BBC DJ Liz Kershaw was on Nicky Campbell’s show this morning giving a good account of herself regarding the BBC culture in the 1980’s….a time when PC and health and safety were rapidly becoming a fixture in the workplace….so even if you were inclined to say ‘Well it was the times’, that’s just not true…it was not the 50’s when a woman knew her place nor the swinging 60’s era of free love and letting it all hang out.
Her story about being regularly groped and then her complaints ignored is now well known….but she revealed something else….that she had some concerns about something else, unspecified and unrelated to her other complaint, that she went to management to deal with…and was told that if she spoke openly about it she would ‘never work in the BBC again.‘
The BBC has a draconian non-disclosure agreement that prevents employees talking about the BBC and this was applied with vigour to Kershaw to shut her up.
So there are two questions here….one….what was the thing that Liz Kershaw felt so strongly about that she raised it with management….and two…..why did the BBC then close down all talk about it?
It does seem that far from being transparent and accountable the BBC works desperately hard to maintain its reputation by hiding its dirty secrets with legal injunctions, in the case of the Balen Report or threats, what Kershaw called ‘intimidation and fear’, to silence employees.
The more we see of the BBC the less we see of it. What are the great ‘unknown unknowns’ that the BBC is hiding?
It was depressing to see that Patten has already gone native in the Beeb. Gamekeeper turned poacher. Don’t hold your breath over the “inquiry” that will happen at some stage. I hope somebody is monitoring the bin bags at the BBC.
Maybe Patten will get Malcolm Balen to head the ‘Inquiry’.
The BBC is very touchy about Liz Kershaw’s remarks.
I tried to comment about them on the Points of View message board, but my posts were taken down faster than pants in a BBC dressing room.
he did not so much as “go native”, he was already of like mind and thus got the job. He would not rock the boat about anything.
Exactly, Fat Pang is the wet’s wet.
A couple of pieces from today’s ‘Times’ – from beyond the paywall.
‘The Director-General of the BBC is to select the person who will lead an “independent inquiry” into the Jimmy Savile scandal, despite facing questions himself about what he knew and when regarding allegations against the presenter.
George Entwistle will also play a key role in setting the inquiry’s terms of reference, though his decisions will have to be endorsed by the BBC Trust. Lord Patten of Barnes, Chairman of the Trust, said the inquiry would investigate the “cesspit” of allegations against Savile….
…..Asked in an interview on the Media Show on BBC Radio 4 whether the inquiry should investigate the cancellation of the Newsnight report, Lord Patten said: “My own view is I’m very reluctant to question the journalistic integrity of the people involved in those decisions.”…….
….Speaking earlier to the Broadcasting Press Guild, Lord Patten said anyone who suspected that the Newsnight investigation was dropped as part of the corporate cover-up should “join the real world”.
So there you have it, the Inquiry is done and dusted, no doubt set up on the basis the outcome was already ‘settled’, to coin a phrase.
The BBC’s reponse to this is an outrage. Hopefully the press and the public will mobilise to ensure that this most unaccountable of all organisations cannot get away with this.
‘reluctant to question the journalistic integrity of the people involved’
Uh-huh.
That may have worked once in an earlier age (if still being trotted out as a reason to reject a factual complaint whilst ignoring the facts of the complaint), but may not fly as well now as it used to.
A bit like siding with Lance Armstrong’s protestations to be spared challenge on the basis he was a major force in the cycling world.
Interesting, but hardly relevant to the substance of the accusations.
But good try, Fatty Pang.
Here in the actual real world, if there are questions to be answered, steering clear of them on such a basis is hardly credible.
Try ’em out on Paxo on a topic you disagree upon, and see what you get back.
Patten was never, ever, a gamekeeper. He was always the archetypal TINO – a disgusting, establishment toadie.
