These are issues concerning Ministers at the very top of Margaret Thatcher's government of the time.
The two BBC inquiries are now underway and a similar level of scrutiny is needed about Savile's role at Broadmoor.
That's just the point i'm trying to make.
Why this obsession with Savile? He was just 'small fry'.....plus he's dead.
Don't keep looking at the bottom all the time. The 'big fish' are at the very top of society. 'Respectable' figures of the Establishment....that's where the real criminality has taken place. People who mingle in the upper echelons of society due to their public school background and positions of privilege etc.
These people are clever enough to use the dead figure of Savile as a pariah to divert attention away from their themselves and so far they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job as they have the media churning out the Glitter/Starr rubbish, feeding the masses what they want to believe, all gibbering away like a bunch of headless chickens believing that every single man must be a Paedophile.
It reminds me very much of the lunacy and madness which prevailed over McCarthyism in the USA where anyone who dared to utter any 'anti establishment' words were automatically deemed to be 'a commie'.
The vast majority of your posts are nothing but carping at my heels and that of others you’re obsessed with, others who contribute constructive opinion and content to this forum whilst you yourself just dog their steps with your incessant personal criticism.
I sincerely hope you're not counting yourself and the other "it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault" posters in this thread in that comment as I have yet to see any such "constructive opinions" from any of you.
I sincerely hope you're not counting yourself and the other "it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault" posters in this thread in that comment as I have yet to see any such "constructive opinions" from any of you.
Another one who likes to put your words in my mouth. Find me somewhere, anywhere, I’ve said"it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault". You can’t but you like to polarise viewpoints in this childish way so you can set one against the other because that’s the level you like to argue on as it avoids you having to add anything constructive.
Your contributions to the whole Savile discussion are merely incessant personal criticism of others, not their opinions or what they have to say but their right to air an opinion at all that you disagree with. You’ve taken a pro-BBC stance throughout and just denigrate anyone that posts critically toward the BBC regardless of the information to hand. You’re not interested in discussing anything, merely shouting down those whose opinions you find uncomfortable to confront.
You’re never not being sarcastic, which is your problem.
Actually I am not sarcastic most of the time. It is only when I come across comment or other that is so completely obviously in need of it that it happens.
Another one who likes to put your words in my mouth.
Not at all. I would never presume to do that.
Find me somewhere, anywhere, I’ve said"it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault".
Well you like to say that those who "defend the BBC" are doing the exact opposite but we're still waiting for you to prove it from the last time you were challenged to.
You can’t but you like to polarise viewpoints in this childish way so you can set one against the other because that’s the level you like to argue on as it avoids you having to add anything constructive.
There is nothing to say until the official enquiries have been completed. Up to that point it is all speculation, and speculation is pointless.
Your contributions to the whole Savile discussion are merely incessant personal criticism of others, not their opinions or what they have to say but their right to air an opinion at all that you disagree with.
Nonsense. I have never personally criticised anyone
You’ve taken a pro-BBC stance throughout and just denigrate anyone that posts critically toward the BBC regardless of the information to hand.
When that "information" is twisted into an anti-BBC stance then hell yeah I'll "defend" the BBC.
You’re not interested in discussing anything, merely shouting down those whose opinions you find uncomfortable to confront.
Again incorrect. But there's plenty of people on here discussing it who share my POV and I see no point in adding "me too" posts to every point I agree with.
You’re never not being sarcastic, which is your problem.
Another one who likes to put your words in my mouth. Find me somewhere, anywhere, I’ve said"it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault". You can’t but you like to polarise viewpoints in this childish way so you can set one against the other because that’s the level you like to argue on as it avoids you having to add anything constructive.
Your contributions to the whole Savile discussion are merely incessant personal criticism of others, not their opinions or what they have to say but their right to air an opinion at all that you disagree with. You’ve taken a pro-BBC stance throughout and just denigrate anyone that posts critically toward the BBC regardless of the information to hand. You’re not interested in discussing anything, merely shouting down those whose opinions you find uncomfortable to confront.
