Jimmy Savile: BBC did nothing when director caught him in the act
David Nicolson, 67, said he reported the incident to his bosses at the corporation in 1988 but was rebuffed and simply told: “That’s Jimmy”. He told The Sun newspaper: “I was revolted by his behaviour. They just shrugged it off, saying, ‘Yeah, yeah — that’s the way it goes’.” “Everyone knew what was going on. That includes senior BBC people — chiefs at the highest levels. “There were always girls in Jimmy’s dressing room. Everyone would have known about it — all the hair and make-up people, the wardrobe, show directors, producers.” Mr Nicolson described stumbling upon Savile and the young girl in a state of undress and being told to leave by a furious Savile.
This type of behaviour by Savile was well known at the corporation at the time, Mr Nicolson said.
“Savile always used to bring scruffy girls into the studios – all teenagers. But no questions were ever asked. “In rehearsals for Jim’ll Fix It they would be hanging around – and during breaks they would go with Jimmy back to his dressing room. Everyone knew what he was doing. It was talk of the town and talk of the BBC that Jimmy loved young girls.”
You have to look at what is going on at the BBC and the wriggling of those involved and think that here is an organisation that prides itself on challenging other Institutions and organisations about their behaviour but seems all too ready to hide its own misdeeds and have senior management deny all culpability….we didn’t know about anything…nothing to do with us…..everyone else did the same so why blame us…..as if they would let any other organisation get away with that?
My initial thoughts were that Entwistle would remain in post as DG….but the more you look the more you realise his decision making has in every case been very poor….he has made the wrong decision each time he was called upon to act……does he have what it takes to be the head of the world’s most famous and possibly powerful broadcaster?
First some good news for all those who keep a watchful eye on BBC blogs and Tweets that stray into the all too personal views of the BBC employee publishing them….George Entwistle insists that….Blogs need to have the same standard of journalism as all other BBC reporting….in other words they need to be ‘journalism’ not a personal view of the world paid for by BBC license payers.
George Entwistle appeared before a committee of MPs today to explain events at the BBC regarding Savile.
It wasn’t a good day for Entwistle. When people have time to examine closely what he said I would put good money on it that he is pretty well torn apart.
He was evasive, contradictory and defensive….and his answers revealed several serious lapses of judgement on his part during the whole affair.
One comment he made doesn’t bode well for the BBC…that Savile alone wasn’t the problem…there were ‘broader cultural problems at the BBC’….what did that mean? Does it mean everyone knew but looked away…or that many others were also doing the same and so didn’t see the problem?
No doubt the BBC inquiry will reveal all.
As stated Entwistle has revealed that he made some major errors of judgment when he was Head of Vision right up to now as Director General……
His first major failure of judgement was not to have asked what the Newsnight programme was investigating…considering that the subject matter was so serious that he might have to cancel his tribute shows to Savile.
The second failure of judgement is to not think that even if such an investigation is kicked into the long grass for lack of evidence such evidence, especially in cases like this, might readily appear and have even more damaging repercussions for the BBC…hence he should have still asked what the programme was about even if he had believed it might be cancelled.
His third failure of judgement is that he continued to put out a message about the reasons for the cancellation of the programme based upon Peter Rippon’s ‘inaccurate and incomplete’ blog….even after he was warned by a Newsnight journalist that the blog was seriously wrong.
Perhaps a fourth one might be his assertion that, yes, the BBC failed but you know what, so did all the other news organisations, the Press and Media….so it’s sort of OK really…the BBC’s not so bad after all…..it’s merely just like all the rest.
One good call he did make was that he has decided that the Newsnight programme was based upon solid journalism and should have gone ahead.
That puts Peter Rippon in an awkward position (and looks possibly even more awkward….‘Peter Rippon, the editor of Newsnight, is said to have played down the importance of an investigation into Jimmy Savile’s alleged child abuse, saying the victims were “teenagers, not too young”, according to a leaked email written by one of his staff.’) as he maintains that it was for sound editorial reasons that he canned the programme. From his blog, which is still up, he explains that he felt Newsnight should not be dealing with the Savile allegations…that it should be challenging major institutions about their behaviour…..several failures there on Rippon’s part. The allegations and ramifications of ‘Savile’ were extremely serious but he seems to dismiss them…and is not the BBC just such an ‘Institution’ that he was so keen to ‘challenge’? It looks as if he was keen to sweep it under the carpet and go for the CPS or the police failure to prosecute Savile rather than the BBC……
‘If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.
Some of the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public interest served by reporting it given he is dead?’
He claims there that such a story was ‘below’ Newsnight as a serious news programme……However in an earlier blog post he states this…..
‘In 2010 the awful term “sofalising” was coined. It is communicating with friends online while lounging on the sofa rather than going out.
Now we are seeing another interesting online phenomenon – people sitting at home watching a programme on TV while at the same time discussing what they are watching on another screen with friends, or indeed strangers, on social media sites.
This is really interesting territory for Newsnight.’
Guess he had a change of heart and suddenly came over all professional when it came to disinterring skeletons in the BBC’s cupboards.
Ironically the post goes on….‘This week’s film about Alan Bennett’s support to save local libraries from government cuts was just the latest example. Bennett reiterated his previously expressed belief that closing libraries constitutes child abuse.’
So closing libraries is a good story as it is akin to child abuse…but real child abuse is not worth investigating….not something Newsnight does?
Rippon claims there was no managerial interference in his decision…and yet he admits in the blog that he had discussions with management…but declares they insisted he kept his independence.
However an email from one of the Newsnight journalists, Liz MacKean, to a friend indicates otherwise….
‘PR (Peter Rippon) says if the bosses aren’t happy…(he) can’t go to the wall on this one.’
Doesn’t that make it seem as if it was someone above his paygrade making the final decisions?
Entwistle tells us that an editor could decide whether to air a report on his own judgement….but if it was of a highly sensitive nature he could refer it to his line manager….so was Savile sensitive or not?….wasn’t the programme, about a BBC icon abusing children on BBC premises, sensitive?….wouldn’t such a programme put a bombshell under the BBC that would rock it to its foundations? And yet Entwistle claims, and Rippon claims, it was left to his decision completely.
You would have to ask just how high is the thresh hold for describing something as ‘sensitive’ at the BBC if that was the case…what are the guidelines for referring a programme to a line manager?
Mark Thompson reveals that….‘There is a list which is compiled by the BBC’s Editorial Policy department of potentially sensitive programmes, but this list is not intended to be exhaustive and, in particular, often does not include investigative segments being prepared by general news and current affairs programmes like Today and Newsnight. As Director General, I saw this list regularly. I do not believe that the Savile investigation was included in it. Certainly I do not recall seeing it there.’
Accusations of prolonged child abuse at the BBC by one of its iconic stars not sensitive?
It seems however that just about everyone else knew about the programme and its contents judging by this email from the BBC publicity department to Newsnight about the report becoming a major news story….
‘A huge amount of interest. All domestic (BBC) outlets would want to run it.’
So Jim from PR knew but not only did George Entwistle, Head of Television not know, and not want to know, neither did the DG, Mark Thompson, who was surprised by another BBC journalist asking if he was ‘worried about the Newsnight programme’.
Thompson claims he had never heard of any rumours about Savile and had nothing to do with the Newsnight programme…the same defence as Entwistle…..a distinct case of sloping shoulders there.
Entwistle says he had a very short chat with Helen Boaden on Dec 2nd, the exact words of which he can’t remember but it was along the lines of ‘Newsnight is looking to run a programme on Jimmy Savile…and you may have to reconsider running the tributes to him at Christmas and change the schedules.’
Entwistle says he didn’t ask (and we assume Boaden didn’t actually say any more!) what the investigation was about because he didn’t want to look like he was interfering in the News department’s area.