So, of course, the perfect choice for the BBC job.
hopefully the police will interview Kershaw in its investigation into jimmy saville to find out whether or not beeboid high command attemped to cover up the actions of the above mentioned dirty old man
apparently, the beeboid trust is to “ask the BBC to review its policies on child protection, sexual harassment and bullying.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19899354
I think I preferred it when the BBC was only lying to and stealing money from children with their bogus phone-in contests. Of course, production staff had to take a course to learn that was wrong….
The only criticism the BBC allows is that it is not left-wing enough i.e. that it is too white or too male or too elitist. It cannot ignore these criticism because most of its broadcasting these days is devoted to pushing a Leftist agenda.
So if they push high taxes for everybody else, but are keen for tax avoidance for themselves, or run a campaign against sexual abuse in the Catholic church, but suppress attempts to investigate a culture of abuse in their own organisation, or if BBC journalists are keen to tell us about the greed of the private sector, while ignoring the tax payer funded greed of senior BBC managers and presenters, they know it.
They will therefore seek to divert the attention of the media (what is left of it) by framing any discussion of these issues in terms of how it was in the PAST, not how it is NOW. The dominance and abuse of power by the current BBC will be completely eliminated from the discussion.
When an ex-employee of the BBC draws attention to its flaws they are subject to a virtual complete news blackout, but anything deemed to further the interests of the Leftist establishment (for example the suppression of a free press or the importance of high spending on the State sector) is flogged to within an inch of its life.
The BBC is a nationalized industry which feather beds its employees, attacks our free society with its self-interested lobbying on behalf of the State sector, and is the rotting heart of a declining Britain.
Nobody with any sense will attack the BBC if they rely on television or radio for their living. It is up to the consumer to demand more choice in their providers.
“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.”
Well said. I particularly like the suggestion that only the public can end the dominance of the BBC by demanding more choice of news/current affairs and entertainment providers. This seems very much in tune with the times and consumer demand for more choice of everything and also with the ever growing number of ways of providing information in the digitial age.
But how do those who believe that the BBC needs to be broken up, mobilise those who haven’t seen what the BBC are up to?
The BBC is already trying to grab control of as many of the digital means of delivery as it can. All funded by the TV license payers of course . Do the license payers appreciate how much of their TV money is being spent on other means of delivering the BBC offering? Could they be mobilised on this issue to prevent the BBC from investing in other means of delivery. If this could be done and the BBC confined to TV/radio, then we would get a much greater variety of views and message being presented to the British people than the present near biased BBC monopoly.
‘being regularly groped and then her complaints ignored‘
These complaints being, one supposes, and somewhat uniquely, not complaints?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19852935
‘No complaints were received by the BBC at the time of the alleged abuses.’
System failures, faulty memories… deliberate obfuscation? Or more Clintonian semantics that they are not unknown to deploy?
Mr. Savile is, as many are stressing, long gone, unable defend himself and of course even in memory innocent until proven guilty.
However, there do seem plenty of questions of others still worth asking, and an institutional ‘ism or two that could be worth holding to account.
The watertight alibi – “We have no record of it” – is leaking.
It’s holed BELOW the waterline I reckon.
Surely the only correct avenue open to the BBC and the government is for the latter to instigate a Royal Commission into the ongoing scandal impacting the so called national broadcaster.
Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy, this disgraceful saga and attempted cover-up stretching over decades would I imagine be exactly what the Royal Commissions were intended for?
Max Clifford on Sky News said ominously that there are many people still alive who could be caught up in the JImmy Saville saga who are now extremely worried. This should include the BBC. If this happened in or around any other organistion, the BBC would go into overdrive, wall to wall coverage for months, of course as it involves the BBC there is no other equivalent powerful organisation to investigate and demolish the BBC as it tried to do with Murdoc.
Max never misses an opportunity.
How fortuitous that the BBC/Guardian managed to get Leveson in on the scene to rubbish the only real opposition before the proverbial hits the fan.
‘the BBC would go into overdrive, wall to wall coverage for months’
Certainly, beyond rather reticent senior management responses, careful off-record briefings of things to look out for (inability to defend, long time ago, different cultural era… all not too great at explaining away alleged institutional Nelsonian ‘seeing no shipsism’) by supportive, dependent colleagues, the overall sense has been one of watertight oversight, with perhaps more of the latter on show throughout.
