Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "a problem of culture within the BBC"
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 31 of 58 (676969)
10-26-2012 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2012 2:41 AM


Dr. A writes:
Well, that escalated quickly.
It was either that or spend 100's of posts trying to get Dronester to provide something more solid than gossip and innuendo.
If you look at Straggler's reply in Message 28 (which garnered several cheers) you will see that Straggler also skipped a lot of stages and answered questions that weren't asked. This is because Dronester relies solely on innuendo, and getting him to clearly state his accusations is nearly impossible. I asked him 3 times to be specific, but he obviously realised that the lack of details would show how little he knew and so he refused to answer.
And, if you look at Dronester's replies to jar's messages ( Message 11 & Message 26), it is clear that Dronester did not post the OP to discuss anything. He simply wanted to spill his hate-filled bile over this forum.
I stand by my first response because Dronester has repeatedly confirmed my initial assessment of his motivations.
If anyone believes otherwise, then get Dronester to explicitly state what the BBC has done.
But I fully expect Dronester's arguments to continue to fail because all he has is guesswork and gossip - and a bizarre obsession with the BBC.
I also expect him to come back here in 3 months time and shout "Ha! I told you so!" - but he will be unable to say what he actually told us.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2012 2:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 32 of 58 (676972)
10-26-2012 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by dronestar
10-25-2012 11:46 AM


Re: "a problem of culture within the BBC"
quote:
A pity I couldn't find a news source from the trusted BBC
On the BBC news front page at the top left there's a search box.
Type "savile" in there, you get this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=savile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dronestar, posted 10-25-2012 11:46 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Panda, posted 10-26-2012 6:51 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 33 of 58 (676977)
10-26-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Heathen
10-26-2012 6:22 AM


Re: "a problem of culture within the BBC"
Heathen writes:
On the BBC news front page at the top left there's a search box.
Type "savile" in there, you get this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=savile
But THAT is part of their COVER-UP!!
240 news(?) items in LESS than a "month" - clearly they want to overwhelm the sheeple with tooooo much information.......................

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Heathen, posted 10-26-2012 6:22 AM Heathen has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 34 of 58 (677010)
10-26-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
10-25-2012 1:44 PM


Re: Exposure
Good golly, your reply to my post wasn't spewing with hyperventilating irony, verbally retarded kicks to my groin, or any derogatory remarks about my mother. Straggler, it appears you are not following official forum protocols. Take heed, the moderators here are quick to take action against policy violators.
STRAG writes:
Wasn't it a BBC documentary that sought to expose this whole story? (a Newsnight documentary)
WHOLE story? WHOLE? You might be missing just a few facts . . .
quote:
"the broadcaster is investigating claims of sexual abuse and harassment against nine staff members and contributors, in addition to the late disgraced children's TV host Savile." "Some of the victims have accused other entertainer and BBC staff of participating in abuse during the 60s, 1970s, and 1980s."" BBC is looking into allegations of sexual abuse or harassment against "between eight and 10" past and present employees." Entwwistle said it was too early to say whether sexual abuse had been endemic in Britain's publicly funded national broadcaster, but he insisted the BBC will asset the police if detectives choose to investigate whether there had been a pedophile ring at the corporation."" Entwistle acknowledged that there had been "a problem of culture within the BBC . . . a broader cultural problem.""There is no question that what Sevile did and the way the BBC behaved will raise questions of trust for us and reputation for us". "This is a gravely serious matter, and one cannot look back at it with anything more than horror"
From The Buffalo News, Wednesday, Oct 24.
Director general George Entwistle said this. I reacted to his harsh words. Which then elicited Panda to publicly state he believes that hundreds of children sexually abused and a corporation that further hid the abuses of other current members "seems an odd thing to rage about". Yes, this nonplus and apathetic attitude is exactly the type of mindset that Entwistle was talking about, "a problem of culture within the BBC, a broader cultural problem."
