Pretty soon there won’t be any 70’s or 80’s TV that we can watch if this goes on much longer.
Yet another BBC star…and yet another one whose activities the BBC may have turned a blind eye to…..
BBC managers turned a blind eye to Stuart Hall’s regular practice of luring young girls into his dressing room, it was claimed last night.
In an echo of the Jimmy Savile sex scandal, a former studio worker claimed Hall took a ‘string of girls’ into BBC Manchester, sometimes describing them as his ‘nieces’.
Gerry Clarke said: ‘Of course they [BBC managers] were aware of what was going on … Stuart could do what Stuart could do.’
Greg Dyke, in the paywalled Sunday Times, suggests that the stars were allowed to get away with behaviour that other people would not:
‘In television, presenters and stars have always been protected in a way that the rest of us never are, in terms of the way organisations work. They would always protect them. But it’s difficult to establish the truth.’
yes, Hall (Stuart not Tony!) is turning into Saville 2!
‘The Observer/Guardian’:-
“What the BBC can learn from scandal of Stuart Hall and the dark side of fame.
“Yet again the BBC has become its own story – and a report shows sexual harassment remains a problem. But the recent headline cases also ask questions about the nature of celebrity.”
By Tracy McVeigh and Maggie Brown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/04/bbc-scandals-stuart-hall?
‘recent headline cases also ask questions about the nature of celebrity’
Well, yes, possibly, for some, but trying to make headlines out of asking questions on motivations and broader societal trends while it seems pretty clear there are specific people in the spotlight for specific things seems… familiar.
What next? “Will we ever know what motivated a powerful celebrity to engage in prolonged (alleged) sex crimes with victims seduced by their job, on the premises, with colleagues and managers all proving astoundingly uncurious. Again. It’s… a mystery!”
If the Graun wants to beaver off down such a path, fine, and one is sure the BBC will be happy to see this happen.
It’s also lucky that the guy at the top of the BBC account-holding tree is Lord Patten, who is currently also (again) in the spotlight for his astounding just about everything when it comes to finding the BBC not to be held to account by anyone else, right about everything and can’t even bare-faced claim black is white without getting nailed (if with no consequence).
Unique.
Speaking of the Hall saga, all content on the “front” pages of the BBC have no mention (I had to search and there is a news story dated today BUT no link from Main, News, UK, England, Politics or Entertainment pages…
I wonder if one of the two friends Evans mentions has a mutual relationship with someone at the Beeb…just saying, very convenient timing. You Tube video of Evans’ statement:
Just to make myself clear (as I have read back what I wrote and it doesn’t seem clear!), have the BBC used this Conservative story to push back (very quickly indeed) the Hall story. There are 50 to 100 links on the main UK news page for instance, and for those saying news is constant and updating continuous etc, maybe so but look at some of the other links:
Some liver transplants ‘avoidable’
Oil and gas sector exports grow
Independence vote 500 day countdown
Holocaust survivor returns to camp
Fifty snakes stolen from pet shop NEW
Two women killed in car crash named
Cider makers rise above bad weather
I demand to know who the 13 idiots are who ‘liked’ this!
The story about Nigel Evans was all over BBC News, the Stuart Hall story was days ago (and was headlines at the time), and Patten’s interview about it was headline on the Entertainment section.
‘I demand to know who the 13 idiots are who ‘liked’ this!’
When that demand is met, do let us know.
What with precedent ‘n all.
Onion…erm…can you read? Maybe the 13 idiots (now 18) can read.
Now, who are the two idiots who liked your comment: at a guess you plus you signed out.
Is this chap another MacAlpine? What is Tom Watsons involvement with this story?
“…………… Mr Evans’s arrest was caused by one of his own party colleagues will add to the sense of shock that the incident has caused at Westminster.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323136/Tory-MP-triggered-Deputy-Speaker-rape-case-taking-alleged-victim-police-station-make-bombshell-claims.html#ixzz2T62K7hYy
There are certain ironies to the results of your latest pan-thread kerb-crawl.
Citing the Daily Mail for one will be enough for dark looks over the shandies at tonight’s post-shift debrief, but given…
‘the MP, whose identity is being withheld by The Mail on Sunday, said: ‘It is important for legal reasons that I make absolutely no comment.’
