The Savile disgrace

[Knock-on]

How can a former national hero have been allowed to get away with this?

When this story broke, I couldn't believe it. Sure he was mad as a bucket of frogs but such a high profile character abusing children and being allowed to by literally hundreds of people? It was impossible.

Yet this is what happened. Schools, Journalists, BBC and even police look complicit in this conspiracy that should be throughly investigated.

Janet Street Porter reveals she heard sex claims about Jimmy Savile and OTHERS when she worked at BBC 25 years ago - Crime - News - Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/janet-street-porter-reveals-she-heard-sex-claims-about-jimmy-savile-and-others-when-she-worked-at-bbc-25-years-ago-8198727.html)

It's OK for people like Janet Street Porter to say there was rumours but a mouth like that should have put it to good use and spoken out rather than keeping her head down and protecting her job. She was a top BBC executive in charge of Youth and Entertainment features but choose instead to blame her silence on a 'Male Based Culture'. She even went on to be Editor of a major Fleet Street broadsheet but still didn't have the guts to do anything incase Jimmy Savile turned on her. Investigative journalist and firebrand my arse! I find her retrospective condemnation particularly vile.

BBC News - Jimmy Savile and workplace culture today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19870676)

Mark Easton moves to appologise for people like Savile claiming it was 'the norm' and although wrong, was merely Uncles with wandering hands and the pervert flashers rather than a prevelent, predatory disgrace like Savile and many countless others.

All in all, it's incredible but true that this disgrace was allowed to perpetuate and the people that either knew but did nothing or activley covered up this widescale abuse should be ashamed of themselves. More than that, they should be exposed for the damage they have done to over a hundred Children and counting.

[Mark]

It cuts particularly deep because as you say he was a well loved personality for decades, and most of us in the UK aged 30 or above will remember him being on TV. Now it seems - at least if you go off what the Met. Police are saying - he was a total monster.

Obviously since he's diseased there is no prospect of this being 'proven' in a legal sense, but it's beyond that now anyway. Scarbrough have removed signs referring to him, and even his gravestone has been taken away to be destroyed.

[MrJan]

Am I the only one in the world that won't be at all surprised if he's confirmed to be a nonce? While he may have been a national treasure I could never warm to the bloke or shake the feeling that he was "a wrong'un".

I'm also not surprised that it was covered up, the bloke obviously wielded quite a bit of power to keep people afraid of what might happen if they blew the whistle.

[Malbec]

How can a former national hero have been allowed to get away with this?

You've hit the nail on the head in your first sentence.

He was a national hero. He raised millions of pounds in charity money, was a national celebrity and personally backed several institutions.

I do think his behaviour was known about, if you've seen Louis Theroux's programme with him (where Savile looks frankly bizarre) he's directly asked if he has a preference for dodgy porn, something I doubt Louis would have asked if rumours weren't flying about.

Unfortunately the collective unwillingness to do anything about his behaviour is very very typical of group psychology.

Savile had power, he was liked and there was the underlying threat that if you challenged him all the money he raised for charity would evaporate. That is one hell of a big disincentive for a) the kids who were abused to take their complaints higher than they did at the time and b) the relevant authorities at the BBC or the schools Savile preyed on to listen to those allegations.

[Mintexmemory]

Not only child victims! - the rumour of how much he alledgedly enjoyed work as a mortuary porter have been rife for years. There appears to have been a culture within the music biz / media of turning a blind eye to 'inconvenient' truths. Presumably because very few people in this part of society were leading entirely blameless lives (drugs, booze, hookers and that was just Blue Peter!) even if they weren't victimising children.

[Malbec]

Not only child victims! - the rumour of how much he alledgedly enjoyed work as a mortuary porter have been rife for years.

Not just a mortuary porter but voluntary hospital porter too. The kind of thing that looks good for charidee...

He's been accused of feeling up women who'd just had neurosurgery and were unable to complain or resist.


There appears to have been a culture within the music biz / media of turning a blind eye to 'inconvenient' truths. Presumably because very few people in this part of society were leading entirely blameless lives (drugs, booze, hookers and that was just Blue Peter!) even if they weren't victimising children.

I think thats still the case. Apparently Russell Brand recently refused to take part in a show until and unless a work experience girl he liked the look of showed him her breasts. The fact that that demand wasn't merely tolerated but the girl pressured to do so speaks volumes about the culture that still exists.


BBC News - Jimmy Savile and workplace culture today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19870676)

Mark Easton moves to appologise for people like Savile claiming it was 'the norm' and although wrong, was merely Uncles with wandering hands and the pervert flashers rather than a prevelent, predatory disgrace like Savile and many countless others.

Mark Easton does nothing of the sort.

He's absolutely right.

Back in the '70s and even '80's paedophilia was swept under the carpet alongside domestic violence. Racism was just starting to be clamped down on. Culture, both in the public domain and at work was completely different back then. While that doesn't excuse Savile's behaviour the response to it should be viewed in that light.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think thats still the case. Apparently Russell Brand recently refused to take part in a show until and unless a work experience girl he liked the look of showed him her breasts. The fact that that demand wasn't merely tolerated but the girl pressured to do so speaks volumes about the culture that still exists.


The culture exists because the media audiences love it. They love celebrities do things and then love to hate celebrities once the thinly disguised truth is out.

[Malbec]

The culture exists because the media audiences love it. They love celebrities do things and then love to hate celebrities once the thinly disguised truth is out.

I think you overestimate how much information leakage is managed.

My parents have worked in the media for 30 years. They've heard a lot of rumours and stories, often firsthand from crew who've worked for long periods with celebrities. Due to the nature of media work with lots of short jobs and a high turnover of freelance crew it is very difficult for anyone to hide something they do fairly regularly, yet the vast majority of it never gets out into the press for publication.

As Esther Rantzen put it everyone knows this kind of rumour should be believed because it emanates from people who have direct access to the people they're about.

Only occasionally does the wall get breached, in this case by the ITV documentary. Then the floodgates are opened and all the stories that were exchanged purely within the media get released into the public domain. There are plenty of stories that are never ever used in public about people who have squeaky clean public personas, I can think of several that involve current racers for example.

[donKey jote]

I'm also a bit shellshocked to be honest. I remember watching him with my grandad when I was little.
The footage of him and Gary Glitter (who actually jokes "oh I get two girls, do I? ") before they both sit on the beanbags between teenage girlies at the end of the show is sickening.

[BDunnell]

Back in the '70s and even '80's paedophilia was swept under the carpet alongside domestic violence. Racism was just starting to be clamped down on. Culture, both in the public domain and at work was completely different back then. While that doesn't excuse Savile's behaviour the response to it should be viewed in that light.

Thank you for providing a bit of welcome perspective, as opposed to predictable and easy-to-express outrage. There was a great deal less awareness of what constituted abuse, of whatever sort, at the time Savile was allegedly committing these crimes. This is in no sense to seek to justify them; rather, an attempt to set them in some degree of context. It's simple — and, to some degree, amusing — to castigate the likes of Janet Street-Porter and Esther Rantzen for not speaking out, but there is no guarantee they would have been listened to. Look at the Jonathan King case. In the 1970s, 'Private Eye' reported, in indirect but obvious terms, what he was up to with under-age boys. No-one took the slightest bit of notice. Almost exactly the same can be said about the antics of the former Liberal MP Cyril Smith.

[driveace]

I have met the guy in a restaurant near here when dining out with my wife and daughter,he came over as he was leaving ,put his hand on my shoulder,and said "You are a lucky lad to be out with two good looking girls like these" as he was leaving.He was always with another guy who was baldish and tubby.He used to spend a lot of time in Otley and was a common site here in the town.BUT what I cannot understand is WHY did all these people who are NOW coming out of the woodwork,not speak up in the last 40 years that these sickening things have been happening?
Are these people thinking of compensation claims,or what motive can there be when the accused is no longer living.There is also questions about Freddie Starr and others,but there are too many skeletons in cupboards with a lot of these "Celebrities ",and why is everybody compliant in all that goes on ?I dont think that Harry Webb is tricky ,but his private life is a big secret,and the times I have seen him out ,it was in the company of a short stocky,casual dressed older looking guy .How do these people keep their "Other " lives so secret.?

[inimitablestoo]

The real disgrace has been that nobody seems to have used a headling with "Savile Row" in it. Call themselves tabloid journalists? They ought to be ashamed...

[Mark]

I did wonder if those signs would also be taken down!!

[Daniel]

Back in the '70s and even '80's paedophilia was swept under the carpet alongside domestic violence. Racism was just starting to be clamped down on. Culture, both in the public domain and at work was completely different back then. While that doesn't excuse Savile's behaviour the response to it should be viewed in that light.
Context is always important. I remember back in the late 80's as a little kid in Australia, homophobia was tolerated and tbh encouraged. Doesn't make it right, but it goes some way to explaining the way people acted. When I was young, gay was a synonym for something being crap or rubbish or unfair. I still sometimes use the term like that and hear others use it like that. I expect it's far less tolerable for younger people to use it in that sense now.

[BDunnell]

Context is always important. I remember back in the late 80's as a little kid in Australia, homophobia was tolerated and tbh encouraged. Doesn't make it right, but it goes some way to explaining the way people acted. When I was young, gay was a synonym for something being crap or rubbish or unfair. I still sometimes use the term like that and hear others use it like that. I expect it's far less tolerable for younger people to use it in that sense now.

I don't think it's tolerable amongst older people either. In fact, it's pretty intolerable on the part of anyone who's not an utterly tiresome individual with a limited vocabulary.

[Robinho]

Obviously since he's diseased there is no prospect of this being 'proven' in a legal sense, but it's beyond that now anyway. Scarbrough have removed signs referring to him, and even his gravestone has been taken away to be destroyed.

Best slip-up ever there Mark, assume you meant deceased, but diseased makes it read even better :D

[BDunnell]

I do think a few heads will still roll at the BBC over what is being exposed as a cover up of a culture of sleaze.

Why? It was the fault of no-one there now, and there is no evidence as yet of any actual 'cover-up'; as far as we know, people didn't come forward to make complaints, which is a different thing altogether.

[Daniel]

I don't think it's tolerable amongst older people either. In fact, it's pretty intolerable on the part of anyone who's not an utterly tiresome individual with a limited vocabulary.

You obviously hang around with a different crowd then. It's not an uncommon saying. That said, it's obviously not one you would use whilst someone you know is gay is around....

[wedge]

Back in the '70s and even '80's paedophilia was swept under the carpet alongside domestic violence. Racism was just starting to be clamped down on. Culture, both in the public domain and at work was completely different back then. While that doesn't excuse Savile's behaviour the response to it should be viewed in that light.

Very very true.

I brought this up in a different forum.

When I grew up in the 80s we were told not to accept sweets/talk to strangers but it seems far more drastic these days. Fear, media exposure and not just technology - kids are less likely to play outside these days.

It seemed to change in the 90s with Fred West, Belgian paedophile ring broken up, Megan's Law which helped change attitudes that uncomfortable truths need to be outed; then tabloid coverage went overboard which influenced Chris Morris's Brass Eye:

NesjvRihbEg

[steveaki13]

I do just remember the tail end of Saviles run on mainstream tele, but over the years thought he was strange and when the first accusation came out, I have to say was not suprised. It seemed to fit

[Azumanga Davo]

I'm rather concerned that one train fan forum I use has completely and totally made their opinion solidly of the "media witch hunt" against him. Sure, it's good to see there are people who can look at both sides of the argument, but it's just as unhealthy to be completely on the side of no as it is on the side of yes.

This is the age of the train. Yes, your honour, I thought she was over 16 at the time...

[BDunnell]

It was clear from the people interviewed in the documentary that Savile was well aware of the age of the girls he was raping. He's not here to defend himself so there will never be a fair trial, but its natural for people to form opinions based on the testimonies we are able to hear. Whats also important about this trial is the possibility there are people still around who either joined in at Saviles parties, or had been paid off (police), or even silenced through friendship etc etc. If we learn that these people exist, then they also need to pay for their crimes. I don't think this should just fade away simply because the defendant is dead. A cover up of sorts has taken place and it needs to be investigated. A celebrity can't just molest and rape girls in their early teens for 4 decades without somebody knowing about it and protecting Savile in some way. Its an interesting case and we should greet it with the respect it deserves.

I agree with all of that, but must confess to being somewhat uncomfortable about the way in which this has, so far, only been a trial by media. The press is hardly bothering to use the word 'alleged' any more. Yes, given what we know, the balance of probability must be weighted firmly in favour of Savile having been a serial sex offender, but we do have legal processes to determine this sort of thing, and as yet they have not been completed.

[Knock-on]

I don´t know the specifics of Legalise but seeing as the alleged perpetrator is deceased, it is very difficult to find him guilty.

Now, if he has not been found guilty, I don´t quite understand how any people, paid or otherwise, can be convicted of covering up a crime that has not been proven in a court of law. That´s heresay and slander isn´t it?

Of course, if others have participated in the actual abuse then they should be persued with utmost vigour and held accountable.

Now, as I´ve said, I´m no legal Eagle but if there is a full Judicial enquiry, can the crimes be proven even if someone is deceased and ALL those guilty then be persued?

[BDunnell]

Now, if he has not been found guilty, I don´t quite understand how any people, paid or otherwise, can be convicted of covering up a crime that has not been proven in a court of law. That´s heresay and slander isn´t it?

This is an interesting point. It is, after all, possible to convict someone of murder without the body having been found. However, I don't think there is any serious suggestion of a cover-up in the strictest sense here. That would have had to have been organised. Instead, what we seem to have is a situation where hardly anyone went forward at the time.



Of course, if others have participated in the actual abuse then they should be persued with utmost vigour and held accountable.

Indeed. It is sad that in Jersey, where proper investigation of the Haut de la Garenne abuse could have uncovered Savile's crimes while he was still alive, there has not — with the exception of some brave independent-minded politicians and others — been a will to find out exactly what went on there.



Now, as I´ve said, I´m no legal Eagle but if there is a full Judicial enquiry, can the crimes be proven even if someone is deceased and ALL those guilty then be persued?

I'm not sure those who have said that they knew of rumours but didn't come forward at the time should really be pursued too much further. Over time, many, many people have been in their shoes in one situation or another.

[wedge]

Considering the BBC has taken a lot of flak for cases of sexual harrassment in the past week: what institution, let alone media organisations didn't have a problem with sex relations in that era?

[BDunnell]

Considering the BBC has taken a lot of flak for cases of sexual harrassment in the past week: what institution, let alone media organisations didn't have a problem with sex relations in that era?

Well, quite. Two of the entities now being most critical, Parliament and Fleet Street, spring to mind.

The whole affair is being used by some as a stick with which to beat the BBC. To listen to some of the criticism, you'd think Savile could never have offended if he'd been with ITV. I exaggerate, but not by much.

[Knock-on]

Well, I'm not so sure it can all be tied up is such a neat little bundle. People may like to brush this off as the poor old BBC (Gawd luv 'er and all who sail in 'er) being victimized and all they are guilty of is turning a blind eye to a wayward Celebrity who was indiscrete during a time of more relaxed views to pedophilia but I don't buy it.

George Entwistle today was not convincing one bit in my opinion. He was unsure of his facts and unconvincing in his statements. The fact that 9 seperate people are being investigated for sexual harrassment at the BBC leads me to suppose there is a much greater problem here than just this one incident.

Is sexual abuse endemic in the BBC? It looks like it. Was / is a pedophile ring operating within the BBC. It's an amazing suggestion but one that must be investigated fully and rigourously. Furthmore, it is obvious, as demonstrated by the laughter at Entwistle when Politicians suggeted they might compile a list of basic questions he should go back and ask, that the DG is incapable of progressing this effectivly!

I'm afraid this is merely the tip of a Titanic sinking Iceberg :(

[BDunnell]

George Entwistle today was not convincing one bit in my opinion.

I thought he was convincing — more so than the MPs questioning him were authoritative, certainly. One sees a pattern when watching Select Committees nowadays — MPs asking questions designed to be answered in such a way as to offer the next day's newspapers an easy headline, and thus get said MP into the papers. Proper scrutiny it is not. The fact that one of them quite seriously thought it was relevant to ask whether the BBC was intending to re-commission the 'Jim'll Fix It' format with another presenter demonstrates exactly this. Rather more germane, in my view, would be questioning as to what George Entwistle's predecessor, Mark Thompson, knew about the dropping of the 'Newsnight' investigation; he, after all, was D-G at the time. This has been the subject of no comment whatsoever.

The trouble is that people like Entwistle dress up their every public statement in management speak to such an extent that they sound more unconvincing than they actually are. His comments were full of non-phrases like 'expressing regret' and 'taking full responsibility for'. Another difficulty nowadays is that people are keen to see conspiracy, rather than cock-up, in everything. There is no evidence as yet of pressure being imposed from on high to drop the 'Newsnight' investigation. What evidence there is suggests that the programme's editor dithered and then made the wrong decision. I'm tempted to ask, 'so what'? The decision not to broadcast that item is of little consequence. What difference does it make, given that Savile would still have been dead had it been shown late last year? Yes, there is an emotional aspect in that it meant it took some months longer for the victims' stories to emerge than would otherwise be the case, but this is a very different situation to one in which Savile was still alive when the investigation was dropped. That would have been serious. (On that subject, I would also make the point — one little heard since the story broke — that the fact of Savile having been a regular visitor to the children's home in Jersey was known while he was still alive, when the previous, abortive investigations into abuse there took place. That, perhaps, was the greatest missed opportunity for the story to break at a time when justice could have been done.)

