Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
Some people have Nazi fetishes. I doubt if the majority of those people are actual Nazis. But, you would not find an Employment Tribunal showing you much symapthy, these days, if your employer says you're bringing htem into disrepute.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Yes, quite. I'd like to see the local government contract that says "If you engage in legal sexual activity that we don't like, we'll take away the pension to which you've contributed". Certain jobs - perhaps including newsreaders - may have a catch-all clause saying they mustn't behave in a manner that causes embarassment to the institution, but not, I'd suggest, a job like housing officer.
As for the public interest, what is it? Why does it affect us what a newsreader does in bed? The public interest is that we don't make public life so hazardous that only the foolhardy and the shameless dare to take any public-facing job.
I'd say the same if it was the Guardian exposing a GBTV personality. I don't care what their sex life is like, and nor should a newspaper.
It is extremely difficult to think of any action that could bring an official in a housing office further into disrepute than they already are.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Why was it upheld though?
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?
They made the front page of the Evening Standard.
That was the offence. Bad publicity for their employer.
So no crime has apparently been committed in this case. Can someone now explain to me why the last week has been dominated by purile headlines?
Is it so prurient for parents to be upset that the person reading them their news on the BBC might be contacting their seventeen year old child for sexual gratification?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Now of course you're talking about a very different example, involving a director of government services in a democratic society who could be construed as celebrating anti-democratic and discriminatory values. That to my mind is getting more into my prior understanding of "gross misconduct" outside the workplace, unlike paying for porn.
Nazi fantasies in sex are nothing that unusual. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the man in question was an actual Nazi.
Back onto holiday films, the fun thing about The Rock is that it is Sean Connery's last Bond film. Not only is "John Mason" an obvious Connery Bond, the timeline in the film directly fits his timeline as Bond ...
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
No, the argument is who cares what happened if it was legal and between consenting adults?
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
Well that is not how employers, or wider society, incresingly view it, especially in the post Me Too era. If, say, a 60 year old guy were offering a 22 year old woman a role in a film he was directing, in return for her giving him sex, that would not be a criminal matter. One might argue it is simply a transaction between consenting adults. But, his employer, and the wider public, might take a dim view of the matter.
Because that's a workplace issue. The moment you bring sexual relations into the work place by offering work privileges for sexual relations, it ceases to be a private matter between consenting adults since the workplace has been dragged into it.
If a 60 year old is offering that to a woman in a role in a film he is directing then that's absolutely a workplace matter.
If a 60 year old hooks up with a random 22 year old in a nightclub, or online, who's not an actress and has no connection to work, then its not.
The most important news this week regarding the BBC came out yesterday - and it's been totally missed by the entire media - the latest figure for the number of TV licences in force.
March 2019 - 26.2m March 2020 - 25.9m March 2021 - 25.2m March 2022 - 24.8m March 2023 - 24.4m
So down 400k in the last 12 months and not far off down 2 million in the last 4 years - although note that some of the fall in 2020/21 was dead people and old people who had moved being deleted from the system (people who the BBC had previously been paid for automatically when the Government paid for all over 75s).
And this at a time when the population and number of households in the country continues to rise.
Almost 3 million households have now formally declared to the BBC that they don't need a TV licence. And the BBC believes the evasion rate is now over 10% (having historically been about 7%).
Contrary to popular perception, the BBC is going to be absolutely desperate to get rid of the TV licence when the Royal Charter expires at the end of 2027 - because at this rate of decline they are going to face permanent and severe contraction.
The only question now is will Starmer agree to a "media levy" on all households - which will annoy everyone who doesn't now have a TV Licence - but if he doesn't the BBC is in big trouble - and far, far bigger trouble than anything to do with Huw Edwards.
Richard Sharp was talking about the same thing at the weekend. Quite how popular it would be remains to be seen.I suspect it wouldn’t be.
Also Capita (IIRC) who collect the license fee would be far from happy.
The BBC just needs to bite the bullet and seek its funding elsewhere either via ads, subscriptions or by whatever other means that does not rely on a license fee or taxation.
