“He said: "To play Jimmy Savile was not a decision I took lightly. Neil McKay has written an intelligent script tackling sensitively an horrific story which - however harrowing - needs to be told."
I bet he thinks this has Bafta win all over it. The idea of Bafta nominations for this - nominations by people who turned a blind eye when it all actually happened - seems a bit beyond.
He’s very much become the wants to be in any controversial serious drama to prove he can act. The Martin Sixsmith thing, Stephen Lawrence. Must be more. But this is much much worse.
It’s disgusting they’re making a drama at all. There will inevitably be some element of it that humanises him. People are too fvcking dim to cope with that and all the time pedlos are around - I.e forever - it’s still too soon. And there’s no way the true horror will be related btw
Erm, they were murderers. Are there any documented survivors around whose lives can be further blighted? Just one would be reason enough to have stopped those dramas. Surely there are hundreds of Savile’s victims around. FFS.
True crime ‘dramas’ are sick at the best of times. Clue - there is never a best of times.
Why stop there though? The BBC should be brave, thrusting and millennial. I look forward to:
Ant & Dec telling the true story of John Venables and Robert Thompson. Remember, Venables is always on the left of screen!
Floella Benjamin puts in the performance of a lifetime bringing you the never seen before story of Gary Glitter. Woke? You'd better believe it.
While over on Channel 5 here's a blow by blow remake of the Stephen Lawrence murder featuring Danny Dyer as Gary Dobson in the most predictable piece of casting you've ever seen. Cam eeeeer yoo fakkinn slaaaaaggg.
Not sure a man who’s boasted of his 1TB drive of ‘adult material’ is best placed to opine on this, but you keep digging, at least you’ll have a pile of smoothing to show for it.
In theory I don’t have a problem them doing this - the commissioning and creative decisions of the beeb shouldn’t be dependent on their organisational decisions & failings
the practical problem is that the beeb will tie itself up in knots to be sufficiently critical but not too critical of its own role and will overthink it in a way that the resulting show will be less good than it would be if it was commissioned by eg channel 4.
What TC said. I am not sure this needs to be made and if it is going to be made then it shouldn't be the BBC doing it.
I also don't really see HOW it can be made (well). You obviously can't show (certainly not on the BBC) what he did but it's not easy to allude to it happening off screen without minimising the awfulness.
why is it important to dramatise it? There was a public inquiry. I can see that if full facts are not in the public's possession then it might be within the BBC's mandate to bring those points forward in a drama or, alternatively, documentary. But there is no need. I cannot decide whether this is prurient self-regard or lack of self awareness.
True crime wouldn’t be a genre muttley if yours was the litmus test. People are interested in Savile, no one but lawyers reads those independent enquiries, it’s a compelling story. I don’t see it as any different to a dramatisation of any other awful human being (eg there have been 3 or 4 ted Bundy movies made in the last 5 years).
There have been many great dramas made about monsters - perhaps the real problem is that it is too soon to be looked back on objectively without vested interests and guilts.
I agree it is an odd decision for the BBC to commission it, I presume it will be huge exercise in self-flagellation which the BBC seem to rather enjoy.
Ted Bundy was a long time ago and ffs aren’t we better than the Yanks??? It doesn’t matter that people are interested in true crime. But it matters why, and fuelling stupid people’s prurient obsession with evil is a bad thing all round. That the Beeb should take it upon itself to make this drama is beyond inept.
"Not sure a man who’s boasted of his 1TB drive of ‘adult material’ is best placed to opine on this, but you keep digging, at least you’ll have a pile of smoothing to show for it."
Cookie seemingly confused, as is common with those his age.
Guy - my point is just that murders or beatings are easier to allude to. Something happens off screen, and then you have a body or someone in the hospital. These types of sex crimes are much harder to deal in a way that conveys the horror without tipping over into the outright prurient.
savile is a phenomina the country is still trying to get to grips with, it is right that it explored in drama as well as simply documentary. I dont see why his crimes are any harder to deal with in drama than the horrors of the serial killing sex maniacs of the past.
OB I agree it is probably not right for the BBC to do it, but I dont think they will try to cover it up - they will view it as a carthartic exercise and will be portrayed badly. I bet you anything the writers and directors have been told to be "no holds barred" against the BBC.
The Manhunter dramatisations on ITV (with Martin Clunes as Colin Sutton) deal with recent true crime and have been very well done imo, but focussing on the police side ofc.
