FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > BBC COMEDIAN ARRESTED
BBC COMEDIAN ARRESTED
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Little Ted. "Ask Hamble about that…. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Little Ted.
Ask Hamble about that…."OMG  | |||
| |||
"Little Ted.
Ask Hamble about that…." | |||
"Mr Blobby….he always struck me as a well dodgy looking geezer. Looked like a bloody great penis in fact." If he's a penis then a diseased penis with those pus-filled spots. | |||
| |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who?" He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. | |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny." I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny." I beg to differ. He was never funny. | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I beg to differ. He was never funny. " Niether is/was James Cordon and look at him now. Mouth breathers everywhere*. *I have sinus problems so breathe through my mouth. | |||
| |||
"Does being arrested in connection with offences automatically mean that everyone can start describing someone as an offender until such time as they might become convicted?" You know talking sense and maintaining balance is not the done thing don't you? | |||
"Does being arrested in connection with offences automatically mean that everyone can start describing someone as an offender until such time as they might become convicted? You know talking sense and maintaining balance is not the done thing don't you? " For sure, but given the history behind these claims... | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem." Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. | |||
"Does being arrested in connection with offences automatically mean that everyone can start describing someone as an offender until such time as they might become convicted? You know talking sense and maintaining balance is not the done thing don't you? " Also... There are layers of protection there. For it just to come out immediately with his name means he's probably fucked. | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC." I haven’t read up fully on this case so this might not apply but it seems the BBC have ignored complaints in all of the cases that have came out. That’s what I meant by them having a problem. | |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. I haven’t read up fully on this case so this might not apply but it seems the BBC have ignored complaints in all of the cases that have came out. That’s what I meant by them having a problem." Ah, understood. I do think there are problems when an organisation is more often than not contracting with people as self employed persons rather than employing them directly. It muddies the HR waters and also we all know that HR processes and policies were nowhere near up to scratch across the board, until recent years. Some of the behaviour I've seen over the years of my employment attests to that. | |||
"How about we all stop throwing our toys around, see what actually transpires criminally (if anything) and then go loony?" Loony about what? | |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. I haven’t read up fully on this case so this might not apply but it seems the BBC have ignored complaints in all of the cases that have came out. That’s what I meant by them having a problem. Ah, understood. I do think there are problems when an organisation is more often than not contracting with people as self employed persons rather than employing them directly. It muddies the HR waters and also we all know that HR processes and policies were nowhere near up to scratch across the board, until recent years. Some of the behaviour I've seen over the years of my employment attests to that. " I know nothing about HR processes so I can’t really comment but something needs to change in showbiz. It’s becoming far too common. | |||
" I know nothing about HR processes so I can’t really comment but something needs to change in showbiz. It’s becoming far too common." It's anyone in the public eye, not just showbiz. Footballers and other famous types too. It's what happens when people think they are untouchable and can do what the fuck they like  | |||
| |||
| |||
"It was crazy to me how people came out in force to defend Huw Edwards when he was banging crackhead sixth formers. He a innocent man in the law but he’s a big CREEP. Longtime sex pest" Schofield got off lightly... everyone focused on the wrong thing: the guy was grooming. | |||
| |||
"There’s still one high profile case to come out. An untouchable man at the BBC, a national treasure. has the best lawyers. But it will come out after he passes " This time next year..... | |||
"Hardeep Singh Kohli arrested for sex offences. Is there anyone that works for bbc that is not a sex offender?" At this point I'm wondering if it was on the application form | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who?" Was about to ask the same lol  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Little Ted. "Give it time… | |||
| |||
