https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvhJsbFwbFc
The Sun is now free to view which is why we can bring you this…
‘Cocaine on sale at BBC’
SENSATIONAL claims that a drug dealer is delivering to BBC staff at their desks have been made by Beeb veteran Alan Dedicoat.
On a tape, passed to The Sun, he is heard telling a man that the peddler regularly sells ecstasy and cocaine.
Dedicoat, 60 — the announcer on Strictly Come Dancing — is also recorded claiming that certain members of BBC security staff were “in on it”.
He says: “The police can do nothing about the fact that he’s delivering desk to desk.”
Asked about drugs, he adds: “Well, they are recreational items of interest, I think you’ll find, that’s the way we categorise them.”
Dedicoat is heard claiming the dealer would visit the unspecified offices “monthly,” and says: “It’s everywhere, isn’t it?”
When quizzed on how many of the staff would buy from the seller, Dedicoat responds: “Erm, at least 50 per cent.”
Asked if the drugs included cocaine and party drugs, he replies: “Yes, Es for the lower grades, then whoever can afford it — goes up. It’s the business we’re in . . . ”
‘He just goes from desk to desk’ – the transcript of Dedicoat tape
SOURCE: Tell me again, this guy in the BBC, the guy who can get stuff for you, he goes in the offices? Does he work for the BBC?
AD: No, he doesn’t no.
Source: So how does he get in? Is there no security?
AD: There is yeah, but they’re sort of in on it anyway, and he goes around us…because the police can do nothing about the fact that he’s delivering desk to desk.
Source: Even though he’s selling drugs?
AD: Well they are recreational items of interest, I think you’ll find, that’s the way we categorise them.
“There’s nothing… It’s everywhere isn’t it?
Source: Of course it is, I’ve got no qualms with it, but I just wanted to kind of… so… how often would he come in?
AD: Monthly
Source: And out of all the employees at the BBC, how would he… how many of them would buy from him
AD: Erm, At least 50 per cent, he just goes from desk to desk.
Source: Coke? Party drugs, all sorts?
AD:Yes, E’s for the lower grades, then whoever can afford it, goes up. It’s the business we’re in…
Source: And it’s rife in the BBC?
AD: You say rife like it’s horrible and wrong. He only comes in because it stops him being intercepted by the police.”
The beeboids do seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject. Their website has a help-page entitled Helping you get through life that gives details of 24 types of drug.
I’m not at all surprised.
The Beeb talk as if they are permamently on drugs.
Is it any wonder they promote the legalisation of cannabis?
Recreational drugs, what next ? Recreational paedophilia ?
A ship rather long since sailed.
LOL !
Actually, I should have referred to the Argo, a camper van long since parked in the BBC executive lot.
Guest Who,
I have just been reading “Private Eye” 10-23 Jan 2014. P 12 “….. class A drug use , which is openly tolerated in the TV biz, rather than paedophilia, which only used to be . “
You haven’t been keeping up with the news, have you?
IIRC, as the spotlight alighted upon him, and colleagues appeared at the back of his studio to ‘observe’, did he not go very coy and kick in with BBC SOP ‘it was another time’ vague allusions to times gone by?
A few of us felt that did not quite gel with the detail of what had already been shared.
Meanwhile a nice Mediterranean man with a rucksack breezes past BBC security dropping off a wee baggie as a thank you for not profiling or searching or anything silly like that.
Legalise it, we’ll advertise it
That has long been the mantra for the BBC’s war in favour of drugs
Would Winteringdale consider reducing the licence fee commensurate with the cost of narcotics which I don’t want my TV poll tax to cover?
Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned, -Rebekah Brooks
Go for them girl. The Albeeb deserve every bit of crap that comes their way and more.
Ho Ho. I went on a HYS site and complained that some BBC reports are so bad that one wonders if the reporters are on drugs, and if so the Sun would inform us. It took less than 3 minutes to discover I had broken the House Rules..
