ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Proper dementia or Saundersitis?
Savile being used as a wedge issue to attack BBC independence
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
Proper dementia or Saundersitis?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Please don't pursue grievances across multiple threads.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's not like it's even editor's grievance - i haven't noticed mrs magpie pursuing it across threads.
editor
hiraethified
It's actually about how mods are treated. He didn't know it was MrsM who had closed the thread at the time so it was a general attack on the mods. I think it is unacceptable to use such language just because you don't like a particular moderating decision and I think he should apologise.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
there are as yet undiscovered tribes in the amazon who know it was mrs m who closed the thread. it isn't like the identity of the mod who closed the thread's been guarded so closely it hasn't become widely known. so why do you think it is acceptable to pursue this vendetta across threads? you've asked - he's not afaik offered up an apology - at this stage it seems to me it's time for everybody to move on. unless it's really really important for you, in which case you should have given him a temp ban at the time. but it's a bit late to ban tc now for something which happened some time ago.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You are the one starting arguments here, though. And others think MrsM and you should also be apologising. So what do we do? TC has already said he was prepared to leave this, yet you've dragged it up again. To what end?
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
How so?
I can't remember who said it, but I always agreed with "the BBC may fall short of its own standards and ideals, but at least it has them".
What would your alternative be?
The BBC is brilliant overall. This is a fuck-up but I hope their reputation doesn't suffer too much.
I can't think of any other media organisation which would air its dirty laundry in public quite like this, where we have the slightly surreal situation of one of their flagship programmes digging the dirt on their other flagship programme.
Peter Rippon should've gone after the 'single mum' debacle so his departure is at least a silver lining to come out of this whole sorry affair.
I can't think of any other media organisation which would air its dirty laundry in public quite like this, where we have the slightly surreal situation of one of their flagship programmes digging the dirt on their other flagship programme.
Peter Rippon should've gone after the 'single mum' debacle so his departure is at least a silver lining to come out of this whole sorry affair.
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
I'm not quite sure. I stopped caring when I stopped watching live broadcast TV. I just think its ridiculous how much the BBC gets away with because somehow it is "better".
_angel_
.
LOL
Why do people always assume our tv will be like the US. Afaik there's restrictions on the amounts of ads that can be shown. ITV really doesn't have that many ad breaks either. I can cope with it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The unstated assumption behind a lot of the defence is that everyone else is an idiot who does whatever the tv says and the BBC says things that aren't as bad as fox news, so people wouldn't become like americans with the BBC. And this at a time when the BBC is facilitating US style welfare provisions, reduction in social support and so on.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
It doesn't get away with it, and I'm not sure who on here is claiming it should "get away with it", just defending it against people who seem to think it's good for nothing.
It's not just about there being adverts in between the programmes! It's about a shift in the priorities and governing principles. As soon as you're working towards profit over everything else your priorities shift, for the worse imo. For me, state-funded broadcasting is just as important as state-funded education, health and all the other stuff I think shouldn't be run for profit.
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
Just irritates me the usual smug love of the BBC on these boards. Like the same kind of love the was for Paddick. "He may be cop but he is gay so that make all right then". Or the Guardian "Why do the stupid proles read the Sun? The Guardian is the best". It's just ridiculous liberal bollocks.
And the BBC does have a profit motive. It's called chasing ratings to justify the levy.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
Something of a fair point, and I'm never particularly thrilled at the ratings chasing, but that's what you get when you have to appeal to a mass audience to justify the licence fee. However, for all the ratings-chasing shows there are hundreds of niche shows that I'm honestly not sure you'd get elsewhere. Then there's the journalistic standards, which despite often messing up is still very highly regarded, particularly abroad.
I'll cop to the smug accusation, but it's a love born out of true love, of something that matters and isn't just about having something to switch on after work.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
A gleam of clarity that...
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Your continued attacks on me are awful. You should be ashamed of yourself. You seem to have no shame and no grace either.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
"The following is a statement issued by the BBC
The BBC has launched an independent review, led by former Head of Sky News Nick Pollard, to determine whether there were any failings in the BBC's management of the Newsnight investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of children by Jimmy Savile.
However, on the basis of material available now, it is apparent from information supplied by the Newsnight editor and programme team - that the explanation in a blog by the editor of his decision to drop the programme's investigation is inaccurate or incomplete in some respects.
By way of correction and clarification:
1.The blog says that Newsnight had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. In fact some allegations were made (mostly in general terms) that some of the Duncroft staff knew or may have known about the abuse.
2. The blog says that Newsnight had no evidence against the BBC. No allegation was made to the programme that BBC staff were aware of Mr Savile's alleged activities, but there were some allegations of abusive conduct on BBC premises.
3. The blog says that all the women spoken to by the programme had contacted the police independently already and that Newsnight had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police. It appears that in some cases women had not spoken to the police and that the police were not aware of all the allegations.
The BBC regrets these errors and will work with the Pollard review to assemble all relevant evidence to enable the review to determine the full facts."
The BBC has launched an independent review, led by former Head of Sky News Nick Pollard, to determine whether there were any failings in the BBC's management of the Newsnight investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of children by Jimmy Savile.
However, on the basis of material available now, it is apparent from information supplied by the Newsnight editor and programme team - that the explanation in a blog by the editor of his decision to drop the programme's investigation is inaccurate or incomplete in some respects.
By way of correction and clarification:
1.The blog says that Newsnight had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. In fact some allegations were made (mostly in general terms) that some of the Duncroft staff knew or may have known about the abuse.
2. The blog says that Newsnight had no evidence against the BBC. No allegation was made to the programme that BBC staff were aware of Mr Savile's alleged activities, but there were some allegations of abusive conduct on BBC premises.
3. The blog says that all the women spoken to by the programme had contacted the police independently already and that Newsnight had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police. It appears that in some cases women had not spoken to the police and that the police were not aware of all the allegations.
The BBC regrets these errors and will work with the Pollard review to assemble all relevant evidence to enable the review to determine the full facts."
Garek
Living n ADDled chaos
"So everyone is happy to let the media undermine Jimmy's charity work by pointing out he's a nonce? And this is a good idea because...?"
I'm by no means uncritical of the BBC which I'd look on as the best of a bad bunch.As someone who grew up in NZ we had NZBC very similar to the BBC (most of its shows came from them) it was dissolved in '75 and replaced by state controlled but advertising driven stations.Anybody who has ever turned a TV on in NZ knows that was a bad decision.
editor
hiraethified
Not sure what a BBC 'smug love' looks like, but I don't recall anyone here making the statement you're quoting about Paddick.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
what? I'm not defending what the BBC did - it was totally wrong - and the management which presided over the culture of silence should be for the chop. But does that mean we should be perfectly happy for the Murdochs to finally deliver the axe to national public broadcasting?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Let the chop happen first and the call for undermining the BBC will wither.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think he's laughing at your childish either/or logic. I know that i am.
Similar threads