"I have never heard of this guy but a look on his Wikipedia page shows that whilst he has done many BBC shows he has also worked for Channel 4, Channel 5, The Guardian and the list goes on. Are we going include those in our rants? He is also Scottish so does that mean we tar everyone in Scotland? How about we all stop throwing our toys around, see what actually transpires criminally (if anything) and then go loony?" When an organisation has a track record of ignoring allegations,protecting its "stars" by tactics such as intimidating whistleblowers,not taking people seriously etc,perverts will find a home there(just like the church,same track record).People will inevitably doubt the innocence of anyone connected with the Beeb.The idea the BBC,other organisations and a large percentage of the population has "learned the lessons" of Jimmy Saville is laughable. I'm not aware of Scotland,C4,C5,Guardian etc having the same dismal record as the Broken Biscuit Corporation. | |||
| |||
"I don't have T.V in my home so I don't get depressed over crap in the "news" . So yet another BBC "employee" is accused of sex offences, no surprise there. What really gets my goat is why are the "accused" in these matters named before even going to trial, let alone before a verdict, yet accusers are given the privilege of anonymity! I think it very unfair, and of course even if totally innocent their careers are ruined at the very least. This also of course lays the situation open for the nasty scammers and schemers to jump on the bandwagon in the hope of getting pity, fame or monetary gain, which of course has happened before!" Exactly this! I’m not even sure if even being named once charged is fair either. It’s the conviction that matters, and until then they remain legally innocent. Yet for any accusation around sex, even a not guilty verdict is often insufficient to restore character and reputation. | |||
"I have never heard of this guy but a look on his Wikipedia page shows that whilst he has done many BBC shows he has also worked for Channel 4, Channel 5, The Guardian and the list goes on. Are we going include those in our rants? He is also Scottish so does that mean we tar everyone in Scotland? How about we all stop throwing our toys around, see what actually transpires criminally (if anything) and then go loony? When an organisation has a track record of ignoring allegations,protecting its "stars" by tactics such as intimidating whistleblowers,not taking people seriously etc,perverts will find a home there(just like the church,same track record).People will inevitably doubt the innocence of anyone connected with the Beeb.The idea the BBC,other organisations and a large percentage of the population has "learned the lessons" of Jimmy Saville is laughable. I'm not aware of Scotland,C4,C5,Guardian etc having the same dismal record as the Broken Biscuit Corporation." Quite. Plus if he's been outright named straight off the bat... People are protected to a degree more and more these days, but the BBC lawyers must have just completely dipped out to allow that to happen. | |||
"There’s still one high profile case to come out. An untouchable man at the BBC, a national treasure. has the best lawyers. But it will come out after he passes " Yes heard about this a few weeks ago. Hoping it isn't who I automatically thought of | |||
"There’s still one high profile case to come out. An untouchable man at the BBC, a national treasure. has the best lawyers. But it will come out after he passes Yes heard about this a few weeks ago. Hoping it isn't who I automatically thought of "I think the whole of the country would die inside. | |||
| |||
"I don't have T.V in my home so I don't get depressed over crap in the "news" . So yet another BBC "employee" is accused of sex offences, no surprise there. What really gets my goat is why are the "accused" in these matters named before even going to trial, let alone before a verdict, yet accusers are given the privilege of anonymity! I think it very unfair, and of course even if totally innocent their careers are ruined at the very least. This also of course lays the situation open for the nasty scammers and schemers to jump on the bandwagon in the hope of getting pity, fame or monetary gain, which of course has happened before! Exactly this! I’m not even sure if even being named once charged is fair either. It’s the conviction that matters, and until then they remain legally innocent. Yet for any accusation around sex, even a not guilty verdict is often insufficient to restore character and reputation." You only have to read a few of the comments above to see that some people don’t think the legal verdict is what matters. They subscribe to the “no smoke without fire” view of the world. Whilst some smoke does come from fire (and may well in this case), some smoke doesn’t come from fire (and may well in this case). I personally agree with your statement that sexual crime accusations need to be handled very sensitively because of the career ending implications of the “no smoke” brigade. | |||
"Hardeep Singh Kohli arrested for sex offences. Is there anyone that works for bbc that is not a sex offender?" I havent seen it no. But is this another trial by media or is there actual evidence this time. | |||
