Ludo*1 Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 hours ago, throbber said: Just seems weird that they’ve done that, if they’ve got legal reasons to get money back from him because he didn’t tell the entire story then that’s reasonable but just to ask for the money back seems pretty wild. Why don’t they just ask for him to surrender his entire wealth while we’re at it? BBC want to come out of this situation with as much credit as they possibly can. He's every right to tell them to f**k themselves, but that'll only further worsen (if that's possible) his reputation. It's the BBC gaining themselves a wee pat on the back in the eyes of the public when they're f**king desperate for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 13 minutes ago, Lofarl said: It's not as if returning the money is going to make people see him in a better light. No I think that ship has sailed. Maybe he resigned when he knew he was going to plead guilty who knows? I think he’ll look desperate if he gives the money back and I don’t think he will. I don’t think it will make him look any worse for not giving anything back either. I’d also be staggered if more allegations don’t come out against him anyway and he’ll be completely f**ked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 7 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: I keep calling him Huw Steven’s - why do I keep doing this who even is Huw Steven’s? I also keep referring to him as Huw as if I’m also being groomed by him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Raccoon Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 3 hours ago, throbber said: Just seems weird that they’ve done that, if they’ve got legal reasons to get money back from him because he didn’t tell the entire story then that’s reasonable but just to ask for the money back seems pretty wild. Why don’t they just ask for him to surrender his entire wealth while we’re at it? To appease their loyal licence holders who they don't want to think their valuable licence fee has essentially been funding a nonce 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Bert Raccoon said: To appease their loyal licence holders who they don't want to think their valuable licence fee has essentially been funding a nonce It would be nice if the license payer was even mentioned here, all that was said by the bbc chief was that he had behaved in bad faith there was no mention of the licence fee payer deserving better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 20 minutes ago, Bert Raccoon said: To appease their loyal licence holders who they don't want to think their valuable licence fee has essentially been funding a nonce Exactly. They’ve no chance of recovering anything. It’s a PR exercise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 hour ago, Lofarl said: It's not as if returning the money is going to make people see him in a better light. If he gave it to me, I might visit him in the jail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbykdy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 58 minutes ago, throbber said: I keep calling him Huw Steven’s - why do I keep doing this who even is Huw Steven’s? I also keep referring to him as Huw as if I’m also being groomed by him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 I thought Shakey was getting outed as a wrong 'un, there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 There’s a radio presenter Huw Stevens. Not sure how relevant he is but the name runs off the tongue easier than Huw Edwards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Just now, throbber said: There’s a radio presenter Huw Stevens. Not sure how relevant he is but the name runs off the tongue easier than Huw Edwards. Huw Edwards runs off your tongue? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 5 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Huw Edwards runs off your tongue? I’m 38 so I fall into his “half your age plus 7” rule of acceptance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 BBC news trolling viewers by getting Katy Razzle to report on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 hours ago, throbber said: I’m 38 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonytoons Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 hours ago, throbber said: I’m 38 3 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: I thought he was applying half his age plus 7 years to come up with 38. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nae Union Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 It's absolutely performative by the bbc,they'll not get a penny back. But surely there is a case against him that he continued to draw a salary, knowing his guilty plea would have seen him being dismissed for gross misconduct 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Why were they even still paying his salary you may ask? The BBC is wall to wall with Tory beasts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 I assume because you are considered innocent until proven (or admit) guilty and they didn't have a legal case not to pay him until then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 10 Share Posted August 10 7 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said: All I’m saying is I could be in a relationship with a 62 year old without the age difference being officially inappropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauzen Posted August 10 Share Posted August 10 1 hour ago, throbber said: All I’m saying is I could be in a relationship with a 62 year old without the age difference being officially inappropriate. Carol Vorderman likes this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.