Seen it a thousand times.
Got to agree with this, carl is a 'professional' stirrer on this and other forums.
In the programme a woman named as Rochelle Shepherd appears talking in general terms about events connected with Duncroft and asks who pays.
She was part of the original Newswatch feature as her interview was captioned 30 Nov 2011.
She seemed too young to have been a resident but at no time was her connection with Duncroft mentioned.
At the head of the draft script dated 29 Nov there was mention they hoped to have 'one more girl on camera on Wednesday', (ie 30 Nov 2011).
If Rochelle is who I think she is then she was not a resident of Duncroft.
Which raises the question was Meirion Jones attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon, it might explain why Rippon pulled the plugs on 1 December much to the annoyance of the producer & reporter?
Coming from the man who spends the majority of his forum time maligning Savile’s victims, casting insulting doubt on their motives for coming forward, impugning the integrity of whistleblowing journalists, defending the BBC’s lies and attempting to shift blame from the BBC to someone, anyone else I’ll take that as a compliment.
Actually I am not sarcastic most of the time. It is only when I come across comment or other that is so completely obviously in need of it that it happens.
It’s your default setting. Perhaps you can’t help yourself...
There is nothing to say until the official enquiries have been completed. Up to that point it is all speculation, and speculation is pointless.
Err...haven’t you just negated the point of 90% of the posts on the forum? Most of what’s posted here is opinion and speculation so I guess we should all just pack up and go home according to you?
And, it’s “Inquiries” not “Enquiries” in this case. Pass it onto your friends as they seem to constantly confuse the two as well.
When that "information" is twisted into an anti-BBC stance then hell yeah I'll "defend" the BBC.
There’s no twisting required as the BBC’s failings are so plentiful but it’s good to have you confirm what I’ve been asserting - You specifically go after those critical of the BBC. Thanks for admitting that.
Again incorrect. But there's plenty of people on here discussing it who share my POV and I see no point in adding "me too" posts to every point I agree with.
Oh, I don’t know....When you’re not blithely attacking those who criticise the BBC all you seem to be doing is quoting those of a like-minded disposition merely to say, “Excellent post” or “I agree completely”. Not really much of a contribution is it?
In the programme a woman named as Rochelle Shepherd appears talking in general terms about events connected with Duncroft and asks who pays.
She was part of the original Newswatch feature as her interview was captioned 30 Nov 2011.
She seemed too young to have been a resident but at no time was her connection with Duncroft mentioned.
At the head of the draft script dated 29 Nov there was mention they hoped to have 'one more girl on camera on Wednesday', (ie 30 Nov 2011).
If Rochelle is who I think she is then she was not a resident of Duncroft.
Which raises the question was Meirion Jones attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon, it might explain why Rippon pulled the plugs on 1 December much to the annoyance of the producer & reporter?
At present we don't have a clear understanding of Meirion's interaction with his editor at Newsnight. It seems that he pitched the story to Panorama but the editor there had reservations.
However, the door there was left open so it would be interesting to know why Meirion didn't return to Panorama. I should imagine that's one issue that Nick Pollard would be interested in.
The question relating to Meirion Jones possibly attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon could end up being central to the investigation I would have thought.
From a blog by an ex Duncroft Girl...for over a year ex pupils of the school have been in a bitter with each other on various forums, some formed a closed group to exchange their experiences of Jimmy Savile...this is by someone excluded from the group.
I would be remiss if I didn't note that I got wind of the Newsnight investigation almost immediately after Savile breathed his last. It wasn't a direct contact- second-hand from an ex-Duncroftian from my days in the 60s, who had no idea what was going on.
I wasn't on the dreaded database in the hands of unauthorized individuals and was out of the loop, not understanding such phrases as "this is our last chance." But the allegations were pretty intriguing, so I went looking for someone rejoicing in the acronym MWT. Mark Williams-Thomas.