Certainly Newsnight, as a key protagonist, has been more than careful as its twitter and Facebook feeds show… (accessed via last post on this link):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html
Oddly, if maybe still explicably, the BBC’s premier ‘news’ magazine’s topic coverage appears not to reflect the focus being shown by many other media as headlines still…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215887/Jimmy-Savile-abuse-scandal-CESSPIT-BBC-boss-Lord-Pattens-damning-verdict.html
Top comment noted. And also this link..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2215946/Lord-Leveson-reopen-inquiry-look-cesspit-BBC-dont-hold-breath.html
This empathetic piece from a noted right wing rag…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-family-consider-1372123
Also highlighting that now infamous memory loss that afflicts the corporation too on occasion…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-recorded-denying-claims-1371216
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276510/JIMMY-SAVILE-GROPED-ROYAL/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583268/Jimmy-Saviles-gravestone-is-smashed-and-dumped-in-skip.html
Ok, so tabloid, so typical, and rather ahead of the allegations too.
But the ‘qualities’ do not seem far behind…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600010/BBC-Trust-Jimmy-Savile-may-not-have-acted-alone.html
And even sharks forgo professional courtesies when there is blood in the water…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stoke-mandeville-and-leeds-general-hospitals-shock-at-jimmy-savile-abuse-claims-8206469.html
By way of balance, this has an ironic aspect…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/reliability-of-news-internationals-email-trawl-is-questioned-8206031.html
Media investigating themselves, eh? Never ends well, Mr. Rose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-claims
So this doesn’t look like it is going away any time soon.
Where are all the little, jumped up lefty “comedians”?
Where are all the little side swipes at Savile & the BBC?
You know the sort, you have heard them all before, in relation to the Catholic Church, News International ect.
Stand up and be counted,
Sue Perkins
Andy Parsons
Hugh Dennis
Chris Addison
Russel Howard
Jo Brand
Rory Bremner
Ed Byrne
David Mitchell
Marcus Brigstoke
And on, and on….
In the words of Delia….”Where are ya?”
On the payroll of the BBC that is where….
Is the correct answer 🙂
MOCK The Week host Dara O’Briain yesterday claimed the BBC had ordered his show not to make jokes about Jimmy Savile.
But the topical quiz still managed one on last night’s show.
Dara asked the panelists what the question would be, if the answer was 10 billion.
Comic Andy Parsons joked: “What are the chances of a joke about Jim’ll Fix It on the BBC?”
Earlier Dara had said the Corporation was sensitive about him being mentioned.
The 40-year-old said: “The BBC were very cautious about that. I don’t think they wanted anything about that on Mock The Week.”
But last night a BBC source said there was no “Savile filter” in place.
Yeah, right.
“BBC had ordered his show not to make jokes about Jimmy Savile”
So despite what the BBC says, nothing has changed in 50 years, a scandal covered up then is still being covered up now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9604823/Jimmy-Savile-sex-scandal-BBC-must-have-known-what-was-going-on-says-Nick-Clegg.html
Well, he’s p*ssed off everyone else who were once on side, so why not shaft Aunty too?
Guessing they’ll have to wheel in all the grumpy students next time he’s on QT, as payback.
Professionally and impartially, of course.
I simply do not understand why Miss Kershaw, Ms Tostig and Miss Street Porter could not have dealt with the groping themselves…a very firm slap on the hand while it was happening usually suffices.
But the agenda at the BBC in the present is all about strong women. Even the excellent New Tricks has a strong woman boss. But think Archers… (although I stopped listening when Nigel died) but when last heard by me had strong women characters supporting the ‘weak’ men; drama such as ‘Silk’ again all about women. The list is endless.
And have you noticed the sudden increase in reporting women’s sport….the football and the cricket? Pretending that they are played in front of huge crowds when even with the best camera angles they show empty pitches somewhere in surburbia.