Contradicting this ‘Firewall’ approach he states that he would have asked about the programme once it had been ‘commissioned’ and a date set for broadcasting saying…..
‘The key message I took away was that I was not sure it would all stand up…and I would only engage with the consequences of a broadcast once I had received an update about the progress on the programme’…..
But how would he know if it would stand up if he didn’t have any knowledge about the investigation? Wouldn’t it seem necessary to ask?
His ‘wait and see’ approach was very short sighted as the likelihood, especially with a subject like that, is that something else will come out of the woodwork fairly soon….and embarrass the BBC….later at the MP’s Committee he admits he was surprised that there was no follow up to the Newsnight programme….indicating he expected more information to come out and the investigation to then go back into production….in which case Entwistle needed to ask questions in order to prepare the BBC’s response.
The programme was due to be broadcast on the 7th of December but was pulled on the 5th…..just when was Entwistle going to be informed of this ‘bombshell’ that was going to be set off underneath the BBC? As said earlier the PR department knew…wouldn’t it have been sensible to inform both the Head of Television and the BBC’s Director General of something of such ‘sensitivity’ that was going to make headlines for all the wrong reasons…probably around the world.
Entwistle later admits that the programme had been ‘commissioned’…..or rather was all set to broadcast…..he said ‘What I meant (by not commissioned) was that there was no final script.’
However he has already admitted that there was ‘solid journalism’ and ‘the Newsnight reporters involved were confident enough in their material to put together a script for a 10- or 12-minute package, indicating they believed their film was largely complete.’
So there was a script…and the journalists involved were all confident of their material? …as the Newsnight journalist Meirion Jones said …
“The story is strong enough and the danger of not running it would be substantial damage to BBC reputation.”
In other words the programme was ‘commissioned’ in Entwistle’s terms….ready to be broadcast……so why didn’t he ask those questions? remember he says quite clearly now that Newsnight should have been broadcast….it was based on solid journalism.
Once all this came into the open and the programme was abandoned the BBC did nothing with the investigation…shelving it until ITV produced its own programme.
Entwistle then refused to hold an internal inquiry. He now claims this was at the request of the police who didn’t want a parallel inquiry going on at the same time as a criminal investigation…….‘It was uppermost in my mind that an inquiry might interfere with the police inquiry.’
However he says that ‘It was entirely appropriate for Panorama to broadcast its investigation’.…… despite Police inquiries being ongoing….and I’m sure ITV’s programme has not sent the police investigation off the rails either.
So Entwistle could have done his inquiry…evidenced by the fact that he has now launched two such inquiries to look into matters.
Perhaps one question those inquiries could ask is what was the outcome of the BBC inquiry into similar allegations in the 1970’s …presumably off the back of News of the World reports into child abuse and sex parties involving BBC employees.
There has been a huge failure of management over this affair…only redeemed by Panorama…but even there the BBC has stepped in to prevent emails being used as evidence….so nothing seems to have been learnt yet……still hiding behind legalities…just as they do with the Balen Report….something that would probably destroy the BBC’s reputation completely if it were released alongside the Savile inquiries…the results of which cannot be anything but bad news for the BBC.
“Maria Miller: BBC has lost public trust over Jimmy Savile”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9629500/Maria-Miller-BBC-has-lost-public-trust-over-Jimmy-Savile.html
-Unfortunately, she doesn’t add:
-‘and so this Government will draft legislation with a view to ending the public’s licence-fee funding of the BBC.’
I had lost trust in 2001 over the BBC’s disgusting coverage of the terrorist outrages and their subsequent lies and cover-ups.
Since then my distrust in the BBC is regularly reinforced by their own overtly biased, shallow, dumbed-down, inaccurate, misleading and agenda driven output.
However this latest scandal is only just beginning to “grow legs” The scale of this scandal is being wilfully downplayed as a belonging to Newsnight and they already have their sacrificial lamb.
However the charge which the BBC should be facing is that they systematically and institutionally enabled, facilitated and covered-up BBC staff sexually abusing hundreds of children for decades on BBC premises, with the knowledge and complicity of senior BBC executives. That the BBC was running a paedophile ring, or even several paedophile rings.
This is a lot more serious than hacking a few phones.
The BBC has NO reputation or trust to protect anymore.
The BBC is a failed institution.
The BBC is not fit to hold a broadcast license.
The BBC should be shut down immediately!
If this was a Murdoch company it would ALREADY have been shut down!
Why the double standard, lefties?
Close it down NOW!
MPs select committee ” Why didn’t you ask the producer of Newsnight why he was investigating Jimmy Saville ?
George Entwhistle ” I dunno.”
It was like pulling teeth.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it ridiculous watching sanctimonious BBC employees trying to outdo or implicate each other in this whole revolting abuse scandal? I just find the notion of Newsnight dissecting itself laughable! It just goes to show what a bunch of squirming rats many of these people are… I thought Entwistle was arrogant and deflective in his Commons ‘grilling’ today (what a weak bunch the panel were!) and I detected a slight tone of ‘it weren’t just us guv’ in the Newsnight debate, tonight. There are serious questions to answer and I still feel that the BBC is trying to spread the blame, as it were.
Thou speak words truer than the harsh cold of a Midwinter dawn. Thou art well-spoken and wise.
And guess what? We, the taxpayer, will be footing the foul bill for the ‘inquiries’ into these loathsome episodes of hideousness!
How much more will you take before you decide not to buy another TV license ?
Compare and contrast the contents of these two reports, relating to ‘men’ in Rochdale:
1.)”Nine Men Charged With Child Sex Offences In Rochdale”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/23/nine-men-charged-with-child-sex-offences_n_2006673.html?
2.) “Nine Rochdale men facing child sex charges”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20046781
For anyone old enough to remember ITMA, “It’s Those Men Again!”
Five of Wednesday’s national newspaper front page headlines are on BBC-Savile scandal.
http://news.sky.com/uk
‘Sky News’ has this:
“Beeb Boss Looks Out Of Touch Over Savile Case.
“The BBC’s chief tries to place himself so far above the Savile scandal, he risks looking out of touch with his own organisation.”
By Joey Jones.
http://news.sky.com/story/1001699/beeb-boss-looks-out-of-touch-over-savile-case
‘Out of touch’ – like that. Isn’t it one of Labour’s mantras the BBC is very fond of repeating?
I remain puzzled as to why Savile thought he was untouchable by authority. He seemed to fear nobody at all would say anything and yet within days of his death the programme makers start to take his life apart. It really does not add up.
He did not seem to fear anybody would say anything—–
Not what I wrote above which makes no sense!
He had no fear, because he had decades of experience of making successful threats and bribes which worked in having his victims, their families, and the authorities keeping it all secret.
Several of his victims did go to the police and make allegations against Jimmy. The police did not believe these allegations and they did not investigate them.
This is not only illegal, but sadly it is not unusual.
Just exactly the same as in the Holly Grieg case. In the Hollie Grieg case, the police believed her enough for the police’s criminal compensation board to pay out 13,000 quid to Hollie’s family, but the police never ever investigated the crimes AT ALL! None of the alleged attackers were ever even questioned. NONE! This came out in court when the Family’s advocate was arrested for publicising the case in Scotland. The police admitted in court, under oath, that they never investigated the reported crime at all.
The police do cover up paedophile rings, when senior officers are involved in the abuse themselves.
So this is partly how all this was kept secret for years and years.
Additionally, The BBC did do an in-depth report into the Holly Grieg case….
… But it was pulled at the last moment. just like the Savile story.
It seems that there is a pattern forming of the BBC investigating child abuse claims, getting all the pertinent information and then pulling the story, and covering it all up.