The fact that there may have been a paedophile ring operating in the BBC some years ago is appalling, but it is of little or no consequence to the BBC of today. It is very rich of those in Fleet Street or Westminster to criticise the culture of an organisation 30 or more years ago — especially the former, given that it too did nothing to unmask Savile despite the alleged endless rumours about him. When I turn on the BBC, I don't think, 'Bunch of paedos', and it would be a fool who did equate the two. Furthermore, to hear some commentators, you'd think Savile would never have been able to get away with it had he been with ITV. This is plainly nonsensical.



Is sexual abuse endemic in the BBC? It looks like it.

Your use of the present tense here renders this statement absurd, I'm afraid to say. Do you seriously believe sexual abuse is endemic in the BBC of today?


Furthmore, it is obvious, as demonstrated by the laughter at Entwistle when Politicians suggeted they might compile a list of basic questions he should go back and ask, that the DG is incapable of progressing this effectivly!

The politicians in question include one, Ben Bradshaw, who may be ex-BBC but who criticised his former employer for broadcasting from Belgrade during the 1999 Kosovo campaign on the grounds he felt it should not put forward the opinions of the Serbian people who were being bombed, and another, Philip Davies, who once asked, 'Why it is so offensive to black up your face?' I am not sure that these are individuals who can truly claim the moral high ground when it comes to lecturing anyone.



I'm afraid this is merely the tip of a Titanic sinking Iceberg :(

To me, the whole affair is being massively overblown by other sections of the media with little to write home about either in their own conduct with regard to Jimmy Savile or more generally, and by politicians with various agendas of their own whether about the BBC or a desire to be seen to be sufficiently outraged. The 'Panorama' programme was itself an indication of why there ought still to be trust in the BBC. What other media outlet would have broadcast such a programme about itself?

[BDunnell]

By the way, a comment from Danny Baker on Twitter this evening makes an amusing, but hugely relevant, point:

'Jesus Christ BBC, stop saying "the BBC" as though it's all of us. It's mainly Newsnight right? I ain't done **** all.'

[Knock-on]

I can quickly answer a few points now.

The politicians themselves are not the ones answering questions and there should be no focused on their opinions, ethos or personality. If we want a select committee beyond reproach, we will never get it. So, the facts surrounding our opinion of the politicians asking the questions (and I take your point that some are not the questions I think should be asked either) should be left aside and just leave the current situation to be investigated. As for Mark Thompson, how can Entwistle answer for him :confused: Surely he should be offered the opportunity to speak for himself?

Entwistle also claimed that ´no significant pressure´was brought to can the Newsnight program. A reporter involved claim that management were in a panic. Where is the truth between these two statements? What is considered significant pressure and why was any brought at all? Why did Entwistle say he was purposly disinterested when he was notified that he might have to make changes to the publisged Christmas schedule due to the content about Savile about to be aired on Newsnight. Why would a DG who is responsible for the BBC and it´s reputation not be interested in a story that would necessitate a change to the Broadcast schedule and something so grave against a ´BBC Hero´? I would question the judgement of such a man and after all this broke, why did it take so long to get things moving?

These are just a few questions. I could ask many more.

However I don´t have time today. As for your claims about ITV and other media sources, I cannot comment. I have been out of the UK for the past few weeks and haven´t seen the Panorama program or other broadcast material. I do follow the story on the BBC when I can get an internet connection but if you say that ITV have been unobjective then I cannot argue one way or the other.

[BDunnell]

The politicians themselves are not the ones answering questions and there should be no focused on their opinions, ethos or personality.

Really? Not even when one of them has a track record of criticising his former employer? I would have thought this to be highly germane.


As for Mark Thompson, how can Entwistle answer for him :confused: Surely he should be offered the opportunity to speak for himself?

Of course he should. But Entwistle should still have been asked about him, given that Thompson was D-G at the time. After all, he was largely being asked about someone who is dead. Given that, I would have thought questions about his (very much alive) former boss' involvement ought to have been answerable.



Entwistle also claimed that ´no significant pressure´was brought to can the Newsnight program. A reporter involved claim that management were in a panic. Where is the truth between these two statements? What is considered significant pressure and why was any brought at all?

Different interpretations of the same thing, I would say. After all, no evidence of actual pressure being brought to bear has yet been presented. Nor does anyone seem to have panicked other than the 'Newsnight' editor, and that for little reason. The one thing that does seem obvious is that the item could have been run last year without causing any difficulty. Not that big an issue.


As for your claims about ITV and other media sources, I cannot comment. I have been out of the UK for the past few weeks and haven´t seen the Panorama program or other broadcast material. I do follow the story on the BBC when I can get an internet connection but if you say that ITV have been unobjective then I cannot argue one way or the other.

Nowhere have I said that ITV have been unobjective. From what aspect of my comments have you gained that impression?

[Daniel]

I find the term "titanic sinking iceberg" hilarious.

The BBC should disappear and be replaced by something else (or nothing?) because the law of averages was right and there was someone in the BBC who liked to touch kids? The idea that abuse was or is endemic in the BBC is ridiculous. A certain amount of police officers, firemen, ambulance officers and MP's will at some stage abuse children and no one calls for the police/fire/ambulance service to be replaced or for parliament to be dissolved and new elections run....

Should Fiona Bruce be employed by this new organisation or not? I mean she's part of this BBC where abuse is endemic so really she shouldn't be should she? *strokes chin*

[BDunnell]

I find the term "titanic sinking iceberg" hilarious.

The BBC should disappear and be replaced by something else (or nothing?) because the law of averages was right and there was someone in the BBC who liked to touch kids? The idea that abuse was or is endemic in the BBC is ridiculous. A certain amount of police officers, firemen, ambulance officers and MP's will at some stage abuse children and no one calls for the police/fire/ambulance service to be replaced or for parliament to be dissolved and new elections run....

So much of this outrage — on the part of MPs, media commentators and some sections of the public — is utterly, transparently synthetic.

Today, I see that the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to seek to prosecute Savile in 2009, while he was still alive, is to be reviewed. Now this is a significant issue — rather more so than why a TV item about him when he was dead was delayed by a few months. Anyone who thinks otherwise has, I would suggest, a skewed sense of priorities.

[BDunnell]

One other point badly needs making, too. Every new allegation being made in the media is almost automatically being assumed to be true, and reported as such. No matter whether they are true or not, it's a bit irresponsible given that there has, as yet, been no legal process.

[Malbec]

Entwistle also claimed that ´no significant pressure´was brought to can the Newsnight program. A reporter involved claim that management were in a panic. Where is the truth between these two statements? What is considered significant pressure and why was any brought at all? Why did Entwistle say he was purposly disinterested when he was notified that he might have to make changes to the publisged Christmas schedule due to the content about Savile about to be aired on Newsnight. Why would a DG who is responsible for the BBC and it´s reputation not be interested in a story that would necessitate a change to the Broadcast schedule and something so grave against a ´BBC Hero´? I would question the judgement of such a man and after all this broke, why did it take so long to get things moving?

None of this sounds particularly suspicious to me. It comes across as a large organisation responding in a confused manner in response to a small decision which ended up having a significant impact. These things happen all the time and is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

Entwistle claims he wasn't informed what the nature of the Newsnight piece was. The matter wasn't discussed at a formal meeting but at an awards ceremony in a conversation that supposedly lasted for 10 seconds which gives you an idea how important both parties thought the matter was. I suspect that if the content of the piece was discussed then the conversation would have lasted longer and be discussed in a more formal environment since allegations of abuse against a previous BBC star would warrant a minuted meeting at the least.

If new evidence comes out that the content of the Newsnight piece was known by senior managers and this was the cause of the piece being suppressed thats a different matter. I don't see anything so far that suggests that was the case.

One should also remember that the Panorama programme on Monday was also a BBC product which went to great lengths to make sure it could be researched, filmed and broadcast extremely quickly even though it is highly critical of the BBC itself.

Its far more important IMO to ensure that in organisations such as the BBC, NHS and Home Office that there are appropriate safeguards to prevent a future Jimmy Savile from ever having the kind of access to vulnerable children and adults but that doesn't seem to interest the media so much.

[BDunnell]

If new evidence comes out that the content of the Newsnight piece was known by senior managers and this was the cause of the piece being suppressed thats a different matter. I don't see anything so far that suggests that was the case.

Quite. Even then, to suggest that this would reflect badly on the entire BBC is taking the reaction way, way too far.



Its far more important IMO to ensure that in organisations such as the BBC, NHS and Home Office that there are appropriate safeguards to prevent a future Jimmy Savile from ever having the kind of access to vulnerable children and adults but that doesn't seem to interest the media so much.

And Parliament. Heard what came up at PMQs today?

[Mark]

I think the BBC is being a bit too introspective on this. Sure you need to investigate issues of Saville getting away with this especially on BBC premesis, but the likes of the Newsnight bit being dropped is a bit of a non-issue.

[BDunnell]

I think the BBC is being a bit too introspective on this.

Imagine the furore if it had done otherwise! It can't win.

[Daniel]

I think the BBC is being a bit too introspective on this. Sure you need to investigate issues of Saville getting away with this especially on BBC premesis, but the likes of the Newsnight bit being dropped is a bit of a non-issue.
I think it needs to be realised that this all happened in a different era where people's attitudes were different and people weren't as suspicious as they are now. Nowadays most kids know what an adult is or isn't meant to do to them, back in the day it must have been very confusing. I sometimes don't understand the big needs for enquiries, yes we need to see how far this all went and if anyone should be held to account in a legal sense for allowing this to happen, but it's so far in the past there's little that can be done in a practical sense now....

[Daniel]

I went to a fancy dress party a couple of years ago dressed as Jimmy Savile. My friends have been very kind commenting on the facebook photo's of me and it now appears I did it in poor taste. It was just an excuse to slap on a shell suit and a blonde wig at the time. Oops.

You sick sick individual!!!!! Looking through my photos I've got a photo of I took of Jimmy Saville on the tv because his hair looked like a WW2 German soldiers helmet.

[Mark]

I think it needs to be realised that this all happened in a different era where people's attitudes were different and people weren't as suspicious as they are now. Nowadays most kids know what an adult is or isn't meant to do to them, back in the day it must have been very confusing. I sometimes don't understand the big needs for enquiries, yes we need to see how far this all went and if anyone should be held to account in a legal sense for allowing this to happen, but it's so far in the past there's little that can be done in a practical sense now....

Yes but they are most concerned about what happened in late 2011, not that long ago at all. But it was an editorial decision to drop a story, that's the end of it.

[Daniel]

Yes but they are most concerned about what happened in late 2011, not that long ago at all. But it was an editorial decision to drop a story, that's the end of it.

I know, I was referring to Knock on's generic outrage at the whole thing. Down wit' that sort o' ting, careful now! and all that. I'm not sure how to put it into words but there's something very wrong with British society in how it deals with things like this. they seem to over-empathaise. Diana, a woman who very few people probably actually met and who in practical terms did a whole lot less than other people who've died, carked it and a large proportion of people started crying and buying flowers and ****. Something just doesn't seem right about that.....

[Daniel]

I never understood why the nation poured its heart out quite so much over someone they had little in common with. I met the woman when she opened the Tourist Info centre in my town as a child, but I didn't buy her any flowers when she died. With anything its the media hype that encourages such behaviour.

It's aspirational bellendry that's what it is. She was a Princess, people wanted to be princesses, she died and lots of people cried. I bet that the people who placed flowers were the same that bought the magazines and papers that the paps who were chasing her were supplying. Similar thing with Kate Middleton, she's certainly not ugly at all, but she's not that great looking yet somehow all the sheep seemed to think so when she married William.....

[Malbec]

Nowadays most kids know what an adult is or isn't meant to do to them, back in the day it must have been very confusing. I sometimes don't understand the big needs for enquiries, yes we need to see how far this all went and if anyone should be held to account in a legal sense for allowing this to happen, but it's so far in the past there's little that can be done in a practical sense now....

I don't agree with the first part of this post.

Those abused back in the day KNEW they were being abused. Many talk of having resisted or refused and being forced, others complied because they felt they had no other choice. This is typical of abusive relationships and things haven't changed, kids still submit to adults despite knowing that they are being forced to do something that is wrong. Jimmy Savile is all the more abhorrent because he used his popularity and charity connections specifically to threaten kids with, "no-one will believe I abused you, I'm Jimmy Savile...", however other abusers still use their positions of power to this day "who do you think your mother will believe? Her husband or her kid?"

As for the rest of it, Britain is extremely sensitive as a society to certain issues, racism and paedophilia are two such areas. In many ways I think this sensitivity leads to the kind of hysteria we see now where the BBC is being taken to task over a relatively minor error which did not lead to further harm whereas less attention is being paid to serious coverups (such as Savile repeatedly visiting a school renowned for abuse in Jersey yet never being investigated). Although I naturally support all moves to clamp down on abuse the hysteria around the issue often distorts the way in which the topic is portrayed.

Princess Diana is an entirely different topic and the mechanisms behind her adulation here are not related.

[Daniel]

I don't agree with the first part of this post.

Those abused back in the day KNEW they were being abused. Many talk of having resisted or refused and being forced, others complied because they felt they had no other choice. This is typical of abusive relationships and things haven't changed, kids still submit to adults despite knowing that they are being forced to do something that is wrong. Jimmy Savile is all the more abhorrent because he used his popularity and charity connections specifically to threaten kids with, "no-one will believe I abused you, I'm Jimmy Savile...", however other abusers still use their positions of power to this day "who do you think your mother will believe? Her husband or her kid?"

As for the rest of it, Britain is extremely sensitive as a society to certain issues, racism and paedophilia are two such areas. In many ways I think this sensitivity leads to the kind of hysteria we see now where the BBC is being taken to task over a relatively minor error which did not lead to further harm whereas less attention is being paid to serious coverups (such as Savile repeatedly visiting a school renowned for abuse in Jersey yet never being investigated). Although I naturally support all moves to clamp down on abuse the hysteria around the issue often distorts the way in which the topic is portrayed.

Princess Diana is an entirely different topic and the mechanisms behind her adulation here are not related.

Is Britain really sensitive to racism? As an outsider I've seen a lot of casual racism in the workplace here and even had someone discriminate against me during an interview in front of other applicants......

If you want to see casual racism though...... watch this BBC Four - The Leader, His Driver and the Driver's Wife (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nj349) it's bloody scary. There's a bit where this woman says something to the effect of "Everyone else calls their cats blackie or sootie, I thought why not call him Kaffer?" "Why? Because he's black" which just blew my mind.

I suppose I agree with your main point, I guess the difference now is that more children know they'll be taken seriously.

I don't know if I agree with the last point though, I feel that Britons are a bit more susceptible to outside pressures telling them how they should feel and act. From an outside view there seems to be a hysteria and lack of reasonable thought when it comes to paedophiles in particular. A friend of mine commented on a photo which said "Why do we have animal testing when we've got prisons full of paedophiles?" to disagree with all the people agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the photo. Now not all of them were British, but the majority seemed to be from the UK at the time.....

Back in Australia this vengeful sentiment didn't seem to be anywhere near as widespread though I'd be lying if I didn't admit that there were some people like that. I mean what kind of society are we when we advocate doing things that German scientists did during WW2 to prisoners, Jews, gypsies etc etc and which we now consider to be evil acts?

I'm not a big fan of Mandela, but this statement really does ring true..... “It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”

[Lousada]

I don't know if I agree with the last point though, I feel that Britons are a bit more susceptible to outside pressures telling them how they should feel and act. From an outside view there seems to be a hysteria and lack of reasonable thought when it comes to paedophiles in particular.

This is not typically British but more typical of the modern media culture I think. I live on mainland Europe and the same hysteria erupts over media-hyped non-issues.

[Daniel]

This is not typically British but more typical of the modern media culture I think. I live on mainland Europe and the same hysteria erupts over media-hyped non-issues.

Interestingly I was watching this the other day BBC Two - Ian Hislop's Stiff Upper Lip - An Emotional History of Britain, Emergence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n7r80) hence the Diana reference :) Of course it's not only Brits that act like this, but it is a fairly new thing.

[BDunnell]

Those abused back in the day KNEW they were being abused. Many talk of having resisted or refused and being forced, others complied because they felt they had no other choice. This is typical of abusive relationships and things haven't changed, kids still submit to adults despite knowing that they are being forced to do something that is wrong. Jimmy Savile is all the more abhorrent because he used his popularity and charity connections specifically to threaten kids with, "no-one will believe I abused you, I'm Jimmy Savile...", however other abusers still use their positions of power to this day "who do you think your mother will believe? Her husband or her kid?"

Of course, I agree with all of this, but I do feel — as you yourself wrote earlier, I think — that a differentiation must be made between 'then' and 'now' in terms of appreciation of what constitutes abuse, of whatever form.