So no crime has apparently been committed in this case. Can someone now explain to me why the last week has been dominated by purile headlines?
Is it so prurient for parents to be upset that the person reading them their news on the BBC might be contacting their seventeen year old child for sexual gratification?
It’s prurient to think that it allegations - actually denied by the “victim” are fit for publication in the tabloid press.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Why was it upheld though?
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?
They made the front page of the Evening Standard.
That was the offence. Bad publicity for their employer.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
The most important news this week regarding the BBC came out yesterday - and it's been totally missed by the entire media - the latest figure for the number of TV licences in force.
March 2019 - 26.2m March 2020 - 25.9m March 2021 - 25.2m March 2022 - 24.8m March 2023 - 24.4m
So down 400k in the last 12 months and not far off down 2 million in the last 4 years - although note that some of the fall in 2020/21 was dead people and old people who had moved being deleted from the system (people who the BBC had previously been paid for automatically when the Government paid for all over 75s).
And this at a time when the population and number of households in the country continues to rise.
Almost 3 million households have now formally declared to the BBC that they don't need a TV licence. And the BBC believes the evasion rate is now over 10% (having historically been about 7%).
Contrary to popular perception, the BBC is going to be absolutely desperate to get rid of the TV licence when the Royal Charter expires at the end of 2027 - because at this rate of decline they are going to face permanent and severe contraction.
The only question now is will Starmer agree to a "media levy" on all households - which will annoy everyone who doesn't now have a TV Licence - but if he doesn't the BBC is in big trouble - and far, far bigger trouble than anything to do with Huw Edwards.
Richard Sharp was talking about the same thing at the weekend. Quite how popular it would be remains to be seen.I suspect it wouldn’t be.
Also Capita (IIRC) who collect the license fee would be far from happy.
The BBC just needs to bite the bullet and seek its funding elsewhere either via ads, subscriptions or by whatever other means that does not rely on a license fee or taxation.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
Davie has been flailing around for a week. Totally out of his depth, although the story has cleverly smokescreened Johnson's failure to hand over his phone.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
Criminality outside the workplace can be gross misconduct, depending on the job and the crime. A speeding fine, probably not, GBH, much more likely.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
No, the argument is who cares what happened if it was legal and between consenting adults?
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
Well that is not how employers, or wider society, incresingly view it, especially in the post Me Too era. If, say, a 60 year old guy were offering a 22 year old woman a role in a film he was directing, in return for her giving him sex, that would not be a criminal matter. One might argue it is simply a transaction between consenting adults. But, his employer, and the wider public, might take a dim view of the matter.
Because that's a workplace issue. The moment you bring sexual relations into the work place by offering work privileges for sexual relations, it ceases to be a private matter between consenting adults since the workplace has been dragged into it.
If a 60 year old is offering that to a woman in a role in a film he is directing then that's absolutely a workplace matter.
If a 60 year old hooks up with a random 22 year old in a nightclub, or online, who's not an actress and has no connection to work, then its not.
The most important news this week regarding the BBC came out yesterday - and it's been totally missed by the entire media - the latest figure for the number of TV licences in force.
March 2019 - 26.2m March 2020 - 25.9m March 2021 - 25.2m March 2022 - 24.8m March 2023 - 24.4m
So down 400k in the last 12 months and not far off down 2 million in the last 4 years - although note that some of the fall in 2020/21 was dead people and old people who had moved being deleted from the system (people who the BBC had previously been paid for automatically when the Government paid for all over 75s).
And this at a time when the population and number of households in the country continues to rise.
Almost 3 million households have now formally declared to the BBC that they don't need a TV licence. And the BBC believes the evasion rate is now over 10% (having historically been about 7%).
Contrary to popular perception, the BBC is going to be absolutely desperate to get rid of the TV licence when the Royal Charter expires at the end of 2027 - because at this rate of decline they are going to face permanent and severe contraction.
The only question now is will Starmer agree to a "media levy" on all households - which will annoy everyone who doesn't now have a TV Licence - but if he doesn't the BBC is in big trouble - and far, far bigger trouble than anything to do with Huw Edwards.