Certainly I`ve heard this Deborah.
Oh yes-parity of esteem for womens cricket etc.
But no reduction in the amount for mens stuff…and no mention of no crowds or pointless use of airmiles.
How come the Wimbledon women don`t have to play five sets as the blokes may have to-and is this reflected in their “pin money?”…oh dear, my inner sexist just came out.
Ah but that was in the 70s…and a different culture prevailed what, what?
Deborah, you’re telling us somebody groped Janet Street Porter?????
I assume you mean Sandi Toskvig is a ??? but Street-Porter is a full ?????
You sneaked your post in before mine 🙁
Didn’t Tostig die at Stamford Bridge?
Probably Sandi Toksvig.
I find it really hard to believe that women of such strong character didn’t just turn round and slap their gropers face.
Toksvig has said that she won’t name her groper publicly because he’s dead and out of respect for his family. Taking the moral high road, bless her little heart. Plus, society’s to blame, nothing to do with any particular culture at the BBC. Just like Janet Street-Porter said on Question Time last week, curiously.
If all the celebrity victims hold the thin Beeb line like this, and the only people speaking out are mere civilians who will inspire no one, the BBC shouldn’t have too much difficulty passing at least one inquiry with flying colors.
Heard the Moral Maze last night.
Some Flinders bloke from Sheffield Uni(sociology?…media?) was the biggest Beeb suck up that I`ve ever heard.
But he`d be an “independent academic”-so would be just the ma the BBC will be wanting to “tease out “what Jimmy Savile did in his dressing room-but give future victims Esthe r Rantzen tissues with a helpline number in advance for when they wanted to “participate” in any programmes thay may make one day.
Watch out for Martin Flinders…oozing into Beeb cavity wa;ll insulation anytime soon.
Was his an audition?…possibly!
Worraprik!(with apologies to Bill Patterson)
Thanks for the tip off.
morality – bbc … well theres two words that shouldn t go together 😀
surprise surprise … guess what? …
no mel phillips 😀
No sorry Beeb…you`ve lost me!
A PRIVATE clinic(what, not NHS?…BOO!) has been set up in Northern Ireland(ah,bless Good Friday Agreement and that nice Sir Gerry!-HURRAY!) but it is being run by Marie Stopes( which I thought was a state-run cheridee quango!)…so is it PRIVATE(boo) or not?
It`s not NHS so surely will lead to the privitisation of the NHS in “the Province”…won`t it?
Ah, not at all-it`s an ABORTION clinic you see…which (NHS or not) can only be one thing…a GOOD thing?
Anyone able to untangle what the BBC want me to think is it a threat to the NHS or just another state slopped charity on our tab, via the NHS?
Should I boo or should I cheer-or is abortion just “good”, no matter what?
I guess if it prevents one more Jimmy Savile eh?…and do watch out for the lock up next door to this “clinic” in case it becomes our first “assisted dying facility/opportunity”!
Oh yes, the BBC daily mention of abortion – one way or another, there’s always a place to promote abortion and give Marie Stopes free advertising time. This morning Stopes’ clinic was given full five star treatment – just as good as the coverage they give to the ‘religion of peace.’ During ramadam, or as the bbc called it ‘the holy month of ramadam’ we had daily, sometimes hourly comments on the event. It’s an alternative universe at the bbc and we are paying for it.
Ah yes that old debate.
Picture two rooms in a hospital.
Room one a baby has been born prematurely at 23 weeks, full emergency, consultants, nurses, running around, lights flashing, klaxons wailing.
Meanwhile down the corridor in room two a 23 week-old ‘bunch of cells’ is receiving a fatal injection into the heart and or being decapitated (just in case), into the bag, and off to the incinerator.
And outside the hospital a bunch of braindead howlers in tee-shirts that read NO TO 20 WEEKS are handing out leaflets and balloons.
I’m on the side of the poor mite sitting there in the womb awaiting the big needle and the big chop.
