Can someone stop Heenan ruining this thread?
He patently doesn't even understand what he is talking about and I think his obsession with paedophilia is interesting.
I never agreed with allowing him back the several times he has been allowed back.
BBC Bias - Part 2
- Hillman avenger
- Registered user
- Posts: 13963
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:50 pm
- Location: north and south
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Listen to Talksport and let it be a lesson to you
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Robert Heenan wrote:Rantan Zero wrote:Robert Heenan wrote:
Because whilst he was alive... The BBC protected and give carte blanche to Jimmy Savile to carry out and continue his paedophilia.
After his death... It all came out due to very brave journalists yet the official inquiries were a complete whitewash in deflecting any blame on the BBC.
The BBC continues with its agendas and propaganda unabated
Wonder why Jill Dando was murdered?
You think the BBC are a beacon of morality because of how it promotes your lot as some some sort of enlightened people
But surely Savile's death wouldn't really make a difference. You'd still need to "protect him" and cover up what he did dead or alive. Where were all these "brave" journalists when Savile was alive?
Yes it does... Savile lived a life of depravity aided and abetted by the BBC.
See my answer above regarding the brave journalists.
I know what you and others on here are doing and that is making out the BBC as completely innocent in the whole Jimmy Savile paedophilia thing. You really are going down the sewer with your pathetic defence.
Savile led a life of depravity in the LGI long before he joined the BBC. I know you’re trying to shoehorn a lot of blame at the door of the BBC and airbrush the responsibility of many other individuals and establishments but come on. Again I’m struggling to see anyone put the BBC on a pedestal.
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Hillman avenger wrote:Can someone stop Heenan ruining this thread?
He patently doesn't even understand what he is talking about and I think his obsession with paedophilia is interesting.
I never agreed with allowing him back the several times he has been allowed back.
Oh God. You’re on now. I thought the three monkeys and Arsene Wenger of D&D was away for the day. My beef with the BBC is the utter rubbish 5Live throw out and the likes of the poisonous VD and the eternal dislikeable Campbell.
- Carlos J
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 34291
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:32 am
- Location: Searching for Celia.
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
And there we go. Can we get back to the BBC amd not others. I think you've made you're point, Robert, saying the same thing again amd again doesnt make it more right or valid tham anyone else's opinion.
Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Rantan Zero
- Registered user
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:50 am
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
kancutlawns wrote:Robert Heenan wrote:Rantan Zero wrote:Robert Heenan wrote:
Because whilst he was alive... The BBC protected and give carte blanche to Jimmy Savile to carry out and continue his paedophilia.
After his death... It all came out due to very brave journalists yet the official inquiries were a complete whitewash in deflecting any blame on the BBC.
The BBC continues with its agendas and propaganda unabated
Wonder why Jill Dando was murdered?
You think the BBC are a beacon of morality because of how it promotes your lot as some some sort of enlightened people
But surely Savile's death wouldn't really make a difference. You'd still need to "protect him" and cover up what he did dead or alive. Where were all these "brave" journalists when Savile was alive?
Yes it does... Savile lived a life of depravity aided and abetted by the BBC.
See my answer above regarding the brave journalists.
I know what you and others on here are doing and that is making out the BBC as completely innocent in the whole Jimmy Savile paedophilia thing. You really are going down the sewer with your pathetic defence.
Savile led a life of depravity in the LGI long before he joined the BBC. I know you’re trying to shoehorn a lot of blame at the door of the BBC and airbrush the responsibility of many other individuals and establishments but come on. Again I’m struggling to see anyone put the BBC on a pedestal.
I don't think the BBC are "completely innocent" as regards to Savile. I also don't think the BBC are this hugely powerful mafia-esque force that after spending 40 plus years covering up for him would suddenly stop covering for him after he died.
- Robert Heenan
- Winner - TOTY 2011!!!!
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:15 pm
- Location: Wilmslow,Cheshire
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Hillman avenger wrote:Can someone stop Heenan ruining this thread?
He patently doesn't even understand what he is talking about and I think his obsession with paedophilia is interesting.
I never agreed with allowing him back the several times he has been allowed back.
The BBC were doing children in need and other similar things and yet at the same time they turned a completely blind eye and give carte blanche to Jimmy Savile to continue with his paedophilia abuse
The BBC investigate all sorts of stuff and one must be monumentally thick, stupid and dumb to believe the BBC didn't know.
They just couldn't give a damn
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Robert Heenan wrote:Hillman avenger wrote:Can someone stop Heenan ruining this thread?
He patently doesn't even understand what he is talking about and I think his obsession with paedophilia is interesting.
I never agreed with allowing him back the several times he has been allowed back.
The BBC were doing children in need and other similar things and yet at the same time they turned a completely blind eye and give carte blanche to Jimmy Savile to continue with his paedophilia abuse
The BBC investigate all sorts of stuff and one must be monumentally thick, stupid and dumb to believe the BBC didn't know.
They just couldn't give a damn
I’m not sure they turned a blind eye, they were probably carrying out internal enquiries about him but couldn’t get anything to stick. So if the BBC carry out investigations into corruption in the Saudi monarchy like they did recently, why are you not praising them or is this something that you have your teeth into and don’t want to say anything positive about this as it goes against your own narrative?
I don’t think one being objective and open minded means they are monumentally thick. Surely they’re not?
