|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 15, 2014 21:57:10 GMT
Following the Savile scandal and the launch of operation Yewtree to investigate other 'celebrities' who used their status to abuse children, particularly as so many of them were ex BBC, the BBC now want to present themselves as honest and ethical, keen to uncover all and any who might have been involved in similar abuse.
So when they get a tip off that the police are investigating Cliff Richard and will be searching his flat, instead of thinking well there's no evidence so far, and rather than publicise this, which would create a negative public opinion of Richard regardless of whether he's guilty or not, they might have considered holding off unless some evidence proved some sort of guilt, which would be the ethical and moral way to see it.
But since the BBC lost it's way in that arena long ago, and is more interested in using this story to promote how it protects the public from abuse, which is the real lie, it sends a host of cameramen and reporters to cover the police arrival at his flat, even to the point of having a helicopter flying over the scene for hours.
Notice they weren't concerned about their carbon footprint, and what did they imagine a helicopter was going to see above a house when the police are inside making a search to justify this gross expense?
Whatever happens with Richard, the BBC abuse the general public on a daily basis, and it's well past time their licence to do this was terminated.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 16, 2014 9:30:20 GMT
... ... what did they imagine a helicopter was going to see above a house when the police are inside making a search to justify this gross expense? I wondered what evidence the police might hope to find now of offences committed in the 1980s, especially after so many others were hounded about such events. However, the tip-off problem is clearly not South Yorkshire Police - I assume that it was the BBC who told the police about Sir Cliff, rather than the other way round. Whether the "information" was invented to make a story, or real, only time may tell.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 16, 2014 17:27:33 GMT
The picture from the helicopter in the article below, supposedly showing police arriving at Richard's house, demonstrates just what a waste of money and resources that was. What on earth did anybody at the BBC think they were going to get of interest to anybody with it, other than for themselves to make the story as big and public as they could. However, the tip-off problem is clearly not South Yorkshire Police - I assume that it was the BBC who told the police about Sir Cliff, rather than the other way round. You may well be right that the BBC notified the police following complaints by those who were abused by Savile and others, and possibly against Richard, which the story below seems to confirm, but that doesn't explain how the BBC would know that this investigation was going to take place at Richard's house unless they were tipped off by the police. Who else could be aware of that? There are other issues that are apparent when reading this Telegraph article, which seems to be excusing the BBC, but shows something rotten going on here. People need to wait till they know an investigation is under way before they lodge a complaint or provide information about a crime? Every wannabee 'celebrity' will more than likely trying for their '5 minutes of fame'. If anything this is going to complicate finding if there is anything real to uncover. Yes, the difference is that Rolf Harris worked mostly for the BBC, and Cliff Richard is a celebrity in his own right, that the BBC are using to make themselves appear moral and upright. For me they only make themselves more insidious and evil than I know them already to be - if that's possible. And just where and from who did he hear this? The only ones who know if a raid is going to happen is the police and the judge who grants the search warrant. So it's clear that the police did tip-off the BBC, even if they were prompted to do so. OUTRAGEOUS! If and until evidence is found that incriminates Richard in any way, he must now live in public under the cloud that this is 'out there'. It is completely irresponsible of the BBC to have done what they did, and they, as well as the police, should be facing charges for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Aug 16, 2014 23:57:39 GMT
Someone at Al Beeb mosque will get their knuckles (or hook) rapped for not mentioning he is a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 18, 2014 18:53:56 GMT
It's good to see things backfiring for the BBC over this scandal, with MP's requesting both them and the police to face questions over this debacle. So instead of diverting attention from their own many abuses, they have created another for themselves. The police too have something to answer, and in trying to extricate themselves they are showing that they're being less than forthright. They don't seem to know if they're on foot or horseback, and in one breath they're crediting the BBC for improving the results of their investigation, and in the next they're complaining about them. A glaring illogical statement emerges from this article. Yet they also say To me this an admission that the police did indeed leak the date and time of the investigation to the BBC on the understanding that the BBC wouldn't run with it yet, and one that the BBC breached.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 18, 2014 19:17:40 GMT
This Mail on Sunday Comment elaborates on the wrongdoings here.
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Aug 18, 2014 22:30:42 GMT
To me there's no illogic in their statement. The initial tipping off and department policy is what should be under review. This may have been a loose-lipped cop, wife or friend of an officer in the know, but not the 'department'. Unfortunately the department was backed into a corner whether by spoken or implied threat from the BBC showing them the cat already out of the bag. If they wanted to preserve an effective investigation, they had no choice but to tell them. Your followup with the Mail's comment lays down the bottom line and as usual, the BBC is simply too intimidating and powerful. Even the police fear them and that's what this story is really about in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 19, 2014 19:02:10 GMT
The illogical part I'm referring to is where the police say " that the BBC was slow to acknowledge that the force was not the source of the "leak". This claims that they didn't leak the information.
Then later we get South Yorkshire Police said: "The force was contacted some weeks ago by a BBC reporter who made it clear he knew of the existence of an investigation. It was clear he (was) in a position to publish it.