It almost seems like they are finding out what the victims know and what strategy the victims are pursuing, before shutting it all down. Are they using the good name of the BBC to get the information the abuser’s need to protect the abusers?
The BBC is not fit for purpose and should be closed down.
I suspect he had friends in high places – probably from his time a Entertainment officer at the Kincora Boys Home.
I think he knew the grocer….
Perhaps while he was alive, he had the goods on too many others, possibly also at the BBC. You never know.
Having worked with 3 men in over 35 years who were subsequently outed as paedos, nobody was aware of what they were doing. Hindsight allows us to make connections that are not so obvious at the time. A lot of people started claiming that they knew all along yet they didn’t tell anyone. In all 3 cases once there was an allegations things ran very quickly. One was uncovered by a Min of Defence check, one by an email sent in error, the other by a complaint. I knew all 3, 2 were family men and socialised with them. Nobody knew. They covered their activities extremely well.
Therefore I’m taking all these everyone knew stories with a pinch of salt. Clearly Savile was odd but he covered his tracks probably with a few cronies in on the game. I don’t believe everyone knew at all.
Absolute clap trap.
Any good manager in any well run and honest business, and there is a lot of very expensive managers at the BBC, would have smoked this evil predator out in ten minutes. They didn’t want to smoke him out. He was a big fish in a stinking barrel of rotten fish and oh boy did I see one great big wriggling fish on the hook today.
There is a little saying in business, ‘Management by Wandering About’. It means you get of your arse and walk round the shop floor or the office and talk to people, ask questions, listen to them and then sort out the problems without fear or favour. Entwistle and his predecessors were either in on it, plain stupid or just too lazy. Take your pick.
Prole, from the evidence that’s been made public, Savile made no secret of his activities. Even in his autobiography he claimed that if the local police or the press had outed him he would have taken down many others (implying police officers and journalists) with him.
There had been concern about Savile’s conduct that was taken to various BBC managers but this was apparently given little credence by them. The rumours were so rife around the BBC, Prole, that your apparent belief that Savile kept his sexual peccadilloes well hidden just doesn’t hold water.
‘I don’t believe everyone knew at all. ‘
‘Belief’ in defence of BBC activity is possibly no longer enough.
‘Jimmy Savile’s former director on Jim’ll Fix It reveals he saw the presenter having sex with a 16-year-old girl in his dressing room and informed BBC officials who ‘did nothing’.
Especially in face of continued denial of on-record witness testimony.
Funny that because I heard the rumours 20-odd years ago.
Yet both the current Director-General and his predecessor say they’d never heard a thing.
They’re lying.
And you’re shilling.
Oh Prole do keep up if you cannot get your head round the unfolding story backed up by daily statements from BBC employees at the time and since plus many other from many areas including hospitals and homes for young children even prisons ! then I suggest the BBC approved response that’s take both index fingers insert in the external auditory canal and recite ‘LALALALALALALALALA’
The scale of Savile’s paedophilia (and necrophilla) was so widespread and blatant, that the senior management must have known.
We are not talking about a very discreet and devious man abusing a kid or two whilst carefully hiding behind the cover of being a good family man, here. Savile was prolific, and a risk taker. He was caught a number of times, but used a combination of threats and money to get the silence of his victims and others.
Prole: To start with the evidence says there were a lot of people, including management, who knew what Savile was up to.
But your weak and dishonest defence of that seething mass of corruption, aka the BBC, did not allow News International’s management the same defence when they went after them for the much more minor offence of phone-hacking.
Phone-hacking which seems like almost nothing in comparison to the decades of abuse of minors that the BBC management studiously closed their eyes and ears to.
I had also heard rumours about Savile in the seventies or eighties and I have no media connection. Some heard about it even before then. The BBC has no excuse and should be cloed down immediately for the sake of humanity.
It seems that Saville, the biggest BBC star they ever had, was undoubtedly abusing young girls and boys and for decades and many people in high places at the BBC knew about it, but did nothing.
But of course the abuse behavour has stopped now hasn’t it?
Err… so when did it stop?
Perhaps there was a scandal I missed?
Was there an enquiry the country didn’t hear about?
Did a Director General find out and stop it?
Perhaps Tony Blair went to war about it?
Perhaps Gordon’s clinking fist threw a phone at it?
Perhaps Prince Charles wrote a letter about it?
Did anything happen to stop it?
After all Mr Entwistle is very clear he didn’t see anything?
So EXACTLY when did it stop?
Did it just fade out?
I mean those BBC folks are so honest and trustworthy aren’t they?
So all is well now then?
Of course it is,
OR IS IT?
Perhaps it is why Blair made such a fuss about paedophiles in the late ’90’s – to ensure those at the BBC would stay on message come what may.
Or is that too paranoid?
Rumours abound on the net that a more recent PM than Blair had an interest in children.
I wasn’t implying that Blair was a nonce only that he may have known about the BBC and it’s nest of perverts and was prepared to use the imformation.
For all Brown’s failings being a nonce would seem unlikely – might explain his constant sour mood mind …
Although you may know an organisation is corrupt in the way they conduct business, the questions that still need to be answered are to what extent, and how do they conduct themselves to produce the output they do.
Most here know the chronic bias that is endemic to the BBC, and what areas this bias is applied to. Any of us can only conjecture as to the reasons for this bias, which is modified as evidence of reasons becomes apparent. So for example when considering the BBC’s pro-militant Islamic bias, some of it I apply to coercion and subsequent fear by BBC staff to over-promote these groups. There is also the desire by the BBC to dominate world media, and without ingratiating themselves and appeasing the Muslim world, they can’t see how to accomplish it. I don’t discount the possibility that the hierarchy within the BBC may also be receiving bribes to promote the Islamic agenda, but without evidence this remains purely a distinct possibility to add to their existing motives.
With the Savile debacle we can observe a lot of internal dynamics that are exposed. We get to see the inner workings and not just the outer results.
Entwistle appeared before the MP’s today, and apparently the outcome does not look good for him. What I wonder about is considering how timely this scandal has evolved, just following the exits of Thompson and Boaden for ‘greener pastures’. Therefore was the apparent ‘timid’ Entwistle ‘chosen’ to the director general role to be the fall guy for what was to ensue. I’m holding my breath on that one for a while to see what follows.
There is a question about why when Entwistle first heard about the potential problems surrounding the proposed Newsnight exposee, he didn’t pursue it any further. When you read it as described in this article, I believe it sheds light on the inner workings within the BBC. Why lesser managers, as Entwistle was – despite his previous title, yet not privy to the machinations of the hierarchy, fulfil their role within a 3 wise monkey ‘do not disturb’ environment.
Until the shit hits the fan, and then by coincidence he finds himself in the top job, just as it happens.
Let’s see how deep these enquiries go, and whether they will really answer ALL the questions to be asked about the inner workings of the BBC for all this to happen.
I have my doubts they will.
“the BBC may also be receiving bribes”
The arrogance of the BBC is almost entirely based on the fact that every law abiding citizen is forced to pay for them. They abuse this unearned power to corrupt public life at every level – from tax evasion to uncritical advocacy of public spending.
Their arrogance at times has been amazing. The last few days have been like lifting a rock and exposing a nest of tax payer funded you scratch my back I scratch your back Guardian reading apparatchiks.
I am slightly heartened by the fact that ITV has shown a little independence, and the press (despite the best efforts of the BBC [in an act of hubris astonishing even for them] to destroy them) have also done a little bit of investigative reporting.
I have even noticed a slight tendency in the last few days for the BBC to be a little more balanced. I cannot see this lasting more than a few days. The overwhelming desire (of pretty much its entire bureaucracy) is to re-elect a Labour government. I detect a slight moment of panic that the coalition may put in reforms before they can get in their beloved Labour government.
