Working in media is entirely dependent on contacts, luck and goodness knows what else that comes way ahead of talent and ability. For every 'national treasure' there are countless others with equal talent (however subjective that is as a concept) plugging away without getting a break, and for every runner/production assistant who is in the right place at the right time and given a chance there are many more who can't live on the low pay and give up their dreams before 'making it'.
Not only that, but the rewards for those who do make it can be huge, and money is power.
As has been pointed out, the BBC doesn't employ direct - production companies make programmes and agencies provide anchors and actors. Big names can move between agencies and companies, who have their own management teams, so 'indiscretions' in one company may never be known by the next one. As in all areas of work it can be easier to let people go than to pursue allegations (or any sort of bad behaviour), particularly if the culprits aren't just moving departments but moving to a different company. It's easy to see how people like Russell Brand and others can stay under the radar, getting bigger and bigger with each move, until they become untouchable.
Agents have a role to play too. Big names work with big agencies, and it is easy for the agent to threaten to withdraw all their people if one gets tarnished - so hypothetically they can say 'if you sack Twizzle from his role as anchor of Primetime Fun, then Twinky and Twonky won't present Million Pound Gameshow which as cost you a fortune to put together, and you're looking at B list guests on your early evening chat show for the foreseeable future'.
Also, can those who ask why people didn't complain at the time that incidents occurred afford to take on a TV company in court? Very few people (eg aspiring chefs who have a coveted place on Masterchef that could make a massive difference to their career) have the resources to bring a case themselves, or to defend themselves against an accusation of slander or libel. There is a huge financial risk if they don't have enough hard evidence (which is all but impossible to acquire. The power is not with the 'little people' - it never is.
Then there are always those who refuse to listen to complainants as people are innocent until proven guilty. So how can a company proceed? Until there is a court case, the 'personality' has to keep working, and there can't be a court case until enough people are willing to risk everything to bring one, and even if they win, the odds are that they will never work in media again.
When one person speaks out, or someone leaks incontrovertible evidence, others can come forward with far less risk. It's easy to say that it's cowardly to put up and shut up when it's not your house, career or savings on the line.
It's not Orwellian to disallow obscene 'jokes' about women's sexual parts or to penalise those who deliberately humiliate and threaten people who can't fight back - it's progress.
Finally, we don't know why posters are banned on GN - HQ have been at pains to say that they don't do it lightly, so it is unfair to keep bringing up examples here and to ascribe motives for their doing so. None of us is privy to everything that happens on here. Even if we had time to read every thread in every forum we can't read PMs or correspondence between posters and HQ. There are people I miss on here - some of whom have been banned and some who have been driven away by posters with what may be described as 'forthright views', or may be seen as targeting and repeated nastiness. As ever, the interpretation can depend on whether or not we agree with the views and whether we are being targeted or not.
Farage fails to report 5 million gift!
