to think BBC should be privatised - pronto

[TRex4]

First off, can I say I have mixed feelings about posting this. I hate political propaganda on MN, I really do. But I really also dislike BBC PC propaganda (for which I'm paying!!), and No. 2 the fact that most of their programmes are utter shite, from Antiques Roadshow to, well, just about everything else. There was a sensitive-ish BBC programme on Germaine Greer about 6 months ago but I struggle to think of anything else I've watched thats raised the intellectual bar above a pea-shoot.

You really do need to go to other channels for controversy, intellectual stimulation and enjoyment. Apart from their Comedy Department of course - brilliant (This Country and People Do Nothing are the exceptions). But really, the rest is a load of PC-Rest-Home crap. If I see another PubliC service Announcement on Eastenders or their so-called "news" on BBC also known as propaganda, I think I'll scream.

Really, they should put it out of its misery and kill it off and save us all £150 a year? I used to be neutral, but have really grown to dislike Auntie's "we know best" (they don't) over the last few years.

I'm not close to condoing any peadophile, I'm rightly pointing out that similar things have gone on till very recently, especially as someone used this as a way to attack the BBC, when defending Netflix who employed someone in exactly the same way.

The investigations into the BBC didn't show that the executives at the top knew anything other than rumours, and even then not all of them, that's very different.

"And I'm not arguing this anymore because frankly, you disgust me."

No, you are giving up because you can't defend your point. You made lots of claims that you can't back up.

You made lots of claims that you can't back up.

If you say so, go change your name to SavilleNo1Fan.

Nope, never defended Savile. Defended the BBC, and used the reports into it to back my point.

YABU and YABAT

Sorry sion you absolutely are you've made me very very very uncomfortable.

You seem to think the bbcs actions were totally fine,

Not ok what so ever. Back away from this topic

Except the BBC weren't doing what the PP accused them of?

"Not ok what so ever. Back away from this topic"

No.

Using Savile as a reason to get rid of the BBC is ridiculous, and making stuff up or exaggerating the extent to which the corporation knew what was going on ( and to accuse them of actively facilitating him with this knowledge) is utterly erroneos, and it needs to be challenged.

The BBC has a history of being neither impartial nor accountable. It is accountable only to itself really - the whole Savile inquiry made this quite plain. Also, I know for a fact that plenty of employees during the 70s & 80s who has the misfortune of working with Savile knew he was a horrible man but as nothing was ever done they just learnt to swerve him as best they could in work situations.

The World Service has a long history of being used as a propaganda mouthpiece. Indeed, Orwell drew on his years as a producer there during WW2 to inform a large part of Nineteen Eighty-Four. He was given a strict set of parameters and ‘approved’ people who he could use as guests. And a strong remit to use the World Service to keep Indian listeners onside so that they could be recruited to fight the fag end of WW2.

Be under no illusions. The BBC is both fantastic and terrible, and its training programmes pump out a very specific kind of producer or journalist.

But honestly, all the people saying it’s worth it for Killing Eve or Fleabag alone (both brilliant, I agree) that works out at £150 for two shows. Netflix would have died in the water if it dared to charge that for just one or two series. It’s just rubbish value for money and would make much more sense pared down to two TV channels and two radio channels and nothing else.

You know the report you're using to defend Savile and the BBC?
Apparently the compiler of that report had no powers to compel evidence from the upper management of the BBC.
So for her to then say the upper management didnt know is flawed.

It also states that Saville abused people in every place he ever worked for the BBC.
It also says that people that did complain were ignored and brushed off.

It doesn't take much to read the report and realise it's fairly.obvious he was well known throughout the BBC but they covered it up.

But please keep on defending him and the actions of the BBC... Who are so innocent they've spent £500k so far paying the victims of Savile.

"The World Service has a long history of being used as a propaganda mouthpiece. Indeed, Orwell drew on his years as a producer there during WW2 to inform a large part of Nineteen Eighty-Four. "

When Orwell was paid to write propaganda?

"Netflix would have died in the water if it dared to charge that for just one or two series."

Except most that isn't all of the BBC's output.

Netflix operates a far larger budget and produces a lot less quality of its own output.

In fact I reckon unless Netflix can seriously hit the same hieights as it has done with Stranger Things, OITNB, The first 3 seasons of House of Cards and the Crown, it is done for as other content providers remove their content from it.

Those are 5 big hit shows in 10 years compare that to what the BBC has produced that have been big international hits across the same time line.

"It also says that people that did complain were ignored and brushed off"

No it doesn't. Read up. It says:

"Some members of BBC staff – junior and middle-ranking – were aware of Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct in connection with his work for the BBC but there was no evidence that any senior member of staff was aware of Savile’s conduct."

"It doesn't take much to read the report and realise it's fairly.obvious he was well known throughout the BBC but they covered it up"

Making leaps of faith there.

It did find that: "the BBC was a place of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment" during the time Savile worked there.

*The BBC is perfect, unbiased, impartial and all other news sources aren't

Of course it isn’t and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

But in an age of the likes of Arron Banks and Russian money influencing god knows what, I prefer a much more transparent source of information.

Only the bbc offers that at the moment IMO.

sion Well that depends, if you want social conservatives to be the more fundementalist end of things, yeah you are right.

