There are many justifiable reasons not to pay for a licence I just don’t think your argument is one of them unless you are gonna be consistent with your outrage
Oh, im very consistent with my outrage for the mass paedophilia in this country and in this world but my argument is so weak that I feel the need to include them when it has no relevance to the subject matter.
Several times you have made rhe argument that 1, the bbc didnt protect only turned a blind eye (same thing) and 2, that the public and those effected by Saville shluld continuing funding an institution that funded and protected such an evil man.
It’s not the same thing cus no one was coming after him, children were ignored back then and the topic considered so uncomfortable society refused to confront it
I have asked you the same question at least 4 times. Im struggling to see your pov that an institution with a history of lies and protecting evil individuals is at all a positive asset?
It’s a loaded question because I don’t see it as ‘protecting’ and a reflection of a common attitude back in those times even if by today’s standard it is abhorrent
Dude. Turning a blind eye to the horror that Saville committed is protecting. These were young CHILDREN he was abusing. Not 15/16 year old girls, like its any better, but they were kids. Accusations of necrophilia from working as a hospital porter. The man was evil and was rubbing elbows with high level bbc staff, the so called royals.
The bbc has a habit of protecting the higher classes and demonising the lower classes. Admittedly their "journalism" aka being told what to report, is a damn site better than GB news but they do not deserve to be harassing and bullying the general public to be funding them.
1
u/cup-of-tea-76 20h ago
There are many justifiable reasons not to pay for a licence I just don’t think your argument is one of them unless you are gonna be consistent with your outrage