Sort of interesting day if you like to listen to the BBC relentlessly eviscerating itself whilst at the same time they try to apply a field dressing to the gaping wound and carry on as if nothing happened.
There are though still plenty of attempts to play down the Savile affair and the subsequent Newsnight bungle.
Nicky Campbell suggested that no one knew a thing about Savile, not a clue…the general view at the BBC was that he had been a ‘benign eccentric’.
If you ever wondered why complaining to the BBC Governors or the BBC Trust rarely resulted in any meaningful action you only had to listen to Sir Christopher Bland and Sir Michael Lyons telling us what a load of old hooey over nothing very much all this is…..Lyons tells us it is all really just the Press kicking up sand and taking a swipe at the BBC.
Not that the BBC ever engaged in attacking Murdoch’s or any other news papers.
Richard Bacon dragged in the man with a distant relationshiop to the truth, Kevin Marsh, yet again, and also Ben Fenton from the lefty FT….who also suggested a similar line to Lyons…no story really just the Press trying to lessen the case for regulation under Leveson because if good old Aunty Beeb can make mistakes well so can anyone….so no need for tighter regulation says Fenton…its a tabloid agenda not a real story about the BBC and Savile.
He tells us, and Bacon jumps aboard, what happened was only a series of marginal mistakes…sins of ommission not commission…unlike the evil Murdoch papers who plotted their nefarious deeds deliberately.
However I would suggest if you knew something about Savile, and it seems many did KNOW, then to look away and do nothing is not ommission it is commission…you have decided to ignore abuse.
It does look, before Panorama goes to air, that George Entwistle was either remiss in not doing his job or he is lying about not knowing or asking about Newsnight’s investigation. When Helen Boaden told him he might have to change his programme schedule because of the Newsnight programme surely he would have to ask her to justify that….or is his trust in Helen Boaden so great that he just bows down before her…in the jealously guarded realms of televison?
Peter Rippon’s future doesn’t look too bright on the evidence so far….inaccurate and incomplete explanation of why he cancelled the Newsnight programme…..and the emails reveal senior management involvement in decision making….long denied by all.
Something else that Rippon said is of interest, and ironic all considered….he was keen to look at the CPS’ reasons for not going ahead with their prosecution…because it showed ‘ institutional failure’…which was a strong story…and more interesting.
That does shine a little light into the BBC thinking…always keen to undermine other Institutions in the interest of better telly.
All in all not a brilliant day for the management and panjandrums of the BBC….but credit where credit is due…except to Bacon and perhaps Campbell….many have worked hard on digging into the heart of this tale and have not shied away from the bad news.
Can only hope Panorama does a proper job and doesn’t come up with the jaded formula of ‘Yes we did wrong but it wasn’t all that bad really, the times and culture etc, it happened in alot of other places as well not just the BBC, and we have changed our ways since…unlike the grubby Redtops!’….which has been the constant refrain from the BBC in their own defence so far.
‘If you ever wondered why complaining to the BBC Governors or the BBC Trust rarely resulted in any meaningful action’
And for those who have been at the sharp end this comes as vindication of sorts… as I don’t think BBC CECUTT will ever be able to get away with its usual dismissals on the basis of years of trust, corporate ethos, directorial integrity, sense of comfort or feelings of belief that have characterised too many of their ‘we think we got it about right because we’re about right in our thinking’ self-sustaining system delusions and exclusions.
Actually there are a few who have come out of this quite well, and I am sorry to see them tainted by association with others, and certainly management ethos, that will be hard to shake.
Imagine you are an investigative reporter on trail of some abuse, or an interviewer seeking to squeeze the truth out of an oily pol, and when it comes to the bit where you are trying to hold them to account, and ask the questions they need to answer, and they get a little gleam in their eye before launching into something ‘incomplete and inaccurate’.
Because if the most trusted broadcaster there is can do it , what’s to stop them?
The problem with the BBC is it has become sanctimoniously political; as a public funded (through coercion) body it has utterly failed to represent the majority views of the populace at large. It has become unaccountable and selective in its news output; but, the seams are quickly unraveling since the coming to light of its employees avoiding tax payments – people are wising up to the deceptions. This latest scandal with all its inconsistent statements, inadequate internal inquiries and deflection attempts (on programs such as HIGNFY) go some way to highlight what a loose canon the BBC has become. It has grown too big for its boots and ostensibly feels it can talk its way out of a room with no doors… well, not this time!
If this were the Catholic Church, News International or Tory Whip embroiled in such repugnant matters the BBC would the first to lecture from the pulpit. It must be brought to heel.
Can anyone else see similarities between the heavily censored grooming epidemic and the SaVILE scandal? Hmm…
“similarities between the heavily censored grooming epidemic and the SaVILE scandal”?
Mark Thompson texts from New York: “Let me answer that. Savile was not a Pakistani, was not a Muslim, and was not a cab driver. So apart from what some might think of as similarity, having sex with under age girls, there clearly is …umm… no similarity” Message ends.
Do you think I got that about right, Helen?