You have to laugh when Patten declared that the BBC was independent – independent of what? The BBC is the Leftist establishment. The only thing it is independent of is the people it is supposed to serve.
Patten’s statements ooze arrogance and contempt for those that dare to question the BBC and its “independence”.
‘Independent’ was a strange word to use unless (spot the irony) they mean free from political interference.
I thought Naughtie’s performance this morning was shameful, even at one point cutting his interviewee short because he was about to comment on the so-called independence of an ex-BBC man carrying out one of the inquiries. The man has the journalistic equivalent of Tourette’s – he just can’t stop himself blurting stuff out in the BBC’c defence.
“Independent” as in the full title of the newspaper of the same name: The Independent of Reality.
Teddy Bear, interesting, although I think you are probably wide of the mark on beeboids taking actual bribes for their dhimmini agenda.
They are actually more motivated by their profound sense of superiority over the largely white working class membership of the likes of the EDL – the people who experience the reality of living with mass muslim immigration in their neighbourhoods at first hand, which is their driving force.
It is inconceivable that supposedly intelligent people can not see how backward every muslim society in the world is and how distasteful sharia must be to an educated Westerner. Therefore, it must be that they are prepared to shut their eyes and ears to these issues, to harm those who they dislike more.
Just to affirm that I didn’t claim they were taking bribes, although it is always a possibility. My point was that until revelations like that become apparent, we can only conjecture at the plausible motives. With those inner dynamics being revealed now with the Savile scandal, we get to see more the inner world of how the BBC operates and maintains its unethical output.
Sky News interviewer desperately trying to exculpate the BBC.
Oddly the Beeb’s website headline on George (“Toast”) Entwhistle is bland and hasn’t altered for hours.
Nobody asked him whether he had actually talked to Newsnight’s Peter Rippon nor whether he mentally wondered what their investigation was about. Plainly he knew without having to ask.
It appears Head of News Helen Boaden is also toast.
SKY ‘news’ reviewer and cheeky chappie man of the people Sam Delaney currently thinking this is just a terrible witch hunt. What he felt about Leveson might be interesting to play back.
In other ‘news’, which is about as poetic a summary of the BBC’s version of it as one could get..
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight
Another day of Savile controversy. Jeremy discusses the latest with three BBC insiders #newsnight
So that would be four BBC insiders excu… ‘discussing’ their gravy train. Uh-huh.
“It appears Head of News Helen Boaden is also toast”.
i wonder if she “thinks she got it about right” now?
after all the on air attacking of Murdoch and N.Int,it gives me no little pleasure to watch the scummy beeb squirming on their own petard
karma really is a bitch,ain’t it? 🙂
Notwithstanding the suffering that the victims of Savile and his ring of paedophiles, have had to endure , I maintain that the greatest risk for the BBC is in the way that they have responded to this, and continue to do so.
Entwistle, Patten and Jordan’s response has been complacent and dismissive. Remember their closing of ranks and Enwistle’s outrageous statement that he did not feel inclined to examine the decisions of a trusted editor – a standard of accountability different in the BBC than for their targets, particularly on the right.
But the questions that the BBC response raises are; is the BBC’s output compromised? Is (what’s left of) the BBC’s integrity fundamentally damaged? And most importantly, COULD THIS HAPPEN AGAIN?
Given their continuing evasion, cover-ups and attempts to minimise the issue, the answer to all of these questions must be ‘YES’.
And lessons do not seem to be learned. Today Beeboids continued to deflect criticism and we now find out, after all, that the Panorama special, wasn’t as open as we were led to believe; Nick Heigham painted Entwistle as an unfortunate victim of the Select Committee determined to give him the same treatment as the ‘red tops’ and News International.
But perhaps the greatest comfort for the wongdoers came from Richard Bacon. They say that every village has its idiot, if the BBC was a village…well, I don’t need to go on.
Bacon’s was on the wrong side of the argument again today. His contribtion was defensive and insensitive; overly keen to point the finger elsewhere. Clearly he thought that the ‘REAL’ questions were for the instititutions (like Broadmoor) to answer – not the BBC. Clearly he doesn’t get it.
Later, in his review of the Panorama programme, in response to the view that trust in the BBC’s was on the line, he managed to belittle the notion that people do care about trust and in doing so he patronised and belittled people for whom integrity is important.
Yes! with ‘enablers’ like Bacon around – the Savile’s could continue to do their worst and the BBC will continue to serve themselves not their audience.
When Pollard gets to work he needs not only to examine the issues around the Newsnight expose, but to listen to the output of the likes of Bacon and ask himself what that says about the prevailing culture and arrogance within the organisation.
“COULD THIS HAPPEN AGAIN?”
I think the question we should be asking is IS IT STILL HAPPENING? That would explain the BBCs dire writhing and thrashing about with no real answers.
I am more likely to believe that it is still happening, yes.
“IS IT STILL HAPPENING?” Yes without a doubt. If it can happen in the church then it can happen anywhere at anytime.
The behaviour of the BBC, having been caught, or at least certain of their employees, with their pants down has exposed them for the arrogant, save face at all cost, muppets that the are.
Their whole attitude revolves around pushing their propaganda of, “Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. Never mind us, turn around and go and look elsewhere.” with those who were supposed to be in charge claiming, “Done ask me, nobody lold me what was happening, and anyway, I was busy burying my head in the sand at the time.”
The more the BBC and their acolytes run round trying to deflect attention from themselves, try to distance themselves from what it is now obvious was a widely known open, but carefully ignored open secret and try to claim that those questioning the behaviour of the BBC are part of some orchestrated vendetta the more one thing becomes obvious.
There has to be an openly reported, judge led public enquiry with evidence given under oath which is permitted to go, without let or hindrance, wherever the evidence leads to expose the very secretive and clandestine methods under which the BBC is run and controlled, matters which have allowed the BBC to allow people like Savile to operate whilst being sheltered and protected.
In addition to that there need to be an urgent, open enquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, with the proceeds televised, questioning all those involved in the Newsnight Savile expose, what they know, how they knew it (With safegards to protect the individual victims) along with all those who were involved with it’s pulling and those who were supposed to be in charge of them.
It’s time to batter down the gates of the BBC Kremlin and it’s Politburo.
It was all many years ago. And in 5 years time: it was all in the past and so on and so on.
Don’t believe them. it’s got to be proved it was stopped and we need to be told how it was stopped and by whom. Otherwise we are expected to believe that it all just dissolved on its own.
Sorry but I don’t.
As my old maths teacher used to say how am i expected to believe you came to this answer without showing me the working out.
How Entwistle got to the top of the corrupt BBC I don’t know, but of course I do, he’s always avoided conflict, agreed with the latest idea and his bosses and generally crept around.
When he got to the top he continued to avoid conflict, but this time it is negligence. I can imagine his staying away from all but his top managers and wanting everything to be satisfactory.
Would it be that if someone had a problem and went to him for leadership he just let them down every time? In other words they knew he would drop them in it if anything went wrong.
He must resign, or be sacked.
He was laughed at yesterday.
I agree. When you saw Entwistle yesterday, did you think “there’s a leader”? He makes Herman van Rumpoy look like General Patton.
In general, the BBC seems to be rather coy about revealing the identities of paedophiles, for consider the omission of details pertaining to the backgrounds of another nine men currently on trial for paedophile grooming in Rochdale. Now, why would it be so backward in providing such information? http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-coy-about-child-abuse.html
It makes it difficult or impossible to see associations and links between such attackers, and so makes the problem seem far more difficult to address.
Far easier then for police and social workers to give up on solving the real problem, and instead blame the victims (which the victims all too readily accept if they have been influenced to respect the attackers and decry their own self-worth).
BBC in “We didn’t get it about right” shock.
