‘BBC staff ignored up to 1,000 attacks on children by predatory DJ Jimmy Savile’ according to new damning report lifting the lid on entire scandal
This is the most interesting comment from the Daily Mail article:
Liz Dux, a lawyer from Slater & Gordon, who is representing 74 of Savile’s victims, added: ‘This will not be a what-the-BBC-want sort of report.’
The report will ‘ go right to the heart of how Savile was able to get away with the most heinous of crimes under the very noses of BBC staff for more than 40 years.’
It may not be what they want but you can bet the first thing the BBC say is that in the round the report backs the BBC which dealt with the situation appropriately. The BBC made mistakes but we have learnt from them and now we must move on.
They have moved on. Not a word about this from ‘The world’s most trusted broadcaster’ on their web site.
If you want to read about Bill Roach however…
Perhaps the ‘world’s most corrupt broadcaster’ would be more appropriate.
“They have moved on. Not a word about this from ‘The world’s most trusted broadcaster’ on their web site”
—
At risk of sounding like I have been seduced to the sarc side of The Farce, really? Not a word?
It would be hard for them to totally ignore such a thing, especially if Front Page of The Observer. Even the faithful couldn’t miss them missing that.
Mind you, the first two Today FaceBook trails do literally start ‘Today Labour are saying…’ with such gush folk are beginning to notice.
Even if not noted under #nottrendingifwecanhelpit on some backwater blog soon to be shared by the Monday morning team, one is pretty sure it soon will be now as a quick memo fires off.
The world’s most corpulent broadcaster.
Hilariously, they are having a go at an NHS trust for hiding behind a loophole to avoid an FOI request sent by dear ol’ Auntie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-25766360
Let us hope no-one with a mischievious bent brings this up, should the beeb try to, um, hide behind a loophole to avoid publishing the Savile report. Or, God forbid, the long-lost Balen report
Thanks for that.
On par with anything involving complaints, their #foiexempted hypocrisies are legion.
The notion of holding to account whilst demanding they not held is wearing very thin.
Every time the name Savile is mentioned a feeling of fear and sense of panic must serge through the corridors of the BBC, from Patten to the workers in the news and current affairs offices.
The stories in the weekend press about the forthcoming report have at present been met with a “no comment till published” response. You can be sure a strategy is being prepared to respond and deflect attention and criticism both inside the BBC and amongst its cohorts of distinguished friends and supporters.
Those that share the BBC’s progressive (sic) agenda will look to move the blame around, share it out, change the direction of debate.
It has already begun. In the ST yesterday Peter Saunders of Child abuse charity NAPAC commented on the case but added the following: “Margaret Thatcher was advised not to give him a knighthood due to his offensive behaviour. What did she do? She ignored it. Savile was protected by the establishment.”
Well yes, Savile was no doubt protected by the BBC and the establishment. As Saunders said, those that turned a blind eye helped Savile continue his activities. But I found it interesting if not too surprising that Mrs Thatcher was specifically named.
When the report is published (and I hope we get to see it ALL) I wonder how many people who are Conservatives are smeared in some way. Spread the guilt, spread the debate, try and dilute the negative coverage the BBC will inevitably get.
The shared responsibility meme is all they have got.
And frankly there are… ‘questions to be answered’.
That said, it was a different time, so why the security services advising the PM (trying to link her is silly, if typical) would be even thinking about background checks on a BBC-vetted celeb is explicable if not excusable.
The BBC and its supporters have zero legs to stand on pursuing this distraction.
All of this happened under the BBC banner in one form or another, from building his brand to looking the other way on what must have been known by many.
And as the report shows already, if anyone had the temerity to comment, they risked being sent to Coventry by colleagues and the salt mines by the market rates.
As messed-up a 20,000 sackful of ferrets as can be imagined.
When there is something bad at the BBC you can be sure that the NSPCC (Quang) will ignore it and jump on something ‘not connected’ to the BBC. Of them all – only Ester Ratzen (former BBC) had the nerve to make statement on child abuse (probably because she knew what went on in the BBC). There are elements in all three main poltical parties that seem to think they have powers to abuse others by ‘right’. This shows what a lack of ‘morality’ and judgment we unfortunatly have. Both as perverted small ‘celebs’ and indifferent obnoxious MP’s.
Indeed, the lefty establishment will try to spread the filth over the tories. They will ignore that Savile was a close friend also of Blair and of Prince Charles too.