It’s not a question of what someone wants social conservatism to be. These terms do
actually have real meaning. You clearly don’t understand the term and it’s making your arguments very confusing.

The fact that you honestly believe that’s Andrew Neil, John Humphrys and Nick Robinson are the BBC’s best examples of social conservatism proves the point that the BBC doesn’t ever present a genuinely alternative range of social perspectives. You’re so unused to hearing genuinely social conservative voices that you don’t even know what they sound like!

Watch the recent discussion between Andrew Neil and Ben Shapiro and then judge for yourself how “socially conservative” Andrew Neil is.

" You clearly don’t understand the term and it’s making your arguments very confusing."

Except I do. Social conservatives can have varying levels of conservatism.

Do I think the people I listed have very traditional values? For the most part yes?

If Ben Shapiro is your example then you are into the extreme end, and he made a tit of himself with Andrew Neil.

sionnachbeag

"It also says that people that did complain were ignored and brushed off"

No it doesn't

Ahem...

When a junior female employee at Television Centre complained to her supervisor that she had been sexually assaulted by Leeds-born Savile, she was told “keep your mouth shut, he is a VIP”, the report found.

Dame Janet said girls who dared to complain about being sexually assaulted were regarded as “a nuisance” and their claims not properly dealt with.

"Dame Janet said girls who dared to complain about being sexually assaulted were regarded as “a nuisance” and their claims not properly dealt with."

Except that was within the whole organisation at the time, and pretty much standard in the UK, it wasn't just to do with Jimmy Savile.

Or are you being revisionist?

It also said: "No complaints were made about Savile to the BBC’s duty office, as would be the appropriate procedure, although there were eight occasions on which complaints were made in other ways."

So, no official complaints, but people being brushed off on 8 occasions across 30 years.

Never said that the BBC were totally innocent, and yes but that its ridiculous to make the accusations that you did and then to use them as justification for getting rid of the BBC.

I hope in the future it becomes a subscription model with the channels scrambled, those that want the BBC can pay for it, but you wouldn't need a TV licence to watch other live shows.

Or are you being revisionist?

So now you're spinning the report to include the entire UK? Is that what you're saying? That because such behaviour was prevelant in the UK Savile was fine and dandy?

I can sit here and argue all day if you want, but you really are coming off as SavileFanNo1

Do you want to keep spinning and back tracking and disbelieving the managers at the BBC knew or do you want to just accept Savile was a sick and dangerous man that people knew about but we're too terrified to do anything about?

"So now you're spinning the report to include the entire UK? Is that what you're saying? That because such behaviour was prevalent in the UK Savile was fine and dandy? "

Nope, strawman, I'm saying such behaviour was common, and that pretending it was solely the preserve of the BBC is ridiculous.

Managers at the BBC have been proven not to have known anything, you are yet to counter that.

I also think, as I have said repeatedly, using Savile as a reason to get rid of the BBC is ridiculous.

Oh the Savile fan number 1 thing is also ridiculous.

I'm saying such behaviour was common, and that pretending it was solely the preserve of the BBC is ridiculous.
Commonality of behaviour doesn't not equate to rightful behaviour.

Managers at the BBC have been proven not to have known anything, you are yet to counter that.
The report itself had no power to compel.said managers. The lawyer acting on behalf of the victims has confirmed that on many occasions. Is that difficult for you to grasp?

I also think, as I have said repeatedly, using Savile as a reason to get rid of the BBC is ridiculous.
Okay, chuck in Stuart Hall too. History of covering up sexual assaults by their talent.

Oh the Savile fan number 1 thing is also ridiculous.
And yet here you are defending him.and his defenders.

"Commonality of behaviour doesn't not equate to rightful behaviour. "

No it doesn't, but making out like this was anything other than common behaviour within many institutions at the time means that you are being revisionist, and guilty of presentism.

"The report itself had no power to compel.said managers. The lawyer acting on behalf of the victims has confirmed that on many occasions. Is that difficult for you to grasp!"

So the independent investigation found that there was no evidence that senior managers or the BBC as an organisation had knowledge of Savile's activities. But that isn't good enough for you? Or difficult to grasp that it proves that your claims regarding the management are false, and you still haven't managed to prove that.

"And yet here you are defending him.and his defenders."

Never defended Savile at all, defending the BBC against your ridiculous points.

Of course they bear some responsibility for Savile, but then so does the NHS, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, the Conservative Party and the Police.

As someone who values the BBC, I’m really glad its defenders and advocates IRL are a great deal more able and articulate than those represented here. Just nuts, some of this.

MonkeyToesOfDoom you are really tying yourself up in knots to justify not paying a TV licence. If you want to get all your news from international sources and listen to music on YouTube you should really know yourself out. You are clearly a person who thinks that other people should work for free for your benefit and I don’t think anything will make you change your mind.

So the independent investigation found that there was no evidence that senior managers or the BBC as an organisation had knowledge of Savile's activities

The independent investigation that couldn't compel those senior managers to give evidence.... They literally could just refuse to comply with independent investigation or just deny all knowledge without fear of punishment...
Can you not understand how that makes the conclusion drawn very unreliable?

You are clearly a person who thinks that other people should work for free for your benefit and I don’t think anything will make you change your mind.

Explain your thought process to come to this conclusion.