FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

BBC Inquiry report published today

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olgateMan
over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular

Tony Blackburn sacked as a smokescreen

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Savile ......apparently 19 of his victims were connected to his activity on Top of the pops

17 of his victims were connected to his Jim'll Fix it show...

Youngest victim 8 yr old...

72 victims during his time with the BBC

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Abuse took place over the period 1959 -2006

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Stuart Hall 21 victims during his time at the BBC

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Auntie Beeb is not looking good so far.

Tip of the iceberg

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Dame Janet Smith Review

117 people at the BBC knew of rumours about Saviles behaviour,,,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I listened to a very very eye opening interview with the bbc employee who investigated and broke the original story, they sacked him for it!.

He was very unbiased pointing out back in the fifties and sixties there was a certain culture of older men and teenage girls being tolerated, but without saying it what he was actually saying was somehow Jimmy saville managed to evade dozens of high level investigations without any criminal charges and without any hindrance to his career! In fact he'd been given the job of the biggest children's programme the bbc had ever done (jim fix it) despite the bbc general being well aware of rumours of saville and young teenage girls in a hotel room, that BBC general had even gone to news paper editors to ask if they were running any storys on saville who told him that they knew the rumours but we're not running or looking to investigate it any further??

As he said Ed Stewart had lost years of work at the bbc for marrying his 17 year old wife who he'd meet at 13(technically no crime had been committed)... So his final summary was really how saville had got away with it for 40+ years, not just criminally but had also seemed to flourish at career level!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I totally understand Lord Halls response to the report had to contain a calm measured reply filled with the sort of corporate language expected to lend gravitas to the BBCs reaction to the inquiry finding .....

But it just smacked of long winded dehumanised corporate rhetoric and delivered no table thumping promises of the sort deserving of such an emotive subject...

I'm just left a little underwhelmed...

Oo'er hark at me berating long windedness...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olgateMan
over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular

Why has Blackburn been singled out as a scapegoat?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime? "

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Why has Blackburn been singled out as a scapegoat?"

I'm not 100% sure but it seems to be something to do with his reluctance to cooperate with the inquiry format ....

But I could be totally wrong...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing.. "

I just finding it morbidly ironic that the BBC was demanding blood when the scandal broke on the Catholic Church... if there was any justice then the people who covered it up would be prosecuted too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its just going to be another whitewash cover up job people in power will always protect them selves

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing..

I just finding it morbidly ironic that the BBC was demanding blood when the scandal broke on the Catholic Church... if there was any justice then the people who covered it up would be prosecuted too"

From what Dame Janet Smith said during her press briefing,,, it seems to require the controlling mind of a corporation to have direct knowledge of an individual case of wrong doing before the corporation can be held responsible,,,

So unless the person at the very top knows and does nothing about it..... that somehow dilutes the option of apportioning direct blame on anyone below who failed to act on their suspicions ......

I think that was the jist of what she said...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing..

I just finding it morbidly ironic that the BBC was demanding blood when the scandal broke on the Catholic Church... if there was any justice then the people who covered it up would be prosecuted too

From what Dame Janet Smith said during her press briefing,,, it seems to require the controlling mind of a corporation to have direct knowledge of an individual case of wrong doing before the corporation can be held responsible,,,

So unless the person at the very top knows and does nothing about it..... that somehow dilutes the option of apportioning direct blame on anyone below who failed to act on their suspicions ......

I think that was the jist of what she said..."

The law is an ass. If you run a corporation and you don't know about something so widespread you should be jailed for fraudulently claiming salary for a job you didn't do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing..

I just finding it morbidly ironic that the BBC was demanding blood when the scandal broke on the Catholic Church... if there was any justice then the people who covered it up would be prosecuted too

From what Dame Janet Smith said during her press briefing,,, it seems to require the controlling mind of a corporation to have direct knowledge of an individual case of wrong doing before the corporation can be held responsible,,,

So unless the person at the very top knows and does nothing about it..... that somehow dilutes the option of apportioning direct blame on anyone below who failed to act on their suspicions ......

I think that was the jist of what she said...

The law is an ass. If you run a corporation and you don't know about something so widespread you should be jailed for fraudulently claiming salary for a job you didn't do. "
.

They don't wish to set president..

You know that would mean directors getting locked up for oil spills in the gulf or Bhopal gassing or running a country into the ground with fraudulent banking activities

In modern society it seems you can do what you like, providing somebody's making money from it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If you assist in covering up someone else's crime, isn't that some sort of crime?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements, but I'm sure there will be situations where that applies ,

It seems a get out clause exists by only acknowledging you'd heard rumors of alleged wrong doing..

