According to today's Times Huw Edwards has previous for inappropriate behaviour and was spoken to by BBC management at least on 2 occasions circa 2021.

The article is behind a paywall but other papers are reporting the gist of the Times story.

So the BBC already knew that they had a problem before the latest allegations surfaced.

One more point

So are you blaming the Tories for the pandemic and wars? I believe it was a Labour PM, who, whilst in the pocket of the US, assisted in opening up the tinderbox that is the Middle East.
Yes the Tories have mad a complete pigs ear of governing and seem to be getting worse by the day but to put the blame on them for the above is wrong. Surprised you didn’t mention Trump

Not at all. I am pointing out that events often dominate the agenda that politicians of every stripe need to adopt. The comment was part of the response to the idea that the “left” are to blame for everything. Even Blair was hardly very left was he?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think that used to be the case 50 or 60 years ago but not now.

When I was a kid I had a near neighbour about my age who was not very bright, quiet, unassuming and barely noticeable. When she started to work at the BBC as a secretary I thought she had found her level. It was therefore a surprise when some years later her name, which is distinctive, started to pop up in the credits. She went on to produce some of the best known light entertainment shows and spent her entire working life with the BBC.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Isn't that the point, no one be it Huw Edwards or Jimmy Saville or the DG of the BBC should be untouchable. Because public institutions like the NHS and the BBC allowed those situations to develop it was a recipe for disaster.

The BBC still has not learned it's lesson. Multiple allegations against Edwards over multiple years by multiple people and they couldn't see he was toxic.

One more point

I think we must wait and see if that is true or not. That evidence is emerging that there might have been other complaints doesn’t mean they weren’t investigated and found untrue or unproven. What it means is that there is now a system whereby such complaints can be lodged. You would not expect them to be publicised!

I think that is evidence that the BBC has learned its lesson and that no one is untouchable.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The steps they took weren't very effective. This is about Huw Edwards.

The BBC accepted there were "lessons to be learned following this exercise", and the organisation's group chief operating officer will assess whether protocols and procedures are appropriate.

[Link]

Pretty damming about BBC procedures and if the latest revelations are true about previous complaints it just makes it worse.

I didn't understand the comment that the BBC would not put complaints to a member of staff until verified.

If I was innocent and management had a file on me I would be livid that they had not spoken to me even if the complaints were false, very odd.

One more point

I think that timeline shows that the BBC acted reasonably at all stages. You could argue they could have done more early on but until they are satisfied the complainant is who they say they are you can also argue they ought not to.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.