Well, that’s what Jeremy Paxman thinks;
“It was ‘common gossip’ at the BBC that Jimmy Savile liked young girls before he was outed as a paedophile, it emerged today as the Corporation released 3,000 pages of redacted evidence into their handling of the sex abuse scandal.
Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman made the claim as the evidence gathered during an inquiry into the show’s decision to drop its Jimmy Savile sex abuse investigation was published this morning by the BBC in a bid to be ‘open and transparent’. But there were accusations from Tory peer Lord McAlpine that too much evidence was redacted in the release, which came out at 11am.
Mr Paxman said it was ‘common gossip that Jimmy Savile liked young girls’ and also spoke of the ‘terrible’ BBC press operation, adding that ‘there is a real problem in finding spokesman who will defend an articulate point of view’. He added that ‘the news division has essentially been taken over by radio… these people belong to a different kind of culture’.
Mr Paxman, 62, said the behaviour of the BBC over the Savile investigation was ‘contemptible’. He also told the inquiry that ‘the important question’ was how Savile had been allowed to rise to prominence within the BBC. He said: ‘What was the BBC doing promoting this absurd figure, this absurd and malign figure? And I think that has to do with the fact of the BBC having been aloof from popular culture for so long.”
Thoughts?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282667/Pollard-Review-BBC-releases-3-000-pages-evidence-handling-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-scandal.html#ixzz2LeisrvDi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Unique.
That’s not funny.
I was told that recently, so it must be true:)
It’s all a matter of happiness. Apparently.
Niall Paterson @skynewsniall
My thoughts on the BBC release of the #Pollard #saville evidence – suffice to say, Auntie hasnt made me very happy http://bit.ly/YiuNrm
Tonight there are some unhappy, but some who might crack a slight smile at how even the most forgiving are now coming to see what the corporation has done, is doing and will do, so ineptly, to defy anyone to hold them properly to account as they demand they be left to do with others.
No wonder Mr. Paxman is good for quotes but less keen on the spotlight at the moment.
Newsnight will be a hoot. Who’s going to present? The cleaning lady?
No, she`s been goosed by some Leslie Phillips tribute act!
Ding dong!
Nice bit of after-timing by horseface.
Don’t recall him spending much of his 32 years as a BBC employee railing against Savile. Maybe he was ‘working tirelessly behind the scenes’.
Sorry, did I say ‘BBC employee’?
I meant ‘remunerated as a personal service company’.
My bad.
But he DID write a “stiff letter” to M&S over their knickers.
Our kind of Beeboid!
Is Panorama still working on that….”investigation” I wonder?
Eve Pollard…what would she know about enquiries anyway?
There may be just a few slightly long faces around the watercooler too..
Richard Williams @richwilliamssky
Boaden: ‘Newsnight’s a bit like an old colonial power… with almost contemptuous or sneery attitude to rest of the news group.” #pollard
Now, coming from a BBC news head like Hugs, to be felt contemptuous or sneery really takes some doing.
But I think they have indeed managed it.
Now they’re all blaming each other to try and deflect attention. No-one in the BBC is capable of taking any personal responsibility.
Hasn’t the bbc centralised all its journalistic efforts? Don’t all the arms of the octopus receive their dose of news propaganda from one internal source? Isn’t it so that there used to be different news departments for each of the tv, national and world news broadcasters? If so, isn’t is the case that the socialist bias has worsened since this change happened? If that is true, then maybe this organisation should be required to break up the propaganda monolith. It’s not a final solution (and I use that purposely) but at least it would help to emasculate the marxists in their midst, particularly if they are required to compete with each other how news is gathered and reported.
The ‘truth’ from Nicky ‘he left as I joined’ Campbell…..
Annys @mentalcatlady1
@NickyAACampbell Paxman stated Savile rumours common knowledge at BBC. U paid tribute to a known paedo – twice! Yet U deny U knew anything?
6 hrs Nicky Campbell Nicky Campbell @NickyAACampbell
@mentalcatlady1 hi. I like many had him as a sexless eccentric who played the lecherous goon. That is the truth.
5 hrs Annys Annys @mentalcatlady1
@NickyAACampbell Then why did Paxman say Savile’s paedophilia was known about across the entire BBC? You must have heard something.