"The BBC . . . is under fire for FAILING TO STOP THE ABUSE and for pulling an expose on Savile from TV schedules"
I uppercased "FAILING TO STOP THE ABUSE." That part in my original post seemed to have been disregarded.
Again, IMO, these actions ARE reminiscent of the catholic church, the current outrage of the american boy scout association, and the Penn State sex abuse case.
STRAG writes:
The whole thing has resulted in the BBC relentlessly reporting on itself."
If that were only true, then perhaps the past 50 years, and most recent, and now ongoing sexual abuse by BBC members would not have happened.
Drone writes:
1. Do you still have the exact same admiration for the BBC as you had before and . . .
STRAG writes:
Sure. It's not perfect but it isn't a government mouthpiece and it isn't reporting news for commercial gain. That is rare and precious in this overly commercial and politicised world.
You seem to be glossing over the incident like any 'good' catholic does about its history of abuse. A catholic persons' mindset would be "the church might not be perfect, but all the good it does certainly wipes out the centuries of horrific abuse." That is what your justification sounds like to victims of abuse.
Drone writes:
2. am I silly for comparing the BBC to the Catholic church?
STRAG writes:
Yes. I think you are. The Catholic church was never going to expose it's own faults by broadcasting them to the world!!!
Well, they did eventually 're-communicate' with Galileo, so we don't really know if the church might ever become a moral entity. And according the the report I listed above, the BBC didn't seem too quick to publicize its culture of abuse either.
STRAG writes:
Maybe it's more like a scientific hoax. A hoax conducted by some scientists and then exposed as a hoax by other scientists......
[Two men in white lead Straggler behind a wall, Straggler asks if he can wear his tin hat, a scuffle is heard, shots ring out. A tense silent moment is had. Then, a man in a tin-hat is seen limping quickly from the scene. To be continued . . .]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2012 1:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Panda, posted 10-26-2012 10:20 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2012 11:02 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2012 12:06 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 35 of 58 (677013)
10-26-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by dronestar
10-26-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Exposure
Dronester writes:
Which then elicited Panda to publicly state he believes that hundreds of children sexually abused and a corporation that further hid the abuses of other current members "seems an odd thing to rage about"
This is a lie.
You are a fucking liar.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 10-26-2012 9:57 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 36 of 58 (677019)
10-26-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by dronestar
10-26-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Exposure
To put this into context the guy in question (Jimmy Saville) seems to have somehow made a number of hospitals, charities and even a government department as well as the BBC complicit in his paedophilic activities. Not only that he seems to have managed to con both the police and the judiciary numerous times. He was given free access to young patients in mental institutions and hospitals, made the leader of a task force charged with looking at the care of young vulnerable patients by the ministry of health, despite being investigated 7 times by police they never found anything to convict him of and (apparently) despite a large body of evidence the crown prosecution service never felt able to pursue this guy.
So if there is a problem with the culture that allowed this it extends well beyond the BBC.
quote:
Current determination to dig deep into this case stands in stark contrast with the years of denial which preceded it:
Fresh inquiries into Jimmy Savile's trail of alleged child abuse have proliferated at pace this week. Scotland Yard's formal criminal investigation, announced on Friday, has identified more than 200 potential victims. There are four investigations in the health service already — Stoke Mandeville, Leeds General Infirmary, Broadmoor secure psychiatric hospital and the Department of Health, all of which are tarnished by their association with the late presenter. Two investigations are taking place within the BBC — the first looking at the corporation's handling of Savile through the long years in which he was one of its most prominent stars, the second into why Newsnight dropped its investigation. This week, the government appointed a barrister to provide "independent oversight" of the four health service inquiries. And Labour's Harriet Harman wants an independent inquiry into every aspect of Savile's lifetime of alleged abuse.
