The bbc, again.

Yup.

We lost a case against a lazy useless so and so although we had to pay compensation (about 9k) as my boss said it was worth it to get rid of the toxic individual. His case was all in the papers at the time and I think most people wondered how on earth the tribunal had found in his favour.
As the Trade Unionist involved I missed out the lazy useless bit. 😉
 
This goes back to 2018 apparently, did not stop the BBC putting him into plum jobs
So he was investigated by the Police in 2016 and the CPS decided not to prosecute him.

Of course his defenders are saying why sack him because he did nothing wrong (criminal).

I think the more pertinent question, is why sack him now?

As I mentioned before you do not have to be guilty of a crime to be sacked, reputational damage is a justifiable reason for sacking someone e.g. an inappropriate relationship. So what has changed since 2016? Why did they not sack him then?

If he does decide to sue the BBC I expect his defence will be that the BBC looked at all of this in 2016 and decided nothing to see here. If there is no new evidence he may have a case, why did the BBC change their mind.

From the BBC's POV one reason why things may have changed is if he lied to the BBC back in 2016 and this has now come to light e.g. I never met the person don't know who they are and then proof of contact has now come to light or something like that

None of this requires a criminal conviction just that the BBC is satisfied he has not been truthful.

We shall see.
 
So he was investigated by the Police in 2016 and the CPS decided not to prosecute him.

Of course his defenders are saying why sack him because he did nothing wrong (criminal).

I think the more pertinent question, is why sack him now?

As I mentioned before you do not have to be guilty of a crime to be sacked, reputational damage is a justifiable reason for sacking someone e.g. an inappropriate relationship. So what has changed since 2016? Why did they not sack him then?

If he does decide to sue the BBC I expect his defence will be that the BBC looked at all of this in 2016 and decided nothing to see here. If there is no new evidence he may have a case, why did the BBC change their mind.

From the BBC's POV one reason why things may have changed is if he lied to the BBC back in 2016 and this has now come to light e.g. I never met the person don't know who they are and then proof of contact has now come to light or something like that

None of this requires a criminal conviction just that the BBC is satisfied he has not been truthful.

We shall see.
He has fallen on Huw Edward’s sword! Ooh er missus
 
I was wondering if he was Asian, or a shopkeeper, drugging and raping children, whether they could have swept it under the carpet.? It seems to be working (in part) for the Government and its institutions.

Remaining on topic, I think the BBC have played it the way you would hope they would historically have played it. Until recently they were giving huge pay-outs to end employees contracts.
 
So he was investigated by the Police in 2016 and the CPS decided not to prosecute him.

Of course his defenders are saying why sack him because he did nothing wrong (criminal).

I think the more pertinent question, is why sack him now?

As I mentioned before you do not have to be guilty of a crime to be sacked, reputational damage is a justifiable reason for sacking someone e.g. an inappropriate relationship. So what has changed since 2016? Why did they not sack him then?

If he does decide to sue the BBC I expect his defence will be that the BBC looked at all of this in 2016 and decided nothing to see here. If there is no new evidence he may have a case, why did the BBC change their mind.

From the BBC's POV one reason why things may have changed is if he lied to the BBC back in 2016 and this has now come to light e.g. I never met the person don't know who they are and then proof of contact has now come to light or something like that

None of this requires a criminal conviction just that the BBC is satisfied he has not been truthful.

We shall see.
Victim surfaced and demanded pay off?
 
So why should the employer sack the perpetrator who didn't work for them at the time?
I assume for not revealing past conduct likely to cause embarrassment to his current employer? There is a big difference between someone doing something and there being enough evidence to prove it in a criminal court. Maybe the police might re-open the case.
I’m sure the BBc took legal advice and these things always end up with a settlement and an NDA to keep it secret.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top