Happy 90th Birthday!

Bloody Romans. What have they ever done for us..?

"Romanus eunt domum!!!" etc.

Forum behavior simply reflects true life. This morning, somebody on Radio 5 suggested Joey Barton would have made a good Nazi and Euronews showed Arabs demonstrating about events in Palestine, one was carrying a Swastika placard, inferring Jews are Nazis. Makes the claim that the BBC are Nazis look far less extreme. 

LOL

His only other post on this thread was to troll at one of Georges posts.

Pure genius. Classic

Dear Fatcat,

I am used to it!

Water off a duck's back for me now!

ATB from George

So. By me pointing out that George, having by his own admission not watched television for some considerable time, is therefore not best placed to judge the quality of recent broadcast material is trolling is it?

You learn something new every day.

Tony,

I keep up with TV quite enough to know that I would not want it in my house. 

ATB from George

Those nasty people at the BBC helped to raise £27million last night for Children in Need. I bet there's a wicked motive behind it though. Up to their necks, the lot of them.

Interesting to note that Children in Need seemed to be wise enough never to let Savile within a country mile of their efforts. 

ATB from George

Are you suggesting that Children in Need actually knew about Savile's activities but were deliberately stopped from bringing them to the attention of the appropriate authorities, a bit like Newsnight?

the plot thickens.

Cheers

Don

I think it is entirely possible that important senior and junior people within the BBC knew more - at the time - than they have let on so far. One might wonder how such behaviour could have quite gone entirely un-noticed, by everyone.

I am not saying anything at all about the people involved in Children In Need, but rather that it is "interesting," so I am sure that the various inquiries may yet have some surprises for us all.

Excuse that I have a specific and passionate interest in this mess being cleared up. I will not go into the reasons, but they are real enough, and I find those who take it all rather lightly and accuse me of "trolling" might care to examine exactly what is the aftermath of child abuse and its covering up, by closing ranks and so forth, ... what it actually brings.

I am not trolling. To troll implies that I do not believe in what I am saying and merely creating some sort of un-necessary diversion.

I cannot possibly give my view of those who accuse me of trolling in so many words, because it would be last post, but my dislike of those who do make light of this and my position is profound to say the least.

ATB from George

I really don't think that anyone here is making light of child abuse. I see no evidence of this on the thread. What a lot of us are saying is that you cannot damn the whole ethos and output of the BBC on the action of one man.

What I am trying to say is that you are being unreasonably harsh on the BBC when 99.99% of the people who work there had nothing to do whatsoever with the Saville affair. They are a shining example of integrity compared to the Murdoch press. Did they investigate themselves or hold an official inquiry in any of their dodgy affairs ? Or did they deny all knowledge for many years until the full story was outed by the Guardian. And did that cover up not involve people in VERY high places.

If you have such feelings about the BBC, what on earth are your thoughts on the organised religions, whose abusive crimes have been going on for many, many years, covered up for many years and effect thousands and thousands of victims worldwide. And were these crimes not covered up by people in VERY high places also.

..................... What a lot of us are saying is that you cannot damn the whole ethos and output of the BBC on the action of one man.

What I am trying to say is that you are being unreasonably harsh on the BBC when 99.99% of the people who work there had nothing to do whatsoever with the Saville affair.

Dear Redmires,

I damn the BBC for a culture where everybody there, whether the saw it or not, simply ignored Savile's actions on BBC premises.

I expect that the numbers of people who knew are small, but the culture that allowed this to happen was [and apparently still is] all pervasive there. The sheer lack of curiosity to get to the bottom of it from George Entwistle down is staggering. With good fortune the various investigations will show who knew what and when, and those who prove to be disgraceful people can be dealt with correctly. But the impression that is hard to escape is that the culture of the BBC caused people to see nothing out of the ordinary in Savile's actions on BBC premises. Not a single person among the whole massive staff apparently noticed or thought it worth making enough of a fuss over!

If the organisation is too large to control then let us reduce and reform it so that it can be brought under leadership of morally sound and wise people. I am sure the majority of good people currently there would easily find a place in a reformed organisation. 

But at the international level the BBC has lost its credibility, and it has done damage to the way the UK is perceived abroad, if not perhaps so much by British Ex-pats. Even at home the BBC is now widely regarded with suspicion. 

A BBC without trust and obvious integrity is not worth its privileged position, and indeed even a reformed organisation should pay its way through subscription to watch its service rather than a TAX on watching any live TV from other broadcasters. The TV License should be abolished at the first opportunity

The BBC must in future earn it its way, earn its respect, and keep its own audience rather than relying on  taxing those who would rather watch Sky Sport or Channel Four for example.

ATB from George

Strong words. A quick google suggest that over 20,000 people work for the BBC. That's like saying that the whole workforce of the NHS and Home Office are culpable for the abuses that occurred in the hospitals & prisons, and those organisations should also be abolished. And you remain coy on the religious organisations too. Saville received a Papal knighthood for god's sake (no pun intended).

And please don't suggest that whilst the BBC is a tax on everybody, the only people who pay for Sky are the Sky subscribers. Every commercial media outlet is funded by commercials; in print, on radio and on TV. Everything we buy has an advertising cost associated with it. And I put it you that the total cost of the advertising on the goods I buy every year exceeds the cost of a TV licence.

Redmires, excellent post , so much better than an unsubstantiated generalisations.

