The BBC seem to be still downplaying the Jimmy Savile affair.


George Entwistle this morning on ‘Today’ said that Newsnight was right to not broadcast the allegations about Savile and that he wasn’t in the business of  using the benefit of hindsight to try to blame people for their ‘mistakes’.

Could have fooled me…isn’t the British Empire and all that regularly run through the mill for its perceived sins by the BBC?

Mark Easton is still blaming Thatcher for everything….

The BBC told us that depression has risen 40% since 2006….but Mark Easton on ‘Today’ believed he had the reason why….Thatcher’s ‘savage’ attack on industry in the 80’s….a period of industrial decline that people have not got over…and now with savage Tory cuts on the mental health budget it can only get worse.

And speaking of Mark Easton, he seems to have taken his new boss’s message on board…….


Here is Mark Easton who, apart from revealing that a PE teacher at his school took great pleasure in making ‘small boys do naked press ups’,  almost puts the blame for the abuses onto the girls…or ‘groupies’ as he calls them….whilst taking the Entwistle line….the past was a different time with different mores……

‘The Jimmy Savile story takes the sexual politics of the present day and applies them to another age. The teenage groupies in the 60s and 70s who hung around the pop scene, hoping a bit of the glamour and excitement would rub off onto their own lives, were entering very dangerous territory – a world where sexual liberation was colliding with traditional power structures.’


It’s a rather curious tale he tells…because on the one hand he says no one would blink an eye about such goings on….but conversely his own ‘outrage’ had been raised by a visit to the local magistrate court where such an abuser was actually being tried…..so someone did care…..

‘When I was a cub reporter on my local newspaper in the late 1970s, I returned from the magistrates court with what I thought was a front page story. A councillor had appeared on charges of sexual assault on young girls, an alleged abuse of power that had left me shocked……

……But all too rarely were these kinds of concerns taken to the authorities.  In fact, one suspects that the police would have regarded accusations of such improper behaviour as domestic or trivial. Rather like my news editor, the desk sergeant would probably have shrugged and suggested the complainant worried about proper crime.’


So is he suggesting we don’t look back in anger at what may have gone on then…it was just the ‘times’? 

Or is that just a convenient get out for the BBC?

Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to LOOK BACK IN ANGER….OR NOT

  1. noggin says:

    Radio 1 DJ Liz Kershaw, who said she was “routinely groped” while on air by a colleague.
    Kershaw has admitted that jokes about Saville, who left the BBC shortly after she joined,had been very common among staff … common? … jokes? hmmm
    if it is “common” knowledge, so much so jokes abound ….
    (kershaw was asked if she was lesbian? when she complained)

    oh and apparently Sandi Toksvig fondled too? …
    sheesh! i know just the thought

    looks like an increasingly sticky wicket for al bbc


  2. VFC says:

    The BBC don’t have a good record when it comes to reporting on Child Abuse and related matters http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/02/bbc-jersey-impartial-balanced-honest.html


  3. john in cheshire says:

    Were the laws different in that far off time of the 60s and 70s? If so, that’s news to me. Improper behaviour is wrong no matter when it is carried out and if it is unlawful then it also should have been properly dealt with at the time. And just because a few years have passed doesn’t now make it either acceptable or trivial.
    This tolerance of older men abusing young girls – sounds very islamic to me – might explain why the bbc didn’t report on the persistent activities by those muslim men; seems that socialists are as indifferent to the plight of vulnerable young people (I wonder how many young boys have also been abused by people in the bbc) as the muslims in our midst? No wonder they’re best of mates.


  4. chrisH says:

    Good old ITV broke this story, the Times has pressed on with Rochdale, Rotherham etc these last few weeks, despite the BBC saying schtum…and Channel 4 lead with it tonight.
    I do hope that there`s a pincer movement or a circling round the rancid cadaver of independent news that used to be the BBC.
    Come on Sir Rupert!…a rush and a push and the land will be ours…a nation expects!


    • London Calling says:

      Where is Chairman Patten? Surely not still out to lunch with his phone on divert? What is the point of this invisible Chairman? It is his job to hold the Director General to account. Or perhaps not. In which case perhaps his office could be let out to a paying tenant, for the economies sake.