In some ways this breathless concern is admirable. It speaks of a determination to get to the root of the allegedly predatory career of one of the most prominent figures in the land. But it would all be much more admirable, of course, if Savile had ever been effectively challenged, and above all stopped, at any time while he was alive. The current determination to dig deep into every aspect of his case stands in stark contrast with the years of denial which preceded it, the refusal to see past the presenter's eccentric image, and the readiness to accept Savile's own explanations on the rare occasions when anything troubling surfaced. In almost every institution where he worked professionally or as a volunteer, Savile ran rings around the few who dared to confront him, whether in the media or the health services. Savile's success in avoiding detection raises big questions not only for both sets of institutions, but for Britain too. Paedophiles like Savile is alleged to have been are attracted to professions which provide access to vulnerable children — such as education, care homes, the religious faiths and medicine. The failure of health services and the broadcasters to protect the people in their charge was lamentable. But these failures should not be used as an excuse to bash the BBC or the NHS. Plenty of others lauded Savile in his lifetime before loathing him as soon as the alleged truth came out.
Savile was certainly idiosyncratic in his public persona, but his alleged predatory behaviour was not unusual. The high-profile case in the US of the college football coach Jerry Sandusky, sentenced to more than 30 years in prison this month after a 15-year career of child abuse, shows many of the same features — targeting of institutions full of young people, careful low-profile grooming, ingratiating himself into positions of trust in communities he wished to exploit, and plausible denials when challenged. Yet just as the sports programmes failed to spot Sandusky's manipulative behaviour, so the hospitals which allowed Savile such licence also failed to see the alleged threat that he posed. Perhaps broadcasters who promoted Savile's image led the health professionals to drop their guards. Either way, the hospitals were allegedly taken for a ride — and the ride lasted decades.
Link
The BBC is engaged in relentless navel gazing and self-flagellation over this issue. It is covering Savile and the BBCs woes over the whole affair almost non-stop on it's domestic news programmes. Frankly I have reached saturation point with the media's unstinting obsession with itself. The main story here should be about a raging paedophile and the plight of his victims.
The original BBC Newsnight investigation into this remains the spark that lit the fire under the BBCs own nose. Whether this was pulled because, like the police and prosecution service concluded previoulsy, they didn't have enough evidence to come out and accuse, or whether there was a cover-up we don't yet know. But it is BBC journalists who came out and put the potential cover-up in focus and they who are pursuing it most relentlessly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 10-26-2012 9:57 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dronestar, posted 10-29-2012 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 37 of 58 (677031)
10-26-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by dronestar
10-26-2012 9:57 AM


What should have been / whould should we do now
Wasn't it a BBC documentary that sought to expose this whole story? (a Newsnight documentary)
WHOLE story? WHOLE? You might be missing just a few facts
The story seems to go along these lines, though not necessarily in complete chronological order.
1) The Police investigate allegations
2) The CPS decide not to proceed due to lack of evidence
3) BBC journalists start to investigate the matter (Newsnight) including the reasons why the CPS dropped it, police incompetence and the like
4) The editor of Newsnight seems to get cold feet on the matter - he claims due to the CPS' position.
4) ITV airs its own investigation: Exposure, the Other Side of Jimmy Savile
6) Another BBC team, Panorama, decides to investigate how aware the BBC was of the allegations and whether the documentary was honestly dropped because of 'lack of evidence'.
7) The BBC launches several inquiries into the matter
8) Panorama airs its investigation
9) Allegations surrounding other BBC staff members either directly abusing, or complicit in abuse arise.
10) BBC director general George Entwistle explains how Savile et al could not got away with what he did without there being a 'broad cultural problem' at the BBC.
So yeah, I think its fair to say the BBC are involved in exposing this whole story - though there may well be some people within the BBC who are misleading people over the affair. How much the BBC should be criticized depends on how broad that problem really is.
Again, IMO, these actions ARE reminiscent of the catholic church, the current outrage of the american boy scout association, and the Penn State sex abuse case.
Reminiscent maybe, though the story is still in its infancy. It's quite different from the Catholic Church scandal I think, in that covering up child abuse allegations seems to have been endemic to the point of it being policy. At the BBC it doesn't seem to be quite that bad, not yet anyway. And I'm not aware of any church officials not charged with child abuse that have resigned, been fired or charged for perverting justice, perjury or what have- but maybe there are some I missed.
