|
Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 30, 2012 21:39:51 GMT
A documentary 'Exposure' on ITV, is due to be aired this Wednesday. It concerns allegations of sexual abuse committed by the late Jimmy Savile against girls as young as 12 years old, at least from the 1970's. 10 women, now mature adults, claimed how Savile had groped them, or had them perform acts on him, and at least one was raped in his dressing room. So what does this have to do with the BBC, apart from the fact that some of this abuse took place on BBC premises while Savile was employed by them? Just the fact that the BBC Newsnight team had been investigating similar claims against Savile, and were due to air their findings last December, but were ordered by bosses to drop their investigation. Instead, the corporation screened two tribute programmes celebrating Savile’s lengthy BBC career as presenter of Jim’ll Fix It and Top of the Pops, and also as a Radio 1 DJ. The BBC claim: ...'it had conducted a thorough investigation into the allegations and found no evidence to support the claims.
"The BBC has conducted extensive searches of its files to establish whether there is any record of misconduct or allegations of misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile during his time at the BBC. No such evidence has been found.
"Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action."
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon said:
"It is absolutely untrue that the Newsnight investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.
"We have been very clear from the start that the piece was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated.
"To say otherwise is false and very damaging to the BBC and individuals. The notion that internal pressure was applied appears to be a malicious rumour." Clearly there are allegations of misconduct, and not findings evidence 40 years later is hardly surprising - what evidence did they think could exist. The allegations by 10 different women appears to show that not only was Savile a paedophile, but the BBC are also involved in a cover-up - for whatever reason. Strange how vehemently they can pursue the Catholic Church when they discover a cover-up of sexual abuse, but they want you to believe when its the BBC they have a good reason. Since Savile is dead he is beyond retribution in this world. I'm just glad that this ITV documentary will raise eyebrows about the behaviour of the BBC in this matter. See also The shocking evidence that Jimmy Savile DID abuse underage girls - by FOUR of his victims
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 1, 2012 21:25:48 GMT
One can just imagine how self righteously the BBC would be pursuing this story if it happened within the Murdoch corporation. As it is, they're trying to pretend all about themselves is squeaky clean, when in fact, they increased the potential for this twisted piece of shit to damage more young girls.
Can't say I'm surprised, one can see this mentality throughout their output in one form or the other. When one has all these middle-aged women, totally unconnected to each other, making similar accusations about experiences they suffered from this man, what other evidence does the BBC need to justify their claim for pulling the Newsnight programme about him? This is besides their own staff who witnessed Savile at the time, but failed to report it to the authorities, succumbing to the BBC pressure to keep quiet about it.
What's in a name - Savile?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 2, 2012 22:35:55 GMT
I recall how vehemently the BBC went after News International staff over phone hacking. One would think it was the most evil of crimes that could be perpetrated considering the amount of self-righteous air-time the BBC gave to it. We all know the BBC had a selfish motive in doing so by trying to get rid of its major competition in the media world - at least here in the UK. So how does phone hacking compare to enabling, and in a way, supplying victims to a paedophile? If the government doesn't use this ammunition to destroy the BBC then its failing in any moral code. In any event, if shown clearly to be a fact that the BBC hierarchy turned a blind eye to Savile's behaviour, thus enabling him further, any citizen will be able to cease paying the licence fee in future with total impunity. As Damian Thompson in the Telegraph spells out: Jimmy Savile: the BBC was at the centre of a shocking paedophile cover-up
By Damian Thompson
Let me quickly spell out a couple of things that have emerged from the revelations about Sir Jimmy Savile's disgusting sexual activities.
First, the BBC over a period of decades turned a deaf ear to rumours that one of its biggest stars was groping and raping underage girls.
Second, the BBC moved vulnerable children into the orbit of a man rumoured to be a child molester.
Third, the BBC suppressed a Newsnight report revealing that it employed and enabled a celebrity paedophile – using public money to do so.
This is a huge scandal. So far, only the surface has been scratched.
Further information:
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 3, 2012 20:17:41 GMT
While the BBC carries on denying they were aware of any wrongdoing by Savile, there are those within who tell a different story. I know who I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 4, 2012 17:27:49 GMT
Here's what was revealed in the ITV documentary on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 5, 2012 19:12:39 GMT
The reports of vile behaviour by Savile grows daily as more people come forward, hopefully putting more pressure on the authorities to investigate the BBC's complicity in all this.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 5, 2012 22:10:54 GMT
I read an article about this affair by Richard Littlejohn (below), who I usually like, that I find quite disappointing, and I enter this into the comments section of the article.
I'm quite disappointed with your article Richard. You know full that this medium shapes thoughts, emotions, and actions in the world, so what have you done with this story?
