A big juicy bone for Dez and Co as they’ve been quiet for a while:
Vanessa Feltz stood in for Jeremy Vine yesterday and asked the question ‘Is Entwistle being made a scapegoat?’ That’s easy to answer….No…he’s made a complete mess of things.
She also said this in regard to Savile’s misdemeanours…..
‘Perhaps we could look at it in a different way…perhaps we could see it as a lovely treat for the girls’
I’ll leave you to consider if, in the context, she was right.
Of course she’s right, those were different times, a different culture. The girls were slags and asking for it. Those at the BBC and the poor Pakistani men are scapegoats, young white girl bitches, yeah babe, get down on it, you know you want to really.
But the BBC still claim that the the victims of evil Catholic Priests were young trusting souls who have been forever, totally damaged.
These BBC apologists for paedophile filth really make me wretch. I am outraged by them.
Vanessa Feltz should be fired for even suggesting that these ‘girls’ could see it as a lovely treat! Considering he raped young girls, young boys and apparently, dead bodies too.
The BBC is not fit to hold a broadcast license if they are going to suggest that the serial and systematic rape of children is in any way, a lovely treat!!!
I don’t listen to these programmes, I have to rely on those of you who force yourselves to listen in order to inform the rest of us, and I salute you for it. But if she really said that she should be sacked and never allowed a platform again and the BBC should be made to apologise to Savile’s victims.
A disgrace.
I’ll start the ball rolling.
I thought it was Peter Rippon who was being lined up for the the role of scapegoat. Entwistle’s feeble performance has damaged him both outisde – and it would seem – inside the BBC.
As for Chris Patten, sorry Lord Patten, I wonder if his demand for independence will extend to finding an independent source of funding – independent from putting their hands in my pcoket.
Thhen I for one really won’t care what the BBC say.
Independent from the Labour Party !!!!
BBC, Labour and The Guardian. The Axis of Progressive Evil
Rippon is the scapegoat so far. Since the Iran-Contra affair might be coming back into the news due to rumors about Benghazi, the CIA, and arms for Syrian rebels, I’ll make an analogy.
Entwistle will be then-VP George H.W. Bush (“I was out of the loop, even though I was recently head of the CIA”). Helen Boaden will be Caspar Weinberger, indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Rippon will be Oliver North, there to provide full deniability for anyone above him. Liz Mackean will be Fawn Hall, testifying about how her boss covered it up. Meirion Jones will be – this is a stretch, but I can’t think how to fit him as anyone else – Eugene Hasenfus, who blabbed to the Nicaraguans, which was kept quiet until the Arab media revealed it. Mark Thompson will be, of course, a slightly dimmer version of Ronald “I don’t recall” Reagan.
Yes I must say the name of Oliver North came to mind as the saga began to unfold.
History repeats itself in different guises.
any letters from crapita demanding tv licence money shouls all be marked with a big black marker
“return to sender….I refuse to fund an organisation which covers up for paedos”
🙂
if phone hacking demanded a public enquiry,then it must surely follow that beeboids need to be hauled over the coals in a similar fashion
“a lovely treat for the girls”
Has she seen Savile’s teeth?
So a sexual assault can morph into “a lovely treat” in Beeboid-land? Beneath contempt. Why do I have to subsidise this corruption?
Listen to what was said yourself before getting upset. This post is total baloney. She didn’t call sexual abuse a ‘treat’.
I heard this discussion – maybe you should listen to it again. Vanessa Feltz did not use the word ‘treat’ in reference to Savile’s ‘misdemeanours’. Her guest had just argued that ‘whoever decided to bus in these girls from institutions’ was at fault. Feltz then points out that at the time, giving a group of institutionalised girls a day out at a TV recording probably seemed quite a good thing to do. The ‘treat’ alluded to was going to Television Centre for the recording, and nothing more sinister. Your posting is totally misleading.
But she is pretending that the staff who thought they were giving these girls a “treat” didn’t know what was going on behind closed doors. They did.
Really? Would you like to produce the evidence for that assertion? And if you have proof, why didn’t you come forward sooner?
