A different channel but similar fury as the alleged conduct of another well-known British TV presenter on a fat salary makes headlines.
While many on social media are dining out on the salacious gossip of it all, it’s worth noting why, once again, this merits talking about.
For the presenter in question, the phrase more money than sense immediately comes to mind. But don’t forget the human cost.
One family feeling so badly wronged by one of the biggest names in broadcasting that they risk the embarrassment and anguish of going public with a hugely personal matter.
Make no mistake, this is a big problem for the BBC.
Conversations about safeguarding procedures and workplace culture are standard across all organisations nowadays. As our public service broadcaster, the BBC is supposed to lead by example.
More on Bbc
Related Topics:
If, as it’s claimed, the family of the teenager in question first complained back in May, it is inexcusable that the presenter in question was allowed to continue broadcasting in the interim.
On a very basic level, it’s not a good look. Seemingly prioritising the stars rather than taking a step back to thoroughly investigate.
Advertisement
While nobody is comparing this to the serious failings that allowed Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall to sexually abuse during their time at the corporation, the BBC assured us it had learned lessons from the mistakes of its past.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Once again, to the public, there is a sense that the big broadcasters find it easier to turn a blind eye to what their stars have allegedly been up to rather than do what is right.
While the witch-hunt goes into overdrive, as countless Reddit threads try to piece together who has apologised, who hasn’t been seen on screen, try not to forget the family suffering at the heart of this.
It is, to state the obvious, all rather sleazy. All rather depressing. But as the public pays for the BBC and the fat salaries within it, we do need to talk about this.
Heidi Alexander has been appointed the new transport secretary after Louise Haigh stepped down.
The Swindon South MP had been serving as a justice minister until her promotion today, and worked as Sadiq Khan’s deputy transport mayor between 2018-2021.
Ms Haigh resigned after Sky News revealed she pleaded guilty to an offence related to incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.
In a letter to the prime minister, she described the incident as a “mistake” but said that “whatever the facts of the matter, this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government”.
She called the incident a “genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain”.
The Tories have said it raises questions about what exactly Sir Keir knew when he appointed her to his shadow cabinet in opposition.
More on Transport
Related Topics:
Responding to her resignation letter, the prime minister thanked Ms Haigh for “all you have done to deliver this government’s ambitious transport agenda” and said: “I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
A 16-year-old girl has been charged with the murder of a man in King’s Cross.
The teenager, from Brixton, south London, will appear at magistrates’ court later today charged with the murder of Anthony Marks, 51, in August this year.
Mr Marks was assaulted on Cromer Street on Saturday 10 August.
A 17-year-old boy has previously been charged and remanded in custody to face trial next year.
Police are keen to hear from any witnesses who may not have come forward yet, as well as Mr Marks’s next of kin, who still remain unidentified.
The first vote on the assisted dying bill is not only hugely consequential, it’s also hugely unpredictable and even as the vote draws near it still feels like it could go either way.
MPs will debate the bill, brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, in parliament today before they get a free vote on the legislation.
There are a few reasons why the potential outcome of the vote is difficult to predict. Firstly, the last Commons vote on this issue was back in 2015. It was also a Private Members’ Bill and a free vote, that was defeated by 331 to 119 – 199 MPs didn’t vote and one abstained.
That may seem like a useful starting point to predict future results but there has been an unprecedented turnover of MPs since then.
It was less than a decade ago but over two-thirds of those MPs from 2015 are no longer in parliament. This means there’s no voting record that can help us out this time round.
Secondly, it’s a free vote so we can’t, as we usually would, look to the political parties to work out the numbers.
Every single one of the 650 MPs must make up their minds for themselves and they have all taken a slightly different approach to the process.
Some came out straight away and declared their position publicly. Some took their time and have only decided in the last few days, putting out statements on social media platforms.
There are also those who prefer to keep it to themselves, and some who are genuinely still undecided and will be until they walk through the voting lobbies.
So, to get a sense of what could happen, at Sky News we have been monitoring declarations as well as reaching out to every MP personally.
This has given us, on the eve of the second reading, an informative but still incomplete picture.
So far we have confirmed that 181 MPs will vote for the bill, while 148 say they will vote against, and 300 are either undecided or haven’t revealed their decision.
There are also 20 MPs that won’t vote – the SNP because the changes won’t apply in Scotland, Sinn Fein who don’t sit in Westminster, and the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.
Of those who will vote but whose position is still unknown, about two-thirds are Labour MPs – a big chunk of those are brand new.
This is the deciding cohort, who just a few months into their roles will make a life-or-death decision that will influence generations to come – no pressure.
Ms Leadbeater has said she hopes parliament will “show itself at its best” by voting in favour of the bill.
In a statement on Thursday night, she said: “I hope this parliament will also be remembered for this major social reform that gives people autonomy over the end of their lives and puts right an injustice that has been left on the statute books for far too long.
“People will be looking in on parliament as it debates this important change to the law – a change that, when we most need it, could bring comfort to any one of us or to somebody we love.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
Lord Cameron to support assisted dying bill
What could make the difference?
Most MPs tell us they have been poring over the legislation line-by-line and listening intently to their constituents.
But beyond that, there are external factors that will no doubt have influenced their thinking.
Public opinion will be high on the list, with the latest YouGov poll – one of many – showing an overwhelming majority (73%) of the public are in favour of a change in the law.
The other will be how Cabinet ministers vote, with many high profile and respected names, Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn among them, coming out in favour.
More controversial though are those who oppose the bill.
In particular, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting and the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood have made the news with their views.
They will both have to take a leading role in implementing the legislation if it passes.
He also ruffled feathers among colleagues when he appeared to breach the etiquette around free votes, by repeatedly raising concerns around extra pressures on the NHS and making the case for improving palliative care instead.
Mr Streeting’s position and approach have made the bill’s supporters nervous that new MPs will fall in behind him.
In contrast, other big beasts – the prime minister, the chancellor and the foreign secretary – remain silent on which way they will go, aware that their opinions could sway the result.
As it stands, after all the number crunching, it looks likely that this landmark legislation will pass the second reading.
But with so many unknowns, both sides will feel that even at this late stage, it’s still impossible to call.