|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 19, 2012 19:55:43 GMT
I think the truth will come out this time Teddy. Al Beeb has made too many enemies recently with their arrogant supposition that they were above reproach.
Including their fellow travellers in the media who must be rubbing their hands with delight.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 21:43:32 GMT
The plot thickens with more evidence of the BBC cover up emerging.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 21:45:18 GMT
I think the truth will come out this time Teddy. Al Beeb has made too many enemies recently with their arrogant supposition that they were above reproach. Including their fellow travellers in the media who must be rubbing their hands with delight. Not to mention the police themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 21, 2012 16:12:46 GMT
How do you know when the BBC are lying? Answer - when they have a personal interest in the outcome.
At least some of the staff appear to be unhappy with the developments of this case as evidenced by the emails 'leaking' to do with it. More and more it looks like a cover-up with regard to the cancelled Newsnight programme, as well as consciously avoiding exposing Savile knowing it would reflect on their own complicity in the matter.
How does the BBC relate to these leaked emails? They call this evidence 'ridiculous', and affirm the line they want to be accepted.
Even if it was a soap opera it would lack creativity. It's not - it's real, and we are forced to pay for them.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 22, 2012 18:23:54 GMT
It appears the BBC hierarchy have finally come to the realisation that they won't be able to maintain their usual bullshit and come through this unscathed. They've seen that various pigeons are coming home to roost, and that the credibility that they rely upon, no matter there having been little foundation for it, is being justly seriously undermined. A variety of stories to which I'll just provide links for that point to several issues going on at this time: In the first George Entwistle, the BBC director-general, will be accused by his own journalists of misleading the public about his role in the scandal.
An hour-long Panorama special, featuring newly disclosed emails and interviews, will raise serious questions about Mr Entwistle’s role in the decision to drop a Newsnight exposé of Savile.
It will also question the veracity of public statements that he and other senior BBC bosses have made in recent days about why it was shelved. Jimmy Savile: BBC scrapped investigation after Newsnight came 'under pressure' from senior managersThe second and third: Jimmy Savile: the BBC emailsEmails between senior members of BBC staff give insight into whether the corporation scrapped its Jimmy Savile Newsnight investigation after coming “under pressure” from managers. Jimmy Savile scandal: How the BBC tied itself in knotsHow the BBC's decision-making over the Newsnight Savile programme unfolded in emails, blogs and even a meeting with the future director general at the Hilton Hotel. The 4th about how seriously it is being regarded Jimmy Savile: David Cameron says BBC faces 'serious questions over why it changed its story'David Cameron has said the BBC has "serious questions" to answer over why it "changed its story" over the reasons Newsnight dropped an investigation into Jimmy Savile.
Mr Cameron said the BBC's announcement that Newsnight's editor Peter Rippon had misled the public when he set out his reasons for the decision was "concerning".
Mr Rippon has stepped aside from his job while an independent investigation is carried out into why a film about Jimmy Savile's child abuse was shelved last December. The BBC will be showing the Panorama exposee of the Newsnight debacle this evening. In the BBC article about some of the ramifications that have been unearthed, a few further points appear. Here first is the article: My first thought is how much pressure has been exerted on the BBC for them to finally correct their initial assertions about why Newsnight was dropped. The 'corrections' they refer to are a result of being found out they were plainly lying and trying to avoid the ramifications of what they know they did. Any wonder why those who can only write complaints to the BBC over one issue or other receive little joy, and a whole lot of frustration? But for internal revolt over what many BBC employees knew to be a travesty, they would have continued with their lies and deception. There was talk last week that the Panorama programme dealing with this issue was not going to be aired before Entwistle appeared tomorrow before MPs. Seems as if pressure has made them aware this was not viewed very favourably, and they will now go ahead on schedule for this evening. It still shows the lengths they go to to affect public opinion on a daily basis when they know they can get away with it. They mention that world affairs editor John Simpson has called it 'the biggest crisis for them in 50 years', yet ignore John Humphrey's recent statement about this affair being a witchhunt, and that most of the abuse was not that serious. I notice too that when Humphrey made this statement it was in an interview with Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Reading this piece today by Melanie Phillips about how Harman was once employed by a group promoting lowering the age of sexual consent, it looks like Humphrey thought he would get an easy ride with her. This too backfired on him, which I guess is why they had Simpson issue his statement. Then the article tells us The BBC's governing body, the BBC Trust, has issued a statement saying it was deeply concerned about "inaccuracies in the BBC's own description of what happened in relation to the Newsnight investigation".However, if you remember at the beginning of this affair, the head of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, along with Entwistle, gave a clean bill of health to why the Newsnight programme was pulled. If he didn't know the facts, or wasn't sure that this was valid, why was he so quick to make this statement. I think this shows how much value Patten has in his post. How ironic that the issue that is showing the true colours of the BBC has the word Vile in it.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 22, 2012 20:27:25 GMT
An hour to go to Panorama but I have my doubts about how credible it will be.
