OK, carry on thinking that. Let's wait for the next time this happens and take comfort that lessons have been learned.

I do believe that Scarlett Moffatt is one of the few straight people on the BBC's books.

However, she is most probably on their books because she ticks the box marked "cerebrally challenged"...

I know it was the parents but you seem to imply that because they complained to the Sun it is not to be trusted ergo the wrong victim.

The parents were simply trying to get Edwards to back off and stop funding their child's drug habit something as a parent yourself I would think you could understand.

The BBC's lack of action especially as it now appears that Edwards has previous was simply poor and they acknowledge that despite your protestations.

One more point

Also the other party was 17 when this started. Wouldn't most parents would be concerned if their son that age was receiving the equivalent of £1000 a month from a stranger for three years?

I am not suggesting that Edwards knew what the money was for nor am I surprised that the victim denied it. If the parents are correct they are a drug addict and no doubt need money to fund their habit. Trying to cut off the money supply would be a sensible approach especially if the victim was refusing treatment.

What I find most odd is that the BBC senior management knew nothing about this until contacted by the Sun. The BBC claims that this is standard until the allegations are proven, very odd.

For the sake of argument imagine Edwards is completely innocent and has never had contact with the victim. That the complainers were actually targetting him and the BBC to damage it's reputation and extort money, and yet nobody thought the senior management should be informed of this?

In terms of procedures Edwards guilt or innocence was irrelevant at that stage senior management should have been made aware if nothing else to protect their staff.

I think this and the failure to follow up properly is why the BBC has said it will review it's procedures.

Edited by Badger11 (29 Apr 2024 6.07pm)

One more point

For the benefit of those who want to but are scared of giving up your TV licence I'll link here to an excellent video that addresses the disgusting threatening letters that the third party contractors that the BBC contracts to frighten the uninformed into paying this....often unwanted tax.

The guy who does these videos shows people exactly how to legally stop paying this tax and how to deal with the utter scummy tactics used against you.

The letters they send out are a utter disgrace. They are designed to scare people and give false impressions. When I think of the old people suffering to pay their bills in this cost of living crises these people make me sick.

Well, if you do decide to give up watching live television....and I did years ago and do very nicely. Here's a video to ease fears you might have about those letters.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Rehab? OK, he may have been operating out pure altruism.

[Link]

Perhaps the defending poster could give Huw some gay nudist beach recommendations. They could share a special bond.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The one last year did not involve a teenager. The person concerned is an adult. It was the mother who complained about her “child”, thus enabling the Sun to present it as though Edwards was involved with someone under age.

The police have investigated and found no criminal activity. At worst what exists is careless behaviour that is inappropriate for someone in his position.

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 way the requirements are presently structured it does appear possible to legally avoid paying for a TV licence.

The real question then is not whether you can do this, but whether is it wise that it can?

For people like me who believe the BBC to be one of our greatest assets which should be paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not, the answer is an unequivocal no.

Ensuring that its funding is kept separate from taxation and the subsequent control that would give to the government of the day, is an imperative.

On top of that how do we know that individuals who are claiming not to watch live TV or the iPlayer are keeping their word? I am sure some are totally honourable whilst others are just avoiding paying because they can. Maybe in time all TVs will be supersmart and send an alert whenever an unlicensed location connects to a live broadcast or the iPlayer.

With the numbers not paying growing this is going to have to change. Bullets need to be bitten and hard choices made.

As turning the BBC into just another commercial broadcaster, with all the pressures that brings, would be to destroy something incredibly valuable I think a new model must be found. One that everyone pays and none can avoid.

My own preference is a broadband levy, collected by ISPs. Others have suggested a Council Tax levy which gives a degree of progressiveness to the charge.

It would not be popular with those for whom the BBC is nothing more than a broadcaster who they believe is biased against them but that’s inevitable.

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.