BBC: your tax dollars at work

a reply to: bluesilver

Ill include state sponsored propaganda with pedo cult then shall I

the BBC still block the investigation into their shady past and wont release the documentaries because they were forced by government to block them as they pertain to certain parties currently in power and the government didnt want this to be public knowledge.
Not sure if you are aware pedo rings that dont get demolished by justice operate the same way they did before but in even more secrecy.
It wasnt dismantled at the BBC and they have access to plenty of children up and down the UK

As for state sponsored propaganda , need I say more.

The government forced the UK by law to pay for a license fee to watch state sponsored propaganda

for example the Gender neutrality they have been backing , also their backing of state sponsored terrorism in Israel

is it normal for news media to push ideology ? or are they just meant to objectively report on events in the world ?




I understand tarring them all with the same brush will obviously catch people who are completely innocent in all this , however if they are aware of the BBC wrong doings are they then not morally wrong for working for a corrupt organisation that profits from misery.

My opinion is that the BBC should be disbanded for their crimes against the UK
regardless if they are "good" now , they cant be allowed to continue as they are symbol of Abuse in the eyes of many



also im going for it, by that definition any corporation or society or group or government party or ideology , that has previously done wrong criminally so , should be disbanded to the dust bin of history and remembered for their crimes not their good. After all why should we as a species allow systems or groups or ideology or anything negative to manifest itself if it produces misery and suffering ?

Arent we morally obligated to the betterment of our species to safeguard against this kind of detrimental behaviour
consigning them to history and using them as a tool for learning of what not to do is all they are good for in my opinion

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

not sure if your going for the dumbest and most misguided post of all time award but lets just laugh at one of your gaffs for simplicities sake,

And lets take a brief glance at an article from the new BBC Pidgin service, the level of reporting here is just outstanding, tax dollars well spent:

pounds not dollars.

a reply to: growler
simplicities sake
a simple mistake

and not really that relevant given they are still talking about money
and if they are american they would always refer to it is tax dollars before correcting to tax pounds
its culturally relevant I suppose but still true

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: bluesilver

Ill include state sponsored propaganda with pedo cult then shall I

the BBC still block the investigation into their shady past and wont release the documentaries because they were forced by government to block them as they pertain to certain parties currently in power and the government didnt want this to be public knowledge.
Not sure if you are aware pedo rings that dont get demolished by justice operate the same way they did before but in even more secrecy.
It wasnt dismantled at the BBC and they have access to plenty of children up and down the UK

As for state sponsored propaganda , need I say more.

The government forced the UK by law to pay for a license fee to watch state sponsored propaganda

for example the Gender neutrality they have been backing , also their backing of state sponsored terrorism in Israel

is it normal for news media to push ideology ? or are they just meant to objectively report on events in the world ?



I understand tarring them all with the same brush will obviously catch people who are completely innocent in all this , however if they are aware of the BBC wrong doings are they then not morally wrong for working for a corrupt organisation that profits from misery.

My opinion is that the BBC should be disbanded for their crimes against the UK
regardless if they are "good" now , they cant be allowed to continue as they are symbol of Abuse in the eyes of many

So, the government and the BBC are in cahoots to protect people who work in government? And the newspapers haven't put this onto their front pages because...? And all the other news organisations, be it in print or on tv haven't put this as a main story because...? The government is stopping them? I would guess that some reputable agency either here or abroad would have released the details of this by now as it would be a scandal like no other, "British MP's in huge web of child abuse". If you can point me to reputable sources of those stories I would genuinely be very interested to read them.

Do you believe that the current BBC is one huge spiderweb of child abuse enablers that has now gone "underground"? That it's main goal and reason for being is to enable the people who work there to participate in that kind of thing? Or is it a case that a couple of decades ago some people at the top of the organisation had a couple of big stars and looked the other way when rumours started circling, rather than do what it should have done and investigated and reported it? I wasn't there, but my guess is that this is more likely. A case of "that might hurt the brand, lets ignore it". And remember, with the amount of scrutiny that they must be under, don't you think that ANYTHING suspicious would be flagged up by someone? Again, if you can point me towards any reputable sources which show evidence of this still happening at a systematic level, I would be very interested in seeing it.