What’s frustrated me about the reporting, phone-ins and interviews around this whole scandal is that the irony seems to have been totally lost on the BBC. I wanted to shout at everyone (Rantzen, Campbell, Bland et al) who passed comment on this…
“Say that again, but this time WEAR A MITRE – then see how it sounds!”
The best comment I have seen. Sums it all up.
Quite right
There is a certain irony to the comments on this plea to ‘forget’ being closed. Also luckily for the author.
Forget about Newsnight emails @Telegraph http://soc.li/YE8fQcN
Advocating ‘inaccurate or incomplete’ senior editorial under possible top management pressure may be something he feels needs be forgotten, but one might point out that if the press self-muzzles, all the abuses he professes to be worried about can be covered up in a heartbeat.
Oh dear-always dangerous to let a little fresh air , in on magic eh?
Didn`t know the BBC had so many queasy old hacks of theirs up in the attic, like so many latex puppets from Spitting Image….and all clearly chipped and pinned to say whatever the BBCs line is at that moment-albeit in a corkscrew torrent of ever changing sewer flows.
All hands to the sewer pumps-old boys and newbies….Savile was a one-off and all those Children In Need wristbands still need us to fund them.
Seedy Uncle Ernie and his pervy BBC.
CDBBC.
In response to the Steve Jones report on Climate Change at the BBC on Page 7 of Mensa SPACESIGNL 155.
A BBC Journalist said “we where expecting an escape hatch from the madhouse not a straight jacket”.
The BBC are now consulting psychiatrists about why they think a Climate scientist who does not agree with a psychiatrist on the role of carbon dioxide in atmospherics physics, is a loony.
Warmists mentally ill
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/believe-in-man-made-global-warming-you.html
I think through this whole affair the role of the Trust has got very muddled… they should have been asking questions. But of course they have become insiders and helping with the cover up.
I cannot remember for the life of me why, but I am sure I heard Rory Cellan Jones reporting on Saville and the BBC Trust – without declaring his interest – that his wife is Vice-Chair of the Trust.
I fear what the BBC will come up with, in its expose of itself, is the admission of some minor oversight: we could have done better…but that said….on balance….in the circumstances….with the benefit of hindsight….taking everything into account…looking at the bigger picture…after all of this time….WE GOT IT JUST ABOUT RIGHT and no-one can really be held to account.
I also fear that the BBC will use their froth-making distraction tactics to evade real scrutiny, so it’s worth taking a minute to reflect on ‘WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING’ should be fully investigated.
1 ABUSE:
-That the actions of Savile are fully investigated and dealt with.
-Other perpetrators, still alive, are identified and dealt with
-That the prevailing culture of the time, be examined to understand why this abuse was allowed to take place and action taken against others, still around in the BBC, who knew, failed to act or actually facilitated or encouraged the abuse.
2 NEWSNIGHT:
-Get to the bottom of the reasons that the Newsnight investigation was dropped, why and by who
3 THE BBC RESPONSE:
– Fully examine the BBC response and consider whether in it’s subsequent entertainment and news output, it used its resources to mislead the licence fee payer and evade examination, interest and criticism – including HIGNFY and the Panorama programme.
– Examine the timing, statements and responses of the the BBC Trust, The Director General, and Director of News Standards and Ethics to consider whether their support for the BBC and those involved was appropriate and truthful…and whether it may have been prejudicial to any investigation.
-To consider whether the BBC’s response compromises the integrity of the corporation and facilitates an opaque culture and practices where further wrong doing can be hidden from view.
-To consider whether the actions of the BBC have breached its Charter obligations and whether the BBC is a fit and proper organisation to hold a broadcasting licence.
I do believe that Savile’s wrongdoing will be properly investigated, and that Pollard will probably be able to get to the bottom of the very narrowest of the Newsnight decisions. I do not believe, though, that the BBC, in their terms of reference, have invited proper scrutiny of the more fundamental issues of integrity that their subsequent actions have thrown up…or that, given the potential consequences of this, Pollard is the right person to judge them.
The public has a right to know how the BBC behaves when it thinks no-one is looking. It must widen its terms of reference, to open up to scrutiny how it reacted to this wrongdoing. If it will not, someone will have to do it for them.
In the greater scheme of things it’s responses may prove more damaging to the BBC’s reputation and integrity than anything Savile has done.
It appears the BBC hierarchy have finally come to the realisation that they won’t be able to maintain their usual bullshit and come through this unscathed. They’ve seen that various pigeons are coming home to roost, and that the credibility that they rely upon, no matter there having been little foundation for it, is being justly seriously undermined.
A variety of stories today which I’m sure most here will be aware of reveal further developments that show the cover-up at the Beeb.
In reading the BBC article itself on the subject I was struck by a few things:
My first thought is how much pressure has been exerted on the BBC for them to finally correct their initial assertions about why Newsnight was dropped. The ‘corrections’ they refer to are a result of being found out they were plainly lying and trying to avoid the ramifications of what they know they did. Any wonder why those who can only write complaints to the BBC over one issue or other receive little joy, and a whole lot of frustration? But for internal revolt over what many BBC employees knew to be a travesty, they would have continued with their lies and deception.