You acknowledge that something is rotten within the BBC that Savile could perpetrate his foul behaviour for so long, and instead of inspiring action against the corporation for this criminal complicity, you say 'what's the point'.
The BBC can't run a story about the Catholic Church without raising the issue of sexual abuse committed by some within its walls. Yet nobody is forced to support or pay for the continuation of the Church.
If it can be seen, as already confirmed already by some BBC employees, that the hierarchy were aware of this abuse by Savile and purposefully chose to ignore it, then it is the duty of every citizen to refuse to fund this insidious organization.
That's the point!
Here's what he wrote:
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 7, 2012 22:28:25 GMT
More evidence of a cover-up by the BBC emerges. The article itself has a couple of audio tapes that can be played there, as described below.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 8, 2012 18:50:36 GMT
A few other facets inside the obvious ones exposed by this story. Both Entwistle and Patten saw no reason initially to have to hold an internal enquiry. Clearly, in typical BBC style, they were hoping that any flak due them would simply 'go away'. This mindset is part of the dynamics that make behaviour like Savile displayed, and those that ex-BBC journos sometimes expose, all too commonplace. But pressure has now been exerted on them, and they want to be seen as 'doing the right thing'. Except it's an internal inquiry. Probably they will elect 'an independent' person to head this inquiry, that a quick Google will show just how 'hand-in-hand' they are with the BBC, and only too ready to give them a clean bill of health with minor suggestions for the future. Basically allowing everything that already exists at the BBC to continue the way it has.' There are also those like the 'fearless' feminist Toksvig who suddenly decides to come out of the woodwork with claims she was also assaulted. So why has she waited till now to make it public? If she lived the way she pretends she should have made a scene about it a long time ago - regardless of consequences. Then I'd certainly have more respect for her than the contempt I do feel for her. This story highlights the BBC mindset perfectly- and shows perfectly why they need to be shut down. Regardless of whether the government have enough guts to do it, it should be possible now to legally not pay these insidious self-serving lefties to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 10, 2012 19:49:04 GMT
Just as I predicted in the post above, the BBC are to bring in an 'outsider' to had their internal investigation. They haven't named who it is to be yet, but I'm sure when they eventually do, a simple Google check will confirm their past allegiance to the BBC in some way. In case the public doesn't understand the 'import' of this move, at least the way the BBC want it to be seen, they have an 'analysis' on this decision by them inside the article. Analysis Torin Douglas Media correspondent In announcing that an outsider will head the inquiry and that it will happen as soon as the police "give the green light" - and in his view the sooner the better - Lord Patten has gone further than the BBC director general did when he announced the inquiry on Monday.
The BBC Trust chairman said the corporation had a lot of questions to answer and whoever carried out the report would have to command the trust of the whole nation.
He said the report would be published in full, though its scope and terms are yet to be decided.
Lord Patten has also written to the BBC's director general asking him to check that the corporation's current policies on child protection, sexual harassment, bullying and whistleblowing are fit for purpose - to make sure what he called the "cesspit" of allegations could not happen again. 'Command the trust of the whole nation'? In their dreams! "The report will be published in full - though it's scope and terms are yet to be decided". Just to make sure the BBC are firmly holding the reins on what can be decided upon.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 11, 2012 23:00:18 GMT
Excellent article that encapsulates quite a few points relevant to this affair.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 12, 2012 21:04:40 GMT
Consider this: Last night, television director David Nicolson, now 67, claimed he had attempted to report Savile’s sexual activity with a young girl at the BBC but was ignored.
He told The Sun he had caught Savile in his Jim’ll Fix It dressing room with a teenage girl and reported it to senior members of staff.
He alleges the issue was "shrugged off", with staff telling him "that’s the way it goes" and "that's Jimmy".
“Everyone knew what was going on," he claimed. "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.”
More shocking facts are emerging, as described below.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 12, 2012 22:40:36 GMT
Until now , both Entwistle and Patten have assured the public that the decision to drop the Newsnight exposee on Savile was completely above board.
Now they see the need to have an inquiry as to what exactly happened within its walls. Typical of the BBC to justify whatever they do unless pressure is brought to bear on their practices.
They are not fit to judge themselves, as their biased output clearly shows.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 12, 2012 23:12:34 GMT
The beeb are to personally pick who is going to lead the inquiry?
