|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Feb 17, 2013 21:59:55 GMT
Head of radio? well that explains R4's news tonight that butchering being done in Nigeria in the last few days including the slitting of aid workers throats by Boko Haram was a result of France's 'invasion' of Mali.
Now Boko Haram have been slaughtering people, burning churches and slitting throats in Nigeria for a good number of years now, long before France liberated the Mali people from terror, but hey, that's not what their socialist audience wants to hear.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 18, 2013 0:06:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 12, 2013 18:40:35 GMT
Nothing new, but Richard Littlejohn recaps on the little done by the BBC to properly address this scandal.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 24, 2013 16:56:25 GMT
The BBC itself is acting and pretending that all has been forgotten and forgiven for their role in the Savile scandal, preferring instead to concentrate on Leveson and the hacking scandals, the Iraq war, and anything else that diverts attention from themselves. It is clear that the individuals within the organisation, who had contact with Savile at the time, and were aware of the rumours circulating about his actions, or worse, are still rightfully feeling discomfort and want to extricate themselves as best as they can. So now Andy Kershaw, a Radio1 DJ, who has been working for the BBC since 1985, and was made aware of the Savile rumours, has written an article for the Telegraph to try and show himself as squeaky clean. At least in his own mind. He even leads the article with these words: Former colleagues at the BBC overlooked the gossip about Jimmy Savile for their own endsWhile he writes: The mistake made by many others, like Rantzen, being fully aware of Savile’s reputation, is that they did not give him a wide berth. Just the opposite, in fact. And those who should have kept him fully at arm’s length, above all others, were those who hired him repeatedly over the decades at the BBC. It wasn’t, after all, very difficult to distance oneself from Savile. It was clear to anyone who had contact with him that this was a sinister, intimidating and deeply unpleasant, self-obsessed individual. In that sense, Savile did the job for you. My reason to highlight the 'arms length' analogy is Kershaw describes a situation, after being warned to stay clear of Savile, where finding himself in a lift with him one day: Already shocked by the stories around the Radio 1 building, I soon had my first encounter with the man himself. As the nervous new boy, I was startled to find myself alone in the lift with this national institution. I said hello and attempted to introduce myself. Savile neither replied nor accepted my outstretched hand. For the few seconds it took to reach the third floor, he looked straight through me as though I was invisible. It's obvious the purpose of including this memory of his encounter was to describe the vile character of Savile, and perhaps he hasn't realised that it also shows he was ready to ignore the warnings to try and generate a friendship or acquaintance with the man, but one has to wonder what if Savile would have been warmer. Would he have pursued a closer tie for his own personal advancement? Whatever, it's still good to see those within the BBC squirming, that's the very least they should be facing.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 26, 2013 14:36:33 GMT
An ex-BBC producer admits he was aware of Savile's abuse, as did many others at the BBC, but did nothing about it. As far as I'm aware, knowing a crime is being committed and doing nothing about it makes one an accomplice, not to mention the moral issues when the crime is abusing children. The BBC not only allowed it to take place on their premises, but enabled and empowered Savile to commit his crimes elsewhere.
This alone should be enough to close down this vile organisation. For the present government to ignore these misdeeds and not only allow this corporation to continue, but also force people to pay for it makes them equally complicit.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 31, 2013 18:14:59 GMT
Following the Savile and Hall sex abuse scandals, more seems to have come out of the woodwork. A freedom of information act has found out that a further 81 BBC personnel have been accused by 152 allegations of some kind of abuse, with almost half still working for the corporation.
A BBC spokesman said the corporation had been 'appalled' by the allegations of harassment and abuse that have emerged.
At least 'appalled' that this has been made public, as they much prefer keeping it under wraps and looking the other way. But they figure that that telling the public they are appalled will quieten everybody down about it.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on May 31, 2013 20:34:02 GMT
As I said before - why are our politcians not calling for this organisation to be shut down?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 31, 2013 21:49:06 GMT
For starters there would need to be a far greater public outcry about it than exists already. The e-petition that we link to here, started by Neil Turner a year ago and due to expire in a week, only has 4230 signatures. If you were an MP relying on votes, would you take on the national propaganda machine without consensus?