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Where is Chairman Patten?’
        Well, as I watch SKY, it would appear a sleeping lump in the form of the Chairman of the Trust has awakened from his slumber and (eventually) been filled with a terrible sense of… too little, too late.
        Here, for the sake of balance, is the BBC’s coverage of this latest twist (in this case, of the knife from within):
        ‘Lord Patten said it was not an excuse to say that the alleged events happened as far back as the 1960s.’
        Given that excuses of this form seem all that have been issued thus far, and only after flat denials are shown to be BS (CECUTT veterans will empathise), a welcome grip on reality of weeks of arrogant delusion.
        I know some here feel that quoting things they or their heroes come out with is somehow bad form or the sole preserve of the BBC edit suite (usually out of context for max effect) but in the world of gleefully spun coalition splits, it is hard to reconcile what the Trust Chairman has to say above with the recent and ongoing attempts at distraction and dissembling by the BBC and such as Mr. Easton.
        Another ‘unique’ that spares the BBC what it subjects others to (in the case of historical unreported abuse, often with good cause), or at long last a sense that they too are power that can, and needs to be held to proper account?
        At the very least, their responses seem to be very hard to kep track of on consistency, which should make any inquiry results interesting when measured against the scrutiny of an internet that now seems to have access to and page grab of every twist and u-turn.


  5. Teddy Bear says:

    A few other facets inside the obvious ones exposed by this story.

    Both Entwistle and Patten saw no reason initially to have to hold an internal enquiry. Clearly, in typical BBC style, they were hoping that any flak due them would simply ‘go away’. This mindset is part of the dynamics that make behaviour like Savile displayed, and those that ex-BBC journos sometimes expose, all too commonplace.

    But pressure has now been exerted on them, and they want to be seen as ‘doing the right thing’. Except it’s an internal inquiry. Probably they will elect ‘an independent’ person to head this inquiry, that a quick Google will show just how ‘hand-in-hand’ they are with the BBC, and only too ready to give them a clean bill of health with minor suggestions for the future. Basically allowing everything that already exists at the BBC to continue the way it has.’

    There are also those like the ‘fearless’ feminist Toksvig who suddenly decides to come out of the woodwork with claims she was also assaulted. So why has she waited till now to make it public? If she lived the way she pretends she should have made a scene about it a long time ago – regardless of consequences. Then I’d certainly have more respect for her than the contempt (or cuntempt in her case) I do feel for her.

    This story highlights the BBC mindset perfectly- and shows perfectly why they need to be shut down. Regardless of whether the government have enough guts to do it, it should be possible now to legally not pay these insidious self-serving lefties to continue.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      ” There are also those like the ‘fearless’ feminist Toksvig who suddenly decides to come out of the woodwork with claims she was also assaulted. ”

      Dear Teddy, please please don’t get into the game of shooting the messenger, even if you DO like the message.
      Put-downs such as you are writing, will encourage no-one to come forward. WE want the facts, we need to hear the accusations, it’s vital.
      I too have fallen into the trap of proclaiming: But where were the feminists then, and where are you now. We must not blame the victims here.
      just saying, and yes i got it wrong too!


      • Teddy Bear says:

        The ‘put-down’ is for her not coming forward before now and exposing what was going on there. How many others have suffered similar abuse because of the culture that women like her and Kershaw helped foster by inaction. In Toksvig’s case it’s even more pronounced because she puts herself forward as a tough feminist liberal, and like most of them, they’re really only tough when it doesn’t affect them personally.

        They should have come forward a long time ago.


