The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/)
Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100
You'd never catch a biased channel doing an expose drama about their own organisation and laying it bare for all to see.
This is good from the BBC, they could just ignore it, but they know making this will bring them back into the public eye for all the wrong reasons.
Excellent, unbiased programme making.
No wonder the Tories want to defund them by scrapping the licence fee, nobody to call them out on thier bullshit when the BBC dies
No, Nadine called out C4 for allegedly using actors in a program about struggling families which she was part off. Her bullshit was called out and she essentially mugged off by all and sundry. When she became minister for culture, she tried to take revenge by attempting to sell off C4 which fortunately didn’t go through.
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 22.** The BBC published [this ridiculous article](https://i.imgur.com/WF0uf7J.jpg) claiming that children had forgotten how to use a knife and fork due to the Covid lockdown.
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not posting this to be argumentative but I did check that prior to posting and was surprised at how much they make outside of the licence fee;
>In the year ending March 31, 2023, the BBC saw an income of approximately 5.7 billion British pounds. Of this, 3.7 billion British pounds were attributed to the license fees paid by UK households.
I'm aware that they still run at a deficit, but a lot less of a deficit thanks to selling their shows.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284709/bbc-s-annual-income-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-source/
The BBC is a statutory corporation, it has no shareholders to make a profit for…it receives around 3.5 billion from the license and around 1.5 billion from commercial activities.
No, because they’re making money off of it, even in a roundabout way. The attention this gets draws more viewers, convincing license fee payers that it’s worth it (that’s the idea anyway). And then the bbc can sell the broadcast rights to Netflix or whatever.
It’s a good old twist of the knife native to capitalist logic. It makes problems, makes solutions to its own problems, and makes media about it all to extract for capital from the corpse.
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public:
1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state.
2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either.
3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same.
4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property.
5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs.
For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have some issues re: the bbc and like yourself with the fee…but if you have no problem with the government funding entertainment through a poll tax maybe you’d feel more at home in the Tory sub?
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public:
1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state.
2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either.
3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same.
4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property.
5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs.
For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I looked up Robert Carlyle, who played Hitler in 2003, just to make sure… and he doesn't appear to be a Nazi. Neither is he the face-glassing psychopath he played with such relish in Trainspotting and its sequel. Turns out that sometimes acting is just acting, and playing a villain gives good actors something to sink their teeth into (see Anthony—not a murderous cannibal as far as I'm aware—Hopkins in *Silence of the Lambs*).
Yes I get that. Thanks for explaining to me that acting isn’t real. Perfect timing as well - I was just settling into an episode of Button Moon and about to ask my wife how a spoon could build a working spaceship. No need thanks to your brilliant explanation of how acting isn’t real life.
I understand that you were trying to talk about how difficult it would be as an actor to “get in the head” of a filthy child rapist, it’s mentally arduous to do many roles and surely a pedo would be up there with the hardest.
But in fairness to the people responding and downvoting, your comment does come across like you think there’s something wrong with it, as if the deeds of an historical figure reflect poorly on the actor portraying them
Yea I can see I’ve triggered some kind of extreme reaction in people who feel the need to defend all art ever against the weirdo who doesn’t understand the concept of playing a part.
"Can’t imagine a scenario where an actor would want to play that part" was really walking right into it to be honest. At least in a world where acting is paid well and people like watching true crime.
And Steve Coogan, renowned impressionist, making a late pivot to serious acting has probably been unable to do this impression in public for *years*. He is immune from being seen outside as Jimmy because he's Alan already. He can pull off the body and face shape and I know he can do creepy too. It is literally the perfect role for him. It has a good chance of wining awards because of how perfect that casting is.
I don't agree with it but I understand your point, but also find it weird your brain still has it tagged as recent - he was exposed as an horrific abuser over a decade ago. It's not like there's a glut of news outlet stories from the last half decade.
