BBC hiding another Jimmy Saville

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: Jaaaaamazing
Wonder huw it could be?

It does not matter who it is, just the fact the BBullsh*trying Coronation is hiding yet another c*cksucker

He was trying to give you a clue mate

reading stuff now saying this only came out because the Sun are trying to distract everyone from an email in which allegations of rape have been made against former chancellor, George Osbourne.

We need a revolution in this country, complete with guillotines!

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: Jaaaaamazing
Wonder huw it could be?

It does not matter who it is, just the fact the BBullsh*trying Coronation is hiding yet another c*cksucker

He was trying to give you a clue mate

.

Yes Sprocket even though I can thank you for the heads up yet I did appreciate the individual was going to spill to he beans, it's just the fact that the BBV is completely over run with c*CK suckers, ie. effectively mem who like to sick c*CK that the individual matters for little. The whole organisation ic a mother f*ickong tax thieving ievibg ,c*ck sucking institution of what they thought was getting away with c"CK sucking never worked a hard day graft down one mile down of the he north sea on Easingtom coal face hacking T the face, swear and grime, digging for England likee me grandad whole all these BBC cocoksucers life the lof of luxury family on the BVC Grary train tax essentially free while performing sucking c£ck

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood
He was the one that jumped to my mind!
I also see the Police have been formally asked by the BBC to start investigating.
Seems this story could be even bigger than we are being currently told.
I'm just catching up, so my apologies if somebody has already mentioned this after this my reply Driftwood's post.
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: McGinty

Why would a married man be paying for images of a 17 year old boy?

He will probably lose his wife and children over this.

Where does it say it’s a boy?

Yes, I’m sure it won’t be a happy ending for anyone

So far ITV 1 now BBC 1.
The BBC, having refered this to the Met now, might be just wanting optics to be doing things better than ITV's debacle over Schoffield.
Plus there's mounting pressure to abolish their TV license fee.
I hear several other presenters who are currently not on the airwaves are coming out saying it is not them. This must be having repercussions right across the board for BBC and maybe, because these other presenters have made these public statements is what prompted the BBC to take it to the police because behind closed doors the presenters have made noises?
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: SprocketUK

Just to say there is a name all over Twitter but dont post it here as if it turns out to be wrong the site can get sued into oblivion

Correct decision and reasoning.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Flippin' 'eck! Is there somebody getting at WEF members?
Mind you, with Georgie Boy's past drug induced antics..... I wouldn't be surprised!
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: McGinty
The mother's letters to the BBC. She says her son.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: SprocketUK

If true this makes sense.

The media sit on a lot headline grabbing but ultimately light weight stories for just such occasions. Favours for favours.

Odd coincidence that a stop oil protestor put him in the headlines anyhow by throwing orange confetti over him at his wedding this weekend

However, stop oil have said that the woman isn’t part of their gang or whatever they call it. My tinfoil hat is wondering if it could be a cunning double bluff: arrange this ‘protest’ to put Osbourne in the headlines and therefore make any stories that may surface about him focus on the protest instead.

Tinfoil hat off… it’s probably not that. But wired timing all the same

EDIT: Apologies, the reporting on this seems to have changed, never mind me.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: SprocketUK

I agree, there are indeed superficial comparisons between this and Saville in terms of the BBC apparently keeping it under wraps. But what we know of the events put them wolds apart. And indeed that may be part of the reason the BBC misguidedly thought it appropriate to keep quiet; they didn't think it 'that bad' (that's not my opinion, just a guess at the opinion of the BBC brass)

But i imagine it was more about protecting their lucrative talent and assuming the they could control the teenager and their family with payoffs. Further to that i'd guess the family wanted more than the BBC were willing to pay. The BBC call their bluff and lose. Why do i think this? Has the Met not investigated this yet? If not that must mean the family didn't report it. Why might that be?

In short this whole affair smells very different to the Saville travesty. But as you say, it does ask questions of the BBCs handling of it

It’s the same coverup for the same type of crimes.

After the big song and dance that followed the first one.

Hopefully you’re not saying the exploitation of one kid is “not that bad” because Saville did a lot more.

That and using words like superficial won’t make you any friends. Could make you some enemies.

Edit - I see where you say “they said it not me”.
But the rest of your post seems to support what they said.

a reply to: McGinty

The opening post does......however it doesn't say it's a boy in the article......so it might not be.

A bit of unnecessary crudity in this discussion.

The problem is that the BBC can go all tabloid when it suits - like the time it sent a helicopter to tarnish the reputation of Cliff Richard - and all quiet the next minute, like when it's a politician of the "right politics" getting into some sex scandal. Or endlessly pursuing politicians who are "not of their persuasion" - yes, that's Boris, but also Corbyn.

Or, all quiet when it's one of their own.

The BBC needs reform to break the grip of the unaccountable echo chamber of superiority and self-service.

If the BBC is struggling to find a replacement, I would just a little scan of Jeffrey Epstein's' flight log.
It's tantamount to work experience for the corporation.

I'm sure this is nothing more than a coincidence.
Seems legit

www.mirror.co.uk...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kaiju666

His wife and children are real people... they will be devastated.
It's not all about him.

I agree and understand that. My response is to “ Why would a married man be paying for images of a 17 year old boy?“ .Nothing more nothing less.

a reply to: Kaiju666

Because he's a closet bisexual who has conned his wife, friends, and family, for decades?
You know, living the honourable 'butter wouldn't melt in his mouth' persona, keeping all predatory behaviour with barely legal youngsters secret?
That's my first guess anyway

Edit
The thumbs down emoji was aimed at the deceptive, predator, male TV presenter, not you Kaiju666

I was reading some of the BBC presenters are looking at legal action after their names were involved in social media.

a reply to: AlienBorg
Hence why I advised people not to name them on here