Not sure if this is sarcasm but YES is the answer, yes they did know, lots of people knew.You really think an organisation like the BBC would cover up for misendemours for high profile people?
They had a duty of care towards the people he was abusing and CHOSE to do nothing, which is pretty much covering it up by default. The BBC is a broken organisation and I really wouldn't be surprised if Saville was the only one they've covered for.You really think an organisation like the BBC would cover up for misendemours for high profile people?
There was a poster on here who alluded to it a good while before it came out in the wash, I forget who it was though (I think they met him totp as a kid iirc)You really think an organisation like the BBC would cover up for misendemours for high profile people?
Yes it was sarcasm lolNot sure if this is sarcasm but YES is the answer, yes they did know, lots of people knew.
Hell, Badiel and Skinner even joked about it on that fantasy football show they did on the BBC and it wasn't very subtle.
Sorry if you were being sarcastic lol
I saw it as well. Both very good actors,Sorry if its been mentioned before but I've just watched him in Laurel and Hardy
If the same bloke can do Calf and then Stan, he has to be hugely talented.
John C Reilly is also brilliant as Babe.
I really recommend you watching this
I don't think duties of care existed much back in the sixties & seventies, I would imagine there were many people getting away with all sorts of things back then. I recall an interview in the eighties with Tony Blackburn who said he had slept with over a thousand women, and this was reported in the press as some sort of achievement for the rest of us to applaud, and there have been no accusations towards him, I don't think. Hopefully he was "above board" all the time but it still shows a complete disregard for women and how easy it was to do what he did, I mean, he wasn't exactly blessed with film star looks and these women would predominantly have been people who just followed the DJs around. I just think the BBC didn't know how to handle the behaviour of their "talent" in the midst of the swinging sixties and the idea that they were a facilitator, enabling the introduction of vulnerable young women for middle aged men to take advantage of, is something that wouldn't be considered back then. Now whether Savile's activities just got dismissed as "DJ behaviour" and for the worst rumours they were waiting for proof of, or an arrest, that never materialised, that's difficult to know. The BBC weren't the only ones duped by him - he convinced many that the rumours were untrue, authorities, royals, hospitals etc - so it's not correct to say they had the power to expose him, in my view. After all, if the police and the Queen believed him, how would the BBC do that without evidence?They had a duty of care towards the people he was abusing and CHOSE to do nothing, which is pretty much covering it up by default. The BBC is a broken organisation and I really wouldn't be surprised if Saville was the only one they've covered for.
Indeed.
A "Sensitive" drama apparently.
Depends on their interpretation of that word I suppose.
I can only think it was commissioned for shock value. People will watch it and become outraged thus promoting it even more.I really can't fathom why anyone would want to make or watch a drama series about this.
If there is a desire to know the story or air the facts, you make or watch a documentary.
To make a drama series inherently means you are writing a script and creating a program in which people will find enjoyment in the story, even if that's the kind of less obvious enjoyment you get out of a horror film - suspense, shock, dread etc.
I can see the value in a story about the survivors, or about the BBC coverup. Obviously there's a story to tell around everything, no matter how hideous (see Schindler's list etc) but when you cast someone like Coogan in the leading role of Savile it seems pretty clear that Savile himself is the focus of the drama.
I'm actually quite sickened by the idea of people sitting down at 9pm on a Sunday to be entertained by a drama about Jimmy Savile and then gathering around the water cooler to gossip about it or reading critics rating just how entertaining it was in the paper.
The BBC are still not being open and honest about what they knew about that vile c*nt. It was covered up at the time and it's still being covered up to this day.I don't think duties of care existed much back in the sixties & seventies, I would imagine there were many people getting away with all sorts of things back then. I recall an interview in the eighties with Tony Blackburn who said he had slept with over a thousand women, and this was reported in the press as some sort of achievement for the rest of us to applaud, and there have been no accusations towards him, I don't think. Hopefully he was "above board" all the time but it still shows a complete disregard for women and how easy it was to do what he did, I mean, he wasn't exactly blessed with film star looks and these women would predominantly have been people who just followed the DJs around. I just think the BBC didn't know how to handle the behaviour of their "talent" in the midst of the swinging sixties and the idea that they were a facilitator, enabling the introduction of vulnerable young women for middle aged men to take advantage of, is something that wouldn't be considered back then. Now whether Savile's activities just got dismissed as "DJ behaviour" and for the worst rumours they were waiting for proof of, or an arrest, that never materialised, that's difficult to know. The BBC weren't the only ones duped by him - he convinced many that the rumours were untrue, authorities, royals, hospitals etc - so it's not correct to say they had the power to expose him, in my view. After all, if the police and the Queen believed him, how would the BBC do that without evidence?