|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 10, 2012 22:37:57 GMT
Entwistle has resignedIt's the very least of what should happen now. The very structure of the BBC has been shown to be inadequate and corrupt. It's consistent failure to be balanced and impartial because of the mindset of those employed there makes it unsuitable for the role it was cast in. If the government fails to act now they are even more abject failures.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 11, 2012 19:05:24 GMT
Excellent comment by Tom Chivers at The Telegraph concerning recent coverage by the BBC over their continuing demise.
Apparently Jeremy Paxman tweeted ...George Entwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents.
In reality he has been brought low for being a coward and incompetence. First by failing to show Savile for the scum he was because it would have also highlighted BBC complicity in ignoring it for so many years, then by claiming he was unaware of what really was going on with this report.
Fact is, he's only one of a few that should be following in his footsteps. Better still, make them all look for jobs in the private sector and cease financing this insidious bloated organisation.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 11, 2012 21:14:09 GMT
According to this Daily Mail article BBC insiders say Director General's claim he 'didn't ask' about content of Newsnight Savile expose is 'ridiculous' - George Entwistle says he didn't ask about content of Newsnight investigation into Savile's sex abuse
- But BBC insider calls claim 'ridiculous'
- Newsnight staff split over handling of the broadcast
At the bottom of the article there is this statement from the BBC - I'm not sure if they were really aware of what they were admitting to: A BBC spokesperson said: 'George Entwistle has made his position exceptionally clear. As said at the press briefing on Friday, 'I was the Director of Vision for the television department at the BBC, I had no influence or authority over investigations carried out by BBC News and it's very important that I always behaved in a manner which absolutely bore out that lack of authority or responsibility'.'So Entwistle says his remit was to always 'behave in a manner which bore out a lack of authority or responsibility'. And for this he was given a job paying £450,000 a year. What is even more insidious and ridiculous, is that now he's resigned, only after 5 weeks, he's still to be given a full year's salary. The BBC could legally have only paid 6 months, but felt it right to give him the full year. How generous they are with our money - and they complain about bankers. And Patten reckons he's still the man to do a radical overhaul on the BBC. He's the reason we'll now be paying for 2 director generals at a vastly overrated salary. Completely Ludicrous!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 11, 2012 22:31:44 GMT
It's even worse than I first thought - I only hope the ramifications create enough pressure to get rid of a lot more of them - FOR NOTHING.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 11, 2012 23:44:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Nov 12, 2012 9:30:09 GMT
It's even worse than I first thought - I only hope the ramifications create enough pressure to get rid of a lot more of them - FOR NOTHING. Don't hold your breath. On past performance from now on only deputy assistant heads will roll ... all the way to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 12, 2012 18:11:29 GMT
Well it was announced that Head of News Helen Boaden, and her deputy Steve Mitchell have been asked to 'step aside' pending the outcome of the enquiry. Seems doubtful that they will be returning. There is also a strong possibility that Patten also will 'have to fall on his sword', as besides anything else, agreeing to give Entwistle a £1.3M pay off after 54 days of bumbling through has irritated quite a few people. After all, what was it about bankers bonuses that upset the BBC so much? Bear in mind that the BBC have never been embroiled in such a scandal before, although there are many other issues for which they should have. Whatever, good to hear at least one MP talking sense for a change.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 12, 2012 19:10:34 GMT
It's great to see all these supposed 'top executives' folding under pressure. Within the usual 'firewall' that the BBC provides them they can act like they really deserve all the money and accolades they award themselves. Yet as soon as that blanket is removed, they can be seen for what they really are.
Acting director-general Tim Davie was being interviewed with some tough questions on Sky concerning recent developments at the BBC, and deciding he'd had enough, just walked out.
Naturally the BBC tried to put a blanket on it by claiming A statement from the BBC insisted the director-general "did not walk off from his interview with Sky". "Interview overran, clashing with other interviews," it explained.
I don't recall them ever being so 'understanding' in hindsight when they were going after anybody else, particularly if they were 'on the other side of the tracks' from the BBC viewpoint.
Love to know what the 'other interviews' entailed? Maybe it was for Desert Island Discs.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 12, 2012 20:38:06 GMT
There's few modern day people of the Church that elicit much respect nowadays, but here's one that has the spirit to speak his mind, and one with whom I agree on the points below wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 12, 2012 20:47:23 GMT
For an inside look at what has been going on inside the BBC, now and previously, Peter Sissons, a presenter at the BBC for 20 years and as chairman of BBC Question Time for five years, has this to say.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 12, 2012 22:52:41 GMT
I know there are many journalists throughout our media who recognise the ongoing agendas at the BBC, and expose the most blatant and insidious of these. Their articles abound throughout this site.
