This is the BBC.

I'm a bit surprised that no one has started a thread about our 'esteemed' national broadcaster. To those who dont know here's a summation.

The BBC employed a kiddy fiddler for decades. They knew about it but ignored it as the kiddy fiddler made them a lot of money. Kiddy fiddler dies and accusations about him start to surface. The BBC investigate and make a program to reveal the truth. At the same time the BBC has made two tribute programs about the kiddy fiddler and decides the shelve the investigation in to said kiddy fiddler.

Fast forward 9 months. ITV makes a program about kiddy fiddler and broadcasts it. Oh noes the cat is out of the bag!

BBC goes into denial, then meltdown as hundred of people come forward to say that they were raped by the kiddy fiddler on BBC premises. This is bad. Apparently.

Then the BBC decides to try and take the heat off them by (falsely) accusing a former senior tory politician of being a kiddy fiddler as well. Except he wasnt. It was not true. The boss falls on his sword. Well he resigns. Gets about half a million in pay off and heads for the beach.

Then last night another former employee of the BBC is arrested for, you guessed it, kiddy fiddling.

As a wag posted, The NoTW used to expose pedophiles, the BBC employs them.

This was a public service announcement. That is all.

A good summary in fact...

Of course they knew about it all along, I find none the recent rumours (regarding sexual harassment) about the BBC that surprising either. It's often referred to as an "institution" which now seems more fitting than ever... it seems that some people got too powerful and in effect untouchable, i.e. they knew too much and could expose others, so they were allowed to continue doing what they were doing.

Time to cut the umbilical of state funding and let them advertise to pay for their second rate programming and repeats, like everyone else has to...

Quote:

---

Time to cut the umbilical of state funding and let them advertise to pay for their second rate programming and repeats, like everyone else has to...

---

That's the really rancid problem. I helped to pay for all this. As did everyone else in the UK with a telly. During Levenson they (The BBC) was asking if Murdoch & Co were 'fit and proper' to hold majority shares in newspapers and SKY TV.

Now I might be a tad old fashioned but raping kids is a teeny bit more serious than listening in to 'phone calls.

I say the BBC is not fit and proper to be a broadcaster and should be put onto pay to view. Just like SKY is, then I don't have to pay for perverts sucking off kids.

Talk about Kafkaesque.

Tonight is the annual telethon; BBCs' Children in Need.

You literally couldn't make it up.

One hand:kiddy fiddlers, other hand: a really good institution that provides valuable service.

I think they should replace and prosecute those in bbc involved in all the scandals and let the bbc keep running, just under increased scrutiny, no need to punish the majority of the employees who were uninvolved with it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

One hand:kiddy fiddlers, other hand: a really good institution that provides valuable service.

I think they should replace and prosecute those in bbc involved in all the scandals and let the bbc keep running, just under increased scrutiny, no need to punish the majority of the employees who were uninvolved with it all.

---

I agree they should root out the enablers but why should I have to pay for this clearly vile and corrupt entity with my TV license? Let them go to subscription only. After all, as they keep telling us, they are the best broadcaster in the world, so millions will willingly sign up.

Not.

Advertising drives me crazy. I hate it. The BBC produces the best range of programmes in the world.

Making the BBC pay to view (via subscriptions) or worse forcing them to advertise would simply hand control of our Media over to Sky - none of the other providers have a chance of competing with Sky and the only reason the BBC does is public funding

Do you want to hand Sky a monopoly?

Quote:

---

Do you want to hand Sky a monopoly?

---

Couldn't give a monkeys chuff to be honest. I dont have SKY and never will. However if I dont hand over my cash to the BBC I go to gaol, directly to gaol. I fundamentally abhor being forced to pay for these people.

Think about it in a wider context.
A lot of advertisement-payed content is reality shows and other uneducational, useless drivel.
If you remove the last somewhat decent TV programme from the masses, your country will go even faster down the gutter. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Couldn't give a monkeys chuff to be honest. I dont have SKY and never will. However if I dont hand over my cash to the BBC I go to gaol, directly to gaol. I fundamentally abhor being forced to pay for these people.