It's a bit like asking the Gestapo to preside over the Nuremberg trials.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 22, 2012 21:04:23 GMT
Keep in mind that the BBC are starting to realise that they are being scrutinised now by those who are not taken in with the usual BS they generate. This is why they've had to do an about turn on so many statements that they issued earlier on. Plus their own staff is keeping an eye on what their bosses are trying to do, since they feel shafted. We'll see
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 23, 2012 22:21:17 GMT
Although you may know an organisation is corrupt in the way they conduct business, the questions that still need to be answered are to what extent, and how do they conduct themselves to produce the output they do. I know the chronic bias that is endemic to the BBC, and what areas this bias is applied to. I can only conjecture as to the reasons for this bias, which is modified as evidence of reasons becomes apparent. So for example when considering the BBC's pro-militant Islamic bias, some of it I apply to coercion and subsequent fear by BBC staff to over-promote these groups. There is also the desire by the BBC to dominate world media, and without ingratiating themselves and appeasing the Muslim world, they can't see how to accomplish it. I don't discount the possibility that the hierarchy within the BBC may be receiving bribes to promote the Islamic agenda, but without evidence this remains purely a distinct possibility to add to their existing motives. With the Savile debacle we can observe a lot of internal dynamics that are exposed. We get to see the inner workings and not just the outer results. Entwistle appeared before the MP's today, and apparently the outcome does not look good for him. What I wonder about is considering how timely this scandal has evolved, just following the exits of Thompson and Boaden for 'greener pastures'. Therefore was the apparent 'timid' Entwistle 'chosen' to the director general role to be the fall guy for what was to ensue. I'm holding my breath on that one for a while to see what follows. There is a question about why when Entwistle first heard about the potential problems surrounding the proposed Newsnight exposee, he didn't pursue it any further. When you read it as described in the article below, I believe it sheds light on the inner workings within the BBC. Why lesser managers, as Entwistle was - despite his previous title, and not privy to the machinations of the hierarchy, fulfil their role within a 3 wise monkey 'do not disturb' environment. Until the shit hits the fan, and by coincidence he finds himself in the top job just as it happens. Let's see how deep these enquiries go, and whether they will really answer ALL the questions to be asked about the workings of the BBC for all this to happen. Another article that explores in more detail what happened in this inquiry is here: Jimmy Savile: George Entwistle heckled by BBC reporters after brutal grilling from MPs
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 23, 2012 22:47:09 GMT
It wisnae me. A big boy did it and ran away.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 23, 2012 23:29:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 24, 2012 22:06:00 GMT
I see and read various articles on this story regarding what has happened in the past with regard to Savile's actions, how he was enabled by the various reprehensible organisations he was affiliated to, by their turning their gaze while knowing what was going on, and ignoring the rumours and complaints they had previously received. Now I wait to see if the focus will address the main issues of this story. - Considering the BBC complicity in the past, we can be sure that the Newsnight story about Savile's deeds would have also drawn attention to them.
- Nobody involved could have had any doubt that this would be the case, least of all the various department heads surrounding this production. Yet they first tried to claim that the Newsnight story was suspended for editorial reasons.
- Now this has been found to be untrue, then ALL those who have subsequently tried to claim that they were either unaware of it, or did not pursue it further, are simply lying. Still trying to deflect guilt from themselves for their true motives.
- So it is not possible that Thompson, Boaden, Entwistle, and Rippon, were unaware of the implications of this story, or that they failed to understand that any decision they would make to avoid showing it would not be seen as averting attention from the inner world of the BBC.