Richard Sharp was talking about the same thing at the weekend. Quite how popular it would be remains to be seen.I suspect it wouldn’t be.
Also Capita (IIRC) who collect the license fee would be far from happy.
The BBC just needs to bite the bullet and seek its funding elsewhere either via ads, subscriptions or by whatever other means that does not rely on a license fee or taxation.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Why was it upheld though?
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?
They made the front page of the Evening Standard.
That was the offence. Bad publicity for their employer.
New York Times puts a different slant on the story.
Initially the bankers, who paid the bill with their own money, received only a slap on the wrist for having spent so lavishly -- and having been documented doing so in newspapers at the time -- while Barclays, like other banks here, was trying to project a new sobriety as an antidote to the excesses of the 1990's.
But when some of the bankers secretly tried to pass off their part of the bill as client expenses, Barclays began firing them one by one.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
I think you'd be surprised about does get treated as gross misconduct these days. If the person in question was truly a drug addict, then that becomes a safeguarding issue, in the eyes of a lot of employers.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
If the lie was the truth it would be a crime, and he could have gone to prison, and it would be gross misconduct.
If he's engaged in bullying as also alleged, that could also be gross misconduct.
If its just consensual acts between consenting adults, no crime, and not gross misconduct in my eyes either.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
I’ve never been “on” OnlyFans. But I presume it has significant appeal and not a few of its subscribers will be 60 yo men.
So there’s also a massive hypocrisy angle to this.
I very much doubt the scribblers at the Sun, or the Murdoch clan itself are especially chaste.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
Incidentally, isn’t it virtually certain that the person in question was a employed via a contracting company by the BBC?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
I think you'd be surprised about does get treated as gross misconduct these days. If the person in question was truly a drug addict, then that becomes a safeguarding issue, in the eyes of a lot of employers.
I missed out the word "non-criminal" in my description of things done outside of work.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
I’ve never been “on” OnlyFans. But I presume it has significant appeal and not a few of its subscribers will be 60 yo men.
So there’s also a massive hypocrisy angle to this.
I very much doubt the scribblers at the Sun, or the Murdoch clan itself are especially chaste.
I’ll admit to being very boring and not really understanding what it is…
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
Incidentally, isn’t it virtually certain that the person in question was a employed via a contracting company by the BBC?
I've been assuming that away for the purposes of this chat about what HR types think is gross misconduct. But in reality, I'd say so too.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
If the lie was the truth it would be a crime, and he could have gone to prison, and it would be gross misconduct.
If he's engaged in bullying as also alleged, that could also be gross misconduct.
If its just consensual acts between consenting adults, no crime, and not gross misconduct in my eyes either.
Which is why I hope that Huw Edwards sues them into extinction. This isn't just printing very libellous lies by accident. This is knowing they were lies, printing them anyway and then doubling down with attacks on the BBC for not reacting to its lies.
So no crime has apparently been committed in this case. Can someone now explain to me why the last week has been dominated by purile headlines?
Is it so prurient for parents to be upset that the person reading them their news on the BBC might be contacting their seventeen year old child for sexual gratification?
Denied by the person involved and indeed the cops. Am I missing something?
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Why was it upheld though?
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?
Depends what the company policy/their contracts say. There’s a few hoops that am employee would have to jump through to show the dismissal fair but it wouldn’t be impossible.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
Indeed, if HR lawyers never made a mistake or got a judgment wrong you'd never have tribunals with both parties having representation.
Indeed my experience of lawyers is they rarely make a categorical statement that something controversial is absolutely the case. They love to hedge their sentences with words like "may" almost as much as the media does.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
Davie has been flailing around for a week. Totally out of his depth, although the story has cleverly smokescreened Johnson's failure to hand over his phone.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
I’ve never been “on” OnlyFans. But I presume it has significant appeal and not a few of its subscribers will be 60 yo men.
So there’s also a massive hypocrisy angle to this.
I very much doubt the scribblers at the Sun, or the Murdoch clan itself are especially chaste.