It might turn out similar to the Penn State situation. I've seen some people say they reported the matter to their boss - but if you think its serious enough to advise your boss, you should be reporting it to the police I feel. Taking it to the boss risks him dismissing it as malicious rumour. After all, if you were going to make up an ugly rumour about Savile to harm his reputation - it would almost certainly be child abuse.
"The BBC . . . is under fire for FAILING TO STOP THE ABUSE and for pulling an expose on Savile from TV schedules"
What do you think the BBC should have done?
I mean the only evidence we have that Savile was a sex offender is the many reports they have received this past month that police are saying have certain consistencies. Before then, it was a handful of allegations from apparently 'uncooperative victims' (presumably not wanting to go to court or something), and information which may look (I don't know enough details to say right now) like malicious gossip. There was some victim testimony that came forward during the making of the documentaries that Entwistle didn't see that is said to be important (I haven't seen it myself so I don't actually know).
One possible solution I suppose, is to require companies to report all allegations they receive about their staff to the police, who keep a record and if victims can be identified, investigate the matter further.
Another point to raise I think is that as awareness grew of sexual harassment in the work place from the sixties through to the eighties as women became increasingly politically active, companies - either voluntarily or by legislation - enacted policies and systems to combat this.
So maybe, now that we've had a number of these scandals in a variety of different contexts, we should examine what measures we can put in place to handle this kind of situation better, as likely there are other organisations that aren't doing enough as it is. What measures are already being used, and how well are they doing? Does the BBC presently have any such measures? Were they working at the time the abuse is said to have occurred? How can they be improved? How can we get the good measures widely practiced?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 10-26-2012 9:57 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 10-26-2012 12:44 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 58 (677043)
10-26-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
10-26-2012 12:06 PM


Re: What should have been / whould should we do now
The thing about the dead is they can't defend themselves. You'd want good, solid evidence before running a TV show with the allegations. Given the Crown Prosecution Service had dropped the case for lack of evidence, it's not hard to see why a BBC editor might be reluctant to run with the show.
I suspect there are people who knew; I see no reason to think there was any wider cover-up or culture of abuse. Comparisons to the Catholic church are absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2012 12:06 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 39 of 58 (677369)
10-29-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
10-26-2012 11:02 AM


BBC coverup?
quote:
The scandal has raised questions about whether the BBC, the publicly funded and trusted broadcaster, had ignored crimes it suspected over several decades.
"The BBC's reputation is on the line," Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, wrote in The Mail on Sunday newspaper. "The BBC risks squandering public trust because one of its stars over three decades was apparently a sexual criminal ... and because others BBC employees and hangers-on may also have been involved."
Associated Press News: Breaking News | Latest News Today
STRAG writes:
To put this into context the guy in question (Jimmy Saville) seems to have . . .
"To put this into context . . ."
This is campaign season in america. A politician often uses the expression "to put this into context" as a way of re-framing things, or more specifically, to re-direct issues AWAY from embarrassing revelations. I suspect you may be doing this too:
1. Jimmy Saville is dead. Yet the bulk of your reply was about him. Unless you are suggesting that we dig him up and put him on trial, I really don't think he is the main story here. I think investigator's efforts would be better served if they went about identifying the past and present BBC members, who are still ALIVE, who committed the abuses.
2. You VIRTUALLY disregarded the bulk of my previous message: the BBC's criminal misconduct. I wrote "the broadcaster is investigating claims of sexual abuse and harassment against nine staff members and contributors, in addition to the late disgraced children's TV host Savile." "Some of the victims have accused other entertainer and BBC staff of participating in abuse during the 60s, 1970s, and 1980s.""BBC is looking into allegations of sexual abuse or harassment against "between eight and 10" past and present employees." Entwwistle said it was too early to say whether sexual abuse had been endemic in Britain's publicly funded national broadcaster, but he insisted the BBC will asset the police if detectives choose to investigate whether there had been a pedophile ring at the corporation."
