Which is why I gave you the BBC link. I think it has been resolved the BBC will have to turn this stuff over after denying they had it.

One more point

We’ll see.

If my understanding is correct they provided everything they considered was relevant and which did not conflict with other requirements. Like preserving the privacy and rights of others.

I don’t know if you have ever made, or been involved in, a FOI request. If so you will know that what comes back is greatly restricted and redacted to protect the identity of individuals, both internal and external, being released.

With thousands of documents involved this could take months or even years to resolve as it would need to be done by the lawyers. What’s left is often meaningless, making the whole exercise a pointless waste of time and money.

So how the BBC will respond is unclear. They may well appeal on the basis that the costs outweigh any possible benefits. They might offer to turn the whole file over to an independent tribunal for secure scrutiny so they can produce a summary of the issue.

Let’s see.

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.

Or this could be the final piece in a long list of lies put out by the BBC over the Martin Bashir interview.

One more point

Ah, yes, no, the thing is... the BBC doesn't lie. The BBC never has and never will... it's just that some of their employees do.

Without the BBC how would we know what's wrong or right anymore? How would we live without the lectures from various opinionated people? The soap boxing on why the majority of British people are wrong? The channel that gives far more voice to tiny minorities than the vast majority of its customers? I shudder to think of what the world would be like without being told what to think by the completely balanced BBC.
I'm sure morality police is within its remit.

Seeing as Eurosport has the snooker, I no longer require the BBC.

Red and Blue Army!

If they do it will only be because of the need to fulfil the requirements placed on them by FOI requests.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (11 Dec 2023 2.00pm)

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.

Jimmy Savile wasn’t the BBC. He worked for the BBC who he fooled for a long time, alongside many others. That their systems let them down is well established and steps taken to learn the lessons.

Whether Thatcher heard the rumours or not she ought to have been suspicious just because of his odd behaviour. I don’t think anyone told Thatcher what to do.

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.

Who then got damages when the truth came to the light. Why the managers involved came to the now proved incorrect conclusions isn’t known to me. If they were fully aware themselves then I hope and expect them to have been sacked as a result.

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.

Lies were told by BBC staff and then covered up by management, this should not be in dispute as the BBC has admitted as much.

The latest court case is about the BBC refusing to hand over emails it originally said didn't exist and now admits does.

The court has ordered them to do so although the BBC may appeal the decision.

Quite why anybody can defend the BBC over this whole sorry saga is beyond me.

One more point

Only because they believed his contrition was genuine and the mistakes were down to inexperience. He fooled people who themselves have now shown their own contrition.

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.