        • firenze05 says:

          I’m with you on this Ted bear because I’ve listened to Toksvig fronting one ‘comedy’ show after the next and she has mercilessly attacked Pope Benedict because of criminal clergy from 60 years ago – and all the time she was colluding in abuse by her silence. You couldn’t make it up, but they do. My worry is that the bbc is now feasting on Savile’s criminal behaviour outside of their own premises – before they’ve finished – he’ll never have worked there, they’d never heard of him and the bbc will once more become the most trusted institution for news and current affairs in the world. Obviously I’m quoting their own propaganda there.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Except it’s an internal inquiry.’
      One has to wonder how much longer the public will ‘trust’ such a thing, as any from establishment bodies seldom suggest much confidence in rigour or honesty.
      Those by the BBC of course, are noted already for being ‘elevated’ to a unique new level.
      I wonder of shredders are now whirring, magnets being waved over hard drives and back-up mobile sims being flushed down the loos in the executive washrooms of the most-trusted British national broadcaster, as they gleefully were claiming of others not so long ago on abuses that happened in the past and were covered up?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      I see too, just as I predicted above, the BBC are to bring in an ‘outsider’ to head their internal investigation. They haven’t named who it is to be yet, but I’m sure when they eventually do, a simple Google check will confirm their past allegiance to the BBC in some way.

      In case the public doesn’t understand the ‘import’ of this move, at least the way the BBC want it to be seen, they have an ‘analysis’ on this decision by them inside the article.

      Torin Douglas
      In announcing that an outsider will head the inquiry and that it will happen as soon as the police “give the green light” – and in his view the sooner the better – Lord Patten has gone further than the BBC director general did when he announced the inquiry on Monday.

      The BBC Trust chairman said the corporation had a lot of questions to answer and whoever carried out the report would have to command the trust of the whole nation.

      He said the report would be published in full, though its scope and terms are yet to be decided.

      Lord Patten has also written to the BBC’s director general asking him to check that the corporation’s current policies on child protection, sexual harassment, bullying and whistleblowing are fit for purpose – to make sure what he called the “cesspit” of allegations could not happen again.

      ‘Command the trust of the whole nation’?
      In their dreams!

      “The report will be published in full – though it’s scope and terms are yet to be decided”. Just to make sure the BBC are firmly holding the reins on what can be decided upon.


      • Guest Who says:

        Hmn… the BBC claims national trusts because they still appear comfortable in the belief that the nation trusts them.
        Maybe time for a Graun/LSE ‘poll’ to confirm this?
        And the results release has yet to be decided upon?
        So now we get nice claims about doing something that have an odd history of passing into FoI exclusion zones later on when the BBC assesses enough time has elapsed.
        ‘past allegiance to the BBC ‘
        Given the corporation’s power and influence as a media monopoly without peer in the industry, one wonders how easy it would be for a wee off the books mutter that the ‘wrong’ finding would mean that they would never work in TV again.
        It’s not like that hasn’t happened before.


  6. Amounderness Lad says:

    Radio 5 this afternoon were busy putting the shutters up with a parade of nodding donkeys proclaiming that the whole thing is a witch hunt stirred up by the media and is being blown up out of all proportion. They gave a few very slight nods towards the allegations made against Savile, which they can now hardly deny, but set about trying to rubbish the people who have made other allegations of a similar nature about the behaviour and attitudes prevalent in the BBC at that time. It was obvious that they intention was to put a warning shot across the bows of those who are speaking up that the might of the BBC propaganda machine will be used against them with the implication that they should either “name names” or shut up and go away.

    For those who do not have a picture about the attitudes and behaviour widespread in the organisation during the 1970s and 80s, more than a few of the presenters of childrens programmes have openly stated that, whilst appearing in those programmes, they were high as kites on illegal drugs and that such activities were, to say the least, not uncommon. In fact, from the comments they make, they wre quite proud of their behaviour.

    Naturally, the BBC would prefer it if the whole issue surrounding Savile, and, by the sound of things others as well, were quietly forgotten and swept under the carpet. Nothing must ever be allowed to tarnish the reputation of the BBC, however despicable it’s behaviour and anybody who tries must be bullied into silence.


  7. royof the rovers says:

    why wont the MP’s pass a emergency bill on the funding of the BBC and that all payments should be stopped untill the police have finished with their investigations.
    lets badger our mp’s with emails and ask R Murdock to fire the bullets.this is the best time to put the boot in and i hope subscription follows.


    • DJ says:

      For starters, I’d settle for Entwhistle and the rest of the trash getting the G4S treatment before a Select Committee.

