BBC Director General Resigns Over Newsnight

BBC Director General, George Entwhistle has resigned. LL

I could see that coming. But what a God awful mess.

OMG, so he has, LL!


http://news.sky.com/story/1009818/bbc-boss-resigns-after-newsnight-abuse-report

BBC Boss Resigns After Newsnight Abuse Report
9:20pm UK, Saturday 10 November 2012



George Entwistle (L) pictured outside New Broadcasting House

The BBC director-general has resigned after a Newsnight report wrongly implicated a Tory peer in a child abuse scandal.

George Entwistle said the "wholly exceptional" events of last week had convinced him he should stand down.

He made the announcement outside New Broadcasting House at 9pm, alongside BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten.

More follows...

I bet they wish they could turn the clock back.....

I've given this news its own thread, LL, as this story is taking so many twists and turns.

Sabot wrote:
I could see that coming. But what a God awful mess.

It's unbelievable, I cannot see the BBC continuing like this.

Watch Lord Patten. He should be next. And this all started with a bunch of silly women trying to make money from being groped or not, by a dead man.

When Greg Dyke resigned as DG in January 2004 over the ruckus re the BBC reporting of the Hutton Enquiry into the death of David Kelly, people were saying that the whole thing would bring the BBC down, that it was the end etc but it slowly pulled itself back from the brink. Whether this current situation will end with the BBC's demise, which I hope not, it may well bring a new era into being, one where reporters, broadcasters etc from all sections of the media, will be better regulated. I see no difference between the BBC and ITV, who I see are going to do another expose on savile; they are giving MWT a free licence to keep this sorry tale going ad infinitum. LL

None of this would have happened if they had told the truth in the first place about why the original Newsnight was pulled.

bb1 wrote:None of this would have happened if they had told the truth in the first place about why the original Newsnight was pulled.

Exactly. And it wasn't as though there wasn't good reason. They had proof that one of their informers lied and attempted to use faked evidence.
They are all too bloody terrified to stand up and say, "Excuse me, where is the proof?"
Terrified they might get tarred with the same brush if they don't vilify a dead man who can't defend himself.
They were even doing it on Radio 4 this afternoon.

bb1 wrote:None of this would have happened if they had told the truth in the first place about why the original Newsnight was pulled.

It either should never been made, or it should have been shown. The excuse that it might mar the tributes to savile is not acceptable, showing it and shelving the tributes was the correct way to do things. But it does sound to me that the upper/lower floor syndrome hasn't changed, ie anyone on the executive floors hardly ever ventures down to the floors where the studios are, the reporters, producers and directors' areas. memos, pms and emails are the normal means of communication. That is the problem with this so-called electronic age, it is very easy for someone to do something that could turn out to be outrageous and the bosses are not aware of it. The old adage, 'The Buck Stops Here', seems to have been forgotten. LL

Really, it shouldn't have been made, without some basic fact-checking - it was the forerunner of this debacle. I cannot even begin to guess how this complete, utter mess is going to be resolved - I don't know if it can be.

Someone should have stood up and told the world the truth - that the first one was pulled because Newsnight was being fed a load of nonsense by the women involved. I doubt if any of this would have happened if someone at the BBC had had the courage to be HONEST.

This whole dreadful farce shows a complete lack of judgement on the part of anyone who has seen fit to get embroiled in it. Grown men and women who hardly lack intelligence but have no idea of when to keep their mouths shut if they couldn't think of something non committal to say. And this is what we rely on for honest reporting.

Not all of us, Sabot - one of the joys of Sky is that you can get just about every news site under the sun. Which is one of the many reasons I begrudge paying the BBC £140 a year for something I rarely watch.

I cannot stand these 'cuddly' talentless nobodies the BBC shoves down everyone's neck in the hope they turn into national treasures and supposedly beloved household names.

Or the cooking contests. Or the dancing contests. Or the dramas in frocks. The BBC would never survive on a level playing field.

No prizes for guessing which news organisation is crowing....



If I was given to conspiracy theories, I might think that this whole mess was, in fact, orchestrated as payback for Leveson.

Bring the BBC down, and then it would be fair game for the likes of Murdock, who has never hidden his wish to own it. LL

Is this the right place to post this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/A-victim-delusions-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.

A victim of his delusions: Astonishing story the BBC DIDN'T tell you about its troubled star witness
He assaulted QC at inquiry and was branded 'unreliable witness'
Triggered £400k libel payout after false sex abuse accusation
Stood trial for £65k fraud at charity for victims of the sandal
Even his lawyer says he may have invented stories


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/A-victim-delusions-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html#ixzz2BuGcDBlm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Oh no, they've really gone for Mr Messham. That is not nice to read - he was genuinely abused, and that he is damaged is not his fault.

