This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 steeleye20  Croydon 26 Apr 24 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
BBC question time audience 'lost for words' as top tory Chris Philp asks if the Congo and Rwanda are different countries.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The old Don't Look Back in Anger mantra. It wasn't though just the culture at the BBC was it? It was the culture. It's far too easy to be wise after the event and point fingers. It's like knowing what horse is going to win. After the race. I never met Savile but he crossed my path as he befriended a family I bought a house from. The stories they told me felt odd at the time, but he was odd, and they expressed no concerns at all. They were proud of, almost honoured by, his attention. That I think was a repeated pattern which has taught a very profound lesson.
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. |
|
Teddy Eagle  26 Apr 24 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It wasn't though just the culture at the BBC was it? It was the culture. It's far too easy to be wise after the event and point fingers. It's like knowing what horse is going to win. After the race. I never met Savile but he crossed my path as he befriended a family I bought a house from. The stories they told me felt odd at the time, but he was odd, and they expressed no concerns at all. They were proud of, almost honoured by, his attention. That I think was a repeated pattern which has taught a very profound lesson. What he was doing, and was tacitly allowed to do, was still illegal. He did a lot of damage to the lives of a lot of people because the BBC were protecting a supposed asset.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
What he was doing, and was tacitly allowed to do, was still illegal. He did a lot of damage to the lives of a lot of people because the BBC were protecting a supposed asset. 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.
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. |
|
| 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.
|
|
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 |
|
| 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) |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
 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?
|
|
| 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) |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What, like someone silently praying in the street? That lady knew full well that what she was doing contravened the order in place. She deliberately did so for the publicity, refused to comply with repeated requests to move by the police and had her sponsors there to video everything. It was a publicity stunt, and had nothing to do with any wish to “pray silently” which she could have done very easily a couple of streets away with no issues whatsoever. Defending someone who deliberately flouts the law and provokes the police is, of itself, indefensible.
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. |
|
| georgenorman 26 Apr 24 9.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That lady knew full well that what she was doing contravened the order in place. She deliberately did so for the publicity, refused to comply with repeated requests to move by the police and had her sponsors there to video everything. It was a publicity stunt, and had nothing to do with any wish to “pray silently” which she could have done very easily a couple of streets away with no issues whatsoever. Defending someone who deliberately flouts the law and provokes the police is, of itself, indefensible. She did not break the law or provoke the police - your authoritarian view of it is indefensible. She was arrested for silently praying. In a video of the arrest the arresting officer is heard saying "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.” The police dropped the charges and apologized to her. A previous case against her in similar circumstances was thrown out by the court.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 9.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
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. If you read the story you linked to it clearly says that the BBC management weren’t informed as all that existed were suspicions. So not made public and hardly a real ban. More a decision not to use him. There would have been nothing to raise the interest of investigative journalists that they wouldn’t have already have.
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. |
|
| Teddy Eagle 26 Apr 24 9.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you read the story you linked to it clearly says that the BBC management weren’t informed as all that existed were suspicions. So not made public and hardly a real ban. More a decision not to use him. There would have been nothing to raise the interest of investigative journalists that they wouldn’t have already have. An employee about whom there are decades of gossip is then banned by an outside organisation and no one thinks to find out the reason.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.