Hi folks. I'm not one to generally rabble rouse but child abuse is something that I cannot stand for. I've started a petition to get the part of the licence fee that goes to the BBC scrapped. With what has been going on in it's midst and the covering up by higher management, I can't reconcile the fact we are paying these people wages. It's totally up to yourselves if you wish to sign it but here is a link to the page if you feel you want to. Many thanks Mark I’ve made a petition – will you sign it? Click this link to sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123019/sponsors/pcx3nx9ILyM2O2vq3Hw My petition: Have the part of the TV licence fee that goes to the BBC scrapped. I feel it is wrong to be forced to fund an organisation that is complicit in the covering up of child abuse
="durbar2003, post: 8959037, member: 1025432"]I thought the higher ups had no knowledge![/QUOTE] According to the inquiry looking into it, not only did some of them know, they willfully covered it up. And even if they didn't (which I personally doubt) then why should we be forced to pay the wages of people so completely incompetent. If you don't want to sign it, it's compleaty up to you.
I'm afraid I won't sign your petition Quality. What happened with some BBC employees was disgusting, but it is now, belatedly, being exposed. The same can't be said for Parliament, the Police, the Army, the Royal Family and other elements of the establishment. It didn't just happen at the BBC - why not campaign to expose the rest of them rather than kick the man that's already down.
I was an unlucky kid, I wrote to Jim telling him I played the violin and would he fix me up with a fiddler.
According to the inquiry looking into it, not only did some of them know, they willfully covered it up. And even if they didn't (which I personally doubt) then why should we be forced to pay the wages of people so completely incompetent. If you don't want to sign it, it's compleaty up to you.[/QUOTE] From the report There is no evidence any senior member of staff was aware of Savile's conduct There is no evidence the BBC as a corporate body was aware of Savile's conduct
From the report There is no evidence any senior member of staff was aware of Savile's conduct There is no evidence the BBC as a corporate body was aware of Savile's conduct [/QUOTE] Then why not they should know what is happening within their own organisation.
Then why not they should know what is happening within their own organisation.[/QUOTE] I think the point is that your 'petition' is based on a misunderstanding of what the report says. It says the reverse of what you claimed. I hope you make adjustments accordingly. The BBC clearly failed hugely on a number of levels. But it is hardly unusual for that to happen in large organisations. The police and the NHS get rightly hammered time and time again for corporate failings which have disastrous consequences for ordinary people (and both are culpable with Savile too). Will you be demanding some of your tax money back to alleviate your outrage?
I've signed your petition, Quality. As reported in the Guardian, the Dame Janet Smith report provided a searing indictment of BBC culture and child abuse took place in virtually every corner of the organisation. There was an atmosphere of fear, a deferential culture and stars that were beyond the law. Adulation of talent came before decent morals. Although senior management appeared not to know (though other layers of management did, and did nothing), senior management are responsible for the culture of the organisation and are not blameless. The most chilling part of the report is the question of what might be happening in the BBC at the moment. The culture of fear in the BBC has actually GOT WORSE . To quote the Guardian: "The report also found that while new safeguards had made sexism and abuse far less frequent than they were in the 1970s, the culture of fear which stopped employees speaking out had actually got worse. Short-term and freelance contracts meant a workforce “with little or no job security”, which was even less likely to speak out about the behaviour of colleagues." Complacency is not an option where the abuse of children are concerned
I'm not sure that 'I don't feel comfortable talking to the boss about problems' equates to 'continued widespread child abuse'. That's a huge leap of logic there. Child abuse should NEVER be tolerated, but making the assumption that it's still rife based on a comment in the Guardian about job security is a bit of a leap. If there's still a culture of 'adulation of the talent', that's surely driven as much by our celebrity culture than anything specific to a media organisation. And if there's fears for job security that mean workers just keep their heads down and get on with their work, then that's something all large organisations have, not just the BBC. My read of the report states that the corporation en masse cannot and should not be held responsible for the abhorrent actions of a few. The BBC needs to learn from this (and I believe they are) and helped to put its house 100% in order. The past needs to be consigned firmly in the past, and the present and future of the BBC needs to demonstrably encourage openness and communication, so that there cannot be a repeat of these events.