      BBC defenders deny it’s too powerful to be held accountable – but MPs apparently think a public body all but pimping out young girls is none of their business.


  8. PhilO'TheWisp says:

    Stop press! The Beeb has found a groper on one of shows. Was it Savile, their darling? No it was one of Mrs Thatcher’s ministers. I just caught R4’s The World Tonight at 22.30 with a claim from a once regular female Question Time guest who was a journalist with the Express that whilst on air on QT she felt his hand up her skirt. Is it a bit odd they found her so quickly after failing to find ANY evidence of Savile in all the years he was working for the BBC? And their recently departed DG knew nothing? Judicial enquiry before the shredders get to work!


    • Marcus says:

      Yes and when she told Robin Cook in the taxi after the show he laughed.

      No it wasn’t Claire Short, oooooop’s get me a tissue


  9. +james says:



  10. Guest Who says:

    Another who it appears didn’t get the memo (I know, he’s ‘left’, too).
    Rather interesting as BBC dinosaurs front up and face off with arrogant luvvies vs. the empowered ladies. Kind of a no-lose.


  11. As I See It says:

    “..downplaying the Jimmy Savile affair…”

    Precisely. If any fairminded person has been watching or listening to BBC coverage of this fast developing story then they will not fail to have noted the obvious downplaying of the issues around openess and accountability at the BBC.

    Lets not be fooled. People we might term friends of the BBC such as Sandi Toksvig, Janet Street Porter, Liz Kershaw and now Mark Easton have each put their twopennyworth.

    But look carefully at what they have been saying. They have been proposing a leftwing thesis. They have pushed the feminist agenda and that hoary old argument for the ever forward ratchet of leftism – gosh look how terrible things were back then, thank Budda we don’t accept such horrors of conservatism now? – it’s 2012 for goodness sake!

    Openess and acceptance of mistakes within the instution of our national broadcaster – they ain’t interested.

    They tell it was just as bad at the time – if not worse, in the rest of society. Forget the BBC’s role in this, focus on society at large.

    Now I find this attitude ironic just now at the very point in time when the BBC are so busy celebrating that druggie Beatles movie. You know the one that was made at the opening of the door to the wonderful Magical Mystery Tour of pop culture and (largely) sexual permissiveness. A trip on which the BBC have nudged us further and further over the years. And it is no small coincidence that it turns out that it was at BBC Radio One around which so much of the bad behaviour was centred. Not fusty old Radio 4.

    I believe the Beeb are instinctively embarrassed to see the spotlight turned onto the darkside of permissiveness.

    I may come over like Mary Whitehouse here so lets refer instead to progressiveness. Now look how politically dangerous for the left this story appears.

    Of course the people which I termed friends of the BBC and generally of the left certainly don’t want to stop the roller coaster of permissiveness (sorry progessiveness) in society. Oh no, they have more conservative targets in their sights.


  12. Doublethinker says:

    The BBC are just trying to get out of the responsibility for these crimes being perpetrated on their premisise by their employees and other employees turning a blind eye. There must be a full independent inquiry and the guilty held to account. Just imagine how the witch hunt the BBC would unleash if it was a private company or other public organisation involved, no matter how long ago these events happened.
    As for Easton he is just sucking up to his boss and towing the party line as usual.He writes the most awful drivel.


  13. Ken Hall says:

    To paraphrase the latest BBC line… “it was a long time ago, a different time, with different values to the sexual politics of today”

    Funny how they never allowed such excuses by the Catholic Priests who abused children in the 6os and 70s and who the BBC still (rightly) hound today!

    Yet when it is one of their own? “It was a different time, nobody thought anything of child abuse back then, it was a laugh!”

    The BBC are a vile, child abusing, anti-British bunch of perverted communists!


    • Jim Dandy says:

      The BBC have ignored Saville’s devout Catholicism too. Given the level of child abuse in the Christian church there is an interesting avenue of enquiry there. But the bbc buries it. The Catholic Herald of course criticised the media for suppressing Saville’s Catholicism when he died. It seems less bothered now.