Someone needs to be because his effin mother ain’t.
“I’m on the side of the poor mite sitting there in the womb awaiting the big needle and the big chop.”
Nicely put! The little mite can always console themselves with the fact that someone got balloon out of it.
And next week they’ll be defending the rights of the badger/worm/ insect anything but a human being. It’s the woman’s right to choose. No it f*****g isn’t. 200.000 p.a. Sorry I do not wish any offence to anybody, but this is a holocaust, how many millions since this act came in. David Steel you will answer to a much higher power.
Not only that but …
Those who are pro-abortion are often against capital punishment. Go figure.
Saviles closing shot at us all was surely that inscription that any Beeboid “sleb” would agree with.
“It was good while it lasted”.
Which got me thinking back to Ernest Saunders and his “Alzheimers for a week” scam…Robert Maxwell and his “chase the money once I`m dead…and say nowt whilst I`m alive” type of life…and now Savile.
The Beeb has gone all Alzheimers on us…and Savile was only the jogging equivalent to Cap`n Bob wasn`t he?
Yes folks…a land where the BBC is your new faith, and the likes of Savile and Maxwell running the bursaries and creche in your new temples are your new priests and prophets?…only the fools of Lennons/Onos and “One Love” Godless tosspots would not see any linkage?
Remove God…get Patten!
Maybe we deserve Allahs little helpers-as long as they`re not from Rochdale, Rotherham,Derby, Blackpool……(to be updated!)
If this were News International then the hand wringers would be demanding that it be closed down but it’s not, it’s the BBC.
Nothing will happen.
Nothing.
I agree, Dopey dave will entrust his patsy, fat pang to hide everything that might prove difficult.
Useless Tories, sleepwalking to their oblivion.
I wish I could believe that Kershaw, Rantzen, Streepowa, and Toksvig were after redemption and retribution.
Sadly I think they’re just after a bit of airtime to further their careers, add a string to their bow, carve out a new niche, etc etc with perhaps the chance of a series being commissioned along with the de rigeur associated book.
They could prove me wrong by naming names, putting up or shutting up.
I mean, let’s face it, J S-P getting her tits furgled is a way away from a 14 year old getting raped.
Good points Phil!
That NHS/BBC nexus of what and where Sir James was allowed to ply his trade means that both “national institutions/treasures/religions” will have to arrange a bitchslap to try and blame the other one!
To me it`s 80:20 culpability “in favour ” of the BBC needing to be accounted for…they gave Jimmy his dressing rooms didn`t they?…and no nurses surely procured kids for Jim like staff at the BBC are “alleged” to have done.
As for “never working here again”…has there ever been a time when ANYBODY actually worked for the BBC?…as opposed to playing starfish, mirroring their commissioning toadster…vogueing,wilding making shapes, setting agendas, narratives and backstories, bitching and being Maos mouthpiece…you know…”work”.
Hell-at least Savile had once hewed us some coal…therefore did more “work” in a shift that in 50 years at the Beeb.
No…chasing kiddies is not work, by the way!
And if Savile could yet cleave the BBC once and for all, he may yet get some small headstone back and the grudging gratitude of generations who never had to see or fend off this wierd f***er!
5 Live is majoring on the hospitals where Savile worked and abused kids this morning. How fortunate for them to now have other institutions to take the heat off their own predicament. Watch their own culpability get totally neutralised now.
And on another topic, what delicious irony there is in the Beeb reporting of Facebook’s tax “avoidance” in the UK following the revelations by HMRC of their own “avoidance” schemes by claiming their presenters are companies..
So the BBC not only allowed Savile to fiddle about , throughout the BBC over 50 years or so-but they`ll try to spread the blame with Stoke Mandeville and equate their grooming compliances with those of nurses at St James in Leeds?
Now let`s see..British Rail and their waiting rooms?…Great North Run changing rooms?…the BBC will not let any chance of taking our minds off THEIR dereliction, debauchery and abandonment to go without a smear campaign!
