BBC1 Christmas 2017 Idents

The broadcasters find themselves in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here.

What is needed is for those accused of these alleged crimes to have the same right to anonymity as their alleged victims until such time as they are convicted, or at least charged.

Yes, perhaps my choice of wording wasn't appropriate, I should have explained it better. But the argument is still there. To suddenly face "allegations" in a climate where everyone seems to face "allegations" and at a rapid speed, seems peculiar to me. It's like a domino effect, one person says something, another follows suit and so on. There is nothing moronic about my views though. They are simply different to yours, and name calling is not really necessary. After all, a moron is unlikely to be able to possess views that are part of debate are they? The question still exists though. Why didn't they go to the police at the time? If they had done there would have been thorough medical checks done and the accused would have been proven to carried it out, and the case would have been more straightforward. The victims would have been counselled and given the assistance they need, and more victims would be willing to come forward in the future because they know their complaint would be taken seriously. All that has arisen now is a "he said, she said" scenario that can cause unnecessary distress for both the accused and the alleged victims. Why name him anyway? Surely if there is no proof or judgement against him, he is entitled to remain an innocent citizen until proven otherwise?

I too miss the good old days when known monsters like Saville were free to roam because "innocent until proven guilty"

Ah, but you are collating known knowledge, i'e Savile, with allegations, and regarding them as the same. What we know now about Savile was only what most suspected at the time. The two scenarios are totally different. Savile was knowingly stalking women through his career - and seemingly everyone knew about it but allowed it to happen. With this actor, it is merely allegations, which has not received any police investigation and is based on a "he said she said" level of defence. The person accused has categorically denied it. Of course, if he is guilty then he must answer to his actions and face the consequences. But what if he is never found guilty? Never fully investigated and never ever declared innocent? These allegations could hang over him forever and damage his career when he might not actually have done anything at all. It seems like a form of persecution to pull the drama as it is in a way the BBC saying "we think he is guilty" when they have already said "we are making no judgement." Well, their actions suggest they most definately making judgements.

I would also add, that if ever anyone was knowingly acting and behaving the way Savile did, then of course the book must be thrown at them. There is no place at all for them in society. But people who have just been rumoured to have done something, without investigation, without founded allegation and without a fair justice system, should not be pre judged or given a trial by media. That is really the point I was trying to make. We are all capable of making our own minds up.

Ala Barrymore.

BBC definately damned either way but also feel in these cases the hard work others put into a project is completely dismissed due to allegations against one person. It is also an ensemble piece rather than him being the lead. However in this case suspect the length of time between scheduling and broadcast doesn't help - even if the argument is there now based on two allegations to proceed with airing it the BBC need to consider what else might come out in the weeks ahead.

I also think with such allegations people are judged by society rather than law. I doubt many people waited until the verdict to draw their own conclusions on Michael Jackson.

Didn't ITV do something similar to Matthew Kelly by dropping him from Stars in Their Eyes amidst the child abuse allegations of which he was ultimately cleared?

Well, there were three celebrity specials, and someone else, I think Holly Willoughby, presented instead. Once Kelly was cleared of the accusations, he was reinstated. I wouldn't use the term dropped, in this instance; suspended is probably better.

I didn't think he ever hosted it again. Davina McCall stood in then Cat Deeley became the regular host, though I think the main series was dropped anyway.

He did return for one more series.

Getting back on topic after a rather controversial interval, I doubt whatever BBC1 provide for their Christmas Pres this year, it won't match this:

Something to tide us over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTtYD2uUS8I

You dont have to go back that far to find a great ident

2014 was very good. Loved the forest of Christmas trees. I do hope they have something special for 2017.