- Not only the above bosses, but also Patten, the head of the BBC Trust went along with the initial claims of the BBC. If he was unaware of the real story, why did he publicly go along with it? That is not his job.
Regardless of whatever happens to the BBC as a whole as a result of this scandal, unless each of those involved, including Patten, are publicly denounced and relieved of whatever posts they presently hold, in any company, then justice is not being done. I am glad to see that Thompson, who seemed to think he was free and clear, is now coming under scrutiny, as well as some of the others, as the following 2 articles show. Other article include: Maria Miller: BBC has lost public trust over Jimmy SavileJimmy Savile: Nine BBC staff facing child abuse allegations
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 24, 2012 22:43:36 GMT
I see another article expressing certain aspects of what I just covered:
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 25, 2012 22:19:39 GMT
Good to see the focus maintained on Patten's role in this affair.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 26, 2012 0:54:07 GMT
Andrew Gilligan, himself having first-hand experience of the inner world of the BBC, muses about what this scandal shows, and throws more light on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 26, 2012 23:02:00 GMT
The BBC supposed 'self flagellation' they appear to be engaged in right now, seems to be convincing people of how genuine and truly repentant they are.
Here's an article by Ron Liddle at The Spectator which surprises me, as I thought he was more Savvy (no pun intended) than that.
For the record BBC doesn’t stand for Breast Beating Contrition. It does however stand for Breast Beating Conmen
Just imagine if it would have been Sky that nurtured and enabled the scum Savile for so many years, while at best ‘averting their gaze – wink, wink nod nod’.
And if would have been Sky that cancelled a report that would have drawn attention to this scandal, and highlighted their internal twisted culture that allows this kind of thing to go on.
I wonder what sort of questions the BBC would be asking at every available slot, and what sort of focus they would be trying to attain?
Maybe Ron Liddle thinks the BBC should just get on with ‘business as usual’. They certainly don’t fool me with their attempt to make themselves appear truly repentant, open and honest, especially using it as a diversionary tactic that fails to focus on or reveal just where this internal culture has altered in any way – and what led to that change.
They can’t – because it hasn’t!
In just the same way as Thompson admitting a ‘massive left-wing bias’ at the BBC 30 years ago, but avoiding saying just where and how was this addressed – because it wasn’t.
Rotten to the core and needs to be cast out. Anybody who really believes that what the BBC is doing right now is falling on their sword is delusional, or just taken in by their act following getting caught out.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 27, 2012 16:57:40 GMT
Anybody not convinced of BBC complicity enabling this scum faced pervert to perpetrate his abuse need only watch this video. Since this video is sometimes deleted by YouTube it can still be seen here courtesy of SkySo I will include this picture of the scene as well as a statement by the girl as to what happened [hat-tip UK Paedos-Exposed) Note how the BBC boss crudely dismisses her complaint. Clearly the cameraman pans in for a close-up on Savile, thus removing the girl from the frame when realising what Savile's doing to her. And to think people are forced to pay for these degenerates. Shows why our society is going down the toilet. Caught on camera: Jimmy Savile gropes terrified teenage girl as he presents Top Of The Pops - Sylvia Edwards can been seen trying to flee from grinning Savile
- Claims a BBC employee told her to 'get lost' when she complained
- Presenter mauls her and grabs her bottom as terrified teenager shrieks
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 27, 2012 23:38:48 GMT
Good digging Teddy.
I'm beginning to wonder which is the more sickening. The crimes or the cover ups.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 28, 2012 0:54:59 GMT
As far as I'm concerned - they're all accomplices to the crime. I think the BBC hierarchy realise it, which is why they're deflecting attention to lesser negative aspects of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 28, 2012 23:12:36 GMT
Oh the irony ;D The BBC run a story about how the Catholic Church is going through efforts to posthumously revoke the Papal knighthood bestowed on Savile because of his child abuse. This is the only article by the BBC that I can recall relating to Catholicism where the only negativity due to child abuse is directed at Savile and the BBC. Must be a bitter pill for them, and I can't help smiling. Jimmy Savile: Catholic Church bid to remove papal knighthood
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 28, 2012 23:56:07 GMT
Piece of news about former BBC Director General Thompson's further involvement in this scandal. Two different sources claim to have alerted him to claims of child abuse involving Savile, but Thompson denies getting them.