I’ll admit to being very boring and not really understanding what it is…
Someone posted a YouTube on it, which I made a note to watch but now can’t be bothered.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
How on earth could it be considered gross misconduct anyway? Man does things not at work not related to his job or employer?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
If the lie was the truth it would be a crime, and he could have gone to prison, and it would be gross misconduct.
If he's engaged in bullying as also alleged, that could also be gross misconduct.
If its just consensual acts between consenting adults, no crime, and not gross misconduct in my eyes either.
Which is why I hope that Huw Edwards sues them into extinction. This isn't just printing very libellous lies by accident. This is knowing they were lies, printing them anyway and then doubling down with attacks on the BBC for not reacting to its lies.
The BBC should carry out an undercover investigation of the habits and practices of Sun managers and journalists, and hopefully find enough incriminating evidence to fill a programme. Let’s see how they like it.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
You mean you COULDN'T care less? Not "could"!
Quite. It's one of the stupider Americanisms too.
It's just sarcasm, no different to saying a cliché like "yeah, right" when you mean "no".
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
Maybe not the greatest 2 hours of your life... but well worth a watch.
No.
It's tripe. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature tbh. None. Zilch.
Bruce Willis became partially deaf due to the gunshot noise when he does a mag dump from his Beretta under the table to kill the bad guy above. Blanks are loud and in a confined space can lead to ear damage
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
Maybe not the greatest 2 hours of your life... but well worth a watch.
No.
It's tripe. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature tbh. None. Zilch.
Bruce Willis became partially deaf due to the gunshot noise when he does a mag dump from his Beretta under the table to kill the bad guy above. Blanks are loud and in a confined space can lead to ear damage
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
You mean you COULDN'T care less? Not "could"!
Quite. It's one of the stupider Americanisms too.
It's just sarcasm, no different to saying a cliché like "yeah, right" when you mean "no".
I don't think that explanation really meets the case. I've never seen anybody say 'I could care less' in an even vaguely sarcastic/ironic tone. It's just unfortunate.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
I haven't seen it, and you do not surprise me. I probably won't seek it out.
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
@arusbridger The Sun claims tonight it "never alleged criminality" and blames other media for "reading too much" into its reporting. Like yesterday's Sun story (still on website) saying the BBC figure "could be charged by cops & face years in prison."
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
BBC now reporting on some complaints thet have received from staff.
BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.
One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.
Die Hard not a Christmas film, cos it came out in the summer?
Next you'll be telling me that Christmas pudding and clootie dumpling are summer desserts cos they are best made at that time and left to mature. Or Christmas presents aren't presents because the Scalextric was made in July, ordered in October and collected in November.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
In my experience, often a godsend when faced with homicidal ir insane managers.
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Neither Alien (sci-fi horror) nor Beverly Hills Cop (comedy) fit that category.
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
Alien was late 70's wasn't it?
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
Maybe not the greatest 2 hours of your life... but well worth a watch.
No.
It's tripe. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature tbh. None. Zilch.
Bruce Willis became partially deaf due to the gunshot noise when he does a mag dump from his Beretta under the table to kill the bad guy above. Blanks are loud and in a confined space can lead to ear damage
I can't see that as a redeeming feature tbh.
No, but it is interesting. The guns of the first die hard movie are seen as one of the better selections in a very gun-happy decade, with many/all? of the bad guy guns being European and quirky/elegant/effete/expensive, and the good guys carrying solid American ironmongery (except for McClane''s Beretta, which is Italian). Hans Gruber's Heckler and Koch P7 has a unique safety cutoff in the grip and that model now commands high prices amongst rich American gunnuts who are Die Hard fans. Which is all of them.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
Sympathetically I feel they're caught between two that come into conflict: to support leadership and management in policy implementation, and to manage processes and obligations to staff, including those necessary under law. In light of point A, trusting them to neutrally administer point B can often feel "challenging" (to use the local lingo).
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
Not at all from me. I detest Edwards, but I despise the Sun.
BBC now reporting on some complaints thet have received from staff.
BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.
One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
Indeed, but I'd prefer three strikes and you're out - not zero tolerance. .
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Neither Alien (sci-fi horror) nor Beverly Hills Cop (comedy) fit that category.
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
Alien was late 70's wasn't it?