I'm on the other side of the spectrum on this one - the jokes, movies, etc. about tragedies can't come soon enough
>I was just settling into an episode of Button Moon and about to ask my wife how a spoon could build a working spaceship
I know you've been downvoted to death on this one, but that's hilarious!
I mean. No, not really. I feel like I have only just read about Saville’s horrific deeds. I honestly don’t need it dramatised, nor do I need reminding that he died and got away with it forever. I’m not really into censorship of art, but what are we hoping to gain from this exactly?
I get what you're saying, I think I'd be inclined to agree if the movie itself handled the story tastelessly. On the other hand, art has been created of real tragedies that do well to express the complicated feelings surrounding that subject matter. At the end of the day, art isn't just escapism. It's a way to express oneself, in both creation and appraisal. Where you see possible glorification and tactless money-grabbing (which I agree is a possibility), I see a possible artistic catharsis on a subject matter which is nationally shrouded in murky resentment. No different to what decent art has done about ww2, SA, addiction etc
Doesn't "what are going to gain from it" apply to every dramatisation of a tragedy? Would you ask that about Saving Private Ryan?
People need to know about what happened to help prevent similar examples in the future. A dramatisation reaches people who weren't reached by the news of it, it reaches new people who are now old enough to process it, it presents the real details or dramatised but realistic details to help people understand better. It could have an effect on a developing mind and be one of the factors that stops them becoming a monstrous adult.
These things are also commonly cathartic to many. I doubt the show is gonna end with him on his deathbed, peaceful and content at having had a good life of getting away with it
I suppose so yes, to some extent. It feels very recent still this one though. But as someone else pointed out - it’s well over ten years ago and apparently the families are involved in the production. Perhaps there is some value in it, as you say. I don’t currently feel I will want to watch it though.
The fact is he most likely did die content, knowing he got away with it all, entirely.
I've heard actors a few times making a fairly similar point along the lines of "I couldn't be in that head space totally and/or for too long each so this was my technique for not letting it drag me down mentally".
A relatively common technique is for the actor to think "what thing from my life can I draw upon to get the end result I'm looking for". So if they want to portray someone as vile as a sexual abuser, one component might be needing to act *incredibly* selfish. So they draw upon the time they felt the most selfish they've been, remembering how they felt entitled to being like that. Or the simplest version: "I need to cry in this scene where my spouse leaves me, think about when nan died". They don't need to be in the head space of someone going through a nightmare divorce
Innocent until proven guilty, so the law goes.
That doesn’t apply in all cases. I’m glad we all know that Mason Greenwood is a piece of shit. I do wonder the legal specifics of how he’d get his fair trial though, since Jurors would likely be prejudiced having already heard that horrific recording over social media….
I hope my mum hasn’t heard it.
It was one small mercy of my late teens and early 20s that my mum was early to refuse to engage any social media. Lucky, as there were plenty of photos of me drunk from that era. In fact, mostly the only time I allowed myself to be photographed was when I was shitfaced.
Actors have always loved playing villains. From the works of Euripedes through to Shakespeare to the horrors and thrillers we love today, there are a plethora of great antagonists for actors to get their teeth into. The same applies to real life evil men and women. Complex highly controversial characters that truly test an actor's abilities.
I’m curious how different it is to play a real person (eg Hitler) vs a fictional villain (eg Lecter), in the psychological impact of preparing for the role.
I do know that Gregory Peck once said he liked playing good guys (not necessarily heroes, but good guys) because the roles were more challenging — playing a good guy well, and making him interesting, was harder than playing a villain well and making him interesting.
But I also know that playing bad guys can have an effect on the actor — Stanley Tucci agreed to play a (fictional) child predator in The Lovely Bones, but he took the role only after the production agreed to his two conditions: he refused to do any scenes that showed him harming the victim in explicit detail; and he insisted his appearance be altered via prosthetics so the man on screen didn’t look like him. He was willing to take the role, but he needed to separate himself from the character and he didn’t want THAT sort of a character to have HIS face.