"I don't have T.V in my home so I don't get depressed over crap in the "news" . So yet another BBC "employee" is accused of sex offences, no surprise there. What really gets my goat is why are the "accused" in these matters named before even going to trial, let alone before a verdict, yet accusers are given the privilege of anonymity! I think it very unfair, and of course even if totally innocent their careers are ruined at the very least. This also of course lays the situation open for the nasty scammers and schemers to jump on the bandwagon in the hope of getting pity, fame or monetary gain, which of course has happened before! Exactly this! I’m not even sure if even being named once charged is fair either. It’s the conviction that matters, and until then they remain legally innocent. Yet for any accusation around sex, even a not guilty verdict is often insufficient to restore character and reputation. You only have to read a few of the comments above to see that some people don’t think the legal verdict is what matters. They subscribe to the “no smoke without fire” view of the world. Whilst some smoke does come from fire (and may well in this case), some smoke doesn’t come from fire (and may well in this case). I personally agree with your statement that sexual crime accusations need to be handled very sensitively because of the career ending implications of the “no smoke” brigade." I agree. But there has been so many over the last decade I think lawyers and corporations have adapted to know how to handle it. In this case... he was instantly outed. That to me points to a bit more smoke. | |||
| |||
"I don't have T.V in my home so I don't get depressed over crap in the "news" . So yet another BBC "employee" is accused of sex offences, no surprise there. What really gets my goat is why are the "accused" in these matters named before even going to trial, let alone before a verdict, yet accusers are given the privilege of anonymity! I think it very unfair, and of course even if totally innocent their careers are ruined at the very least. This also of course lays the situation open for the nasty scammers and schemers to jump on the bandwagon in the hope of getting pity, fame or monetary gain, which of course has happened before! Exactly this! I’m not even sure if even being named once charged is fair either. It’s the conviction that matters, and until then they remain legally innocent. Yet for any accusation around sex, even a not guilty verdict is often insufficient to restore character and reputation. You only have to read a few of the comments above to see that some people don’t think the legal verdict is what matters. They subscribe to the “no smoke without fire” view of the world. Whilst some smoke does come from fire (and may well in this case), some smoke doesn’t come from fire (and may well in this case). I personally agree with your statement that sexual crime accusations need to be handled very sensitively because of the career ending implications of the “no smoke” brigade. I agree. But there has been so many over the last decade I think lawyers and corporations have adapted to know how to handle it. In this case... he was instantly outed. That to me points to a bit more smoke." So you agree with my point by immediately taking the opposite position?  | |||
"I don't have T.V in my home so I don't get depressed over crap in the "news" . So yet another BBC "employee" is accused of sex offences, no surprise there. What really gets my goat is why are the "accused" in these matters named before even going to trial, let alone before a verdict, yet accusers are given the privilege of anonymity! I think it very unfair, and of course even if totally innocent their careers are ruined at the very least. This also of course lays the situation open for the nasty scammers and schemers to jump on the bandwagon in the hope of getting pity, fame or monetary gain, which of course has happened before! Exactly this! I’m not even sure if even being named once charged is fair either. It’s the conviction that matters, and until then they remain legally innocent. Yet for any accusation around sex, even a not guilty verdict is often insufficient to restore character and reputation. You only have to read a few of the comments above to see that some people don’t think the legal verdict is what matters. They subscribe to the “no smoke without fire” view of the world. Whilst some smoke does come from fire (and may well in this case), some smoke doesn’t come from fire (and may well in this case). I personally agree with your statement that sexual crime accusations need to be handled very sensitively because of the career ending implications of the “no smoke” brigade. I agree. But there has been so many over the last decade I think lawyers and corporations have adapted to know how to handle it. In this case... he was instantly outed. That to me points to a bit more smoke. So you agree with my point by immediately taking the opposite position? "I think things are just different shades of grey rather than jsut black and white. | |||
| |||
seems to be the in thing to be a fiddler.