… one can only presume your concerns on the value of verifiable sources and accounts is indeed as variable as some may suspect, having not long ago posted this:
‘Interesting article… and one which .. fails to name any verifiable sources.’
“There are certain ironies to the results of your latest pan-thread kerb-crawl.” …………… If “kerb-crawl” is being used to describe my activities here then who are the prostitutes?
“Dark looks” from whom? “Post-shift debrief”, by whom?
As for “verifiable sources” there is a difference between a journalist protecting a source (who they have spoken to directly) and an an article by a “journalist” quoting an author whose sources have not been verified.
‘If “kerb-crawl” is being used to describe my activities here then who are the prostitutes?’
I was thinking more in drive-by sniping terms, but interesting you seem so comfortable in this role, so OK.
Of course kerb crawling does not have to involve ‘professional’ targets, not that such innocence would occur to any well-groomed BBC apologist. Maybe it is still not such a different time?
“Dark looks” from whom? “Post-shift debrief”, by whom?
Playing dumb is by coincidence a favoured BBC CECUTT technique. In case it really is not an act, ask the next cubicle. It only works when you control the dialogue.
‘As for “verifiable sources” there is a difference between a journalist protecting a source (who they have spoken to directly) and an an article by a “journalist” quoting an author whose sources have not been verified.’
Crikey, I had to get out my ‘Bill’s best book of Semantics’ on that one, and even then was going to ask Mr. Buster to help out.
While in Beebworld the introducing of “quotes” may make a world of difference in your mind, in the real world you are simply trying to have things all ways.
You appear comfortable this time with a Daily Mail journalist protecting an MP they claim to have spoken to directly. OK.
However, a piece about an ex-BBC editor (now widely seen and happy to be quoted on record) sharing personal experiences, and you are suddenly much less sympathetic to those offering testimony enjoying equal anonymity.
O….. k.
Isn’t he a bit old to have such young friends?
Maybe he forgot to give them a `reach-around` … or they didn`t like the use of Tigerbalm as a lubricant..
Whilst in no way condoning the actions of Saville and Hall I am concerned that many are now arguing that their employer should also be subject of another investigation due to the criminal acts of employees. These two individuals did not operate within a BBC vacuum – they both had connections politically, charitably and socially within the wider community.
To assert that only “BBC managers turned a blind eye” to their criminality may suit this blog’s agenda but curiously omits any blame being apportioned to others who “were in the know”.
Albaman, what you say is true but the point of this blog is the BBC; also it seems the main ‘area of operation’ of Hall seems to be BBC TV and radio.
Would it help if Alan wrote a caveat with each post i.e. for this one …”Although Stuart Hall’s activities were not exclusively working for the BBC…”
Quick don’t look there – look here!
Lefty distraction techniques 101.
Pathetic.
No distraction technique “lefty” or otherwise. Just a statement of fact; we are heading down a dangerous path if employers are to be held responsible for the criminal acts of their employees.
So let’s make this clear: The Catholic Church, and the Pope himself (past or present), cannot be blamed for the actions of a relatively small number of priests.
Try telling that to the Beeboids who have blamed the Pope directly and the Church in toto for the actions of some sick individuals.
Considering the churches are spread far and wide, it would be far more difficult to keep tabs on individual priests, than on a high number of high-profile celebs. acting their way within the confines of Broadcasting House.
And that post, my good fellow, should be the double barreled shotgun that shuts the lefties up….PERMANENTLY.
Of course, it wont, they will carry on with their “Nasty” party, “Nasty” right wingers “Nasty” everything but the left, BBC & Islam smears once the dust settles.
Chop,
I’ve a law degree so I do understand tort, negligence and what is vicarious liability. You are confusing your contract of service with the liability (tort) that your employer has for your negligent actions. In other words you don’t understand the difference between a contract and a tort. If you are in breach of your contract terms you’ll be sacked under the contract. However your employer is not liable for you being say a thief unless it can be proved that you acted under their instructions or with their consent/omission. Then your employer is open to a negligence claim like the Savile and phone tapping cases.
I’ll ignore the insults as they reflect on your intelligence.
I’ve a law degree so I do understand tort, negligence and what is vicarious liability.