To use a well-used but nonetheless appropriate phase, bbc delenda est. And the sooner the better.
” Not now Cato !!!!!”
Tsk! Aren’t you aware that in todays dumbed down world that all classical references must be Punic-ed.
The BBC’s vindication is written into the goals of the Dame Janet Smith review. It doesn’t matter if every single BBC employee from 1960-2000 knew what was going on. The fix is already in.
They already have loads of policies in place and boxes ready to be ticked. Job already done. After a round of ritual theater where the BBC expresses regret, and then has to deal with a bit of backlash for having to pay out possibly as much as £25 million of license fee money in damages to victims (never mind the legal fees), lessons will be learned and nobody at the BBC who deserves it will suffer consequences.
It’s going to be the same story as all the other scandals. Wagons will be circled, politicians and media luvvies will stand up against enemies of the BBC waiting to pounce from the Right, they’ll try to scare your children with tales of nasty Uncle Rupert coming in at night to steal them from their beds, everyone including the Tory leadership will agree that the BBC is still a national treasure in need of protection and support, and that will be that.
‘…having to pay out possibly as much as £25 million of license fee money in damages to victims (never mind the legal fees), lessons will be learned and nobody at the BBC who deserves it will suffer consequences.’
As often happens, I see your point, concede your conclusions to be possible, but retain a glimmer of hope that eventually, the camel creaking under each final straw will eventually buckle.
I know that £25M is ‘just’ a quarter of a DMI, ten Byfords or whatever funny money terms the BBC deals in, but these are piling up, and frequently.
Combine the monetary hits with the actual abuses (from Savile’s Pollard to Rose QC bullying to Smith now), there are only so many holes in the dyke that can have fingers stuck in them if two are constantly in each ear.
And the public purse, and their patience, is not infinite.
Ah but, the BBC may have other uses for their fingers, Mr Dyke included, but two of them are perpetually reserved for sticking up at the license payer.
You’re right David, it would’ve been better for them to have done nothing.
Nice try, Marvin, but no. It would have been better for someone else to do something less dissembling and less geared towards drawing a line under the whole thing so nobody at the BBC now faces harsh consequences.
Although I am for disbanding the BBC and wont allow it to broadcast into my home, and believe them to be self serving liars, and support the abolition of the license fee I refer all who would like to see the bigger picture to Moor Larkin for a real in depth researched take on the whole sorry ‘saville’ affair, also Anna Raccoon has some excellent researched material over on her site that is if you’re interested in who exactly is driving this abomination and WHY
Saw Anna Raccoon’s blog in the early days of the Newsnight spiking saga. She thought it was all a fake story then, and still seems to now. Apparently it’s all a cunning plot by Rupert Murdoch to take down the BBC by stealth, and Savile and the BBC are innocent as lambs. Which is why all those people in and around the BBC at the time said they knew what was going on, “It was a different time”, etc. Apparently people like Janet Street-Porter and the producer and editor of Top of the Pops are Murdoch shills. Who knew?
What about that Police Federation though?
I imagine if they could put up a few serial paedophiles as well as a few tax-massaging dodgef**kers…then the BBC would be much nicer to them.
Maybe the Police Fed should get a few BBC types-random ought to do it!
Bet Unite and Unison think they`re off the hook now…the PF make either of them seem like the COHSE!
Labour..Co-op-unions….the sweet smell of lavender.
Like the BBC -The Liberals are in trouble with Lord Rennard – (inappropriate behaviour’; touching-up the opposite sex etc.) still does not sound as deeply ‘disturbing’ as the case(s) proven BBC ‘cover-up’ of former Radio 1 (and 2) DJ’s (and past BBC Radio 1 Controllers) who were ALL hidden from view by the BBC management (notorius historic corporate endemic abuse). But nothing prepares you for the past history of Liberal MP: Cyril Smith who’s career could eclipse Bob Flowers (he of the Co-op Meths) – who is still fondly remembered by the Labour Party as party Banker. Liberal Cyril Smith MP was (as quoted by the Police) was one of the ‘untouchables’ i.e. one of the ‘elite’ Liberal free thinkers sponsored by the likes of the BBC as a sexual predator. The Liberals think they are above it all, in the same way as the BBC and Labour but all have -similar – links to each other as paedophiles: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10466679/Rev-Paul-Flowers-links-to-Cyril-Smith.html
I personally think the word ‘British’ should be removed from their name, as the BBC are so clearly anti British.