As for the rest of it, Britain is extremely sensitive as a society to certain issues, racism and paedophilia are two such areas. In many ways I think this sensitivity leads to the kind of hysteria we see now where the BBC is being taken to task over a relatively minor error which did not lead to further harm whereas less attention is being paid to serious coverups (such as Savile repeatedly visiting a school renowned for abuse in Jersey yet never being investigated). Although I naturally support all moves to clamp down on abuse the hysteria around the issue often distorts the way in which the topic is portrayed.

I think different forms of sensitivity can be seen on display towards racism and paedophilia. I generalise, of course, but put it this way — few of those who displayed such hysteria towards paedophilia as those in Portsmouth in 2000 will, I would imagine, have been that concerned about racism.

One significant problem is that those in public life, including politicians, seem nowadays to feel the need to engage in a display of shock and outrage out of proportion to events, lest they be considered heartless or, worse, to be defending criminality. The language has become utterly immoderate. Why is this? Because, to some degree, they feel that it chimes with public opinion. Sadly, I think this is probably accurate.

[driveace]

Is there not a point ,that these people who were abused knew it was wrong,but were quite happy to be in the company of these "Celebrities",so as they were able to tell their friends that Jimmy Savile,or Garry Glitter,or who ever else was doing the abusing,was their friend .Surely they knew they could report it to the police ,or others in Authority ,or even their own parents,but they did not .I also do agree that there was a lot more abuse committed in my younger years,50s 60s etc ,and not so much of it ever came to light

[Malbec]

Is there not a point ,that these people who were abused knew it was wrong,but were quite happy to be in the company of these "Celebrities",so as they were able to tell their friends that Jimmy Savile,or Garry Glitter,or who ever else was doing the abusing,was their friend .

Are you suggesting that the victims were abused through choice or took pleasure from it?


Surely they knew they could report it to the police ,or others in Authority ,or even their own parents,but they did not .

Many of the victims DID report the abuse at the time. Some of the testimonies have come not from victims but the people they reported the abuse to who did not pass the information on or were disbelieved.

Jimmy Savile himself wrote about it in his autobiography where he mentions an episode when he was a club DJ in Leeds. The police asked if he'd seen a teenager who'd run away from home. He told them that if he found her he would return her to the police but would take her for the night in return. Thats exactly what he did. When he presented the girl to a policewoman the next morning the officer threatened to arrest him for rape. Jimmy Savile describes how he threatened the officer in return, telling her that if he went down the whole police force in Leeds would go down with him, would she like to be responsible for that?

This is what should be focused on, the multiple institutional failings that allowed him and others to get away with what they did.

It looks now as if there will be a few criminal prosecutions resulting from this case as there are plenty of abusers implicated who are still alive.

[Knock-on]

It's quite sad, but not surprising, reading some of the rhetoric on here, seemingly blaming the media and public for being disgusted and wanting to ensure that the chances of abuse are lessened in the future. We even have people claiming abuse back then wasn't the same as abuse today, or even that he victims were in some way complicit :confused: I must be going mad because in my book, facts are facts and rape back then was the same crime that rape is today. How we deal with and focus on this type of crime is different but the crime itself is the same.

I am not surprised that some people have to jump to the defence of the BBC whenever anyone dares level any type of criticism or even objective questioning on the organisation. It's this attitude that allows the type of people that commit these abuses to remain undetected within institutes like the BBC, Church, Social Services and Schools. Well, I wont just blindly follow like the sheep who are outraged by someone that dares to question. I want to know how this widespread systematic abuse was allowed to perpetuate, what agencies were involved, the extent of this collusion and to make sure that it does not still go on today. That is a perfectly reasonable request in my opinion and it seems the hysterical media, politicians and general public.

Now, what this thread has to do with the boring old subjects of Diana and Racism, I don't know. It seems quite disingenuous to go off topic onto subjects which the posters seems quite emotional about and use this as some sort of justification to support a particular stance? Next we'll be bringing up nefarious posts that cant be reproduced to discredit anything I post :laugh:

[BDunnell]

It's quite sad, but not surprising, reading some of the rhetoric on here, seemingly blaming the media and public for being disgusted and wanting to ensure that the chances of abuse are lessened in the future.

Even by your standards, this comment is quite absurd. No-one has done anything here to suggest that they don't want the chances of abuse to be lessened in the future. Saying that there is an unnecessary degree of outrage does not equate, except amongst those lacking in certain faculties, even to suggesting that such abuse is anything other than dreadful.


We even have people claiming abuse back then wasn't the same as abuse today, or even that he victims were in some way complicit :confused:

Again, you are reading into these posts what you want to read into them. No-one has suggested that 'abuse back then wasn't the same as abuse today'. If that's the best you can manage in terms of an interpretation — well, I feel sorry for you. What has been suggested is that the climate of eras past was very different, that there was less awareness then of what constituted abuse (not just sexual abuse) and that this all had a bearing on Jimmy Savile's crimes going undetected and unreported. Not the same thing as your interpretation at all.

This is all a bit rich, I must say, coming from someone who doesn't even think the rape allegations against Julian Assange should be properly investigated.



I am not surprised that some people have to jump to the defence of the BBC whenever anyone dares level any type of criticism or even objective questioning on the organisation. It's this attitude that allows the type of people that commit these abuses to remain undetected within institutes like the BBC, Church, Social Services and Schools. Well, I wont just blindly follow like the sheep who are outraged by someone that dares to question. I want to know how this widespread systematic abuse was allowed to perpetuate, what agencies were involved, the extent of this collusion and to make sure that it does not still go on today. That is a perfectly reasonable request in my opinion and it seems the hysterical media, politicians and general public.

You seem here to be suggesting that those of us who feel, and have expressed the view, that the BBC is coming in for unnecessary focus and criticism are in some way assisting abusers. What utter rot. And don't confuse your paranoid outrage based solely on media reports with genuine efforts to question the judgements of those in power. As your misinterpretation of comments in this thread that disagree with your views prove, when it comes to genuine research and investigation, you wouldn't have the first clue.



Now, what this thread has to do with the boring old subjects of Diana and Racism, I don't know.

Because discussion of a subject tends, in life, to drift; and maybe because some people prefer a wider, more thoughtful scope of discussion that that with which you're comfortable.

[Knock-on]

This is all a bit rich, I must say, coming from someone who doesn't even think the rape allegations against Julian Assange should be properly investigated.



Now this really is going too far Ben. What you have written is an outright LIE!.

I have never written that Assange should not be fully investigated. I have stated on here many times just that and it is easily proved. Show me one post where I have even slightly alluded to a belief that he should not be investigated.

I have had to endure your fantasies in the past, where they cannot be substantiated, ( http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/154422-london-police-threatens-storm-ecuadors-embassy-12.html#post1062078 ) where according to you I have written something you fundementally disagree with. You have stated on here, and all you have to do is look at the Embassy thread, that this has lead you to take a negative stance on any of my posts regarding anything Political or pertaining to Human Rights. ( http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/154422-london-police-threatens-storm-ecuadors-embassy-12.html#post1062118 )

So, stop lying and if you cannot read my posts with an open, rather than closed, mind, I suggest you refrain from reading them as your bias is clouding your judgement.

[BDunnell]

Now this really is going too far Ben. What you have written is an outright LIE!.

I have never written that Assange should not be fully investigated. I have stated on here many times just that and it is easily proved. Show me one post where I have even slightly alluded to a belief that he should not be investigated.

I have had to endure your fantasies in the past, where they cannot be substantiated, ( http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/154422-london-police-threatens-storm-ecuadors-embassy-12.html#post1062078 ) where according to you I have written something you fundementally disagree with. You have stated on here, and all you have to do is look at the Embassy thread, that this has lead you to take a negative stance on any of my posts regarding anything Political or pertaining to Human Rights. ( http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/154422-london-police-threatens-storm-ecuadors-embassy-12.html#post1062118 )

So, stop lying and if you cannot read my posts with an open, rather than closed, mind, I suggest you refrain from reading them as your bias is clouding your judgement.

If I have misrepresented you, mixed you up with someone else or something, about Assange, then I apologise. However, there are some forum members from whom I would be very happy to take on board statements such as the last sentence of the above post. You have never been one of them, so don't bother making them in future.

[Knock-on]

You seem to get mixed up quite a lot :laugh:

[Daniel]

You seem to get mixed up quite a lot :laugh: Even when you are totally in the wrong you still maintain your aura of pomposity. Next we will get on to grammer and spelling to prove your spurious points :p
As opposed to what? Pigheadedly sticking by his words even if he's wrong like you do? :)

[BDunnell]

You seem to get mixed up quite a lot :laugh:

Oh yes, hilarious. Can't think why I lumped you in with some other lunatic conspiracy theorist from that thread.

[Knock-on]

OK, this is just getting silly and now your little Poodle has raised his head again, I will leave it up to you until more FACTS like this come out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20114378

It seems Lord Patton is of a similar opinion to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2224199/Can-REALLY-inside-smug-BBC-knew-psychopath-doing-Chairman-Lord-Patten-questions-corporation-represents.html

And is Mark Thompson lying?

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/newsuknewssavileinquiry/article1156803.ece

[Ranger]

Amid the media witch-hunt I found this pretty apt:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIx_b41wzbs

[Malbec]

OK, this is just getting silly and now your little Poodle has raised his head again, I will leave it up to you until more FACTS like this come out.

BBC News - Jimmy Savile: Gary Glitter arrested over sex offences (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20114378)

It seems Lord Patton is of a similar opinion to me.

Can it REALLY be that no one inside the smug BBC knew what that psychopath was doing? Chairman Lord Patten questions the corporation he represents | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2224199/Can-REALLY-inside-smug-BBC-knew-psychopath-doing-Chairman-Lord-Patten-questions-corporation-represents.html)

And is Mark Thompson lying?

Savile trail leads to BBC boss (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/newsuknewssavileinquiry/article1156803.ece)

Whats the point of this post Knock-on? A retort to a point noone made?

You started this thread having completely misunderstood a simple article.

You then went off on one a couple of days ago again getting worked up over what I'd charitably call a misinterpretation of what has been discussed on this thread (although I suspect Ben is far far more accurate in his response to your post).

You seem to be having a great bit of difficulty with your English comprehension at the moment (apologies if English isn't your first language).

Nothing you've posted there at all contradicts what has been discussed already on this thread, all it seems to demonstrate however is your infatuation with the BBC. Doesn't it concern you that abuse was carried out by Savile and his friends elsewhere too?

[BDunnell]

Whats the point of this post Knock-on? A retort to a point noone made?

You started this thread having completely misunderstood a simple article.

You then went off on one a couple of days ago again getting worked up over what I'd charitably call a misinterpretation of what has been discussed on this thread (although I suspect Ben is far far more accurate in his response to your post).

You seem to be having a great bit of difficulty with your English comprehension at the moment (apologies if English isn't your first language).

Nothing you've posted there at all contradicts what has been discussed already on this thread, all it seems to demonstrate however is your infatuation with the BBC. Doesn't it concern you that abuse was carried out by Savile and his friends elsewhere too?

I would suggest it's typical of the views held at the moment by right-wingers with an existing axe to grind against the BBC, and who see the word 'paedophile' and react with excessive outrage. But we digress.

A fascinating piece on the story, which I would recommend is read by anyone with a genuine interest in reading intelligent comment as opposed to the usual tabloid emotion, has been written by novelist Andrew O'Hagan for the 'London Review of Books'. It can be found here — http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment — though the site is currently down, apparently due to overload relating to this particular article. I found it fascinatingly insightful, and a welcome antidote to the more trite end of comment about this case.

[BDunnell]

Amid the media witch-hunt I found this pretty apt:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIx_b41wzbs

I thought that was extremely good.

The 'hiding in plain sight' comment has been shown to be even more true by subsequent events. Take the allegations about former Tory MP Peter Morrison, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher while she was PM. His preference for young boys was well-known for years, and even committed to print in the diaries of Gyles Brandreth (Morrison's successor as MP for Chester), published in 1999. Yet, again, nothing was actually done.

[donKey jote]

cheers for this, daniel:
BBC Radio Ulster Read Out Jimmy Savile Joke Live On Air By Mistake (http://panicdots.com/2012/10/bbc-radio-ulster-read-out-jimmy-savile-joke-live-on-air-by-mistake/)

:erm: :rolleyes: :arrows:

[Malbec]

I would suggest it's typical of the views held at the moment by right-wingers with an existing axe to grind against the BBC, and who see the word 'paedophile' and react with excessive outrage. But we digress.

As the HIGNFY outtake posted here shows, the tabloids have shown a breathtaking level of hypocrisy with this one. While the BBC can only blame itself for the cackhanded way in which its responded to accusations over the axing of the Newsnight section on Savile, it is true that none of the tabloids ever decided to try to expose him despite all the rumours flying around. Surely this kind of paedophile is exactly the kind of person the tabloids would be entirely justified using their formidable armoury of methods to invade privacy on?

Instead as we heard at the Levenson inquiry they focused their resources on getting up-skirt pics of a 14 year old Charlotte Church or launching a daily countdown to her 16th birthday after which she could be legally screwed. That of course could in no way be construed as encouraging paedophilia. No way.

[BDunnell]

As the HIGNFY outtake posted here shows, the tabloids have shown a breathtaking level of hypocrisy with this one. While the BBC can only blame itself for the cackhanded way in which its responded to accusations over the axing of the Newsnight section on Savile, it is true that none of the tabloids ever decided to try to expose him despite all the rumours flying around. Surely this kind of paedophile is exactly the kind of person the tabloids would be entirely justified using their formidable armoury of methods to invade privacy on?

Instead as we heard at the Levenson inquiry they focused their resources on getting up-skirt pics of a 14 year old Charlotte Church or launching a daily countdown to her 16th birthday after which she could be legally screwed. That of course could in no way be construed as encouraging paedophilia. No way.

Well, quite. One could equally say that investigating the likes of Savile would have been a rather better use of newspaper resources than, for example, hacking Millie Dowler's phone. This is what makes so distasteful the way in which some have sought to suggest that the Savile affair is in some way 'payback' for the treatment meted out to News International during the Leveson inquiry. Yet two factors in particular do link Savile and the behaviour of the tabloids as exposed by Leveson — police inaction, and the tacit involvement of the wider public, both in continuing to watch Jimmy Savile's programmes in huge numbers despite his being an essentially talentless, creepy individual, and in continuing in huge numbers to buy newspapers that had, even without an inquiry to make it clear, engaged in illegal activities. It's all very well for everyone to claim retrospective shock, but this can ring somewhat hollow.

As I wrote somewhere earlier in this thread, I think one of the biggest journalistic failings in this instance was not the 'Newsnight' item being delayed, which really is a side issue of little practical consequence, but the lack of any serious attempts to investigate Savile's visits to the children's home in Jersey. The story ought to have been staring everyone in the face. That abuse had taken place there became clear while Savile was still alive; also known was the fact that Savile had been a regular visitor. Putting two and two together should not have been difficult, yet there seems to have been a distinct lack of curiosity — and this at a time when several media outlets were demonstrating such curiosity about other, more trivial matters that they were willing to commit criminal acts in order to gain information.

And here, surely, is the last word in hypocrisy: When Jimmy Savile asked me to stay the night! | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2055506/When-Jimmy-Savile-asked-stay-night.html)

[Daniel]

Well, quite. One could equally say that investigating the likes of Savile would have been a rather better use of newspaper resources than, for example, hacking Millie Dowler's phone. This is what makes so distasteful the way in which some have sought to suggest that the Savile affair is in some way 'payback' for the treatment meted out to News International during the Leveson inquiry. Yet two factors in particular do link Savile and the behaviour of the tabloids as exposed by Leveson — police inaction, and the tacit involvement of the wider public, both in continuing to watch Jimmy Savile's programmes in huge numbers despite his being an essentially talentless, creepy individual, and in continuing in huge numbers to buy newspapers that had, even without an inquiry to make it clear, engaged in illegal activities. It's all very well for everyone to claim retrospective shock, but this can ring somewhat hollow.

As I wrote somewhere earlier in this thread, I think one of the biggest journalistic failings in this instance was not the 'Newsnight' item being delayed, which really is a side issue of little practical consequence, but the lack of any serious attempts to investigate Savile's visits to the children's home in Jersey. The story ought to have been staring everyone in the face. That abuse had taken place there became clear while Savile was still alive; also known was the fact that Savile had been a regular visitor. Putting two and two together should not have been difficult, yet there seems to have been a distinct lack of curiosity — and this at a time when several media outlets were demonstrating such curiosity about other, more trivial matters that they were willing to commit criminal acts in order to gain information.

And here, surely, is the last word in hypocrisy: When Jimmy Savile asked me to stay the night! | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2055506/When-Jimmy-Savile-asked-stay-night.html)Fantastic comment.....

Sir Jimmy Saville proposed to me ! I was serving him at the Banqueting Hall in
Whitehall London in my 20's and had just got engaged - he saw my new ring and
asked me to marry him instead !! He was dressed in a pink shell suit at a formal
dinner ! A charming man that will be sorely missed - fixing it for the angels
now

[BDunnell]

Fantastic comment.....

Sir Jimmy Saville proposed to me ! I was serving him at the Banqueting Hall in
Whitehall London in my 20's and had just got engaged - he saw my new ring and
asked me to marry him instead !! He was dressed in a pink shell suit at a formal
dinner ! A charming man that will be sorely missed - fixing it for the angels
now

What more proof could possibly be needed of the accuracy of the arguments deployed in the piece to which I linked earlier.