“Trapped and cornered, the BBC lashes out”
By Ian Dunt.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/trapped-and-cornered-the-bbc-lashes-out?
Patten, representing interests of Beeboids,
not licence payers.
“Jimmy Savile scandal: Patten reaffirms BBC independence”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20053282
Lashing out, eh?
Not sure this Graun headline helps their case much:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/23/patten-miller-bbc-independence-savile?
Patten warns minister not to question BBC independence over Savile scandal
As many who have had a ‘we know where you live’ missive from Aunty’s minions, that does not resonate well.
Also telling folk not to ask questions, or else, rather cuts across the ‘holding power to account’ internally fantasy as well. The BBC can no longer dictate what is, or isn’t, based on what the BBC decides they should be.
So, as an example of ‘when in hole, hire a JCB’, I’d say the ‘Trust’ Chairman just bought himself and his staff an oil well platform.
Nice one, F. Pang.
Yes the arrogance is plain to see. Will the politicians now see some sense and actually do something? Fatty Pang is putting his neck on the block without knowing it by issuing such thinly veiled threats.
He’s feeling the noose tightening, and justly so, his response like many other politicians when feeling the heat, is to go on the attack, thereby creating the impression that he’s innocent.
Let’s remember that when this story first surfaced, he, along with Entwistle, both claimed that Newsnight was dropped for editorial reasons, and there would be no enquiry. It was n;t until further pressure was brought to bear that he back pedalled.
So why did he go along with the initial BBC stance? If he didn’t know for sure it was his responsibility to find for sure – not join the chorus. That’s what is expected from the head of BBC Trust, and clearly he’s failed miserably – and probably knows it.
‘Of course, it’s easy to be wise in retrospect…But it must be apparent to any reasonable person that Savile’s disgusting behaviour was tolerated by the BBC because its own understanding of truth and morality is inconsistent at best, and perverse at worst. It is not merely still living the sexual revolution of the 60s; it is extending it, constantly pushing at the limits of liberalisation and inculcating a degrading relativism which undermines the conservative and cohesive fabric of society.’
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk
“Mark Thompson’s future at New York Times questioned after Savile scandal.
“Mark Thompson, the BBC’s former director-general, originally claimed he had not heard the allegations against Jimmy Savile but a new account counters that claim.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9629828/Mark-Thompsons-future-at-New-York-Times-questioned-after-Savile-scandal.html
Firstly, thanks Alan for an excellent post (as usual).
I think the greatest questions for the BBC from the past come from the claims in Panorama that Savile was known to be indulging in his interest in young girls while making Savile’s Travels. Why on earth then did the BBC commission Jim’ll Fix It? Even if they had no proof of his activities surely someone could have said ‘Great idea for a programme – but with the rumours about Jim we will choose someone else to front it’.
But now in 2012 the BBC is split. As Amounderness lad says above – there is there ‘nothing to see now move along, brigade’ whilst it is obvious the Newsnight/Panorama teams are fighting like ferrets in a sack but drawing in the likes of Entwhistle and Boaden – and the deeper into the dirt they are drawn the better as far as I am concerned as they seem to have been overpaid for doing nothing for years.
There are apparently 8, 9 or 10 (depending on which version of the story you see/read) BBC employees currently being investigated for inappropriate sexual activities, and in the “Panorama” report on Monday night it was suggested that a paedophile ring was in operation within the BBC.
Is it possible that the reason why Peter Rippon dropped the “Newsnight” report in Savile was not because he was “leant on” by senior BBC management, but because he was threatened or being blackmailed by members of this internal paedophilic cabal?
Possible, but I’d suggest being careful with insinuations. Unlike the dead, the living can be libelled.
Reporting that Panorama stated that there was a paedophile ring at the BBC is not libel. It is reporting.
Reporting that the DG in his testimony that there are more people involved in this, and reporting that the police are looking at at least 9 others who are alive and have been accused of child abuse in the BBC, is not libel either.
These are allegations which point to the BBC running and covering up a paedophile ring.
If true, then the BBC should lose its broadcast license.
I can’t believe that so many people working for the BBC were so easily talked into keeping quiet and didn’t take their fears and suspicions further. It was obviously just to keep their jobs, but surely no job is worth ensuring that children continued to be at risk from Savile? I could not and would not have wanted that on my conscience. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
I totally agree ! they see themselves our betters the cultural elite here to bring us scum up a little [ not too far though] from the mud so all this nasty stuff is all just a conspiracy , an unjustified attack on them and after all the kids were only unknown plebs they see it as a shame to damage the all seeing but blind BBC over a few unimportant children !
And don’t the BBC support whistle blowers when it suits? I’m sure if an employee got nowhere with his/her manager then the police should have been the next step. They could even have approached their MP for assistance and cover. The defence of their jobs is no defence: anyone that knew anything had a moral and legal obligation to pursue it to a natural conclusion.
Cameron two days ago; “The BBC are holding their own enquiries and I am sure they will get to the bottom of this”.
Pattern yesterday: “Do not interfere with the BBC’s independence”.
The BBC this morning: “A lot of people in the BBC say they want to draw a line under this as soon as possible”.
Tomorrow: “Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible”.
Next week: “Jimmy who”?
Why a judge led, independent inquiry under oath for the wider media (which the BBC turned into a biased, one sided witch hunt against Murdoch) and the BBC being allowed to investigate the BBC themselves?
This is ridiculous and only points to the paedophiles in the establishment covering their own arses.
This does go wider than the BBC and the sick and lamentable way that the BBC is being allowed to investigate and exonerate itself, playing its own judge, jury and defence team is just sickening.
It is time to inundate your MPs with mail.
Greedings, Beebtastic Beeb haters. 1994 was great year for comidee, wasn’t it? Who can forget that great line ” How old are you, me darlin’?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzPUUfRcVik (0:35)
Entwistle is useless, picked by Patten. Patten is useless, picked by Coalition. Coalition is useless, picked by UK voters. So we are to blame!!!
Sir Norm Bettison (sp?) has just given Entwistle and “Hugs” an example to follow.
Well, £83kpa will ease the pain a tad.
Here’s a media jib whose cut I might get to appreciate…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100186340/isnt-it-time-lord-patten-showed-a-little-humility-over-the-savile-scandal/
‘Patten is now at risk of compounding that error if he does not show a little more humility as well as a greater awareness that the Savile affair could do the most immense harm to the institution over which he presides
Well, other than that ‘could’. What’s done is done, and now dusted.
Amazingly, there’s also a pol in the frame too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9629915/Lord-Patten-and-George-Entwistle-may-have-to-fall-on-their-swords-MP.html
Now, the euphemistic sword falling seems to be already getting the BBC in some trouble, but at least he’s not showing much taste for the ‘it was him’ buck passing.
‘BBC management, over far too many years, has sought to maintain an imperious disdain for criticism ‘
Meanwhile, in other ‘news’ (or what passes for the BBC-filtered version of it), here their top editors have gone through what others are saying, and while unable to totally whitewash it all, have selected and/or priortised a few classics from what’s been published to offer a BBC version of the truth they would prefer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20054800
What they cannot resist placing higher under the categories is a damning indictment of their ability to control the message in their edit suites to suit.
I watched the grilling and the answers given by Entwhistle were enlightening and demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in trying to act as CEO of a broadcaster as a journalist which I will try to explain.
The DG is both the CEO and the Editor in chief and this has caused serious problems which he was explaining yesterday. Objectively one has sympathy with his position because there is ambiguity in his job function.
When director of television he was accountable for TV output and the performance of his staff. Helen Boden was responsible for editorial output for TV. Boden informed him that Newsnight was investigating Savile and there might be a conflict with the tribute programs which was what he needed to know. He explained that many investigative programs do not make it to air. When Boden told him this she should also have made him aware that there might be legal and PR ramifications for the BBC but she didn’t.