Scum
| |||
"And i'm getting nasty emails and letters cos i've not renewed a tv licence To pay these creeps " | |||
| |||
"There’s still one high profile case to come out. An untouchable man at the BBC, a national treasure. has the best lawyers. But it will come out after he passes Yes heard about this a few weeks ago. Hoping it isn't who I automatically thought of
I think the whole of the country would die inside."Some people have known for over 20 years but the majority of people in this country will just say "nah, not having it" Probably the same people who bang on a out cover ups | |||
"There’s still one high profile case to come out. An untouchable man at the BBC, a national treasure. has the best lawyers. But it will come out after he passes Yes heard about this a few weeks ago. Hoping it isn't who I automatically thought of
I think the whole of the country would die inside.
Some people have known for over 20 years but the majority of people in this country will just say "nah, not having it"
Probably the same people who bang on a out cover ups"Oh god please no if its who I think you mean | |||
"Of course the legal verdict matters.Saville and his chums were protected by and took advantage of those who said "it's just a witchunt","it's an excuse to bash the Beeb","it's just the no smoke without fire brigade".Paedo's wear those people like a flak jacket and cloak of invisibility.I (and many others) were nearly victims of a now jailed semi celeb paedo who operated for 40 years,partly because people said "witch-hunt","it's just the no smoke brigade","it's attention seeking" instead of listening to the victims and near victims.Those people are as guilty of his crimes as he is because they provided the protection for him to operate. The Police have improved dramatically over the last decade or so when it comes to sex allegations.If they have arrested this guy they have credible information/evidence on which to execute that arrest,unless the cops are going round arresting people for a laugh.Whether such information is god enough to put before a court or secure conviction is another matter entirely.There are plenty of people every year not brought before a court because the evidence isn't quiet there to secure or have a high chance of conviction.The aforementioned semi celeb paedo was jailed for only a small number of offences brought before the court,many are on file because the evidence wasn't strong enough.The victims know he is guilty of many more.When he was finally revealed to be a paedo it was interesting just how many of the "it's a witchunt/just the no smoke brigade getting it wrong" apologists changed their narrative to "I always knew he was a wrong 'un"." What happens to all those people you “know” to be a “wrong un” that actually are innocent? Contrary to the picture you are painting above the police do not have an exemplary track record in identifying people who are actually guilty. By way of example just this month: Andrew Malkinson. Operation Yewtree identified many paedophiles. It also clearly misidentified many innocent people and destroyed lives. There is a reason we have a separation of duty between the police and the judges - so as to test the allegations and see whether they are true. Prematurely judging those outcomes is a stain on our society. I get this is an emotive subject and you are, no doubt, right that guilty people will go free. But justice is never served by hot headed emotion and public fury. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Of course the legal verdict matters.Saville and his chums were protected by and took advantage of those who said "it's just a witchunt","it's an excuse to bash the Beeb","it's just the no smoke without fire brigade".Paedo's wear those people like a flak jacket and cloak of invisibility.I (and many others) were nearly victims of a now jailed semi celeb paedo who operated for 40 years,partly because people said "witch-hunt","it's just the no smoke brigade","it's attention seeking" instead of listening to the victims and near victims.Those people are as guilty of his crimes as he is because they provided the protection for him to operate. The Police have improved dramatically over the last decade or so when it comes to sex allegations.If they have arrested this guy they have credible information/evidence on which to execute that arrest,unless the cops are going round arresting people for a laugh.Whether such information is god enough to put before a court or secure conviction is another matter entirely.There are plenty of people every year not brought before a court because the evidence isn't quiet there to secure or have a high chance of conviction.The aforementioned semi celeb paedo was jailed for only a small number of offences brought before the court,many are on file because the evidence wasn't strong enough.The victims know he is guilty of many more.When he was finally revealed to be a paedo it was interesting just how many of the "it's a witchunt/just