[Malbec]

Wales child abuse scandal: key questions answered | Society | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/06/wales-child-abuse-scandal-questions)

Here's something that can make the Savile episode look trivial in comparison.

Back in the '90s there was an inquiry into abuse at several children's care homes involving 100s of kids over several decades in North Wales. At the time the inquiry specifically went out not to name abusers other than those who worked for the care homes despite there being strong evidence (as the report itself pointed out) that the kids weren't just abused in the homes but rented out for abusers elsewhere.

There were strong rumours at the time that the abusers included police officers, judges and a senior Tory politician which would explain why the inquiry specifically refused to look into abusers outside the homes.

At the moment there is no evidence that the inquiry was thus shackled by anyone in government but it clearly does not look good. Any new report is likely to shed light on who the individual abusers outside the homes were and big names are likely to be revealed. Unlike the Savile affair it already looks very likely that there was a big and highly deliberate coverup at the time.

The following months are likely to be very interesting...

[Dave B]

There were strong rumours at the time that the abusers included police officers, judges and a senior Tory politician which would explain why the inquiry specifically refused to look into abusers outside the homes.

At the moment there is no evidence that the inquiry was thus shackled by anyone in government but it clearly does not look good. Any new report is likely to shed light on who the individual abusers outside the homes were and big names are likely to be revealed. Unlike the Savile affair it already looks very likely that there was a big and highly deliberate coverup at the time.

Choosing my words carefully....

It would appear that a current member of the House of Lords was directly involved in the abuse, his name's not exactly hard to find.

[Knock-on]

It is evident to me that there is a core of pedophiles operating in positions of power in this Country. We are not just talking about the odd Manager of a Childrens home but an organised structure from the upper eschelons of Government down.

This can no longer be covered up. There is a groundswell behind exposing this hatefull crime and it looks like steps are being taken to expose the perpetrators behind that network.

As I said, Savile is just the tip but possibly, his disgrace and the BBC's lethargic initial approach, galvanised Theresa May to be a bit more dynamic.

Personally, I hope no stone is left unturned until the whole disgusting cancer is uncovered and steps are put into place to stop this happening. It was always wrong in the 60's no matter how it's dressed up, it is wrong now and it shall not be allowed to happen in the future.

[Mark]

In the above case it wasn't *just* pedophilia that was the case. The abuse was physical assaults, over work and humiliation as much as anything.

[Malbec]

It is evident to me that there is a core of pedophiles operating in positions of power in this Country. We are not just talking about the odd Manager of a Childrens home but an organised structure from the upper eschelons of Government down.

This can no longer be covered up. There is a groundswell behind exposing this hatefull crime and it looks like steps are being taken to expose the perpetrators behind that network.

As I said, Savile is just the tip but possibly, his disgrace and the BBC's lethargic initial approach, galvanised Theresa May to be a bit more dynamic.

Personally, I hope no stone is left unturned until the whole disgusting cancer is uncovered and steps are put into place to stop this happening. It was always wrong in the 60's no matter how it's dressed up, it is wrong now and it shall not be allowed to happen in the future.

Just to maintain a sense of perspective by far the majority of abused kids never get found out because they are abused not by organised rings but by family.

[Mark]

Yes. Something like 60-70% of abuse occurs 'in the home' according to the man on the radio the other day.

[Daniel]

Just to maintain a sense of perspective by far the majority of abused kids never get found out because they are abused not by organised rings but by family.

Yeah, but it's a far less popular thing for the papers to push that you should be looking at your husband or uncle bill as opposed to that middle aged guy who doesn't look right or the person in a position of authority that's friendly to the kids.

[Knock-on]

Just to maintain a sense of perspective by far the majority of abused kids never get found out because they are abused not by organised rings but by family.

That is a fair point and I believe that the publicity generated by cases such as the Savile and Care Home ones will activly help draw the victims out and demonstrate to them that the culture of ignorance is passing.

[Mark]

The difference being, of course, is that the abuse in these cases is being carried out by the very people who have been professionally entrusted to care for children.

[BDunnell]

Wales child abuse scandal: key questions answered | Society | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/06/wales-child-abuse-scandal-questions)

Here's something that can make the Savile episode look trivial in comparison.

Back in the '90s there was an inquiry into abuse at several children's care homes involving 100s of kids over several decades in North Wales. At the time the inquiry specifically went out not to name abusers other than those who worked for the care homes despite there being strong evidence (as the report itself pointed out) that the kids weren't just abused in the homes but rented out for abusers elsewhere.

There were strong rumours at the time that the abusers included police officers, judges and a senior Tory politician which would explain why the inquiry specifically refused to look into abusers outside the homes.

At the moment there is no evidence that the inquiry was thus shackled by anyone in government but it clearly does not look good. Any new report is likely to shed light on who the individual abusers outside the homes were and big names are likely to be revealed. Unlike the Savile affair it already looks very likely that there was a big and highly deliberate coverup at the time.

The following months are likely to be very interesting...

I hate to agree with much of what the current Shadow Cabinet comes out with, but whichever Labour spokesperson it was who said they felt one large over-arching inquiry is required was, in my view, spot on. It's all very well for the BBC to have an internal inquiry into the editorial issues behind the pulling of the initial Newsnight item on Savile, but the investigation into the culture at the BBC at the time his offences are believed to have taken place has now, surely, been overtaken by events involving other institutions. The attitudes that led to Savile going undetected for so long would seem (I'd never be so confident as to say 'obviously' or 'clearly' here, given that most of the information at my disposal is from media reports) to have been part of a wider societal malaise. Let's face it, this won't just be something confined to the likes of Parliament and the BBC.

Given that he's long dead, we can mention one of the ex-MPs named in relation to the North Wales abuse — Sir Peter Morrison, former Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister. There we have another example of a man whose sexual preferences were well known while he was alive, yet no-one acted. In his political diaries, published in 1999, Gyles Brandreth (Morrison's successor as MP for Chester) wrote in not-very-guarded terms of talk regarding Morrison's 'interest in young people'. Brandreth's book was published a year before release of the report, now not thought to have been that comprehensive, into the North Wales abuse, yet even then no-one took any notice.

What should definitely not result from all this is a climate of paranoia about paedophilia, whereby suspicion about anyone who's merely 'a bit odd', or unsubstantiated gossip, leads to unnecessary arrests and subsequent recriminations. Already the 'trial by media' surrounding Savile et al is one of quite astonishing proportions, yet not always focusing on the right targets. It's all about the celebrity angles and the salacious stories, with very little on, for example, why police investigations weren't carried through.

[BDunnell]

The difference being, of course, is that the abuse in these cases is being carried out by the very people who have been professionally entrusted to care for children.

And that further abuse by others has been allowed or facilitated by them.

[Knock-on]

After 5 pages, you've finally started making sense on this thread. I not only agree with but throughly endorse every word. :up:

[BDunnell]

After 5 pages, you've finally started making sense on this thread. I not only agree with but throughly endorse every word. :up:

Thank you, but I wouldn't make comments like the first sentence. Pots, kettles and all that. Just a bit of friendly advice. Anyway, let's move on.

[Knock-on]

Sorry, forgot to put a ;) at the end of the first sentence.

[Dave B]

What does the forum think about Philip Schofield ambushing the PM with a handwritten list of alleged paedophiles on live TV, some of the names visible if you pause the HD version? To me it's the height of stupidity, fuelling the type of witch hunt I thought we'd left behind when the News of the World closed.

Cameron's response was spot-on, much as I hate to agree with anything that comes drivelling out of his shiny-headed spewhole, warning against a witch hunt, but then adding "particularly against gay people" which I though was uncalled for. I know that several of the names in question are homosexual, but enough people have trouble drawing the gay/paedo Venn diagramme without the PM muddying the waters.

Edit: linky to the story:
David Cameron warns against 'witch-hunt' amid paedophilia allegations | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/08/david-cameron-warns-witch-hunt-paedophilia)
David Cameron ambushed with paedophile list by Phillip Schofield on This Morning - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9663927/David-Cameron-ambushed-with-paedophile-list-by-Phillip-Schofield-on-This-Morning.html)

[BDunnell]

What does the forum think about Philip Schofield ambushing the PM with a handwritten list of alleged paedophiles on live TV, some of the names visible if you pause the HD version? To me it's the height of stupidity, fuelling the type of witch hunt I thought we'd left behind when the News of the World closed.

Cameron's response was spot-on, much as I hate to agree with anything that comes drivelling out of his shiny-headed spewhole, warning against a witch hunt, but then adding "particularly against gay people" which I though was uncalled for. I know that several of the names in question are homosexual, but enough people have trouble drawing the gay/paedo Venn diagramme without the PM muddying the waters.

Edit: linky to the story:
David Cameron warns against 'witch-hunt' amid paedophilia allegations | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/08/david-cameron-warns-witch-hunt-paedophilia)
David Cameron ambushed with paedophile list by Phillip Schofield on This Morning - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9663927/David-Cameron-ambushed-with-paedophile-list-by-Phillip-Schofield-on-This-Morning.html)

I thought it was utterly stupid, and both Schofield and ITV should apologise for having been responsible for such a crass item. Cameron's reference to gay people in his response was, in my view, completely well-meaning — he may be many things, but he's not a homophobe — but also unnecessary, bringing up as it did a problem that, in this particular case, doesn't yet exist.

[Malbec]

I hate to agree with much of what the current Shadow Cabinet comes out with, but whichever Labour spokesperson it was who said they felt one large over-arching inquiry is required was, in my view, spot on. It's all very well for the BBC to have an internal inquiry into the editorial issues behind the pulling of the initial Newsnight item on Savile, but the investigation into the culture at the BBC at the time his offences are believed to have taken place has now, surely, been overtaken by events involving other institutions. The attitudes that led to Savile going undetected for so long would seem (I'd never be so confident as to say 'obviously' or 'clearly' here, given that most of the information at my disposal is from media reports) to have been part of a wider societal malaise. Let's face it, this won't just be something confined to the likes of Parliament and the BBC.

I'm more concerned with failures by the police and the judicial system to adequately look into allegations at the time or to cover up rather than how institutions like the BBC dealt with things at the time. After all there have been wholesale changes in how institutions and the people within them view paedophilia or other types of abuse and there are now clear lines of referral in cases where such incidents are suspected.

If the police and judiciary could collude to cover up inconvenient abuse charges to protect individuals they are perfectly capable of covering up other things and if the entire mechanics of the legal system are rotten then this needs to be addressed as soon as possible. If I had to pick any individual organisations that require investigation first it would be the judiciary.

[Knock-on]

It is a bit of a viscious cycle really. Abuse was (is?) happening in many organisations and very clever people are perpetuating the abuse while weak willed or spineless individuals are allowing it to go unreported.

Possibly one reason why what we thnk of as 'normal' people don't blow the whistle is out of cowerdice of the repercussions but it can also be argued that just as the Children are convinced nobody will listen, that the adults fear the same.

Too many examples of sweeping abuse crimes under the carpet exist to dismiss this theory. It is time, infact, way beyond time that this is addressed root and branch. It isn't a couple of care homes, a few Catholic Priests or a couple of perverted Celebrities but an underlying cancer that has been allowed to fester and grow by people in authority; whether Government, Police or the Judiciary.

[BDunnell]

It is a bit of a viscious cycle really. Abuse was (is?) happening in many organisations and very clever people are perpetuating the abuse while weak willed or spineless individuals are allowing it to go unreported.

I don't feel people automatically become weak-willed or spineless just because they fail to report such a crime. There may be all sorts of reasons.

[Knock-on]

I don't feel people automatically become weak-willed or spineless just because they fail to report such a crime. There may be all sorts of reasons.

Well, I cn only talk for myself but I couldn't sleep at night if I thought something was going on and not do something about it.

I offered 2 reasons why people might not and neither are valid in my mind. You say there are others and I don't disagree but they are all excuses to me.

Is there a valid reason why someone should let buse go unreported?

[Daniel]

Well, I cn only talk for myself but I couldn't sleep at night if I thought something was going on and not do something about it.

I offered 2 reasons why people might not and neither are valid in my mind. You say there are others and I don't disagree but they are all excuses to me.

Is there a valid reason why someone should let buse go unreported?
*facepalm* So just because you yourself can't think of a reason not to report, doesn't mean there aren't reasons in these people's heads as to why they don't report. Anyone who's been out into the real world and met a variety of people will understand why some people just never come forward.

[BDunnell]

*facepalm* So just because you yourself can't think of a reason not to report, doesn't mean there aren't reasons in these people's heads as to why they don't report. Anyone who's been out into the real world and met a variety of people will understand why some people just never come forward.

I agree completely.

[BDunnell]

Well, I cn only talk for myself but I couldn't sleep at night if I thought something was going on and not do something about it.

I offered 2 reasons why people might not and neither are valid in my mind. You say there are others and I don't disagree but they are all excuses to me.

Is there a valid reason why someone should let buse go unreported?

There are all sorts of valid reasons. They may make a personal judgment to the effect that what they've heard about someone isn't true. They may be afraid of recriminations. Humans aren't infallible — in judging people and in judging what's the best course of action, they make mistakes. Sometimes, the consequences are unfortunate, but that's human nature. And I'm glad that not everybody runs to the police the moment they hear a rumour of sexual impropriety. The pain caused to innocent people by false allegations must never be underestimated, and I have no wish to see society engulfed by paranoia regarding paedophiles.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yay! Let's start victimizing the victims!

[Daniel]

I agree completely.

Having recently worked with young adults with learning disabilities my views on a lot of things have changed. Obviously knockie has never met a person with any sort of problems in their life. One of my former colleagues back in Australia was raped by a girl numerous times and told people and no one believed him...... because how can a man be raped by a girl? Knock On is making the classic mistake of applying his logic to everyone else.

[Daniel]

Yay! Let's start victimizing the victims!

Yeah, what's their excuse for not using the same logic I do?!?!?!?!?!?

[Azumanga Davo]

I'm stunned by Schofield's actions. Doubly so considering his best career highlight so far is having his hand up a gopher's backside...

[Knock-on]

There are all sorts of valid reasons.

There are all sort of reasons. Whether they are valid is a matter of opinion.


They may make a personal judgment to the effect that what they've heard about someone isn't true.

To reiterate, I did write that if someone 'thinks' abuse is occuring, not doesn't think it's occuring.


They may be afraid of recriminations. Humans aren't infallible — in judging people and in judging what's the best course of action, they make mistakes. Sometimes, the consequences are unfortunate, but that's human nature.

I said that the recriminations is a reason some people might not report abuse but in my opinion, it is not a valid reason.


And I'm glad that not everybody runs to the police the moment they hear a rumour of sexual impropriety.

:confused: You do like to trivialise wht I say, don't you. I said that I could not sleep at night if I thought abuse was occuring but did nothing about it. I admit that for some people there are reasons why they don't report it but for me, I don't agree with those reasons and never will. Abuse is abuse and is never justified or right. It must stop. FULL STOP!

What we've achieved with our full stop campaign | NSPCC (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/what-weve-achieved/at-a-glance/what-weve-achieved-for-children_wda72320.html)


The pain caused to innocent people by false allegations must never be underestimated, and I have no wish to see society engulfed by paranoia regarding paedophiles.

I worked as a Social Worker in a Childrens home for over 10 years with some of the most abused Children in our community. Physical, mental, sexual; I have seen it all. I have also been through the heartache and stigma of having a malicious allegation made against me. It was very traumatic and intrusive. We are talking about being arrested, my home searched by about 10 uniformed officers in 4 marked police cars in front of my neighbours, all my clothes, computer files and disks and even my car siezed, suspended from work and made to feel like a criminal until it was all throughly investigated.

Even after all this and the allegation proved to be completely false, I would still go through it all again if it stopped a child being abused. This is not paranoia but a genuine hate of abusers and the damage they do to innocent children.

[Knock-on]

*facepalm* So just because you yourself can't think of a reason not to report, doesn't mean there aren't reasons in these people's heads as to why they don't report. Anyone who's been out into the real world and met a variety of people will understand why some people just never come forward.

IF you bother to read my post, I said there are reasons people don't report abuse. Just that in my opinion, I don't agree with them.

I am not a young man with limited experience and have been in this 'real world' a fair time now. Don't try and get into a point scoring exercise over this because I'm really not interested and will ignore any further attempts from you to do so.

If you would prefer to discuss the very real and devestating subject of Abuse then I will of course respond.

The choice is yours.

[BDunnell]

Abuse is abuse and is never justified or right.

Why make that statement? After all, it's not as if anyone is going to disagree with you. I tend to think that it's not worth saying something like that if the reverse is blatantly absurd.


It must stop. FULL STOP!

Be realistic. It's never going to. It's like saying murder 'must stop' — a nice idea, but utopian in the extreme, no matter whether or not you capitalise it.

[SGWilko]

Be realistic. It's never going to. It's like saying murder 'must stop' — a nice idea, but utopian in the extreme, no matter whether or not you capitalise it.

There is, however, nothing wrong in wanting to aspire to eradicate it as much as possible.

[Daniel]

Why make that statement? After all, it's not as if anyone is going to disagree with you. I tend to think that it's not worth saying something like that if the reverse is blatantly absurd.