There was talk last week that the Panorama programme dealing with this issue was not going to be aired before Entwistle appeared tomorrow before MPs. Seems as if pressure has made them aware this was not viewed very favourably, and they will now go ahead on schedule for this evening. It still shows the lengths they go to to affect public opinion on a daily basis when they know they can get away with it.
They mention that world affairs editor John Simpson has called it ‘the biggest crisis for them in 50 years’, yet ignore John Humphrey’s recent statement about this affair being a witchhunt, and that most of the abuse was not that serious. I notice too that when Humphrey made this statement it was in an interview with Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Reading this piece today by Melanie Phillips about how Harman was once employed by a group promoting lowering the age of sexual consent, it looks like Humphrey thought he would get an easy ride with her. This too backfired on him, which I guess is why they had Simpson issue his statement.
Then the BBC article tells us The BBC’s governing body, the BBC Trust, has issued a statement saying it was deeply concerned about “inaccuracies in the BBC’s own description of what happened in relation to the Newsnight investigation”.
However, if you remember at the beginning of this affair, the head of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, along with Entwistle, gave a clean bill of health to why the Newsnight programme was pulled. If he didn’t know the facts, or wasn’t sure that this was valid, why was he so quick to make this statement.
I think this shows how much value Patten has in his post.
How ironic that the issue that is showing the true colours of the BBC has the word Vile in it.
I despise the BBC, but (as I`ve said elsewhere) I don`t think that they deliberately sanctioned anything that Savile did.
They did collude in that culture of “appeasing the whims of their talent”…as if Savile actually had one ;apart from raising money with menaces.
But they long ago decided that they can investigate the police for impropriety-and if they don`t get their conclusion that they are entitled to think no story exists. That they themselves might be equally culpable, would not have occurred to them. That a Dowler or whoever will never have died in vain if there`s an excuse to kick Murdoch. make themselves look good and shafting the Catholic Church or whoever in the process.
They never learn their own first rule-that the cover-up
puts you in the dock quicker than the deed-and the BBC covered up…they wanted to laze through the Christmas schedule, and only thought Saviles story to only be worth an awards ceremony detail…not when Surrey police need the BBCs heat!
And – one of the few sin left,now the BBC are the new Church is “hypocrisy”-you hound NewsCorps and the Catholics, Israel or EU sceptics, the anti-green scientists and the USA..and you build a fair collection of enemies; who will dance on your grave one day…if the headstone doesn`t turn to landfill first!
The BBC all this-and more-and I`m enjoying it all hugely. Let`s hope those who suffered under Saviles reign at the BBC get all those fat cat salaries and pension pots that the BBC reckon they are worth.
Jim has fixed them-thank you !
Next, let’s hope someone uncovers BBC collusion and cover-ups on man-made ‘climate change’!
Oh, hang on, hasn’t Christopher Booker written something…..
The BBC deserve all this and more(4th line from the end!)
The BBC faces allegations that there is considerable evidence in the hands of the police which appears to show that the BBC were systematically and institutionally enabling, and covering up, decades of sexual abuse of hundreds of children, by several members of its staff and on its premises.
That is somewhat different from “nothing to see hear” or the even more patently ridiculous claim thrown about today by lefties that this is all a grand “right wing conspiracy” to attack the BBC for Murdoch.
Like as if the tories had been paying the BBC to abuse kids for decades, just ao they could use it against the BBC…
You can tell how institutionally left wing the BBC is, by who is defending their pedophilia perversions. The followers of the perverted kiddy-fiddling politics of the left.
Leftys will push other leftys under the bus in a heartbeat.
Always fun to watch leftys turn on each other.
Teddy Bear very important point that makes Fat Pang’s position untenable – inadvertent obfuscation at best; therefore incompetent; deliberate dishonesty at worst therefore instant dismissal. Not holding breath though…
What rankles especially is that the BBC runs the ‘deeply concerned’ element of the BBC Trust viewpoint, but fails to address why Patten made the earlier statements he made. Like they’re hoping we’re all idiots and we just won’t notice.
If the BBC read the articles coming out in the media about their handling so far of this scandal, they’d realize they’d better start coming clean.
Nothing wrong with the BBC for a self-loathing champange socialist like me.
The Savile affair isn’t a left/right issue but I have to admit I’m enjoying their discomfort. It’s the ‘Al Capone syndrome’ – they couldn’t get him for his gangster activities – so they jailed him for tax evasion – and most were happy with that.
Similarly, if we can’t nail the BBC for its bias then watching it squirm over the Savile cover-up will have to do for now.
In the long-term, the beneficial effects will be that more people will have their eyes opened and realise that “Dear old Auntie” is perhaps not as trustworthy as she likes to claim.
Labour’s paedos
http://labour25.com/
Thats disgusting, thats why I send my children to the best schools money can buy.
States schools are for the lower orders not for socialist royaly like me.
I was recommended this blog through my cousin. I’m not positive whether or not this put up is written through him as no one else understand such precise approximately my trouble. You’re incredible! Thank you!