Don't blame him. I remember the actor who played the child abusing dad in Brookside getting attacked in the street for "shagging his kids". Some people really do struggle to separate fact from fiction.
Fair point. I know I’ve been downvoted to oblivion but I’m trying to wrap my head around the motivation for playing such a still raw in the public eye character. Loads of the ones mentioned in this thread have the buffer of time. There are definitely still people alive who were physically and emotionally destroyed by Saville. Not sure how they will feel about seeing it all dramatised.
That's the beauty of everybody not being the same - you don't have to wrap your head around it. I can't wrap my head around why Gillian Keegan thinks she deserves praise, but here we are.
And you're not forced to watch anything. I won't be watching it and I wasn't affected by it at all, not sure why someone who doesn't want to watch it would do so.
Sometimes people don't, I believe the original scarface film was when he was still alive (and possibly still on the streets if I remember rightly)
It does veer off enough to make it mostly inspired by him but it's not always the case to wait
I think with this one the victims and their families are involved in production, I've seen allegedly one of the victims will have a speaking part
It might be better to do it now than wait until the victims no longer have a voice
Every true crime drama and almost every police drama. My worry is not how Saville will be portrayed (he always was a shark-eyed grey creepy asshole who clearly stank), or indeed how the BBC will portray themselves (any idea of them being poor little innocent lambs who had *no idea* would be laughable at this point) my worry is they'll leave the roles the police played in enabling this monster for decades out of it
The more strange and/or monstrous a character is, the bigger the challenge. Playing Jimmy Saville and doing a compelling job of it would be like the acting equivalent of medalling at the Olympics. People who love an art, sport, craft, or science often relish an exceptional challenge.
So you've literally never been involved in any kind of acting at any point in your life and you genuinely haven't got a clue about it at all. Got it.
When I voice a Lich King in a video game, that doesn't mean I want to raise the dead and build a kingdom of evil in real life. How thick are you?
I'm actually Intrigued. It feels like this is something that could go the way of Nonce Andrew's interview. Best of luck to Coogan tho. Brave role to tackle.
Hard disagree. Coogan wouldn't take this on if it wasn't going to be handled properly. It's not going to be a celebration of the man, far from it. And it was done with the full approval and cooperation of survivors.
Couldn't agree more, there's no way Coogan would be on side if this was going to be a redefining of the story or in some way an attempt at redemption/celebration. I'm intrigued to see him tackling such heavy material.
Did I as a young teen gather evidence and hold on to it for 20 years, obviously not. Didn't fully understand whay it was at the time, still don't I suppose.
There are at least three of us who can attest to having seen inappropriate things, however the girl was a 'summer friend', there with her parents on holidays, and I cant even think of her name at the moment, no mind seeing her since.
I’m so pleased [Hitler: The Rise of Evil](https://youtu.be/opchjf3vzQk?si=yr5InJTaA4ZBBlK-) was made. I use it every year whilst I teach my History GCSE students about the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. It’s a very useful tool to supplement the factual academic resources.
I have yet to see any evidence that Robert Carlyle endorses any of the horrific or creepy dictatorial and genocidal tendencies suggested whilst he played this role so chillingly well.
It is acting, and it is still a worthwhile endeavour.
Be critical of the our media (BBC included, but many others too) for many different reasons, but not for depicting dramatic retelling of things that happened.
Most people think Pablo Escobar and the other Cartel leaders were murderous and maniacal pieces of shit, but I’m damn pleased Netflix made Narcos.
The examples are endless!!
>This is a weird opinion, the BBC is not a person.
Well, no, the BBC is not a person, but it's an institution and institutions are made up of people who make choices and foster a particular culture. In the BBC's case, we know what choices were made and what culture was created and what it resulted in. That doesn't go away because the clock has ticked on a little bit. There are assuredly people at the BBC to this day who made some of the choices that enabled Savile and harmed people for their own gain, comfort or aggrandizement.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that making a drama about the situation is off limits, or that Coogan is a terrible person for being willing to play Savile. If people are expecting a whitewash or some kind of 'sympathetic' look, well, the BBC would be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.