Be realistic. It's never going to. It's like saying murder 'must stop' — a nice idea, but utopian in the extreme, no matter whether or not you capitalise it.



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljq77svYwA1qavmeoo1_500.gif


So basically what you're trying to say Knockie, is that if you understand and approve of an excuse then it is valid, if you don't get it or don't approve then it's invalid. Sort of a court of Knockie if you like?
:dozey: Some would argue that this is quite an arrogant and shortsighted stance on things. Not me though of course.

[Daniel]

Why make that statement? After all, it's not as if anyone is going to disagree with you. I tend to think that it's not worth saying something like that if the reverse is blatantly absurd.



Be realistic. It's never going to. It's like saying murder 'must stop' — a nice idea, but utopian in the extreme, no matter whether or not you capitalise it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2y1pE3yn6M

[BDunnell]

IF you bother to read my post, I said there are reasons people don't report abuse. Just that in my opinion, I don't agree with them.

I am not a young man with limited experience and have been in this 'real world' a fair time now. Don't try and get into a point scoring exercise over this because I'm really not interested and will ignore any further attempts from you to do so.

If you would prefer to discuss the very real and devestating subject of Abuse then I will of course respond.

The choice is yours.

None of this makes your views any more valuable or relevant than anyone else's, I must say. You seem desperate in every post on this subject — using phrases like 'very real and devastating' — to prove how much you care, as though the fact of your using this sort of language somehow makes your level of concern superior to everyone else's, thus rendering those of us who don't follow your example somehow heartless and uncaring. Whether this is your intention or not, this is how it comes across.

[Daniel]

There is, however, nothing wrong in wanting to aspire to eradicate it as much as possible.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2y1pE3yn6M

[SGWilko]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljq77svYwA1qavmeoo1_500.gif


So basically what you're trying to say Knockie, is that if you understand and approve of an excuse then it is valid, if you don't get it or don't approve then it's invalid. Sort of a court of Knockie if you like?
:dozey: Some would argue that this is quite an arrogant and shortsighted stance on things. Not me though of course.

His opinion is wrong, yours is less so, is that what you mean?

[BDunnell]

There is, however, nothing wrong in wanting to aspire to eradicate it as much as possible.

There's precisely an example of one point I made above. Do you think anyone would seriously disagree with this?

[SGWilko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2y1pE3yn6M

Great choice of artist, very apt I'm sure.

[Daniel]

IF you bother to read my post, I said there are reasons people don't report abuse. Just that in my opinion, I don't agree with them.

I am not a young man with limited experience and have been in this 'real world' a fair time now. Don't try and get into a point scoring exercise over this because I'm really not interested and will ignore any further attempts from you to do so.

If you would prefer to discuss the very real and devestating subject of Abuse then I will of course respond.

The choice is yours.

Oh I see. Well that's that sorted then! You really aren't at all open to the possibility that your ideas and ways of thinking aren't 'valid'.......

[Knock-on]

Why take 2 lines out of context to try to justify some point you are trying to make? I took the time to answer each point of your post in detail and you come back with this? Really? :(


Why make that statement? After all, it's not as if anyone is going to disagree with you. I tend to think that it's not worth saying something like that if the reverse is blatantly absurd.

The statement was made in context of reporting abuse. I stand by my claim that there is not a valid reason why abuse shouldn't be reported nd some people on here disagree with me. That's their right but I disagree that there can ever be a valid reason why abuse shouldn't be reported.


Be realistic. It's never going to. It's like saying murder 'must stop' — a nice idea, but utopian in the extreme, no matter whether or not you capitalise it.

It's never going to be but the more aware people are about abuse and how to stam it out, the more success we will have in stopping it. Read the NSPCC campaign which is called FULL STOP (which is why I posted it :rolleyes: )

[Daniel]

Great choice of artist, very apt I'm sure.
Hey! Lay off whacko! Nothing was ever proven! :p

[Daniel]

Why take 2 lines out of context to try to justify some point you are trying to make? I took the time to answer each point of your post in detail and you come back with this? Really? :(



The statement was made in context of reporting abuse. I stand by my claim that there is not a valid reason why abuse shouldn't be reported nd some people on here disagree with me. That's their right but I disagree that there can ever be a valid reason why abuse shouldn't be reported.



It's never going to be but the more aware people are about abuse and how to stam it out, the more success we will have in stopping it. Read the NSPCC campaign which is called FULL STOP (which is why I posted it :rolleyes: )

You're making the mistake of assuming that paedophiles are stupid people. Sure, the more people are aware of it the less people like Saville will get away with what could almost be termed 'casual paedophilia', but most paedophiles will just go to greater lengths to hide things.

You just don't get it do you? It's easy for someone who isn't vulnerable and who hasn't been abused to say that all abuse should be reported. In the real world it isn't quite so easy.

[SGWilko]

Hey! Lay off whacko! Nothing was ever proven! :p

And those that reported abuse were not taken seriously but were accused of trying to make money, and the perpetrators had enough clout and money to get away with no admission of guilt through the use of clever lawyers. :inappropratesmileyopportunity:

[SGWilko]

You're making the mistake of assuming that paedophiles are stupid people. Sure, the more people are aware of it the less people like Saville will get away with what could almost be termed 'casual paedophilia', but most paedophiles will just go to greater lengths to hide things.

You just don't get it do you? It's easy for someone who isn't vulnerable and who hasn't been abused to say that all abuse should be reported. In the real world it isn't quite so easy.

What about all those authority figures that have been questioned on the telly, who witnessed first hand Saville effectively admitting what he was doing (the wink here, the comment there after a young girl exits his caravan). Full of guilt now are they not, but chose to keep quiet at the time?

What's their excuse exactly....

[BDunnell]

What about all those authority figures that have been questioned on the telly, who witnessed first hand Saville effectively admitting what he was doing (the wink here, the comment there after a young girl exits his caravan). Full of guilt now are they not, but chose to keep quiet at the time?

What's their excuse exactly....

You may as well say that the millions of people in Britain who always thought Savile was 'a bit weird' or 'probably a paedo' should be ashamed of themselves. Any of us surprised?

[ShiftingGears]

To reiterate, I did write that if someone 'thinks' abuse is occuring, not doesn't think it's occuring.

The crux of the issue is that thinking isn't the same as knowing, and most people would not risk their livelihoods for something they don't absolutely know to be true, let alone for something for which they could not provide irrefutable evidence.

Which is especially true when the person thinks the perpetrator is someone with enormous public influence, like Savile was.

[SGWilko]

You may as well say that the millions of people in Britain who always thought Savile was 'a bit weird' or 'probably a paedo' should be ashamed of themselves. Any of us surprised?

Why? If they were not party to some of the stuff we now know those in contact with him on a regular basis were party to....

Who's this 'us' you speak of?

[Knock-on]

None of this makes your views any more valuable or relevant than anyone else's, I must say.

Where did I say it did. However, if someone has indepth, first hand experience of a subject, why shouldn't they post it to help explain their position. I seem to remember you explaining to me about how my opinions of politicians are wrong because you have experience of working with them. It strikes me that you are being a bit hypocritical and just trying to attack the poster than the content of the post.


You seem desperate in every post on this subject — using phrases like 'very real and devastating' — to prove how much you care, as though the fact of your using this sort of language somehow makes your level of concern superior to everyone else's, thus rendering those of us who don't follow your example somehow heartless and uncaring. Whether this is your intention or not, this is how it comes across.

I admit that it is a subject very close to me for the reasons I have given but if you choose to interperet that as you say, then I never intended that and don't think many others do either.

It seem that some people consider it wrong to feel deeply about something and that any deep conviction should be considered distasteful. I don't really care about that. A few forum members blowing off about Dianaesk outpouring of emotion to try and bolster their forum credentials doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's hardly important.

[Daniel]

Where did I say it did. However, if someone has indepth, first hand experience of a subject, why shouldn't they post it to help explain their position. I seem to remember you explaining to me about how my opinions of politicians are wrong because you have experience of working with them. It strikes me that you are being a bit hypocritical and just trying to attack the poster than the content of the post.



I admit that it is a subject very close to me for the reasons I have given but if you choose to interperet that as you say, then I never intended that and don't think many others do either.

It seem that some people consider it wrong to feel deeply about something and that any deep conviction should be considered distasteful. I don't really care about that. A few forum members blowing off about Dianaesk outpouring of emotion to try and bolster their forum credentials doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's hardly important.

Hands up if you've worked for a large, well known charity which deals with people with learning disabilities (people who are statistically more likely to be abused and likewise, a lot less likely to report) and you've done protection training which looks at what constitutes abuse, how to report it, what to do if nothing is done and most importantly what the signs of abuse are.

*puts hand up*

[SGWilko]

Hands up if you've worked for a large, well known charity which deals with people with learning disabilities (people who are statistically more likely to be abused and likewise, a lot less likely to report) and you've done protection training which looks at what constitutes abuse, how to report it, what to do if nothing is done and most importantly what the signs of abuse are.

*puts hand up*

I'm sure there is a valid reason for your post, but I can't for the life of me see the point in it.

As I've said before, you just like the sound of your own posts IMO.

[BDunnell]

Where did I say it did. However, if someone has indepth, first hand experience of a subject, why shouldn't they post it to help explain their position. I seem to remember you explaining to me about how my opinions of politicians are wrong because you have experience of working with them. It strikes me that you are being a bit hypocritical and just trying to attack the poster than the content of the post.

Not at all. In this instance, your personal experiences are not, if I may say so, bringing anything much more to the discussion than would the average middle-market tabloid reader who sees the word 'paedophile' and goes into synthetic outrage mode.



It seem that some people consider it wrong to feel deeply about something and that any deep conviction should be considered distasteful. I don't really care about that. A few forum members blowing off about Dianaesk outpouring of emotion to try and bolster their forum credentials doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's hardly important.

The fact that this is your interpretation of my criticism of your remarks says much — including the fact that any notion you may have of being the one seeking to engage in an intellectual, detailed examination of these issues being somewhat misguided.

[Daniel]

The crux of the issue is that thinking isn't the same as knowing, and most people would not risk their livelihoods for something they don't absolutely know to be true, let alone for something for which they could not provide irrefutable evidence.

Which is especially true when the person thinks the perpetrator is someone with enormous public influence, like Savile was.

Exactly. The HIGNFY clip makes this point very well. A lot of people had suspicions, but no one seemingly had irrefutable proof and if anyone did and didn't do anything about it then they should be prosecuted.

[BDunnell]

I'm sure there is a valid reason for your post, but I can't for the life of me see the point in it.

As I've said before, you just like the sound of your own posts IMO.

I for one can see far more point, and value, to the post you quoted than anything you've written on this page. Just because you may have some difficulty with any comment that's a bit more nuanced than, to paraphrase, 'Paedophiles: bad, should be stopped', doesn't mean to say that everybody else does.

[Daniel]

I'm sure there is a valid reason for your post, but I can't for the life of me see the point in it.

As I've said before, you just like the sound of your own posts IMO.

Your skills of comprehension seem a bit rusty.

You seem to have missed the fact that I've actually done some formal training which was provided by a well known and reputable charity.

To explain it further, I have experience.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. The HIGNFY clip makes this point very well. A lot of people had suspicions, but no one seemingly had irrefutable proof and if anyone did and didn't do anything about it then they should be prosecuted.

Sadly, a lot of people nowadays are willing to believe the first thing they read in the papers or on the internet. Look at all the people on Twitter falling over themselves to name the Tories they think might have been involved in abuse. It's deeply irresponsible and goes against all the concepts of 'burden of proof' one can think of.

[SGWilko]

Your skills of comprehension seem a bit rusty.

You seem to have missed the fact that I've actually done some formal training which was provided by a well known and reputable charity.

To explain it further, I have experience.

Yeah, got that bit. But the point was what - your opinion is better than someone elses because of your experience?

Sounds like more point scoring.

[Daniel]

Sadly, a lot of people nowadays are willing to believe the first thing they read in the papers or on the internet. Look at all the people on Twitter falling over themselves to name the Tories they think might have been involved in abuse. It's deeply irresponsible and goes against all the concepts of 'burden of proof' one can think of.

and if you think about it, if these people are proven innocent or at the very least not proven guilty, then it gives an air of innocence to anyone accused in the future.

[Knock-on]

Oh God. The same two members are now trying to get all highbrow. I'm getting out of here before the spelling Police arrive :D

[Daniel]

Yeah, got that bit. But the point was what - your opinion is better than someone elses because of your experience?

Sounds like more point scoring.

I am simply pointing out that I have experience in the matter, what you make of that is up to you.

[Daniel]

Oh God. I can't think of anything intelligent to say. <insert spurious remark regarding spelling Police to attempt to belittle the opinions of others> :D
Too right Knockie!

[SGWilko]

A lot of folk that have abused children, have got themselves into positions to facilitate this abuse using the very system that is put in place to prevent it.

CRB for example. A paedophile is not defined as someone who has been caught, right? It is a predisposition. So, all it takes is a paedophile who has yet to commit an offence to clear all the checks, in order to get into the position they need to then get on with their sorry little business.

[Daniel]

A lot of folk that have abused children, have got themselves into positions to facilitate this abuse using the very system that is put in place to prevent it.

CRB for example. A paedophile is not defined as someone who has been caught, right? It is a predisposition. So, all it takes is a paedophile who has yet to commit an offence to clear all the checks, in order to get into the position they need to then get on with their sorry little business.

I'm not saying this to be petty, but I don't quite get the point of this post.

What are you saying? Should we get rid of enhanced CRB checks? Should we have another check which looks out for people who look a bit dodgey?

[ShiftingGears]

Exactly. The HIGNFY clip makes this point very well. A lot of people had suspicions, but no one seemingly had irrefutable proof and if anyone did and didn't do anything about it then they should be prosecuted.

I would just qualify that I find it disappointing and frustrating that after years of suspicions, there seemed to be no serious attempt to go that step further and collect irrefutable proof, even though there were rumours of what he was doing.

This was also mentioned in the HIGNFY clip, regarding the existence of those with both the resources and the will to unscrupulously expose people's private affairs over rumours that are completely trivial in comparison.

[Malbec]

What about all those authority figures that have been questioned on the telly, who witnessed first hand Saville effectively admitting what he was doing (the wink here, the comment there after a young girl exits his caravan). Full of guilt now are they not, but chose to keep quiet at the time?

What's their excuse exactly....

As shifting gears' post after yours points out, how willing would you be to report abuse based on a nod and a wink? Rumours, heresay and innuendos are not the same as hard evidence.

Those people who witnessed Savile's odd behaviour that fell short of walking in on him buggering a 9 year old only know the importance now once his full abusive history has become known. That adds context.

Its easy to say abuse should be reported. Of course it should, why bother pointing out something noone disagrees with?

This ignores the obvious fact that abusers tend to hide their activities so often one is left with rumours and heresay, an information source that is hardly reliable.

It also ignores the amazingly powerful effect of denial, both self and collective. This is the case especially when a large number of people or an entire organisation has vested interests ignoring the rumours of abuse even if its subconscious.

Savile played on that a lot it would appear, with the organisations he abused at often dependent on charity income he brought in.

One could also point to Nazi occupied Europe where normal Germans and other European citizens sought to explain the disappearance of the Jews around them by claiming they were deported to Madagascar or Siberia (places Germany never even controlled) to build new colonies rather than face the unpalatable truth that they were being exterminated. On a smaller scale similar individual and collective cases of denial are commonplace even though they are highly illogical and appear difficult to believe in retrospect (such as at the BBC).

[Daniel]

I would just qualify that I find it disappointing and frustrating that after years of suspicions, there seemed to be no serious attempt to go that step further and collect irrefutable proof, even though there were rumours of what he was doing.

This was also mentioned in the HIGNFY clip, regarding the existence of those with both the resources and the will to unscrupulously expose people's private affairs over rumours that are completely trivial in comparison.

The problem is that in the UK there is such a hysteria around paedophilia that all reason goes out the door. So it's fine to expose the fact that someone is having an affair or relationship problems, but the papers are too chicken**** to go after someone like Saville unless someone else makes the first move.

[SGWilko]

I'm not saying this to be petty, but I don't quite get the point of this post.

What are you saying? Should we get rid of enhanced CRB checks? Should we have another check which looks out for people who look a bit dodgey?

The system is flawed. Look at the abuse of the elderly as an example.

There should be whatever checks or processes in place as is required. Is there a specific gene mutation that predisposes folk to paedophilia. I don't have the answers, but there must be more that can be done to protect the vulnerable.

[Malbec]

CRB for example. A paedophile is not defined as someone who has been caught, right? It is a predisposition. So, all it takes is a paedophile who has yet to commit an offence to clear all the checks, in order to get into the position they need to then get on with their sorry little business.

While thats true CRB is intended only to ensure those with a prior history don't get employment elsewhere. There is little you can do to prevent de-novo cases of abuse except by strongly fostering an environment that deters such activity in the first place.

[Daniel]

The system is flawed. Look at the abuse of the elderly as an example.

There should be whatever checks or precesses in place as is required. Is there a specific gene mutation that predisposes folk to paedophilia. I don't have the answers, but there must be more that can be done to protect the vulnerable.

