�鶹������ҳ���

As the �鶹������ҳ���’s highest-paid news presenter, Huw Edwards was on a salary of almost half a million pounds.

So recouping the money from the time of his arrest last year, before he resigned in April, might go some way to restoring faith in the corporation’s handling of one of its biggest - and now entirely disgraced - stars.

But in writing to Edwards to ask him to return the money, the �鶹������ҳ��� appears to be relying on him to do the right thing.

In light of what we now know about his past behaviour, how realistic is that position?

The board says that he “has clearly undermined trust in the �鶹������ҳ��� and brought us into disrepute”. It calls him the “villain of the piece”.

Strong words and an indication of the recognition of just how much it has damaged the �鶹������ҳ���’s reputation.

Today’s statement doesn’t hold back in condemning a man who, until very recently, was one of the �鶹������ҳ���’s most trusted presenters.

This would have been unimaginable a year ago. But so much has changed, and his betrayal of the �鶹������ҳ��� and all it stands for is deeply felt by the corporation.

But the board is firmly backing the decisions by the director general and other executives last year, to continue to pay Edwards after his arrest.

He would have received around £200,000 of licence fee payers’ money over the five months after the �鶹������ҳ��� knew he had been arrested in November, and before he was given the space to resign.

Some will understand the �鶹������ҳ��� felt it had contractual and duty of care responsibilities. But many won’t.

It’s also instructive that the chair, Samir Shah, who took up his post in March, has said he’s “exercised” by the ongoing issue of how the �鶹������ҳ��� handles bad behaviour by those with power within the organisation.

The independent review they’re launching that will make recommendations into workplace culture will be welcome.

But there have already been two internal investigations.

One was into the original allegations against Huw Edwards made by the Sun newspaper, that he paid a teenager for explicit photographs.

After that there was a confidential disciplinary process into his behaviour towards colleagues.

Neither was published in any form.

How much these investigations will inform this new one - if at all - isn’t yet clear, and whilst it will be published, it will be forward-looking, rather than than dealing with the specific concerns raised in the past.

The true test in future will be how thoroughly the �鶹������ҳ��� listens to employees who have concerns - and whether it will fully act on their complaints.