I even wrote, in capitals, "The BBC . . . is under fire for FAILING TO STOP THE ABUSE," twice. I wrote "That part in my original post seemed to have been disregarded." Indeed.
3.
STRAG writes:
The main story here should be about a raging paedophile and the plight of his victims.
Wow, it seems you intentionally left off the much bigger story, that the BBC may be harboring a pedophile ring. How in the world do you not think THAT is the main story?
STRAG writes:
But it is BBC journalists who came out and put the potential cover-up in focus and they who are pursuing it most relentlessly.
I ask again, where were these great BBC journalists when their fellow BBC staff was sexually abusing children for over 50 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2012 11:02 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Panda, posted 10-29-2012 1:03 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2012 2:38 PM dronestar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 40 of 58 (677375)
10-29-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dronestar
10-29-2012 12:45 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
dronester writes:
Wow, it seems you intentionally left off the much bigger story, that the BBC may be harboring a pedophile ring. How in the world do you not think THAT is the main story?
Why should shit that you make up be anything other than just a dumb rant on a forum?
Again - all you have is innuendo, rumours and lies and lies and lies.
This has been shown to be true time and again.
Unfortunately, you don't care what you actually say: you have a message of bigoted hate and no truths should be spared in delivering it.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dronestar, posted 10-29-2012 12:45 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 58 (677402)
10-29-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dronestar
10-29-2012 12:45 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
Drone writes:
Wow, it seems you intentionally left off the much bigger story, that the BBC may be harboring a pedophile ring.
Do you have a source for this allegation that the BBC was harboring a paedophile ring? I typed it into google and the only hit with that combination was some Daily Mail blog......
I doubt Savile acted alone. These people rarely do. In fact the Glam Rock star Gary Glitter was taken into police custody in relation to this story last night I believe.
But you seem to be insinuating that the BBC was intentionally facilitating paedophilia and had some sort of unspoken policy to protect paedophiles.
Is that what you are saying? if so what are you basing it on?
Drone writes:
Jimmy Saville is dead. Yet the bulk of your reply was about him.
Well we can talk about Gary Glitter if you want? But given he didn't have any significant BBC connections I doubt you will want to. Because (based on previous threads) you obviously have some sort of anti-BBC agenda that predates all of this. But, until more evidence is forthcoming and names are named, who else do you suggest we talk about?
Drone - I know you hated the BBC long before any of this. Can I ask why? You don't strike me as one of the usual detractors. They are usually freemarket fundamentalists who find a successful and popular public broadcaster some sort of anathema to their ideology. So what is your beef with the BBC? Do you think it should be turned into a government mouthpiece or disbanded to make way for private commercial broadcasting? What is it you want here?
Drone writes:
"To put this into context . . ."
Here is some more evidence of this guys bizarre degree of influence: Link
quote:
Jimmy Savile cultivated the friendship of a group of senior police officers through weekly meetings at his penthouse apartment, while being investigated over a string of abuse cases, a friend of the star has told The Times.
The broadcaster’s Friday Morning Club included up to nine serving and retired police officers. The meetings were held regularly for almost 20 years until shortly before his death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dronestar, posted 10-29-2012 12:45 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2012 2:58 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 43 by dronestar, posted 10-29-2012 3:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 42 of 58 (677405)
10-29-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
10-29-2012 2:38 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
Do you have a source for this allegation that the BBC was harboring a paedophile ring?
quote:
Lawyers representing some of the male and female victims, some of whom were as young as eight when the abuse occurred, said their clients had indicated an organised paedophile ring involving other celebrities had existed at the BBC during the height of Savile's fame in the 1970s and 80s.
"There is information of a possible paedophile ring and we have people who have approached us with that information," Alicia Alinia, one of the lead lawyers involved in the cases for the Slater and Gordon law firm told Reuters.
"It seems to be a number of people who were involved other than Jimmy Savile, I can't reveal any specific names of celebrities involved, but it seems as though it wasn't just limited to unknowns."
