Operation Yewtree - Page 29

**Damien** · 19-10-2012, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I know that there are many those here for whom the BBC can do no wrong. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The BBC is a large organisation and it's probably worth waiting to see what happens. Either way I don't think the BBC is going to be found to be a front for a child abuse ring, instead it will be a failure of care during the 1970s. We also have prisons and hospitals to investigate.

Hopefully those that were complicit in a cover up will be brought to justice.

**Maggy** · 19-10-2012, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

And this closes the circle on the BBC. Time to put this edifice under some serious examination methinks.

I know that there are many those here for whom the BBC can do no wrong. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Actually I was thinking further afield.

LondonRoad · 19-10-2012, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Actually I was thinking further afield.

Further afield, left field, right field, inner field and outer field..... any other field that this paedo had contact with. There can, perhaps, be some defence for those who heard rumours and did nothing.

There is no defence for us to not now investigate if there are people out there who colluded with him. We owe it to his victims.

Gary L · 19-10-2012, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

There is no defence for us to not now investigate if there are people out there who colluded with him. We owe it to his victims.

It's a pity we can't have a 'who is it' thread. I'd tell you who the other 3 were.

Mr_love_monkey · 20-10-2012, 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's a pity we can't have a 'who is it' thread. I'd tell you who the other 3 were.

proof or rumour?

TheDaddy · 20-10-2012, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

proof or rumour?

or victim

Stuart · 20-10-2012, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's a pity we can't have a 'who is it' thread. I'd tell you who the other 3 were.

I doubt we'll be able to allow that. Any such thread would potentially libelous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Further afield, left field, right field, inner field and outer field..... any other field that this paedo had contact with. There can, perhaps, be some defence for those who heard rumours and did nothing.

Ian hislop had quite a lot to say last week.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNUBAtC8occ

Quote:

There is no defence for us to not now investigate if there are people out there who colluded with him. We owe it to his victims.

We do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

And this closes the circle on the BBC. Time to put this edifice under some serious examination methinks.

I know that there are many those here for whom the BBC can do no wrong. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The BBC is quite capable of doing wrong. However they are far from the only organisation involved in this. Look at Broadmoor. They gave him keys to the wards! Essentially giving him free access to hundreds of vulnerable people at a time.

Escapee · 20-10-2012, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

I doubt we'll be able to allow that. Any such thread would potentially libelous.

Ian hislop had quite a lot to say last week.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNUBAtC8occ

We do.

The BBC is quite capable of doing wrong. However they are far from the only organisation involved in this. Look at Broadmoor. They gave him keys to the wards! Essentially giving him free access to hundreds of vulnerable people at a time.

To be fair though, he only had keys to Broadmoor as a result of his celebrity status gained whilst working for the BBC. If the BBC had acted on these rumours decades ago he would most likely not have been let near vulnerable people.

In my opinion all those who kept their mouth shut, including the stiff upper lip BBC organisation are partly responsible for the crimes.

denphone · 22-10-2012, 10:44

BBC Newsnight editor steps aside over Jimmy Savile claims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20024904

Yes one suspects he will be the first of many who will have to resign over all this as one suspects the BBC covered things up to considerable lengths and as someone said this morning the BBC is in its biggest crisis for over 50 years.

**Maggy** · 22-10-2012, 11:13

I bet Murdoch is rubbing his hands with glee..

**Damien** · 22-10-2012, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well the Guardianistas at the BBC ran hard and fast with the NOTW phone hacking scandal and B$kyBs OFCOM investigation. I would think that Murdock is having a wry chuckle at the moment now the boot is firmly on the other foot.

Listening into someones insecure voice mail hardly compares to systematic covering up or failing to report decades of child abuse though does it?

We still haven't had evidence of a systematic cover-up yet. This conclusion has been jumped too right away but we still don't have much evidence that people at the BBC knew it happened and chose to cover it up. In fact 'systematic covering up' is a very loaded accusation which you haven't got any evidence for.

danielf · 22-10-2012, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

We still haven't had evidence of a systematic cover-up yet. This conclusion has been jumped too right away but we still don't have much evidence that people at the BBC knew it happened and chose to cover it up. In fact 'systematic covering up' is a very loaded accusation which you haven't got any evidence for.

Yeah but you're forgetting they're Guardianistas, so guilty by default.

**Maggy** · 22-10-2012, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well the Guardianistas at the BBC ran hard and fast with the NOTW phone hacking scandal and B$kyBs OFCOM investigation. I would think that Murdock is having a wry chuckle at the moment now the boot is firmly on the other foot.

Listening into someones insecure voice mail hardly compares to systematic covering up or failing to report decades of child abuse though does it?

I'm still surprised Murdoch's hounds never got a whiff considering it was so apparently 'known' about.

devilincarnate · 22-10-2012, 14:52

Did anyone else see this?

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/...line-robinson/

Stuart · 22-10-2012, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm still surprised Murdoch's hounds never got a whiff considering it was so apparently 'known' about.

That's just it. I can't imagine for a second that any of the Murdoch papers or the Daily Mail (who love to have a go at the Beeb) would have held back if they'd had even a whiff of a story.

While I think the BBC have a lot to answer for (and if, as it seems, Panorama are going after the DG, then it appears they are going in the right direction), I don't think the rot ends at the BBC. I think other organisations (potentially a lot) were also involved.

Think about that. When the BBC allowed Russell Brand to swear at Andrew Sachs, and when Blue Peter was found to have been a little dodgy when awarding prizes, those papers were complaining about the BBC for weeks (in fact, the Russell Brand thing was front page news on the Daily Mail for over a week). Now, there is a chance that staff (or ex staff) at the BBC have been involved in something actually illegal, and we have relatively few stories.