I just finding it morbidly ironic that the BBC was demanding blood when the scandal broke on the Catholic Church... if there was any justice then the people who covered it up would be prosecuted too

From what Dame Janet Smith said during her press briefing,,, it seems to require the controlling mind of a corporation to have direct knowledge of an individual case of wrong doing before the corporation can be held responsible,,,

So unless the person at the very top knows and does nothing about it..... that somehow dilutes the option of apportioning direct blame on anyone below who failed to act on their suspicions ......

I think that was the jist of what she said...

The law is an ass. If you run a corporation and you don't know about something so widespread you should be jailed for fraudulently claiming salary for a job you didn't do. .

They don't wish to set president..

You know that would mean directors getting locked up for oil spills in the gulf or Bhopal gassing or running a country into the ground with fraudulent banking activities

In modern society it seems you can do what you like, providing somebody's making money from it!"

Yeah, our country would go down the pan if people actually had to take responsibility for their actions...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Today's report by Dame Janet revealed:

Jimmy Savile abused 72 victims at the BBC going back to 1959 when he raped a 13-year-old girl at Lime Grove Studios;

He was responsible for eight rapes – two of them against males;

Savile’s youngest male and female victims were both eight years old at the time of the assault;

His most recent attack was in 2006 when he indecently touched a woman following filming of the last ever episode of Top of The Pops – when Savile was aged 79;

Savile and Hall were 'serial sexual predators' and the BBC missed five opportunities to stop their misconduct.

That 15 yr girl who killed herself, the one Tony Blackburns been sacked over, she was a regular on Top of the pops and named a load of abusers before she died. That hasn't been mentioned in the news today though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213621/Claire-McAlpine-A-15-year-old-killed-leaving-diary-naming-DJs-abusers-Disturbing-questions-John-Peel-So-starts-WERE-involved.html#ixzz28V7BHaEC

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It seems bizarre that there were so many in the corporation who knew what Saville was doing , and yet he was given a public platform to carry it on !

So many victims appeared in his shows .... Wtf ?

It's almost as if the bbc were providing him with the opportunity , and paying him to do it .

Scandalous doesn't begin to describe it ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It seems bizarre that there were so many in the corporation who knew what Saville was doing , and yet he was given a public platform to carry it on !

So many victims appeared in his shows .... Wtf ?

It's almost as if the bbc were providing him with the opportunity , and paying him to do it .

Scandalous doesn't begin to describe it ....

"

There was (and probably still is) a system for getting children for sex. Saville even took his own very young nephew to sex parties and he's accused MPs of having sex with him and other boys.

People who attain to get power often do it for sinister reasons, i'm convinced of it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

According to the Telegraph, the BBC has set aside £19.1 million to compensate Savile's victims. That's over 130 000 tv licences.

Are people happy to be forced into paying towards this via their "licence fee"? I'm not, which is why I've refused to pay it for the last few years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rincesscaracoupleCouple
over a year ago

Saltburn


"According to the Telegraph, the BBC has set aside £19.1 million to compensate Savile's victims. That's over 130 000 tv licences.

Are people happy to be forced into paying towards this via their "licence fee"? I'm not, which is why I've refused to pay it for the last few years."

We are all guilty of unknowingly funding the abuse and subsequent cover up. Now we will fund the compo payouts. We now refuse to pay the tv licence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shocking.

The IPCC reported something equally if not more shocking as well today as at least 54 police officers operating in and around Rotherham are accused of turning a blind eye to more than a decade of horrific child abuse by gangs of Pakistani muslims.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating 194 allegations against officers who are said to have ignored the desperate pleas of terrified schoolgirls while they were being repeatedly raped.

I don't want to hear rubbish like "learned the lessons of...", it well serve the interests of justice if those officers are prosecuted and imprisoned for criminal negligence so that they can share the same cells as those obscene cowardly rapists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olgateMan
over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular


"Shocking.

The IPCC reported something equally if not more shocking as well today as at least 54 police officers operating in and around Rotherham are accused of turning a blind eye to more than a decade of horrific child abuse by gangs of Pakistani muslims.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating 194 allegations against officers who are said to have ignored the desperate pleas of terrified schoolgirls while they were being repeatedly raped.

I don't want to hear rubbish like "learned the lessons of...", it well serve the interests of justice if those officers are prosecuted and imprisoned for criminal negligence so that they can share the same cells as those obscene cowardly rapists.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Shocking.

The IPCC reported something equally if not more shocking as well today as at least 54 police officers operating in and around Rotherham are accused of turning a blind eye to more than a decade of horrific child abuse by gangs of Pakistani muslims.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating 194 allegations against officers who are said to have ignored the desperate pleas of terrified schoolgirls while they were being repeatedly raped.

I don't want to hear rubbish like "learned the lessons of...", it well serve the interests of justice if those officers are prosecuted and imprisoned for criminal negligence so that they can share the same cells as those obscene cowardly rapists.

"

shocking and shameful dereliction of duty if they have done so..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top