BBC Admits Past Lapses in Addressing Celebrity Misconduct

[Social Media]

 

BBC Director-General Tim Davie has acknowledged that television stars have, in the past, been allowed to get away with "certain behaviours" within the workplace, an issue the corporation is actively working to address. This admission follows a series of high-profile scandals involving prominent figures within the organization. Davie made these remarks while addressing concerns that famous personalities receiving large salaries were being "indulged," with their actions often overlooked or excused.

 

One of the most notable incidents involves Huw Edwards, once the BBC’s highest-paid news presenter, who was recently sentenced for child sex offences. Prior to this, complaints had surfaced from younger employees who alleged that Edwards had sent them inappropriate messages. Another BBC figure, Jermaine Jenas, known for his appearances on *Match of the Day* and *The One Show*, was recently dismissed after complaints surfaced about inappropriate messages he had sent.

 

Additionally, Graziano Di Prima, a professional dancer on *Strictly Come Dancing*, departed the BBC following allegations that he had kicked his celebrity partner, raising concerns about a broader culture of bullying on the show.

 

During an interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan at the Royal Television Society conference, Davie reflected on the impact of these scandals. "There is no doubt that an affair like this impacts our reputation. We’re very mindful that people’s trust in the BBC is absolutely essential," he said. When questioned about the perception of preferential treatment for high-profile stars, Davie conceded that a disciplinary investigation into Edwards was halted after the presenter resigned. However, a broader review of the BBC’s workplace culture has been initiated.

 

Davie acknowledged that, historically, the BBC may have excused the behaviour of certain creative talents. "There is still something about businesses where you’ve got these people... we often say that a person is creatively brilliant but it comes with certain behaviours," he remarked. He expressed a desire to shift the culture beyond excusing such conduct, stating, "One of the things I want to do in the next stage of this voyage as director-general – I really would love to be at a point where we really get beyond this. You use crisis to move yourself on."

 

Pressed on whether star performers' bad behaviour was still being "indulged and excused," Davie admitted it remained "a constant work in progress." However, he emphasized that the workplace environment had evolved significantly, noting that over 50 percent of the BBC’s workforce is now female. "The environment is different. This is why it hurts so much when these things happen," he said.

 

Davie also addressed the future of Edwards, making it clear that the disgraced presenter would not return to the BBC. "This man has just been convicted of appalling crimes and it’s pretty straightforward in my mind that I can’t see him working at the BBC again. It’s not a difficult question," he stated. While shocked by the revelations surrounding Edwards' "secret life," Davie clarified that the BBC would not entirely erase Edwards from its archives, given his significant role in covering major national events, including the announcement of Queen Elizabeth II’s death. "We never completely ban and rip someone out of the archive," he explained. Although Edwards’ material may not appear in day-to-day programming, Davie emphasized that removing all traces of such a prominent figure "doesn’t pass the common sense test."

 

The BBC is also conducting a review into claims made by actress Amanda Abbington regarding her experiences on *Strictly Come Dancing*. Abbington has accused her dance partner, Giovanni Pernice, of being "abusive, cruel and mean" during rehearsals, allegations Pernice strongly denies. Davie indicated that the review was nearing completion, although it was not finalized before the new season of the dance show began. "Many things in life would be useful," Davie said wryly when asked if the review’s timing could have been better aligned with the show’s schedule.

 

As the BBC faces scrutiny and works to rebuild trust, Davie’s comments highlight the ongoing effort to address misconduct and foster a safer, more accountable workplace culture.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-09-19

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

The BBC has long enabled it's biggest stars. They bend the rules, look the other way, re-interpret the rules etc. to the point that the stars think/know they can get away with pretty much anything. Saville, Harris, Jenas, Edwards are just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

It takes police involvement before they reluctantly take the weakest action possible. It's culturally embedded at this point. 

 

They need to be defunded. It's a massive grift and the British people should no longer be coerced into supporting this Woke, left wing, state funded propaganda machine that seems to churn out unsavoury characters like McDonalds churn out burgers. 

[mikeymike100]

"During an interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan at the Royal Television Society conference, Davie reflected on the impact of these scandals. "There is no doubt that an affair like this impacts our reputation."

 

What a huge understatement, the BBC lost its reputation completely after the Saville scandal.

Why the British public have to pay for these perverts in the BBC is beyond comprehension.

 

[Scottie12]

For around three quid a week the licence is good value for money, the BBC make most of the worthwhile programmes these days.

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The BBC has long enabled it's biggest stars. They bend the rules, look the other way, re-interpret the rules etc. to the point that the stars think/know they can get away with pretty much anything. Saville, Harris, Jenas, Edwards are just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

It takes police involvement before they reluctantly take the weakest action possible. It's culturally embedded at this point. 

 

They need to be defunded. It's a massive grift and the British people should no longer be coerced into supporting this Woke, left wing, state funded propaganda machine that seems to churn out unsavoury characters like McDonalds churn out burgers. 

If you didn't exaggerate so much, others might take your posts more seriously.

[Bday Prang]

50 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

What a huge understatement, the BBC lost its reputation completely after the Saville scandal.

it didn't actually lose its reputation, rather its reputation evolved to more accurately reflect its "values"

[Bday Prang]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

The BBC is also conducting a review into claims made by actress Amanda Abbington regarding her experiences on *Strictly Come Dancing*. Abbington has accused her dance partner, Giovanni Pernice, of being "abusive, cruel and mean" during rehearsals, allegations Pernice strongly denies.