4 hrs Nicky Campbell Nicky Campbell @NickyAACampbell
@mentalcatlady1 no. I’d heard he might be gay but not that. Even then I thought he was just eccentric. the truth. Can’t speak for Jeremy
Cripes, even Philip Dodd on R3 said a month or two back, that he’d heard rumours about Savile a few years ago – adding: ‘but you hear rumours about a lot of people.’
And a word or two from Newsnight’s ECONOMICS editor
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
My video report on one asylum seeker’s journey through the dysfunctional Greek system is now online: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21509198 …
[But Conrade Mason, can’t you do some ECONOMICS? – asks AsISeeIt (not on Twitter)]
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
On Newsnight I attempt to explain currency wars. Big leap from Greek migration to this but never say we don’t multitask. 2230GMT BBCTWO
[Good luck with ECONOMICS Comrade]
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
Looking forward to @PennyRed appearance as off camera guest on #bbcqt – hope trolls have had their medication
[Get over Laurie Penny, Comrade. She’s using you and you are beginning to raise eyebrows. She’s making a fool of you. Think of your career. This could look bad given all the Savile suff flying around]
Supplementary.
‘Sky News’ ( inc 2 min video clip).
“Paxman: Savile Claims Were ‘Common Gossip'”
http://news.sky.com/story/1055396/paxman-savile-claims-were-common-gossip
‘The Pollard Review – which cost the corporation about £2m’
Yes, let’s go with ‘cost… the corporation’.
She’s come a long way since “Hi-De-Hi” aint she?
Supplementary.
‘ITN News’ ( inc 2 min video clip).
“Paxman condemns BBC over Savile investigation”
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-02-22/bbc-savile-report/
So – Jeremy Paxman says ‘News division has essentially been taken over by radio’.
The implication is that the ‘real journalists’ in TV are better than the ‘toffs’ in radio. From Mr Paxman’s comment I infer the long turf war between TV and radio is still being fought after years of re-organisation after re-organisation. This rivalry has been one of the more damaging feuds within the BBC. TV thinks it is superior to radio; radio thinks its more serious than TV.
I’d say “ho hum” – but now you see why so many reporters turn up at events, duplicating each other. They don’t trust the credentials of their colleagues. Hence, the news costs so much. Licence payers should know this.
The duplication is due to arrogance and the fiercely protected fiefdoms. So-and-so’s report is no good for our show because we have a different audience who expect something else, etc., ergo we must send our own highly-paid on-air talent over there to do a unique report fit for our audience. That’s why, for example, the BBC sent five different Beeboids, plus crew, to NYC to cover the 9/11 anniversary event at Ground Zero, and why they had half a dozen different reports from that mine in Chile, and even then flew in higher profile Beeboids to do the final rescue coverage.
Top management who pay lip service to cutting costs and reducing waste let this continue and don’t really try to interfere because they’re all BBC lifers who used to run their own fiercely protected fiefdoms, and don’t want to interfere because, in their minds, to do so would make said fiefdom less special. Hence the Newsnight double fiasco.
Is this another reason why Beeboids like the NHS?:
“NHS spends £15million (the same as 750 nurses’ salaries) on gagging
600 whistleblowers.”
By Andrew Pierce.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282600/NHS-spends-15million-750-nurses-salaries-gagging-600-whistleblowers.html
…one could be forgiven for thinking that they had something to hide.
EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE:
“Was no one connected with the Savile scandal sacked?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2282592/Was-connected-Jimmy-Savile-scandal-sacked.html
“Chaotic, toxic, frantic: how Savile crisis engulfed BBC”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/22/savile-crisis-bbc?
This sums up the BBC for what it really is……
Entwistle: ‘I was distracted by air-kissing’
GEORGE ENTWISTLE
Former BBC Director-General
The former BBC chief failed to ask if Jimmy Savile was being investigated because he was distracted by “air-kissing” at a crucial meeting with the corporation’s head of news Helen Boaden.
