Is the BBC hiding paedophiles?

[Audley Strange]

Fail. The Mail would never have a brown person on the front page in a sympathetic light.

[Santa_Claus]

Has anyone wondered why so many of the programmes on the BBC target kiddies.........

[Rum]

The BBC will probably pay compensation to quite a lot of Savile's victims.

The BBC is funded by the license fee (essentially a tax dear Mericans) paid for by pretty well every household in the country.

Which also means bizarrely that not only will we cough up the compensation but that the British public subsidised Savile's predilections in the first place!

[devogue]

The BBC will probably pay compensation to quite a lot of Savile's victims.

The BBC is funded by the license fee (essentially a tax dear Mericans) paid for by pretty well every household in the country.

Which also means bizarrely that not only will we cough up the compensation but that the British public subsidised Savile's predilections in the first place!

I only paid for the abuse, but now thankfully I won't have to pay the compensation.

[mistermack]

I saw the Panorama, and saw no evidence at all that Savile ever broke the law.
The main female witness gave me no confidence. She might be telling the truth, she might not.
Only she knows.

That is zero evidence as far as I'm concerned.
There was a man today, claiming he was abused as a cub scout. He was not very convincing.
Again, it's impossible to say, but I certainly didn't believe his story. But of course, it's impossible to disprove either.

Both stories amount to zero, on the evidence scale.
If they had complained on the day it supposedly happened, it might be different.
Little children don't know how to invent those kinds of stories, and have no interest in compensation.
Adults, forty years on, know all about those things. That's why these claims score zero as evidence.

It's a long time since I bothered with maths, but I'm still pretty sure that 200 X zero still = zero

[Rum]

OK then. Savile didn't do it.

[cronus]

I never liked Savile and I figure there's a ring, or even more than one ring? Don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes but they should definitely sell off the BBC and quit billing me for a licence.

[odysseus]

Don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes but they should definitely sell off the BBC and quit billing me for a licence.

Got my vote, squire.

[mistermack]

OK then. Savile didn't do it.

Do you see a reason to conclude that he did?

The default position is that he didn't. Why? Because no under-age child has ever complained.

How the hell, do you abuse a kid, complete strangers, and they never tell anyone?
Especially young girls. Have teenage girls always been so tight lipped?

This is just a growing pile of bollocks. They're all after compensation, that's all.

[Rum]

The BBC is a fantastic organisation in my opinion. Sadly this will be a nail of sorts in its coffin I fancy. How big or small remains to be seen.

[Rum]

OK then. Savile didn't do it.

Do you see a reason to conclude that he did?

The default position is that he didn't. Why? Because no under-age child has ever complained.

How the hell, do you abuse a kid, complete strangers, and they never tell anyone?
Especially young girls. Have teenage girls always been so tight lipped?

This is just a growing pile of bollocks. They're all after compensation, that's all.

I suspect you are wrong, but at the same time you do have a point. There is more than a hint of the lynch mob at the moment.

[cronus]

I've a feeling that the BBC is rotten to the core. It needs investigating. There is a massive amount of focus on young peoples entertainment which isn't balanced by other aspects of the service. There is basically a News Service and a Childrens Service with very little in between these days. How is it possible to control the sordid information all these years? Much easier when you control the nations news.

[mistermack]

I suspect you are wrong, but at the same time you do have a point. There is more than a hint of the lynch mob at the moment.

I'm beginning to think I'm going mad. How come NOBODY has asked the obvious question on the tv, or Panorama, or the news? Which is, "Are these people telling the truth?"

There must be thousands thinking it, and saying it privately, but it's never even been mentioned on air.

I suppose a politician won't say it, because the press would be just waiting to crucify them.
But what sort of journalism lets all this stuff go, and never asks the bleedin obvious question.

"Are they telling the truth, or are they making it up, hoping for a payout?"

It's incredible political correctness gone mad, that nobody has even asked.

[devogue]

I suspect you are wrong, but at the same time you do have a point. There is more than a hint of the lynch mob at the moment.

This is exactly how I feel at the moment.

The Daily "Fucking" Mail is currently running the news that the "great" Paul Gambacinni has claimed publicly that Saville was a necrophiliac. His evidence is that he was "aware of claims in the 1980s". He also "heard stories" about his abuse of teenage girls..."He claimed a reporter was heard talking at a wedding 10 years ago about Savile being a necrophiliac"..."He targeted the institutionalised, the hospitalised - and this was known"

But in the same article, just a paragraph later, you read this:

The hospital, where Savile worked as a volunteer and had his own room, said that it has never received claims that Savile 'inappropriately interacted' with corpses.

A spokesman said: 'We are not launching an investigation into claims that Savile was a necrophiliac. We have never received any complaints as to that nature.'
'During our time, to the best of our knowledge, Jimmy was not given free access around our clinical areas and whenever he attended the hospital he would give advance notice and usually be in attendance with his fundraising team.'

That's a clear statement that hospital procedures ensured Savile was never left alone with corpses.

But it's too late - it's out there now that Savile liked fucking dead people, even though there isn't a shred of evidence beyond Gambacinni's tittle tattle and the allegations by none other than David fucking Icke.

As for the alleged abuse - there does seem to be a serious case building against Savile, but the man has been hanged, drawn and quartered by the press - he has been declared guilty as charged even though an official investigation has yet to be completed. It's despicable - people need to see how horrifying and dangerous this episode has been in terms of the rule of law, justice and habeas corpus.

This was a trial by mainstream media, social media, wanton hyperbole and gossip.

[Cormac]

OK then. Savile didn't do it.

Do you see a reason to conclude that he did?

The default position is that he didn't. Why? Because no under-age child has ever complained.

How the hell, do you abuse a kid, complete strangers, and they never tell anyone?
Especially young girls. Have teenage girls always been so tight lipped?

This is just a growing pile of bollocks. They're all after compensation, that's all.

Not so convinced about that. Look at the omerta that surrounded children being buggered by priests up and down these two islands for the last 100 years, and no doubt longer.