Guido has an audio clip of the ex BBC DG Mark Thompson admitting he knew about the Savile accusations…unfortunately, at least for me, the audio doesn’t play….have a look anyway:
Audio Tape Reveals Mark Thompson DID Know About Savile
Ninety seconds of audio released by The Times media correspondent Ben Webster has undone former BBC Director General Mark Thompson’s evidence to both Parliament and the Pollard Review over what he knew about Savile. The damning tape from an interview last October has Thompson admitting that he knew the fateful Newsnight investigation was into Savile and about “sexual abuse of some kind”.
Tory MP Rob Wilson says:
“Both the integrity of the enquiry and the BBC is at stake as is the reputation of Mark Thompson.”
Integrity of the BBC!? They lost that years ago.
Even their perceived integrity is dwindling. The only people who still trust the BBC implicitly are 80 year old grannies who don’t get out much.
Your wrong scooby, unfortunately. There are millions of people still under that 80 yr old grannny status, whose only source of information is the bbc and th daily mirror. Their view of the world is shite, but they just dont know it. The standard line is: well it must be true I tead it in the mirror. They are just not aware of the biased view they are bring fed. Inbbc is still regarded as something of a treasure by too many sadly.
I know what you’re saying Dysgwr_Cymraeg but I qualified what I said with ‘implicitly’.
There are lots of lefties on the interweb who question the BBC’s reporting of one story of another or as strange as it may seem, think that the BBC is biased towards the right. There are also lefties who openly admit that the BBC has a strong labour bias and rub their hands with glee at the thought of it. You only have to scratch the surface of a few leftwing political blogs to find that out.
Is this a case for a charge of perjury and jail like all the News of the Screws journalists?
The problem here is that this interview is obviously known to the NY Times and they still made him CEO. If the high-flying NY Times legal attack dogs knew about this and figured it wouldn’t be a problem, it’s not going to do him any damage now. Unfortunately, unless somebody else comes forward and says Thompson knew and they told him or something, he’ll walk away untouched.
And the unappealing stammering and cornered-rat machine-gun delivery isn’t necessarily a sign of guilt because, from other times I’ve heard him talk, it’s his normal pattern of speech. Not that it speaks well of him. He did get rather hostile, but someone else needs to finger him for anything to really happen.
What is absolutely clear in the interview is that Mark Thompson knew that the investigation was about sex abuse and said so. He then spent the next 20 minutes of the interview trying to undo what he had said.
Note that it has been recorded on the Guido;
This recording comes to light just two weeks after it was revealed by Miles Goslett in the Sunday Times that Helen Boaden, outgoing head of BBC News, asked her lawyer to write to Nick Pollard 12 weeks ago clarifying that she told Thompson in a telephone call on or around December 21, 2011 that Newsnight’s investigation was about child abuse.
This would indicate that Thompson committed perjury.
Why would Boaden require her lawyer to write to Pollard? Surely Pollard interviewed Boaden? Surely Pollard asked this question? Boaden could have told him then.
The whole thing stinks and when lawyers are used as spokesmen then you know the person they represent has some serious legal problems to deal with.
I agree with your interpretation, Teddy, but I don’t see it holding up. He kept saying that, even if he was told, he knew there was nothing to the allegations. So that pretty much gets him out of allowing tributes to be run of a known sex criminal. I don’t believe him, but it’s his word against nobody else’s really, since the other top BBC mandarins are mostly covering for him so far.
Perhaps if “Hugs” Boaden gets in real trouble for her own separate perjury issue, she’ll squeal for a deal.
Non-specific Allegations
It seems to be indicative of the liberal mind set that just as soon as he has been elevated to some position of authority the liberal ceases to be a normal human being.
I’m thinking of how Mark Thompson’s defence of his apparent inaction over the scrapping of the Jimmy Savile Newsnight is an almost carbon copy of Nick Clegg’s excuse for his similar inaction in the case of Lord Rennard, the LibDem groper-in-chief.
You see once he is safely ensconced in his well renumerated ivory tower the liberal takes on an entirely unique quasi-judicial character.
No longer can the liberal act in the way that the rest of us might act. He can’t hear rumours that a former BBC National Treasure is a bit of a nonce and then, using his own sense of integrity or otherwise, decide whether to do something about it that may in the short term harm his precious Corporation or his own future career prospects.
The good liberal can’t take the fact that insiders are aware that the Liberal Party’s biggest cheese has wandering hands and then take it on his own conscience whether or not to risk harm to his Party by kicking him out.
Oh no. The liberal is not like the rest of us. He can’t speak in terms of what he did and what he didn’t know. He tends to adopt a form of thinking and of language that is all his own. It is a kind of strained legalese. The liberal doesn’t hear rumours – he hears of specific and non-specific allegations.
If your house in on fire and you happen to need some help from a liberal, you had better be sure to put you request for help in the correct specific form that he requires.
Go through the right channels, mate! ‘Cos he’s not going to act any non-specific requests and he certainly ain’t gonna act on some unsubstantiated rumour that your house is on fire. Not when it interupts the easy flow of his lazy day.
The head of BBC gets a comment from a journalist under his wing who says to you: ‘You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile’.”
What’s the next thing an intelligent person is going to say or ask???
Maybe – WHY?
But we are to believe Thompson just dismissed it. For this he received over £800k a year.
It was obvious that Thompson had to have known what the Newsnight investigation was about, despite his denials.
Now the truth is out.
You will also notice how many times Thompson has to say ‘uh uh uh uh’ during the interview, clearly to give himself time to think of ‘the correct answer’. Almost like a stuck record, or a buffering problem. Consider how much this ‘top executive’ was paid relative to his performance here.
If the NY Times keeps him employed after this – they deserve everything coming their way. This will not be forgotten, or just ‘go away’.
Thompson’s head was already in New York by then. He probably figured nothing would come of it, since Savile had gotten charges dropped previously, and he’d be long gone by the time anything came of it anyway. Plus, he knew that key Beeboids would cover for him.
He’s not the only one that knew of the sick sexual abuse of children, on the link below, you will hear Ken Livingston reveal he knew MI5 were sexually abusing children to obtain material, for the sole purpose of blackmailing Politicians.
Livingstone is a busted flush. He’s been caught out so often no one but a fool would believe him.