Rather than making blanket statements like that 'the system is flawed', tell me how you feel it could be done better. No system is perfect and no system can ever stop 100% of abuse taking place.

[Daniel]

As shifting gears' post after yours points out, how willing would you be to report abuse based on a nod and a wink? Rumours, heresay and innuendos are not the same as hard evidence.

Those people who witnessed Savile's odd behaviour that fell short of walking in on him buggering a 9 year old only know the importance now once his full abusive history has become known. That adds context.

Its easy to say abuse should be reported. Of course it should, why bother pointing out something noone disagrees with?

This ignores the obvious fact that abusers tend to hide their activities so often one is left with rumours and heresay, an information source that is hardly reliable.

It also ignores the amazingly powerful effect of denial, both self and collective. This is the case especially when a large number of people or an entire organisation has vested interests ignoring the rumours of abuse even if its subconscious.

Savile played on that a lot it would appear, with the organisations he abused at often dependent on charity income he brought in.

One could also point to Nazi occupied Europe where normal Germans and other European citizens sought to explain the disappearance of the Jews around them by claiming they were deported to Madagascar or Siberia (places Germany never even controlled) to build new colonies rather than face the unpalatable truth that they were being exterminated. On a smaller scale similar individual and collective cases of denial are commonplace even though they are highly illogical and appear difficult to believe in retrospect (such as at the BBC).

Couldn't agree more.

[SGWilko]

Rather than making blanket statements like that 'the system is flawed', tell me how you feel it could be done better. No system is perfect and no system can ever stop 100% of abuse taking place.

I'll make whatever statements I feel appropriate thanks.

Anyhow, you should have read on, It would have saved you a line and a half of text.

[ShiftingGears]

The problem is that in the UK there is such a hysteria around paedophilia that all reason goes out the door. So it's fine to expose the fact that someone is having an affair or relationship problems, but the papers are too chicken**** to go after someone like Saville unless someone else makes the first move.

Whilst I am aware that there is a relatively exceptional level of hysteria associated with pedophiles there, I find it difficult to believe that it would be the limiting factor in what would have been essentially a covert operation, because potential legal consequences would surely be related to the invasion of privacy rather than the accusation of pedophilia.

[Daniel]

I'll make whatever statements I feel appropriate thanks.

Anyhow, you should have read on, It would have saved you a line and a half of text.

Sorry, I thought the second half of your post was a joke? There has to my knowledge been no proven link between genetics and abuse. Even if there was then we'd be entering Minority Report territory where someone is guilty before the offence is even committed.

How would you feel if you were found to have a copy of this gene and lost your job because it was felt that you were likely to abuse even though it's not something that had even crossed your mind?

[SGWilko]

Whilst I am aware that there is a relatively exceptional level of hysteria associated with pedophiles there, I still find it difficult to believe that it would be the limiting factor in what would have been essentially a covert operation, because potential legal consequences would surely be related to the invasion of privacy rather than the accusation of pedophilia.

Any investigation as a result of a report of suspected abuse would, you'd hope, be in the public interest. I don't see any legal team, no matter how well funded, could prevent or curtail such activity?

[Daniel]

Whilst I am aware that there is a relatively exceptional level of hysteria associated with pedophiles there, I find it difficult to believe that it would be the limiting factor in what would have been essentially a covert operation, because potential legal consequences would surely be related to the invasion of privacy rather than the accusation of pedophilia.

Perhaps the papers have respect for the rule of law in this situation? :D :rotflmao:

[Daniel]

Any investigation as a result of a report of suspected abuse would, you'd hope, be in the public interest. I don't see any legal team, no matter how well funded, could prevent or curtail such activity?

When it comes to serious matters like this, investigation should be done by the Police and not the papers or Schofield......

[SGWilko]

Sorry, I thought the second half of your post was a joke? There has to my knowledge been no proven link between genetics and abuse. Even if there was then we'd be entering Minority Report territory where someone is guilty before the offence is even committed.

How would you feel if you were found to have a copy of this gene and lost your job because it was felt that you were likely to abuse even though it's not something that had even crossed your mind?

If someone were working with kids, and there 'was' a proven link between existence of a genetic anomoly and paedophile tendancies, then to lose their job would likely save children from abuse.

[SGWilko]

When it comes to serious matters like this, investigation should be done by the Police and not the papers or Schofield......

I knew the police were on this earth for a reason. Well done you!

[Malbec]

When it comes to serious matters like this, investigation should be done by the Police and not the papers or Schofield......

Or they could have used the time honoured technique of investigating, getting the scoop, making headlines then passing the information onto the police for prosecution.

The media did nothing despite the rumours. That was a serious failing.

[ShiftingGears]

Any investigation as a result of a report of suspected abuse would, you'd hope, be in the public interest. I don't see any legal team, no matter how well funded, could prevent or curtail such activity?

My post was referring towards the legal team of a tabloid. This is because, and I may be wrong here, there would have been little consequence of them investigating Savile's private life as opposed to countless other celebrities.

I think it is very apparent that any proof of sexual deviancy, legal or not, would be published by a tabloid. Max Mosley comes to mind.

[Daniel]

Or they could have used the time honoured technique of investigating, getting the scoop, making headlines then passing the information onto the police for prosecution.

The media did nothing despite the rumours. That was a serious failing.

After what happened yesterday with Schofield my trust for the media is at an all time low.....

[BDunnell]

Any investigation as a result of a report of suspected abuse would, you'd hope, be in the public interest.

You are making the mistake of confusing 'in the public interest' with 'interesting to the public'.

[ShiftingGears]

When it comes to serious matters like this, investigation should be done by the Police and not the papers or Schofield......

But that would potentially involve someone having to stick their head out to make the allegation first, presumably to give the police a formal reason to investigate. It isn't like the police were unaware of the allegations. It would have been ideal if they had seriously investigated it, but I don't know if heresay would cut it when devoting taxpayer resources to an investigation, especially if someone who was making a claim was doing so anonymously for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread.

[SGWilko]

My post was referring towards the legal team of a tabloid. This is because, and I may be wrong here, there would have been little consequence of them investigating Savile's private life as opposed to countless other celebrities.

I think it is very apparent that any proof of sexual deviancy, legal or not, would be published by a tabloid. Max Mosley comes to mind.

Very true indeed. But would the press have treated dear old Max differently if he personally (as opposed to through the FIA) gave a lot and did a lot to charity. The other issue of course is, was Savilles charity work only done to divert away from other activities, or was he genuinely passionate about charity work?

[Daniel]

If someone were working with kids, and there 'was' a proven link between existence of a genetic anomoly and paedophile tendancies, then to lose their job would likely save children from abuse.
While we're at it, why don't we bring phrenology back?


In Burns' office, Joe Friday and Bill Gannon interview Burns about the
incident.

Friday: Are you sure this is the woman you saw in the post office?
Burns: Absolutely! Who could forget such a monstrous visage? She
has the sloping brow and cranial bumpage of the career
criminal.
Smithers: Uh, Sir? Phrenology was dismissed as quackery 160 years ago.
Burns: Of course you'd say that...you have the brainpan of a
stagecoach tilter!

[Daniel]

But that would potentially involve someone having to stick their head out to make the allegation first, presumably to give the police a formal reason to investigate. It isn't like the police were unaware of the allegations. It would have been ideal if they had seriously investigated it, but I don't know if heresay would cut it when devoting taxpayer resources to an investigation.

My only reservation with the media investigating is that a good portion of the media would appear incapable of investigating things in such a way that would assist in charges being brought against the person in question.

[SGWilko]

While we're at it, why don't we bring phrenology back?

I don't know Daniel, why don't we bring phrenology back?

[BDunnell]

I think it is very apparent that any proof of sexual deviancy, legal or not, would be published by a tabloid. Max Mosley comes to mind.

This case demonstrates otherwise. The Daily Mirror had the story and was, I seem to recall, advised not to publish for legal reasons. The then editor went along with this, but told all to the boss of a charity that had mentioned the possibility of getting Savile on board with its work, as a result of which they steered well clear. I may only be half-remembering this (recent) story, so maybe someone else could find a link. I haven't been able to — it came up in the last few weeks, though.

[Daniel]

This case demonstrates otherwise. The Daily Mirror had the story and was, I seem to recall, advised not to publish for legal reasons. The then editor went along with this, but told all to the boss of a charity that had mentioned the possibility of getting Savile on board with its work, as a result of which they steered well clear. I may only be half-remembering this (recent) story, so maybe someone else could find a link. I haven't been able to — it came up in the last few weeks, though.

Children in Need wouldn't allow Saville to be a part of things, that could be it.

[SGWilko]

This case demonstrates otherwise. The Daily Mirror had the story and was, I seem to recall, advised not to publish for legal reasons. The then editor went along with this, but told all to the boss of a charity that had mentioned the possibility of getting Savile on board with its work, as a result of which they steered well clear. I may only be half-remembering this (recent) story, so maybe someone else could find a link. I haven't been able to — it came up in the last few weeks, though.

Money talks!

[BDunnell]

A lot of folk that have abused children, have got themselves into positions to facilitate this abuse using the very system that is put in place to prevent it.

CRB for example. A paedophile is not defined as someone who has been caught, right? It is a predisposition. So, all it takes is a paedophile who has yet to commit an offence to clear all the checks, in order to get into the position they need to then get on with their sorry little business.

What you are suggesting here is an absurd attack on the entire justice system. Where would this 'pre-arresting' on the basis of genetics end?

[BDunnell]

Money talks!

Or, maybe, the story genuinely wasn't considered strong enough. This notion seems not to be crossing many minds.

[Daniel]

I don't know Daniel, why don't we bring phrenology back?
I think Smithers said it as best.

[Daniel]

Or, maybe, the story genuinely wasn't considered strong enough. This notion seems not to be crossing many minds.

Just look at him man! Look at him! Of course he was a pedo!!!!!!

[BDunnell]

Or they could have used the time honoured technique of investigating, getting the scoop, making headlines then passing the information onto the police for prosecution.

The media did nothing despite the rumours. That was a serious failing.

And here we again come back to the question of whether the rumours were deemed strong enough. As I remarked much earlier, Private Eye, not normally afraid of large legal bills, never published anything about Savile. It had published stories, largely ignored at the time, about the sexual proclivities of Jonathan King and Cyril Smith. I would tend towards the view that, while some publications surely were afraid of the consequences of running a story about Savile, others felt there wasn't enough in the stories.

[SGWilko]

What you are suggesting here is an absurd attack on the entire justice system. Where would this 'pre-arresting' on the basis of genetics end?

How would you pre-arrest someone exactly? I merely suggest that the predisposition to like sex with children may be genetic, and you've gone off on a tangent somewhere.

[BDunnell]

Oh God. The same two members are now trying to get all highbrow. I'm getting out of here before the spelling Police arrive :D

The very fact that you see the word 'highbrow' as an insult is, again, demonstrative of why your own approach to such topics as this is simplistic in the extreme.

[Daniel]

How would you pre-arrest someone exactly? I merely suggest that the predisposition to like sex with children may be genetic, and you've gone off on a tangent somewhere.
So what you're saying is that people who have a genetic pre-disposition should all be barred from working with children, vulnerable adults and old people, while people who through their upbringing and the behaviours they've been exposed to, are pre-disposed to abusing children are fine?

You will never stop abuse 100%. All you can do is teach the vulnerable people to report and teach everyone else to look out and you will hopefully catch most of it or deter most abusers.

[BDunnell]

How would you pre-arrest someone exactly? I merely suggest that the predisposition to like sex with children may be genetic, and you've gone off on a tangent somewhere.

If there was this genetic predisposition to paedophilia, surely you would want them locked up in order to prevent them from committing these theoretical crimes?

The whole notion has no place in a serious discussion.

[BDunnell]

As shifting gears' post after yours points out, how willing would you be to report abuse based on a nod and a wink? Rumours, heresay and innuendos are not the same as hard evidence.

Those people who witnessed Savile's odd behaviour that fell short of walking in on him buggering a 9 year old only know the importance now once his full abusive history has become known. That adds context.

Its easy to say abuse should be reported. Of course it should, why bother pointing out something noone disagrees with?

This ignores the obvious fact that abusers tend to hide their activities so often one is left with rumours and heresay, an information source that is hardly reliable.

It also ignores the amazingly powerful effect of denial, both self and collective. This is the case especially when a large number of people or an entire organisation has vested interests ignoring the rumours of abuse even if its subconscious.

Savile played on that a lot it would appear, with the organisations he abused at often dependent on charity income he brought in.

One could also point to Nazi occupied Europe where normal Germans and other European citizens sought to explain the disappearance of the Jews around them by claiming they were deported to Madagascar or Siberia (places Germany never even controlled) to build new colonies rather than face the unpalatable truth that they were being exterminated. On a smaller scale similar individual and collective cases of denial are commonplace even though they are highly illogical and appear difficult to believe in retrospect (such as at the BBC).

Now this is how you take part in a discussion such as this in a serious and rigorous manner, not by glancing at your tabloid of choice, feeling an impotent sense of outrage and coming up with as many synonyms for 'shocked' and 'awful' as you can recall.

[SGWilko]

So what you're saying is that people who have a genetic pre-disposition should all be barred from working with children, vulnerable adults and old people, while people who through their upbringing and the behaviours they've been exposed to, are pre-disposed to abusing children are fine?

According to you I am, apparently.

[ShiftingGears]

This case demonstrates otherwise. The Daily Mirror had the story and was, I seem to recall, advised not to publish for legal reasons. The then editor went along with this, but told all to the boss of a charity that had mentioned the possibility of getting Savile on board with its work, as a result of which they steered well clear. I may only be half-remembering this (recent) story, so maybe someone else could find a link. I haven't been able to — it came up in the last few weeks, though.

I was careful to use the word 'proof'; I don't know what information the Daily Mirror had, but considering the Mosley NOTW case, if they wanted to run an article alleging his sexual deviancy on the basis of allegations that could not strictly be proven, I don't think they would've published the story either.

[SGWilko]

I was careful to use the word 'proof'; I don't know what information the Daily Mirror had, but considering the Mosley NOTW case, if they wanted to run an article alleging his sexual deviancy on the basis of allegations that could not strictly be proven, I don't think they would've published the story either.

Mosley was effectively set up, betrayed by one of the participants for money. Presumably, this could have been achieved with Saville, but is a bit more complicated given that children would need to be 'willingly' put in a position of abuse.

[Daniel]

According to you I am, apparently.
Why not come out and nail your colours to the mast rather than saying that people are accusing you of saying things you've not actually said?

[ShiftingGears]

Mosley was effectively set up, betrayed by one of the participants for money. Presumably, this could have been achieved with Saville, but is a bit more complicated given that children would need to be 'willingly' put in a position of abuse.

Indeed, and I am not for a second denying the difficulty of which proof of Savile's pedophilia could be obtained. Hence why resources, and resourceful investigating, was needed.

[SGWilko]

Why not come out and nail your colours to the mast rather than saying that people are accusing you of saying things you've not actually said?

If there was a way to prevent child abuse, would you embrace it?

[Daniel]

If there was a way to prevent child abuse, would you embrace it?


As long as it doesn't involve thousands or possibly millions of innocent people being labelled as possible paedophiles, then yes.

[SGWilko]

As long as it doesn't involve thousands or possibly millions of innocent people being labelled as possible paedophiles, then yes.

There's the rub.

A paedophile is innocent until they offend - but they remain a paedophile nonetheless. A paedophile, will, if given the opportunity, offend.

Or, are we to believe that everyone is the same until they do something wrong? Does a normal, happily married man or woman one day wake up and all of a sudden decide to grope and rape a child?

Paedophiles spend many years planning and getting themselves into positions where they are able to indulge themselves.

[Daniel]

There's the rub.

A paedophile is innocent until they offend - but they remain a paedophile nonetheless. A paedophile, will, if given the opportunity, offend.

Or, are we to believe that everyone is the same until they do something wrong? Does a normal, happily married man or woman one day wake up and all of a sudden decide to grope and rape a child?

Paedophiles spend many years planning and getting themselves into positions where they are able to indulge themselves.

What a complete load of rubbish. You're living in a dreamworld

[SGWilko]

What a complete load of rubbish. You're living in a dreamworld

Really?

[ShiftingGears]

Paedophiles spend many years planning and getting themselves into positions where they are able to indulge themselves.

Not necessarily. They're just like any other criminal, some spend years trying to get into positions where they can't get caught, others act on impulse. Let's not get carried away with thinking that the only way to stop them is to assume the guilt of everyone, or encroaching on the rights of innocent parties.

[SGWilko]

Let's not get carried away with thinking that the only way to stop them is to assume the guilt of everyone, or encroaching on the rights of innocent parties.

Clearly!

[ShiftingGears]

Clearly!

Honestly I have no idea what point you're trying to make, so I don't think it's that clear.

[Daniel]

Same here.... I don't see the point he's trying to make.....

[SGWilko]

Honestly I have no idea what point you're trying to make, so I don't think it's that clear.

Better mechanisms need to be in place to monitor those who fit the characteristics of a disposition without affecting their ability to perform a normal working life.

It has to be a given that the emphsasis is on protecting the vulnerable - in this case children. So positions of childcare need to be better monitored.

[Malbec]

A paedophile, will, if given the opportunity, offend.

Except that that isn't true is it.

