Everything is going a bit pear shaped at the BBC regarding Savile……and no matter how many ‘media consultants’ or media analysts from Univeristies (who usually turn out to be ex-BBC employees) the BBC parades in front of us to say it’s something all about nothing really, the increasing likelihood is that Entwistle might go….if this was a Government department you can be sure one of John Humphrys questions would be ‘Should you consider your position?’
Roger Laughton, BBC employee for 25 years and now a media consultant type, was wheeled on yesterday to tell us he felt sorry for Entwistle….‘being grilled by a bunch of quite aggressive MPs….they were attack dogs…jusy looking for questions he couldn’t answer…he tried to answer honestly.’
A new line of defence is that the victims, the girls, are being forgotten in all this and the BBC has become the story instead….that’s because the BBC is the story…how it allowed Savile to ‘get away’ with it for nearly 50 years, why Newsnight abandoned its broadcast…was it to safeguard the BBC reputation?, and the general incompetence of the senior management’s reactions in response to a major crisis.
Now though it looks like there is more trouble brewing internally as they fall out amongst themselves as Victoria Derbyshire on Twitter lays into management…i.e. Entwistle:
Victoria Derbyshire @vicderbyshire ‘If BBC journos/Eds make a poor editorial call, (& most of us hve at some point), will they be treated by mgemnt like Peter Rippon has been?
And:
The Daily Mail reports that the BBC tried to ‘gag’ a government minister, Grant Shapps, when he appeared on question time by laying out what the ‘facts’ really were regarding Savile and the BBC…the facts of course as the BBC management saw them….
And:
BBC Trust chief, Chris Patten, was slow off the mark to comment…and when he did it might have been better if he hadn’t bothered as he completely misjudged his approach when answering a letter from a government minister and implied that the government was in some way threatening the BBC’s independence.
As stated previously when you see the performance and attitudes of past and present chairman of BBC Governors or Trust you realise it is probably almost pointless to complain to them about BBC behaviour….it seems they will defend it however wrong it was.
And:
Another indictment of management is the attitude of Entwistle and his predecessor Thompson who claim, in the interest of BBC ‘independence’, to have refused to take any interest whatsoever in the working of the BBC and therefore cannot be held responsible for whatever goes wrong.
Not a bad get out clause….’I’m in charge but don’t blame me…..I’m just an inspirational figure head or something……pays well though.’
All told a pretty shabby shambles…..still….when the BBC come to make the ‘Film’ I have no doubt that we will find we were all badly mistaken and Savile was actually employed by ITV and it was the BBC, aided by Labour’s Tom Watson, who broke the scandal wide open.
the tories must be able to see what the BBC is like,time to put the boot in.Please MSM ask why should we pay for the bbc now,front page would do best. time for subscription me thinks
I was priveliged to go to Aldenham School from 1967 to 1972 . It is just down the road from Elstree studios. I was made aware of Jimmy Savile’s proclivities, specifically young girls in the back of his Rolls-Royce. I cannot remember wheher it was an informal warning from my house master or just gossip around the school. It is inconceivable that the BBC were not aware then or at any other time in the past.
Having said that attitudes to paedophillia were somewhat more relaxed then than they are now. Even so for Savile to have been allowed to make programmes giving him access to young girls is unforgivable.
It is now clear that any complaint made to the BBC is pointless. And that covers just about anything. Closing down their complaints department would at least save taxpayer’s money.
On a more general point .We are all entitled to enjoy the discomfiture of the BBC and it’s executives.
Never slow to rubbish conservative views, religions ( one notable exception ) the history and people of England and the very land itself the BBc is now under sustained attack. I bet they never saw this coming.
No, but now they are getting a slight and reduced taste of the medicine that they themselves dished out to News Corp execs and bankers and tories and any church but Islam.
If there is any justice it should get a lot worse for them and lead to them being closed down.
The BBC is not fit for purpose.
‘Today’ this morning was an exercise in cynical displays of boredom on Savile by the interviewers, particularly Evan Davis.
Yet they could their attacks on Murdoch going every day for weeks without any sense of ennui.
I think that was because there was an orchestrated campaign by the BBC/Grauniad to keep the story running by releasing ‘new’ (well 6 year old) allegations every day.
No one is ‘campaigning’ against the BBC so the ‘news’ will only be new if something new turns up. And then they can always ignore it.
