Strands #263 “You're Getting...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Huw Edwards
The BBC say he would have been dismissed if charged while employed.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Answers
ACAS states an employee can be dismissed if charged of a criminal offence when"the employer has a lawful reason for dismissing – such as conduct, capability and/or performance, redundancy or ‘some other substantial reason.the dismissal is within the range of reasonable responses to the situation in all the circumstance
22:29 Wed 31st Jul 2024
ACAS states an employee can be dismissed if charged of a criminal offence when
"the employer has a lawful reason for dismissing – such as conduct, capability and/or performance, redundancy or ‘some other substantial reason.
the dismissal is within the range of reasonable responses to the situation in all the circumstances, and
a fair procedure is followed, including a reasonable investigation.
Circumstances can include, for example, the effect of the criminal charge on the employee’s ability to do their job (which depends on the type of job they do and the nature of the alleged criminal conduct), the impact on the employer and its reputation, and the impact on the employee’s relations with fellow workers and customers."
Edwards had already been suspended over a different matter related to sexual images and had been reported as suffering from some form of depression or mental illness - so there we have both 'some other substantial reason' and 'capability/performance'. It is fair to say that being charged with this criminal offence would make it impossible for him to do his job and the impact on his employer is already evident.
https:/
In my opinion he was lucky to have been kept on full pay whilst suspended for as long as he was. Whilst the reason for the suspension wasn't criminal it did not put him in a good light especially in respect of the job he was employed to do.
While in no way condoning or excusing what he did, I don't see how he can be facing a custodial sentence, as some in the media reports I have seen and read are suggesting.
The man who sent him the images - and obviously must have seen them too - was given a suspended sentence. There is no suggestion Edwards sent them to anyone else, so surely also must be facing a suspended sentence in September.
The BBC is getting a lot of flack but I don't understand why. He was suspended for an incident that wasn't a crime and wasn't informed about the criminal charges until shortly before the public was aware. He had already resigned.
Since when were employers responsible for the secret activities their employees get up to in their private lives?
He won't go to jail - they are too full to be imprisoning folks for offences like this.
Apparently the pics involving children to which the offence relates were a small % of all those he got. I read somewhere he even asked NOT to be sent underage images. This has been blown up out of all proportion due to his fame & the BBC aspect.
Good Morning,
My understanding is that even if Mr Edwards had deleted the offending pictures he would have still been charged with recieving offensive pictures.
Had he not wanted the photos he should of approached the police straight away, the fact that he told the sender not to send 'illegal' shows he knew what he was doing.
However, the previous poster is correct, if this had been Fred from number 73 it would barely have made the local rag.