  14. chrisH says:

    A joy to see them all twisting in the wind at the BBC.
    This is a war to the finish as far as I can see…Gramsci would expect nothing less.
    Pleasing to see Mike Smith-a Beeboid favourite of old-popping up from his media consultancy next door to the helipad; in order to tell us what`s a crime and what`s not.
    Listen sunshine…you and your Beeb pals say that it`s a crime if we feel it to be so-the BBC is institutionally pederast and tax fiddling…I perceive it to be so, so it`s now a hate crime thought crime…any crime I like ,Smiffy OK?
    The BBC were sneering at Vatican justice last week-the very notion eh?…how can a tiny elitist enclave be prosecution, judge and jury within an appointed state within a state? Where Roman Law or EU directives about such things aren`t paramount? Disgraceful!
    Now we can see why the venom…the BBC is our parody of a Vatican…presumably the Guardian hacks and taodies like Coogan are its rather camp Swiss Guard in that case.
    I want the BBC turned from the Vatican within…traitors in our midst, and we can no longer trust our kids or our taxes with them.


  15. Demon says:

    There must be an external enquiry set up with the guilt decided beforehand, like Levenson and the Hillsborough one. And like those, the only evidence allowed must be that which supports the guilty accusations. Truth and fairness are not required like in the other two enquiries I mentioned.


  16. Old Goat says:

    I hear that he ceased to be a knight upon his demise – knighthoods last only as long as the bearer of the title, apparently.

    I trust all references to “Sir” on headstones, plaques, etc., will be expunged.


  17. uncle bup says:

    Nice to see Georgie Time-Server apologising for nowthennowthen, though he forgot to apologise for the potato famine*, slavery, Alan Turing, and the treatment of the aborigines.

    Getting him to apologise for something that *he* is actually to blame for will I imagine be a bit tougher.

    And as for the ‘these were different times’ argument.

    Horse dollop. I was alive in the 70s and 80s and I don’t recall rape of underage girls being ‘just one of those things’

    Although I am alive in the 2010s and the Pakistani muslim rape of underage girls does seem to be ‘just one of those things’ for the BBC.

    So maybe times *were* different then.

    * hullo-o – crop rotation


  18. Stan Arnold says:

    Disgraceful apologies from the DG to the women who complained about Jimmy Saville’s alleged sexual exploits. The investigation has not started, yet the DG is happy to indicate that he thinks JS is guilty. I left the UK three years’ ago – best move I’ve ever made. The whole place stinks.


  19. +james says:

    As predicted, on Radio 4 this morning the Beeb are trying to spin their way out of Savilegate. They are trying to equate the raping of children by Savile at Television Centre with the groping of Sandi Toksvig.

    So we have an hour about sexual harassment in the workplace. Hmm why now?

    Since George Entwistle has declared that it is a police matter, the Beeb no longer have to cover this story, because of legal reasons. Nice way to cover things up.

    And if further proof is needed that the Beeb are dragging their feet. Channel 4 News found the episode of Clunk Click which featured Freddie Starr. But the Beeb owns the tapes of Clunk Click so why didn’t they find them.

    And we now now that the BBC rejected the claims of Karin Ward. Even though the Beeb had in their archive footage that would have corroborated her claims that she was on Clunk Click.

    Ah but the Beeb can now claim it is a police matter.



    • DJ says:

      Sexual harassment in the workplace? On the plus side, at least they’ve finally something Universal Prezza really is qualified to speak about.

      Meanwhile, I guess that whole ‘police investgation’ thing is why we’ve had so little news from Mid-Wales recently, right?

      Must be a different law out there.


  20. Guest Who says:

    Anyone got a YouTube? Looks worth a view or two…
    PollTax ‏@bignose_BBC
    The @BBC’s new director general George Entwistle declines to answer channel 4 news’s questions about Savile #moresecretivethaneFIFA
    Seems the holding powerful to account deal is still alive, well, and selective even amongst ‘friends’.


  21. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s a fair cop, but society’s to blame. It was a different time then. But you try telling the young people of today that, they won’t believe you. Nope.


  22. Guest Who says:

    In the interests of balance, while papers such as the Daily Mirror have been gunning hell for leather and headlining the BBC’s less than stellar activities and responses thus far, here is a plea for understanding and moving on from… The Daily Telegraph…
    Oddly, the notion is bot being too well received there, either.