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
I believe it was also mentioned in the BBC Panorama documentary (that's from memory of watching it a few days ago, though).
But you seem to be insinuating that the BBC was intentionally facilitating paedophilia and had some sort of unspoken policy to protect paedophiles.
Some members of the BBC may well have been intentionally facilitating the abuse, and they seemed as an institution (according to victim testimony) to have adopted a de facto policy of denial or wilful blindness regarding any allegations that were made.
Take the case of Sylvia Edwards - she claims that she reported this incident to a floor manager, who essentially told her to bugger off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2012 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2012 9:20 AM Modulous has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 43 of 58 (677413)
10-29-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
10-29-2012 2:38 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
STRAG writes:
Do you have a source for this allegation that the BBC was harboring a paedophile ring? I typed it into google and the only hit with that combination was some Daily Mail blog......
I am only reacting to what I've been reading. Director general George Entwistle was quoted as saying . . .
quote:
"Entwwistle said it was too early to say whether sexual abuse had been endemic in Britain's publicly funded national broadcaster, but he insisted the BBC will assist police if detectives choose to investigate whether there had been a pedophile ring at the corporation."
I read it in the The Buffalo News, Oct 24, 2012. Curiously, when I googled it, I found 2,930 results. Here's one:
BBC sex scandal involving TV host widens - Portland Press Herald
STRAG writes:
But you seem to be insinuating that the BBC was intentionally facilitating paedophilia and had some sort of unspoken policy to protect paedophiles.
Not I, but the sources I have been reading are alleging it. Here are some of the quotes again:
quote:
"the broadcaster is investigating claims of sexual abuse and harassment against nine staff members and contributors, in addition to the late disgraced children's TV host Savile." "Some of the victims have accused other entertainer and BBC staff of participating in abuse during the 60s, 1970s, and 1980s."" BBC is looking into allegations of sexual abuse or harassment against "between eight and 10" past and present employees." Entwwistle said it was too early to say whether sexual abuse had been endemic in Britain's publicly funded national broadcaster, but he insisted the BBC will asset the police if detectives choose to investigate whether there had been a pedophile ring at the corporation."" Entwistle acknowledged that there had been "a problem of culture within the BBC . . . a broader cultural problem.""There is no question that what Sevile did and the way the BBC behaved will raise questions of trust for us and reputation for us". "This is a gravely serious matter, and one cannot look back at it with anything more than horror"
quote:
The scandal has raised questions about whether the BBC, the publicly funded and trusted broadcaster, had ignored crimes it suspected over several decades.
"The BBC's reputation is on the line," Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, wrote in The Mail on Sunday newspaper. "The BBC risks squandering public trust because one of its stars over three decades was apparently a sexual criminal ... and because others BBC employees and hangers-on may also have been involved.
Associated Press News: Breaking News | Latest News Today
STRAG writes:
. . . until more evidence is forthcoming and names are named, who else do you suggest we talk about?
Why not just limit the comments to the thread's original post? This thread is about the BBC staff and their culture that has allowed them to abuse children for the last 50 years. I may be mistaken , but I am getting the impression that you are desperate to avoid this main topic.
STRAG writes:
So what is your beef with the BBC?
The BBC staff and their culture that has allowed them to abuse children for the last 50 years.
From the sources I have so far read, I am confident the investigators, if not fully self-investigated by their own BBC staff, will uncover a culture of abuse going back 50 years. However, I admit, it is possible the investigators are terribly, terribly wrong about Saville and the BBC. If you like, we can re-visit this thread in a year's time to see what actually pans out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2012 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2012 9:32 AM dronestar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 44 of 58 (677503)
10-30-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-29-2012 2:58 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
As I have already said I doubt that Savile was operating alone. Furthermore I would be amazed if this circle of abusers he seems to have led didn’t include at least one or two others employed by the BBC in some capacity (fellow entertainers or production staff — We don’t yet know). But is that the same as the BBC harbouring a paedophile ring in the way that Drone is insinuating.? I don’t think so.
