Richard Sharp caved to the inevitable by resigning - but damage to the BBC has already been done

[onthedarkside]

 

By resigning of his own accord, Richard Sharp has saved Rishi Sunak from a tough decision. But some argue he has damaged the BBC's reputation by not going months ago when details of his dealings with Boris Johnson first came to light.

 

His carefully choreographed TV statement was recorded before the report was even published, and he avoided the need to do an interview.

Mr Sharp has, therefore, not been held to account about the damage his behaviour and this whole row has had on the BBC's reputation.

 

READ MORE

https://news.sky.com/story/richard-sharp-caved-to-the-inevitable-by-resigning-but-damage-to-the-bbc-has-already-been-done-12868225

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Be honest, Sunak was never going to make ‘a tough decision’.

 

He’s delayed and dithered while Sharp continued to damage the BBC, which is of course the reason why Johnson appointed him to the post in the fist place…. Well, that and the ‘bung’.

 

‘quid quo pro’ as Latin infected Johnson might wish not to put it.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Be honest, Sunak was never going to make ‘a tough decision’.

 

He’s delayed and dithered while Sharp continued to damage the BBC, which is of course the reason why Johnson appointed him to the post in the fist place…. Well, that and the ‘bung’.

 

‘quid quo pro’ as Latin infected Johnson might wish not to put it.

Sunak was in Glasgow yesterday at the northern branch of of the Tory party conference (as an aside, the photos showing the hall at no more than 20% filled are a joy to see} and refused to answer journalists' questions on the matter. I guess what you would expect from a weak, spineless man who's ideology is nothing more profound than accumulation and self-aggrandisement.

Edited April 28, 2023 by RuamRudy

[Can samui]

Apparently should have stuck to fighting the Peninsular War against old Bonie Bonaparte. 

[mrfill]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Sunak was in Glasgow yesterday at the northern branch of of the Tory party conference (as an aside, the photos showing the hall at no more than 20% filled are a joy to see} and refused to answer journalists' questions on the matter. I guess what you would expect from a weak, spineless man who's ideology is nothing more profound than accumulation and self-aggrandisement.

Not only did he refuse to answer questions, he wouldn't allow any reporters into the presser.(except for 5 very friendly papers)
Not that it makes a great deal of difference as he is incapable of answering any question put forward.
e.g. Journo: Mr Sunak, did you ask Mr Sharp to resign

Rich! : I want to make it perfectly clear that we have built more houses than ........ blahblahblah

[Dionigi]

 The BBC have no reputation left their woke attitude has tainted every progamme they make. Every series has to have gays and coloured people in them no matter how far fetched that makes them.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Dionigi said:

 The BBC have no reputation left their woke attitude has tainted every progamme they make. Every series has to have gays and coloured people in them no matter how far fetched that makes them.

Because the gays and the coloured people don't exist in the real world?

[transam]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the gays and the coloured people don't exist in the real world?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, have you inform Barack Obama about that.......????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, have you inform Barack Obama about that.......????

Still not got over that then.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the gays and the coloured people don't exist in the real world?

Of course they exist.

 

But you don’t see them every 3 milliseconds, playing historical characters from 18th century Britain unless you watch the Woker than Woke left wing propaganda jizz that the BBC spaffs out.

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Of course they exist.

 

But you don’t see them every 3 milliseconds, playing historical characters from 18th century Britain unless you watch the Woker than Woke left wing propaganda jizz that the BBC spaffs out.

I am not sure to whom you are referring, but I presume that they would play the character appropriately? Is there a particular gay actor who camps up a straight figure from history?

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Of course they exist.

 

But you don’t see them every 3 milliseconds, playing historical characters from 18th century Britain unless you watch the Woker than Woke left wing propaganda jizz that the BBC spaffs out.

Where there no gays or non white people in 18th C Britain?

 

 

[transam]

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Still not got over that then.

 

 

Over what......?   ????

[siftasam]

The BBC lost its reputation long ago. Have we forgotten the pedophiles and Operation Yewtree?

[VocalNeal]

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the gays and the coloured people don't exist in the real world?

Maybe the proportions are wrong????

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

Maybe the proportions are wrong????

Is there over-representation of any minority? Can you offer empirical evidence to back up that suggestion, or is it merely a gut feel?

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where there no gays or non white people in 18th C Britain?

 

 

There were.

 

But Anne Boleyn was not African.

 

Would you support a film about MLK or Muhammad Ali having a white woman playing their role? It’s stupid and massively detracts from the movie for the sake of political correctness.

 

It’s like a remake of Lassie where Lassie is a cat. Inane woke nonsense. 
 

History will show the last decade as a low point for supposed intelligence of the human race.

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

There were.

 

But Anne Boleyn was not African.