The number of people who are caught in possession of child pornography is in excess of the number caught for actually abusing children. Presumably to 'enjoy' child pornography enough to break the law and collect it that would make one a paedophile, yet they don't all go and act out their desires.


Or, are we to believe that everyone is the same until they do something wrong? Does a normal, happily married man or woman one day wake up and all of a sudden decide to grope and rape a child?

There is a strong link between being the victim of abuse in childhood and becoming an abuser later in life, in fact its the single biggest predisposing factor. Should we lock up abused kids once they become adults?


Paedophiles spend many years planning and getting themselves into positions where they are able to indulge themselves.

No they don't, the majority simply wait till they or their close relatives have children then 'indulge' as you call it.

[BDunnell]

Not necessarily. They're just like any other criminal, some spend years trying to get into positions where they can't get caught, others act on impulse. Let's not get carried away with thinking that the only way to stop them is to assume the guilt of everyone, or encroaching on the rights of innocent parties.

Or that there is just 'one type' of paedophile.

[wedge]

Paedophiles spend many years planning and getting themselves into positions where they are able to indulge themselves.

http://files.myopera.com/Teh%20H4mst0R/albums/305405/roflcopter.gif

You make sound like robbing a bank!

Doesn't matter if its stash of porn, drugs; multiple sexual partners - human beings can be bloody devious when they want to be.

[ShiftingGears]

Better mechanisms need to be in place to monitor those who fit the characteristics of a disposition without affecting their ability to perform a normal working life.

It has to be a given that the emphsasis is on protecting the vulnerable - in this case children. So positions of childcare need to be better monitored.

You are, with this, essentially advocating a notion similar to thoughtcrime. You are seeming to suggest that the government should infringe on peoples liberties by discriminating against people on what they perceive their sexual preferences to be, which is completely without any proof. If they had proof, they wouldn't be near children anyway, if the employer was remotely competent.

It is worth noting that whilst serial killers do generally have certain typical characteristics it is no reason for governments to infringe on their liberties on those assumptions.

[SGWilko]

http://files.myopera.com/Teh%20H4mst0R/albums/305405/roflcopter.gif

You make sound like robbing a bank!

Doesn't matter if its stash of porn, drugs; multiple sexual partners - human beings can be bloody devious when they want to be.

Very good!

Point is, planning a 'bank job' isn't quite the same.

I had in mind the case a couple of years back of the woman working at a pre-school nursery, who IIRC was part of an elaborate paedophile ring (along with her partner as I remember). It caused quite a stir at the time, would have sent Ben's tabloid of choice reading stereotypes into a frenzy no doubt.

[SGWilko]

You are, with this, essentially advocating a notion similar to thoughtcrime.

Quite possibly, but it is just a notion.

[wedge]

Very good!

Point is, planning a 'bank job' isn't quite the same.

I had in mind the case a couple of years back of the woman working at a pre-school nursery, who IIRC was part of an elaborate paedophile ring (along with her partner as I remember). It caused quite a stir at the time, would have sent Ben's tabloid of choice reading stereotypes into a frenzy no doubt.

The one that made national headlines? Where the partner and daughters knew nothing and went on record of wanting to do with her anymore.

[SGWilko]

The one that made national headlines? Where the partner and daughters knew nothing and went on record of wanting to do with her anymore.

Man in nursery paedophile ring is given indeterminate sentence | Society | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/10/colin-blanchard-sexually-abused)

Re-reading the story it seems incredible she did what was asked of her. You'll note it wasn't her partner -my bad, but someone she 'met on the net' that got her to abuse the kids.

Just in case Ben gets all excited as to the web reference, that was the first one that came up, so was not selected deliberately.

[BDunnell]

Quite possibly, but it is just a notion.

And one that's completely devoid of sense. I feel your thoughts might have been better directed elsewhere.

[SGWilko]

I feel your thoughts might have been better directed elsewhere.

So I can't share them on this internet forum, because?

[BDunnell]

Doesn't matter if its stash of porn, drugs; multiple sexual partners - human beings can be bloody devious when they want to be.

Exactly. It is, sadly, human nature, and there's not a lot that can be done about it. The same goes for instances where attempts at detection fail through mistakes. Thinking that it might be possible completely to eradicate any crime does nothing to help. It only leads to outlandish, unworkable solutions.

[BDunnell]

So I can't share them on this internet forum, because?

Because you might not wish to appear misguided?

[SGWilko]

Because you might not wish to appear misguided?

Seeing some content on here, the point scoring, the bickering and the general stereotyping leads me to suggest that appearing misguided is a prerequsite....

[Daniel]

BBC News - Lord McAlpine victim of mistaken identity, abused man says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114) and this is why investigation needs to be done by the Police and not on Twitter.....

[Daniel]

I should say competent Police :p

[BDunnell]

BBC News - Lord McAlpine victim of mistaken identity, abused man says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114) and this is why investigation needs to be done by the Police and not on Twitter.....

This I find a deeply curious story. I can't understand how Lord McAlpine can expect to sue successfully — while the Newsnight report was, it turns out, about him, he is far from the only 'senior Tory' whose identity one could have deduced from related rumours online. I, for example, was under the impression the Newsnight report was about someone else entirely. Sadly, I doubt there will be much appetite on the part of the BBC to fight what I feel will be a dubious legal action, if McAlpine does indeed decide to sue the BBC.

[Mark]

I don't know. I did a google search a couple of days ago and the first name that came up was Lord McAlpine.

[Dave B]

I'm not sure how McAlpine could win legal action. "Your honour, the BBC threatened to name someone, then changed their mind and didn't name anybody, but thousands of people on Twitter thought it was me."

Doesn't really work, does it?

I'll be completely honest, I find the notion that McAlpine's accuser suddenly changed his mind after finally looking at a picture, after all these years, rather incredible. I shall say no more as I clearly don't have the slightest shred of evidence one way or the other.

[Dave B]

The recently appointed head of the BBC, who has ddone little wrong, has resigned. The tabloids, many of whose editors and senior staff have indulged in criminal behavior, are gloating.

Meanwhile the actual victims are a mere sideshow...

[Mark]

I do feel sorry for him. To have worked his way up in the BBC all his life to finally get to the top job only to have to leave a few weeks later through no fault of his own.

[Knock-on]

I think after his performance infront of the committee, admissions of incompetance and his subsequent performance, he had little choice. For the sake of the BBC I'm glad.

This is interesting:

George Entwistle: 23 years getting to the top of the BBC. Gone in 54 days | Media | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/george-entwistle-bbc-resigns-profile)

[Dave B]

Can anybody explain to me what the BBC have done which is so hideously bad? They said they were going to name a paedophile but then didn't under legal advice. Twitter and the rumour mill did the rest.

Two years ago The Sun took a few minutes off hacking phones to run a front page trashing the reputation of Chris Jeffries, falsely linking him with the murder of his neighbour on the grounds that he looked a bit weird.

Several of our tabloids ran what can only be described as a smear campaign against Robert Murat, falsely accusing him of the abduction and/or murder of Madeline McCann. He won damages against several publications but continues to receive death threats to this day.

I don't remember anybody resigning over either of these two examples, and they're not isolated incidents. I also don't remember Boris Johnson (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/Smearing-an-innocent-mans-name-is-the-real-tragedy-here.html) or Norman Tebbit (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100188996/the-plot-to-smear-lord-mcalpine-was-a-disgrace-time-for-a-thorough-clean-out-of-the-bbc/) foaming at the mouth while writing columns about how hideous the tabloids were, like the Telegraph pieces they've penned about the BBC.

Look, the BBC have handled this whole affair in a pretty shoddy way, from turning a blind eye to abuse on their premises to shooting themselves in the foot over Newsnight. But I genuinely can't see that it's anything but a series of blunders, rather than malicious behaviour.

[Mark]

True, but this is the BBC, they are world experts at hand wringing.

To be fair, they did basically say "We know a person did this; and go here if you want to find out who we mean".

[Mark]

More blood letting at the BBC



The BBC's director of news and her deputy have "stepped aside", the BBC understands.
The move by Helen Boaden and Steve Mitchell comes after director general George Entwistle quit on Saturday.

[Knock-on]

Can anybody explain to me what the BBC have done which is so hideously bad? They said they were going to name a paedophile but then didn't under legal advice. Twitter and the rumour mill did the rest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, the BBC have handled this whole affair in a pretty shoddy way, from turning a blind eye to abuse on their premises to shooting themselves in the foot over Newsnight. But I genuinely can't see that it's anything but a series of blunders, rather than malicious behaviour.

Dave. I know you're sympathetic to the BBC but I think you've answered your own question here.

Entwistle was in the job only 56 days and in that time has committed a catalogue of fundemental errors. Nothing malicious but merely incompetent and it appeared he had no control over what he was supposed to be responsible for as Editor in Chief. His position was untenable but at least he has 'earned' £9321 per day since his appointment ( not including pension which brings the sum up to £1.3M for the 8 weeks)

Those other examples are valid points but we're not discussing a private corporation here but a publicly owned and accountable organisation. He was right to resign before his inability to manage this crisis causes more damage at the BBC.

[BDunnell]

True, but this is the BBC, they are world experts at hand wringing.

To be fair, they did basically say "We know a person did this; and go here if you want to find out who we mean".

They didn't say anything of the sort! Nowhere in the item did they advise people to go online and search for the name. It's inevitable that people were going to do that anyway. Had they done so before the item was broadcast, they would still have found references to Lord McAlpine allegedly being involved in child sex abuse.

[BDunnell]

Entwistle was in the job only 56 days and in that time has committed a catalogue of fundemental errors. Nothing malicious but merely incompetent and it appeared he had no control over what he was supposed to be responsible for as Editor in Chief. His position was untenable but at least he has 'earned' £9321 per day since his appointment ( not including pension which brings the sum up to £1.3M for the 8 weeks)

What you in turn forget is that he had been at the BBC for 23 years.

[BDunnell]

Two years ago The Sun took a few minutes off hacking phones to run a front page trashing the reputation of Chris Jeffries, falsely linking him with the murder of his neighbour on the grounds that he looked a bit weird.

There's the case that renders it morally impossible for two of Britain's biggest newspapers, the Sun and the Daily Mail, in any way to criticise the BBC over sloppy journalism in the Newsnight instance. Both papers were convicted of contempt of court in relation to Chris Jefferies, yet in no way have they been engulfed in anything like the storm that's hit the BBC — nor assailed by the merchants of moral outrage. Interesting.

[Knock-on]

Personally, I think the reason we are not discussing the Sun and Mail is twofold.

1. This thread is about Savile and the dsgrace he and others have caused. It is not about standards of journalism but about Pedophiles and people that allowed these sick individules to continue their abuse for decades.

2. I don't usually read the Sun or Mail and cannot comment on their content. I must therefore defer to someone like yourself that has indepth knowledge of these rags. On the most part, I generally trust the BBC to offer valid and trustworthy content but why would I waste my time reading publications that bring little to the table?

You might just as well quote Viz or the Sunday Sport as justification for your points as the Mail or Sun IMHO.

[SGWilko]

You might just as well quote Viz or the Sunday Sport as justification for your points as the Mail or Sun IMHO.

Did they ever find those WWII bombers on the moon?

[Knock-on]

Did they ever find those WWII bombers on the moon?

Apparently they dismantled them and drove the bits back to the UK in the Double Decker busses. I think I read it in The Sun :D (If I read it of course ;) )

[Knock-on]

They didn't say anything of the sort! Nowhere in the item did they advise people to go online and search for the name. It's inevitable that people were going to do that anyway. Had they done so before the item was broadcast, they would still have found references to Lord McAlpine allegedly being involved in child sex abuse.

To be fair, Newsnight rather shot itself in the foot when Iain Overton Tweeted before the show that they were hoping to 'out' a senior Tory politician. You can argue semantics but the fundemental claim was from the makers of Newsnight.

[BDunnell]

To be fair, Newsnight rather shot itself in the foot when Iain Overton Tweeted before the show that they were hoping to 'out' a senior Tory politician. You can argue semantics but the fundemental claim was from the makers of Newsnight.

Iain Overton is not in any sense one of 'the makers of Newsnight'. Get your facts straight.

[BDunnell]

Personally, I think the reason we are not discussing the Sun and Mail is twofold.

1. This thread is about Savile and the dsgrace he and others have caused. It is not about standards of journalism but about Pedophiles and people that allowed these sick individules to continue their abuse for decades.

2. I don't usually read the Sun or Mail and cannot comment on their content. I must therefore defer to someone like yourself that has indepth knowledge of these rags. On the most part, I generally trust the BBC to offer valid and trustworthy content but why would I waste my time reading publications that bring little to the table?

You might just as well quote Viz or the Sunday Sport as justification for your points as the Mail or Sun IMHO.

A reply full of ludicrous statements. Just as the story has developed, so has this thread. It is now very much within the realm of discussing journalistic standards. The fact that you don't usually read either of the two papers mentioned is entirely irrelevant, because I would have thought that someone like you, here participating in a discussion that touches heavily on issues relating to the media, would (a) have been aware of the story concerned, and (b) realise why it renders criticism of the BBC from these two outlets — criticism that very much mirrors your own — hypocritical in the extreme.

[Knock-on]

Iain Overton is not in any sense one of 'the makers of Newsnight'. Get your facts straight.


The Bureau was named as a contributor to the broadcast of a BBC Newsnight programme on November 2 on child abuse in North Wales. The Trustees are appalled at what appears to be a breach of its standards. To the extent that the principles of The Bureau have been ignored by an involvement in this story, remedial action will be taken against those responsible. The Trustees must ensure that due process is applied and are establishing the key facts

Angus Stickler of the Bureau worked on the Newsnight piece and Iain as Editor tweeted what he did. If you keep ducking the issues and try to find loopholes rather than concentrate on the facts, is it any wonder I can't take you seriously? The BBC uses many 3rd party companies in making and collecting source for programs and to claim the Bureau wasn't fundemental to the making of Newsnight is a bit silly. :rolleyes:

Can we have a bit of objectivity rather than some sort of p1ssing contest?

[Knock-on]

A reply full of ludicrous statements. Just as the story has developed, so has this thread. It is now very much within the realm of discussing journalistic standards. The fact that you don't usually read either of the two papers mentioned is entirely irrelevant, because I would have thought that someone like you, here participating in a discussion that touches heavily on issues relating to the media, would (a) have been aware of the story concerned, and (b) realise why it renders criticism of the BBC from these two outlets — criticism that very much mirrors your own — hypocritical in the extreme.

The Sun | The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities | The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/)

I did read the front page (which I went down about 20 pages) and didn't find any reference to the BBC. However, I understand there is some sort of Bikini crisis in the Jungle which sounds much more interesting to me :p

[Daniel]

Can we have a bit of objectivity rather than some sort of p1ssing contest?

Knockie, you're an expert at saying things and thinking that this means what you've said is true.

Now can we stop with the beastiality and eating of the skulls of newborns and get back to the real story here? :rolleyes:

[Malbec]

1. This thread is about Savile and the dsgrace he and others have caused. It is not about standards of journalism but about Pedophiles and people that allowed these sick individules to continue their abuse for decades.

Why contradict yourself? You keep bringing up Entwhistle, you do realise that the controversy surrounding him is not due to Savile's abuse (which he was in no position to stop at the time) but about the decisions to broadcast/not broadcast 1) the Newsnight Savile piece and 2) the Newsnight article about Lord McAlpine. Surely you are aware that you yourself have brought up journalistic standards yourself many times on this thread. Why is it that you feel it appropriate to talk only about one organisation regarding this issue?

Personally I see little wrong with what the BBC did over the McAlpine Newsnight piece. They had a good story and went as far as they could without naming the individual suspected (wrongly it turns out). What happened over Twitter is not under their control. Perhaps they should not have investigated a possible senior political involvement in a child abuse ring but then they'd be accused of not taking abuse seriously then.

There is little print and TV media can do about social networking sites and the information available on them. There have been many news cases where prominent public figures have been mentioned as being involved in cases where they cannot be named, the tacit understanding has always been that while the media cannot name them the public can easily find out on google who is being referred to.

[BDunnell]

Personally I see little wrong with what the BBC did over the McAlpine Newsnight piece. They had a good story and went as far as they could without naming the individual suspected (wrongly it turns out). What happened over Twitter is not under their control. Perhaps they should not have investigated a possible senior political involvement in a child abuse ring but then they'd be accused of not taking abuse seriously then.

The more important point is that there may still have been abuse committed at the children's home in North Wales by a former senior Tory politician of the 1980s. The name of Sir Peter Morrison has been mentioned repeatedly. Others, at least one still alive, have been referred to. And this is before we even start on any conspiracy theories about the victim's sudden change of heart regarding McAlpine, which at present seem too fanciful to be believable.