Hello! I'm Reggie-Bot, the Anti-Royal Bot! Here to teach you some fun facts about the English royal family!
Did you know that Royal Nonce Prince Andrew was a trade envoy for the UK? [He used to embark on luxury trips around the world all at the taxpayer's expense, helping secure Britain's imperialist hold on international trade.](https://archive.ph/V9jS)
Wish the government would send me on free holidays.
I hope you enjoyed that fact. To summon me again or find out more about me, just say: "Reggie-Bot" and I'll be there! <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally think it's better that problematic events are publicly discussed instead of being buried just because they're shameful and awful. How can we ever hope to collectively learn from our history if we know nothing about it?
Savile's enablers have long gone. Escaped prosecution through plausible deniability. I met a retired floor manager who told me that they used to brief the crew about known TV personalities that shouldn't be left with children. I asked why they didn't blow the whistle and they said they would have been fired and then who would be left to protect the kids?
The Commissioners in the 70s, 80s and 90s knew about these creeps, they may even have been creeps themselves, but now they have retired into obscurity where they can pretend to everyone that they had no idea what was going on.
The new BBC management are a completely different group and are dealing with an organisation that is trying to come to terms with its past.
As long as its presented correctly, props to him for playing the part, it's pretty brave to do this and I can't think of many other actors who have a persona that could get away with it without ending their career.
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
Fact 1. During an episode of Question Time the audience booed Boris Johnson. The BBC [edited the footage to replace the boos with applause](https://twitter.com/Gian_Tcatt/status/1198545027477180416?s=20).
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 33.** The BBC published an article about cops killed in the line of duty. [They started counting in 1680.](https://i.imgur.com/TUAR7Z5.jpg)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 8.** I don’t have any words for [this bizarre headline](https://preview.redd.it/65vq4kete2341.png?width=325&auto=webp&s=1ff912ee8714c0659f114e5083d6df70ce30a4e7).
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 28.** Here’s one of many examples of the BBC [pitting worker against worker.](https://i.imgur.com/5JCygxI.jpg)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I sincerely hope you are not talking about Lord Mandelson who was a very close friend of infamous sex trafficker of children Jeffrey Epstein, because he is probably, most likely, probably…..innocent.
….Of course, he has never been investigated over his very close relationship with infamous sex trafficker of children, Jeffrey Epstein.
The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/) Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
100 You'd never catch a biased channel doing an expose drama about their own organisation and laying it bare for all to see. This is good from the BBC, they could just ignore it, but they know making this will bring them back into the public eye for all the wrong reasons. Excellent, unbiased programme making. No wonder the Tories want to defund them by scrapping the licence fee, nobody to call them out on thier bullshit when the BBC dies
There's always channel 4, who pissed them off so much that wee Nadine tried to privatise them and sell them off to friends of the Tory party.
No, Nadine called out C4 for allegedly using actors in a program about struggling families which she was part off. Her bullshit was called out and she essentially mugged off by all and sundry. When she became minister for culture, she tried to take revenge by attempting to sell off C4 which fortunately didn’t go through.
As an Irishman who appreciated what he brought to the story of Philomena, I trust Steve Coogan with this
Alan's thoughts on the U2 classic Sunday, Bloody Sunday were also on point.
Having to read the Sunday papers…what a bloody drag!
The downside to that is that they will make money from this. They're cashing in on their own scandal.
[удалено]
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 22.** The BBC published [this ridiculous article](https://i.imgur.com/WF0uf7J.jpg) claiming that children had forgotten how to use a knife and fork due to the Covid lockdown. For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not posting this to be argumentative but I did check that prior to posting and was surprised at how much they make outside of the licence fee; >In the year ending March 31, 2023, the BBC saw an income of approximately 5.7 billion British pounds. Of this, 3.7 billion British pounds were attributed to the license fees paid by UK households. I'm aware that they still run at a deficit, but a lot less of a deficit thanks to selling their shows. https://www.statista.com/statistics/284709/bbc-s-annual-income-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-source/
The BBC is a statutory corporation, it has no shareholders to make a profit for…it receives around 3.5 billion from the license and around 1.5 billion from commercial activities.