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on May 31, 2013 22:44:55 GMT
Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on May 31, 2013 22:56:02 GMT
If it's any consolation, I believe that the more the outrageous acts happen that expose the BBC as a culpable force enabling them, there will eventually be a public outcry.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 5, 2013 19:19:45 GMT
As an addendum to a previous post in this thread, the Telegraph has an article today related to an inquest concerning a BBC male employee who complained of being sexually harassed by a female employee, and nothing apparently was done about it. He was so frustrated by the experience that he ended up killing himself. The article tells us: Mr Joslin, a BBC Coventry and Warwickshire radio reporter, had previously been treated at a mental health unit in March last year. Giving evidence to the inquest, Mr Joslin's father, Peter, said his son had become ''more and more concerned'' about his alleged treatment by the unnamed woman.I'm wondering why the secrecy now since the woman was already named as Radio1 DJ Liz Kershaw, as can be seen in the post linked to above. Does the Telegraph think we've all forgotten it? We're also told (highlights mine): The journalist's family has claimed his managers could have given him more help after he made allegations that he was sexually harassed. In March last year, the reporter had two conversations with a case manager and had expected that his claims would then appear in a report prepared for BBC management.
But due to a "misunderstanding" between Mr Joslin and the case manager during their meetings, no specific allegations relating to the colleague were put into the final report sent to a line manager.
In early October last year, the inquest heard, Mr Joslin arranged a further meeting, which he left "thinking there was some sort of cover-up going on".
Although the investigation commissioned by the BBC found no evidence of any efforts to cover up the allegations, it did conclude that the handling of his complaints was "not good enough".
Looks like a BBC 'cover-up about a BBC cover-up - and let's not beat about the bush, while it is clear that the man was clearly not emotionally strong, which resulted in him taking his life, if the BBC would have reacted to his complaints, instead of basically ignoring him, perhaps he would be alive today. The Daily Mail reports that the top prosecutor in many of the 'celebrity' sex abuse cases has hinted that 'It could be just the tip of the iceberg': More celebrities could be quizzed over child abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 1, 2013 18:24:27 GMT
Firstly an update to the Yewtree investigations the police launched following the Savile scandal. There have been 16 arrests since then, including Savile's chauffeur who killed himself this week rather than face consequences. Apparently another BBC radio presenter was just arrested although nobody wants to reveal his identity. The BBC are not even suspending him, in their usual mode of protecting the perpetrators. I am also struck by this article by Charles Moore in the Spectator. My comment follows his article. My View: What bothers me is the sense that no one knows fully what he did... And no one ever will - so what? We know enough - he was a (sa)vile scum pervert! There is a you tube video of one of his shows where in front of the camera he is touching a young girl up, who can be seen squirming. Once the cameraman realised what Savile was up to, he panned away. Any coincidence that just this week his chauffeur killed himself when about to face charges for sexual abuse?
Savile's dead, and lost to any condemnation we might have for his actions. But what about the BBC, who knowing that something wasn't right, kept him in the 'celebrity' spotlight, and enabling him to abuse however many he did?
Hundreds? Thousands? Even just ONE. No amount of condemnation is enough, but lets direct it to the existing power that put him in that position, and preferred to 'look the other way' lest it cause a public outcry against themselves. So far there have been 16 arrests following Yewtree.
Funny how none of the privately owned TV companies have been beset by such scandals to such a degree.
Don't you think you should be 'really bothered' about the little condemnation the BBC has faced in light of all this, in the 'British sense of fair play', as you like to call it?
And British people can still be imprisoned for not paying for this disgusting propaganda machine. NOT ENOUGH CONDEMNATION!
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Nov 1, 2013 19:14:12 GMT
A lot of people here, in particular men, are frustrated and resentful we now have a crime where one is guilty before being proven innocent. All it can take is an accusation. Many years ago I used a digital camera when they first came out in a local mall. One time I was photographing the indoor ice rink and a woman came up to me and told me to stop because her daughter on the ice was nervous about my presence. I told her it's a public place and my right of free expression but that didn't matter to her. I then said she needs to sit her daughter down off the ice because her fear is her problem (if she asked politely instead of demanding I would have stopped). So she went to the manager of the rink and she told me she would have Mall Security escort me out. So I walked away.
I'm not sure if my interpretation of Moore's take is correct but I think his main concern is with justice and not to lessen Savile's guilt. It's like a lot of public condemnation here where the law and standard of due process takes a back seat to raw hate. Precedents are set and the integrity of the system develops cracks.
