This is the BBC.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[caravel]

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...

[InsaneApache]

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.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Idaho]

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

[Slyspy]

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.

[Myth]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.