I called him and we had a longish, cordial but guarded conversation. This was just before the proposed/aborted Newsnight airing of 2011. I expressed my doubts about all of it, but he obviously was better informed than me at the time. I asked him if he could perhaps refer to the school by some other name, as I didn't see why it was necessary to have the women be protected if not the school.
He made no committment, and obviously he chose to exploit Duncroft because it was what it was in public perception; i.e. a school of bad girls, ripe for exploitation with the aid of the wicked headmistress, Cruella Jones, and her evil staff.
At present we don't have a clear understanding of Meirion's interaction with his editor at Newsnight. It seems that he pitched the story to Panorama but the editor there had reservations.
However, the door there was left open so it would be interesting to know why Meirion didn't return to Panorama. I should imagine that's one issue that Nick Pollard would be interested in.
The question relating to Meirion Jones possibly attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon could end up being central to the investigation I would have thought.
Also if what his aunt says is correct, that the family were in dispute it could have tainted Meirion's attitude?
Her nephew, BBC producer Meirion Jones, had investigated the school for Newsnight but his programme was never aired. Miss Jones fell out with him and his parents some years ago over ‘some family business’.
'I could see why the girls liked him, but he gave me the creeps'
‘Only a couple of months ago I met Meirion’s mother, Eileen, at a family party. Meirion was also there.
Eileen became quite angry with me about some affairs to do with our family-owned house and she brought up Jimmy Savile, saying, “You let him take those girls out in cars, you should be ashamed.” I had no idea why she was talking about Jimmy Savile.
‘Now I know Meirion had been telling his mother what he was up to with this story for the BBC without even telling me. I’m not criticising him for being close to his mother but it seems I was the last to know.
If Peter Rippon was unware of the relationship then I don't see it being on Nick Pollard's radar.
At present we don't have a clear understanding of Meirion's interaction with his editor at Newsnight. It seems that he pitched the story to Panorama but the editor there had reservations.
However, the door there was left open so it would be interesting to know why Meirion didn't return to Panorama. I should imagine that's one issue that Nick Pollard would be interested in.
You know nothing of the sort. It may simply to be to do with time, and at that time they didn't have enough to fill 1/2 hour but had enough for a Newsnight segment of 10-15 minutes.
From a blog by an ex Duncroft Girl...for over a year ex pupils of the school have been in a bitter with each other on various forums, some formed a closed group to exchange their experiences of Jimmy Savile...this is by someone excluded from the group.
We already know the reason for this, there was a divide between the girls of the 60s who were of a "different caliber" as that blogger put it, as the school had passed into local authority control in 1970 and the criteria for entry was different.
You know nothing of the sort. It may simply to be to do with time, and at that time they didn't have enough to fill 1/2 hour but had enough for a Newsnight segment of 10-15 minutes.
We already know the reason for this, there was a divide between the girls of the 60s who were of a "different caliber" as that blogger put it, as the school had passed into local authority control in 1970 and the criteria for entry was different.
In reality we know nothing for certain but the following link to an article in Broadcast magazine makes interesting reading:
The Media Show on R4 reporting that 76% of people [polled] say they have lost trust in the BBC because of the Savile scandal. Jeremy Isaacs on the same show said that “the entire governance of the BBC had been called into question as a result”.
The Media Show on R4 reporting that 76% of people [polled] say they have lost trust in the BBC because of the Savile scandal. Jeremy Isaacs on the same show said that “the entire governance of the BBC had been called into question as a result”.
no one asked me , I dont think its the BBC of todays fault what was allowed to happen 30 years ago , you can't visit the sins of the fathers on the children and I think society has moved on and has totally differnt core values now .As for the debacle over showing the exposure programme that was bad judgement but not a cover up,I think we are all seriously in danger of forgetting about the evil done by Savile because we are concentrating on blaming people some of whom hadn't even left school when it was happening
I dont think its the BBC of todays fault what was allowed to happen 30 years ago , you can't visit the sins of the fathers on the children....