I don't see any problem with the BBC doing it. TBH, the entire seventies was rapey as fook. It wasn't specifically the BBC causing the problem. But it doesn't matter anyway - that was ages ago, and nobody who had any opportunity to do anything about it then is still working for the BBC.
He's been dead a decade and most of his crimes were 40/50 + years ago!!
As has been mentioned above, there have been numerous Sutcliffe and other serial killer dramas over the years that the families/friends of the victims have been exposed to (as well as those who had a close escape, albeit still with serious injury).
I'm sure it will be done well, although I thought the BBC just commissioned rather than made programmes now?
Ha. Secret ITV memos flying around making sure as many punches as possible land on the Beeb. If the Beeb have script approval you can bet there'll be a bit more artistic/bugetary licence applied to the final version.
Be interesting to see if it ever does play on BBC.
Even more important that the BBC just fook off out of it. They trip and trip over their status and governance. I have no doubt that this will turn into another news script like the Bashir one, along the following lines, third in the headlines after Dog becomes German Chancellor and Afghan Immigrant Ate My Son:
The BBC today announced that it had commissioned an investigation into the BBC's decision to commission a drama which tells the story of the BBC's handling of the notorious sex abuser Jimmy Savile which resulted in an investigation by the BBC and a public inquiry which was heavily critical of the BBC's conduct at the time when nobody could have known that the well known sex pest was a sex pest notwithstanding the BBC's own documentary presenter Louis Theroux's programme all about the weirdness of that weirdo who the BBC protected for decades and countless BBC personnel expressing concerns at the time. The BBC's Director General has been asked to comment but nobody from the BBC was available. The BBC gave the following statement: "at the BBC we consider BBC matters involving the BBC including programmes about the BBC by the BBC to be central to our financial future (scrub that, Dave, they won't wear it, suggest "future as a broadcaster as it has been to its past" or something meaningless). That's why the BBC has decided to select an independent investigative body made up of BBC people to review the editorial and commissioning decisions made by people who employ them, which will report back to the Board which is comprised of senior non-independent persons who have held senior roles in the BBC. The BBC is answerable to the Government which is currently considering the issues presented by charter renewal and licence fee funding and will therefore not do anything to offend anyone involved in that decision making process. But ooh, look at us, we're still independent so here's a programme with Stephen Fry about incest and no, we are not backing down on this Coogan thing. It's a sign of our excellence."
BTW, how long before Coogan gets nervous about the twitter abuse, chit chat in the House, ructions at the BBC and gets told that the BBC has decided that Coogan has decided that the BBC has decided that Coogan has decided to withdraw?
If the bbc commission it and brand it they own the narrative and can down play their role enormously and put it all on saville and nothing onto those who sat back and did nothing.
if it is necessary to dramatise this (I am not 💯 either way) then I don’t think bbc should be anywhere near. Needs to be channel 4.
I hate true crime drama (and most fictional crime drama involving rape / grooming as it tends towards the thigh rubbing tbh) anyway but this is such a bad idea, it's astonishing no one involved can see it for the bad idea it is
I don't agree though with the people saying there is something wrong with serious drama dealing with this stuff.
Since the earliest well-documented Western culture ie ancient Athens, tragic drama has dealt with society's most traumatic issues and performed a cathartic role (mainly using proxies back then, but still).
For the people saying we should not look at this stuff - that is exactly what people did with Savile. They didn't look at it, they looked the other way. Thousands of people looked the other way while he carried on. As a country we have to have an unflinching, ongoing conversation about how so many of us could have looked the other way. Because if we don't, it will happen again.
For those saying it should not be drama because it's "entertainment", the idea that entertainment is always light or unserious is an odd one. Many people don't watch documentaries or read reports, the fact that you might is irrelevant.
For those saying it's prurient, the idea that the audience will be watching this out of some sort of sexual curiosity is a really odd one.
It should be a drama about thousands of people turning a blind eye to the abuse of power and influence, and if done well will be an important contribution to the national discourse.
But reflecting - is it astonishing or just yet another moment of WTAF? The BBC lives in such a bubble it is possible for the worst ideas to survive for far longer than they should. There is this weird reflex that causes people to say absurd things like "Well, it's such a controversial idea that I think we should do it! Not to do so would be to back down to undue influences and we must maintain objectivity and independence".