Well done Colditz; what about Albaman though, does he understand?
…oops
I fully understand – Colditz, with his legal background , makes exactly the point my non-legal self was making.
A legal background, especially one claimed on a blog, may of course only have value in the same way as the BBC saying it gets things about right because it just does.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9626257/Jimmy-Savile-BBCs-lawyers-blocked-emails-on-decision-to-drop-Newsnight-expose.html
Legal background may not mean truth or clarity are the inevitable result.
No, Albaman, you’re wrong. You were fretting about what a dangerous road it would be if employers were held responsible for their employees’ actions, full stop, no qualifier.
colditz (not Colditz) said that the BBC, as the employer here, could be liable for the actions of employees if it could be proven that there was employer consent/omission of the employees’ criminal acts, in this case meaning if they knew and let it continue.
‘colditz (not Colditz)’
So they not only have poxy servers up the whazzoo meaning they can be who they want as often as they want, but have also perfected cloning by changing one letter?
Capital.
No proxy servers. Just different accounts. The one making comments under both versions these days seems different from the one who used to make so many angry remarks. I don’t know why that would be.
A contract is an agreement between two parties and the other one is a pastry.
Colditz, as a lawyer you should be careful where you lift your definitions of what constitutes Tort and that that constitutes Criminal Law.
P.s. you can ignore the insults as much as you like, however the fact that you post such risible rubbish on virtually every thread should indicate to most viewers that your as much a lawyer as I am.
It wasn’t a ‘small number’.
The point is though, that they did know, there were complaints, and the practice was to move them on to other parishes. Where they continued to abuse. It was institutionalised, and it was by an institution who’s reason for being was to spread the word of God, do good etc, but who’s priority was to protect itself.
I have the view, and dare say the public would be in agreement, that a broadcaster should not ignore that or not question it.
‘I have the view, and dare say the public would be in agreement’
That would be a heck of a basis for, say, claiming to speak for the nation, too.
All media should, of course, hold to account, not ignore or fail to question.
Which makes it interesting which media rather like where the #HackedOff nudges on Leveson are going.
These also seem to be the media that don’t see holding to account, investigating or asking questions as applying to them or their mates when the spotlight turns and things don’t suit.
‘The public’ might feel saying one thing whilst doing another, secret internal-wise, redactions & FoI exemptions, etc, is actually rather more of a worry in a £4Bpa propaganda machine.
The point is though, that they did know, there were complaints, and the practice was to move them on to other
parishesdepartments. Where they continued to abuse. It was institutionalised, and it was by an institution who’s reason for being was to spread the word ofGodthe beeble,do(we’ll tell you what’s) good etc, but who’s priority was to protect itself.Hmmm 🙄
That maybe – except it is your immediate response to any perception that the BBC may be less than perfect.
When you continuously use the ‘Yes but’ defence it becomes a ‘tactic’ – and it is increasingly one used by those of a socialist /left persuasion. Which makes pah’s observation reasonable.
If I as an employer provided a dressing room for my employees and was aware that they were luring young girls into it for sexual activities, I would bear some responsibility.
Procurement…runnng a disorderly house…abetting a crime….?
Precisely. You knew what was going on and did nothing about so an negligence action follows.
Imagine if I knew my reporters were illegally phone tapping and I denied it was happening? I’m up for negligence claims against the victims and could be facing jail for criminal acts. Same rules apply. Hence all these mucky 70s stars facing jail and financial ruin.
Of course, but you would have to provide evidence.
‘Of course, but you would have to provide evidence.’
Of course, depending on the who ‘you’ are, sometimes evidence is as good as a source who says or a investigative bureau telling you what you want to hear.
And best I can judge, as companies fold and professional reputations lie in tatters in some areas, in others a nifty side-step, reassignment and Bob’s.. Hugs your new Head of Radio.
’36. In light of the sensitivity around citing disbelief of the witnesses, it was decided, as Ms Boaden put it: to use the ‘rather measly and mealy mouthed, “Editorial reasons” which of course tells you nothing’.
That’s the kind of ‘evidence’ the BBC seems to like when it’s running its own navel-gazing exercises.
Uniquely.
‘we are heading down a dangerous path if employers are to be held responsible for the criminal acts of their employees..’
