Thanks Bish. I'd like to add that the whole of Dung's attack on me, in his latest post, section 1, is predicated on a falsehood. I'm perfectly happy with people using pseudonyms on Bishop Hill; my concern throughout has been the misuse of pseudonymity, the dangers of which have been graphically illustrated by the defaming of Lord McAlpine in anonymous blog comments and Twitter accounts in the last two weeks, all triggered by the BBC. Even in this thread someone calling themselves 'Anon' has made two contributions that have quickly been deleted, I presume because they were judged close to libelous. I applaud that decision - but that of course doesn't mean I tar every nym with the same brush. Some people need to get that simple fact in their heads.

There is one other oddity I would draw people's attention to, in addition to RKS's weird allusion, three times in a row, to me having objectionable political views, deducible from my posts, that he dare not actually spell out. That was what Chris M wrote yesterday here:

Why bother Dung? This thread is already way past its tipping point, a private conversation between two City types to the exclusion of others. If I were a UK resident I would be, like Delingpole, attempting to steer the Tories towards policies reflecting traditional middle class conservatism, not the clubby exclusivity of Mayfair. And Mr Ackroyd, this is entirely on topic; if you want to criticize the BBC you need to show that your fundamental mindset is different from theirs, something you have thus far failed to do.

Forget for the moment the crude attack on two individuals who were only doing their best, however limited that might be, and note the 'Mr Ackroyd'. Isn't that an attempt to provide a real name for Martin A, one that I have nowhere seen him ascribe to himself? Is that kind of mind game now judged fair play, just because you disagree with someone?

I would never do such a thing or argue for such a thing - and I'm sure I would be crucified if I tried. The irony seems to be that because Chris M does it, from pseudonymity itself, that somehow makes it ok. It doesn't. But, as usual, even as I point it out, the person concerned pays no reputation price for this breach of normal BH protocol.

It's clear to me by now that this thread has started to bother some people. They want it closed down, by fair means or foul. They shouldn't have bothered. It will continue, as the host says, to discuss whether the BBC has reached a tipping point - a very powerful and it seems prophetic term chosen by the originator.

You're acting the part of the absurdist RKS - you won't spell out what you think my political aspirations are and want to deal in pettifoggery around this self-imposed non-disclosure.

I want to return to the fact that Tom Watson was being lumped in with George Monbiot and Sally Bercow by a past chairman of BBC governors. My political aspirations or views have nothing to do with my attitude to this, which is that it is wrong so to smear this MP. It would interesting to know why the mistake arose.

On the general matter of the challenges now facing the BBC I again felt a lot of common ground with Simon Jenkins in the Guardian on Tuesday on the grip bureaucracy now has on this and other publicly funded institutions. Nobody ready to take responsibility for any mistake. The same day the Spectator noted the irony of Matthew Freud being a key adviser of the new DG, given that he is Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law. But the forces sweeping through could initiate change that is bigger than either.

You guys. Grow up.

A facet of the BBC/Savile story that has not really hit the headlines in the UK is the former D-G Mark Thompson's appointment as Chief Executive Officer for the New York Times.

He had been appointed - but not started in his new job - when the story broke. Now, although started in his new job, his own staff are asking questions about what he knew. I think he's on a loser - even if he didn't know, he should have done.

The NYT is, I imagine, the US equivalent of the Guardian as the leading voice of Climate Change orthodoxy. It's possible to speculate that part of the reason he got the job would have been his claim (I imagine) to have led the BBC into its role as the UK's leading mouthpiece for CAGW.

I wonder if the BBC/Savile scandal's repercussions in the NYT will have an impact on CAGW advocacy on the other side of the Atlantic...

Mark Thompson, the BBC Scandal and the Future of The New York Times

Letter Raises Questions About When BBC Ex-Chief Learned of Abuse Cases!

Jimmy Savile Scandal: Net Tightens On New York Times CEO Mark Thompson

BBC news organisation chart (simplified)

Martin:

The NYT is, I imagine, the US equivalent of the Guardian as the leading voice of Climate Change orthodoxy. It's possible to speculate that part of the reason he got the job would have been his claim (I imagine) to have led the BBC into its role as the UK's leading mouthpiece for CAGW.

I wonder if the BBC/Savile scandal's repercussions in the NYT will have an impact on CAGW advocacy on the other side of the Atlantic...

I think Alistair McAlpine's view of the BBC, expressed on the World at One on Thursday, can help us with this. The BBC is trusted more than any other news outlet worldwide, he said, perhaps as the only one that tells the truth. This is why the warming mitigation ideologues and scammers have made such efforts to turn the BBC into their mouthpiece.

This makes the BBC much more important than the NYT or any other two-bit newspaper. And the scandals that have rocked it since 3rd October could I believe have devastating effect on its credibility over the most important of the deceptions it has taken into its bosom, in policy terms: uncritical acceptance of greenwash garbage.

Just sayin.

More conspiracy theories Martin? "I don't see any way of printing it to read as hard copy."
If I were you I'd download the pdf where it says, "Or download and print the report here."

The BBC don't get it on a more fundamental thing that that:

They think this is an internal process problem, where one programme should or should not have pulled a programme, stopped or restarted an investigation etc etc. This is all about talking about talking about what happened.

What happened was a sexual predator was allowed to roam at will with the apparent cognizance of the BBC management. Who did or didn't make a programme about it is completely irrelevant.

THE BBC ARE ACTING AS IF THE POLLARD REPORT MEANS THEY DID NO WRONG. All it means is they were incompetent journalists, they still did a heinous wrong.

@rhoda: "Time after time I have seen that pathetic story of 'most-respected news organisation;' and 'high-quality programming' go unchallenged."

Yes.

A bit like "the NHS is the envy of the world". Oh yeah?

Perhaps there are a number of others at high levels in the BB hierarchy who are afraid that if Entwhistle doesn't get his unjustified money, and they later get the push, they won't either.