As for state sponsored propaganda, the easy answer is to not watch their news, or watch their news and lots of other news outlets. Generally somewhere in the middle is fairly accurate.

With regard to people who work there. Well, it depends on their own point of view of what happened and what it is like now I assume. If they believe that it was allowed to happen by a couple of people a long time ago, probably like lots of similar organisations in reality, especially in the 70's and 80's when things were harder to uncover, they may well feel that they want to work there because that BBC of the 70's and 80's is not the BBC of today. If they decide ethically they can't work there, they are ultimately saying that because literally just a few people did something horrible, no-one should ever work for them again. As horrible as what happened was, shutting down an entire organisation is unhelpful to everyone. What if a scandal like this happens in Govt? Or the Church? Get my point? Do you shut them down forever? Do you say you will never work for them? That actually gets complicated with Govt because so many people either directly work for them or are connected to them in some form, from Police to Nurses to contractors who paint the offices. And before you say that is different to working for the BBC, remember, a lot of content is bought by the BBC from independent film/tv makers. So do you go to Uni and work in the industry for 20 years but suddenly refuse to work for your employer because they sold a programme to the BBC? What if you work in the BBC canteen? Do you refuse to work there because 40 years ago a few people did some bad things?

It is a very complex issue, so personally, saying that it is a cult and evil etc, is not really useful or accurate at this point in time.

a reply to: bluesilver

Hi ,

I am at work right now , but I shall look for some reputable sources for this ongoing pedo ring in the BBC I believe its still ongoing just not as it was before and yes its linked to the government and to other special groups in the UK .

I believe there is a high level ring of pedophiles operating in top levels of government across the globe and each local ring benefits from this high level ring of human trafficking and abuse and they all protect each other.
They have used the same compartmentalisation used in government military etc to protect each other from prosecution.


reposting this wee bit from my last post

"also i'm going for it, by that definition any corporation or society or group or government party or ideology , that has previously done wrong criminally so , should be disbanded to the dust bin of history and remembered for their crimes not their good. After all why should we as a species allow systems or groups or ideology or anything negative to manifest itself if it produces misery and suffering ?

Aren't we morally obligated to the betterment of our species to safeguard against this kind of detrimental behaviour
consigning them to history and using them as a tool for learning of what not to do is all they are good for in my opinion "

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: bluesilver

Hi ,

I am at work right now , but I shall look for some reputable sources for this ongoing pedo ring in the BBC I believe its still ongoing just not as it was before and yes its linked to the government and to other special groups in the UK .

I believe there is a high level ring of pedophiles operating in top levels of government across the globe and each local ring benefits from this high level ring of human trafficking and abuse and they all protect each other.
They have used the same compartmentalisation used in government military etc to protect each other from prosecution.


reposting this wee bit from my last post

"also i'm going for it, by that definition any corporation or society or group or government party or ideology , that has previously done wrong criminally so , should be disbanded to the dust bin of history and remembered for their crimes not their good. After all why should we as a species allow systems or groups or ideology or anything negative to manifest itself if it produces misery and suffering ?

Aren't we morally obligated to the betterment of our species to safeguard against this kind of detrimental behaviour
consigning them to history and using them as a tool for learning of what not to do is all they are good for in my opinion "

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Always good to get a different view.

With the last bit, doesn't that put every business, organisation, group, team etc at risk of being disbanded because of a tiny proportion of evil people who temporarily worked there? Do you literally shut the church down (not necessarily a terrible idea) every Police force, Hospital etc etc etc if you have any level of criminality in this way? Not only is that unsustainable but it would be opening ourselves up to closing important aspects of daily life at massive cost and disruption, to just reopen them again under what, a new name? A new building? How does this actually work? You shut a hospital down because of some criminality and you do what, build a new one? Get rid of every staff member and then try and somehow employ all new people?

