The BBC repeatedly profits from the horrific sexual abuse their male stars participated in

[user750]

The BBC has made a documentary about Tim Westwood abusing women during the period they employed him.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10755003/DJ-Tim-Westwood-accused-sexual-misconduct-multiple-women.html

They are also making a drama about Jimmy Saville starring Steve Coogan, which will sell for millions around the world.
They own the majority of Savile archive footage and profit from this.

I complained about Tim Westwood's behaviour at a nightclub in 2002. He played the Nelly song "Hot in Here" and then invited 4 young women on to the stage. They were instructed to strip. 3 complied, 1 looked terrified and pulled at her skirt then mouthed "let me down' to a bouncer, who ignored her. TW jeered and shouted at the women until they stripped their tops off. Then then they were all given bottles of fizzy wine and allowed down. The anxious girl started crying and went to the toilets where she became very distressed. I went in the toilets and over heard her screaming and crying that she was 16 and when her dad found out he would 'batter her'.

The next day I wrote to the BBC and informed them. They did not reply. I called and was told I would not receive a response.
I know that I was not the only person to complain about this man's behaviour.

They chose to ignore it and now profit from it.
They profit from these men's careers and now they profit by packaging up their archive footage and reselling it, whilst retraumatising victims.
The BBC is a disgrace.

[PierresPotato]

That's appalling.

[Stopppricrastinating]

That’s awful OP!

[Janesmom]

Appalling behaviour. However, the bbc is a not for profit corporation. They quite literally, and by definition, don’t profit from anything (any revenue is reinvested in their public services).

[Redshoeblueshoe]

That's bloody awful.
The BBC hate women

[Clymene]

@Janesmom

Appalling behaviour. However, the bbc is a not for profit corporation. They quite literally, and by definition, don’t profit from anything (any revenue is reinvested in their public services).

All the money they make from employing rapists goes back into employing even more rapists!

Yay!

[user750]

Not for profit? That's a joke. They are a self serving misogynistic institution that sells the misery and pain they allowed - on their premises in many cases - for millions. That money pays their obscene salaries. Disgusting.

[OvaHere]

Yes it's awful OP. They shouldn't be allowed to distance themselves by playing the documentarian role years later.

[Clymene]

Sorry?

[WilliowGreen]

This is another story that is a surprise to absolutely no one. This has been known about for years. He is 64 years old has had a full career in the music industry and so many girls have been affected by this.

There is also the racist aspect to it where the victims who have come forward are black women. Why did the BBC even give him that show his whole act was so offensive. He has massively abused his power and people cover up and enable it.

[DoubleShotEspresso]

Jesus he's not even been charged yet.
If this is all true (nobody can possibly know this yet), there will be an investigation - maybe wait for that?

[MangyInseam]

While the BBC should be taken to task for any place where it ignored things like this when it shouldn't have, I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that their news people, or documentary people, should stay away from covering these stories. Especially when some time has gone by.

My understanding is the filmakers spent significant time and money doing investigative work and that's likely to have positive effects.

[Cardboardsnoreboard]

Horrible ,OP. That is really awful. I always thought he was a crap DJ and cheesey but never knew he was like that. The BBC hates women.

[Clymene]

@DoubleShotEspresso

Jesus he's not even been charged yet.
If this is all true (nobody can possibly know this yet), there will be an investigation - maybe wait for that?

Perhaps you should watch the documentary.

[WalkerWalking]

I'd not even thought of that aspect. But now that it's happened surely they have to report on it. I don't know the financial structure of the BBC at all- would it be possible to donate some/all the profits from selling these documentaries abroad (I think BBC worldwide or whatever its called is a standard commercial enterprise?) to women's charities?

I mean, the best path forward would be to stop employing and tolerating paedophile and sexual predators. But given the recent BBC Scotland producer who's been involved in the family sex show (OK, I can't remember the exact details and I can't be arsed to look them up. I'm sure someone else more knowledgeable will be along to correct me in a minute!) it seems we're some way from that....

[Katjolo]

He is such a creep. Absolutely vile man, shouting vile things whilst DJing. Not surprised by the allegations.

[TheWeeDonkey]

I'm not surprised at all. There's been rumours about this creep for years. What is it about the BBC and protecting predators?