The ghastly Savile saga highlights how far we have travelled in terms of society and culture in the relatively short time-scale of thirty or forty years. It seems incomprehensible that such abuse of minors went unchecked and unpunished - but it regularly did.

I was schooled in the sixties and early seventies when authority figures held authority whether they deserved it or not. I received simple Christian indoctrination and as a child, and 'God fearing' featured in our moral building blocks. This; together with what amounted to physical abuse for misbehaviour, imbued in us a fear of challenging any of our authority figures.

Savile cleverly built moral protection around him with his charity work, TV presence and status. His motives were not questioned (officially at least) at the time, and children, as we now know were afraid to speak of what was happening for the above mentioned reasons.

So the BBC cannot be singled out. The situation was endemic in the society of the time.

The older generation complain that kids have no respect for their elders any more. The upside of that situation is that respect has to be earned - not simply implied, as it used to be.

John.

George,

As JN and others have pointed out, child abuse (and no doubt other problems) was going on in the 50's 60's and 70's and was either covered up or tollerated. The BBC wasn't the only institution involved, and was probably only a marginal player. The main players appear to me to include religeous groups, young offender's homes and possibly boarding schools to name but a few. I doubt if the problem was/is confined to the UK.

I see no evidence here of anybody condoning these activities or treating them lightly, but we do live in more enlightened times today.

IMHO you have unjustly decided to vilify the BBC and as Redmires pointed out, deliberately remained coy about the other poffenders, specifically the religeous groups. I fear that on this issue, you might have allowed some personal events to distort your usually balanced judgement.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I am not ignoring this but rather thinking how to express many complex thoughts in a reasonably short post.

Later or tomorrow.

Many good points to answer, and from my perspective the answers are there, but I must express them clearly and in as short a form as possible.

ATB from George

Savile allegedly commited serious crimes on BBC premises over a prolonged period during his employment with them and went, apparently, unchallenged. The BBC must surely lose credibility over this, whatever level one evaluates the situation on.

To me it is almost inconceivable that he was able to commit these crimes over such a period of time without a culture of "turning a blind eye" around him. He was not a lowly anonymous employee, but a very high profile and famous one. I am not implying that any BBC employee was necessarily aware of exactly what he was up to and chose to ignore it, though that is of course possible. People may have had vague suspicions about him, doubts, things that did not quite add up or seem entirely right and proper. That is one thing. But to voice those suspicions, especially to a superior, is an entirely different matter. Savile was a powerful man with connections in high places. To cross such individuals takes guts and a certain disregard for one's own welfare in favour of justice and idealism. Not easy for many people, especially when one has to earn a living.

The point is that I suspect that there was no easy mechanism in place within the BBC for more junior individuals to raise their concerns over Savile. It is more likely I think that it is this status of employee - the grass roots "hands-on" people, that are more likely to have had first-hand suspicions of Savile, as opposed to the top executives sitting in their plush offices. Therefore it was much easier to turn the proverbial blind eye and pretend that nothing was amiss.

Perhaps if the BBC had a mechanism in place whereby employees could have felt more confident, safe and able to voice their concerns without fear of retribution, then Savile's alleged criminal activities would have been terminated a long time before his death and he would have been brought to book. If that is shown to be the case then the BBC must shoulder some of the responsibilty for what happened.

Peter

Thank you Peter,

Okay that forty years ago such a system was not in place, but the lastest cover up is apparently only twelve months ago, and so I ask this,

"Can the BBC be allowed to continue a TAX on watching any live TV in the UK - BBC based or not - in a digital broadcast world, where it can be subscribed to with precision?" 

Why should I, who would want to watch Sky Cricket coverage, have to subvention an organisation that has yet to join with modern UK culture over that culture's abhorrence over peadophilia?

The BBC must modernise and live off its earned trust and demonstrable virtue rather than try to trade on its at least four decades out of date image of the totally honest "Aunty Beeb?"

ATB from George

PS: My view of other institutions where peadophilia went on is no more charitable ... But that is another thread ...

George,

Its not a peadophile ring that's exhorting a tax on you before letting you watch TV.

The two subjects (child abuse/cover-up + Licence fee) justify discussion, but not linked in the way you keep trying to suggest. IMHO.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

The BBC needs to join in the late twentieth century culturally, let alone the early twenty-first, before I'd present that organisation with one penny of my quite hard earned money. It may yet achieve my aim for it, in which case who knows that I might even rejoin the Aunty Beeb loving fold!

Others may think different, and are free to make their choice.

I have merely made my point, and nothing wrong with that!

Apologia from George

This thread is approaching Pythonesque proportions..... Has Mary Whitehouse returned from the dead? Is Jean Rook still alive...?

I think we should be told....

Sister xx

Cheers Frank.

You are dead right. Many of the girls who hung around bands - particularly in the US - in the 1970s were only 14 or 15. They looked - and behaved - a lot older of course.

+1  -   plus I can confirm that groupies started in the 60's.

These girls were mostly nearly always younger than they looked & per Kevin's point they behaved a lot lot older & I can assure you they did not hold back when it came to scoring.  That was the way it was & no one batted an eyelid. 

But get one thing straight  I am in no way whatsoever making any excuses for predatory paedo's like Savile & Co.  

I wonder if certain posters on this forum have any comment to make, or righteous anger to vent, on the case of Canon Ronald Johns, who was today jailed for gross indecency and sexual assault on young boys; and whose crimes were covered up by the church hierarchy?

Just asking, like.