Helen Boden is the real failure in this picture. Helen Boden was or should have been aware of the contents of the investigation and the conflict between the journalists involved in the production of the program and Peter Rippon. The moment Boden became aware of the issues she should have made herself fully aware of the implications of the situation and that stage involved everyone up to the Chairman of the Trust.
The view given of the BBC at the sub-committee investigation yesterday shows that the whole structure is too big and cumbersome. Intermediary management has too much power.
The most important aspect relates to function. A manager has the function of being a manager in relation to the application of management under employment law. In this environment it is clear that they are trying to manage under both journalistic standards and employment law which is impossible.
There are some really key features; Boden is incompetent and should not only be fired but charged with obstruction of Justice.
Paten as the Chairman should be appearing before the Parliamentary committee to explain his actions.
The parliamentary committee needs to investigate the need to break up the BBC into independent units with a view to selling off the most profitable units like wildlife. Commercial channels provide adequate coverage of most things and the need of this national broadcaster is wholly unnecessary in 2012.
Interesting analysis, and indeed I am again seeing the ‘our system is at fault’ being tried out by the BBC to make this go away.
In my dealings with CECUTT, I don’t accpet this either.
As with a Director of what is said saying a concern on BBC-sanctioned BS by guests is a matter for Director of Invites, and the latter saying that what they say is nothing to do with them, so ‘let’s call the whole thing off’.
Equally BBC House Rules, Policies, ‘Editorial Guidelines’…
Too often they point at their own systems to justify pulling the plug on questions about… their own systems.
Ms. Boaden is looking pretty shaky, especially given what is coming out now, on top of her ‘Holding power to account’ and ‘Genetic impartiality’ on-record outings via The Editors, threads, where all sorts of attempts at raising issues were ignored… and then closed out.
A bit like everything to do with this case.
Only involving criminal acts with minors.
And I am also seeing some interference being run for Uncurious George. Cheeky chappie Sam Delaney sneered this morning that it was all a plot as ‘he had only been in the job five minutes’.
Sam… mate… me old mukka… what job did George have before he was DG?
None of the highly paid media cretins around him seemed to have been aware enough of the facts to raise that one with him.
Or, maybe, he’s too much of a treasure to challenge?
That, of course, has poor precedent.
As to Patten… for an unaccountable, unelected, media monopoly boss to be warning a government that has to face the ballot box on its performance every few years to ‘not ask questions’… should be a career killer.
Friday’s HIGNFY will be… ‘interesting’.
My real hope is that the Savile scandal might have greater ramifications. I don’t just mean the outing of other dodgy celebrities (who must be shaking in their boots) or the sacking of corrupt or incompetent DG’s, though that would be welcomed.
My hope is that it might wake up an overly trusting public to how devious, complacent and downright dishonest “Aunty” really is and has been for decades.
They employed, promoted and protected a paedophile for decades and allowed him access to OUR children. And WE paid for the privelage!
What else are they capable of?
Lying to and stealing money from children while running faked phone-in competitions, just for starters. Or just faking a phone-in competition for the slightly more adult audience of Radio 1. They did it for Comic Relief and several other shows as well, and ultimately staff had to take a course to learn that wasn’t kosher.
Expectation of immunity and contempt for the audience are par for the course at the BBC. It’s only the rare employee who seems to see through this.
” What else are they capable of?”
Well, treason to give just one!
ask Pounce.
Entwhistle is finished and as ever with these clowns it is the feeble attempt at ‘the cover-up’ that gets them.
His assertion that he did not know what was the subject of the scrapped Newsnight feature is laughable. And that is what will get him sacked.
Good news. Because I want to see every DG sacked from now on unless they come into the job with the target of reducing the licence fee to zero within five years. And in so doing end the bog standard public sector over-manning, feather-bedding, spanish-practising, over-paying grotesque waste of OPM) other people’s money) that is the BBC.
And also in so doing end the BBC’s position as the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party and perhaps, and I know this is a stretch, hire people for whom journalism is a bit more than regurgitating tweets, Reuters/AFP bulletins, and pr puffery press releases.
It wasn’t too long ago that BBC News programmes vilified and ridiculed James Murdoch when he said he wasn’t aware of the full extent of the phone hacking scandal at the NOW.
Now Entwhistle is using the same defence. The BBC have to accept that either Entwhistle and Murdoch are both lying OR they are both being honest .
Come on Dez, Scottie, Jim Dandy and all the other Beeb apologists – I cordially invite a considered response from any of you.
Any takers?
Since Entwistle’s appearance before our betters, poor old James Murdoch has become house bound. Apparently despite help from some of the world’s top doctors and psychiatrists he cannot go more than 5 minutes without wetting himself laughing.
In a fair, reasoned and honourable world, George Entwhistle would be fine.
He may be a creature of the BBC, but clearly he cannot be held to blame for too much that happened before 1989…and not that much since in truth.
Trouble is when you apply for (and get!) titles like “Director of Vision”(thank you Birty!); you`re no longer an honest bloke trying to herd your cats and kittens.
Our Director of Vision basically climbed and clambered up his tree-a big one we all grew and pay for every year on threat of a criminal record or such.
He joined the big wigs up on a fat branch with lots to look down upon…chavs, white trash, Tories, God botherers etc.
And as they sneered at the plebs from on high, they decided to cut their own branch as they sat on it…bankers, Rupert, Catholics, police, CPS…all needed cutting down to size; and the smug 60s pothead pixie generation were just the “chilled out free spirits”, self-appointed to trash the rest of us(and the few shields against an Islamo/E.U/Pinko/Greenie/multikulti wipeout, that the edgy Beeb demanded for us all).
So-they`ve dodged taxes, fiddled, been vainglorious and incompetent, employed the likes of Brand and Ross…and now they turn out to be far more evil that those paedos that Benedict or John Paul 2 have sent out to our schools and churches(the BBCs take on child abuse, up til now).
There`s a bible line..winds and whirlwinds…let the buggers look it up. A pleasant change from impartiality guidelines, from CP guidelines and the like that they write but never bothered to act upon.
So-pity poor George and his twenty year old clamber towards Lennons Imagineland…the BBC begged for free love, for the end of Mary Whitehouse, for Childline gimmicks, celebrity endorsements and the end of Judeo-Christian “morals”.
So welcome to the PleasureDome lads-you deserve all you`re getting!
… and while I’m on, unsurprising, no, vis-a-vis Newsnight, how many friends that £3.6 billion ++ annual spend buys you. No shortage of people who have earned from the BBC in the past, are earning from the BBC now, or hope to earn from the BBC in the future prepared to come on and whore themselves for the cause.
To save time for any whores who’re* due to appear here’s a handy checklist of ‘points you might like to get across’.
1. Of course George Entwhistle is a man of the highest integrity.
2. We’re really talking about sins of omission here not commission.
3. There simply isn’t any Watergate-type cover-up.
4. (You the little) People just don’t understand how journalism actually works.
5. BBC journalists are fiercely independent.
6. BBC journalism is absolutely of the highest calibre.
7. Lots of minor errors rather than any major errors.
8. Of course, yes, with the benefit of hindsight, but looking at the time…
And when you have your little tete-a-tete with the producer and the interviewer don’t forget it always ‘sounds more convincing’ if the interviewer feeds you the line a la,
‘So, whore, do you think we’re talking about sins of omission here rather than commission?’.
Whore: Yes
*see what I did there
A sin of omission is still a sin, of course, just as “suppressio veri” is as much of a lie as “suggestio falsi”. The Beeb’s pretty good at both, depending on which one suits the circumstances.
Another one I’ve been hearing lately is
‘What you have to understand is that the BBC is a huge, huge corporation’. That sort of argument wouldn’t help the Murdochs, who were expected to have knowledge of the minutiae their huge corporation.