It is the fault of the current and last management that the BBC of today is inextricably tied to the BBC of yesterday due to the spiking of the Newsnight expose and the Xmas Tribute programmes they chose to air instead. Enough was known at that time for both those decisions to have gone the opposite way they did. Had that been the case the BBC could have excised some, not all, of the poison that is currently killing them. Their conduct subsequent to 2011 has also hardly covered them in glory so it’s no surprise they’ve become the story rather than simply reporting on it.
I think we are all seriously in danger of forgetting about the evil done by Savile because we are concentrating on blaming people some of whom hadn't even left school when it was happening
It’s impossible to forget about Savile’s crimes once you’ve read testimony from anyone he assaulted but he’s dead and it’s his victims that now want public acknowledgement of what was done to them and who knew what and when so if you think that’s just a blame exercise you should let them know they’re being unfair on the poor old BBC and any other organisation that turned a blind eye.
no one asked me , I dont think its the BBC of todays fault what was allowed to happen 30 years ago , you can't visit the sins of the fathers on the children and I think society has moved on and has totally differnt core values now .As for the debacle over showing the exposure programme that was bad judgement but not a cover up,I think we are all seriously in danger of forgetting about the evil done by Savile because we are concentrating on blaming people some of whom hadn't even left school when it was happening
Polls are an odd thing. In one hand they are tools to determine how people are thinking. On the other hand they are political instruments that can be interpreted in different ways.
Would someone confirm what the actual question was?
if it was "Do you still trust the BBC?" and 76% said no, then that is quite worrying. However, if it was "Has the Savile affair made you lose trust in the BBC" and 76% said it has, then that is not surprising. If you ask a question in a provocative manner you will often get the result you want.
If I put 100 people in a room and said "What do you think of the BBC" most of those people would say "I'm not bothered one way or another."
And, you also have to determine who the people who were polled were, whether there was any group they belonged to etc.
And, yes, people are forgetting the real issue. A sick man and others have abused children and young/vulnerable adults. He was the scum!
If I put 100 people in a room and said "What do you think of the BBC" most of those people would say "I'm not bothered one way or another."
I look forward to you actually doing that poll and publishing the results instead of......just making stuff up that suits your stance in order to refute a poll that you find unsettling. Loving your precognitive powers though - Very impressive.
And, yes, people are forgetting the real issue. A sick man and others have abused children and young/vulnerable adults. He was the scum!
Nobody forgets the root cause of all this......Much as you might like to bandy such a statement around in order to absolve the BBC of as much blame as you can.
The BBC had their chance to get in front of this mess last year. Instead they preferred to sweep it under the carpet and now they are the story. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again because the BBC are utterly useless when it comes to their own accountability.
Straker, I glimpsed at your post and yet again you have twisted my words to interpret your own obssessive agenda.
I asked:
Could someone confirm what the actual question was?
I asked this because it hasn't made clear. What was made clear was that 76% of people polled said they had lost trust in the BBC due to the Savile affair.
I also did not refute the claims. I suggested that the result was worrying if the question was a simple "Do you still trust the BBC?". But I am entitled to determine the exact wording of the question.
I did suggest that if a 100 people were in a room and I asked them what they thought of the BBC. And, I still believe that most of these people would not really have an opinion that would be considered as negative or positive.
You keep seeking out those negative stories. It must be annoying to you that the emphasis has been lifted from the BBC at present as the media concentrate on President Obama, the child abuse case in North Wales (for which a Conservative politician is allegedly involved and there is suggestion of a Whitehall cover up), and of course the economy. I think priorities have changed. People are now not thinking about this Savile case as much as they start worrying whether they can afford to have a Christmas or not.
Straker, I glimpsed at your post and yet again you have twisted my words to interpret your own obssessive agenda.
