I didn't say it was a fact. I said it was regarded as a fact.

Those who did were obviously wrong, but the culture of the time encouraged a suspension of disbelief.

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.

How I wish so much for an 'ignore' feature on HOL.

I disengage, I turn the page.

The way I see it there may be various Reasons as to why this type of scandal happens to the BBC (and nowhere else).

For starters, these type of people are everywhere in society, but it's in the types of positions available in television that allows them opportunity, and it's the vastly Inflated sums of money paid to them that gives them means.

The BBC are an easy target. There is a general feeling of distaste with them spawning from the use of the obligatory Licence fee where, in this post 1950s world where there are other channels to choose from, is incredibly outdated and unjustified.
The recent scandals - especially operation yewtree - are abhorrent and needed to be outed, and quite rightly the BBC were castigated. But I'd be amazed if this thing doesn't happen on other Television companies as they breed the same level of Opportunity and means.

The Huw Edwards scandal is a good example of how this is only a story as it was against the BBC. If the highly paid Individual, paying for pictures of a 'teenager' to fund their addictions worked for a non-descript conglomerate, this would not be newsworthy (more the shame). The mother wouldn't have written to the head of BP(for Example) about one of their employees, and if so wouldn't have gone to the media about it.

Someone mentioned it's a tit-for-tat battle. And one that the BBC are losing. mostly due to their own ineptitude, failure to learn from their own mistakes and inability to change.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Mr. Blobby?

I'm feeling the constant need to point out that the BBC is publicly funded. Its employees are meant to be public servants - it's meant to be a public service broadcast organisation. Therefore, it is, and should be, far more accountable to the public than some private entity. Stories about corruption and failures at the BBC are in the public interest. The public has some right to know how their money is being spent.
Seriously, do people expect nobody to care that a newsreader can afford 35k for dirty pics? Or that despite the complaint being made in May, nothing was done until the Sun published the allegations? Or that everyone was threatened to withhold the name by lawyers - even though, as stated, these are public servants supposedly working in the public interest?
There are a couple of people here whose judgement is being clouded by bias. Publicly funded organisations should be scrutinised. Private companies can deal internally with things how they like, within the law, of course - not public ones.
Also, there seems to be quite a liklehood of criminal behaviour - stuff that has been proven (proven fact Wisbech) to have been covered up (proven fact) before. No amount of hand wringing and BBC sycophancy makes up for this. If the BBC falls due to its own corruption and failures, so be it. There will maybe arise something better and more transparent. Less pay for people with little or no talent would be a starting point for many.

Edited by ASCPFC (13 Jul 2023 3.58pm)

Edited by ASCPFC (13 Jul 2023 3.58pm)

Red and Blue Army!

Seems Mr Edwards didnt stop at young people, he also harranged his fellow employees . . . [Link]

This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.