Boaden warned Mr Entwistle at a Women in Television Awards lunch that Newsnight was probing Savile and that the findings might affect the BBC’s Christmas schedule in which a tribute to the disc jockey was planned. But he suggested to the Pollard review that he failed to ask for details of the investigation because his attention was diverted by the introductions that were taking place. “We were in a sort of thoroughfare between two tables, people kept coming up and saying “Oh hello” and air-kissing each other because this is television, and it could well be that our conversation was interrupted by another introduction.”
Mr Entwistle added that he had expected Boaden to tell him if the investigation developed, but could not explain why he had ignored her warning and given the go-ahead for the Savile tribute.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/savile-inquiry-at-the-bbc-who-was-told-what-8507305.html
Yes, ‘air-kissing’, let’s go with… ‘air’.
Not only is this inquiry’s material heavily redacted, no-one has investigated they way that the BBC handled the matter when the Newsnight story broke.
The BBC’s arrogance, dissembling and misleading comments belittled those that had suspicions about what went on and prejudged the outcome of any executive scrutiny (correctly as it happens – no one was shown the door! and even though the Inquiry was only just getting underway we were told that Boaden’s gardening leave would only be temporary, she would be back).
Who can forget the dismissive and patronising interviews that Patten, Entwistle and especially the shadowy David Jordan gave, exonerating themselves and the BBC. They saw, heard and spoke no evil.
Then, on air, a succession of BBC presenters and journalists did their best to deflect….’look over there (at the children’s homes and the NHS) – that where the real story is, was Richard Bacon’s contribution.
The way the BBC responded to this and tried to cover up the cover up was worthy of an inquiry of its own.
Beeboids apply self-serving censorship/redacting to Islam, (e.g. Birmingham jihadists), to Labour Party (e.g. candidate O’Farrell), and not least to BBC.
Even more censorship tonight? Not a mention about this on ‘Newsnight’ , not even a dicky bird.
Can’t help but feel that the BBC are sticking two fingers up to the UK.
Agree. The BBC is so arrogant that the employees don’t care what ordinary people think of them.
Of course recent history shows them that they are indeed untouchable and above sanctions. No government dare take on the over mighty BBC. In fact their unelected liberal left establishment chums run the country and the BBC is their mouthpiece.
It is noticable that in the British public sector the staff are never held accountable for their performance. Recent examples being the civil servants whose incompetence wrecked the rail franchise, BBC , NHS staff who killed hundreds of people, teachers who produce such ill educated pupils, etc etc.
But, such is the hypocrisy of the BBC that they hold any private sector organisation to account but never themselves and only half heartedly do so to the public sector. They continue on their merry tax payer funded way without any fear of being held to account over their massive deviation from their precious charter which they brandish as a shield. They even pretend to be a private organisation so as to prevent the FOI applying to them.
They really are an awful set of folks to have running the country but we seem to stuck with them and their cronies in the Labour party with all the problems that will heap upon the country.
But surely it is in the nature of history that groups and movements emerge who take on and over throw the establishment of the time. Of course any such group will have to find ways of getting a hearing as the BBC won’t let them on the air if they think they are a threat and the BBC control the news agenda. It won’t be easy but new technology may give such groups the opportunity to be heard and recruit support.
We all pay the cost of the BBC’s failures – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9888278/We-all-pay-the-cost-ofthe-BBCs-failures.html
Not so keen on the rather too flip (and hence dismissible) ‘ism, but a comment in there that has potential:
‘It’s as commie as they can get away with’
Maybe others can improve…
‘the BBC – It’s as [ ] they can get away with’
I, with straight face, tender ‘unique’, as I know it is not funny.
they make me sick comrades,,,yes the bbc make me sick to the teeth,,the fact that they tryed to cover up this sexual abuse is bad enough,,,but worse than that is that we have been paying £100s of pounds for years to this pinko lefty secret stalinist organisation who employed paedophiles and other degenerates to abuse children and knew what was going on for years but still turned a blind eye…the very fact that they are still trying to cover the whole truth about this sexual abuse by there employes just shows how they have nothing but comtempt for us licence fee taxpayers….damm you bbc,damm you all except david attenborough……………
Hi Pedro.
No…Attenborough too!
Top Trumps…can I nominate James Langale and Gavin Gray for a joint award…they`ve got twice as much “spine” as Attaboy!