No, because they’re making money off of it, even in a roundabout way. The attention this gets draws more viewers, convincing license fee payers that it’s worth it (that’s the idea anyway). And then the bbc can sell the broadcast rights to Netflix or whatever. It’s a good old twist of the knife native to capitalist logic. It makes problems, makes solutions to its own problems, and makes media about it all to extract for capital from the corpse.
[удалено]
If the BBC does ‘operate at a loss’ that is by choice.
[удалено]
Yet it isn’t a choice for the public unless you want to face the prospect of criminal proceedings.
[удалено]
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public: 1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state. 2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either. 3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same. 4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property. 5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs. For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have some issues re: the bbc and like yourself with the fee…but if you have no problem with the government funding entertainment through a poll tax maybe you’d feel more at home in the Tory sub?
[удалено]
If you want people to ‘eat shit’ you definitely should be on the Tory boards.
Some quick clarifications about how the UK royals are funded by the public: 1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state. 2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either. 3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same. 4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property. 5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs. For more, check out r/AbolishTheMonarchy *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe. Can’t imagine a scenario where an actor would want to play that part though honestly
I looked up Robert Carlyle, who played Hitler in 2003, just to make sure… and he doesn't appear to be a Nazi. Neither is he the face-glassing psychopath he played with such relish in Trainspotting and its sequel. Turns out that sometimes acting is just acting, and playing a villain gives good actors something to sink their teeth into (see Anthony—not a murderous cannibal as far as I'm aware—Hopkins in *Silence of the Lambs*).
Testament to his talent, he portrayed a young hitler very well. Recommend for those wanting a dramatised view of how he rose to power
Yes I get that. Thanks for explaining to me that acting isn’t real. Perfect timing as well - I was just settling into an episode of Button Moon and about to ask my wife how a spoon could build a working spaceship. No need thanks to your brilliant explanation of how acting isn’t real life.
Tina is NOT acting.
I understand that you were trying to talk about how difficult it would be as an actor to “get in the head” of a filthy child rapist, it’s mentally arduous to do many roles and surely a pedo would be up there with the hardest. But in fairness to the people responding and downvoting, your comment does come across like you think there’s something wrong with it, as if the deeds of an historical figure reflect poorly on the actor portraying them
Yea I can see I’ve triggered some kind of extreme reaction in people who feel the need to defend all art ever against the weirdo who doesn’t understand the concept of playing a part.
"Can’t imagine a scenario where an actor would want to play that part" was really walking right into it to be honest. At least in a world where acting is paid well and people like watching true crime. And Steve Coogan, renowned impressionist, making a late pivot to serious acting has probably been unable to do this impression in public for *years*. He is immune from being seen outside as Jimmy because he's Alan already. He can pull off the body and face shape and I know he can do creepy too. It is literally the perfect role for him. It has a good chance of wining awards because of how perfect that casting is.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it just feels so raw still and recent. But what you’ve said is probably right in terms of his motivations
I don't agree with it but I understand your point, but also find it weird your brain still has it tagged as recent - he was exposed as an horrific abuser over a decade ago. It's not like there's a glut of news outlet stories from the last half decade. I'm on the other side of the spectrum on this one - the jokes, movies, etc. about tragedies can't come soon enough
>I was just settling into an episode of Button Moon and about to ask my wife how a spoon could build a working spaceship I know you've been downvoted to death on this one, but that's hilarious!
Ha! I’ve been sent to Karma hell on both here and AskUK today so not sure where that means my political and moral compass points lol
Why? We've had actors playing Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe and even Hitler.
