was paid it the first place, knowing what they knew. Asking him to pay it back now feels like a shallow attempt from the BBC to distract from its own poor handling of this
Putting aside everything, why the heck do the bbc pay that sort of high money for reading the news anyway a highly qualified surgeon would not reach anywhere near the bbc is an ole boys club? There are loads of people who could read the news on a reasonable salary not mega bucks.
Will he return the money - no
Sewer of GBNews? They actually report both sides of the equation.
GBnews!!! Really. 🤔🤔.
How come he is not in prison? I don't understand this case. He pled guilty, he is guilty but all we are asking for is the money back?
He's hasn't been sentenced yet.
Yes
He's usually the money to pay his legal bills
All this is fixed by making BBC a subscription service.
Utter tosh , most people would keep the money
Who thinks up this dumb stuff
I'm more concerned by Tory stooge Kuensberg still receiving money from my licence fee.
Over Paying BBC employees will only result in us eventually NOT paying licence fees in the future ... their honeymoon periods should come to an end.
He should but he won't. The BBC should have terminated his contract when he went off sick with 'mental health issues'.
Which would have been illegal under employment law.
@@Gabriel_H77 i am sure they could have found some loophole.
@@kevinlongman007 Employment law is very thorough in this area.
Weird that someone advocates breaking the law to deal with someone breaking the law.
he should keep it in think most of you are really out of order maybe we should take your money back to
just remember your sin is the same as that person your talking about maybe we should do all of your money
your all sinners your sins is the same as them stop trying to make out your not like that edward we are not above 👆 no one else your sin will remain if you don’t forgive your enemies
You're weird. Why are you replying to your own comments?
@@dannyquinn9128 yep your weird no video in your channel only comments to others attacking them never posting anything that is weird to the maximum
@@Doctor1933 So there's no people who just watch RUclips bit don't create content? What's weird about that?
Aaa
I think it unrealistic to ask someone to return wages actually. Fine him sure but if my boss comes looking for my paycheque months after i have cashed it: kinda like taking away the citizenship of someone born in the country
Why does anyone care? It won’t go towards the public or lesser TV license. The CEOs will get it. I’m still confuse what mr Edwards actually did or what crime he committed?
Ew Edwards plead guilty to making imagesof children being SA'd. That's easy enough to understand.