My sister and brother in law are both BBC staff. I have this conversation regularly with them. Another aggravating factor is that constant restructures and role changes mean people come into senior management roles with no idea what the team does, no relevant experience to bring to bear, then they shake it up to look like they are not inactive, then they are moved on before any fruits of their non-labours appear. Then when the mess they created is discovered they are long gone. There is no accountability.
In 2016 Robbie Coltrane and Julie Walters were in four-parter National Treasure on Channel 4 with a story inspired by Yewtree. My recollection is that the series was relatively well received. It was fiction and I don't think one would identify Coltrane as a fictionalised version of Savile or any other particular performer but more a composite with things drawn from/inspired by real events. I think that's the right way something as sensitive as this should be handled. I wonder why a further TV series is needed. Speaks to the lack of originality of a lot of BBC commissioning as much as to the insensitivity and blindness to conflicts of interest.
The thing with the Beeb was always that what it did was great but how it did it was totally bizarre. Mutters is right about how people there think. It’s totally hatstand. Now we’re in a world where the national broadcaster is at threat of demise they cannot persist with this mindset or they will be totally fvcked.
yup. which itself demonstrates that the BBC operates not like the independent commercial enterprise that it thinks itself to be, but as the broadcasting arm of the politburo.
Leaving aside the politics, I just have no desire to watch this whatsoever. I found the guy a difficult to watch oddball when he was alive. Now he's dead and it turns out he's a paedo, I definitely don't want to watch someone doing an impersonation of him paedoing.
0
0
Jesus. Is dramatising this sh1t necessary?
0
0
“He said: "To play Jimmy Savile was not a decision I took lightly. Neil McKay has written an intelligent script tackling sensitively an horrific story which - however harrowing - needs to be told."
0
0
So, that’s a no then
0
0
I hate coogan, unfunny and likes the taste of his of own sh1t
0
0
Ledge and genius. He will put in the performance of a lifetime.
0
0
I bet he thinks this has Bafta win all over it. The idea of Bafta nominations for this - nominations by people who turned a blind eye when it all actually happened - seems a bit beyond.
0
0
He’s very much become the wants to be in any controversial serious drama to prove he can act. The Martin Sixsmith thing, Stephen Lawrence. Must be more. But this is much much worse.
0
0
Wait until he plays Martin Lawrence.
0
0
Not a bad casting decision tbf.
0
0
Wot Kaulbach said. I think he'll get him right. Of course, the script will be woefully right-on, but that won't be his fault.
0
0
It’s disgusting they’re making a drama at all. There will inevitably be some element of it that humanises him. People are too fvcking dim to cope with that and all the time pedlos are around - I.e forever - it’s still too soon. And there’s no way the true horror will be related btw
0
0
Don't be absurd. Actors portray Hitler and Stalin for Heaven's sake.
0
0
Bbc need to fook off and shut it about Savile. Lucky they still exist after that.
0
0
Exactly.
0
0
it's about making money off a paedo they created
goodvibes
0
0
Now then, now then ...
0
0
She's got a bum like a traction engine
Eat my hole
Etc etc etc
0
0
There’s one instance where he drifts off into Savile on an episode of The Trip and it is hilarious. I suspect he’ll be a bit more downbeat for this.
0
0
Another reason why it’s an awful idea.
The Beeb’s judgement just gets worse and worse. Wtf happened.
0
0
This sounds like something Alan partridge would have pitched along with monkey tennis
just Wtaf is everyone involved thinking
0
0
Well there was that Fred West drama with Dominic Cooper, so why not Jimmy Savile.
Maybe there's been a Yorkshire Ripper dramatisation too. I expect so.
0
0
Did the tv channel involved in the Fred west series help him procure his victims?
0
0
Erm, they were murderers. Are there any documented survivors around whose lives can be further blighted? Just one would be reason enough to have stopped those dramas. Surely there are hundreds of Savile’s victims around. FFS.
True crime ‘dramas’ are sick at the best of times. Clue - there is never a best of times.
0
0
Looking forward to the movie Miramax is currently filming about Harvey Weinstein's crimes. Suspect it's going to be box office.
0
0
They sold Miramax. Their parents must be so proud.
0
0
Amazing role, and will be a profoundly important piece of drama. I fully support this.
0
0
don’t see any problem with the BBC being involved in making it; that’s a total storm in a teacup
some people just want to be offended
0
0
Why stop there though? The BBC should be brave, thrusting and millennial. I look forward to:
Ant & Dec telling the true story of John Venables and Robert Thompson. Remember, Venables is always on the left of screen!
