Operation Yewtree

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Never going to happen as the NON biased BBC would crucify any party who attempted it by using there news and programing to prevent them from getting elected.

The BBC are NOT as non biased as there rose tinted sun glass wearing supporters would like us to believe.

what will happen over this is they will rewrite history in there favour to ensure there are not punished.

I agree fully - mores the pity

Originally Posted by Sirius

Never going to happen as the NON biased BBC would crucify any party who attempted it by using there news and programing to prevent them from getting elected.

Based on what? They've tended to cover news stories involving themselves quite well, the Hutton inquiry and the Saville incidents all got quite a lot of attention and critics were given ample time. Remember the Newsnight where they spent half the episode grilling senior BBC staff and bring on critics of the organisation?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Based on what? They've tended to cover news stories involving themselves quite well, the Hutton inquiry and the Saville incidents all got quite a lot of attention and critics were given ample time. Remember the Newsnight where they spent half the episode grilling senior BBC staff and bring on critics of the organisation?

To maintain any shred of credibility they had to do that didn't they?

I'm far more interested in what the Beeb hides or buries than what they finally 'admit' to when they have little or no other choice.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

To maintain any shred of credibility they had to do that didn't they?

I'm far more interested in what the Beeb hides or buries than what they finally 'admit' to when they have little or no other choice.

I would like to see the items they have removed from the documents and not published.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21546823

Evidence submitted to the Pollard Inquiry - which looked into the reasons why a Newsnight programme dropped an investigation into sex abuse by Jimmy Savile - has been published by the BBC.

In December, the independent review concluded that the decision had been "seriously flawed".

Around three percent of the thousands of newly-released documents had passages blacked out, or redacted.

The acting director general of the BBC, Tim Davie, says this was done purely on legal advice.

I don't believe a word he said. As for the tuf time GOOD its your own bloody fault, the BBC should be dragged into the real word screaming and they should be held to account, something i feel will NEVER happen.

Originally Posted by Sirius

I would like to see the items they have removed from the documents and not published.

"for legal reasons" covers just about anything ,including stuff they have no answers for or don't like where it will go .The only bits we will get to read is the bits they have answers to

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

Based on what? They've tended to cover news stories involving themselves quite well, the Hutton inquiry and the Savile incidents all got quite a lot of attention and critics were given ample time. Remember the Newsnight where they spent half the episode grilling senior BBC staff and bring on critics of the organisation?

We don't know how much of that grilling was pre known and planned. I don't trust the BBC, i don't like the BBC, WHY because they just hold there hand out and are given tax payers money even if they don't perform and even now after this will be given money on a plate. I have been in BBC sites in Manchester and they are highly specified and lavish compered with company offices where the companies have to prove themselves and EARN there money or they go bust. The BBC can never go bust no matter how badly they perform because they raid the tax purse every year and the management at the BBC are WELL aware of that.

I want to know what Paxman had to say ,because i bet he didn't hold back and apparently that was blacked out

Some of it could be highly libellous, at a guess. It's never going to see the light of day because BBC documents don't have the sort of legal privilege required for them to be exempt from a libel action.

Originally Posted by Sirius

We don't know how much of that grilling was pre known and planned. I don't trust the BBC, i don't like the BBC, WHY because they just hold there hand out and are given tax payers money even if they don't perform and even now after this will be given money on a plate. I have been in BBC sites in Manchester and they are highly specified and lavish compered with company offices where the companies have to prove themselves and EARN there money or they go bust. The BBC can never go bust no matter how badly they perform because they raid the tax purse every year and the management at the BBC are WELL aware of that.

So? A lot of museums can't go bust either because their supported by money from the public. The free market isn't the solution to all our problems. I don't think the fact that other companies have to EARN their money assures quality and we can look at the quality of the programming from those other channels, or countries like France that lack a public broadcaster, to see that the profit motive doesn't led to quality.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

So? A lot of museums can't go bust either because their supported by money from the public. The free market isn't the solution to all our problems. I don't think the fact that other companies have to EARN their money assures quality and we can look at the quality of the programming from those other channels, or countries like France that lack a public broadcaster, to see that the profit motive doesn't led to quality.

The problem is i could tell you how much money the BBC engineers are willing to waste however confidentiality prevents me. I was gobsmacked to say the least.

Anyway lets see how long the BBC news covers this latest story compered with the other news outlets ?

According to Sky news the BBC have made it very difficult to find anything in the report

He said it has been scanned and placed online by the BBC in a way that does not allow it to be electronically searched - meaning anyone wishing to locate particular passages must pore through the entire report.

And again they have highlighted the fact that

The latest evidence is likely to place further criticism on the corporation for an apparent reluctance to hold to account executives whose actions brought about the crisis.

http://news.sky.com/story/1055396/sa...dence-released

What annoys me the most is that the BBC will get away with this because Mp's and Governments will not want to have the BBC knifing them in the back at the next Election.

I have to say that the documents shown on the news were highly redacted which gives no confidence that the entire truth is being revealed.The BBC cannot afford not to be highly transparent about the whole issue as they are a public institution reliant on public funding.

[thenry]

Prosecutor demands overhaul of sexual abuse investigations

Keir Starmer warns justice system cannot afford 'another Savile moment' and announces panel to review historic complaints

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...hild-sex-abuse

Naming of sex abuse suspects 'up for debate'

The naming of child sex abuse suspects is up for debate in an overhaul of how such crimes are dealt with by the authorities, Britain’s top prosecutor has said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...or-debate.html

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Savile: New Moves To Tackle Child Sex Abuse

Radical changes to the way sex abuse victims are dealt with will include investigations into allegations dating back years.

http://news.sky.com/story/1060589/sa...hild-sex-abuse

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------

Child sex abuse victims treated 'overcautiously'

Child sex abuse investigations put too much focus on the victims' credibility and not enough on the suspects, says the director of public prosecutions as he announces a shake-up of guidelines.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21673703

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------

Abuse victim: 'Improve understanding of child sex abuse'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21681466

[danielf]

Is that the sound of knees jerking?

[Pog66]

Originally Posted by danielf

Is that the sound of knees jerking?

at the same time as barn doors being closed?

[thenry]

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas

^ all you need to know ^

just a few tweets...

1963: male victim reported rape by #Savile and told by police to forget about it and move on.

2009 Jersey police interviews male victims of sexual abuse by #Savile - legal advise was no charge.

1964 : Met Police report linking #Savile to abuse of girls from Duncroft. Other offender named which I have already passed to Op Yewtree

1998 Anon letter to Met Police -well written with lots of detail & very believable- identifying #Savile as committed Paedophile & homosexual

Anon letter handled by Met Police vice squad - identified a male victims of #Savile's & that he had pornography

Anon Letter: "Please do not let him get away with this perversion." "He is untouchable "

Anon Letter: "When Jimmy Savile falls ... he will take a lot of well known personalities & past politicians ...with him."

2003: Met Police report : female was sexually abused aged 15yrs in 1970 at Top of the Pops - crime report was restricted so not searchable

Serious concerns raised about West Yorkshire involvement / knowledge of #Savile . In 1998 they were told #Savile was a Paedophile.