I missed Newsnight last night. Are we any closer to getting a plausible explanation as to why the Newsnight film was pulled? Because we haven’t had one yet.
Entwistle is an odd looking chap.
Reminds me of Mr La-di-dah Gunner Graham out of “It` ain`t half hot mum!”
At least THAT was a serious effort at acting like a Gang Show-current BBC hoofers up at the top of their Rantzen/rancid dunghill could do worse that watch and learn,
Just to prove the Christmas Jimmy Savile Tribute can’t have been the most inappropriate bit of broadcast scheduling ever……
Back by popular demand….live from Television Centre and it’s ….BBC Top Of The Pops Two!
(Hope you’ve still got those flowery shirts boys. And girls, we do like to see you in those hot pants – or preferably out of them! Just joking)
Der-nernerner-ni-ner-ni-ner……
Welcome back pop-pickers and a big hello again to all our old BBC favourites from down the decades. You may still not like them – but we’re gonna keep plugging them until you do!
Straight in at 10 with a bullet, look away now Grandma, it’s Euthanasia. Scary!
At 9 flower power rules and newly released from the windmills of our minds, we reckon 8 out of 10 scientists agree, it’s Manfred Mann-made Global Warming. We’re gonna get all the kids dancing to this whacky-backy green tune. Cool….sounds as if we knitted it ourselves. G-Wiz!
As the bright lights fade….we go to number 8. Ah that wonderful Arabic-Afro-Latin-Slavic fusion! Strength through diversity people, throw the doors open wide, no one is ever refused entry for the block party that is… Mass Immigration! The more the merrier we say, these guys can’t do anything to overstay their welcome. What a riot of colour, Ole, Irie-I, Allahu Akbar!
Let’s calm it down a little for the folksy acoustic and slightly unplugged shrill wails at number 7 that are the Celtic Fringe. Oh yeah what a band: there’s banjo-duelling nutty Boyo; who could forget the plaintive timeless cry of Paddy always strumming on the historic Irish harp: and on percussion we have the insistent aggressive drumbeat of moaning Ginger Scots. It may just be a picturesque second home location for us but your taxes are a meal ticket for their big hearted public sector. It’s certainly a love-hate relationship and they are always threatening to call it day, but I’ve a feeling that – just like poverty – they will always be with us and playing the same tune.
I hear some strange eastern strains….at 6 these boys say move over Buddha, turn the other cheek Jesus Christ you former Superstar and push off Hari Krishna you know where you can stick that Sitar …oh yeah it’s the new Religion of Peace. These boys always want the party to go with a bang. If you’re easily offended look away now – is that a postbox you’re wearing or are you just embarrassed to see me? Let’s hope the Yanks keep droning along to this one.
At 5 another group that can’t wait to bring boom-bang-a-bang to our shores – no I know what you’re thinking but it’s not the Provos (forget those square sounds of yesteryear) and it’s not a new young band of local lads from Bradford playing to the tune of Al Qaeda – No, it’s fresh from Eurovision victory, oh how we love the EU. They’ve got our politicians like puppets on a string. No expenses spared. We can’t get enough of those straight-faced Kraut rockers or those lazy hazy southern sleepy sounds of snoozing down there by the Med. Roll up and bail out man. I’m forever dreaming of bubbles. What a performance and what is that on the breeze – is it dry ice or tear gas?
Very much a concept album at 4. It’s a defiantly prog rock thing. You thought this had long gone out of fashion and was a bit hard to understand but we think it’s forever worth another listen, check it out, we love it….Marxism. Still playing well in Cuba.
At 3 hello honky-tonks, how are you today? Love the costumes, did you sew all those sequins on yourself – or is that a flesh coloured leotard you’re wearing? We wear their badge with pride. Choreographed by Peter Tatchell…bugger me it’s the Gays!
Getting very excited now as we reach the top of our charts. At number 2 sadly this absolute megastar from the States couldn’t be with us today. We’re swooning just watching his latest video. He’s the Golden Boy, the Prince who pops the King who rocks, we are not worthy. He can certainly give us a fiscal stimulus anytime he wants. Cooler than Nirvana – it’s President Obama! To think how his career has grown Fast and Furious from such little Acorns. And we hardly noticed!
At last we reach number 1. You must know what it is by now. You may know them better as the Travelling Wilburys or as the Former Labour Cabinet Ministers – but they are reforming with a very slightly changed lineup but still playing the same old tunes. Back very soon for a massive comeback and you can be sure we’ll be right there for them in the build up to 2015. Oh yes it’s that future Lab-Lib Coalition! Let’s give them a big helping hand, they’ve been away far too long. What a party we’re going to have when those licence fees go up. But hey, who knows what goes on at the aftershow party and in our dressing rooms….
We interrupt this BBC transmission to bring you the Prime Minister, David Cameron…..is he there? Can he hear this?
The right-wing satirical sketch we would all like to hear on a right-wing comedy show on the radio station of an impartial public broadcaster.
For completely different reasons than Patten’s, I also object to interference by the “culture” secretary. Simply, the present toils at the BBC are pro tem none of the government’s business. Ostensibly there are already structures in place to deal with what is happening at the BBC and beyond. Patten (and the rest of the layabouts on the BBC Trust) have been appointed to control the BBC and, specifically, to distance it from the government. We have our representatives sticking it to Entwhistle. The police are dealing with allegations of criminality.
The “culture” secretary by dipping her opportunistic toe into the dogturd of the Savile affair gives Patten – and the BBC – the excuse (which Patten has already taken) to put up a time-worn BBC defence to any interference in its perogative of being out of anyone’s control. Worse, it allows the metro-lefties both time and justification to try to exculpate the BBC. The “time-worn defence” is that, because its governance is on the face of it arranged to ensure independence from government, the BBC perforce and by virtue of that independence is an impartial purveyor of information to its audience and – setting aside the present kerfuffle – to support that impartiality is enabled to deal with its own corruption without reference to anyone else.
Of course, readers of this blog – and many in the wider world – know that, far from being impartial, the BBC has a range of biens pensants agendas dealing, for instance, with the treatment of climate change, immigration, green issues, Islam (and its followers), education, the “cutz” and so on. No doubt the shitstorm will go on: possibly Entwhistle, Boaden etc may leave (generously rewarded and seamlessly taking up another cushy number here or in the US) but the BBC we know and don’t love will survive and prosper.
By virtue of the way the Savile affair is developing, there is no danger to the licence fee: there is no prospect that the lefty “talent” (eg Bacon) will be forced out (although some actual or alleged child abusers will go): there is no way that the BBC agendas will change. The various correspondents (eg Harrabin, Bowen, Mason) will continue their skewed narratives unaffected by the present hoo-hah. The “culture” secretary has made this more likely rather than less. Obviously she’s an idiot and one of her – or Cameron’s – functionaries is congratulating himself for a job well done in doing his bit to save the “national treasure” which is the BBC.
Well reasoned.
I may revise my thoughts as above slightly as a consequence, but only slightly and in terms of desired outcome, which your rightly suggest is being skewed in a desired direction to suit the politico-media establishment.
But I still feel there is something very ‘off’ about the BBC getting compelled funding from me (and any others who feel their service is not fit for purpose) by threat imposed by said government, yet appears to enjoy ‘independence’ from all parties involved on matters of conduct save from their internal selves.
While, as events are demonstrating hourly, their internal selves are a nest of brain-dead vipers at best.
So I remain… ‘concerned’ that the top bod of an entity so configured feels empowered to tell all and sundry with a stake in their activities that questions won’t be tolerated.
That… is a route to madness, if we are not already there.
