phuketrichard wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:36 am This is NOT Being handled correctly>>>

As so often happens in these cases, people say it's not being or hasn't been dealt with correctly, but when you ask them how it should be handled, you get a different answer from everyone. So there is no 'correct' way to deal with it which will satisfy everyone.

For some, Hew is an ordinary man with already-known-about mental health issues who might have done a few immoral things, but hasn't broken any laws, as confirmed by the police. This is nothing more than a stitch-up smear campaign against him in order to detract the public from issues they should be caring about, such as the fact that Boris has broken the law yet again by not handing over his Whatsapp messages before the deadline set by the court.

For others, Hew is a disgusting sex pest who crawls the internet frequently looking for young, vulnerable people to have sexual interactions with, paying them for all kinds of sexual favours, and can be threatening and intimidating when he feels he is at risk of being exposed. This is not the kind of man people want to see on their TV screens, via a public service broadcaster that everyone pays for.

I think the BBC handled it in the only way they could. They had to follow privacy laws, which means that they could not, legally, name him unless he was charged with a crime, which the police confirmed didn't happen, as far as they're concerned. If anyone else apart from the Hew or his family came out publicly and named him, they would be at risk of serious defamation laws. The BBC had no choice but to remain silent about who it was.

Now that he has been named, but at the same time, not only have the police confirmed that they are dropping the case against him as no crime was committed, plus the fact he's in hospital with serious mental health issues, it's another 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' moment for the BBC. As an employee (they haven't fired him) they have a legal duty of care over him, but at the same time, he has bought the broadcaster into disrepute, something I'm sure is mentioned in his contract, as is in most work contracts, and is often a sackable offence, depending on the seriousness of the situation. I think we can all agree this is pretty serious if we're talking about bringing your employer into disrepute.

I'm no big fan of the BBC, obviously living in KOW, I don't use their services anymore anyway, but I do feel a bit sorry for the people who have to deal with these types of situations. They have to balance public opinion, their own internal policies, the duty of care over their employees, and the law itself. Quite often, these are just impossible to align.

As I said, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Interesting to watch with a bucket of popcorn from afar though.

I would think that to be actively bringing the BBC into disrepute, his public actions would need to be directly involving the BBC.
As these were private activities, not involving the BBC other than him being recognisable as a BBC presenter, then no.

If the photos occurred while engaged on BBC business, yes. Otherwise, any person employed by any company would be restricted from conducting themselves (legally permissible) in whatever way the see fit in private, for the duration of their working life.