Why on earth do I need to twist “76% of people don’t trust the Beeb”. It’s you and your friends who have to find a way to chip away at this seriously damaging poll and others like it. As you tried to do above.
I did suggest that if a 100 people were in a room and I asked them what they thought of the BBC. And, I still believe that most of these people would not really have an opinion that would be considered as negative or positive.
Your untested “belief” is entirely irrelevant. You posited a made-up scenario that reflects your desire to minimise the BBC’s culpability against a survey that’s actually been conducted and shown to be bad for the BBC. You see that don’t you - Real world fact vs your made-up “100 people in a room” guff? You get that, right....?
It must be annoying to you that the emphasis has been lifted from the BBC at present as the media concentrate on President Obama, the child abuse case in North Wales (for which a Conservative politician is allegedly involved and there is suggestion of a Whitehall cover up), and of course the economy.
It must be annoying to you that despite all that, this story is still b]today[/b making the news broadcasts, radio, online and also in the papers. It speaks volumes that this many weeks down the line, and pitted against global news, that the BBC is still front and centre in this mess.
You do understand that these two statements are entirely different, don't you?
I was clear when reporting TMS results as people polled but polls in general are taken to represent the larger public so essentially they’re one and the same and not entirely different. If polls were taken to solely represent the random 100/1000/10000 people surveyed and no others then there’d be no use to doing them in the first place would there?
Nice try at shifting the focus though and it appears you picked up an echo in the process.... :rolleyes:
Originally posted by wizzywick to interpret your own obssessive agenda.
I had to come back to this as it particularly amused me. Compare posting histories for you and me as regards the Savile/BBC scandal and let me know who comes out with the most posts on the subject. Here’s a clue - It’s not me, so who does that make the “obsessive” between the two of us?
Comments
Why this obsession with Savile? He was just 'small fry'.....plus he's dead.
Don't keep looking at the bottom all the time. The 'big fish' are at the very top of society. 'Respectable' figures of the Establishment....that's where the real criminality has taken place. People who mingle in the upper echelons of society due to their public school background and positions of privilege etc.
These people are clever enough to use the dead figure of Savile as a pariah to divert attention away from their themselves and so far they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job as they have the media churning out the Glitter/Starr rubbish, feeding the masses what they want to believe, all gibbering away like a bunch of headless chickens believing that every single man must be a Paedophile.
It reminds me very much of the lunacy and madness which prevailed over McCarthyism in the USA where anyone who dared to utter any 'anti establishment' words were automatically deemed to be 'a commie'.
I sincerely hope you're not counting yourself and the other "it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault" posters in this thread in that comment as I have yet to see any such "constructive opinions" from any of you.
You’re never not being sarcastic, which is your problem.
Another one who likes to put your words in my mouth. Find me somewhere, anywhere, I’ve said"it's all only-and-exclusively the BBC's fault". You can’t but you like to polarise viewpoints in this childish way so you can set one against the other because that’s the level you like to argue on as it avoids you having to add anything constructive.
Your contributions to the whole Savile discussion are merely incessant personal criticism of others, not their opinions or what they have to say but their right to air an opinion at all that you disagree with. You’ve taken a pro-BBC stance throughout and just denigrate anyone that posts critically toward the BBC regardless of the information to hand. You’re not interested in discussing anything, merely shouting down those whose opinions you find uncomfortable to confront.
Seen it a thousand times.
Not at all. I would never presume to do that.
Well you like to say that those who "defend the BBC" are doing the exact opposite but we're still waiting for you to prove it from the last time you were challenged to.
There is nothing to say until the official enquiries have been completed. Up to that point it is all speculation, and speculation is pointless.
Nonsense. I have never personally criticised anyone
When that "information" is twisted into an anti-BBC stance then hell yeah I'll "defend" the BBC.
Again incorrect. But there's plenty of people on here discussing it who share my POV and I see no point in adding "me too" posts to every point I agree with.
Only in your head, though.
