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 am also interested in how the BBC hasn’t learned from the Savile issue. These comments are easy to throw out but less easy to actually evidence.

"I’ll take my bat and ball in. No point arguing with that mentality."

Of course there is.

You said: "The BBC’s conduct in relation to Savile was disgraceful and I personally am not comfortable dismissing it in that cavalier fashion. Really not ok."

However the person who started that particular conversation had forgotten that there were many rumours about Kevin Spacey even before he took the role in House of Cards, just like the things about Savile were rumours at the time.

Savile was also protected by his contacts and friends in the Conservative government of the 80's, who put him forward for a Knighthood

Please show me evidence that the BBC knew about Savile and then set up the TV show to have access to kids

I'm actally sure theres quite a bit of evidence that the upper management of the BBC did know. Sorry sion.

Theres an interview with Terry wogan saying he and easter ranzen even took it to the DG in the 80's and were told to shut up and leave it alone or shut the door on tje way out of the organisation.

So yes, i'm afraid its going to be hard to defend the BBC on this. They did know, did very littke about it.

Bloody hell if ypu watch the louis theroux documentry with him he practiaclly admited it on a BBC prpgrame yet still nothing was done!!

I have stopped watching BBC in general. I did manage to find The Sky at Night tucked away on BBC4 this week. (Did I read recently BBC4 is under threat?) that was nice but not worth the licence fee to me personally.

And that is their problem in the current era, my kids say they won't be having a tv licence when they live alone. I used to say it was worth it but even I have gone over to their side. Just my husband wants to keep it.

Here you go sion

Bbc knew about saville
*
www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terry-wogan-hatred-jimmy-savile-2341936.amp

Fleabag and Horrible Histories
I rest my case.

Muggeridge investigated Savile in 1973.
Unfortunately his investigation was more about protecting the BBC other than stopping Savile.
Dame Janet even says in her report that Savile could have been stopped in the 70s.

Was he sacked? No. Was he put on warning and watched? No.
He was given presenter jobs on Top of the Pops, where he had access to children and abused many of them.
He was given his own show, Jim'll fix it, where he was given access to young children and abused them.
If I googled I'm sure I could find numbers of the kids he abused whilst I'm the positions the BBC gave him.

"I'm actally sure theres quite a bit of evidence that the upper management of the BBC did know. Sorry sion!"

Yet the enquiry found that there was no evidence they knew about it as an institution.

Can't find the bit you quote about Wogan being threatened with the sack.( Wogan also defended Stuart Hall). He also claimed in his last interview.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10265389/Sir-Terry-Wogan-These-days-Im-Terry-No-Mates.html

“I was completely unaware of it – 99.9 per cent of us were. But I’m not sure we can be blaming the BBC for the behaviour of individuals. They can’t be held responsible. It’s a torrid time for people in the public eye. When you look at the kind of people who are being exposed by Operation Yewtree – God, it gives you pause for thought.”

So there are claims you have made that you need to substantiate.

sion I don't have a religious belief myself, simply cant see Andrew Neil as particularly socially conservative and not at all if you take into account his background and age.

But whatever! Just a jarring statement to my eyes. Nothing more.

The article you linked to only goes with "everyone knew the rumours".

Its unfortunately, countered by his later interview.

The BBC never recieved complaints about Savilles conduct, it was all "rumours", just like Kevin Spacey prior to #metoo.

Although if you want association with Savile to be the damming point. I'm sure you'd back the abolition of the Conservative party too.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/top-of-the-pops-how-bbc-show-was-a-breeding-ground-for-sexual-abusers-including-jimmy-savile-a6900816.html

Excerpt:
Dame Janet found that at least 72 people were sexually abused by the DJ and presenter while he was working on BBC shows, including eight victims of rape. The youngest was just 10 years old. The largest number of assaults – 19 – happened during recordings of Top of the Pops.

I'm sure you'd back the abolition of the Conservative party too.

Yep, and every single.person that voted for them. They all have blood on their hands.

" Andrew Neil as particularly socially conservative and not at all if you take into account his background and age."

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

Socially Conservative in that way is just another expression for religious fundamentalist.

Well apart from any thing hes contridicted hinself - or been told to shut up. The fact hes condricted himself in your interview to the earlier one. Actally suggests hes towing the BBC line.

But ok yes it seems the investigation did find that it was gossip and rumours.

However i still actally ti an extent agree with bigball that the BBC should be acvontable

"Dame Janet found that at least 72 people were sexually abused by the DJ and presenter while he was working on BBC shows, including eight victims of rape. The youngest was just 10 years old. The largest number of assaults – 19 – happened during recordings of Top of the Pops"

Yet the report you are quoting found that the BBC did not have knowledge of Savile's activities.

Do keep up.

That's not what it said though is it deary?

It concluded the BBC "As an institution" didn't know. Which is a nice way of saying that lots of people at the BBC did know, but some people at the BBC didn't.

Do keep up dear.

] "As an institution"

Which means that there were no complaints, and that it was all "rumour".

Do keep up pettle.

So the accusation made earlier that the BBC knew all about it and promoted him and gave him his own show was false.

So it is exactly the same as the Kevin Spacey thing with netflix. There were even rumours on the HOC set during series one, but they made others after it.

Do keep up pettle.
You mean petal surely?

So the accusation made earlier that the BBC knew all about it and promoted him and gave him his own show was false.

Nope, the BBC did promote him after investigating him and many people knew about him. They did give him his own show too.

"Nope, the BBC did promote him after investigating him and many people knew about him"

Except they didn't, the "investigation" you are referring to has no record at the BBC, its something that was said 40 something years later.

"Lots of people knew". Lots of people "knew" about Kevin Spacey, lots of people outside the BBC "knew" about Jimmy Savile too.

Doesn't mean it wasn't anything more than gossip at the time.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pettle

Quote from the man who claims Muggeridge got him to investigate:

Rodney Collins:"What happened was very clear. He [Muggeridge] picked something up, I don't know where from, and asked me to look into it. I did," said Mr Collins, adding that nothing could be proven.

Doesn't mean it wasn't anything more than gossip at the time.

Have you read the report? It details an atmosphere of fear within the BBC about speaking out.

What you're doing is defending the actions of a child abuser and rapist because he successfully scared the employees of the organisation he worked within.

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

By the way sion i really would back away from this topic

All your other defences of the BBC are legitmate and valid.

But sorry you are dangerously close to condoning a peadophile and the atmosphere that allowed the continued abuse.

Sure, the BBC is something that needs protecting.

But on the Jimmy saville/stuart hall et al they created a situation where the individals at yhe top of the BBC absoultely knew and allowed to continue.

That needs condemning. Its undefensiable

*What you're doing is defending the actions of a child abuser and rapist because he successfully scared the employees of the organisation he worked within.

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

Yep sorry sion your actally loosing peoples support

YABVVVVVVVVVVU The BBC is brilliant - there is so much they offer for the license fee money. Loads of fab programmes on radio 4 for example - and some great TV - Killing Eve is the most recent example that comes to mind. Ad all without bloody adverts every 5 minutes.