Not fresh enough for you? What's the expiry date on information according to you? Would you be PMSL (how mature..) if it'd been pro-BBC? Nah, thought not....
In the absence of this seemingly never-ending report surfacing it's hardly surprising that any and all sources of info regarding it are pored over is it? If it'd not been delayed THREE times and counting then we'd all be able to make judgements about the detail IN the report as opposed to rumour and conjecture ABOUT the report and why it's taken so long. Understand now?
So you'd prefer the report to stop taking in information, and be published whilst people are still coming forward and replying to questions.
I'm fairly sure you'd be moaning about a rushed report, or "cover up" if it turned out that Dame Janet Smith stopped accepting additional information whilst there were a lot of outstanding witnesses.
It's like a police investigation in the sense that you might expect to finish by X date, but if information keeps surfacing you have to keep going.
It really isn't hard to understand why the report has been delayed when it has been explicitly stated by Dame Smith, and you see the same thing happening with the Police investigations into historical sex abuse (for example Clifford has just been arrested for new offences after additional claims surfaced, months after his initial conviction)..
Interesting, just after the election. I suppose it's just a coincidence, and nothing to do with the Beeb hoping Labour win so there's a more sympathetic government in office when the report comes out.
Interesting, just after the election. I suppose it's just a coincidence, and nothing to do with the Beeb hoping Labour win so there's a more sympathetic government in office when the report comes out.
I really wish there was a roll eyes smiley on here at times.
An undercover police operation that gathered evidence of child abuse by Cyril Smith and other public figures was scrapped shortly after the MP was arrested, BBC Newsnight has been told.
Indeed. The laugh was you posted it as though it were new information.
In the absence of this seemingly never-ending report surfacing it's hardly surprising that any and all sources of info regarding it are pored over is it?
Well it was "pored over" the last time it was posted. Nothing's changed so what's the point in going over it all again?
If it'd not been delayed THREE times and counting then we'd all be able to make judgements about the detail IN the report as opposed to rumour and conjecture ABOUT the report and why it's taken so long. Understand now?
Nope. Not in the slightest. The report will be made when it's made. Speculation adds nothing.
However, I can guarantee that if this report does anything except bury the BBC for good then some people on here will simply not accept it.
But after all this time it ends up being published in May?
Whod have thought?
Given that May is one of twelve months of the year, I'd have said that if it was getting delayed it would have about a one in twelve chance.
Who'd have thunk it.
Of course if it's Published in March/April and it missed stuff because it was rushed, or people were told "I'm sorry we can't take your information into account as it's passed the deadline" there would be complaints, and if it was published in June, July etc it would either be the same "isn't it convenient they've held off publishing it until they hope their friends in the labour party will be back in poer", or "they're delaying it yet again, what have they got to hide".
They really cannot win with some people, so they seem to be going for as and in depth enquiry as can be done (without keep pushing it back for years), which is exactly what should be happening.
It needs the enquiry to be as thorough as possible, it needs it to be out as soon as it can reasonably be finished, but it also has to be as thorough as possible.
So if they're still getting a lot of information in, they'll probably keep it going, but once the amount of new information/lines of enquiry are running down they'll start to try and put the final report together.
About the only real reason I can see them delaying it until after the election because of the Election is probably if it turns out that some of the lines of enquiry, evidence or conclusions have a political bent (to avoid allegations of potentially influencing the election*), but I very much doubt if that would be the case, given that the remit of the inquiry is about what happened at the BBC and what the BBC (or rather it's staff, guests, performers, contractors etc) knew, or should have been aware of.
*Especially if any of the information pointed towards issues with Tory politicians (given the number of times it seems the BBC gets called biased against the Tory party).
Then it failed miserably and just came across as your usual "anti-BBC/LF" nonsense
To you perhaps, but that's more your problem than mine. If I was the slightest bit concerned about your approval of what I post I would buy a monkey and teach it to type, "The BBC is great" in every thread.
As long as you promised to return him you'd be welcome to borrow the monkey, might save you some time and effort.
Or are you just happy being a hypocrite? (And a disrespectful, insulting one at that?)
It doesn't make me a hypocrite either. An example of being a hypocrite would be putting snide, insulting remarks toward another forum member in numerous posts (occasionally putting faux smiley faces next to them), then when the other person responds in kind, moaning about it.
Given that May is one of twelve months of the year, I'd have said that if it was getting delayed it would have about a one in twelve chance.
Who'd have thunk it.
May. The election. Once every 5 years. Bit of a coincidence.