Well there has to be a reason for the “hyperactivity” of some presenters and reporters.
What a fitting end for Dimbelby if that dealer could leave a melter on Thursday next to his desk.
“Brand for DG, Brand for DG , Fuck the Tories……………as he is led away by 2 in whitecoats.
Quite frankly Dimblebore is the only Beeboid I wish WAS on drugs.
Question for Dimbeltrot’s panel.
‘Does the panel agree that drug peddlers should not be allowed to sell their wares in BBC premises, and does the panel think that the BBC should confirm that the profits from the sale of drugs to their staff does not finance the Taliban or any other group of activists or militants responsible for alleged acts of terrorism?’.
G.W.F
Leave the “alleged” out of the question.
Plod needs to have a word with Mr Dedicoat and see what they can find of interest, maybe?
Plod needs to have a word with Mr Dedicoat and see what they can find of interest, maybe?
I think Plod’s relationship with the BBC is somewhat ambiguous. Don’t hold your breath .
Now come on….The Beeboid dealer is that nice chap Mohammed from Finsbury park mosque..keeping the Comrades in constant supply so that they’ll frown on all perceived “Islamophobia” where-ever it may raise it’s truly disgusting head…
Any plod that read this…. Go and have a look at the taxi/chauffeur services that the Beeb use to take their stars/employees to and from work. After all, security can’t leave them sitting in their cars waiting for the end of filming can they?
Alan Dedicoat retracts comments alleging BBC allowed ‘peddler’ to sell drugs to staff at their desks
http://ind.pn/1Skg0Xv
“There is no truth to what I said. I was foolishly embellishing upon rumours I was aware of dating from 20 or 30 years ago in relation to the commercial radio sector.
“I have no personal knowledge of these matters and have absolutely no reason to believe that the activities referred to in the edited extract of this covertly-recorded conversation take place or have ever taken place at the BBC.”
Why did you fail to mention to this in your blog post, Alan?
Either you knew he he’d retracted his comments and decided not to mention it; in which case you are are being wilfully dishonest. Or you didn’t know; in which case you are being wilfully ignorant.
Which is it?
Getting excited about the need for the full story is an interesting precedent for a BBC defender. Especially one equating the journalism of a free forum poster with the activities of 20,000 very well paid, supposed professionals of an enforced £4,000,000,000pa media monopoly.
In the spirit of Ian Katz, maybe there was no time? Or, mirroring every CECUTT response, there was no space, so ”not news’ ((c) A. Newsroom Tealady) rules apply, especially as what you think is so crucial in follow up was in a later para (irony or what?) of the Sun story quoted. Alan could point to that as sufficient, in true BBC style.
Or simply it was mentioned on these pages several days ago and indeed above, so clearly has already been covered somewhere on the site… another BBC specialty. Several holes in the claim were noted by posters here. You may have missed this, either through ignorance or dishonesty. Who is to say which? As I know answering questions is not your thing, I leave that to others to decide.
As you clearly derive your version of events from such as the Independent, rather than sources more popular with the actual public, I do note:
“The Independent has contacted Dedicoat’s publicist for comment”.
May we rely on you to stay on this and come back when subsequent information is made availanle?
Or not?
The BBC does have a habit of ‘moving on’ from things better left behind, so your keeping things bubbling so nicely is appreciated.
Jason,
The point is that, when the same person makes 2 conflicting statements, it is impossible to know which one is the truth , if either. Maybe, he was “leaned on”. I have no idea , but there is no reason to believe that a retraction is any more true than the original statement.
Chances are it is the statement which he believed was not for public consumption and upon which he was not grovelling to be saved from getting fired in.
That’s a real shock: Jason calling a BBC man a liar.
Maybe a small popcorn order required for midweek… to observe true ‘balance’ teeter left and right.
Be interesting to see if John is one of those who sees lack of objectivity as a legitimate reason for the BBC to be moved off the compulsory side of public funding.
Anything else would surely be enforced propaganda?
Which surely would never do.