the no smoke brigade getting it wrong" apologists changed their narrative to "I always knew he was a wrong 'un". What happens to all those people you “know” to be a “wrong un” that actually are innocent? Contrary to the picture you are painting above the police do not have an exemplary track record in identifying people who are actually guilty. By way of example just this month: Andrew Malkinson. Operation Yewtree identified many paedophiles. It also clearly misidentified many innocent people and destroyed lives. There is a reason we have a separation of duty between the police and the judges - so as to test the allegations and see whether they are true. Prematurely judging those outcomes is a stain on our society. I get this is an emotive subject and you are, no doubt, right that guilty people will go free. But justice is never served by hot headed emotion and public fury." Well said. Waiting for proper proof and due process doesnt suit some of the string 'em up mob. | |||
"Of course the legal verdict matters.Saville and his chums were protected by and took advantage of those who said "it's just a witchunt","it's an excuse to bash the Beeb","it's just the no smoke without fire brigade".Paedo's wear those people like a flak jacket and cloak of invisibility.I (and many others) were nearly victims of a now jailed semi celeb paedo who operated for 40 years,partly because people said "witch-hunt","it's just the no smoke brigade","it's attention seeking" instead of listening to the victims and near victims.Those people are as guilty of his crimes as he is because they provided the protection for him to operate. The Police have improved dramatically over the last decade or so when it comes to sex allegations.If they have arrested this guy they have credible information/evidence on which to execute that arrest,unless the cops are going round arresting people for a laugh.Whether such information is god enough to put before a court or secure conviction is another matter entirely.There are plenty of people every year not brought before a court because the evidence isn't quiet there to secure or have a high chance of conviction.The aforementioned semi celeb paedo was jailed for only a small number of offences brought before the court,many are on file because the evidence wasn't strong enough.The victims know he is guilty of many more.When he was finally revealed to be a paedo it was interesting just how many of the "it's a witchunt/just the no smoke brigade getting it wrong" apologists changed their narrative to "I always knew he was a wrong 'un". What happens to all those people you “know” to be a “wrong un” that actually are innocent? Contrary to the picture you are painting above the police do not have an exemplary track record in identifying people who are actually guilty. By way of example just this month: Andrew Malkinson. Operation Yewtree identified many paedophiles. It also clearly misidentified many innocent peand destroyed lives. There is a reason we have a separation of duty between the police and the judges - so as to test the allegations and see whether they are true. Prematurely judging those outcomes is a stain on our society. I get this is an emotive subject and you are, no doubt, right that guilty people will go free. But justice is never served by hot headed emotion and public fury." Read my post properly.I talked about those people who said "it's a witchunt/the no smoke without fire brigade getting it wrong" doing a 180 u turn and trying to claim the guy they had been defending,they knew to be a wrong un.My post had absolutely nothing to do with anyone "I knew" to be a wrong un being innocent.Again read properly,I never said the Police had an exemplary record,I said they had improved and they don't act without reason,they are the first test of allegations,tell them an implausible story or do it in an unconvincing way,without details, it goes nowhere.Remember they deal with liars all day every day,as I do,you get good at spotting bullshitters.I am not speaking in "hot headed emotion or fury",I am speaking as a near victim of a paedo,as someone who has experienced the apologists,the "it's a witchunt"the inaction,disinterest,the bullshit,ignorance etc.Its not emotive for me,it's Saville and his mates all over again,de ja vu,groundhog day,people with no experience flapping their mouths like a cows arse in May and talking bollocks.Yet again read my post properly,I started by saying the "legal verdict matters", that rather suggests I am not judging the outcome prematurely.Some of the shite posted in this thread is why paedo's will go on and on for so long with so many victims before they are caught.They play you like a second hand fiddle and blinded by your righteousness you don't know it ....... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC." All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. | |||
 | |||
"Hardeep Singh Kohli arrested for sex offences. Is there anyone that works for bbc that is not a sex offender?" Never heard of him before now, lol.  | |||