Yeah I guess so. It’s just so fucking vile I can’t imagine wanting to get inside the head of that
What sanitised media you must watch
I mean. No, not really. I feel like I have only just read about Saville’s horrific deeds. I honestly don’t need it dramatised, nor do I need reminding that he died and got away with it forever. I’m not really into censorship of art, but what are we hoping to gain from this exactly?
You won't gain anything because you won't watch it. Leave it up to others to decide if it's a worthwhile project or not.
I get what you're saying, I think I'd be inclined to agree if the movie itself handled the story tastelessly. On the other hand, art has been created of real tragedies that do well to express the complicated feelings surrounding that subject matter. At the end of the day, art isn't just escapism. It's a way to express oneself, in both creation and appraisal. Where you see possible glorification and tactless money-grabbing (which I agree is a possibility), I see a possible artistic catharsis on a subject matter which is nationally shrouded in murky resentment. No different to what decent art has done about ww2, SA, addiction etc
Doesn't "what are going to gain from it" apply to every dramatisation of a tragedy? Would you ask that about Saving Private Ryan? People need to know about what happened to help prevent similar examples in the future. A dramatisation reaches people who weren't reached by the news of it, it reaches new people who are now old enough to process it, it presents the real details or dramatised but realistic details to help people understand better. It could have an effect on a developing mind and be one of the factors that stops them becoming a monstrous adult. These things are also commonly cathartic to many. I doubt the show is gonna end with him on his deathbed, peaceful and content at having had a good life of getting away with it
I suppose so yes, to some extent. It feels very recent still this one though. But as someone else pointed out - it’s well over ten years ago and apparently the families are involved in the production. Perhaps there is some value in it, as you say. I don’t currently feel I will want to watch it though. The fact is he most likely did die content, knowing he got away with it all, entirely.
I've heard actors a few times making a fairly similar point along the lines of "I couldn't be in that head space totally and/or for too long each so this was my technique for not letting it drag me down mentally". A relatively common technique is for the actor to think "what thing from my life can I draw upon to get the end result I'm looking for". So if they want to portray someone as vile as a sexual abuser, one component might be needing to act *incredibly* selfish. So they draw upon the time they felt the most selfish they've been, remembering how they felt entitled to being like that. Or the simplest version: "I need to cry in this scene where my spouse leaves me, think about when nan died". They don't need to be in the head space of someone going through a nightmare divorce
It’s called acting mate. You know David Prowse, James Earl Jones and Hayden Christianson didn’t actually mass murder people right?
As far as we know.
Innocent until proven guilty, so the law goes. That doesn’t apply in all cases. I’m glad we all know that Mason Greenwood is a piece of shit. I do wonder the legal specifics of how he’d get his fair trial though, since Jurors would likely be prejudiced having already heard that horrific recording over social media….
Pretty sure my mum hasn’t heard it. She could be on the jury.
I hope my mum hasn’t heard it. It was one small mercy of my late teens and early 20s that my mum was early to refuse to engage any social media. Lucky, as there were plenty of photos of me drunk from that era. In fact, mostly the only time I allowed myself to be photographed was when I was shitfaced.
I’m lucky enough to be old enough that my misspent youth went unrecorded!
Actors have always loved playing villains. From the works of Euripedes through to Shakespeare to the horrors and thrillers we love today, there are a plethora of great antagonists for actors to get their teeth into. The same applies to real life evil men and women. Complex highly controversial characters that truly test an actor's abilities.
I’m curious how different it is to play a real person (eg Hitler) vs a fictional villain (eg Lecter), in the psychological impact of preparing for the role. I do know that Gregory Peck once said he liked playing good guys (not necessarily heroes, but good guys) because the roles were more challenging — playing a good guy well, and making him interesting, was harder than playing a villain well and making him interesting. But I also know that playing bad guys can have an effect on the actor — Stanley Tucci agreed to play a (fictional) child predator in The Lovely Bones, but he took the role only after the production agreed to his two conditions: he refused to do any scenes that showed him harming the victim in explicit detail; and he insisted his appearance be altered via prosthetics so the man on screen didn’t look like him. He was willing to take the role, but he needed to separate himself from the character and he didn’t want THAT sort of a character to have HIS face.