No. Simply because it would kill the BBC - and that would be a terrible act of cultural vandalism. What do you imagine British life and culture would be like without the BBC? Take music. The Albert Hall in August would be in darkness - there would be no BBC Proms, broadcast across television and radio. The Young Musician of the Year would remain undiscovered. Pop fans would be denied the Radio 1 Big Weekend, and Jools Holland on BBC 2. Musicians in the BBC orchestras could be busking on the street. What about unknown and untested talent? James Corden, the genius behind Gavin and Stacey, who waited eight years for his part, might still be waiting. The public wouldn't have ever experienced Steve Coogan's Alan Partridge or Tommy Saxondale, nor Ricky Gervais's David Brent. British 24-hour news would be broadcast by a single provider - Sky with it's inherent links to Rupert Murdoch and News International's political agenda. The BBC's global news-gathering, the envy of the world, would be scaled back to a handful, if that, of foreign bureaux. Democracy wouldn't be screened live by BBC Parliament. Britain's children would have to be patient for the next US cartoon, as the adverts on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network spool by. They would be denied the rich output from CBBC and CBeebies. Teenagers would no longer have the revision tool GCSE Bitesize. Millions wouldn't be invested in the creative industries outside London - in cities such as Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff and Belfast. BBC local radio would be silent. Britain would not lead the rest of the world in digital media with services such as the iPlayer for TV and Radio, which allows us access to more content than we've ever had before. 40p a day – TV (9 National and 6 regional plus 15 local bureaux - and 11 international outlets) Strictly, EastEnders, Doctor Who, Sherlock, the World Cup, the Olympics, Match of the Day, CBeebies and CBBC, world renowned drama like War & Peace, Happy Valley and Line of Duty, educational and entertaining natural history programmes, all of the BBC’s radio stations (17 national and 40 local), the BBC website (600m unique visits in January) and iPlayer, news, sport and weather apps, and impartial news from around the world. Something for everybody. It's not even 40p per person but 40p per household, for TV, Radio, iPlayer, the website, three orchestras and one of the most highly regarded news services in the world - and you want to cripple it because of what happened 40 years ago? 96% of the UK population watch, listen or read BBC content every week. They choose the BBC in excess of 140 million times a day - it caters to pensioners, schools, businesses, parents, teenagers, minorities, the blind, the deaf - and if they were groups that are not 'profitable' they wouldn't be catered for in a commercial environment. The BBC exists to make and broadcast engaging material (that will appeal to everyone) across all it's channels - it is precisely because of this we get innovative content that challenges and pushes the boundaries of news and entertainment. The business of commercial TV companies is simply selling advertising and/or subscriptions - the content is purely secondary to making money - at it's root, if they could get away with screening the same show on a loop they would - it's all about the money for them. Removed from the need - at least in theory - to attract tens of millions of people to every piece of content, the BBC is in a position to take gambles. You want a modern take on Sherlock Holmes, steeped in the writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? A documentary about steam railways? Broad coverage of the women's football World Cup? A radio documentary about a new percussion instrument? This is the kind of material that the BBC is able to provide... did I mention it was 40p (per household) per day? What happened was not right, but as was intimated above, what was going on was replicated throughout the establishment, including the church, the Army, in Care homes and all the way up the chain into the highest echelons of power.
Can you do a petition for the Catholic church? Sure they might have a few assets they could sell to in some way compensate the children systematically abused by people under their watch
You're misquoting me, Chaz. Contrary to what you say, I have not made any assumption that child abuse is rife - merely that, as the Smith report has indicated and the Guardian reports, the climate is still there for it to occur and it might therefore be happening as we speak. While not unique, the BBC is not like all large organisations. The power that top celebrities have, adultation and financial, makes this problem more likely than say working for a firm of accountants or a bank or surveyors.
I wasn't directly quoting you. The inference is there, however, and I am not at all surprised that the inference comes from the Guardian, whose anti-establishment inclinations have been around for decades.
I find it rather amusing that Goldie is a Guardian reader. What with all the rumours around for decades also interesting that none of our nation's excellent investigative journalists could find the energy to, err, investigate Savile. A couple of BBC ones did of course, a bit late and the story was suppressed.
I thought all you lefties might be more persuaded if I quoted from one of your own... (I didn't undermine my principles and pay for it, I just saw it online)