 

Would you support a film about MLK or Muhammad Ali having a white woman playing their role? It’s stupid and massively detracts from the movie for the sake of political correctness.

 

It’s like a remake of Lassie where Lassie is a cat. Inane woke nonsense. 
 

History will show the last decade as a low point for supposed intelligence of the human race.

MLK and Mohammed Ali were both activists in the struggle of the civil rights movement, both victims of racism who rose above tat racism.

 

Their race is central to their story.

 

Non of which can be said of Ann Boleyn, her story was not one of race and she was not the subject of racism, she was not an activist in the fight against racism.

 

Why this needs to be explained to you is a mystery.

 

Well, actually, no it’s not a mystery at all.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[RuamRudy]

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

There were.

 

But Anne Boleyn was not African.

 

Would you support a film about MLK or Muhammad Ali having a white woman playing their role? It’s stupid and massively detracts from the movie for the sake of political correctness.

 

It’s like a remake of Lassie where Lassie is a cat. Inane woke nonsense. 
 

History will show the last decade as a low point for supposed intelligence of the human race.

Good god, JonnyF, you are protesting against cultural appropriation. I would have never thought you would go woke. 

 

Robert Powell playing Jesus - outrageous!

[JonnyF]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

MLK and Mohammed Ali were both activists in the struggle of the civil rights movement, both victims of racism who rose above tat racism.

 

Their race is central to their story.

 

Non of which can be said of Ann Boleyn, her story was not one of race and she was not the subject of racism, she was not an activist in the fight against racism.

 

Why this needs to be explained to you is a mystery.

 

Well, actually, no it’s not a mystery at all.

 

Ok how about Rowan Atkinson playing Michael Jordan ?

 

I’m guessing every famous black man is a victim of racism whose race is central to the story in your leftist woke world?

 

The fact you see race as a central point in every argument only highlights on your own agenda and prejudice.

[JonnyF]

46 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Good god, JonnyF, you are protesting against cultural appropriation. I would have never thought you would go woke. 

 

Robert Powell playing Jesus - outrageous!

We all know cultural (mis) appropriation works one way only. To the left.

 

I never saw anyone complaining about black skateboarders, Markle straightening her nose and hair to appear Caucasian, black motocross riders, black golfers,  guitarists etc. 

 

But as soon as a white girl applies fake tan and gets an Afro perm all hell breaks loose.  Heaven forbid a white guy gets dreads and plays the bongos. I even remember the hate towards Eminem (from white leftists) for daring to be a white rapper until they realized he was very talented and possibly top 5 all time.

 

The middle class white self hate is strong on this one.

[JackGats]

What I find noteworthy in this high-profile case is that he is not being forced to resign following some feminist voodoo sexual assault accusation, like "fondling the breast of a 19-year-old child thirty years ago". That is new and unprecedented, especially in the UK.

[Mac Mickmanus]

The Guardian published an Anti Semitic cartoon about this newstory .

 

 

   The squid in the Goldman Sachs box represents the alleged Jewish hold on certain segments of society , Hollywood, finance etc , are those gold coins in the squids mouth ?

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197

 

 

"The Guardian pulls cartoon of outgoing BBC boss Richard Sharp after antisemitism backlash

The media group apologised and removed Martin Rowson's drawing from its website saying it "does not meet our editorial standards" after it was branded a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon"."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Ok how about Rowan Atkinson playing Michael Jordan ?

 

I’m guessing every famous black man is a victim of racism whose race is central to the story in your leftist woke world?

 

The fact you see race as a central point in every argument only highlights on your own agenda and prejudice.

Get over your self grievance stroking already.

 

Equating MLK and Mohammed Ali to Anne Boleyn, for goodness sake man, get a grip.

 

And no, hiding behind a second attempt at idiocy won’t get you off the hook you put yourself on.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

We all know cultural (mis) appropriation works one way only. To the left.

 

I never saw anyone complaining about black skateboarders, Markle straightening her nose and hair to appear Caucasian, black motocross riders, black golfers,  guitarists etc. 

 

But as soon as a white girl applies fake tan and gets an Afro perm all hell breaks loose.  Heaven forbid a white guy gets dreads and plays the bongos. I even remember the hate towards Eminem (from white leftists) for daring to be a white rapper until they realized he was very talented and possibly top 5 all time.

 

The middle class white self hate is strong on this one.

More of the rightwing accusation/confession stuff.

[JonnyF]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Equating MLK and Mohammed Ali to Anne Boleyn, for goodness sake man, get a grip.

 

How am I equating them? And what difference does it make if they are equatable? Get a grip woman. So the acceptability of playing the part of someone from a different race is dependent on the status of the person you are playing?

 

What is your point exactly? It’s ok for white people to play the role of bad black people but not good black people? Or black people can only play the part of bad white people? 