On the other hand as you say condemnation of the BBC's role in this should be loud and clear and people responsible need to pay a very big price.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 1, 2013 20:21:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Nov 1, 2013 20:45:25 GMT
I have to say he made some good points, in the day it was not just the BBC turning their face. Those kind of accusations were not digestible by the public. But i'm not excusing the BBC's prime culpability and of course present day cover up behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 1, 2013 21:53:09 GMT
The fact that to date, 16 BBC related people have been arrested for abusive behaviour. Yet none of the private media companies have been so afflicted. Simple reason, if anybody in a private company would have got wind of anything untoward, they would have brought the suspect in and read them the riot act.
In the BBC however, they enabled them and looked the other way.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Nov 6, 2013 11:18:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 6, 2013 18:25:40 GMT
Hi THR - Always good to see you mate Yeah I saw the article too and the note For all the transgressions that have come to public light over the last year, even though we knew much already about the sinister crap at the BBC, for MPs to allow them to continue would show real complicity.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 16, 2013 17:58:57 GMT
Here's something to tease your mind with. Here's a painting of Savile as a knight in shining armour in front of broadcasting house done by a student at South Staffordshire College. It's drawn mixed reviews. The college has replied that the painting is 'ironic' and will soon have a caption attached to it which will explain the thinking behind it. You can visit the article here from which you can deduce what the caption will indicate from the explanation given so far, or see if you get it yourself first.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 18, 2014 22:51:57 GMT
Just yesterday I noted here from statements by victims of D L Travis just how the BBC knowingly allowed his abuse to continue. Even editing out those scenes where he did it in front of the camera. With the current Savile abuse review by Dame Janet Smith, it's emerging that Savile abused up to 1000 boys and girls on BBC property, and staff just turned a blind eye to it. So it's easy to understand why so many other 'celebrities' knew they could get away with it. This alone makes continuing to force people to pay for the licence fee to support this insidious organisation quite reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Jan 19, 2014 3:16:57 GMT
This is probabally the best chance we'll have of demanding the abolision of the licence fee. If only the Government will grow a pair and listen to the voice of the people.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 19, 2014 17:50:29 GMT
It's fair to say that if the government fails to end the licence fee it makes them complicit in justifying the scandals. There's no excuse. Among the many intelligent people in this country who are able to think for themselves it will be clear. This is not just about somebody's perception of bias, or whether a story was presented in a balanced or fair fashion, but criminal behaviour. To knowingly allow your premises to be used to sexually abuse minors makes ALL those responsible guilty of aiding and abetting. There cannot be a law that forces people to continue to support the mindset guilty of it.
It's black and white - there's no grey area on this.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 4, 2014 17:16:39 GMT
It appears Yentob has some explaining to do. I've no doubt he will deny any knowledge of wrongdoing by Savile to account for his decision to axe Jim'll Fix It. I just hope the prosecution has some evidence to challenge him.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 23, 2014 17:53:14 GMT
A former police officer and child protection expert who has appeared as a witness into the Savile enquiry run by Dame Janet Smith has criticised the value of this enquiry. We know already how ridiculous the outcome of the Pollard review turned out to be. Now we see that though the BBC got somebody credible to run the enquiry about what was known about abuse going on during all they years that Savile featured there, and are prepared to spend £millions in doing so, that they have so constrained this enquiry that it is unlikely to ever be able to get to the truth. There is one comment posted under this Mail article which I will copy here: Conquistador, Swill in my Disease, United Kingdom, 13 hours ago
When commercial organisations waste our money we can complain, try to obtain refunds and take our business elsewhere. The government really need to end this situation where the BBC has us over a barrel by privatising them. Suffices to say though, there's no way that large swathes of every level of the BBC didn't know about Savile - otherwise the Newsnight reporters would have been able to run their stories about him whilst he was still alive.That citizens are still forced to PAY for this insidious organisation, under penalty of prison and a criminal sentence, continues to be an evil that can be laid at the feet of government. May the present proposal by them to change to a civil charge come to fruition, and may this be just the beginning of fully ending the licence fee completely.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 3, 2014 23:13:44 GMT
This article typifies just how corrupt the BBC are. I doubt whether there are any depths to which they will not sink to maintain their position to masquerade as fair, honest and balanced.