Floella Benjamin puts in the performance of a lifetime bringing you the never seen before story of Gary Glitter. Woke? You'd better believe it.
While over on Channel 5 here's a blow by blow remake of the Stephen Lawrence murder featuring Danny Dyer as Gary Dobson in the most predictable piece of casting you've ever seen. Cam eeeeer yoo fakkinn slaaaaaggg.
0
0
I’d watch all and any of those tbf
0
0
some people just want to be offended
Fvcking hell, Laz. 🙄
0
0
nah sorry this is some BS
there’s nothing wrong with the idea
difficult and important topic, fully merits sensitive treatment in drama
0
0
Why is it important to dramatise it?
0
0
Not sure a man who’s boasted of his 1TB drive of ‘adult material’ is best placed to opine on this, but you keep digging, at least you’ll have a pile of smoothing to show for it.
0
0
*something
0
0
The BBC have some brass neck. Seeking to make money out of a story about a paedo they turned a blind eye to for decades.
Coogan is a good casting choice though.
0
0
In theory I don’t have a problem them doing this - the commissioning and creative decisions of the beeb shouldn’t be dependent on their organisational decisions & failings
the practical problem is that the beeb will tie itself up in knots to be sufficiently critical but not too critical of its own role and will overthink it in a way that the resulting show will be less good than it would be if it was commissioned by eg channel 4.
Steve coogan is ace casting tho
0
0
What TC said. I am not sure this needs to be made and if it is going to be made then it shouldn't be the BBC doing it.
I also don't really see HOW it can be made (well). You obviously can't show (certainly not on the BBC) what he did but it's not easy to allude to it happening off screen without minimising the awfulness.
0
0
I dont understand your last point DD there are plenty of excellent dramas about criminals who have committed appalling crimes.
0
0
why is it important to dramatise it? There was a public inquiry. I can see that if full facts are not in the public's possession then it might be within the BBC's mandate to bring those points forward in a drama or, alternatively, documentary. But there is no need. I cannot decide whether this is prurient self-regard or lack of self awareness.
0
0
True crime wouldn’t be a genre muttley if yours was the litmus test. People are interested in Savile, no one but lawyers reads those independent enquiries, it’s a compelling story. I don’t see it as any different to a dramatisation of any other awful human being (eg there have been 3 or 4 ted Bundy movies made in the last 5 years).
0
0
There have been many great dramas made about monsters - perhaps the real problem is that it is too soon to be looked back on objectively without vested interests and guilts.
0
0
The case for making it can be argued both ways. What is clear is that the BBC should not be going near this. w**kers. enabling w**kers.
0
0
I agree it is an odd decision for the BBC to commission it, I presume it will be huge exercise in self-flagellation which the BBC seem to rather enjoy.
0
0
Ted Bundy was a long time ago and ffs aren’t we better than the Yanks??? It doesn’t matter that people are interested in true crime. But it matters why, and fuelling stupid people’s prurient obsession with evil is a bad thing all round. That the Beeb should take it upon itself to make this drama is beyond inept.
0
0
"Not sure a man who’s boasted of his 1TB drive of ‘adult material’ is best placed to opine on this, but you keep digging, at least you’ll have a pile of smoothing to show for it."
Cookie seemingly confused, as is common with those his age.
0
0
It is important that the Savile case be examined in drama and writing. This is obvious. There is no "why"; why is not a question.
0
0
Heh @ "there's no need for a dramatisation, there's been some report nobody read by a superannuated judge". You overr8 the law as a mechanism, m88
0
0
Guy - my point is just that murders or beatings are easier to allude to. Something happens off screen, and then you have a body or someone in the hospital. These types of sex crimes are much harder to deal in a way that conveys the horror without tipping over into the outright prurient.
0
0
it doesnt need dramatising. his victims are still alive
Documentary sure so people can understand what happened, how it happened etc - but that's been done i think already
But creating entertainment from it is a bit grim and not really necessary.
0
0
Hopefully the full horror of Ocker 'Fluff' Freeman's cruel involvement will be highlighted in high definition
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-tells-agony-hands-bbc-2292125
0
1
savile is a phenomina the country is still trying to get to grips with, it is right that it explored in drama as well as simply documentary. I dont see why his crimes are any harder to deal with in drama than the horrors of the serial killing sex maniacs of the past.