 

A white guy can play John Allen Muhammad but not Muhammad Ali?

 

You’re tying yourself in knots again. You’re going all Sturgeon on us. You might want to see how that worked out for her. 

 

Let’s be honest, what you are really saying is that it’s ok for black actors to play white roles but not vice versa. You perfectly embody the hypocrisy of the left once again. Well done.

[Bday Prang]

53 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

How am I equating them? And what difference does it make if they are equatable? Get a grip woman. So the acceptability of playing the part of someone from a different race is dependent on the status of the person you are playing?

 

What is your point exactly? It’s ok for white people to play the role of bad black people but not good black people? Or black people can only play the part of bad white people? 

 

A white guy can play John Allen Muhammad but not Muhammad Ali?

 

You’re tying yourself in knots again. You’re going all Sturgeon on us. You might want to see how that worked out for her. 

 

Let’s be honest, what you are really saying is that it’s ok for black actors to play white roles but not vice versa. You perfectly embody the hypocrisy of the left once again. Well done.

             If swapping "ethnicity" or gender in historical films, the result is going to be a cross between a Pantomime,  a "Carry on " film  and "Hello Hello"

            Only the delusionally woke could possibly think otherwise. The ensuing avalanche of positive reviews would be the perfect case of "the emperor's new clothes" coupled with a big dose of virtue signalling

             If there really was any serious technical theatrical benefit to this ridiculous practice it would have been going on for years,   We would have seen Black Hitlers,  White Martin  Luther Kings, Gay Henry VIII, and Female Winston Churchills  many times already over the years,nd we have not, for pretty obvious reasons, none of which are racist or homophobic 

             There was  an "ideology" being discussed on the BBC ( where else ?) quite recently regarding whether or not it was appropriate for straight actors to appear in gay roles, one of the reasons being that they could never understand the difficulties and trauma etc  of living a gay life, and as such could never really" pull it off" regardless of their acting ability, more than a little insulting to straight actors i my opinion 

              Of course there was no corresponding discussion or questions asked regarding the same potential problems arising should the roles be reversed.

              It would be interesting to see how a policy like this could be effectively "policed" how would they actually prove their sexual orientation? , it might actually give rise to the return of a particularly arduous and unpleasant casting couch scenario and a new variation of a "me too" movement

            They may actually be shooting themselves in foot at least as far as historical films are concerned, as I'm guessing there are a lot more gay actors than there are gay historical figures, so work opportunities for gay actors will be significantly reduced, should this ever come to pass

             On the other hand, any "straight" serious method actors , those who like to immerse themselves totally in character, often going to extreme lengths in the months prior to filming, in order to truly live the part,   like Robert De Niro for example, might actually welcome the decision 

[Bday Prang]

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The Guardian published an Anti Semitic cartoon about this newstory .

 

 

   The squid in the Goldman Sachs box represents the alleged Jewish hold on certain segments of society , Hollywood, finance etc , are those gold coins in the squids mouth ?

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/the-guardian-pulls-cartoon-of-outgoing-bbc-boss-richard-sharp-after-antisemitism-backlash-12869197

 

 

"The Guardian pulls cartoon of outgoing BBC boss Richard Sharp after antisemitism backlash

The media group apologised and removed Martin Rowson's drawing from its website saying it "does not meet our editorial standards" after it was branded a "repellent explicitly racist cartoon"."

 

 

 

 

 

 

          So why was it published in the first place???? An accident? Somebody just sneaked it in under the editors nose? , Anybody been disciplined? of course not.

              It totally reflects their editorial standards, it was authorised and approved at the highest level,  it was put out there deliberately to advertise  exactly what they stand for. Of course they new they would have to pull it eventually , but by the time they decided to remove it  with the usual meaningless and insincere apology, they had achieved their objective.  It cannot be "unseen".

              A bit like when a barrister lets slip a piece of inadmissible evidence and the judge instructs the jury to disregard it, they can never truly do that.

               Its akin to a journalistic intentional professional foul and they will have no regrets whatsoever

 

[Bday Prang]

Too slow to edit my earlier post, but just wanted to point out that "hello hello" was taken off air as it was not even considered culturally  appropriate  by the woke  BBC  to have white  English male actors playing white male German soldiers  I guess it would have been ok if they had used black women actresses ?

[RuamRudy]

6 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Too slow to edit my earlier post, but just wanted to point out that "hello hello" was taken off air as it was not even considered culturally  appropriate  by the woke  BBC  to have white  English male actors playing white male German soldiers  I guess it would have been ok if they had used black women actresses ?

Hello? Hello??? Did you mean 'Allo, 'Allo, the successful BBC comedy which ran for 9 series between 1982 and 1992 with a revival in 2007?