Now the BBC is in mid-crisis over their handling of the various child abuse stories they either ran or didn't, the reflections of these journalists make for interesting reading and provides a kind of tapestry.
Here's a a fine article by Janet Daley
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 16, 2012 18:13:59 GMT
Here's a man that I hope will find himself in trouble over the whole of this scandal - Mark Thompson.
He seems to have escaped so far to run the NY Times, but perhaps the latest news to come out will have his bosses considering terminating his contract.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 16, 2012 23:42:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 10, 2012 20:27:16 GMT
More evidence emerges concerning how the BBC tried to conceal their real reasons for cancelling the original Newsnight report. The very fact of their insidious and unethical behaviour, the mealy mouthed excuses that will follow, a few shifts in job positions, and back to business as usual, makes this extremely frustrating for the few licence fee payers that don't rely on BBC output to decide what really should happen to them.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 19, 2012 18:50:18 GMT
The review by Nick Pollard of the way the BBC handled the Savile Newsnight report has been published. To understand the difference between the way the BBC cover their own failings, as compared to the way they would have covered it had it been a rival organisation, is telling in itself. Basically from the BBC we get a 'yes, but...' response, in which they give themselves all necessary space to tell the public that lessons have been learned, and all will be well from now on. Had it been Sky that was going through this process then the responder would have been challenged with the glaring inconsistencies that have been raised by this report, and whatever they claimed they were now doing about it to remedy the situation would have been rightly ridiculed. I'll point out a few of them and leave it to others to give their perceptions. Consider first that we are talking about criminal sexual abuses committed by a person that the BBC gave the celebrity status necessary for him to perpetrate his crimes. This is itself doesn't convey any responsibility to the BBC, but when we add to that that many of these abuses were carried out on BBC premises, at least once in full view of the camera, and that many of those who worked with or around him were aware of the abused being carried out over many years. Now while this specifically was not the remit of the Pollard report, it does give a motive for the BBC not to want to air any of this dirty laundry. So how are we told that the BBC 'covered its tracks' by not airing the Newsnight report? Apparently, according to the BBC narrative, it was due to 'chaos and confusion' underlined by weak disorganised leadership. The BBC basic response it to say - but that was then, lessons have been learned, and now on it's back to business. You can hear today's World at One programme for the next 7 days and listen to them do it. Let's look at the basic facts that have been unearthed by this report, and bear in mind that Pollard has been prepared to accept 'chaos and confusion' as an explanation rather than pursue any more sinister intent. One can imagine the flak, and possible criminal proceedings that might have followed, had he dared to make that estimation. That doesn't mean it's not true! But we are to believe that due to miscommunication, bad management, unread emails, and the not realising the full implications of what the Newsnight report entailed, that it was just dropped. Meanwhile nobody has lost their job as a result of it, though some have resigned. Some get shuffled around into other posts, and some like Head of News Helen Boaden, get to keep their job. But she was the one even according to this report, who failed to notify the higher ups with the full 'gravity' of the situation. And what of Entwistle, the man put in the position of Director General for 54 days, and apparently never read any emails about anything important, or followed up on anything he was told. Whose way to avoid doing anything wrong was to avoid doing anything and hope it will just go away by itself. Yet he receives a massive pay out when he 'resigned'. So why is Patten, the man who put him in that position, still there? Let's not forget Thompson, the former DG, and the one who presided over this chaos and confusion for years, though I haven't heard him get too much mention on all this - yet. Here's a couple of articles from The Telegraph with more details of this report. And this one BBC releases Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine reports: live
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 19, 2012 22:07:00 GMT
So let's see how our 'trustworthy' - only guilty of 'chaos and confusion' BBC talk their way out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Dec 19, 2012 22:14:22 GMT
Ah, but lessons have been learned. So everything is fine and the BBC can continue as usual.
It's sickening watching b-bbc employees gathering round defending each other and justifying their corruption and blatant lying.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 19, 2012 22:22:56 GMT
Yes, while repeating that they're still the world's finest media organisation, in an effort to brainwash their public.
Next time anybody wonders whether the BBC could praise and back the Palestinians the way they do, if they really thought the Palestinian agenda was a load of crap, or their stance on AGW or the EU, just recall the tribute to Savile last year.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Dec 20, 2012 9:19:36 GMT
One telling detail was that the Media Show (Radio 4) asked what jobs the people being moved were moved to. It then suggested that only in a "bloated organisation" could so many top people be moved sideways. Paxman made a similar point on Newsnight last night, even asking about "created new jobs".