What if you have some bad Policemen? Do you shut down the local station or the regional station? Or if you have half a dozen Policemen in half a dozen stations sharing stuff, do you get rid of all the Police and the buildings and get all new Police and build new buildings? How would any of this even be legal?? "Sorry, you've being sacked because 40 years ago there were some dodgy Police here". Or the council saying that they are shutting the police station and knocking it down and rebuilding it next door at a cost of £5million and by the way, there's currently no local Police force for the foreseeable because we had to shut it all down.

And what happens if you have false info being planted in an organisation? In this day and age this is unfortunately not beyond the realms of possibility. Do you shut it down and get rid of all the staff and the building, infrastructure etc? Again, legal problems, costs, disruption... then you find out 5 years later that actually, no-one did anything and someone hacked into a server and left incriminating evidence there, so what you shut down at enormous cost and hassle, didn't actually need to be shut down after all.

How on earth do you see "any corporation or society or group or government party or ideology , that has previously done wrong criminally so , should be disbanded to the dust bin of history" as actually being workable??

originally posted by: sapien82
I believe there is a high level ring of pedophiles operating in top levels of government across the globe and each local ring benefits from this high level ring of human trafficking and abuse and they all protect each other.
They have used the same compartmentalisation used in government military etc to protect each other from prosecution.

There' no evidence of this type of thing, but there are people who just want it to be true. There have been accusations and police investigations, but they have come to naught when the evidence is displayed. The fact is that powerful people attract nutcases like crap attracts flies. The recent case involving the discredited "Nick" who made up allegations and made quite a bit of money from selling stories, and "David" a well known habitual liar who accused people like Lord Britten is case in point.

Statistically there will be paedos and the like in positions of power, but these abuse rings are fantasy. In this day and age the media would slay such people without hesitation if real evidence was provided.

originally posted by: paraphi
Statistically there will be paedos and the like in positions of power, but these abuse rings are fantasy. In this day and age the media would slay such people without hesitation if real evidence was provided.

Well, now, I wonder if that's true. No newspaper editor (or TV producer) in full command of their senses would run a story alleging child sex abuse (just about the most toxic charge imaginable) against someone who was very famous, especially if (as is usual with famous people) they are able to afford very good lawyers.

The evidence backing it up would have to be phenomenal. As in, "videotapes of the abuse taking place, coupled with supporting DNA swabs"-level phenomenal.

Savile got away with it throughout his life by being very litigious. He sued over absolutely anything he could sue for, and it made the media steer well clear of him until he was safely dead. Greville Janner is another such type (or was, may God rot him).

It's noticeable that out of all the 'high-level paedo ring' stories that make it into the papers, they all involve dead politicians, isn't it (Edward Heath, Peter Morrison, Nicholas Fairburn, Leon Brittan, etc, etc). And those stories mainly fizzle out, precisely because they are nearly always impossible to prove.

On the other hand, there is one very very famous British music star who is currently under investigation, and he is very much alive, but not a word of it has appeared in the UK press. "Why, why, why?" you might very well ask.

Meanwhile, Operation Hydrant has been ferretting around, almost unmentioned by the media. At the last time anyone checked, that investigation stood like this:

Of those 2,777 potential suspects, 2,358 allegedly offended in institutions, 585 are classified as unknown or unidentified and 348 are classified as persons of public prominence.

The well-known figures include, 164 from the world of TV, film, or radio, 99 are listed as politicians – this includes local as well as national figures, 49 are from the music industry and 15 are from the world of sport.

A further 21 suspects do not fit in to any of the above categories.

To date, 1,084 different institutions feature on the Operation Hydrant database, up from 357 in May last year.

Is there a conspiracy to cover up all this, and keep credible cases out of the media? Not very likely. Are editors #-scared of trying to report on the credible cases, for reasons discussed? Oh yes. Is this situation compounded by the fact that the news media these days operate on budgets so slim that they can barely keep the stationery cupboard stocked with ballpoint pens and notebooks? Oh very much yes.