Votes please…me or Pedro?
Open nominations for the “Beeboid with a Spine” Award close 10p.m tonight!
Vote for Andrew Neil. The only Beeboid to ask slightly difficult questions of Labour politicians.
Channel 4 news last night was ‘incredibly relaxed’ about getting stuck into ‘Savilegate’, & the BBC’s pathological aversion to transparency. Matt Frei seemed to relish the prospect of pricking the running sores on his old employer’s backside. Ben Bradshaw was on, attacking the pitifully inept layers of dysfunctional management, & stating that the BBC was letting the public down badly. David Elstein, once of Channel 5 (past credits, World at War, Panorama, Weekend World), said the News & Current affairs dept. should be broken up, & that 4 senior beeboid heads should have rolled out of the Kremlin’s back passage. While Bradshaw was criticising the culture of relentless backstabbing & blame-shifting at the Corporation, Matt Frei interjected, ‘Bit like a Labour cabinet then!’ Don’t know what’s got into Matt, lately. Maybe it’s the heady wine of release from a bloated, turgid, sordid, self-serving organisation that no longer knows how to fulfill its charter committment. Matt, of course, is still out on parole; he was once a member of an extortion mob, & has considerable ‘previous’, but, he does appear to be trying to go straight. Most refreshing.
Frei Boy is not worth listening to. He’s just bitter that the BBC cut his little propaganda puppet show in half (BBC World News America) and dumped it off BBC America and into limited syndication on PBS. That’s why he left.
However, this David Elstein has it 100% correct.
There are more red faces at the BBC this morning as a mistakenly unredacted document is released which reveals a list of names suggested by the BBC as preferrable to head their internal Savile inquiry ahead of the eventual choice Nick Pollard.
The names include:
Che Guevara
Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson
Neville Chamberlain
Norman Dimbleby
Oscar Pistorius
Raisa Gorbachev
Cherie Blair
Keith Vaz
Trever Attenborough
Benjamin Zephaniah
Yoko Ono
Sir Jimmy Savile
Egyptian President Morsi
Bob Marley
John Lennon’s Auntie Mimi
Anyone at or formerly at the LSE
Anyone at or formerly at the BBC
“That 60s yummidreem I think say it so much better . Spin the disc, Doctor Love! Let`s all hold hands, black up and sing…
“What we need is a great big melting pot” for this lot.
Save us a few horses in the Linda McCartney range of plywood sausages.
Broke a bloody filling on one of her ” products”..they call it sausage,,I call it ingot!
Did overmicrowave it though, but felt guilty enough about using it, that I soon forgot about the pain.
See those pursed lips on the side if you go near the microwave…spooky!
F*** Off Sketcherama…not fit to line the cats hanging baskets!
Ah Minque de Bleu…did they become the Stile Cowncil..sorry, I`m thinking still of horses who die needlessly while the likes of this let get shows and money!
Due to the current tribulations at the BBC they have decided to release a full statement on the problems =
Dear Licence foo?? sorry payers
We ███ ████ █████ ███ ██ BBC ██████ ████ Pedo████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ large cabbage███ █ ████ ████ ███ thrusting ████ █████ and he said ███ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██will a goat ██████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █ ████ crystal meth ████ ███ ████ █████ spooning ███ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ████£ 10 ████ ████ ███ Evan Davies █ ████ █████ wet███ ████.
We hope this helps clear up the confusion !.
Signed =fatty pang Patten
PS thank for the pay cheque !
LoL.
What command gets you that?
Maybe an upgrade to BBC ‘reports’ is needed..
“Here is the BBC redaction. For legal reasons (mainly so you foo.. Licence fee compellees keep up with the unique funding), certain small sections will have some news in them.”
Coincidence? No chance. I just heard at 10.30 on Radio 4 Extra a repeat “comedy” featuring…… JOHN O’FARRELL the Labour candidate for Eastleigh next Thursday. How is this not a political plug for Labour. Mentioned that he “went on to write the best selling Things Can Only Get Better”. You know, where he was sad that Mrs Thatcher didn’t die and wished Britain had lost The Falklands. Nice chap! The programme is Ulrika’s Comedy Classics and the piece is at 10.30am, or 90 minutes in.