    • Guest Who says:

      Not going too well there on the comment front either, and guess what… closed at 50.
      Must be nice to control the edit suite and broadcast system.


  23. Guest Who says:

    Another of those ‘active’ threads that it seems needed to be brought to a close PDQ…
    I wonder if the comments were anything to do with it?
    Here’s the top three most liked:
    25. catherine-c
    8TH OCTOBER 2012 – 15:32
    Before we all pat ourselves on the back about how much more enlightened we are now maybe we should consider the recent case in Rochdale. Girls as young as 12 and 13 reported rape and sexual assault to social services. The result? Social workers (of all people) branding them as prostitutes making a “lifestyle choice”. Denial still runs very deep.
    Comment number 21. ThinkingReed
    8TH OCTOBER 2012 – 15:21
    “The Jimmy Savile story takes the sexual politics of the present day and applies them to another age. ”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jimmy Saville has been accused of rape. In what age has rape been acceptable?

    Comment number 20. venerablebede
    8TH OCTOBER 2012 – 15:21
    The BBC seem to be in denial about this. This article is trying to confuse two separate issues. Firstly sexual harassment in the workplace, secondly the sexual abuse of minors. And in the 70s the sexual abuse of minors was never considered OK. Stop trying to fudge the issue.

    The BBC doesn’t get it, this abuse was subsidised by Licence Fee payers money. And the BBC did nothing to stop it.

    And here’s the one that was deemed a fitting conclusion:
    594. Portugeezer
    It is saddening, yet utterly predictable, that a number of people commenting here are more concerned with attacking the BBC, presumably irritated at having to pay a licence fee, than in having any genuine concern for the victims. This vile cynicism has no place in any genuine debate regarding this appalling matter. My thoughts are with the victims in the hope that they find some belated justice.

    Yes, we can see exactly where your thoughts really are, matey.
    As to what guided the termination… well… who can say?
    Meanwhile, the rest of the MSM, even fellow travellers, seem to be still interested…


  24. chrisHc says:

    Got to hand it to the BBC eh?
    Last nights 10 O Clock News was as subtle as we`ve come to expect from them.
    The Savile Enquiry(pt2) led the news, no doubt the Beeb kicking and screaming as they were dragged unwillingly into”the police van of public opinion”.
    But if the BBC are going-they`ll be taking anyone and everyone else with them…a very Savile thing to say, don`t you think?
    So it was that the filmed archive bits of Savile “gladhanding” (oo er missus) celebs did NOT feature the likes of Blair, Charles/Di, Ali and all those types Jim would have fixed himself to, in front of BBC cameras…and CERTAINLY not Birt,Thompson, Grade…got that?
    No-so guess who the BBC chose to show Jim meeting…go on guess!
    Yes folks…it was Margaret Thatcher…it was John Paul 2…and no doubt now they`re looking for Ronald Reagan or George Bush to get the set!
    God they`re not only dumb and heavy handedly biased-but they are truly evil.
    How many times was Savile filmed with Birt say, and how many meeting JP2?…but guess which one the BBC will show us.
    Goof old photoshop may yet place Jimmy with Rupert at this rate, and a belated return to impressions over the clips where Coogan/Culshaw tell us what Jimmy would no doubt have been saying to him..”.we need a Leveson Rupert, `owzabout that then?”…and “why doesn`t the Guardian deserve a licence fee as well?”…(yodel to fade)

    I f***`in HATE the BBC with its dumbass 60s pop media slants and techniques…as if none of us had ever read how the media slyly slant the news..