And the BBC still has defenders-well, it smears the NHS and Stoke Mandeville at its peril….and am hoping this will bring them crashing down…early days,but worth the watching maybe?
All these guys pushing the ‘long time ago, it was a different culture, init’ line, they need to be asked when did the BBC’s culture change?
Fine, let’s accept that the BBC is right when it claims it couldn’t happen now. When *exactly* did the BBC change from regarding child rape as a laddish faux pas to a serious offence?
Perhaps the BBC will stop skewering Margaret Thatcher, then? After all, she had to run the country when it had a ‘different culture’.
I would have thought that losing her job would be less important to Liz Kershaw than making public something she thought was wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9601486/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-BBC-Director-General-defends-Corporations-response.html
‘BBC Director General, George Entwistle, has defended the Corporation’s response to the Jimmy Savile scandal and insisted he is happy with his own role in the affair.‘
Bless. Does he write the default blow-offs from CECUTT directors too?
If he’d added he was comfortable he had got it about right I think my BS filter may have had a meltdown.
Here’s another less than convinced at what is said vs. what takes place…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100184667/the-bbc-to-investigate-its-liberal-bias-yeah-right/
Actually those words quoted are the Telegraph’s summary interpretation.
His own are actually even more of a hoot to anyone who has had a CECUTT rejection based on no more directorial conviction in their own rectitude.
‘“I’m entirely convinced that I’ve done all the right things, yes, yes.”
Repeat it often enough, George.
It’s worked before.
For a while.
Some robust language about the BBC’s ability to associate with truth and accuracy these days, but they so seem to be striking a chord if the most recommended is any guide…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9601237/BBC-pay-shake-up-after-tax-row.html
That really can’t be helpful when the next ‘most trusted’ ra-ra piece is spun up.
Dear Jim
My wife seems to be the only one left who has not been groped by you. Could you fix it for her to ……….
Oh dear, it appears now after what Kershaw said, hat we are into area of: known knowns,
Known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, now then where have I heard that stuff before?.hmm…
and what is it that we dont know we dont know?
Sky are running this as top story and have been for a few days. wonder if Ruperts gone nuclear on the BBC ?
We can only hope and pray!
Adam Boulton had some bloke on from the Grun today and was asking him if we need a Leveson type Inquiry into Mr savile and what the bBC know.
The bloke from the Grun couldn’t object to this idea fast enough. Which just goes to show how the left lookout for their own.
One point that seems to have gone missing is the fact that the BBC has always had an obligation to “protect” the children who perform on its shows, under the Children Act 1963 and various Orders permitted by that Act, the Ofgem Code and various BBC rules.
The promised inquiry probably has as much to do with deflecting blame as finding out the truth. In reality it is the police who should be investigating breaches of the law by the BBC for its failure to safeguard children who appeared on its shows.
I left the BBC many years ago – checked the contract of employment.
“You will not without previous written consent of the BBC:
(A) during your employment write for publication or speak in public about the BBC or its affairs; or
(B) during or after you employment publish or disclose in any circumstances whatsoever to anyone secret or confidential information relating to the business or affairs of the BBC which comes to your knowledge in the course of your employment.”
What happens in the BBC *stays* in the BBC.
‘What happens in the BBC *stays* in the BBC’
Looking at Ray Snoddy’s tweets, that may not be quite the case any more.
Meanwhile, in other news, Andrew Marr appears to be taking Helen’s route and invoking genetics…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9603506/Andrew-Marr-Im-a-clever-ape-in-a-spot-of-bother.html
The tinker.
Thing is, in the current environment, not sure that may play as well as it used to.
In the interests of story evolution, this was on their twitter feed…
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight
Former Sunday mirror editor Paul Connew: S Mirror met 2 girls in 1984 who alleged abuse by Savile but too afraid to testify #newsnight
Oddly not on the only other means of social interaction, FaceBook, where you can’t just RT support and ban critics.
I do note that the twitter account of Snoddy quotes “Now a free agent.”
It does seem to me that those contract terms basically seem a little mafia.