"The force was reluctant to co-operate but felt that to do otherwise would risk losing any potential evidence, so in the interests of the investigation it was agreed that the reporter would be notified of the date of the house search in return for delaying publication of any of the facts.
So they DID leak the information to the BBC, regardless of whether there was pressure or not, which is another matter.
From this we also know the BBC are clearly lying when they gave this statement: On Friday Jonathan Munro, the BBC's head of news gathering, said there had been lots of questions about the original source of the story, tweeting: "We won't say who, but can confirm it was not South Yorks Police."
I don't disagree that there may well have been intimidation and threats by the BBC, but the police have measures to have prevented the BBC from revealing anything if they would have gone down that route. In fact, given the way the BBC continually harangue the police over one thing or another, the police could have thought that it would have been better to hang the BBC for revealing confidential information than finding something that would have happened 30 years ago.
The article below has more on this.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 19, 2014 19:49:48 GMT
What's clear here is BOTH are corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by steevo on Aug 19, 2014 19:58:01 GMT
If 'leak' implies wrongdoing then I disagree, and wouldn't emphasize illogic or contradiction. If it doesn't then so be it, it's not a point to me. The BBC's response made a distinction that it was not the police department as in high ranking leadership clearing the way for them to initially get the scoop. Maybe a blabbermouth within the department but that's a different story or point to me.
I agree with your sentiment the police should not be bullied by them and should have learned their lesson many times over. That does have to do with leadership within the department.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 19, 2014 20:24:23 GMT
Regardless of what the police or BBC claimed to be true, there's only 2 ways the BBC could have known about this raid. Either directly from somebody inside the investigation, or they're hacking the phone lines. If the BBC were an ethical organisation then revealing the leak would be more of a public service than flying a helicopter over Richard's house.
Clearly the statement by the police above shows that it was a senior position that made the decision that it was better to tell the BBC when they were going to make the raid than have them compromise the investigation.
When the police believe THEY HAVE to notify the media before they can conduct an investigation IS a sign of something very VERY wrong.
Heads should roll - from both organisations, then the BBC should be privatised.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Aug 19, 2014 23:37:34 GMT
then the BBC should be privatised. I have to strongly disagree with you there Teddy....it should burnt to the ground and people refunded their licence fees.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 20, 2014 7:04:58 GMT
then the BBC should be privatised. I have to strongly disagree with you there Teddy....it should burnt to the ground and people refunded their licence fees. I fully agree. If the BBC were simply discontinued there would be enough other sources to "entertain, educate and inform" the UK population.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 20, 2014 14:39:19 GMT
I want you guys to understand why I want the BBC to be privatised, as opposed to simply closed down. For years they've been kidding themselves that they do a good job and offer the public what they want. For the same reason the Guardian circulation is so low as compared to most every other major newspaper, that they only appeal to the left wing mindset, but that is not the majority in this country, I believe we would then see the BBC following in its footsteps. Just think how great it would be to watch them sink, and see their egos deflate. Otherwise they would go elsewhere and fit in to whatever mindset is prevalent there, and still kid themselves that they are good. I want to see them sink, and know that we are watching them sink, and feeling very good about it. KARMA!
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 21, 2014 10:17:00 GMT
... Just think how great it would be to watch them sink, and see their egos deflate. Otherwise they would go elsewhere and fit in to whatever mindset is prevalent there, and still kid themselves that they are good. I want to see them sink, and know that we are watching them sink, and feeling very good about it. ... But they wouldn't sink. They would still have all the equipment, access and channels and (doubtless) "transition arrangements" to keep them going until the Labour party (probably with the collusion of the Lib-Dems) could reinstate them. A fire sale of the channels they use to commercial interests, together with the necessary hardware and intellectual property rights, is the only viable answer. Let the rump of the BBC, the web site, shop, etc. survive without any licence payers' money; after all they claim that none of the licence money pays for any of those things???
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 21, 2014 12:37:40 GMT
They would still have all the equipment, access and channels No government, even a Labour one, would just give it away. It would be sold to the highest bidder, for them to do with it what they will. Much like the railways, water, and energy companies. Then we would see how the output and whatever existing channels, properties, programmes, etc, as well as agenda, would change to appeal to advertisers and public, thus ensuring a profit. Given the unethical failings already apparent from BBC history, especially as they are supposed to have been a public service while receiving the licence fee, I cannot imagine any government trying to reimpose it once the public were set free. It would guarantee them never being elected again.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 21, 2014 17:02:26 GMT
BBC Director General Tony Hall proves that he's everything I've ever perceived him to be with the following declaration. He insists that journalists 'acted appropriately' in coverage of police raid. And how does he justify that? Because media has right to report on matters of public interest
Bear in mind that Richard has brought pleasure to the public in a non offensive way for half a century. For the time being any allegations are unproven, and according to law a man is innocent until proved guilty. If the police actually found any incriminating evidence then it might be in the public interest. All the BBC have done is make any investigation more complex with those who want to jump on the 'celebrity' wagon and get in the limelight by making spurious charges, as well as souring the life of a man that might be completely innocent.