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘guess who the BBC chose to show Jim meeting’
      Hard not to suspect the word has not gone out across lefty luvviedom.
      SKY’s paper reviewers could hardly ignore the story on the front pages – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-allegations-Unmask-OTHER-BBC-child-abusers-Police-reveal-shocking-scale-Savile-abuse-launch-hunt-accomplices.htmlhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-claims-1370398 (nice tribal ‘ism bookends there) – but cheeky chappie Sam Delaney ‘asked questions’ about how all this could happen when he was a regular Christmas guest at Chequers. Not an ex-Heat editor issue usually one supposes?
      As with many other ‘scandals’ of this nature it is interesting how the forces of law are mostly villains, but sometimes given a pass when it comes to a juicy bit of pol bashing, as with security details and daughters, or who is on guest lists for a bit of Ministerial festive glad-handing.
      A bit like gameshow Nicky’s priority sets shared elsewhere today, it is just possible those in charge of running the country have bigger issues in mind than worrying about the potential dubious predilictions of those sent their way by the most trusted national broadcast monopoly for a photo op.
      The first port of call that was, is and should never be forgotten should be… his employer. The one that gave him every opportunity, probable locations, possibly facilitated it all and may even have covered up at the time and ever since. That one. The questions asker and holder to accounter of the nation… who now, suddenly after denial, dismissal and bunker retreat, is more than happy to go along with the notion that really ‘we’ are all to blame somehow.
      When ‘they’ have been, are and always will be happy to nail anything muddy to any they don’t happen to like, via the most dubious source or least substantiated gossip… if they see value in a bit of mud throwing too.
      This is an outfit content to go along with publicising a ‘row’ via some political friends running a daft bit of stirring PR based on some political foes (when the BBC is meant to be impartial) booking a meeting hall where a guy might once have danced with a girl who might have danced with the Prince of Wales, who was sympathetic to the Nazis and they had it listed as a possible bingo venue for the SS once the invasion was over.
      So Aunty… and all your tame poodles, wo/man up, and start trying to face the consequences of what happened … and also what didn’t.
      The ‘we all share the blame’ schtick isn’t going to fly, and neither is the ‘it was all a tabloid failure really’ one either. Not after the sanctimony, breast beating and demands for censorship that was trotted out daily, if selectively, over Leveson.
      You tucked the corners into this soiled bed; now you deal with the laundry that stayed unaired for so long to fester in that expanding Beware the Leopard wardrobe you have cultivated, and is tainting even the most innocent of fellow employees who are trapped or have decided through ongoing fear to stay within your FoI-obsessed, circled wagons.
      While I, and the rest of the nation, still have to pay for it all.


  25. Smell the glove says:

    The B.B.C. Institutional kiddie fiddling


  26. Beeboidal says:

    Mark Mardell told us that Romney’s good performance in the
    in the debate was all very well, but if it didn’t shift the polls he is in deep trouble. So it’s a kind of important moment in the election. Well, you can read how Romney has shifted the polls in two articles by Mardell which are headlined

    Sesame Street urges Obama campaign to drop Big Bird ad

    In-a-flap Obama turns to Big Bird”

    Clearly I was wrong. Big Bird’s spat with the Obama campaign is more important and deserves the headlines.


    • Guest Who says:

      For a supposed professional, impartial news entity, when the actual headline issues don’t appear to suit, they really can find a myriad ways to swerve anywhere else, can’t they?
      Ok, here’s a suggestion: if the BBC is only capable of reporting the half of the news it likes, and studiously ignores the bit it doesn’t ever fancy, how’s about at least dropping the licence poll tax to £71.25 to cover Top Gear, Walking with Dinosaurs and Dad’s Army repeat fees?


    • Beeboidal says:

      Oops, wrong thread. Reposted in open thread.


  27. Stan Arnold says:

    The BBC can’t be all bad. They made no attempt to challenge the following outrageous statements made by Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in relation to the ‘investigation’ into Jimmy Saville.

    I always thought that, in the UK, when ‘allegations’ were made, an investigation, or trial, had to take place before the accused could be said to be ‘guilty’. Surely someone at the BBC should have heard about this?