So we are to believe that a scandal involving the BBC of this magnitude, and the likely ramifications were not conveyed to the hierarchy. Even if it were true, Thompson awarded himself an annual salary of £670k, but apparently did not have assistants intelligent enough to understand the importance of these alerts to have notified him.
Either way, it shows the complete lack of qualities to justify its continuance.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 29, 2012 0:58:44 GMT
BBC reporter John Simpson writes in the Spectator to the effect that the BBC might not be perfect, but because of the recent Panorama programme highlighting Savile's abuse, and the 'breast-beating' that it is been engaged in ever since, all should be forgiven. Here's my comment posted below his article The BBC really want us to believe that all they had to do was run that Panorama programme (double length even) and everything would be forgiven, and they can get back to bias as usual.
I'll tell you what Simpson, watch this video of Savile groping a nearby girl on Top of the Pops - and notice how the cameraman goes in for a close up just of Savile when he realises what this sick pervert is doing to her.
That typifies what the BBC has been doing all these years, including cancelling the Newsnight report, so as to avoid showing just how rotten and corrupt they would be perceived. Panorama didn't focus on this aspect of the BBC, now did it?
But you had no problem going after Murdoch for phone-hacking, a far lesser crime, or to bring up child abuse every time you run a story about the Catholic Church, even during the Papal visit last year.
But you'd dearly like to think this scandal is all behind you now wouldn't you? I know that for what the BBC is supposed to represent, this is only the tip of the iceberg of your internal corruption
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 29, 2012 19:10:31 GMT
It's disheartening when even the 'right-wing' journalists miss the more relevant issues at stake here.
Peter McKay at the Daily Mail questions whether Cameron will do anything about Patten's poor job as head of BBC Trust, and finds the prospect unlikely.
However, in explaining why he thinks so, he misses an important factor. My comment to him is under the article.
I think Peter Mckay has missed perhaps one of the most important factors in this scandal, pertinent to the BBC at this time. When it hit the news about the Newsnight report being dropped, first Entwistle, then Patten both affirmed that it had been dropped because of editorial reasons. When subsequently facts began to emerge that this might not be the case, they still both repeated their initial stance, and stated that any inquiry would not be necessary.
It wasn't until the government began to get involved that they backtracked, and began a 'holier than thou' crusade for the truth.
Do you really not see a problem here.? Patten was willing to cover-up for the BBC regardless of what might be the truth. Ether he knew the facts, as I believe, and was lying to protect his charge, which is reprehensible considering what it revealed. Or else he didn't take his position seriously enough to investigate himself before declaring a clean bill of health.
Either way, clearly not fit for TRUST!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 31, 2012 21:42:07 GMT
I've read recently that quite a few people at the NY Times, where Mark Thompson is soon due to begin his new job as CEO, are not happy about it in light of the Savile scandal. They find it unlikely that a man who held the position he did, should be unaware of what was going on, especially something of this magnitude.
Regardless of whether the NY Times keeps him, I'm glad that he knows there's dissent within, and there will be those who don't regard him with any kind of awe or welcome.
Though the BBC themselves are now avoiding the topic, unlike when they were pursuing Murdoch over the phone hacking scandal, clearly as news about the findings of the upcoming inquiry starts emerging, their complicity will hopefully be identified.
Ruth Edwards at the Telegraph has her view about Thompson keeping his job at the NY Times. I hope she's correct.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 2, 2012 0:21:06 GMT
A good article in The Spectator by Miles Goslett, examines whether the Leveson inquiry had scared other major media to want to pursue the Savile abuse story, and the reasons for the BBC to drop its Newsnight exposee when he first became aware of it, last December. Here first is his article, followed by my comment to him: I'm just looking at the base elements that led to the evolution of Leveson, and wondering if it might be necessary to examine these to see the cause for the media 'not to want to get into Savile and Newsnight. Leveson happened because of an intense amount of pressure mounted by the BBC into the phone hacking scandle. For the BBC it was the excuse to neutralize what would have been a direct threat against their own power from Murdoch. We see time and time again that the BBC will spare no effort or expense to serve its own agenda, which has nothing to do with the purpose it was set up for, or adhering to its charter.
