This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 Teddy Eagle  26 Apr 24 9.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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. And where did the item involved appear?
|
|
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 8.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
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. 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.
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. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
And where did the item involved appear? That rather proves the BBC strive for neutrality and allow the reader to make their own determinations.
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. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 8.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
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. It looks like an internal decision was taken not to use him for their event, based on the rumours they had heard. The BBC weren’t consulted or informed so didn’t even notice. There were plenty of suitable presenters available. If an independent organisation contracts them and not another what’s the deal? I cannot see why this would add anything to the undercurrent that already existed, but had no way of surfacing.
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 27 Apr 24 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That rather proves the BBC strive for neutrality and allow the reader to make their own determinations. Or that the item was written in such a way as to show the BBC in the best light.
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 27 Apr 24 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It looks like an internal decision was taken not to use him for their event, based on the rumours they had heard. The BBC weren’t consulted or informed so didn’t even notice. There were plenty of suitable presenters available. If an independent organisation contracts them and not another what’s the deal? I cannot see why this would add anything to the undercurrent that already existed, but had no way of surfacing. 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.
|
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 27 Apr 24 8.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
BBC question time audience 'lost for words' as top tory Chris Philp asks if the Congo and Rwanda are different countries.
What Phipps actually said was " Rwanda is a different country from Congo " in answering a somewhat unclear point about Rwandans not being returned to Rwanda. Not great but he did know the difference. He was not asking a question he was stating a fact. Not surprisingly you are wrong, Did you watch the program or just do your usual of quoting what's in the papers. If you watched it then you might want to brush up you English skills
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
The groover  Danbury 27 Apr 24 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
So basically the BBC miss reporting something............Unheard of!!!!!! And we fund them.
|
|
 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.
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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 !
|
|
| Tunbridge Tunbridge Wells 27 Apr 24 10.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Because the last 14 years have been such a blast haven't they?
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.