BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 28 Apr 24 9.32am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Not as much reality as his victims have had to face. Probably not but reality nevertheless.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Teddy Eagle  28 Apr 24 9.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I have said several times the BBC have accepted their failings and taken steps to ensure they aren’t repeated. I have also pointed out that without actual evidence taking action isn’t possible. Lots of rumours raises suspicions but they aren’t enough. It wasn’t just the BBC. His activities at both Broadmoor and Stoke Mandeville were missed by the NHS for years. The steps they took weren't very effective. This is about Huw Edwards. The BBC accepted there were "lessons to be learned following this exercise", and the organisation's group chief operating officer will assess whether protocols and procedures are appropriate.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 28 Apr 24 9.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I think we must wait and see if that is true or not. That evidence is emerging that there might have been other complaints doesn’t mean they weren’t investigated and found untrue or unproven. What it means is that there is now a system whereby such complaints can be lodged. You would not expect them to be publicised! I think that is evidence that the BBC has learned its lesson and that no one is untouchable. I think the evidence is showing that after 2 separate complaints they then received another complaint from a member of the public about their child and did very little about it. You would think that once a person has been investigated for inappropriate behaviour even if there was little or no evidence to support that claim, that further complaints from different people would at least ring alarm bells. So no I don't think the BBC has learned its lesson. It only acted when the complainer went public.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 28 Apr 24 10.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I think the evidence is showing that after 2 separate complaints they then received another complaint from a member of the public about their child and did very little about it. You would think that once a person has been investigated for inappropriate behaviour even if there was little or no evidence to support that claim, that further complaints from different people would at least ring alarm bells. So no I don't think the BBC has learned its lesson. It only acted when the complainer went public.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 28 Apr 24 10.24am |
 |
|---|---|
|
This will please Wisbeach(unfortunately} The bbc wants more funding for its world service on top of the £100m it gets from the FO to promote 'UK values' . . . [Link]
I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold, |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 28 Apr 24 10.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Pretty damming about BBC procedures and if the latest revelations are true about previous complaints it just makes it worse. I didn't understand the comment that the BBC would not put complaints to a member of staff until verified. If I was innocent and management had a file on me I would be livid that they had not spoken to me even if the complaints were false, very odd.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Apr 24 8.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I think the evidence is showing that after 2 separate complaints they then received another complaint from a member of the public about their child and did very little about it. You would think that once a person has been investigated for inappropriate behaviour even if there was little or no evidence to support that claim, that further complaints from different people would at least ring alarm bells. So no I don't think the BBC has learned its lesson. It only acted when the complainer went public. Untrue. It was investigating before that. The first stage of which, understandably, was to verify identities, which was stymied by a lack of responses from the family member complainant. The lack of a response and subsequent contacting of the Sun carries a nasty odour and raises red flags about possible motivations.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Apr 24 8.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
I think that timeline shows that the BBC acted reasonably at all stages. You could argue they could have done more early on but until they are satisfied the complainant is who they say they are you can also argue they ought not to.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Apr 24 8.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
This will please Wisbeach(unfortunately} The bbc wants more funding for its world service on top of the £100m it gets from the FO to promote 'UK values' . . . [Link] Yes it does. The BBC World Service is one of our countries greatest assets. It’s a source of trusted news in many places where the national broadcasters are state controlled. For the UK to be seen as trustworthy and reliable is vital at a time when such things are in short supply. The World Service uses the reporters, and much of the programming, that the UK based service does. Weaken these in any way would be like scoring a hatful of own goals.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 28 Apr 24 8.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I think that timeline shows that the BBC acted reasonably at all stages. You could argue they could have done more early on but until they are satisfied the complainant is who they say they are you can also argue they ought not to. OK, carry on thinking that. Let's wait for the next time this happens and take comfort that lessons have been learned.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 28 Apr 24 9.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Untrue. It was investigating before that. The first stage of which, understandably, was to verify identities, which was stymied by a lack of responses from the family member complainant. The lack of a response and subsequent contacting of the Sun carries a nasty odour and raises red flags about possible motivations. Oh I get it, they are the wrong type of victim because it's the Sun. As far as I am aware they have not asked for any money just that Edwards back off and stop paying their child money. You conveniently ignored the BBC response "The BBC accepted there were "lessons to be learned following this exercise",* and the organisation's group chief operating officer will assess whether protocols and procedures are appropriate." *Just like the time before and the time before that and the time.... Edited by Badger11 (28 Apr 2024 9.09pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nhp61 Goring-By-Sea born, now in Brackne... 29 Apr 24 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
How much did the BBC know about Phillip Schofield? Is there actually anyone straight working at the BBC? I do believe that Scarlett Moffatt is one of the few straight people on the BBC's books. However, she is most probably on their books because she ticks the box marked "cerebrally challenged"...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.