This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
  georgenorman  27 Apr 24 10.31am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I am not going around these circles again. Whether the arresting officer made a mistake causing the police a need to apologise is irrelevant. Her presence where she was intended to provoke, be videoed and publicised. It had zilch to do with praying. Everything to do with promoting the religion based anti abortion stance of an American agitator moving their tactics into the UK. Tactics which confuse courts because they are clever and can require the law to be clarified or amended. Those are the facts. I’ll leave it there. If others want to promote this kind of behaviour that’s their choice. That statement is laughable - as were the two attempts to prosecute her.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The deal is that for many years he'd been a high profile employee on a programme involving children and was banned from being in a studio at an event concerning children. Savile wasn’t included in every gig aimed at children and when it wasn’t their production why would it be their concern? If he had been banned by the BBC themselves from one of their own productions that he had previously featured on then it would be different. If I had been producing a kids programme I wouldn’t have hired him either, but I wouldn’t have announced why and if anyone asked said it was a commercial decision. Any more could result in litigation.
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  27 Apr 24 5.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Savile wasn’t included in every gig aimed at children and when it wasn’t their production why would it be their concern? If he had been banned by the BBC themselves from one of their own productions that he had previously featured on then it would be different. If I had been producing a kids programme I wouldn’t have hired him either, but I wouldn’t have announced why and if anyone asked said it was a commercial decision. Any more could result in litigation. Trying to defend the BBC over their supposed impartiality is one thing. Finding excuses for their inactivity over a sex offender is something else. There were victims of his abuse who are the most important part of this but like the grooming cases they are secondary to trying to protect those in authority.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 27 Apr 24 6.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Children In Need was started by the BBC. It may have been run independently, I don't know, but considering it was a BBC creation it relied heavily on the BBC to promote it and help raise funds. I think it reasonable to assume that there would be close ties with both organisations. Edited by Badger11 (27 Apr 2024 6.14pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 6.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Trying to defend the BBC over their supposed impartiality is one thing. Finding excuses for their inactivity over a sex offender is something else. There were victims of his abuse who are the most important part of this but like the grooming cases they are secondary to trying to protect those in authority. I don’t anyone, me included, needs to find excuses. The BBC have acknowledged their failures and taken steps to try to ensure they aren’t repeated. All I am doing is explaining why some assumptions aren’t really valid. Making assumptions and inappropriate allegations does nothing to help any victims, of Savile or the grooming gangs. No one is trying to protect anyone in authority. That’s one of the assumptions. Those in authority can only act on what they know they can prove. Rumours and innuendo might be sufficient here but not in a law court. There you need evidence, which is very easy to assume exists but much harder to nail down in practice.
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 27 Apr 24 7.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There really is no limit to what the Left will tolerate in support of their favourites. The BBC can employ as many paedophiles as they like but must not be criticised. The Muslim 'community' must not be criticised however many thousands of children are sexually abused by members of that 'community'. The country can be overwhelmed by immigration but it must not be criticised. The Left these days are literally mad.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 27 Apr 24 7.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don’t anyone, me included, needs to find excuses. The BBC have acknowledged their failures and taken steps to try to ensure they aren’t repeated. All I am doing is explaining why some assumptions aren’t really valid. Making assumptions and inappropriate allegations does nothing to help any victims, of Savile or the grooming gangs. No one is trying to protect anyone in authority. That’s one of the assumptions. Those in authority can only act on what they know they can prove. Rumours and innuendo might be sufficient here but not in a law court. There you need evidence, which is very easy to assume exists but much harder to nail down in practice. They weren't able to prove anything without investigating it and apparently they weren't able to do that because the culture they'd created prevented staff from passing on information.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 27 Apr 24 10.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
There really is no limit to what the Left will tolerate in support of their favourites. The BBC can employ as many paedophiles as they like but must not be criticised. The Muslim 'community' must not be criticised however many thousands of children are sexually abused by members of that 'community'. The country can be overwhelmed by immigration but it must not be criticised. The Left these days are literally mad. Wait until labour get in. Then the real s*** will happen and getting back from it might never happen !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tunbridge Tunbridge Wells 27 Apr 24 10.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Because the last 14 years have been such a blast haven't they?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
They weren't able to prove anything without investigating it and apparently they weren't able to do that because the culture they'd created prevented staff from passing on information. How long ago was this? 60 years? Do you recall the culture of that time? It wasn’t something that the BBC created at all. It was a culture they were part of. They recognise the failings and the soul searching has been deep. Your cynicism about the senior management is widely shared but whilst I expect that the rumours did reach into middle management I very much doubt they got to the top. People there were not involved in programme making or day to day matters. They were concerned with policy and finance. It wasn’t good enough. They know that, admit that and have addressed it. Hopefully it’s different now with mechanisms in place which ensure concerns can be brought directly to senior management in secret if necessary.
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 27 Apr 24 11.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tunbridge
Because the last 14 years have been such a blast haven't they? Been great fun. Banking crisis, pandemic and wars topped by the biggest political own goal of my lifetime, Brexit. One which could easily have been avoided by some simple organisation of the defence. Nothing left involved in any of it though.
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 27 Apr 24 11.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
How long ago was this? 60 years? Do you recall the culture of that time? It wasn’t something that the BBC created at all. It was a culture they were part of. They recognise the failings and the soul searching has been deep. Your cynicism about the senior management is widely shared but whilst I expect that the rumours did reach into middle management I very much doubt they got to the top. People there were not involved in programme making or day to day matters. They were concerned with policy and finance. It wasn’t good enough. They know that, admit that and have addressed it. Hopefully it’s different now with mechanisms in place which ensure concerns can be brought directly to senior management in secret if necessary. He was still working for them in 1988. A while ago but not exactly the dark ages.
|
|
| 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.