They have no shame nor conscience. Nor any shred of decency come to that.
I have a feeling that that breaches electoral law and should not have been broadcast.
“‘More bloated with managers than China’ Damning picture of BBC’s bureaucracy revealed in report on Savile scandal”
By Sam Greeenhill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283075/More-bloated-managers-China-Damning-picture-BBCs-bureaucracy-revealed-report-Savile-scandal.html
I keep hearing this criticism that the inquiry has revealed that the Corporation is too top-heavy. Yet their first move was to create yet another top brass position.
The bloated management structure isn’t even half the problem. The real problem is the managers themselves, i.e. BBC lifers. Keep promoting biased, venal people, then hire more of the same to fill the lower rungs, then train them in your biased standards, and this is the result.
Paxman is no better. He’s only admitted that he knew all about Savile, knew that everyone else knew and did nothing, yet continues to point fingers at everyone else. No management restructuring can fix character deficiencies if you keep hiring them.
DAILY MAIL COMMENT:
” Savile and censorship that shames the BBC”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2283151/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Savile-censorship-shames-BBC.html
What means are there at our disposal to mobilise a national message to the BBC and government that this tax funded monster should be scrapped or modernised to fit our needs? It strikes me that even in the face of being shamed on so many levels ( politial bias, financial wastefulness, media monopoly, etc) it, and its detractors will never find a way to resolve its inherent faults. Surely there is a flag we can gather around to show how widespread our contempt is of this bloody corporation !
“It was ‘common gossip’ at the BBC that Jimmy Savile liked young girls before he was outed as a paedophile’
That’s not actully what Paxman said.
Chaos and ‘faffing’ at BBC as Jimmy Savile scandal detonated
This Telegraph article examines some of the elements that have emerged from the Pollard report. Let’s see what still ‘doesn’t smell right’.
(anyone requiring links I’ll be happy to provide)
Consider first that as head of BBC Trust, Patten’s duty and remit is to oversee the goings on at the BBC on behalf of the licence fee payer, and determine that it functions according to its charter. You may recall at the beginning when the scandal emerged, we noted how strange it was that both Entwistle and Patten initially ruled out the need for an inquiry.
It’s clear that now Patten wants to deflect any responsibility for this scandal from himself, and while he may not be guilty of any editorial decisions involved in shelving this report, if as he now declares there was ‘frantic faffing about’ of senior managers that he observed as the crisis unfolded, why was he so quick to state than an inquiry wasn’t necessary?
In any event he should not have been so quick to accept the initial BBC version of events when he didn’t know for himself what had happened. If that’s all the BBC Trust is going to do, then WE SIMPLY DON’T NEED THEM. At present it can only be seen that their only purpose is to further the BBC in its chosen propaganda, and not in their role as an independent monitor of their output. While Patten may now be seeking to cover his own ass, t is apparent that he has failed in his responsibility.
It should also be remembered that Entwistle has been seen to be a complete waste of space in so many ways as this scandal emerged. But even before this there was criticism of Patten in having selected him for the post, and at a great cost to the public.
Finally, are we to believe that nowhere in what was being discussed, the ramifications for the BBC of having ignored rumours all those years related to Savile, even shown in front of cameras, yet that they continued promoting him, enabling him to commit further abuse, was not a consideration? They even ran a further tribute to him after the Newsnight investigation was shelved.
Is this what a ‘respected’ organisation does when there are serious questions of this nature being raised?
Frankly the rest of the article relates to this question. We are supposed to believe in all of the previous and following accounts, that the implications for the BBC wasn’t a consideration in the decisions made. Either way they’re screwed, because managers awarding themselves as much money as they do, NOT to have thought this through properly, are clearly WAY OUT OF THEIR DEPTH.
Couple more things re-reading the article:
Mr Thompson was told about the investigation by BBC journalist Caroline Hawley during a Christmas drinks party in 2011. He said: “The phrase that stuck in my mind is, ‘You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile’.”
Mr Thompson said the “casual remark” had not worried him. “He was someone who had not broadcast regularly for many, many years. So there was no corporate alarm bell going about this.