Got to agree with this, carl is a 'professional' stirrer on this and other forums.
As is straker.
She was part of the original Newswatch feature as her interview was captioned 30 Nov 2011.
She seemed too young to have been a resident but at no time was her connection with Duncroft mentioned.
At the head of the draft script dated 29 Nov there was mention they hoped to have 'one more girl on camera on Wednesday', (ie 30 Nov 2011).
If Rochelle is who I think she is then she was not a resident of Duncroft.
Which raises the question was Meirion Jones attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon, it might explain why Rippon pulled the plugs on 1 December much to the annoyance of the producer & reporter?
Coming from the man who spends the majority of his forum time maligning Savile’s victims, casting insulting doubt on their motives for coming forward, impugning the integrity of whistleblowing journalists, defending the BBC’s lies and attempting to shift blame from the BBC to someone, anyone else I’ll take that as a compliment.
More BBC failings for you to excuse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9656504/Jimmy-Savile-BBC-investigates-20-employees-over-sexual-misconduct.html
It’s your default setting. Perhaps you can’t help yourself...
I just gave you an example. :rolleyes:
Err...haven’t you just negated the point of 90% of the posts on the forum? Most of what’s posted here is opinion and speculation so I guess we should all just pack up and go home according to you?
And, it’s “Inquiries” not “Enquiries” in this case. Pass it onto your friends as they seem to constantly confuse the two as well.
I’m having a trophy made so I can present you with “Most Ironic Post of the Year” award.
There’s no twisting required as the BBC’s failings are so plentiful but it’s good to have you confirm what I’ve been asserting - You specifically go after those critical of the BBC. Thanks for admitting that.
Oh, I don’t know....When you’re not blithely attacking those who criticise the BBC all you seem to be doing is quoting those of a like-minded disposition merely to say, “Excellent post” or “I agree completely”. Not really much of a contribution is it?
Finishing on a very weak retort. Shame......
He’s at it on other forums as well is he? I wish I could say I was surprised.
Good to have it confirmed though.
And I assume you mean "doesn't automatically agree with anyone" because I certainly am not a "stirrer"; whatever you mean by that.
At present we don't have a clear understanding of Meirion's interaction with his editor at Newsnight. It seems that he pitched the story to Panorama but the editor there had reservations.
However, the door there was left open so it would be interesting to know why Meirion didn't return to Panorama. I should imagine that's one issue that Nick Pollard would be interested in.
The question relating to Meirion Jones possibly attempting to hoodwink his boss Peter Rippon could end up being central to the investigation I would have thought.
Also if what his aunt says is correct, that the family were in dispute it could have tainted Meirion's attitude?
If Peter Rippon was unware of the relationship then I don't see it being on Nick Pollard's radar.
We already know the reason for this, there was a divide between the girls of the 60s who were of a "different caliber" as that blogger put it, as the school had passed into local authority control in 1970 and the criteria for entry was different.
In reality we know nothing for certain but the following link to an article in Broadcast magazine makes interesting reading:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/savile-investigation-was-pitched-to-panorama/5048183.article
I've avoided selective quoting from the article so that others may draw their own conclusions.
no one asked me , I dont think its the BBC of todays fault what was allowed to happen 30 years ago , you can't visit the sins of the fathers on the children and I think society has moved on and has totally differnt core values now .As for the debacle over showing the exposure programme that was bad judgement but not a cover up,I think we are all seriously in danger of forgetting about the evil done by Savile because we are concentrating on blaming people some of whom hadn't even left school when it was happening
76% of people polled..
It is the fault of the current and last management that the BBC of today is inextricably tied to the BBC of yesterday due to the spiking of the Newsnight expose and the Xmas Tribute programmes they chose to air instead. Enough was known at that time for both those decisions to have gone the opposite way they did. Had that been the case the BBC could have excised some, not all, of the poison that is currently killing them. Their conduct subsequent to 2011 has also hardly covered them in glory so it’s no surprise they’ve become the story rather than simply reporting on it.