---

...No, you hand over money to the government and they give it to the BBC, if they didnt give it to the bbc they'd give it to something else you probably dislike.

What I got from this thread is that IA thinks he's not the one paying for ad-funded media.

That made me chuckle.

I'm really glad the BBC is being demonised just like Churches.

BBC is good. Certainly head and shoulders above the crap that passes for news here in the States. But yeah, kiddie diddlers must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phillipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm really glad the BBC is being demonised just like Churches.

---

When a fellow sneezes, it is best to aim for the head and make it quick.

All great civilizations stump up cash for the sake of culture. The BBC is the great cultural contribution the British have made to the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Now I might be a tad old fashioned but raping kids is a teeny bit more serious than listening in to 'phone calls.

---

For individuals, yes it is. For media organisations I would say that the second is worse.

Ah, ye olde childe molesters. Like I said in the previous thread, they must be removed like cancer from the society. Unfortunately a lot of really powerful, really rich guys like sniffing children's butt-holes and they protect their lesser brethren. What to do, what to do...

My mother lives in the UK and when I visit I must say the BBC is really enjoyable to watch. I liked the remake of Upstairs Downstairs for example.

Those at the top of the BBC are paid far too much. There are also far too many levels of beaurocracy. Their money is guaranteed. They don't need to worry about advertising in the slightest.

I think that the BBC does far too much. It should be there to create the materials that the commercial channels wouldn't see a ROI on, not compete head-to-head on number of viewers. They should be employing lesser or unknown persons on far less money as a platform for development, not shelling out millions for Jonathan Ross who should be on ITV. Persons should want to be on the BBC to get exposure rather than as a cash-cow.
Even on the radio there is no need for as many stations. Things have moved on in the last 60 years or so. A much reduced offering which mainly focuses on public need.

Shows can pilot on the BBC. Those that do well can then be sold on to the commercial channels with the money reinvested in further new ones.

Changing a massive, bloated, self serving monolith into a smaller, more fast paced structure there to help develop new talent and operate on lower margins? I'm not going to hold my breath.

~:smoking:

I have little difficulty paying my license fee for the range and variety of content that the BBC provides. As someone has already pointed out when contrasted with much US media it is head and shoulders above them, especially if what is being discussed is the quality of editorial comment and impartiality of news coverage. Also, the BBC does a lot more than broadcast tv services -without the BBC much new and experimental music would never get a national stage. Without radio 1 support, many of the UK's music events would not be nearly so sucessful, and on the classical spectrum the rang, variety and complexity of music aired on radio 3 makes other classical providers seem utterly lightweight.

So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, there are pedo's throughout various walks of life and organisations and if we were to ban or abolish all such then the first to go would be the institution of the family where we find the vast bulk of such abuse takes place! And anyway, if it were not for sir Jimmy of Saville, then the Christmas edition of Viz would have been a considerably slimmer volume.

The BBC is the reason why any man with an English accent sounds like an authority to American ears

If you doubt me, remember this, Piers Morgan has a primetime television show

Piers Morgan
Primetime
Tv
Show

Ouch.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-episode.html

This is just insane. The English not understanding irony, Monty Pyton also banned already, never be rude to an Arab after all

I like how the article says "Don't mention the ***" when that particular scene was not edited at all. Then goes to great length to explain that scene, even though that scene was not edited. The only line which was edited was this one -

Quote:

---

‘The strange thing was, throughout the morning she kept referring to the Indians as niggers. “No, no, no,” I said, “the niggers are the West Indians. These people are wogs”.

---

They also didn't show the edited version, so people could actually 'tell the difference'. (but they hosted the hitler scene)

The Dailymail really is a bad source of information when it comes to things like this.

It's still edited though, since when did you Brits forgot to take a piss at things. The BBC majorly disqualifies itself by being so politically correct

It reminds me of when people used to say that Alf Garnett is a racist. Yes he is/was but the thing is you laugh at him, not with him. Same with the Major.