Let's not forget the BBC initially justified the Ross/Brand insult to Andrew Sachs, as if that too was publicly desirable. They really show they have completely lost the plot and it's well past time they were terminated as a publicly funded organisation.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Aug 21, 2014 22:01:24 GMT
Still, I suppose the likes of Lenny Henry can sleep well at night knowing it will never happen to them.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 22, 2014 8:18:23 GMT
At least Cilla Black has finally admitted her real age! Perhaps Bruce Forsyth next?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 22, 2014 19:05:49 GMT
The plot thickens! In the first article I posted on this thread we had this: A South Yorkshire Police spokeswoman strongly denied that the force officially passed any information about the search to the broadcaster. She said: ‘The BBC had their own source and the information categorically did not come from South Yorkshire Police.
Then we got South Yorkshire Police released a statement suggesting its actions had been vindicated by the fact that “since the search took place a number of people have contacted police to provide information”, adding: “The media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.”
Now it's been confirmed that the Yorkshire Police did give details to the BBC of the raid, with the apparent understanding that the BBC would not act on it.
And now the police are accusing the BBC of a cover-up.
The BBC are definitely guilty of a travesty of justice, whatever happens, but the police are not going to come out of this unscathed either.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 2, 2014 15:08:58 GMT
The cracks in the wall are starting to appear as this story develops. I note how differently the stance taken by the police is changing. I wonder what else will emerge as the investigation by MPs goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 2, 2014 15:46:12 GMT
There appears to be no question that the BBC coerced the police to reveal when the raid would take place. Considering that there is no proof that Cliff Richard is guilty up to that point, it is disingenuous of the BBC to claim it is in the public interest.
The corruption embodied in this story is clear. What will be done about it remains to be seen. Will MPs do more than give the BBC a slap on the wrist for misuse of power with the usual 'lessons have been learned' bullshit from the BBC?
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Sept 3, 2014 9:21:07 GMT
It sounds as if the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire police was trained by the BBC Complaints Department in how to ignore and deride criticism.
The BBC were backed by Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz (not a known supporter of the police) who said that
BBC director general Lord Tony Hall said that had the police told the corporation publishing its story would compromise the investigation, it would not have done so. If you believe that, after the fanfare that accompanied the 'scoop' you would believe anything, even the weather forecasts.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 3, 2014 19:44:33 GMT
I'm struck by just how illogical the claims made by each side are, regardless of whether they're true or not. Unless the police were looking for publicity to show how they're serving the public in regard to child abuse, especially after the Muslim gangs debacle, why would they think they have to notify the BBC over the raid on Cliff Richard's house? In fact, if they thought the BBC might impede their investigation then they could have officially warned them, to which if the BBC then made it public they could charge the BBC.
Also in an age of Google Earth, why did the police need to provide an aerial photo of Cliff Richard's house for the helicopter to find it? And what on earth was the helicopter supposed to see that was of any interest to anybody?
Complete incompetence on both sides. Are politicians now going to display their own?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 24, 2014 18:03:08 GMT
At the end of the following article the response of the BBC is noted as: Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘The committee chairman has already said that the BBC acted “perfectly properly” in handling this story, and we’re pleased today’s report confirms this.’
I haven't got the impression that this is the case, but if so this chairman should be kicked out quickly. In any event, if the BBC haven't realised the damage they have done over this case till now, as they appear not to, all the more reason for the public to simply stop paying their licence fee, whatever politicians decide to do in the future. I'm not sure our present politicians are that ethical and moral enough themselves to really understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 22, 2014 23:00:38 GMT
Cliff Richard vows to sue the BBC, and possibly the South Yorkshire police, for the farce that they created with this 'investigation'. I hope he does, and gets millions for it, particularly from the BBC. I want licence fee payers to be really irked at the idiocy of what the BBC did here. As you read the story below think about how justice can possibly be served by what the police and BBC did here. Consider too that Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz (Labour MP) said the BBC acted ‘perfectly properly’ in its dealings with police over the raid to see how they 'scratch each others back'.
Rotten through and through!
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 24, 2014 12:56:28 GMT
It's what we surmised when we heard the excuses at the beginning of this debacle. Now it's confirmed. If the BBC are actually allowed now to 'spin their way out of trouble', then it's only corrupt MPs who would permit it.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 3, 2014 20:31:21 GMT
So far, not a shred of evidence has come to light concerning abuse by Cliff Richard, nor have any charges been leveled at him, yet it's clear from the story below that his persona has been negatively affected by what the BBC did, as well as reduced airtime given him in light of the 'scandal'.
Yet the BBC think they acted perfectly okay, and show no contrition whatsoever. Even still pretending that they've done everything above board despite revelations coming to light that show otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 10, 2015 1:32:48 GMT
Just when you think the BBC can't get any more vile than they've shown themselves to be already, they sink even lower. Now they want to be lauded for what they did to Cliff Richards.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Feb 23, 2015 23:35:10 GMT
Thankfully there are still some who have common sense. And the BBC thought they deserve an award for their performance. I think they deserve time in prison.
|
|