You haven’t been reading or listening to much news lately, have you Tatterdemalion?
Would you care to point me in the direction of the evidence that the specific people responsible for arranging bus trips to recordings of Top of the Pops were the same people accused of being part of a paedophile ring? Because as far as I’m concerned there is none.
Do you by any chance post from behind a proxy server ?
No, from behind a computer with a view of my small and badly maintained garden. What are you trying to suggest?
The style is obvious. It’s Nicked Emus, or Scottie, or Dez, or Jim Dandy, or all one of them.
There are a number of part-time defenders of the indefensible who chime in only occasionally, in addition to the regulars. There are plenty of people out there who come here once in a great while to fight for all that is right and just.
OK, Tatty, I guess the first time this person bussed the abused girls back home he would have found out. And if not then at some stage in the next 40 years he would have found out. Then he would have known in the first person what ‘sex trafficing’ is. And the he obviously carried on, because there are over 300 reports now. And the WHOLE BBC was involved, from the tea lady to the producers and everyone on the set right to the very top, and clearly including the other “senior BBC employees” who jumped in on the act.
The BBC needs to justify why they are a fit an proper organisation to operate a broadcasting licence.
This barely merits a reply, so bonkers is it. The WHOLE BBC knew, did they? That’s some conspiracy. Pretty much David Icke territory.
‘This barely merits a reply’
Not sure barely giving one is the best complement, especially with a proud past history here of folk coming here to say how nobody comes here. But kudos for toning down the initial aspersions that can’t be resisted still.
You are Nicky Campbell and I claim my five pounds. Don’t ask me, ask Bill Oddie:
Or ask Paul Gambaccini and Sue Thompson.
Or ask David Nicolson.
You haven’t answered my question. The original post – which accuses Vanessa Feltz of describing sexual abuse as a ‘treat’ – is only justified if there is proof that the people who ‘bussed in’ these schoolgirls knew that they would be abused at the end of it. There certainly isn’t any such proof in any of these articles.
Are you saying that these people are lying? Or that the director knew and all these other people knew but the production staff who brought the girls in were somehow unaware?
The director of the show knew, and says it was hushed up and that they all knew. Either tell me he’s a liar (in which case you’ll need your own proof) or accept that Feltz and that other woman were being disingenuous.
No I’m not saying they’re lying. I’m saying that their testimony does not justify the assertion that children were ‘bussed in’ by people who were fully aware that they would be abused at the end of it. And before you start relying on the evidence of the ‘director’ – it’s not even true that he was a TV director. See the latest Private Eye for more details, which cast his evidence in a rather different light. Should you get the impression I am defending either Saville or the BBC, I’m not. But having heard the programme in question it annoyed me that such a mendacious slant could be put on something which was pretty innocuous.
A nice attempt to discredit the witness. Somebody suggests he’s carrying a grudge, and that’s good enough for Hislop to keep taking the BBC shilling.
While we’re on the subject of witnesses, elsewhere in this thread you cast doubt on the reliability of the very women who allege the TOTP abuse! You can’t have it both ways you know.
‘You haven’t answered my question’
There is, of course, now senior management precedent for that.
At the BBC.
Seems the rules change outside.
Along with a heavy reliance on distraction, straw men, cherry-picking and, rather unsportingly, seizing on concession elsewhere to try a tack.
Trouble is, it’s so obvious now it ‘hardly merits a reply’.
Let me guess: another disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind?
So why would she say ‘Perhaps we could look at it in a different way’?
‘‘Perhaps we could look at it in a different way…perhaps we could see it as a lovely treat for the girls’
‘Your posting is totally misleading”
In the spirit of two wrongs make a return of the bunker brigade, I would tend to agree, but am guessing that the BBC lifting anything out of context to suit will not be your main function around here?
Still, it appears they are still trying to dust icing sugar on a dish that’s being served cold in the real word slice by slice.
Her guest had just argued that ‘whoever decided to bus in these girls from institutions’ was at fault.”
Erm, who was this “Guest” you speak of?