Once more it seems that it would be too expensive to fire anyone. In any ordinary business if someone is fired for misconduct they get nothing, not a guaranteed year's pay plus a pension and fringe benefits, which seems to be the norm at the higher levels of the BBC.
I wonder what will happen if one of these high ranking executives 'has their collar felt by Inspector Knacker' for something they did while working with JS some years ago in a less exalted position?
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Dec 20, 2012 11:47:47 GMT
Al Beeb are always quick to tell us that resignations is the only way when it comes to Plebgate, Leveson etc. for fairly trivial matters but it's a different story when it comes to real crimes concerning themselves like paedophilia rings operating on their premises with their knowledge.
Sack the bloody lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 20, 2012 14:07:59 GMT
Clearly from what I can see so far, the BBC prefer to be seen as incompetent or bumbling than outright unethical, scheming, and corrupt. While both aspects are undoubtedly true, they will fumble on portraying themselves as the former.
Fact is, if they were a private organisation they would not be able to survive being so incompetent. If the government were intelligent and had more gumption than we've seen so far, they would use this aspect as the reason to end the licence fee funding. What better way to make them more efficient and trim the excess?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 20, 2012 18:40:16 GMT
Following Pollard's report being made public, and showing the failures of those like former 54day DG Entwistle in the way the Newsnight exposee of Savile was binned, Head of BBC Trust Patten has admitted 'With the benefit of hindsight, we chose the wrong one,'
"WE chose the wrong one!" The royal WE. Far as I know. though it is up to the BBC to select the DG, as head of the Trust, Patten has the final word. It was HIS decision to hire him, the same as the new prospect due to start in a few months. But typical of the mindset that Patten displays in so many ways, the buck for him stops 'kinda around him but not quite by him'.
If it would have been a good decision that would have been shown, undoubtedly the 'we' would be nowhere to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 21, 2012 18:30:00 GMT
If anyone's begging for a kicking, it's Patten
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 22, 2012 20:25:31 GMT
Another article today by Christopher Booker at The Telegraph focussing on the sheer arrogance and incompetence exhibited by Patten.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 12, 2013 16:44:48 GMT
Here's an update on the story which show the most recent findings and developments by investigators.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 21, 2013 20:33:25 GMT
It's obvious from the headline what this development is about.
The BBC Trust has pledged to publish the transcripts, which are reported to show staff making a series of accusations towards corporation colleagues. More than a thousand pages of transcripts, emails, texts and other documents, are claimed to contain withering personal criticism of several staff, according to the Times.
What is striking is some of the comments made about this.
The Corporation is concerned that disclosing the documents from the inquiry, led by Nick Pollard, the former head of Sky News, would undermine staff confidence.
This one really takes the cake: Officials also worried the contents, which detail staff thoughts on what went wrong during the scandal, will further poison the atmosphere at Broadcasting House and hit staff harmony,...
A wise mind might think that considering all that has happened over the years of this man being permitted to commit the abuse he did, and then the subsequent cover-up, the truth should out. The BBC believe that it would only serve to 'hit their staff harmony'.
Any wonder I hate their guts?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 13, 2013 16:17:29 GMT
I've seen several articles in the media recently related to Leveson and the hacking scandal, and many to do with the horsemeat found in beef products. The Savile scandal, which I believe is worse than both of the above by far, seems to have dropped off the radar. It goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping the day to day behaviour of its followers, who follow the stream like sheep.
So it's good to see that some of those who suffered the abuse by Savile are not so willing to 'let it go' because the media is not running with it, and are still looking for some sort of compensation.
I hope it runs it to the £millions, and causes our spineless politicians to take more action than they have so far.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 14, 2013 19:39:36 GMT
Reading the following story, it appears that anything that might provide evidence to a BBC cover up over their handling of the Newsnight exposé of Savile is to be censored because it might be defamatory.
It's like not permitting evidence at a trial because it might bring the perpetrator into disrepute.
Ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 16, 2013 23:18:18 GMT
More on 'the cover-up of the cover-up'.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 17, 2013 17:38:43 GMT
More on the same theme, though my guess is the BBC will stick two fingers up at us while it carries on with 'dirty 'business as usual'.
Just the fact that the incoming director general Tony Hall has already appointed the director of news Helen Boaden to the new title of head of radio, even before this report came out, and even though her actions have been questioned give all the indications that nothing will change in BBC corruption.
|
|