ITV, not the BBC, aired the Savile programme as part of their Exposure strand.
It’s impossible to forget about Savile’s crimes once you’ve read testimony from anyone he assaulted but he’s dead and it’s his victims that now want public acknowledgement of what was done to them and who knew what and when so if you think that’s just a blame exercise you should let them know they’re being unfair on the poor old BBC and any other organisation that turned a blind eye.
Polls are an odd thing. In one hand they are tools to determine how people are thinking. On the other hand they are political instruments that can be interpreted in different ways.
Would someone confirm what the actual question was?
if it was "Do you still trust the BBC?" and 76% said no, then that is quite worrying. However, if it was "Has the Savile affair made you lose trust in the BBC" and 76% said it has, then that is not surprising. If you ask a question in a provocative manner you will often get the result you want.
If I put 100 people in a room and said "What do you think of the BBC" most of those people would say "I'm not bothered one way or another."
And, you also have to determine who the people who were polled were, whether there was any group they belonged to etc.
And, yes, people are forgetting the real issue. A sick man and others have abused children and young/vulnerable adults. He was the scum!
I look forward to you actually doing that poll and publishing the results instead of......just making stuff up that suits your stance in order to refute a poll that you find unsettling. Loving your precognitive powers though - Very impressive.
More aspersions cast. Duly noted.
Nobody forgets the root cause of all this......Much as you might like to bandy such a statement around in order to absolve the BBC of as much blame as you can.
The BBC had their chance to get in front of this mess last year. Instead they preferred to sweep it under the carpet and now they are the story. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again because the BBC are utterly useless when it comes to their own accountability.
I asked:
Could someone confirm what the actual question was?
I asked this because it hasn't made clear. What was made clear was that 76% of people polled said they had lost trust in the BBC due to the Savile affair.
I also did not refute the claims. I suggested that the result was worrying if the question was a simple "Do you still trust the BBC?". But I am entitled to determine the exact wording of the question.
I did suggest that if a 100 people were in a room and I asked them what they thought of the BBC. And, I still believe that most of these people would not really have an opinion that would be considered as negative or positive.
You keep seeking out those negative stories. It must be annoying to you that the emphasis has been lifted from the BBC at present as the media concentrate on President Obama, the child abuse case in North Wales (for which a Conservative politician is allegedly involved and there is suggestion of a Whitehall cover up), and of course the economy. I think priorities have changed. People are now not thinking about this Savile case as much as they start worrying whether they can afford to have a Christmas or not.
Why on earth do I need to twist “76% of people don’t trust the Beeb”. It’s you and your friends who have to find a way to chip away at this seriously damaging poll and others like it. As you tried to do above.
Your untested “belief” is entirely irrelevant. You posited a made-up scenario that reflects your desire to minimise the BBC’s culpability against a survey that’s actually been conducted and shown to be bad for the BBC. You see that don’t you - Real world fact vs your made-up “100 people in a room” guff? You get that, right....?
Who needs to seek them out? I turn on the radio and there they are.
It must be annoying to you that despite all that, this story is still b]today[/b making the news broadcasts, radio, online and also in the papers. It speaks volumes that this many weeks down the line, and pitted against global news, that the BBC is still front and centre in this mess.
You do understand that these two statements are entirely different, don't you?
I was clear when reporting TMS results as people polled but polls in general are taken to represent the larger public so essentially they’re one and the same and not entirely different. If polls were taken to solely represent the random 100/1000/10000 people surveyed and no others then there’d be no use to doing them in the first place would there?
Nice try at shifting the focus though and it appears you picked up an echo in the process.... :rolleyes:
I had to come back to this as it particularly amused me. Compare posting histories for you and me as regards the Savile/BBC scandal and let me know who comes out with the most posts on the subject. Here’s a clue - It’s not me, so who does that make the “obsessive” between the two of us?