- carcinogen
- Registered user
- Posts: 13688
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:01 pm
- Location: East Coast
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
I hate the way the BBC treat Songs of Praise with total contempt. Shifting it around the schedules like it doesn't matter. 13:55 today it's on. It should be the jewel of Sunday evening television. I guess the fucking 'woke' generation who run the BBC don't give a flying fucking about it. Cunts.
“Ordinary men hate solitude. But the Master makes use of it, embracing his aloneness, realizing he is one with the whole universe.” ~ Lao Tzu.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door". ~ RC, True Detective.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door". ~ RC, True Detective.
- Zambo
- Registered user
- Posts: 25632
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:18 am
- Location: VAR office
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
kancutlawns wrote:Zambo wrote:It's Mothers Day chaps, feel the love.
Zummers, is the tail wagging the dog? Curious that I’m accused of trolling when I’m entitled to post on her when I’m not abusing other posters.
No one controls me Lawns, except Mrs Z
When your heart is blue, there is nothing you can do. Keep Right On
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Zambo wrote:kancutlawns wrote:Zambo wrote:It's Mothers Day chaps, feel the love.
Zummers, is the tail wagging the dog? Curious that I’m accused of trolling when I’m entitled to post on her when I’m not abusing other posters.
No one controls me Lawns, except Mrs Z
- Hillman avenger
- Registered user
- Posts: 13963
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:50 pm
- Location: north and south
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
I had a look at how TOTP was shared between presenters.
I was surprised at how many there were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... presenters
Maybe it's subsequent revelations that makes us remember Saville., but in fact there were a dozen or so regulars
I was surprised at how many there were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... presenters
Maybe it's subsequent revelations that makes us remember Saville., but in fact there were a dozen or so regulars
Listen to Talksport and let it be a lesson to you
- Robert Heenan
- Winner - TOTY 2011!!!!
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:15 pm
- Location: Wilmslow,Cheshire
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
kancutlawns wrote:Robert Heenan wrote:Hillman avenger wrote:Can someone stop Heenan ruining this thread?
He patently doesn't even understand what he is talking about and I think his obsession with paedophilia is interesting.
I never agreed with allowing him back the several times he has been allowed back.
The BBC were doing children in need and other similar things and yet at the same time they turned a completely blind eye and give carte blanche to Jimmy Savile to continue with his paedophilia abuse
The BBC investigate all sorts of stuff and one must be monumentally thick, stupid and dumb to believe the BBC didn't know.
They just couldn't give a damn
I’m not sure they turned a blind eye, they were probably carrying out internal enquiries about him but couldn’t get anything to stick. So if the BBC carry out investigations into corruption in the Saudi monarchy like they did recently, why are you not praising them or is this something that you have your teeth into and don’t want to say anything positive about this as it goes against your own narrative?
I don’t think one being objective and open minded means they are monumentally thick. Surely they’re not?
What a load of rubbish!
What a pathetic defence of the BBC!
If the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall got done for historic sexual abuse then the BBC have absolutely no excuse allowing the most prolific paedophile to operate completely unchallenged
There were probably no internal enquiries and even if there were they were a bloody joke.
The BBC knew and give Savile completely carte blanche to continue his paedophilia completely unabated
You're not doing yourself any favours by making stupid and pathetic posts in favour of the BBC
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
It’s easy to be wise after the event and position oneself as an oracle thinking that everything is black and white. I’m sure that the time that Savile was operating there, there were smoke and mirrors with lots of rumours.
How do you know there was no suspicion about his behaviour and no internal enquiries? Again with Harris and Hall, it’s easy to be wise after the event and I’m genuinely curious if you were on TF and other media channels vociferously campaigning against Savile some years ago.
If not then I suspect you’re raging retrospectively to compensate for a sense of impotence and just for the sake of having a go at the BBC. I ask you again, why are the BBC solely responsible for Savile’s crimes and none of the various other establishments that protected him?
How do you know there was no suspicion about his behaviour and no internal enquiries? Again with Harris and Hall, it’s easy to be wise after the event and I’m genuinely curious if you were on TF and other media channels vociferously campaigning against Savile some years ago.
If not then I suspect you’re raging retrospectively to compensate for a sense of impotence and just for the sake of having a go at the BBC. I ask you again, why are the BBC solely responsible for Savile’s crimes and none of the various other establishments that protected him?
Last edited by kancutlawns on Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Robert Heenan
- Winner - TOTY 2011!!!!
- Posts: 2616
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:15 pm
- Location: Wilmslow,Cheshire
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Hillman avenger wrote:I had a look at how TOTP was shared between presenters.
I was surprised at how many there were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... presenters
Maybe it's subsequent revelations that makes us remember Saville., but in fact there were a dozen or so regulars
Pathetic!
Jimmy Savile was an integral part of the BBC. To make out Savile only had brief and minor role at the BBC is completely twisting the reality and whitewashing the BBC of any blame whatsoever.
It truly is disgusting how you sink to such depth to protect the BBC monster
- kancutlawns
- Posts: 40000
- Posts: 51540
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:37 pm
Re: BBC Bias - Part 2
Robert Heenan wrote:Hillman avenger wrote:I had a look at how TOTP was shared between presenters.
I was surprised at how many there were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_T ... presenters
Maybe it's subsequent revelations that makes us remember Saville., but in fact there were a dozen or so regulars
Pathetic!
Jimmy Savile was an integral part of the BBC. To make out Savile only had brief and minor role at the BBC is completely twisting the reality and whitewashing the BBC of any blame whatsoever.
It truly is disgusting how you sink to such depth to protect the BBC monster
He wasn’t a BBC monster, the BBC didn’t spawn him.