Truly criminal!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 21, 2014 10:02:31 GMT
You'd think that an organisation that was trying to regain respectability, especially following revelations concerning their part in enabling and maintaining the most notorious paedophile in British history, Jimmy Savile, they would avoid broadcasting his ugly vile character anywhere in their footage, and particularly in a programme that was supposed to be entertaining.
But then we're talking about the BBC. For many like myself it's incredible that this disgrace to intelligent society should be permitted to continue, especially forced to pay for it.
Considering the number of years that Savile headed Top of the Pops, you'd hope that before airing any collage that they've determined to be the best from that period, they would at least make sure that Savile wouldn't appear in it.
But NO! Not only do they broadcast Savile, but an actual scene where he can be seen fondling a young girl.
You couldn't make it up.
How much longer will society tolerate this shit?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 26, 2014 20:20:35 GMT
I was not aware of this particular ex BBC pervert, Jonathan King, until I read the following article, which just adds one more to the list of sexual abusers rampant at the BBC. In 2001, he was convicted of sexual assault on five teenage boys in the 1980s. He was given a seven-year jail sentence and was released on parole in 2005.
For a reason I'll leave you to decide, the BBC think it appropriate to invite him to appear in a documentary about the group Genesis. Though he was instrumental in giving them a break, it would have perhaps been more fitting for a presenter to simply tell whatever revelations King might have to those interested, and spare the feelings of those this foul being abused.
The BBC, as you might imagine, don't see it that way, but then I'm not surprised that the qualities they find important have nothing to do with supporting a society.
I also noted that the authors of the following article from the Mail seem unaware of the one above from a few days ago, also from the Mail, when they write of the BBC:
As we saw clearly the BBC have not only failed miserably to edit Savile out of a programme, they actually included a clip of him fondling a young audience member.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 16, 2014 20:20:29 GMT
When I first saw this article I didn’t know if Edmonds was doing an ‘about face’, from having previously castigated the BBC for a host of reasons, or simply hadn’t properly thought through his conclusion that the Royals and Thatcher ‘were as much to blame as the BBC for Savile’s abuses’. Perhaps the dumbed down show Deal or No Deal that he hosts had taken its toll on his mind.
Why should the Queen, or any of the Royals, as well as Margaret Thatcher, been aware of the abuses that Savile was perpetrating?
But then reading that Edmonds also worked at the BBC with Savile, and therefore would have heard rumours, or perhaps saw things for himself that he still decided to keep quiet about, he wants to focus the public’s attention outside the BBC for not bringing Savile to justice at the time.
That sounds more like it. I’ve just lost respect for Edmonds.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 17, 2014 13:05:43 GMT
Just when you think it can't get any worse the BBC shows that there are no depths to which they can't sink. A child abuser and member of the Paedophile Information Exchange was asked to appear on a Jim'll Fix It Christmas special in a 'set up' engineered by Jimmy Savile's closest aides, it emerged today.
Antiques expert Keith Harding, who had been convicted of child sex offences in the 1950s and later restored artefacts for royalty, was asked on the show in 1980 to help a 13-year-old girl.
But her brother, Dean, now in his forties, says that his sister was asked by the Jim'll Fix it production team to write a letter asking for her music box to be repaired - so Harding could do it.Note the BBC reply to this coming to light: In a statement, the BBC said: 'Today's BBC has appropriate safeguards in place to protect children and young people.
'Dame Janet Smith is making an impartial and independent investigation into the historical culture and practices of the BBC, which will identify lessons to be learned from the Savile period.'We've already see how the 'impartial and independent investigation' conducted by Pollard was nothing more than a scandalous cover-up. Since Janet Smith and Pollard were both picked by the BBC, it hardly makes them impartial or independent. It should be the police who are investigating the goings on inside the BBC in light of these scandals.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 31, 2015 12:23:15 GMT
So what has happened to those inside the BBC, who identified Savile's abuse and wanted to bring it to the public attention? Well if the BBC was truly a public service, endeavouring to serve the values of our society, they surely would have been lauded and promoted. Instead they have been sidelined and forced out for betraying the corporation.
It shows the corrupt and immoral mindset of the BBC establishment, and for any government to keep them going, it shows theirs too.
|
|