If the scum who abused him all over again by embroiling him in this witch-hunt had cared in the slightest for the truth, they would have done some basic fact-checking and found all this - it's a matter of public record, not a state secret.

You know the MSM may try to wriggle out of the Savile mess in a similar fashion?

They may try to claim the cowardly behaviour of the BBC led them to believe that the Savile 'victims' were telling the truth - how were they to know about forged documents, cheque fraud and 1977 Rolls Royces?

This is a horrible, horrible mess, and the likes of Williams Thomas, and others who started it, should hang their heads in shame.

I am sorry to say that I want to know if the people who were convicted by the testimony of Mr. Messham were actually guilty. Disturbed and troubled he may well be, but so far, he isn't looking very reliable on detail, like names and dates and such.

From what I have read in the stranger corners of the internet, the convictions were sound, Sabot. There was other evidence and other testimonies, which was very rigorously scrutinized in court.

Boys in these homes were being abused beyond any doubt. But it actually has more in common with Rochdale, than any vast Masonic/Lizard/Tory conspiracy.

But only one other victim came forward to corroborate these accusations, and he has now vanished.
The last thing I want to do is to denigrate a genuine victim of abuse, but we now know that this man has lied in the past and again since, and even The Court and his Barrister have said that he is not a reliable witness.
This is all far too serious to convict on unreliable evidence. People do get convicted when they are innocent when it is patently obvious now that some so called abuse victims do lie.

For anyone interested in what appalling shenanigans a rogue reporter can get up to, watch this 1950s film:

Sometimes the courts get it right, Sabot, and I have no doubt that was one of them.

Oh, I remember that old movie, LL - very prophetic!

This isn't quite such a hatchet job on Mr Messham:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/357418/BBC%27s-George-Entwistle-gets-mauled-live-on-air/

BBC'S GEORGE ENTWISTLE GETS MAULED LIVE ON AIR

Sunday November 11,2012
By James Murray and James Fielding

Quote from the long piece:

A report in 2002 said Mr Messham was charged with stealing nearly £30,000 from a support group he set up , Norwas, the North Wales Abuse Survivors . He was also accused of deception and false accounting totalling another £34,000.
Three years later he was acquitted of all charges but the BBC makes no reference to this on its website, an omission Mr Messham now wants corrected. Another news website report said he was cleared of benefit fraud charges at Chester Crown Court. Last year a local newspaper reported Mr Messham had been fined £250 with £515 costs for breaching a noise abatement notice to keep his dog Spook, a Japanese Akita, quiet.
Mr Messham was quite happy to talk to the Sunday Express about his brushes with the law . A key ­question for the internal inquiry will certainly be if the journalists carried out basic routine checks on Mr Messham and, if so, should the report have mentioned his court appearances.
Mr Messham said he hoped to meet Lord McAlpine to apologise personally. He told the Sunday Express: “When I saw a picture of Lord McAlpine for the first time on Friday, I was mortified. I got straight on the phone and phoned the BBC, NCA [National Crime Agency], my lawyers and told them it wasn’t the right man. I’m not having someone prosecuted who does not deserve it.
“He certainly did not abuse me and although I did not name him on the programme, I still offer my sincere apologies because it’s so wrong.”
Describing the moment it dawned on him the wrong man had been implicated in the scandal, he said: “I was on the computer and was about to click off when I saw a photograph of Lord McAlpine on a news site. I thought, ‘That’s not the man’ so that’s why I did what I did straight away because it was the right thing to do.” The crisis sparked renewed assaults on the BBC from MPs ­yesterday. Culture Secretary Maria Miller said: “I have been clear the BBC Trust needs to get to the ­bottom, and quickly, of what has gone wrong at the Corporation.”


Do not ask me; I have absolutely no idea what is going on.

If I was deeply cynical, which you know I am not (!!) I would say that maybe, with Lord McApline's suing threats Mr Meesham and others are now trying to smooth over the mess? JMHO. LL

Just about everything to do with this entire mess has now been discredited in some way or another. Fairly or not, is beside the point. You just need one hint of false accusations, and that's it over for everyone.

I remain entirely on the side of Proof, and so far I haven't seen any, least of all concerning Jimmy Savile, which triggered this whole thing.

And if ever we needed some reason to regulate The Media then this is it. Twitter and FaceBook will be next.

I can only reiterate that demanding proof of accusations will not affect the right to the free speech of the rest of us. Free Speech never meant the right to accuse without proof. Free Speech is now a jaded and misused expression, and only favours those who wish to say whatever they please about anyone with whom they have some problem.