0
0
Documentary not drama
Channel 4 not bbc
how could bbc be independent and not try and cover it up again
if they do the drama, they control the narrative - again.
0
0
Lot of people with a lot to prove on here. Real pub hardmen.
If one of 'em touches your kids, he's a dead man right?
0
0
Yep. This pretty much sums up every discussion on RoF tbf.
0
0
OB I agree it is probably not right for the BBC to do it, but I dont think they will try to cover it up - they will view it as a carthartic exercise and will be portrayed badly. I bet you anything the writers and directors have been told to be "no holds barred" against the BBC.
0
0
The Manhunter dramatisations on ITV (with Martin Clunes as Colin Sutton) deal with recent true crime and have been very well done imo, but focussing on the police side ofc.
0
0
I don't see any problem with the BBC doing it. TBH, the entire seventies was rapey as fook. It wasn't specifically the BBC causing the problem. But it doesn't matter anyway - that was ages ago, and nobody who had any opportunity to do anything about it then is still working for the BBC.
0
0
Also, speaking of the seventies - Cookie, what is this 1Tb shit? Are you still watching in 380p or sthg?
0
0
I think making an entertainment show about this is utterly vile.
0
0
It’s an outrage to public decency.
0
0
Do u have any other opinions hot off page four of the Daily Mirror
0
0
Wanting to spend your leisure time watching a TV drama about a prolific paedophile is as bad as being a paeodphile.
0
0
As is having a view on the merits of casting one actor over another to play Jimmy Savile in a drama series.
0
0
My real beef here is with the BBC deciding it should do this.
0
0
Well, Amit, I fall into neither of those categories especially, but I also didn't rent my opinion from Paul Dacre this morning.
For all that - I like true drama so will probably watch it if it does get made. NB it's actually being produced by ITV.
0
0
If it was a fact finding documentary exposing how and why so many children were failed by the BBC or others it would be more understandable.
0
0
Too soon?
He's been dead a decade and most of his crimes were 40/50 + years ago!!
As has been mentioned above, there have been numerous Sutcliffe and other serial killer dramas over the years that the families/friends of the victims have been exposed to (as well as those who had a close escape, albeit still with serious injury).
I'm sure it will be done well, although I thought the BBC just commissioned rather than made programmes now?
0
0
As per the above, this will be produced by ITV Studios for broadcast on the BBC.
0
0
Ha. Secret ITV memos flying around making sure as many punches as possible land on the Beeb. If the Beeb have script approval you can bet there'll be a bit more artistic/bugetary licence applied to the final version.
Be interesting to see if it ever does play on BBC.
0
0
Even more important that the BBC just fook off out of it. They trip and trip over their status and governance. I have no doubt that this will turn into another news script like the Bashir one, along the following lines, third in the headlines after Dog becomes German Chancellor and Afghan Immigrant Ate My Son:
The BBC today announced that it had commissioned an investigation into the BBC's decision to commission a drama which tells the story of the BBC's handling of the notorious sex abuser Jimmy Savile which resulted in an investigation by the BBC and a public inquiry which was heavily critical of the BBC's conduct at the time when nobody could have known that the well known sex pest was a sex pest notwithstanding the BBC's own documentary presenter Louis Theroux's programme all about the weirdness of that weirdo who the BBC protected for decades and countless BBC personnel expressing concerns at the time. The BBC's Director General has been asked to comment but nobody from the BBC was available. The BBC gave the following statement: "at the BBC we consider BBC matters involving the BBC including programmes about the BBC by the BBC to be central to our
financial future(scrub that, Dave, they won't wear it, suggest "future as a broadcaster as it has been to its past" or something meaningless). That's why the BBC has decided to select an independent investigative body made up of BBC people to review the editorial and commissioning decisions made by people who employ them, which will report back to the Board which is comprised of senior non-independent persons who have held senior roles in the BBC. The BBC is answerable to the Government which is currently considering the issues presented by charter renewal and licence fee funding and will therefore not do anything to offend anyone involved in that decision making process. But ooh, look at us, we're still independent so here's a programme with Stephen Fry about incest and no, we are not backing down on this Coogan thing. It's a sign of our excellence."a load of poo
0
0
Multiple heh @Muttley. Would be even more heh if this were parody rather than a fairly realistic prediction of what is likely to occur.