It is clear today that Savile performed his abuse, with the 'tacit consent' of many in the BBC who were aware of his behaviour. It doesn't take an Einstein to realise that if the BBC would have run the Newsnight story about Savile, they were also going to be incriminating themselves. So they chose to shelve it, under the excuse that it was for 'editorial reasons'. As for it conflicting with any tributes to Savile they had scheduled, they could just as easily cancelled those. Difference is one puts the BBC into good light, and the other a negative one.
But for ITV, they would have been happy to let it remain hidden, but since it was revealed what has been their actions? First all the bosses either denied knowledge of it, or reiterated the 'editorial reasons' as the excuse. Even the head of BBC Trust at first parroted this line, and claimed that any further inquiry was unnecessary. Is there really any doubt about what is going on here? Just the fact that Patton himself, without any further 'investigation', just repeats the 'everything is above board' mantra, shows the real intent of the BBC and those who helped try to perpetrate this insidious cover-up under the label of TRUST. Only when MP's got into the fray did they do an about turn, and declare there would be an inquiry.
The investigation of the BBC should now not be about what happened 40 years ago and since with their condescension and enabling, but about how they knowingly tried to present fiction as the truth, because it suited their agenda, with no department within its walls representing the public who are forced to pay for these bloated self-serving propagandists.
Let the rest of the media and government not forget these issues and keep pushing for this cancer within our society to be cut out.The power the BBC has, which yourself Miles, has observed first hand, was able to bring Leveson about, and got away so far with crimes far worse than what Leveson investigates.
Please, for the good of this country, keep hammering away.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 3, 2012 20:13:02 GMT
Like the typical bullies they are, when they begin to get a dose of what they have been meting out, they begin to cry and complain about how unfair it is.
Interesting when for their own selfish agenda, they pursued Murdoch night and day over the hacking scandal, for which many lost their jobs who had nothing to do with it, the flatulent arrogant BBC were so full of their own self-importance they didn't give a second thought to how much coverage they were giving to it.
By comparison, they really have not had anywhere near the amount of attention drawn to ALL their misdoings over this scandal as they deserve. So the gall involved in this article they run today really shows their public contempt and lack of moral consciousness by having Jonathan Dimbleby declare that it's all become a 'witch-hunt' against them.
Look at the phrases they highlight with inverted commas to see how they brainwash the public.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 3, 2012 20:38:32 GMT
I'm trying to get my head around what I believe the BBC are up to with this declaration by Peter Rippon, the 'fall-guy' so far, blamed for cancelling the Newsnight report. What I find suspicious is that he declares he was furious after his decision to pull the report was leaked. He claims the cancellation was due to the police not having made any formal charges, and that the BBC had spent a lot of money on tributes to Savile. Why I don't believe it is that there is no mention of the embarrassment that would be have been caused to the BBC for having known of this abuse going on for years with Savile, while at best they 'looked the other way'. I've also never known the amount of money spent, or wasted, to be a reason to stop or make the BBC be concerned about it. Another factor is that yesterday Newsnight ran a story about a long time Tory MP being involved in a paedophile ring. They didn't however name the perpetrator, much to the anger of many, but the police have not made any formal charges either against whoever this person is. Rippon? Maybe it should be Rip Off.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 4, 2012 22:11:47 GMT
29 past and present BBC Staff so far have been accused of sexual misconduct. Whether this figure includes Radio1 DJ Liz Kershaw, the presenter who has now been named as the woman that behaved so badly towards a BBC reporter it ended with him taking his life. By 'co-incidence', she herself - along with Sandy Toksvig, had revealed at the beginning when the Savile scandal emerged, that they had been groped by staff at the BBC, but were basically told by superiors to just ignore it. Recently Leonard Rossiter and 3 BBC staff were accused of raping a teenager. While the BBC cover the Rossiter part of the story, they make no mention of their own staff that were also accused. One would think that this kind of reporting would further enhance claims that they are engaged as much as possible in a cover-up. Ex BBC Director General Mark Thompson has so far denied he heard rumours concerning Savile during his time there, since 1980. A claim that seemed unlikely, and now with this statement from the man that first hired him, a downright lie. We'll see what the inquiry reveals, and whether it really touches the necessary bases on all the questions that have so far been raised. Good to see at least one MP, Maria Miller, stating that if the BBC internal inquiry doesn't appear transparent enough, then there is always the possibility of a public one.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 8, 2012 20:28:58 GMT
It's always good to get the view of somebody in the business, who knows what running a major media organisation is all about, and sees the inherent problems within the BBC structure.