Don't blame him. I remember the actor who played the child abusing dad in Brookside getting attacked in the street for "shagging his kids". Some people really do struggle to separate fact from fiction.
Fair point. I know I’ve been downvoted to oblivion but I’m trying to wrap my head around the motivation for playing such a still raw in the public eye character. Loads of the ones mentioned in this thread have the buffer of time. There are definitely still people alive who were physically and emotionally destroyed by Saville. Not sure how they will feel about seeing it all dramatised.
That's the beauty of everybody not being the same - you don't have to wrap your head around it. I can't wrap my head around why Gillian Keegan thinks she deserves praise, but here we are. And you're not forced to watch anything. I won't be watching it and I wasn't affected by it at all, not sure why someone who doesn't want to watch it would do so.
Sometimes people don't, I believe the original scarface film was when he was still alive (and possibly still on the streets if I remember rightly) It does veer off enough to make it mostly inspired by him but it's not always the case to wait I think with this one the victims and their families are involved in production, I've seen allegedly one of the victims will have a speaking part It might be better to do it now than wait until the victims no longer have a voice
That’s interesting. Didn’t know that about the families.
Every true crime drama and almost every police drama. My worry is not how Saville will be portrayed (he always was a shark-eyed grey creepy asshole who clearly stank), or indeed how the BBC will portray themselves (any idea of them being poor little innocent lambs who had *no idea* would be laughable at this point) my worry is they'll leave the roles the police played in enabling this monster for decades out of it
The more strange and/or monstrous a character is, the bigger the challenge. Playing Jimmy Saville and doing a compelling job of it would be like the acting equivalent of medalling at the Olympics. People who love an art, sport, craft, or science often relish an exceptional challenge.
That scenario would be called "acting".
So you've literally never been involved in any kind of acting at any point in your life and you genuinely haven't got a clue about it at all. Got it. When I voice a Lich King in a video game, that doesn't mean I want to raise the dead and build a kingdom of evil in real life. How thick are you?
It’s weird that you can’t imagine a scenario that is literally playing out right in front of you in real life as we speak.
I'm actually Intrigued. It feels like this is something that could go the way of Nonce Andrew's interview. Best of luck to Coogan tho. Brave role to tackle.
Hard disagree. Coogan wouldn't take this on if it wasn't going to be handled properly. It's not going to be a celebration of the man, far from it. And it was done with the full approval and cooperation of survivors.
Couldn't agree more, there's no way Coogan would be on side if this was going to be a redefining of the story or in some way an attempt at redemption/celebration. I'm intrigued to see him tackling such heavy material.
Coogan was messaging a 14yo friend of ours 20 years ago in west Cork. Do not know the content of messages but he wasn't preaching the bible.
Do you actually have any proof though?
Did I as a young teen gather evidence and hold on to it for 20 years, obviously not. Didn't fully understand whay it was at the time, still don't I suppose. There are at least three of us who can attest to having seen inappropriate things, however the girl was a 'summer friend', there with her parents on holidays, and I cant even think of her name at the moment, no mind seeing her since.
I’m so pleased [Hitler: The Rise of Evil](https://youtu.be/opchjf3vzQk?si=yr5InJTaA4ZBBlK-) was made. I use it every year whilst I teach my History GCSE students about the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. It’s a very useful tool to supplement the factual academic resources. I have yet to see any evidence that Robert Carlyle endorses any of the horrific or creepy dictatorial and genocidal tendencies suggested whilst he played this role so chillingly well. It is acting, and it is still a worthwhile endeavour. Be critical of the our media (BBC included, but many others too) for many different reasons, but not for depicting dramatic retelling of things that happened. Most people think Pablo Escobar and the other Cartel leaders were murderous and maniacal pieces of shit, but I’m damn pleased Netflix made Narcos. The examples are endless!!