    According to the BBC website,  Commander Spindler said:

    ‘there could be up to 30 victims, spanning four decades’. THE WORD ‘VICTIMS’ IMPLIES SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    He praised the alleged victims for “shining a light” on the abuse’ THE WORD ‘VICTIMS’ IMPLIES SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    “You really shouldn’t underestimate the impact even after so many years of reliving these experiences” THE WORD ’EXPERIENCES’ IMPLIES SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    “It will be traumatic for some, if not all, of them.” THE WORD ‘TRAUMATIC” IMPLIES SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    He said Sir Jimmy’s pattern of offending behaviour appeared to be on “a national scale” THE WORDS ’OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR’ IMPLY SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    In an interview with the BBC after the briefing, he said it was quite clear Sir Jimmy was a “predatory sex offender” who “perpetrated four decades of abuse”. THIS STATEMENT MAKES THE INVESTIGATION UNECESSARY, AS IT STATES QUITE CLEARLY THAT HE THINKS SAVILLE IS GUILTY.

    Perhaps the Met should consider temporarily removing Commander Spindler from his post and conducting another investigation to see whether his comments constitute a perversion of the course of justice. The BBC are useless – this was right in front of their eyes – and not a peep.


    • Ken Hall says:

      The police investigate allegations of crime. Once they are convinced that the perpetrator is guilty, they request a prosecution in the courts from the CPS. The police are allowed to believe an alleged offender is guilty, otherwise they would not attempt to charge, let alone prosecute them.

      In this case, the weight of evidence is now becoming overwhelming and “offender” is dead, so they do not have to worry about a trial.


    • Guest Who says:

      Though I am gunning for the BBC totally on a questions asked, holding power to account basis (no less than they have done and would do), I totally agree with you.
      As far as I am aware, as it stands, there are only accusations.
      Yet the entire politicomedialegislativeenforcement estate seems to have made yet another vast leap… based on ‘unique’ circumstances.
      Saying ‘move on’ or ‘nothing to see here’ or ‘too long ago’ was not acceptable, but as per usual the pendulum has swung the other way completely.
      I make no apology for sharing all publicity, no matter how grotesque, because they are the ones who are doing it and will need, in turn, to account or atone.
      Maybe Mr. Savile was guilty. Maybe Mr. Bridger is. But until proven so, how what they were or are involved in should be described is on the basis of innocence until guilt is proven.
      Otherwise massive injustices can be perpetrated ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8238187/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-appeal-to-public-for-information-about-a-4×4-vehicle.html?image=4 ) , but also the actual guilty can often end up going free if it all gets muddied in the frenzy.
      Unless, as a BBC-esque punt in the mix… that is what is now being attempted by the establishment.


      • Guest Who says:

        That’ll teach me to forget to cite who I am agreeing with… totally, vs. a fair bit.


  28. AngusPangus says:

    Let’s not forget, amidst all of this “things were different back then” and “we’ve changed” shit that the BBC is pushing, that Newsnight was about to blow the whistle on Savile. Senior management were informed (including the now-DG Entwhistle) and then suddenly a(and completely unrelated, we are asked to believe), the programme was binned.

    There was and remains a culture of cover-up at the BBC.

    It is and feels itself to be unaccountable.

    It cannot be trusted to investigate itself.

    It is corrupt.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘It cannot be trusted to investigate itself.’
      Based on personal experience, while there can and may be the odd exception, no, not at all.


  29. jonsuk says:

    funny that the BBC hasn’t done a feature about the Savile affair on The One Show


  30. George R says:

    “Expect nothing but obfuscation from the BBC on Jimmy Savile”



    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Expect nothing but obfuscation from the BBC’
      Isn’t that what is written in metal letters over the entrance to the BBC internal complaints dismissal department at the Ministry of Propaganda?
      That, and ‘tell a lie often enough, 24/7, via every media method, using £4Bpa, and you get to be a trusted national treasure, if somewhat uniquely’.
      To you, just £142.50pa, via state compulsion.


  31. joshaw says:

    Danny Boyle missed a huge opportunity at the Olympics opening ceremony. He could have had a 60 foot inflatable puppet of the vacuous Jimmy Savile, winding his way around those NHS beds.

    Seems to me a hell of a lot of people knew what was going on, and not just in the BBC.


  32. Justin Casey says:



  33. Bored of the BBC says:

    Did anyone hear Patten and Michael White of the Guardian on R4’s Media Show yesterday? Jesus they were bad, basically blaming the police and Thatcher for Saville raping children on BBC premises.


  34. +james says:



  35. Justin Casey says:

    The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.

    The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.