0
0
The easiest satire is the off-the-shelf "fook me this is actually fact" sort.
0
0
BTW, how long before Coogan gets nervous about the twitter abuse, chit chat in the House, ructions at the BBC and gets told that the BBC has decided that Coogan has decided that the BBC has decided that Coogan has decided to withdraw?
0
0
If the bbc commission it and brand it they own the narrative and can down play their role enormously and put it all on saville and nothing onto those who sat back and did nothing.
if it is necessary to dramatise this (I am not 💯 either way) then I don’t think bbc should be anywhere near. Needs to be channel 4.
0
0
I hate true crime drama (and most fictional crime drama involving rape / grooming as it tends towards the thigh rubbing tbh) anyway but this is such a bad idea, it's astonishing no one involved can see it for the bad idea it is
0
0
The problem here is the bbc's conflict.
I don't agree though with the people saying there is something wrong with serious drama dealing with this stuff.
Since the earliest well-documented Western culture ie ancient Athens, tragic drama has dealt with society's most traumatic issues and performed a cathartic role (mainly using proxies back then, but still).
For the people saying we should not look at this stuff - that is exactly what people did with Savile. They didn't look at it, they looked the other way. Thousands of people looked the other way while he carried on. As a country we have to have an unflinching, ongoing conversation about how so many of us could have looked the other way. Because if we don't, it will happen again.
For those saying it should not be drama because it's "entertainment", the idea that entertainment is always light or unserious is an odd one. Many people don't watch documentaries or read reports, the fact that you might is irrelevant.
For those saying it's prurient, the idea that the audience will be watching this out of some sort of sexual curiosity is a really odd one.
It should be a drama about thousands of people turning a blind eye to the abuse of power and influence, and if done well will be an important contribution to the national discourse.
It shouldn't be the bbc making it though.
0
0
well said Hools.
But reflecting - is it astonishing or just yet another moment of WTAF? The BBC lives in such a bubble it is possible for the worst ideas to survive for far longer than they should. There is this weird reflex that causes people to say absurd things like "Well, it's such a controversial idea that I think we should do it! Not to do so would be to back down to undue influences and we must maintain objectivity and independence".
My sister and brother in law are both BBC staff. I have this conversation regularly with them. Another aggravating factor is that constant restructures and role changes mean people come into senior management roles with no idea what the team does, no relevant experience to bring to bear, then they shake it up to look like they are not inactive, then they are moved on before any fruits of their non-labours appear. Then when the mess they created is discovered they are long gone. There is no accountability.
0
0
That sounds exactly the same as the civil service tbh
0
0
In 2016 Robbie Coltrane and Julie Walters were in four-parter National Treasure on Channel 4 with a story inspired by Yewtree. My recollection is that the series was relatively well received. It was fiction and I don't think one would identify Coltrane as a fictionalised version of Savile or any other particular performer but more a composite with things drawn from/inspired by real events. I think that's the right way something as sensitive as this should be handled. I wonder why a further TV series is needed. Speaks to the lack of originality of a lot of BBC commissioning as much as to the insensitivity and blindness to conflicts of interest.
0
0
The thing with the Beeb was always that what it did was great but how it did it was totally bizarre. Mutters is right about how people there think. It’s totally hatstand. Now we’re in a world where the national broadcaster is at threat of demise they cannot persist with this mindset or they will be totally fvcked.
0
0
yup. which itself demonstrates that the BBC operates not like the independent commercial enterprise that it thinks itself to be, but as the broadcasting arm of the politburo.
0
0
mine was to hools
0
0
most true crime drama about rape or sexual abuse is not “thigh rubbing” fgs what absolute tosh
0
0
Leaving aside the politics, I just have no desire to watch this whatsoever. I found the guy a difficult to watch oddball when he was alive. Now he's dead and it turns out he's a paedo, I definitely don't want to watch someone doing an impersonation of him paedoing.
0
0
heh
0
0
Laz your 'contrarian' stances are just too predictable these days you know. The brand needs a shake up
0
0
people on this thread seem to have bought into some narrative to the effect that Savile’s crimes were the BBC’s fault
did you all gobble down some tory juice this morning?
0
0
Horrific criminals are regularly depicted in dramatisations i dont really see why Savile is different.
0
0
probably true linda, but my 12:29 is my bona fide opinion nonetheless
0
0
(all the rest are the oeuvre of the horse's arse)
Join the discussion