Because, in my humble opinion, he/she is COMPLETELY out of order for that statement, the person at fault was JIMMY SAVILE, for stuffing his moldy old albino cock into those under age girls.
Pretty sick. It seems like a nice idea at the time, except that apparently they all knew what went on. These women are pretending that the BBC staff who kept bringing all those “wayward girls” in to meet Jimmy didn’t know what he got up to. They did know, which makes this a sickening display. No wonder Feltz kept talking faster and faster, her voice rising in pitch.
But isn’t it great that they can talk about it on the BBC? Faith restored!
And along with Faith, I have to Hope that the bbc is now totally destroyed because I have no Charity for the monstrosity. And the likes of Mr Patten should be ashamed of themselves for aligning themselves with the miscreants. He’s not doing the job he is paid to do and Mr Cameron should sack him.
I posted this on the Open Thread but it seems more appropriate here. BYW, for some reason writing the quoted blog’s address or using “a href” tags gets the comment rejected.
There are some very interesting revelations concerning the Savile affair on the Anna Raccoon blog. Anna (whose reportage generally puts the MSM to shame) happens to have been a resident of Duncroft at the time of Savile’s alleged misdeeds. She provides chapter and verse – and sources. Nothing she writes gets the BBC even partially off the hook, but – if her account is true – then it appears that some of the allegations against Savile are, to say the least, contrived – even opportunistic.
‘Opportunistic’? What, in Compensation Britain? No, never!!
(If you have ever imagined yourself to be a victim of Jimmy Savile child abuse, text ‘I’m a greedy grabbing bastard’ to…..)
I read that. It’s very interesting, to say the least. If these women are some sort of crank grievance group and are lying, that doesn’t mean Savile is innocent of all the rest of it. But it does make the Newsnight story more questionable. If the Duncroft accusations turn out to be false, that’s one less pillar on which the BBC’s “It wasn’t just us, guv” line of defense can stand.
I read a report today that a journalist on the Newsnight story complained that Helen Boaden set an ‘impossibly high barrier’ by demanding that they cover the story as if Jimmy Saville was still alive and able to sue the BBC.
I must say, I thought this was a perfectly reasonable and fair demand by Helen Boaden and an astounding response to it from someone on Newsnight.
Let’s assess this, Newsnight was told by one of the supposedly abused women that Surrey Police had dropped their investigation because Savile was old and senile and they had a letter to prove it but they never provide it.
The supposed letter gets unearthed by a Daily Mail reporter and its a forgery.
The ex-child protection officer that Newsnight used as a consultant then goes to ITV to make a documentary on Savile’s alleged abuse, but it’s nearly a year before that comes out, and contains quite a bit of other material from other alleged victims in hospitals and elsewhere. So he wasn’t prepared to run just with what he brought over from ITV.
It also transpires that Karin Ward has a book she is due to publish. That set alarm bells ringing about her particular allegations.
What Anna Raccoon has written sets off quite a few more.
Let’s hope the Police investigation gets at the truths, and if there’s any paedo’s to be prosecuted from Savile’s milieu, any opportunists coming forward to cash in with fake stories will also be.
What does this have to do with anything?
If things don’t change soon. There will be a clash of cultures and civilisations. Its all ready starting in Greece.
Blame the left-wing for this.
Feel sorry for all the people who going to die especially all the innocent muslims.
And the part about BBC bias is…….? Did you not read David Vance’s post from the other day?
The BBC is pro Islam and anti Jewish and Christian.
well,we all know this,but this post is currently addressing the great bbc paedo cover-up
Are you Earls Court in a beret and on a bicycle, a string of onions around your neck?
Was Vanessa Feltz schooled at the Whoopi Goldberg Rape Crisis Center…
leftards will ALWAYS twist and turn to do anything to protect their own……no matter how disgusting and sick the acts they have perpetrated are
they are beneath contempt
Whoopi Goldberg is one of Hollywood’s useful idiot negro’s.
One good thing about her, she may have a jewish name but she isn’t jewish.
