This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  26 Apr 24 1.08pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't think that is true at all. No one allowed him to do anything, whether tacitly or not. He fooled many and, as has been recently pointed out here, threatened and bullied others. That he damaged many lives is unarguable but to suggest the BBC were "protecting an asset" whilst knowing what he was up to is not true. Some at lower levels had concerns and suspicions but no route to report them or get them investigated. Savile was very clever. He projected a persona which included being weird but also avuncular and well-meaning. As a consequence, he became untouchable.
He was banned from the studio when Children in Need was being filmed. Someone knew.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 26 Apr 24 1.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
He was banned from the studio when Children in Need was being filmed. Someone knew. Loads of people knew. A ton of victims & their families knew. The BBC dinner lady/toilet cleaners/skivvies all knew. Terry Wogan certainly knew and confessed so much. All the top brass at the BBC, Downing Street, the Palace, wherever else.......do you really believe they never knew ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Stirlingsays  26 Apr 24 1.57pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
Loads of people knew. A ton of victims & their families knew. The BBC dinner lady/toilet cleaners/skivvies all knew. Terry Wogan certainly knew and confessed so much. All the top brass at the BBC, Downing Street, the Palace, wherever else.......do you really believe they never knew ? I think a lot of that is wisdom after the fact myself. You are suggesting that Savile was protected. Isn't that similar to what the Labour MP alleged about some old Tories and it turned out to be based upon claims by a fruitcake? Don't get me wrong, I think the Epstein and Weinstein situations are more than enough proof that sexual exploitation by the powerful is commonplace. However, should we automatically assume that they are all in on it? Personally I don't think it works like that. I think certain intelligence agencies are involved in blackmail and dirty laundry knowledge about people....I think that does go on...The Epstein situation kind of proves it....Hollywood is a sick place run by sick people. However, do we really think that applies to the Savile situation back in the 70s and 80s? Maybe you're right but I prefer to think not while having an open mind to evidence. Did loads of people know Savile was a peado?....As a layman I prefer to think the people on the ground suspected more than knew....suspecting someone is dodgey is one thing....for example, how many under 16s did rock stars shag? However, the Police received a complaint and don't seem to have taken it seriously. That very much looks like a terrible decision. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Apr 2024 2.24pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 2.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
He was banned from the studio when Children in Need was being filmed. Someone knew. If you read the story you linked to it clearly says he was banned because of suspicions. Suspicions aren’t knowledge. You can prosecute knowledge of criminal activity. You cannot prosecute suspicions.
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 26 Apr 24 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you read the story you linked to it clearly says he was banned because of suspicions. Suspicions aren’t knowledge. You can prosecute knowledge of criminal activity. You cannot prosecute suspicions. But the fact those suspicions were held mitigates against the no knowledge of what he was up to claim.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 24 2.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
How much did the BBC know about Phillip Schofield? Is there actually anyone straight working at the BBC?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PalazioVecchio south pole 26 Apr 24 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Did loads of people know Savile was a peado?....As a layman I prefer to think the people on the ground suspected more than knew....suspecting someone is dodgey is one thing....for example, how many under 16s did rock stars shag? However, the Police received a complaint and don't seem to have taken it seriously. That very much looks like a terrible decision. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Apr 2024 2.24pm) there is surely a difference between a) a pop star doing a consenting groupie....her the same age as half the pram-pushers of Croydon, and b) Jimmy Savile violently raping innocent children. the BBC should have been disbanded and replaced with something accountable & manageable.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Dolphin 26 Apr 24 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Back in the day many of the higher ups were at it and they could/would ensure that little got done about it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
But the fact those suspicions were held mitigates against the no knowledge of what he was up to claim. No, it doesn't. Suspicions don't indicate knowledge. Suspicions can indicate a variety of things. Have you never been suspected of being up to something whilst knowing you are totally innocent? They can do, but as they cannot be relied on cannot be trusted. What went wrong was the lack of any mechanism whereby the volume of suspicions could be assessed and investigated by ensuring they were reported, safely and without fear.
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 |
|
 georgenorman 26 Apr 24 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, it doesn't. Suspicions don't indicate knowledge. Suspicions can indicate a variety of things. Have you never been suspected of being up to something whilst knowing you are totally innocent? They can do, but as they cannot be relied on cannot be trusted. What went wrong was the lack of any mechanism whereby the volume of suspicions could be assessed and investigated by ensuring they were reported, safely and without fear. What, like someone silently praying in the street?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 24 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
there is surely a difference between a) a pop star doing a consenting groupie....her the same age as half the pram-pushers of Croydon, and b) Jimmy Savile violently raping innocent children. the BBC should have been disbanded and replaced with something accountable & manageable. Yes there is, I'd agree with both your points. I want to know how we can have a situation where anyone is raping children and can get away with it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 26 Apr 24 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, it doesn't. Suspicions don't indicate knowledge. Suspicions can indicate a variety of things. Have you never been suspected of being up to something whilst knowing you are totally innocent? They can do, but as they cannot be relied on cannot be trusted. What went wrong was the lack of any mechanism whereby the volume of suspicions could be assessed and investigated by ensuring they were reported, safely and without fear. And an organisation which employs a raft of investigative journalists didn't think to enquire why a high profile employee was banned from a charity event involving children.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.