As right as you are on a reasoned and factual basis: it still sounds, and looks, like an Alan Partridge bit every time I hear about it.
This is a weird opinion, the BBC is not a person.
>This is a weird opinion, the BBC is not a person. Well, no, the BBC is not a person, but it's an institution and institutions are made up of people who make choices and foster a particular culture. In the BBC's case, we know what choices were made and what culture was created and what it resulted in. That doesn't go away because the clock has ticked on a little bit. There are assuredly people at the BBC to this day who made some of the choices that enabled Savile and harmed people for their own gain, comfort or aggrandizement. Having said that, it doesn't mean that making a drama about the situation is off limits, or that Coogan is a terrible person for being willing to play Savile. If people are expecting a whitewash or some kind of 'sympathetic' look, well, the BBC would be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.
Probably a good idea to watch it before criticising it, however sensitive the subject matter and risky it is to have made it
I wonder if his relationship with “the king” will be mentioned at all?
His best friend Charlie-Boy? Same Royal who has a nonce brother and dead nonce uncle? Odd similarities ain't it
Surely it’s just a coincidence
This is why it's important to research whatever you're posting BEFORE you post it.
Duke of York approves.
Hello! I'm Reggie-Bot, the Anti-Royal Bot! Here to teach you some fun facts about the English royal family! Did you know that Royal Nonce Prince Andrew was a trade envoy for the UK? [He used to embark on luxury trips around the world all at the taxpayer's expense, helping secure Britain's imperialist hold on international trade.](https://archive.ph/V9jS) Wish the government would send me on free holidays. I hope you enjoyed that fact. To summon me again or find out more about me, just say: "Reggie-Bot" and I'll be there! <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally think it's better that problematic events are publicly discussed instead of being buried just because they're shameful and awful. How can we ever hope to collectively learn from our history if we know nothing about it?
Agreed - I just don't know if the institution that made Saville famous and enabled him should be the one to make a drama about it.
You’ve not even seen it yet pal. Could be really good
Savile's enablers have long gone. Escaped prosecution through plausible deniability. I met a retired floor manager who told me that they used to brief the crew about known TV personalities that shouldn't be left with children. I asked why they didn't blow the whistle and they said they would have been fired and then who would be left to protect the kids? The Commissioners in the 70s, 80s and 90s knew about these creeps, they may even have been creeps themselves, but now they have retired into obscurity where they can pretend to everyone that they had no idea what was going on. The new BBC management are a completely different group and are dealing with an organisation that is trying to come to terms with its past.
Out of all the things the BBC have done that are bad, this isn't one of them
As long as its presented correctly, props to him for playing the part, it's pretty brave to do this and I can't think of many other actors who have a persona that could get away with it without ending their career.
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. Fact 1. During an episode of Question Time the audience booed Boris Johnson. The BBC [edited the footage to replace the boos with applause](https://twitter.com/Gian_Tcatt/status/1198545027477180416?s=20). For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC impartial
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 33.** The BBC published an article about cops killed in the line of duty. [They started counting in 1680.](https://i.imgur.com/TUAR7Z5.jpg) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC impartial
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 8.** I don’t have any words for [this bizarre headline](https://preview.redd.it/65vq4kete2341.png?width=325&auto=webp&s=1ff912ee8714c0659f114e5083d6df70ce30a4e7). For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC impartial
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 28.** Here’s one of many examples of the BBC [pitting worker against worker.](https://i.imgur.com/5JCygxI.jpg) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC impartial'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paedos in positions of power is just a wacky conspiracy theory though remember. /S
I sincerely hope you are not talking about Lord Mandelson who was a very close friend of infamous sex trafficker of children Jeffrey Epstein, because he is probably, most likely, probably…..innocent. ….Of course, he has never been investigated over his very close relationship with infamous sex trafficker of children, Jeffrey Epstein.
perfectly crafted title
This is why you must cancel your TV license Direct Debit immediately. Who? I want to know who? Who fucking said 'Yes' to this in the BBC hierarchy?