Of course if it's Published in March/April and it missed stuff because it was rushed, or people were told "I'm sorry we can't take your information into account as it's passed the deadline" there would be complaints, and if it was published in June, July etc it would either be the same "isn't it convenient they've held off publishing it until they hope their friends in the labour party will be back in poer", or "they're delaying it yet again, what have they got to hide".
Pretty sure we'll get the gist of it. They arent gonna talk about indivudual cases.
They really cannot win with some people, so they seem to be going for as and in depth enquiry as can be done (without keep pushing it back for years), which is exactly what should be happening.
It needs the enquiry to be as thorough as possible, it needs it to be out as soon as it can reasonably be finished, but it also has to be as thorough as possible.
So if they're still getting a lot of information in, they'll probably keep it going, but once the amount of new information/lines of enquiry are running down they'll start to try and put the final report together.
Is that actually how it works or are you guessing?
If I was running it after all this time Id be issuing some results so far stuff.
Pretty sure we'll get the gist of it. They arent gonna talk about indivudual cases.
If I was running it after all this time Id be issuing some results so far stuff.
Then you would have looked a complete and utter idiot.
You seem to assume all the evidence arrived at the same time that it all confirms your opinion BUT it would seem at least one significant account of events has been contradicted by someone who says they were there and was the reason the others were presented.
I'll spell it out there are others who say they were present and it was they who bumped into a well known star comedian not the person who made claims to the media and police, that there was no visit to a dressing room but they all, chaperones included, went to an eatery where they had a hot drink and doughnut, then went back to their institution,
That's what is claimed was brought to the attention of the inquiry by a mother and daughter late last year....it is the sort of attitude displayed by people like yourself that makes people frightened to come forward with their evidence be it positive or negative to the subject of an investigation.
An example of being a hypocrite would be putting snide, insulting remarks toward another forum member in numerous posts (occasionally putting faux smiley faces next to them), then when the other person responds in kind, moaning about it.
Oh dear. Once again (and as with the idea of PSB, the TVL and the BBC) your lack of knowledge/understanding is showing.
An emotion icon, better known by the portmanteau emoticon (/ɨˈmoʊtɨkɒn/) is a metacommunicative pictorial representation of a facial expression that, in the absence of body language and prosody, serves to draw a receiver's attention to the tenor or temper of a sender's nominal verbal communication, changing and improving its interpretation. It expresses — usually by means of punctuation marks (though it can include numbers and letters) — a person's feelings or mood, though as emoticons have become more popular, some devices have provided stylized pictures that do not use punctuation.
In other words, to demonstrate that a comment should, for example, not be taken too seriously.
I seem to remember telling you this before. I suppose one of these days it will sink in.
I have never seriously (and meant it) insulted anyone on these forums. (Unlike you a couple of days ago.)
It's also pretty much what they said, which from memory was something along the lines of "it is being delayed because we're still receiving information", and what pretty much every good enquiry has done in the past.
Very much common sense to keep the investigation stage of an enquiry open whilst you're still being offered/chasing information.
It's rare for an enquiry where they are trying to find out what has happened to have a fixed end date, because when you start the enquiry you usually don't know how much information will turn up. and in the case of historical inquires you don't know how long it might take to track down people who may have been suggested might have further information but haven't come forward themselves.
I'm fairly sure that if the BBC had said "The enquiry will deliver it's report in X months" and stuck to it there would be howls of "cover up" and "what where they afraid to allow into it" if it turned out that there was still a lot of information being offered that was ignored because it was past some arbitrary cut off point decided months in advance.
Comments
So you'd prefer the report to stop taking in information, and be published whilst people are still coming forward and replying to questions.
I'm fairly sure you'd be moaning about a rushed report, or "cover up" if it turned out that Dame Janet Smith stopped accepting additional information whilst there were a lot of outstanding witnesses.
It's like a police investigation in the sense that you might expect to finish by X date, but if information keeps surfacing you have to keep going.
It really isn't hard to understand why the report has been delayed when it has been explicitly stated by Dame Smith, and you see the same thing happening with the Police investigations into historical sex abuse (for example Clifford has just been arrested for new offences after additional claims surfaced, months after his initial conviction)..
Interesting, just after the election. I suppose it's just a coincidence, and nothing to do with the Beeb hoping Labour win so there's a more sympathetic government in office when the report comes out.
I really wish there was a roll eyes smiley on here at times.
Close down the government!
And Grant Snapps lied about a second job!
It was a little conspiracy theoryesque, I admit. I was wearing my tin foil hat when I posted it........