Don’t go thinking this is the BBCs Leveson because it certainly isn’t.
They will ride this one out and maybe sacrifice a few lambs but in the end who is going to keep reminding the public on every comedy show what happened? Not the usual suspects that’s for sure.
‘It is now clear that any complaint made to the BBC is pointless.
Of course, but I beg to differ on the closure. That’s just what they would love.
I for one am looking forward to dealing with the next ‘Our director is a seasoned professional of integrity, and having looked at what you’ve managed to drag past the attack dogs and gatekeepers thus far, can’t actually answer the facts you raise, but is comfortable in his belief in the BBC’s ongoing inability to transgress, so you are the weakest link… goodbye’.
Because in light of what has been entered into evidence thus far, I will simply cite some BBC URLs and staff testimony and tell them where they can stick that patronising bit of waffle.
There are some very interesting revelations concerning the Savile affair on the Anna Raccoon blog. Anna (whose reportage generally puts the MSM to shame) happens to have been a resident of Duncroft at the time of Savile’s alleged misdeeds. She provides chapter and verse – and sources. Nothing she writes gets the BBC even partially off the hook, but – if her account is true – then it appears that some of the allegations against Savile are, to say the least, contrived – even opportunistic.
For some reason inserting Anna’s blog address (with or without the “a href” tag) leads to rejection of the whole comment. I hope this isn’t another B-BBC glitch. Well, actually it must be, because this doesn’t occur elsewhere.
No problem when I put in the hyperlink on the Open Thread. Here it is again, just plain:
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/
WTF?
It just gets worse and worse.
David P has mentioned this elsewhere. As you say, opportunistic but could they are being encouraged so as to provide sufficient fluff to be blown away as many-victims-unreliable-whole-thing-witch-hunt excuse/defence/scenario?
(of course victim would be in “victim” in BBC language)
I quite like the idea of an independent BBC – independent of my money, that is.
I am wondering how far any investigation will travel within the bbc; particularly, have there been any immoral and/or illegal activities in any other department, other than ToTP, such as Blue Peter. In fact all other programmes aimed at children and young teenagers. I can’t believe that Mr Savile and his DJ chums were the only ones fornicating and sodomising with young people.
Christopher Trace had to leave Blue Peter in 1967 because he was having an affair with a teenager.
‘A new line of defence is that the victims, the girls, are being forgotten in all this’
I seem to recall this was trotted out at the height of the (now largely discredited) hackgate frenzy, but as soon as the poor lass’ case had served their purposes, Labour, Graun & Aunty dropped her like a rag doll.
It’s amazing to see each ‘line’ being taken and repeated across the ‘system’, and how they drop these when they don’t catch on and simply trial another one in case it flies.
Sadly too many facts, of too serious a nature, involving too many people, many on record, are messing with the usual suspects’ usual techniques.
This has run, is running and looks set to run well beyond that point once identified as terminal damage.
But the new cherry vulture names popping up are creative, I’ll give ’em that.
The e-mail to Grant Shapps isn’t quite censorship. But setting the agenda? – yes. Impartial? – no.
“Aren`t the children being forgotten in all of this?”
The BBC go all Mrs Lovejoy on us…wouldn`t have anything to do with taking the heat off their noncing, grooming and perversions would it, by any chance.?
I`m sure that most children will be happy that the monolith that employed Savile is now choosing to “think” of something other than themselves in the current climate.
Gerry Healey of the WRP would be pleased….lefty perverts have an academic revolutionary imperative to bring down the boring nuclear family , after all…how much has their debauchery stuck it to the Whitehouse tendency? Followed by more of their sick “regulations and oversight” to ensure it will need ratcheting up again very soon.
The Beeboids are quite similar to those Islamic sex gangs up north-hence their approval of what they did, as well as the soft pedalling on the reporting of same.
The BBC want to divert us away from their own more recent issues of the Newsnight cancellation cover up and screening of tribute to a man they corporately knew was a pervert.
As to the girls, well, if the BBC can allow one of their presenters to say that the girls might have enjoyed it and apparently not discipline the presenter and issue an immediate apology to the girls, it sums up what the BBC think about the victims of their decades long management failings.
“Jimmy Savile and the BBC – the story that just keeps on running…”
By Roy Greenslade.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/oct/26/jimmy-savile-national-newspapers?