Submitted by BlueApples,
The BBC has taken pride in being the world's first national television outlet since it first took to the air in November 1936, tracing its history back even further to its founding as a radio station in 1922. Though it has earned a distinguished reputation over the years, it has done its best to throw that away in recent vintage. What once was a beacon of broadcast media has become a mouthpiece of Britain's propaganda ministry. The distorted narratives it pushes have become so undeniably visible that the hubris of its punditry and production alike teem with a lack of self awareness that has come to boil over in embarrassing interviews showcasing the BBC's fall from grace with regularity. From Elon Musk to Andrew Tate, the BBC has been made to look utterly foolish, leaving a reputation that was once exemplary tarnished and torn beyond repair.
Yet, those public faux pas are merely the tip of the iceberg concerning the rampant corruption coming from the BBC. While the hypocrisy of the broadcaster has been exposed in recently televised high publicity exchanges, a deeper pervasive issue that the organization has done its best to keep out of the public's purview reared its ugly head once more. Once again, an on-air personality at the the BBC has been exposed for child sex abuse. This latest controversy has led to the network taking one of its high profile presenters off air while it investigations allegations that they paid a teenager more than £35,000 for pornographic images since 2020 when they were just 17 years old.
While the BBC has addressed the revelation by removing the on-air personality from its broadcasts, it has not named the person at the core of the allegations. This is a shift on the BBC's usual strategy in which it has constantly cites unnamed sources and anonymous witnesses to push its own unsubstantiated accusations, a tactic that online influencer Andrew Tate castigated the network for in an interview over a then-pending criminal investigation he was enveloped in. Now, the BBC wields that sword of anonymity to cast a shadow over one of its own being investigated for sexual misconduct.
The controversy emerged in May when the family of the teenager contacted the BBC in order to bring the on-going payments to the network's attention. While it is unclear how the alleged perpetrator and victim were introduced, payments of hundreds to thousands of pounds at a time began when the victim was only 17 and have continued for 3 years as she is now 20. The on-air personality has also shamelessly sent sexually explicit messages over that same time frame, even as brazen to send photos of themselves at the BBC while they were working. According to the victim's mother, the money she received has come to fund her addiction to crack-cocaine which apparently has befallen the 20 year old in the years since the alleged abuse began. All the while, the family would see the face of the undisclosed BBC personality on air despite the sordid arrangement they were involved in. The mother spoke to The Sun, excoriating the network without mincing any words by saying “I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life."
However, the ongoing financial arrangement the BBC employee engaged in was far from the most sordid aspect of his alleged abuses. According to the victim's mother, she witnessed a photograph of the on-air personality on his sofa engaging in a video call with her child half-naked. She described her horror when the image was brought to her attention 'I immediately recognized him. He was leaning forward getting ready for my child to perform for him. My child told me, "I have shown things" and this was a picture from some kind of video call."
If these allegations prove to be true, the BBC employee would face a maximum prison sentence of 14 years under the Child Protection Act of 1978. The law makes it a criminal offense to solicit indecent images of anyone under the age of 18. Mere possession of said images also carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, meaning that a multi-count indictment could lead to a prison sentence of over 20 years.
Don’t know who it is yet, but I can guarantee it’s going to be a woke lefty https://t.co/Kygu6dRjOq
— Ikebukuro (@IkebukuroIce) July 9, 2023
The BBC has since addressed the allegations with an effort that could best be described as the bare minimum. Director-General of the BBC Tim Davie stated “We treat any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to proactively deal with them...“If, at any point, new information comes to light or is provided — including via newspapers — this will be acted upon appropriately, in line with internal processes.” Yet it is those internal processes that have proven to be a mechanism for obfuscation and enablement which has cultivated a culture at the BBC, where perverts aren't just employed -- they're celebrated.
That sentiment is only apparently lost upon the braintrust of the BBC, as a fervent outcry of vitriol was cast upon the network by figures within it as well as those outside its ranks. The controversy has led to several high profile personalities at the BBC facing speculation about whether or not they are the subject of the allegations. One such personality is football pundit Gary Lineker, who was suspended by Davie in March for on-air criticism of Downing Street's newly legislated asylum policy.
Lineker's suspension apparently came more swiftly than the discipline taken by the BBC against the employee at the core of these child sex abuse allegations as they were first made in May. Comparably, Lineker was suspended within days of his remarks. That stark juxtaposition of how Lineker's suspension was handled despite the drastically different gravity of that circumstance compared against these child sex abuse allegations has led to other BBC employees to put the network's corruption into the spotlight. Katie Razzall, the BBC's Culture Editor, highlighted how long the network allowed the undisclosed presenter to remain on air, questioning Davie's leadership and enabling of the alleged pedophile.
The clear red flags around how the investigation into these allegations unfolded should come as no surprise. In an un-aired interview with the BBC, online influencer Andrew Tate faced the scorn of the network for allegations made against him as part of what was at the time a criminal investigation against him and his brother in Romania that each has since been indicted for. The botched interview wouldn't be aired by the BBC but Tate published a recording of it himself to highlight how biased poorly conducted the attempted interview was. All the while, the unfounded accusations against him by the BBC supposedly on behalf of anonymous sources not included in the criminal investigation Tate was mired in were made while the network was knowingly obfuscating substantiated child sex abuse accusations against one of its own hosts.
In the wake of that interview, Tate took to the PBD podcast to profess his innocence and shine a light upon the sordid history the BBC has had with handling accusations of sex crimes by those in its own media sphere. Tate specifically pointed to a BBC interview with former Children's BBC and ITV host Phillip Schofield in which the BBC glossed over accusations against him of grooming a minor. Instead of pressing Schofield for answers, the BBC offered the disgraced host a platform to spin a new narrative in which the allegations against him were somehow the vestiges of homophobia rearing its ugly head.
However, the narrative control the BBC undertook to protect Schofield falls miles away from the furthest extent that the network has gone to cover up child sex abuse by some of its most high profile employees. The most notable of those is embodied by long time BBC presenter Jimmy Savile, a man who would sexually abuse women and children to the most depraved degrees imaginable. His sex crimes came to light posthumously, in part due to the censorship surrounding those made against him during his life as the BBC, Downing Street, and the House of Windsor would enable if not engage in Savile's crimes for decades. Savile was closer to King Charles III than Prince Andrew was to Jeffrey Epstein, leading to the former pedophile being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II under the insistence of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher's office would go on to cover up a wide-ranging inquiry of sex crimes committed by Savile and members of the UK government enabled by Downing Street. Minister of Parliament Georffrey Dickens would go on to assemble a dossier investigating these crimes, which would ultimately be "lost" by Thatcher's office.
Given the magnitude of Savile's crimes and the BBC's complicity in them, the fact that the network has cultivated a breeding ground for groomers and child sex abusers to flourish in should come as no surprise. At this point, the only real surprise would be if the BBC is actually held accountable for its role in these crimes. As unlikely as that may be, there is hope that the continued corruption of the BBC coming to light will at the very least turn the tide of public opinion against the network, eviscerating the facade its perverted employees have hidden behind for decades. The network's blatant hypocrisy can at least serve as a beacon for opponents of the propaganda it constantly peddles to point to as it is clear that if there's one thing that the BBC is sorely lacking, it is integrity.