So yeah. TL;DR - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Especially when you can only rely on newspapers and TV for the facts.

a reply to: paraphi

I completely disagree , that the media would hang them out to dry . The media are also closely linked into these shady circles
they are corporations of power that align with the same sociopaths in government positions of power its one giant circle jerk pedo ring , linked to pedo ring .

If you look at the planet over , its all a show where corporations are growing like tumors to gain more and more power to eventually create a corporatocracy , its happening everywhere. Corporations and government are invading every aspect of our lives until we are completely controlled by them and are all in all slaves to the corporate machine

I dont want to believe it to be true , Id rather not believe in it at all . The fact of the matter is its happened and been actively covered up by our government and probably still happening right now and will continue unchecked and unstopped because some really powerful people are keeping it going.

if that's not an indication of the level they will work on then what is ?

whats worse is that isnt even enough to mount mass protests.

I can handle UFO cover ups and not complain too much that our government are shady , but when it comes to corruption in illegal wars and supporting terror and abusing children thats where a line should be drawn for everyone

Also powerful people are normally nutcases anyway

originally posted by: audubon
It's noticeable that out of all the 'high-level paedo ring' stories that make it into the papers, they all involve dead politicians, isn't it

Dead people are easy to defame. They're not there to defend themselves.

I think if the press got wind of a club of politicians abusing kids it would be exposed pretty quickly. Politicians are rumbled for all sorts - prostitutes, expenses, fraud etc. People like Saville got away with abuse because of the climate of the time and that has changed. Te fact that Operation Hydrant is ongoing, alongside other initiatives, proves my point.

... absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...

Very true. Yet the lack of evidence is not proof of evidence.

a reply to: paraphi

I think if the press got wind of a club of politicians abusing kids it would be exposed pretty quickly. Politicians are rumbled for all sorts - prostitutes, expenses, fraud etc.

I can't share your optimism on that point. Politicians are nearly always tripped up by paper-trails, or by 'hidden camera' stings, and it's usually down to money, which is always traceable. Where there is neither possibility, they will get away with it as a matter of course. John Major and Edwina Currie, anyone?

a reply to: audubon

Indeed. Super-injunctions are in place via Carter Ruck and their usual crowd on the singer case and a few living politicians, though many incorrect identities and false accusations are rife on twitter/social media.

It'd be contempt of court to name them or anything about the issue unless a member of parliament uses parliamentary prvillege to publicly announce it (eg Trafigura scandal).

The 'backdoor privacy law' in the UK (journalists are guilty until proven innocent in this legal area) makes a lot of things difficult, that's not to say the Beeb were innocent of covering up for Saville.

There's also the public interest self-censorship effect. Many aspects of Harringey Council child protecting services can't be made public as many of the journalists on the case ended up in psych wards after hearing in detail the depravity that went on.

a reply to: bastion

It'd be contempt of court to name them or anything about the issue unless a member of parliament uses parliamentary prvillege to publicly announce it (eg Trafigura scandal).

Trafigura is an interesting (!) choice of illustration. The C-R superinjunction even prevented The Guardian from reporting the matter when it was raised in the Commons. On the other hand, the allegation that Dominic Lawson was an MI6 officer got through the sieve when the same thing happened on the floor.

Commons proceedings are an odd fish, sometimes you won't have the privilege to report something unless you report the entire debate or discussion. No-one is ever quite certain of their footing with this sort of thing.

a reply to: paraphi

it doesnt matter if they are dead so long as there was/is mutually corroborative evidence with which the police can carry charges in court in order to seek justice.

The dead dont defend themselves the crown does.

The press well at least the CEO's of the media giants are likely best friends with some of the people on those lists the police have , so its no wonder they wont publicise it , as why would they want to land their friends in government and TV and themselves in hot bother, when its their unique relationships that have been forged in order to protect them, the power they hold, and their wealth.

Like I said they are all circle jerking each other and protecting each other.