 So  behave in a cruel and mean manner during rehearsals  and you will be investigated immediately .   Indulge in disgusting perverted behaviour on line ... no problem until it goes public.    no surprise really

[JonnyF]

20 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If you didn't exaggerate so much, others might take your posts more seriously.

 

Your posts would need a much bigger adjustment than that before anyone took them seriously. 

[youreavinalaff]

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Your posts would need a much bigger adjustment than that before anyone took them seriously. 

On the contrary, it seems not.

[jippytum]

They had to admit it.. Pedophilia against very young children by so called celebrities is widespread. The BBC have covered it up for years along with others like the Catholic church. 

[mikeymike100]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

If you didn't exaggerate so much, others might take your posts more seriously.

Can you define exactly what has been exaggerated?

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Can you define exactly what has been exaggerated?

Allow me to start with the comparison to how many burgers McDonalds churn out.

[mikeymike100]

14 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Allow me to start with the comparison to how many burgers McDonalds churn out.

So the rest you agree with?

[MarkBR]

19 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

"During an interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan at the Royal Television Society conference, Davie reflected on the impact of these scandals. "There is no doubt that an affair like this impacts our reputation."

 

What a huge understatement, the BBC lost its reputation completely after the Saville scandal.

Why the British public have to pay for these perverts in the BBC is beyond comprehension.

 

Loss of reputation sentence, I agree with.  the BBC is worth it but MUST enforce effective monitoring and standards on ALL staff.  Being a CREATIVE, is not grounds for allowing behaviour that is morally & criminally wrong.  You noted the horrendous Saville case as one example; this Hugh Edwards case is another -  his sentence is FAR too low.

I am not far right, in case anyone queries this, but think that standards & enforcement should be across the board - this is what many in the upper levels of British society and the BBC as a reflection of that fail to adhere to e.g.  BBC, Boris Johnson, Mohamed al Fayed, etc.. the list is long of the Elite acting badly and getting away with it.

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

So the rest you agree with?

I said, "let me start"

 

The other exaggerations involved that particular posters usual political rubbish and assumptions.

 

The public being "coerced" into supporting the BBC when it is in fact a choice. Then again, you suggested the British public "have to pay for these perverts". Wrong.

 

"Tip of the iceberg" was mentioned, although no proof provided.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20 by youreavinalaff

[mikeymike100]

On 9/19/2024 at 12:49 PM, Scottie12 said:

For around three quid a week the licence is good value for money, the BBC make most of the worthwhile programmes these days.

Great sarcasm...good one..

[mikeymike100]

51 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I said, "let me start"

 

The other exaggerations involved that particular posters usual political rubbish and assumptions.

 

The public being "coerced" into supporting the BBC when it is in fact a choice. Then again, you suggested the British public "have to pay for these perverts". Wrong.

 

"Tip of the iceberg" was mentioned, although no proof provided.

 

 

 

 

I disagree, although a tad on the melodramatic side, I thought is was quite accurate.

 

From the GOV.UK website:

"You need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast, and to watch on-demand BBC programmes on iPlayer"

So you DO NEED a TV license if the above applies to you. So in that case you are indeed having to pay for perverts!

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

I disagree, although a tad on the melodramatic side, I thought is was quite accurate.

 

From the GOV.UK website:

"You need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast, and to watch on-demand BBC programmes on iPlayer"

So you DO NEED a TV license if the above applies to you. So in that case you are indeed having to pay for perverts!

Exactly. 

 

No coercion involved. It's a choice and the rules are as clear as day.

 

I believe the payment is to use the services. Not for perverts. A very small minority have been found to have broken the law. They've been subsequently sacked and dome charged with offences.

 

There are undesirables everywhere. Were Harrods shoppers paying for a pervert? Are all those living in Thailand with kids at school paying for perverts? Is anyone  putting money on a collection plate in a Catholic church paying for perverts? The millions that give alms and attend temples, are they paying for perverts?

 

No, they are not. They are paying for something they want, belive in or want to support. Sadly, a small minority tarnish such things.

Edited September 20 by youreavinalaff

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I believe the payment is to use the services. Not for perverts.

 

Pay for one. Receive the other.

 

Classic bait and switch.

 

You end up with Paedo Huw interpreting the news for you every day.

 

Each to their own though. It's not my thing.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Pay for one. Receive the other.

 

Classic bait and switch.

 

You end up with Paedo Huw interpreting the news for you every day.

 

Each to their own though. It's not my thing.

In my lifetime I wouldn't like to think how many news presenters there have been.

 

What I do know is, to my knowledge, less than 0.1% have been convicted of crimes against children.

 

 

[bendejo]

Eric Idle says that back when they were filming (taping) Monty Python at BBC studios, everyone was telling everyone else to keep away from Jimmy Seville, and don't ask why; he said because JS had the biggest show on BBC it made him untouchable.  Seville was fortunate in that all was not revealed after his death.   Unlike Bill Cosby, for instance.  Sometimes your longevity does not work in your favor.

 

Edited September 20 by bendejo