This man has done it where his company has had to make a profit, unlike the BBC parasites. His view is valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 9, 2012 22:13:36 GMT
I like the way this is developing, and with the latest attempt by the BBC to redeem itself in the eyes of its usual ignorant public, it might have made itself more of a cropper. Perhaps enough for the government to have a real weapon to end the funding of this monstrosity. As I wrote on November 3rd, the Newsnight programme ran a piece on a Tory MP being involved in a paedophile ring. After much speculation on the web, and a few journalists careless enough to openly speculate who the villain might be, it turns out the accuser now believes he got it wrong. The following article identifies what I believe to be the true motive of the BBC in being so willing to run the Tory abuse story following the Savile scandal still being investigated, and just how it's backfired. I also understand that on Radio4 today, when the BBC covered the story below, it only said that 'a Tory MP denied accusations', leaving the impression that it still might be true. (hat-tip David VanceThis might be 9/11 (UK Style) for the BBC I hope so!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 10, 2012 22:07:14 GMT
Imagine you are an investigative journalist interviewing somebody who claims to have been abused as a child by a high-up figure in government. You try to contain your excitement at the prospect of this scoop and behave in a professional manner. So you ask questions about where and when this abuse supposedly took place, if the victim knows who committed this abuse, and if so, how they know it was this person. That’s if you are a professional – concerned about your credentials and making sure you report the truth. But when. for example, we see BBC coverage of Mid-East incidents where Israel is concerned, any slurs or blame will be accepted and reported without the slightest attempt to justify or verify those claims. If the BBC wants it to be true - it is true. So as soon as this BBC investigative reporter heard that a senior Tory was involved, so happy and willing was he to run with it, he didn't question just how the victim knew that it really was the person he claimed it was. According to the BBC they even had their lawyers examine the data they had before running the story, and were given the go ahead. This is the first of concerns that are revealed about BBC recent behaviour. Now consider that following the flak the BBC has been getting over the Newsnight fiasco over the non-reporting of Savile, they are now about to launch an attack against a senior Tory MP for alleged child abuse. Should the director general make it his business to make sure all the i's have been dotted and t's crossed. Not this one. I’m reminded of Major Major (Bob Newhart) in Catch 22, who told his assistant not to let anybody into his office when he was in, but only when he left. That way he could avoid making any decisions that might be wrong. The BBC are so used to looking the other way to avoid seeing the truth when they think it suits their purpose, they can't help themselves. Here's numerous current stories to see the recent developments. John Whittingdale: the BBC's management has failed The Chairman of the Culture Select Committee says there is "something fundamentally wrong with the BBC management structure" after allegations of child abuse were aired without the director general being informed.Entwistle: BBC wrong to air Newsnight claims The BBC director general admits a Newsnight investigation, which wrongly accused a senior Tory of child abuse, should not have been broadcast, but says he will not resign over the error.Newsnight apologises for sex abuse claims The BBC is forced to issue an apology after the key witness in a Newsnight report alleging that senior Tory Lord McAlpine was a paedophile admitted that he identified the wrong man.'Winnie the Pooh would have been more effective': BBC chief faces calls to quit after humiliating interview with his own presenter in wake of Newsnight sex abuse scandal - George Entwistle admits he did not watch last weekend's BBC2 show
- Mr Entwistle knew nothing about it - until a member of staff told him
- He didn't read yesterday's papers in which the report finally unraveled
- The BBC chief described the report on child abuse as 'unacceptable'
- He warns staff involved in the programme could now disciplinary action
- Today, PM David Cameron refused to comment on the BBC's growing crisis
- Former Minister David Mellor said: 'He came across as so out of touch'
- Former PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer said: 'Humphrys' humiliation of Entwistle almost painful to listen to.'
[/i] [/li][/ul]
|
|