"Mr Blobby….he always struck me as a well dodgy looking geezer. Looked like a bloody great penis in fact. If he's a penis then a diseased penis with those pus-filled spots." Ewww | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. " Wow that's some massive assumption? | |||
| |||
"Is it not the case that what people are labelling as "the bbc" are a handful of alleged cases of on screen talent? In an organisation of 10s of thousands. Are they therefore institionally perverted? I wonder in your street how many such criminals exist? Not making excuses but just wonder if everyone applies the same standards and outrage to others who no doubt walk among us. " | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. Wow that's some massive assumption?" Like quite a lot of the posts in the thread. Its a fact a lot the attacks on the BBC are led people's political leanings and their perception of the BBC political leaning. Otherwise they would be equally outraged by other large organisations with undesirable employees. | |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. Wow that's some massive assumption? Like quite a lot of the posts in the thread. Its a fact a lot the attacks on the BBC are led people's political leanings and their perception of the BBC political leaning. Otherwise they would be equally outraged by other large organisations with undesirable employees. " What's to say those posters aren't/weren't equally outraged at ITV,the Church(broadly),Grassroots football coaching,The Met Police etc? | |||
| |||
| |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. Wow that's some massive assumption? Like quite a lot of the posts in the thread. Its a fact a lot the attacks on the BBC are led people's political leanings and their perception of the BBC political leaning. Otherwise they would be equally outraged by other large organisations with undesirable employees. What's to say those posters aren't/weren't equally outraged at ITV,the Church(broadly),Grassroots football coaching,The Met Police etc?" They might have been. But just don't see the same amount of posts on these forums has you do when it's a BBC employee or someone associated with the BBC. | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. Wow that's some massive assumption? Like quite a lot of the posts in the thread. Its a fact a lot the attacks on the BBC are led people's political leanings and their perception of the BBC political leaning. Otherwise they would be equally outraged by other large organisations with undesirable employees. What's to say those posters aren't/weren't equally outraged at ITV,the Church(broadly),Grassroots football coaching,The Met Police etc? They might have been. But just don't see the same amount of posts on these forums has you do when it's a BBC employee or someone associated with the BBC." So you didn't see all the Schofield threads and posts? There were easily as many without including those taken down by the mods. | |||
"For once I can be edgy and say who? He was popular there a over a decade ago. Just some shitty presenter who everyone thought was funny. I googled him and sort of recognise him. The BBC really need to admit they have a problem. Do you not think that because the BBC is still the biggest broadcaster and once upon a time, was the only or almost the only one, means it's far more likely that someone who's accused of wrongdoing will work or have worked for the BBC? Also most BBC types are self employed, so often not directly employed by them. I don't know if there is something amiss at the BBC in terms of the culture. It is very unfortunate that there have been several historic and more recent cases of abuse among people who work/have worked for the BBC. All big organisations like to cover up the bad apples within them, the BBC is not unique. The people attacking the BBC probably defend the Met Police despite the record of some their employees. Wow that's some massive assumption? Like quite a lot of the posts in the thread. Its a fact a lot the attacks on the BBC are led people's political leanings and their perception of the BBC political leaning. Otherwise they would be equally outraged by other large organisations with undesirable employees. What's to say those posters aren't/weren't equally outraged at ITV,the Church(broadly),Grassroots football coaching,The Met Police etc? They might have been. But just don't see the same amount of posts on these forums has you do when it's a BBC employee or someone associated with the BBC. So you didn't see all the Schofield threads and posts? There were easily as many without including those taken down by the mods." Maybe, but wasn't that because Philip Schofield is a well known celebrity. I mean most don't even know who Hardres Kohli is. Also most of the posts, from what I recall were mostly gloating at Schofields demise, because of a dislike for Philip Schofield. Cant recall many attacking ITV. | |||