[Dave B]

The Sun | The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities | The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/)

I did read the front page (which I went down about 20 pages) and didn't find any reference to the BBC. However, I understand there is some sort of Bikini crisis in the Jungle which sounds much more interesting to me :p

You don't even have to look at their website, just look at the front pages of their printed paper. Here's today's and a couple from last week:

http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_12_11_2012.jpg http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_24_10_2012.jpg http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_23_10_2012.jpg

Oh, and here's one from two years ago:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/chris-jefferies2.jpg

Look, it's not about being "sympathetic" to the BBC [full disclosure, I did some work for them about two decades ago], but about the hypocrisy of a press under attack from two fronts: the threat of regulation once Lord Levison completes his report, and the decline of their printed editions in the face of new media. The BBC is their natural enemy: publicly funded and supremely well-resourced, yet free at the point of delivery. The tabloids sense blood, and are holding the BBC up to a ludicrously high standard. Mistakes were made, big ones, but it sticks in the craw when the papers get all high and mighty about it like they're models of journalistic perfection.

[Knock-on]

Why contradict yourself? You keep bringing up Entwhistle, you do realise that the controversy surrounding him is not due to Savile's abuse (which he was in no position to stop at the time) but about the decisions to broadcast/not broadcast 1) the Newsnight Savile piece and 2) the Newsnight article about Lord McAlpine. Surely you are aware that you yourself have brought up journalistic standards yourself many times on this thread. Why is it that you feel it appropriate to talk only about one organisation regarding this issue?

Not too sure I follow you. I don't think I hve brought up journalistic standards apart from in passing. I have questioned management standrds and the way this has been handled within the BBC.

I have also brought into the conversation other organisations such as the Police, Judicery etc but I don't see the point in hiding behind the (lack of) integrity of The Sun or Mail in trying to somehow elevate the case of the BBC. The last thing the BBC needs at the moment is to be compared to these types of gutter press.


Personally I see little wrong with what the BBC did over the McAlpine Newsnight piece. They had a good story and went as far as they could without naming the individual suspected (wrongly it turns out). What happened over Twitter is not under their control. Perhaps they should not have investigated a possible senior political involvement in a child abuse ring but then they'd be accused of not taking abuse seriously then.

There's lots of different issues here though. A free press should of course be able to investigate but there is an onus on them to do so responsibly. Ben mentioned the heartache and stigma associated with a false accusation. There has been some sloppy journalism over this subject such as Newsnight, ITV and I'm sure others but if I was Entwistle, I would have made sure anything involving Savile or the current situation went past me before broadcast. If I was DG, I would have asked the production team of Newsnight why the Police weren't consulted and why the case against McAlpine hadn't been presented to him to get a response. Surely these are basics in an investigative journalist story such as this?


There is little print and TV media can do about social networking sites and the information available on them. There have been many news cases where prominent public figures have been mentioned as being involved in cases where they cannot be named, the tacit understanding has always been that while the media cannot name them the public can easily find out on google who is being referred to.

Yep, can't argue with this. However, speculation did start from the media and I fear this trial by media and witch hunt that we have.

[Dave B]

I have also brought into the conversation other organisations such as the Police, Judicery etc but I don't see the point in hiding behind the (lack of) integrity of The Sun or Mail in trying to somehow elevate the case of the BBC. The last thing the BBC needs at the moment is to be compared to these types of gutter press.

I don't think that anybody is arguing that two wrongs make a right.

[Knock-on]

You don't even have to look at their website, just look at the front pages of their printed paper. Here's today's and a couple from last week:

http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_12_11_2012.jpg http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_24_10_2012.jpg http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/archive/The_Sun_23_10_2012.jpg

Oh, and here's one from two years ago:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/chris-jefferies2.jpg

Look, it's not about being "sympathetic" to the BBC [full disclosure, I did some work for them about two decades ago], but about the hypocrisy of a press under attack from two fronts: the threat of regulation once Lord Levison completes his report, and the decline of their printed editions in the face of new media. The BBC is their natural enemy: publicly funded and supremely well-resourced, yet free at the point of delivery. The tabloids sense blood, and are holding the BBC up to a ludicrously high standard. Mistakes were made, big ones, but it sticks in the craw when the papers get all high and mighty about it like they're models of journalistic perfection.

Come on Dave. Who would dare claim these rags are somehow paragon's of Journalistic integrity.

I don't read this muck and find their version of news a joke. I certainly haven't seen their front pages and only visited their web site for a joke today. They have as much credability to me as some Troll members on here.

As I said, comparing them to the BBC does a huge disservice to the BBC itself.

The thing is that there are things at the BBC that need investigating and probably changing. Being open-minded and objective isn't the same as 'having it in' for the BBC.

[Knock-on]

The more important point is that there may still have been abuse committed at the children's home in North Wales by a former senior Tory politician of the 1980s. The name of Sir Peter Morrison has been mentioned repeatedly. Others, at least one still alive, have been referred to. And this is before we even start on any conspiracy theories about the victim's sudden change of heart regarding McAlpine, which at present seem too fanciful to be believable.

:up:

This MUST be handled by the police now. Any further reporting is likely to jepodise any criminal proceedings.

[Dave B]

Come on Dave. Who would dare claim these rags are somehow paragon's of Journalistic integrity.

I don't read this muck and find their version of news a joke. I certainly haven't seen their front pages and only visited their web site for a joke today. They have as much credability to me as some Troll members on here.
Well that's to your credit, but the simple fact is that the Sun and the Daily Mail are the two best-selling newspapers in the country and between them command millions of purchasers, plus countless eyeballs seeing them on the shelves. Like it or not, they shape opinion in this country, arguably to a greater extent than the BBC. So when they lie, or mislead, or break the law, it does matter.

[BDunnell]

Come on Dave. Who would dare claim these rage are somehow paragon's of Journalistic integrity.

They do themselves. A lot of people read them and are influenced by their views. The current government is, ideologically, better disposed towards their owners and the privately-funded model of media ownership than it is towards the state funding of the BBC. There, in a nutshell, are just a few reasons why the hypocrisy of these newspapers in attacking the BBC is highly relevant here.



As I said, comparing them to the BBC does a huge disservice to the BBC itself.

What does this empty statement even mean in the context of our discussion?

[BDunnell]

There has been some sloppy journalism over this subject such as Newsnight, ITV and I'm sure others but if I was Entwistle, I would have made sure anything involving Savile or the current situation went past me before broadcast.

There is an extent of being 'damned if he did, damned if he didn't' here. Get in the way of the report, and he would have run the risk of being dubbed a control freak, interfering in editorial decisions. (This, incidentally, is where I feel some restructuring is necessary, so that the DG does not have the role of editor-in-chief.) He would also have been decried by sections of the press for attempting to cover up high-level paedophilia; don't forget, the name of McAlpine was out there, associated online with the North Wales case, before the Newsnight story was first mentioned.


Surely these are basics in an investigative journalist story such as this?

They're the basics in any story, not just investigative ones.

[BDunnell]

The BBC is their natural enemy: publicly funded and supremely well-resourced, yet free at the point of delivery.

And it gets under their collective skin, just as it does with politicians to a greater extent than does any other broadcaster in the UK.

[Knock-on]

They do themselves. A lot of people read them and are influenced by their views. The current government is, ideologically, better disposed towards their owners and the privately-funded model of media ownership than it is towards the state funding of the BBC. There, in a nutshell, are just a few reasons why the hypocrisy of these newspapers in attacking the BBC is highly relevant here.

I just think it detracts from the issue but hey, that's not a problem. I can't talk for people that make their minds up by whet they read in The Current Bun. I just know that it's irrelevant to me.


What does this empty statement even mean in the context of our discussion?


This means that the BBC is a much respected and valued organisation. Argueing over the integrity of the BBC against something like The Sun is not fair to the BBC. The BBC is on a whole different level.

[BDunnell]

This means that the BBC is a much respected and valued organisation. Argueing over the integrity of the BBC against something like The Sun is not fair to the BBC. The BBC is on a whole different level.

This notion doesn't get any more relevant the more you repeat it. Discussion as to the hypocrisy of other, inferior outlets and their current attacks on the BBC cannot just be separated out, no matter how much easier this would make the discussion for you.

[Knock-on]

There is an extent of being 'damned if he did, damned if he didn't' here. Get in the way of the report, and he would have run the risk of being dubbed a control freak, interfering in editorial decisions. (This, incidentally, is where I feel some restructuring is necessary, so that the DG does not have the role of editor-in-chief.) He would also have been decried by sections of the press for attempting to cover up high-level paedophilia; don't forget, the name of McAlpine was out there, associated online with the North Wales case, before the Newsnight story was first mentioned.



They're the basics in any story, not just investigative ones.

I think he lost his way and was out of his depth. He probably realises he lost control of the situation and stepped down.

It's all a bit of a mess but hopefully, the BBC will learn a lesson and come back stronger.

[Knock-on]

This notion doesn't get any more relevant the more you repeat it. Discussion as to the hypocrisy of other, inferior outlets and their current attacks on the BBC cannot just be separated out, no matter how much easier this would make the discussion for you.

You asked me to clarify point in context of the discussion which I did.

I don't know how seperating the BBC from the Mail and The Sun would make the discussion 'easier' for me. This discussion isn't about 'me' which is something you and Daniel fail to understand.

Look past your opinion of me and stop just attacking my posts for the sake of it. You'll be a lot happier ;)

[BDunnell]

You asked me to clarify point in context of the discussion which I did.

To your satisfaction, maybe. I still feel you're missing the point (or, more likely, choosing to miss it) entirely.

[BDunnell]

It's all a bit of a mess but hopefully, the BBC will learn a lesson and come back stronger.

Only for its critics in the rest of the media to castigate it the next time it broadcasts something they don't like.

[Daniel]

You asked me to clarify point in context of the discussion which I did.

I don't know how seperating the BBC from the Mail and The Sun would make the discussion 'easier' for me. This discussion isn't about 'me' which is something you and Daniel fail to understand.

Look past your opinion of me and stop just attacking my posts for the sake of it. You'll be a lot happier ;)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You constantly do the same to others and resort to namecalling because of historical differences you've had with people.

[Daniel]

This notion doesn't get any more relevant the more you repeat it. Discussion as to the hypocrisy of other, inferior outlets and their current attacks on the BBC cannot just be separated out, no matter how much easier this would make the discussion for you.

Completely agree. Just because the BBC is better than other organisations doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to the same high standards as the BBC. But Knock On doesn't quite grasp the hypocrisy of his words.....

[BDunnell]

Just because the BBC is better than other organisations doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to the same high standards as the BBC.

The concept of hypocrisy wouldn't exist if everyone followed that tack.

[Malbec]

Not too sure I follow you. I don't think I hve brought up journalistic standards apart from in passing. I have questioned management standrds and the way this has been handled within the BBC.

Ok, whether they're journalistic, editorial or management standards they are not directly to do with Savile's abuse of children, more to do with the decision to not broadcast the Savile Newsnight clip. So by your own admission there, your initial assertion that this thread was only about Savile's abuse and nothing else is incorrect.


I have also brought into the conversation other organisations such as the Police, Judicery etc but I don't see the point in hiding behind the (lack of) integrity of The Sun or Mail in trying to somehow elevate the case of the BBC. The last thing the BBC needs at the moment is to be compared to these types of gutter press.

Whether those papers are gutter press is irrelevant. They are all news outlets and therefore should abide by the same standards of practice. If they break the law or commit libel they should all be treated the same. Those tabloids have broken the law in the recent past yet the media response to them has not been as strong as for an organisation which has been clumsy but abided by the law throughout.

You wouldn't claim that a Kia should not be held to the same legal safety requirements as a Rolls Royce merely because its commonly viewed to be a cheap car would you?


There's lots of different issues here though. A free press should of course be able to investigate but there is an onus on them to do so responsibly. Ben mentioned the heartache and stigma associated with a false accusation. There has been some sloppy journalism over this subject such as Newsnight, ITV and I'm sure others but if I was Entwistle, I would have made sure anything involving Savile or the current situation went past me before broadcast. If I was DG, I would have asked the production team of Newsnight why the Police weren't consulted and why the case against McAlpine hadn't been presented to him to get a response. Surely these are basics in an investigative journalist story such as this?

If you were DG you should NOT be meddling in individual programme content like this lest the BBC get a reputation for being a political machine that has its editorial line influenced by those in charge, something that is often said of, say, the Murdoch media. That is the role of individual producers and at the very highest the head of the news section. I'm surprised that he was even consulted over the Newsnight Savile programme.

If Entwistle intervened in the McAlpine programme then that would raise strong questions about the editorial integrity of the BBC.

As someone else has pointed out the DG should have his role entirely separated out from editorial responsibilities to ensure there is no confusion.

[Knock-on]

Ok, whether they're journalistic, editorial or management standards they are not directly to do with Savile's abuse of children, more to do with the decision to not broadcast the Savile Newsnight clip. So by your own admission there, your initial assertion that this thread was only about Savile's abuse and nothing else is incorrect.

I suggest you read my first few posts. I have always maintained that this goes beyond Savile and is not confined to the BBC. If it is so important to compare the BBC to the gutter press then that's up to you but I would rather be objective about the current situation and discuss that.




Whether those papers are gutter press is irrelevant. They are all news outlets and therefore should abide by the same standards of practice. If they break the law or commit libel they should all be treated the same. Those tabloids have broken the law in the recent past yet the media response to them has not been as strong as for an organisation which has been clumsy but abided by the law throughout.

You wouldn't claim that a Kia should not be held to the same legal safety requirements as a Rolls Royce merely because its commonly viewed to be a cheap car would you?

They don't abide by the same standards as far as I'm aware. Ofcom vs Self regulation? hmmmm. Why do you think the Press are ****ting themselves over Leverson. I really do fail to understamd how your analogy is relevant but it's fine if you you do. It's not important.


If you were DG you should NOT be meddling in individual programme content like this lest the BBC get a reputation for being a political machine that has its editorial line influenced by those in charge, something that is often said of, say, the Murdoch media. That is the role of individual producers and at the very highest the head of the news section. I'm surprised that he was even consulted over the Newsnight Savile programme.

If Entwistle intervened in the McAlpine programme then that would raise strong questions about the editorial integrity of the BBC.

As someone else has pointed out the DG should have his role entirely separated out from editorial responsibilities to ensure there is no confusion.

This I strongly disagree with. I know you understand the management structure of the BBC and think you may be wrong here. Also, recent reverlations about the failing of Newsnight suggest there were terrible failings by multiple levels of management. There is nothing I can say that approaches remotely the damning evidence admitted by the BBC today.

You seem to think I'm against the BBC where I feel I am being pragmatic. The noises, nay shouts, coming out of the BBC at the moment suggest they accept there have been serious failings as I sussested. If they follow it through, they will turn this round and avoid the Iceberg I mentioned. If they retract and follow the example of denial demonstrated on this forum, they are in serious trouble.

[Daniel]

I suggest you read my first few posts. I have always maintained that this goes beyond Savile and is not confined to the BBC. If it is so important to compare the BBC to the gutter press then that's up to you but I would rather be objective about the current situation and discuss that.



They don't abide by the same standards as far as I'm aware. Ofcom vs Self regulation? hmmmm. Why do you think the Press are ****ting themselves over Leverson. I really do fail to understamd how your analogy is relevant but it's fine if you you do. It's not important.



This I strongly disagree with. I know you understand the management structure of the BBC and think you may be wrong here. Also, recent reverlations about the failing of Newsnight suggest there were terrible failings by multiple levels of management. There is nothing I can say that approaches remotely the damning evidence admitted by the BBC today.

You seem to think I'm against the BBC where I feel I am being pragmatic. The noises, nay shouts, coming out of the BBC at the moment suggest they accept there have been serious failings as I sussested. If they follow it through, they will turn this round and avoid the Iceberg I mentioned. If they retract and follow the example of denial demonstrated on this forum, they are in serious trouble.

So essentially you want a national broadcaster where the DG meddles about in all the programming and micromanages everything (badly I presume)

[Knock-on]

So essentially you want a national broadcaster where the DG meddles about in all the programming and micromanages everything (badly I presume)

Dan, please read what I write. This is getting very boring now.

[Daniel]

Dan, please read what I write. This is getting very boring now.

Not for me, Malbec said something, you disagreed with it and I countered your point. You're on a discussion forum, deal with it.

[Knock-on]

Please stop replying to my posts. I have no respect for your contributions and find it really quite funny that someone is so obsessed with wasting their time stalking me.

Have you got a crush on me Danny :kiss:

[Daniel]

Please stop replying to my posts. I have no respect for your contributions and find it really quite funny that someone is so obsessed with wasting their time stalking me.

Have you got a crush on me Danny :kiss:

I'll do what I want, but thanks for your concern.....

[Knock-on]

BBC News - BBC begins disciplinary measures over Newsnight broadcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20307714)

[SGWilko]

To your satisfaction, maybe. I still feel you're missing the point (or, more likely, choosing to miss it) entirely.

You feel? What does that mean exactly? Your right leg twitches when Knock-on posts and you feel the need to commentate on the content?

[loowisham]

As a fan of all types of music I'm wondering if this is the same man that was the host of a pop (music) show for years. I was in London for some period of time in the late seventies. If it is him I am saddened by this.

[Mintexmemory]

As a fan of all types of music I'm wondering if this is the same man that was the host of a pop (music) show for years. I was in London for some period of time in the late seventies. If it is him I am saddened by this.
Yes, the very same!

[Mark]

As a fan of all types of music I'm wondering if this is the same man that was the host of a pop (music) show for years. I was in London for some period of time in the late seventies. If it is him I am saddened by this.

Yes, he hosted Top of the Pops for a long time, and was the last person to appear on the final episode of the show.