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
The first LoTR film is action-light, and as we get older, we can see worthwhile, almost self-contained reflections on the right way to approach mortality. (The other two are overweighted towards boring but large CGI fights.)
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
Indeed, but I'd prefer three strikes and you're out - not zero tolerance. .
Would you like intoxicated whilst working to have three strikes in a school or hospital?
Comments
That was the offence. Bad publicity for their employer.
Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1839963.stm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdnevXjqdc
If a 60 year old is offering that to a woman in a role in a film he is directing then that's absolutely a workplace matter.
If a 60 year old hooks up with a random 22 year old in a nightclub, or online, who's not an actress and has no connection to work, then its not.
Also Capita (IIRC) who collect the license fee would be far from happy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66140890
The BBC just needs to bite the bullet and seek its funding elsewhere either via ads, subscriptions or by whatever other means that does not rely on a license fee or taxation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66140890
Will we cancel Alan Turing one day?
Has Boris handed over his dog and bone yet?
Let's remember - the story out out by The S*n was a lie. That lie could be considered to bring the Been into disrepute. But it was a lie, so it would be outrageous for it to be considered so.
This is what is so egregious about the S*n story. They knew it was bullshit. And ran it anyway.
Educational content, news, world service, national events funded through general taxation.
Entertainment content on a subscription model.
The exact parameters would be one for debate but I think the principle is sound.
Initially the bankers, who paid the bill with their own money, received only a slap on the wrist for having spent so lavishly -- and having been documented doing so in newspapers at the time -- while Barclays, like other banks here, was trying to project a new sobriety as an antidote to the excesses of the 1990's.
But when some of the bankers secretly tried to pass off their part of the bill as client expenses, Barclays began firing them one by one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/26/business/5-bankers-fired-from-barclays-over-62700-spent-at-meal.html
Have you a link to a tribunal about this?
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
Maybe not the greatest 2 hours of your life... but well worth a watch.
If he's engaged in bullying as also alleged, that could also be gross misconduct.
If its just consensual acts between consenting adults, no crime, and not gross misconduct in my eyes either.
But I presume it has significant appeal and not a few of its subscribers will be 60 yo men.
So there’s also a massive hypocrisy angle to this.
I very much doubt the scribblers at the Sun, or the Murdoch clan itself are especially chaste.
It's tripe. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature tbh. None. Zilch.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s)
Lethal Weapon(s)
Alien(s)
Predator(s)
Terminator(s)
Beverly Hills Cop
or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Indeed my experience of lawyers is they rarely make a categorical statement that something controversial is absolutely the case. They love to hedge their sentences with words like "may" almost as much as the media does.
https://youtu.be/sLMRh62sazs
That doesn't just give him celebrity; it brings him authority and power too
He's not just an ordinary guy with kinks
He has abused his position - see the Beeb confirmed stories about his threats - he deserves to lose it
If he has does anything illegal on top of that then he should be punished for it, if not: not
But he shouldn't be forgiven his abuse of power, just because he's gone a bit nuts now
There are at least 2 much better reasons
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
And at the other end of the continuum are people who wear novelty ties.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
Would you like me to give you a minute-by-minute texting of Alien? I happen to have a copy on hand... 😀
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
The Sun claims tonight it "never alleged criminality" and blames other media for "reading too much" into its reporting. Like yesterday's Sun story (still on website) saying the BBC figure "could be charged by cops & face years in prison."
https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1679227488155598848?s=20
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.
One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-66159469
Next you'll be telling me that Christmas pudding and clootie dumpling are summer desserts cos they are best made at that time and left to mature. Or Christmas presents aren't presents because the Scalextric was made in July, ordered in October and collected in November.
What's in vogue can quickly go out of vogue.
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
Here is a YouTube on the matter:: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCJEKRkRP0
In short, whilst it would be possibly silly to describe it as genius, it is a very well put together movie. Everything worked
Far too many institutions work by rewarding behaviours that reinforce the hierarchy and punishing those who do not.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
Goodfellas
Withnail And I
The Blues Brothers
Pulp Fiction
The Commitments
Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films