Erm
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/10/biased-bbc-2.html
I saw Vanessas Feltz at Antigua airport on October 13th. Looks even worse close up and full of herself.
No, it was her dress that was full of herself.
“…perhaps we could see it as a lovely treat for the girls”
Hmm. Methinks someone is looking for a long term BBC contract.
“Wayward” girls. Or “scruffy”. Or “happy to give up their affections.” Oops, sorry, that last one was about the Rochdale grooming victims, and it wasn’t a Beeboid who said that. Never mind. But I think I smell a pattern.
AND on the subject of the crassness of the left, Whoopi is the WORST. If you haven’t seen it watch her baiting Ann Romney:
I guess that’s ‘whoopsi’ Goldberg. She certainly wasn’t making whoopi.
Whoopi Goldberg why does she always have her glasses on the end of her nose?
Goldberg is confusing the Mormons with The Jehovah`s Witnesses
Vanessa Feltz had the gonads to stick it to the very unpleasant Alistair Campbell in interview quite some months ago.
A bit barmy of her to throw this proposition out, but in my view she’s a lady who deserves to be cut a lot of slack.
There’s a fair number of accounts of Savile’s abuse when quite definitely it was not in any way a treat for the girls, and I guess a plaque on Entwistle’s desk ‘The Buck Stops with Someone Else’ might be thought less than edifying.
There’s a real whiff in my opinion that Rippon came under huge pressure from a very high level to sabotage the Newsnight investigation into Savile. There’s just to much briefing against colleagues for it not to be the case.
As ever, our greatest living Englishman says it better than anyone can:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/normantebbit/
Its principal failures have sprung from an inbred culture which evolved into a censorship of dissident voices. Its habit of recruiting from a narrow range of political – and of late, politically correct – thought has led to a damaging arrogance. At times it seemed to have fancied itself, if not as an alternative government, then at least an auxiliary opposition during spells of Right-of-centre government.
What’s this? Another extremist opinion, a microscopically tiny minority viewpoint which nobody else shares outside of this echo chamber? Okay, which one you is Lord Tebbit posting comments here under an alias? That’s surely the only explanation. Defenders of the indefensible can’t be wrong, can they?
Having said that, it’s hard to tell what actually happened at Newsnight now, but it’s starting to seem like the result of some kind of feud between Rippon and Jones, and who knows how long that’s been going on?
I’m still waiting for the word ‘scandal’ to emanate from the b-bbc. You know, that word we heard 30,000 times a day with regard to NI.
That’s just Horlicks. There’s an entire section of the BBC webcallee titled Jimmy Savile Scandal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20026910
That’s just Horlicks. There’s an entire section of the BBC website titled Jimmy Savile Scandal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20026910
Pity they can’t achieve similar balance in their broadcasting.
So good he said it twice. That is of course one way of getting two sides of things across, albeit the same side.
Very BBC.
But Mr. Rebel, you did rather hand that to him on a plate, and were obliged within 5 minutes.
Having heard the interview I think the above quote is rather out of context.
But did you notice BBC shill Christina Patterson pushing the latest BBC spin ‘oh, it’s so wonderful that we can discuss this on the BBC, the BBC is so open’ …etc.
This line has been pushed by several BBC friendly journalists for the last couple of days.
But have they been listening to the Beeb for the last 3 weeks? Where the main news story and issue was, ‘shock horror, Sandi Toksvig was once groped, sexual harassment is a major issue at the BBC. And on a lighter note Jimmy Savile was raping kids in the cellar.’
Spin, spin, spin and no one is buying it, stinks of a cover up.
Who in thier right mind would want to grope Sadni Toksvig?? I heard she has to use a bidet becouse she doesn`t even like tit when she has to touch her privates herself… FFS didn`t she have a hairy top lip even then?? Who was it?? Nobby The Sheep??? Co-presenter of kids show “Get Fresh”?? After so many years of seeing her described as a Comedian and thinking this description her agent being ironic and deaf… My confusion over the matter has finally been put to bed… Yes, she finally said something that made me laugh…
So was Alan lying in his post or did he mishear the item? Feltz could sue you for libel.