Indeed. The laugh was you posted it as though it were new information.
Well it was "pored over" the last time it was posted. Nothing's changed so what's the point in going over it all again?
Nope. Not in the slightest. The report will be made when it's made. Speculation adds nothing.
However, I can guarantee that if this report does anything except bury the BBC for good then some people on here will simply not accept it.
Me too. According to a certain poster on here it was removed from use solely and exclusively because I used it a lot.
But after all this time it ends up being published in May?
Whod have thought?
Given that May is one of twelve months of the year, I'd have said that if it was getting delayed it would have about a one in twelve chance.
Who'd have thunk it.
Of course if it's Published in March/April and it missed stuff because it was rushed, or people were told "I'm sorry we can't take your information into account as it's passed the deadline" there would be complaints, and if it was published in June, July etc it would either be the same "isn't it convenient they've held off publishing it until they hope their friends in the labour party will be back in poer", or "they're delaying it yet again, what have they got to hide".
They really cannot win with some people, so they seem to be going for as and in depth enquiry as can be done (without keep pushing it back for years), which is exactly what should be happening.
It needs the enquiry to be as thorough as possible, it needs it to be out as soon as it can reasonably be finished, but it also has to be as thorough as possible.
So if they're still getting a lot of information in, they'll probably keep it going, but once the amount of new information/lines of enquiry are running down they'll start to try and put the final report together.
About the only real reason I can see them delaying it until after the election because of the Election is probably if it turns out that some of the lines of enquiry, evidence or conclusions have a political bent (to avoid allegations of potentially influencing the election*), but I very much doubt if that would be the case, given that the remit of the inquiry is about what happened at the BBC and what the BBC (or rather it's staff, guests, performers, contractors etc) knew, or should have been aware of.
*Especially if any of the information pointed towards issues with Tory politicians (given the number of times it seems the BBC gets called biased against the Tory party).
To you perhaps, but that's more your problem than mine. If I was the slightest bit concerned about your approval of what I post I would buy a monkey and teach it to type, "The BBC is great" in every thread.
As long as you promised to return him you'd be welcome to borrow the monkey, might save you some time and effort.
So you must be at least a little concerned
Or are you just happy being a hypocrite? (And a disrespectful, insulting one at that?)
No, responding to a post by mocking it is not the same as seeking approval.
It doesn't make me a hypocrite either. An example of being a hypocrite would be putting snide, insulting remarks toward another forum member in numerous posts (occasionally putting faux smiley faces next to them), then when the other person responds in kind, moaning about it.
Pretty sure we'll get the gist of it. They arent gonna talk about indivudual cases.
Is that actually how it works or are you guessing?
If I was running it after all this time Id be issuing some results so far stuff.
Then you would have looked a complete and utter idiot.
You seem to assume all the evidence arrived at the same time that it all confirms your opinion BUT it would seem at least one significant account of events has been contradicted by someone who says they were there and was the reason the others were presented.
I'll spell it out there are others who say they were present and it was they who bumped into a well known star comedian not the person who made claims to the media and police, that there was no visit to a dressing room but they all, chaperones included, went to an eatery where they had a hot drink and doughnut, then went back to their institution,
That's what is claimed was brought to the attention of the inquiry by a mother and daughter late last year....it is the sort of attitude displayed by people like yourself that makes people frightened to come forward with their evidence be it positive or negative to the subject of an investigation.
Oh dear. Once again (and as with the idea of PSB, the TVL and the BBC) your lack of knowledge/understanding is showing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon
In other words, to demonstrate that a comment should, for example, not be taken too seriously.
I seem to remember telling you this before. I suppose one of these days it will sink in.
I have never seriously (and meant it) insulted anyone on these forums. (Unlike you a couple of days ago.)
Sounds like common sense to me.
It's also pretty much what they said, which from memory was something along the lines of "it is being delayed because we're still receiving information", and what pretty much every good enquiry has done in the past.
Very much common sense to keep the investigation stage of an enquiry open whilst you're still being offered/chasing information.
It's rare for an enquiry where they are trying to find out what has happened to have a fixed end date, because when you start the enquiry you usually don't know how much information will turn up. and in the case of historical inquires you don't know how long it might take to track down people who may have been suggested might have further information but haven't come forward themselves.
I'm fairly sure that if the BBC had said "The enquiry will deliver it's report in X months" and stuck to it there would be howls of "cover up" and "what where they afraid to allow into it" if it turned out that there was still a lot of information being offered that was ignored because it was past some arbitrary cut off point decided months in advance.