The head of BBC gets a comment from a journalist under their wings who says: ‘You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile’.”
What’s the next thing an intelligent person is going to say or ask???
Maybe – WHY?
But we are to believe Thompson just dismissed it. For this he received over £800k a year.
Helen Boaden told Mr Pollard: “Newsnight has been a troubled programme for some time. Newsnight is a bit like an old colonial power, with a lot of old colonial attitudes … refusing to accept a more modern world with less resource, a digital challenge and at times with an almost contemptuous and sneery attitude to the rest of [BBC] News.
Let’s see, who was head of news and responsible for the workings of those under them, and this ‘troubled programme’?
Oh Yes – Helen Boaden!
HOT POTATO ALERT – PASS IT ON!
He (Patten) said the BBC’s management culture was largely to blame, as when he joined “they had more senior leaders than China. The senior management team that the previous director-general had was 25 or 27. They never met”.
Surely then that was a matter that he as head of Trust should have addressed. What did he think he was there to do?
Can he for one really keep his job after this?
The outcome will show just how intelligent the government is. My guess is they will do nothing.
Paxman says the problem with the News division is that it’s been taken over by radio people. That’s Helen Boaden. So Tim Davie and whoever else makes these decisions agrees with him, because that’s where “Hugs” is being shifted: radio.
The only substantial difference in resources and cost I can see between Paxman sitting in a chair talking to someone else sitting in a chair and John Humphrys sitting in a chair talking to someone else sitting in a chair is the big studio, the lights, the cameras, and all the staff required to run them for the TV version.
I guess this means there’s less money to hire Left-wing activists like Greg Palast to tell you how evil white Republicans are.
If there really was ‘frantic faffing about’, and I would hesitate to dispute that probability, then these so-called’ senior managers’ should have been dismissed forthwith as being incapable of doing their job – no 2 years of salary in lieu, no sideways move at over a quarter of a million sterling, no ‘knights move’ within the organisation to retain/create a position of further ‘senior responsibility’, etc., etc.
NO organisation can really afford people like these in charge. But with what the BBC regards as simply a bottomless pit of taxpayers’ money to play with, then there’s simply no problem in avoiding tackling these issues properly – lessons will be learned, etc., etc. (i.e. ….’will everybody in the BBC just SHUT UP till all this nonsense blows away, then we can get back to behaving the way we’ve always done – it’s only a matter of time…’)
Being ‘WAY OUT OF THEIR DEPTH’ in the BBC is incompatible with acountability – but then who, in all of the BBC actually is accountable for this mess (and look at Stafford Hospital and all the other examples now being unearthed in the NHS as simply another example of unaccountability in the public sector being endemic and institutionalise)
It’s worth considering that the reason the BBC has become so bloated with senior executives, regardless of how well they do their job, is once you’re in, and find out how things are run within their little world, they have to keep you in to stop you from revealing it.
Since the licence fee is an inexhaustible fund to do this from, what better or easier way to keep ‘loyalty’?
Expect the bloated register to grow even more.
Still finding this chap a font of interesting stuff:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/thought-for-today.html
‘And they must make more impact than their contemporaries, inside and outside the BBC’
Like ‘market rates’, if salaries are based not on doing a good job but such idiot markers, the result was and is inevitable.
‘I can already smell a training course on list maintenance being part of the BBC’s inevitable lessons-learned response.’
Very possibly. And for certain at yet more cost to the licence fee payer.
The preceding six Annexe analyses posts in his blog worth a gander, too. No. 4 a hoot.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/annexe-highlights-4.html
But beyond the fun, there is a very serious issue; one in danger of being ignored, and ‘moved on’ from…
I was struck, in all the vast screed so many are still wading through, by this…
‘…frequently things are now so stretched that they can’t be viewed by editors before transmission because there are simply – there is simply nobody there. No-one has the time to do it’
It may be recalled I have something of a bee in my bonnet about the BBC and ‘The Truth Won’t Fit’ policies to suit twitter, mobile and agendas.
Well now it seems I can add ‘No Time Means No Pause’.
At least at the world’s most trusted, respected, ‘news’ broadcaster.