Unless it involves the employer knowing that he employed a child rapist and continued to allow, nay enable, the employee continued access to children to rape. I think that’s called being an accomplice.
Truly desperate stuff from Albaman, and it would be more shocking if we hadn’t watched the BBC and its defenders cover for Pakistani paedophile gangs for so long.
Enployers have never been held responsible for employee’s actions outside the scope of their employment. Albaman is totally correct.
How on earth this poster manages to go from Stuart Hall to the quite libellous insinuation that the BBC was covering up muslim rape gangs beggars belief. I assume logic and reasoning are not prerequisites in his thinking.
“Enployers have never been held responsible for employee’s actions outside the scope of their employment. Albaman is totally correct.”
You are either lying, or you have never been in work.
EVERY contract i have signed stipulates that my conduct, either inside work or outside REFLECTS on the company, and could lead to my dismissal.
Mind you, I have only worked in the private sector.
Correct, you can be sacked if acts outside work reflect adversely on your employer. What is in dispute is the likelihood of your employer being “investigated” for the same acts.
‘What is in dispute is the likelihood’
‘Likelihood’. A term only a graduate of the BBC Clinton Semantic Weasel course could trot out with a straight face, especially when the disputing seems to be from one source only.
To repeat, there do seem to have been cases where employers have been ‘investigated’, by the authorities and a very passionate holding-to-account BBC media mob… when it suits.
When it doesn’t, things do tend to get all secret and internalised at the world’s least trustworthy media monopoly, with redactions, FoI exclusions, etc.
The link between Jimmy Saville, the Pakistani rape gangs, Stuart Hall and God knows who next is that they all serve as evidence that the BBC will cover up the most egregious of crimes in order to protect the reputations of those it holds dear.
Some fucking law degree.
I presume logic is not one of your strong points.
Your abuse reflects only on your ignorance..
‘Your abuse reflects only on your ignorance.’
I see a ‘robust’ use of language, but not directed at a person; rather a claim. Making it crude. So it would be wise to not over-deploy the ‘abuse’ joker too much lest you be thought desperate.
Or a hypocrite.
And as you are into recycling, I grant myself a cut ‘n paste too, about when the comment is personal, and abusive…
‘Being abusive reflects very poorly on your views’
Since your last gallop on the high horse, you seem less concerned when it is you in the saddle:
‘But a false identity gives you the balls you lack in real life.’
And coming from a person with the name you post under, it’s also rather ironic.
Quite libellous?
Aren`t you a lawyer?
“BBC covering up Muslim rape gangs?”
Thought the BBC said that they were merely “British men”.
What do you mean by “covering up”?…hijab. burka?
In truth, the BBC prefer not to do the correlations between Islamic blokes up north, and white girls in childrens homes accessible by the M62.
That`s not “covering up…that is what we call wilful, preverse and contrary denial.
The BBC are accessories, apologists and willing to allow Muslim gangs of blokes to get away with this, because the alternative would be having to “challenge” Islam.
This the BBC won`t do…if gays get hung on cranes, girls get shopped up , or white girls in “public care” get drugged, raped and then made obese with a free ciggie or White Stripe?…well, that`s the going price for hush money.
Islam is not…repeat NOT…to be mentioned in any way that`ll bring a few angry beards round to the office.
They `re all John Cravens now!
‘a dangerous path if employers are to be held responsible for the criminal acts of their employees’
Well, there is precedent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12296392
If I recall, the BBC was quite persistent on chains of command and responsibility being fully investigated and held to account.
With the result that the medium in question was closed own.
And while I fully endorse the accountability that was pursued across News International, there may be some who feel that being astoundingly uncurious on who may have been hacking phones (even those of sadly dead murder victims) is the height of evil, in terms of moral equivalence, turning a blind eye to ongoing serial noncing on the premises may be viewed by others as equally poor, if not worse.
“But it’s difficult to establish the truth.” With the BBC it is absolutely impossible to establish any truth, ever.
Another little gem from Michael Rosen on “Start the Week” (Radio 4 circa 09:10) chaired by nice, reassuring Stephy-darling from the Brighton Festival which Rosen is directing:
“And OF COURSE what’s wrong with decadence anyway?”