[Clymene]

I was thinking that, even despite Savile, working for the BBC does confer a degree of trustworthiness and respectability to a person.

Everyone says that there have been rumours about him for years but no one thought to investigate them?

[DoubleShotEspresso]

@Clymene I did thanks. No police reports yet ?!

[TheMarzipanDildo]

@DoubleShotEspresso

Jesus he's not even been charged yet.
If this is all true (nobody can possibly know this yet), there will be an investigation - maybe wait for that?

The OP was referring to the evidence of her own eyes!

[AlisonDonut]

The BBC put women in jail for not paying licence fees, and then fail to report rapists being incarcerated with them. Who knew the price of not paying your licence fee would be state sanctioned rape or the constant threat of rape?

[Clymene]

@DoubleShotEspresso

@Clymene I did thanks. No police reports yet ?!

Well then you will know that none of the young black women he raped and assaulted reported him to the police.

[AlisonDonut]

@Janesmom

Appalling behaviour. However, the bbc is a not for profit corporation. They quite literally, and by definition, don’t profit from anything (any revenue is reinvested in their public services).

Not for profit does not mean people are not profiting from the BBC...

inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-pay-2021-list-salaries-presenters-full-who-highest-paid-stars-1088887


The BBC pay list in full
Gary Lineker – £1,360,000 to £1,364,999 – previously £1,750,000 to £1,754,999
Zoe Ball – £1,130,000 to £1,134,999 – previously £1,360,000-1,364,999 (actual pay is £980k)
Steve Wright – £465,000 to £469,999 – previously £475,000-£479,999
Huw Edwards – £425,000 to £429,000 – previously £465,000-£469,999
Fiona Bruce – £405,000 to £409,999 – previously £450,000 to £454,999
Stephen Nolan – £405,000 to £409,999 – previously £390,000 to £394,999
Vanessa Feltz – £390,000 to £394,999 – previously £405,000 to £409,999
Lauren Laverne – £395,000 to £399,999 – no change
Scott Mills – £375,000 to £379,999 – previously £345,000 to £349,999
Greg James – £310,000 to £314,999 – previously £275,000 to £279,999
Alan Shearer – £390,000 to £394,999 – no change
Ken Bruce – £365,000-£369,999 – previously £385,000 to £389,999
Andrew Marr – £335,000 to £339,999 – previously £360,000 to £364,999
Emily Maitlis – £325,000 to £329,999 – previously £370,000 to £374,999
George Alagiah – £325,000 to £329,000 – no change
Dan Walker – £295,000 to £299,999 – previously £260,000 to £269,999
Jo Whiley – £295,000 to £299,999 – previously £280,000 to £284,999
Jeremy Vine – £295,000 to £299,999 – previously on £320,000 to £324,999
Nicky Campbell – £295,000 to £299,999 – previously on £300,000 to £304,999
Sophie Raworth – £280,000 to £284,999 – previously £275,000 to £279,999
Mishal Husain – £275,000 to £279,999 – previously £265,000 to £269,999
Sara Cox – £270,000 to £274,999 – previously £275,000 to £279,999
Evan Davis – £270,000 to £274,999 – previously £275,000 to £279,999
Jason Mohammed – £270,000 to £274,999 – previously £285,000 to £289,999
Nick Robinson – £270,000 to £274,999 – previously on £295,000 to £299,000
Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000 to £264,999 – previously on £290,000 to £294,999
Justin Webb – £255,000 to £259,999 – previously on £250,000 to £259,999
Naga Munchetty – £255,000 to £259,999 – previously £195,000 to £199,999
Martha Kearney – £250,000 to £254,999 – previously £255,000 to £259,999
Mark Chapman – £250,000 to £254,999 – previously £245,000 to £249,999
Sarah Montague – £245,000 to £249,999 – previously £250,000 to £254,999
Emma Barnett – £240,000 to £244,999 – previously £260,000 to £264,999
Amol Rajan – £240,000-£244,999 – previously £205,000 to £209,999
Nick Grimshaw – £240,000-£249,999 – no change
Jon Sopel – £230,000 to £234,999 – previously £235,00 to £239,999
Trevor Nelson – £230,000 to £234,999 – previously £220,000 to £224,999
Tina Daheley – £225,000 to £229,999 – previously on £255,000 to £259,999
Jeremy Bowen – £220,000 to £224,999 – no change
Katya Adler – £220,000 to £229,999 – previously £210,000 to £214,999
Mary Berry – £215,000 to £219,999 – no change
Kirsty Wark – £210,000 to £214,999 – previously £215,000 to £219,999
Faisal Islam – £205,000 to £209,999 – previously £155,000 to £159,999
Fergal Keane – £205,000 to £209,999 – no change
Clive Myrie – £205,000 to £209,999 – previously £215,000 to £219,999
Rachel Burden – £205,000 to £209,999 – previously on £175,000 to £179,999
Louis Theroux – £200,000 to £204,999 – not on list previously so less than £150,000
Jermaine Jenas – £195,000 to £199,999 – previously £200,000 to £204,999
Charlie Stayt – £190,000-£194,999 – no change
Simon Jack – £190,000-£194,999 – no change
Mark Easton – £190,000-£194,999 – £185,000 to £189,999
Sarah Smith – £185,000-£189,999 – not previously on list so less than £150,000
Louise Minchin – £185,000-£189,999 – previously £215,000 to £219,999
Jonathan Agnew – £175,000 to £179,999 – previously £170,000 to £174,999
Michael Vaughan – £175,000 to £179,999 – not in last year’s list so less than £150,000
Reeta Chakrabarti – £175,000 to £179,999 – previously £180,000 to £184,999
Annie Mac – £170,000 to £174,999 – no change
Victoria Derbyshire -£170,000 to £174,999 – down from £215,000 to £219,999
Ben Brown – £170,000 to £174,999 – up from £165,000 to £169,999
Clara Amfo – £165,000 to £169,000 – previously on £155,000 to £159,999