By what measure of ineptitude and failure in integrity, does any so-called collection of professionals excuse fouling up on the basis that there wasn’t time to do it right?
Unique.
So whose fault is it for hiring all these biased incompetents who need constant looking after? And whose fault is it that the BBC is trying to do so much all over the place? Is their remit really to be the biggest news organization on the planet instead of providing true public service broadcasting and intelligent, impartial news?
‘Six Muslims accused of planned attack on English Defence League’
OR, in INBBC-speak:-
“EDL: Terror suspects deny attack plan”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21546618
To repeat the obvious:-
it is NUJ policy to oppose the English Defence League, and the BBC-NUJ chapels (branches) enforce this policy in their political broadcasting output.
@ chrish…gotta admire david attenborough and even paxman for there honesty and good programmes,,,here is the thing,,we dont hate the bbc,,i love the foottie and wildlife documentarys,,,thats about it,,,what i hate is the politacaly total left wing bias,,,that is the problem,,,hence the biasedbbc.tvie of politacal bias.
Bulletproof Spunk
BBC TV and Radio presenter Nicky Campbell has his shortcomings. Imagine him as Marmite – without its advocates. I have said this before – the very fact that he so reliably espouses BBC approved language and thinking with a slight populist spin makes him an interesting person to watch. I have previously referred to Campbell as a useful ‘weathervane’ to BBC opinion.
Campbell has consistently reinterated two lines of defence as mitigation for his personal and BBC corporate inaction in the Savile Scandal: ‘He left as I joined’; and ‘we thought he was just a sexless eccentric’.
These two arguments taken together absolve both Campbell and other BBC employees and indeed management of any guilt – unless they were directly and very closely associated with Savile’s activities. Remember the Police will be coming for such people if they are still alive.
I’ve said this before: I recall years ago hearing rumours about Savile’s prediliction for young girls. The story was that when he was on his funruns he would collect phone numbers and later contact the girls. Now I’m not in showbiz circles, I don’t work for the BBC and I’m not from Leeds.
So I am damned sure that for years the BBC would have been rife with such rumours and they would have been very easy for anyone at the BBC with the will to have substantiated.
Campbell’s lines of defence are hard to breech. No one at the BBC is likely to speak out. This was a very nasty little secret that has, by its concealment, become a horrible big lie. So the deceit has to go on. How can they now admit that the BBC has for years perpetrated such a nasty lie on its trusting viewers? It would be like admitting that national treasure Stephen Fry actually has very little talent or that our weather temperatures have not actually risen over the past two decades.
In recent days Campbell – the BBC weathervane – has let slip another nugget of an idea in his defence of himself and his paymasters – naturally this was done on Twitter where there is a degree of deniability and where the BBC appeals to a generally left of centre younger audience in the main sympathetic to the BBC.
Nicky Campbell was pushed to counter the argument ‘well even Paxman heard rumours – surely you heard something?’
And what does Campbell say?
‘No, I heard he might be gay’
Now there’s a thing. Our Nicky is here using quite a skillful and spunky gambit. Because as we all know….Gay = Bulletproof.
Yes there were rumours – I can’t maintain the lie that I heard nothing. What I might have heard about Savile and young girls had become so distorted in the Radio One office Chinese Whispers got so distorted that it came out as Savile was gay. And – you are all with me with this, aren’t you Twitter fans? – Gay = Bulletproof. Enough said.
‘I recall years ago hearing rumours about Savile’s prediliction for young girls’
And what did you do about it? Surely you are as guilty as anyone? As is anyone who read his autobiography and read the story about a girl he kept at his place? That must be thousands of people.
I don’t see how you can criticise someone else for doing nothing about rumours when you admit you were aware of them too?
This bit you left out may help frame your lack of vision:
“Now I’m not in showbiz circles, I don’t work for the BBC and I’m not from Leeds.”
Bonjo
What on earth could possibly motivate you to make such a fatuous remark? Are you seriously suggesting that I, Biased BBC, indeed the entire nation, in fact anyone on earth other than the BBC is culpable for Savile?
Wait don’t tell me….you are Nicky’s pet dog and you have learnt to type…no I’ve got it…you did well on Wheel of Fortune once in the 1980s?