At one time the British prided themselves that their institutions were successful and strong, not on the basis that they conformed to some academic or political ideal but that, simply, they worked. For instance, the ancient office of Lord Chancellor would never have been designed: he was, after all, a member of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Until Falconer arrived there were few, I think, who (low politics aside) wished to abolish the office or seriously change his functions. Because Falconer is and was a lazy sh*t (and was only there because he once shared a flat with that other sh*t Blair) he couldn’t be bothered to turn up to act as speaker of the House of Lords. From that little display of petulance we now have a speaker of the HoL (at £100,000 pa), a US Supreme Court-lite and a Ministry of Justice. Thus another little bit of history and something which distinguishes this country from any other is flushed down the lavatory of rationalism.
So with the BBC: it (sort of) worked until the last quarter of the last century: its particular superstitions were not that egregious; it didn’t – AFAIAA – actually suppress reasonable dissent – particularly in scientific matters, its leftism (although noticeable to Michael Wharton as far back as WW2) was not suffocating. Yes, it tended to side with our enemies against us (Argentina/PIRA) and, if not side with them, then play the “impartiality” card (which in circumstances of war or terrorism is playing into the hands of those who hate us). That being said, it still made a sort of sense to have its income hypothecated and a ruling body, although appointed by government ministers, standing between government and the BBC itself. Unfortunately, this arrangement has become dysfunctional and instead of producing an institution which “works” in terms – at the least – of an unbiased source of information (to inform an audience which is congruent with the country’s electorate) it produces a positive evil.
What is evil about the BBC is that it now dominates the broadcast media and consequently has a loud voice in all matters of politics and public opinion. Frankly I wouldn’t care if it were genuinely impartial: it’s just too big and too pervasive. Worse, its grotesque size and influence is not a result of excellence or of giving its audience what it might be prepared to pay for voluntarily, it is purely a consequence of its unique funding. Such funding is at the grace, not of those actually coughing up, but of a small part of the political class. The BBC is run for, is obliged to and thus is, in effect, a creature of that class whose reps populate – among other things – the BBC Trust. Since a political class – in the way that we currently understand it – has only come to maturity in the last 25 years or so it is understandable that any pretence of “public service” (in the original sense) by the BBC has declined over that period and has now completely disappeared. The BBC serves no-one but itself and those who sign its funding cheques.
So
Savile was a self-confessed paedophile
He indulged in this openly
His managers knew it, it was an open secret at the BBC
The abuse occurred on BBC premises, during his time on contract to them
The BBC commissioned more programmes with him as the ‘star’ all of which involved more young people and potential victims
In what way can the BBC possibly avoid corporate responsibility for this abuse?
Lord Patten needs to stop defending the management ineptitude at the BBC and start wielding a claymore
If the BBC bear corporate responsibility for this train crash where do you suppose the cash to pay compensation is going to come from? It won’t be from Paten or Entwhistle.
Any insurance cover will be null and void because they will argue;
a) you knew about this and did nothing and;
b) you failed to provide even basic child protection procedures.
Guess who is going to be paying then?
For any organisation in the private sector it would presumably have to come out of its budget or reserves and the BBC should be no different. If it has to borrow money to pay the damages, repayments should come out of its annual budget. Whichever way you look at it, it would have to slash its costs to meet its commitment.
The BBC always argues it has to pay market rates to compete – well, with the pay comes responsibility, and the organisation needs to stand on its own two feet when it comes to dealing with this crisis.
Well, depending on what they knew and what they did or did not do I would have thought criminal charges would be appropriate
And civil action to follow… (aiding and abetting etc).
Well it seems that former BBC staff member turned MP sees the light and is getting pretty testy at the BBC’s antics.
Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale, a former producer and director of current affairs programmes at the BBC says;
“Chris Patten is an old friend and a former parliamentary colleague for whom I have had a high regard, but in his comment he has made it clear that he is out of touch, not only with the strength of feeling and concern in Parliament about the Savile affair and related matters but, more importantly, with the strength of public revulsion at what has happened at Television Centre and with the corporate culture that, for the best part of 40 years, has apparently covered it up.
“Attack may be the best form of defence but in seeking to criticise a Culture Secretary who has not ever sought to challenge the independence of the BBC, he indicates how very little, within that corporate arrogance, has really changed.
“The ‘Auntie knows best’ line simply does not wash any more.
“BBC management, over far too many years, has sought to maintain an imperious disdain for criticism and it has become clear that successive directors general have, while happy to criticise others for not answering difficult questions, either turned a blind eye to criminal activities or have not known what has been going on on their own doorstep, which is also culpable.
“It is as if your favourite and respectable aunt has been revealed to be on the game, and if Lord Patten is not able to grasp that, then I fear that not only the director general but also the chairman of the BBC Trust are going to have to fall on their swords.
Oops; been spending too much time at B-BBC, Sir Roger?
http://www.london24.com/news/crime/jimmy_savile_sex_abuse_scandal_bbc_tory_mp_quit_child_jim_ll_fix_it_george_entwistle_lord_patten_sir_roger_gale_conservative_beeb_1_1667703
Got anything to contribute to this debate Dez? Rote disagreement with our views surely forces you to defend paedophiles.
Off topic, but just so BBC.
On their front page and the lead story in the USA/Canada section is “Fury at US candidate rape comment” which then runs “A Republican US Senate hopeful comes under fire for remarks about………”
Only on the BBC.
Over here, the major story on all the news channels (NBC excluded) is the leaking of the State Department emails showing that the White House and State department knew in real time that the attack was a terrorist attack. Whilst the names of the recipients in the State Department and White House have been redacted, the designations were left in.
John Bolton has been on to explain the rank of those particular designations.
If Obama had been at his desk he’d have known immediately what was happening, however he was probably on the golf course. Clinton certainly knew.
But then if you had to rely on the BBC you’d never know that there is a major row brewing over the cover up by Obama and Clinton because today on their website there is not one word on this, and as I said, it’s a major story on all the news channels except, of course, NBC.
And as I type we have the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee on saying that the White House is refusing to release information to him whilst leaking pro Obama information to tame media outlets.
I forgot to add that the “rape” comment story that has the BBC so frothed up is an also ran, page 5 story.
The Beeboids are just biding their time until Gloria Allred comes out with her October surprise about Romney’s involvement in somebody’s divorce 20 years ago, and then go all out when Obamessiah fundraiser Harvey Weinstein’s propaganda film about the President and Bin Laden is released just two days before the election. The film has been newly re-cut to feature Him more prominently, and to portray Romney as opposing the raid.
The BBC will have a field day. Until they get the wind back in their sails, they just can’t be bothered to report things like the revelations that the White House knew within two hours that the Benghazi attack was not about the film. But it’s okay, because the NY Times and the WaPo are burying it also. Quality journalism, at your expense.
I’m sure our resident professional journalists can explain why this is just fine, no bias evident.
Metaphor alert. On Radio 3 right now: Götterdämmerung. ACT II: deception, betrayal, and backstabbing.
One of the issues that doesn’t seem too have been addressed so far, is what is the “child safe” policy at the BBC right now. All over the UK those who come into contact on a regular basis with children, teenagers and vulnerable adults have to be CRB or enhanced CRB checked.
So what happens (is happening) at the BBC?
Children in need. should the BBC be trusted with it?
Miliband goes for the Beeboid vote, and the votes Beeboids can deliver for Labour.
“Ed Miliband backs BBC director general over Jimmy Savile scandal – video”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2012/oct/25/ed-miliband-bbc-jimmy-savile-video?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fmedia%2Frss+%28Media%29
The similarity in [ahem] ‘mangement style’ (I’ll leave that typo) appears to have created a degree of mutual empathy.
However, when two supposed pillars of the politico-media establishment are the only ones propping each other up, the pile up when the termites within their crutches burst out will be all the messier.