A hive of people who ‘know nuthin’ about nuthin’ …

 

Didn’t I tell you? Messing with the ‘Lockdown Rulz’ is the camel-backbreaking straw, not the ‘sex texts’, and so the Nation now knows officially who the ‘powerful’ presenter is. Everybody, certainly in Westminster, ‘knew’ but didn’t tell. It must have given all those people a lovely feeling of importance. 

Here’s the customary glance at the print editions’ front pages, presented by ‘staff’: “BBC star in hospital’ and ‘big drop in US inflation’” (link). I am in awe of the prowess of that ‘staff’ writer: have pity about yon BBC star now in hospital! Nothing to do with nothing.

This compilation is extremely short. For some unexplained reason the front pages of  The Times, the DM, the Mirror and of course The Sun and the Star are all missing. What is going on? Were they not yet printed? Really? Better not speculate about ‘staff’ trying to keep the worst headlines ‘unavailable’!

And now, the wall of silence having been broken, we’re regaled with acres of pixels of interpretations and explanations. Of course, the actual issue isn’t addressed: how come nobody in the BBC noticed? How come it took the managers so long to act on the letter by the parents which, we were told, was written in May? 

Meanwhile, columnists are gushing about the ‘courageous wife’ , who put an end to all those speculations (e.g. here) while the leading articles in both The Times and the DM hint at ‘fresh claims’, this time from BBC staff. The DM reports that the BBC “urges workers to come forward with ‘any concerns’ after star is named“ (link). Isn’t that a bit like a witch hunt while the man is in hospital? Meanwhile The Times reports in their leading article that:

“Two BBC staff and one former employee told BBC News that they had received what they thought were “inappropriate messages” on social media from the News At Ten anchor.” (link, paywalled)

How come those current and former staff didn’t say anything at the time? Or did they and ‘management’ told them to go away? That would be quite astonishing, given the cultural climate of demanding the head of every ‘sex pest’ in high office, a climate which we  know so well ever since “#MeToo”. Perhaps ‘management’ didn’t intervene because they themselves weren’t as proper as the new ‘sex code’ demands.

The ‘lines of defence’ are already being drawn. Yon headline by ‘staff’  summarising this morning’s front pages is already setting the tone for a blanket of ‘pity’ to be drawn over the whole affair: the man is now hospitalised with an ‘episode’ of mental illness. It would therefore be totally inappropriate and unkind to write anything about Mr Edwards, wouldn’t it!

I’ll only mention that the expression ‘an episode’ means there must have been others, that a manifest illness ought to’ve existed which should have been noticed. We’ll never know, not least because BBC management, especially in the form of the Director General, have told the public that they knew nuthin’ about nuthin’. Are they all from Barcelona?

In their opinion piece, a.k.a. ‘Editorial’, the DT has gone down another track, that of explaining and excusing why ‘the papers’ kept silent when apparently Mr Edwards’ name was bruited about ever since that article in the Sun: ‘privacy laws’! There’s a very interesting admission in this paragraph:

“It is right that the public should know the identity of a licence fee-payer-funded individual, who led national news coverage, facing misconduct allegations. But it is also remarkable that newspapers have until now been unable to reveal his name, despite his suspension by the BBC several days ago.” (paywalled link)

Perhaps I’m too naive when I think that, surely, even BBC management cannot suspend someone without knowing his name! Thus, they knew but preferred to keep the nation in the dark, lying and feigning ignorance. Why? The cat was out of the bag and a cover-up wouldn’t work much longer. Why did they keep pretending they were from Barcelona?  

Moreover – given that other ‘prominent presenters’ went public with claims of death threats by some internet troll who assumed it was them ‘wot did it’, management shouldn’t have tried to prevaricate as they did. Don’t they have a ‘duty of care’ for yon presenters as well? 

Or were ‘management’ stonewalling so that some ‘elegant’ solution could be worked out behind closed doors, and never mind the masses of telly-tax payers being kept in the dark? There’s one other aspect pointed out by Fraser Myers, deputy editor of ‘spiked online’, in his evening email (no link):

“[Mr Edwards has] already been transformed into a martyr by the Twittering classes. Here is a man, they say, who has been relentlessly pursued by the wicked, dirt-digging tabloids. Apparently, this ‘low’ form of journalism has no respect for privacy or the public interest. This has been the line for days among the great and good, who have tried to turn this scandal into an indictment of the Sun’s reporting rather than Edwards’ alleged actions. But all this says more about their anti-tabloid prejudices than it does the state of the British media.”

Indeed so! Funny how this works out: a report of an accusation by family members against a BBC ‘institution’ is being turned into an unjustified persecution. See, the poor man is now in hospital, and it’s all the fault of ‘hacks’ and muckrakers!

This affair is an indictment of the ‘managing classes’, a subset of the Westminster swamp, shoring up their house of cards used to hide their hypocrisy. It’s of course yet another reason for the ongoing loss of trust in the institutions of our society.

Will we now hear of ‘top managers’ in institutions like the Sacred Cow having covered up equally lax sex morals by and towards employees? Let’s not hold our breath! Funny how only we peasants are expected to ‘behave’, how the ever so plebeian male workers are told off for ‘unwanted attention’ …

Yesterday, a male delivery person called me ‘my darling’. I must be weird because I wasn’t offended. I liked it very much! Clearly, I cannot possibly understand why all this scandal has become an issue … unless, of course, it’s to prevent publishing really important news, such as the bank accounts scandal, NATO, the economy ….

That’s all I have for today. See – we can do very well without actual news: a ‘sex scandal’ is far more important even though the cover-up obviously isn’t. Have a good day.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email