And on and on and on...

The BBC have very good reason to keep themselves in jobs...

[XDownwiththissortofthingX]

@AlisonDonut

The BBC put women in jail for not paying licence fees, and then fail to report rapists being incarcerated with them. Who knew the price of not paying your licence fee would be state sanctioned rape or the constant threat of rape?

This is complete and utter myth.

The BBC does not 'jail women' for not paying licence fees, firstly because the BBC has no competence on judicial matters, but secondly, non-payment of the licence fee is not an offence that carries a custodial sentence.

Non-payment of licence results in a fine, and it's non-payment of the fine that can result in a custodial sentence. This alleged plethora of women, specifically women, who are jailed because of non-payment of TV licence is a complete distortion of fact. They are invariably women who have been given a custodial sentence for a totally unrelated crime, who also happen to have an offence of non-payment of fine outstanding, and their solicitors request that be taken into account. Since they are going to prison anyway, the magistrate/sheriff will issue a concurrent sentence as a means to having the 'crime' of non-payment rendered moot. Essentially, they are getting off completely scot-free with an offence, but this is twisted by groups with an agenda and completely misrepresented as 'women going to prison for not paying TV licence.

It's a deliberate distortion, and in no way reflective of reality.

[AlisonDonut]

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

This is complete and utter myth.

The BBC does not 'jail women' for not paying licence fees, firstly because the BBC has no competence on judicial matters, but secondly, non-payment of the licence fee is not an offence that carries a custodial sentence.

Non-payment of licence results in a fine, and it's non-payment of the fine that can result in a custodial sentence. This alleged plethora of women, specifically women, who are jailed because of non-payment of TV licence is a complete distortion of fact. They are invariably women who have been given a custodial sentence for a totally unrelated crime, who also happen to have an offence of non-payment of fine outstanding, and their solicitors request that be taken into account. Since they are going to prison anyway, the magistrate/sheriff will issue a concurrent sentence as a means to having the 'crime' of non-payment rendered moot. Essentially, they are getting off completely scot-free with an offence, but this is twisted by groups with an agenda and completely misrepresented as 'women going to prison for not paying TV licence.

It's a deliberate distortion, and in no way reflective of reality.

Almost a third of women are in prison for not paying their TV licence.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html

In PRISON for not paying a TV Licence. And potentially locked up with rapists.