“Nice little job you’ve got here – shame if something were to …. happen to it.”
How does this notion of a draconian non-disclosure agreement square with things like Jeremy Vine’s book where he tells tales out of school and makes Paxman look like a petty, petulant, tin-plate tyrant?
Paxman was what is known in the TV i dustry as “the talent” treated quite differently than the normal BBC employees. He would have had quite a different set of employment conditions.
Floor managers / directors / cameramen / wardrobe would have been on the conditions mentioned above,
1.)
“John Peel got me pregnant when I was 15: Woman claims she had three-month affair with DJ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216453/John-Peel-got-pregnant-I-15-Woman-claims-month-affair-DJ.html#ixzz294Xzos00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
2.)
“John Peel honoured with wing at BBC Broadcasting House”
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a368967/john-peel-honoured-with-wing-at-bbc-broadcasting-house.html
Maybe Marie Stopes could name its new abortion clinic in Belfast after John Peel…or was it Ravenscroft?
The bloke affected a Scouse accent after years at Shrewsbury Private School…and like savile was his own creepy creation….just a mirror of all Beeb aspirations.
Ooh, how Northern chic and edgy…Peel, Savile-the types we`ve been funding for years now!
God we`re dumb!
“John Peel tribute could be ditched by BBC.
“Corporation says it will reconsider renaming section of BBC Broadcasting House if sex abuse claim is proved.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-john-peel?
And Beeboids, politically echoing Guardianistas:
“Peel Wing may be renamed after affair claim, says BBC”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19933274?
In fact, the BBC bears more than a passing resemblance to the Catholic Church it despises.
Read “Jimmy Fixed It For the BBC” at
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, in other news…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9603743/Jimmy-Savile-BBC-did-nothing-when-director-caught-him-in-the-act.html
‘David Nicolson, 67, said he reported the incident to his bosses at the corporation in 1988 but was rebuffed..’
That kind of on-record witness testimony may not sit too well set against the recent ‘we knew nothing… no one said anything… there were no complaints..’ on record claims by a bunch of market rate talents currently still running our most trusted national broadcaster.
But maybe a cherry vulture may yet be on hand to offer a counter view?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9601613/George-Entwistle-convinced-BBC-has-acted-properly-over-Jimmy-Savile-abuse-reports.html
‘pressure is mounting on the Corporation to investigate claims that senior BBC staff knew about sex abuse claims but failed to act because of the power Sir Jimmy wielded at the time.
Up a notch further, I’d say.
It was consensual, and they were “scruffy” girls who were gagging for it anyway. No rape, no problem for the BBC, the end.
Other sex crimes which BBC-NUJ is reluctant to report, for some reason:-
‘Daily Mail’-
“Failed Pakistani asylum seeker posed as taxi driver to pick up and rape young clubber on mattress in a corner shop.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216734/Failed-Pakistani-asylum-seeker-raped-clubber-twice-authorities-failed-deport-him.html#ixzz297CW7O4f
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The Savile saga and the posibility that this may just be the tip of the iceburg at the cesspitt BBC, has set me thinking. I was never completely comfortable with BBC humour. In particular it’s obsession with sex and homosexuality, it started in radio and spread to tv. Just to remind you, Round the Horne, It Aint Half Hot Mum, Are you Being Served, Allo Allo, and probably many others but as I don’t watch BBC tv any more I can not comment further. To my knowledge ITV never went down the same path. So was it any wonder that Savile’s behavior was accepted in such an “alternative” environment.
Until now , both Entwistle and Patten have assured the public that the decision to drop the Newsnight exposee on Savile was completely above board.
Now they ‘see the need’ to have an inquiry as to what exactly happened within its walls. Typical of the BBC to justify whatever they do unless pressure is brought to bear on their practices.
They are not fit to judge themselves, as their biased output clearly shows.
It would appear the story has ‘evolved’.
Prepare for a bout of ‘tidying up’ on previous published material.
Not like it hasn’t happened before.