The term harbouring suggests that the BBC as an organisation was actively condoning, facilitating or encouraging paedophilia. I very much doubt that was the case. At the very least it implies that the BBC as an organisation was knowingly and intentionally providing a safe haven for paedophile activities. As an organisation actively protecting people it knew were engaged in paedophilic activity. Again I doubt that was the case.
Do you think the BBC was harbouring a paedophile ring? Or do you think there was a paedophile ring operating with links to some BBC members of staff?
Do you see the difference?
Mod writes:
Some members of the BBC may well have been intentionally facilitating the abuse, and they seemed as an institution (according to victim testimony) to have adopted a de facto policy of denial or wilful blindness regarding any allegations that were made.
I don’t doubt that BBC as an organisation adopted the same sort of head-in-the-sand approach as the police, the health service, the wider media and society at large to these matters. The fact is that in the 60s 70s and 80s rock stars and famous entertainers were regularly getting it on with underage girls. The saintly John Peel married a 15 year old. The case of Bill Wyman speaks for itself. And generally the idea of 14 and 15 year old girls shagging famous older men just seems to have been accepted as part of life in those days. It was the Rock ‘n’ Roll thing to do.
Thankfully things have moved on.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2012 2:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2012 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 58 (677504)
10-30-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dronestar
10-29-2012 3:16 PM


Re: BBC coverup?
Drone writes:
This thread is about the BBC staff and their culture that has allowed them to abuse children for the last 50 years. I may be mistaken , but I am getting the impression that you are desperate to avoid this main topic.
Then let’s confront that head on. But how do we do this without giving credence to the Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no? approach you are obviously intent on pursuing here. In the absence of more facts all we have are ifs and maybes. So I can only answer your questions in those terms.
On the main issue of trust — If my kids (aged 6 and nearly 3) were invited to be involved in a BBC kids programme (e.g. Justins House) would I be happy for them to take part? Yes. Absolutely. So in that very real sense I trust the BBC.
If it turns out that in recent times there has been, or continues to be, an unspoken policy of condoning, facilitating or encouraging paedophile activity and protecting known paedophiles at the BBC would my trust have been diminished? Yes. Of course.
If it turns out that decades ago Savile and some cronies, including some who worked at the BBC with him, were engaging in paedophilic activities and that some events occurred on BBC premises without being sanctioned by the BBC itself would this diminish my view of the BBC as an organisation now? Not particularly. No.
Drone writes:
I read it in the The Buffalo News, Oct 24, 2012. Curiously, when I googled it, I found 2,930 results. Here's one:
Do you understand the difference between the BBC as an organisation harbouring a paedophile ring (as you have accused) and a group of paedophiles with BBC connections operating (possibly at times) on BBC premises? Do you think they are one and the same thing? Because all of your links imply the latter rather than the former. Yet you seem intent on insinuating that the BBC was actively condoning, facilitating or encouraging paedophilia and actively protecting known paedophiles.
Is this what you are saying? Can you confirm exactly what it is you are accusing the BBC as an organisation of here?
Straggler writes:
So what is your beef with the BBC?
Drone writes:
The BBC staff and their culture that has allowed them to abuse children for the last 50 years.
Well the latest revelations suggest that there was a widespread paedophile ring operating out of number 10 Downing street itself. Link
All of which suggests that, as I keep saying, any cultural problem isn’t specific to the BBC at all. Instead it is a wider issue of culture in those times.
Drone writes:
If you like, we can re-visit this thread in a year's time to see what actually pans out.
The story is unfolding on a daily basis. Let's see if the BBC (which employs 20,000 people I believe) genuinely has an organisational problem of promoting and condoning paedophilia or if this story pertains to "between eight and 10 past and present employees" as your quotes and links state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dronestar, posted 10-29-2012 3:16 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by dronestar, posted 10-30-2012 11:39 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 48 by Panda, posted 10-30-2012 11:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024