Balen Mk.2
No doubt Savile would have been disturbed by scenes of Israeli agression in the illegally occupied territories and it was the evil Joos who are to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 14, 2012 19:22:13 GMT
As I noted in a previous post, it's somewhat fishy for the BBC to initially 'assure the public' that the decision to drop the Newsnight exposee was because of insufficient evidence against Savile, and then to admit the need for an internal inquiry to verify these claims. Shows that whatever the BBC say is purely expeditious, and may have little or no relevance to truth. Now the new Director General, George Entwistle, has been caught in a controversy over the claims that he was unaware of the content of the Newsnight investigation at the time. BBC staff are openly scornful of this claim. Hardly surprising that any proper scrutiny of the way the BBC operates will reveal something rotten. What's also evident is the power the BBC exerts on external forces - even the police to cover up their crimes. Jimmy Savile may have abused up to 60 victims across six decades as it's revealed the late TV host evaded justice from at least SIX police investigations By LARISA BROWN All By This Author - 14/10/2012 16:51:55
Savile was allegedly investigated by police during a series of sex abuse inquiries from as early as 1958. Since the scandal emerged police have trebled their original estimates of the number of preyed upon youngsters.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 14, 2012 22:03:02 GMT
This piece from The Commentator encapsulates the issues surrounding this scandal for the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 15, 2012 23:03:41 GMT
Michael Lyons, the former BBC Trust chairman, has criticised the 'hysteria' over Savile levelled at the BBC. Sir Michael said: “There is no doubt about the seriousness of the allegations against Jimmy Savile and they need to be taken seriously and quite properly.
“It clearly has consequences for the BBC but frankly I think the consequences spread well beyond the BBC.
“There may well be lessons here to learn about the way that we tolerate the behaviour of predatory men, particularly when they are in powerful positions and there may be lessons to learn, I’m sure there are, about the licence that we sometimes collectively allow to celebrities.”
He said he understood why there would be an “intense focus” on the “national broadcaster” but added: “As you know there is a degree of hysteria in the extent to which it is focused exclusively on the BBC rather than being seen as something of much wider consequence. In the first place the public focus is on all the institutions that Savile infested during his time, and not just the BBC. That he feels any heat as a result of this scandal exposing the dynamics within his former domain is perfect. I don't recall his complaining that every time the BBC would refer for any reason to the Catholic Church, it would regurgitate child abuse, as if that went automatically hand in hand with whatever the Church was doing. As for whipping up hysteria, what would he call the way the BBC used the phone hacking scandal, a much lesser offense than Savile's, to attack Murdoch and Sky? All those involved in perpetuating the mindset that gave Savile free rein to commit his vile behaviour can squirm as the truth comes home to roost.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 16, 2012 3:20:47 GMT
You beat me to it Teddy. Day after day, week after week, month after month of Leveson.
Now call me dumb but THAT is what I would call hysteria.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 16, 2012 23:08:35 GMT
When the national broadcaster chooses to point a finger, as it did over the phone hacking, and Catholic Church, it must remember that the other 3 fingers are pointing straight back at itself. The irony and karmic justice is so fitting.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 16, 2012 23:20:51 GMT
I see the BBC have named the 2 people that will head their internal investigation. Dame Janet Smith who headed the Shipman inquiry, and will look into the culture and practices of the BBC during the years Jimmy Savile worked there. And Nick Pollard who used to head Sky News who will examine Newsnight's shelving of an investigation into why police dropped a sexual abuse probe.
On the face of it, the BBC choice is certainly better than I had anticipated, but I will withhold judgement until I see what they come up with.
In Googling these people I did find that Dame Janet Smith when commenting on the wider significance of "whistleblowing" in her report on the Shipman case said that barriers to whistleblowers included, " the fear of being seen a troublemaker or "maverick", the fear of recriminations and a feeling of impotence grounded in the belief that, even if the report is made, nothing will be done about it".
So I wonder if the BBC may be hoping she will be sympathetic to their 'closing their eyes' to Savile's antics.
Nick Pollard began his journalistic career as a local newspaper journalist in 1968. He then progressed to BBC Radio Merseyside as a reporter and presenter, before joining BBC Radio News in 1973 and moving to BBC TV News in 1977. He left the BBC in 1980, when he took up the post at ITN.
Like I said, we'll see what they come up with.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 17, 2012 1:08:34 GMT
It will still be a cover up Teddy. This is like somebody going to court on criminal charges and getting to pick your own judge and jury.
I'm putting a tenner on the beeb coming out of this squeaky clean.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 17, 2012 14:58:53 GMT
There's no way they can come out of it 'squeaky clean' since too much has been revealed so far, with more coming out every day, for that to happen. However they will certainly reduce the fervour to oust them from further operation as a public broadcaster, as they drummed up against Murdoch and NOTW during the phone hacking scandal. There's no doubt that this shows far worse moral behaviour, and people should definitely be going to jail for their actions. I'd be surprised if this happens though, and there will undoubtedly be some sort of mitigation of the real crimes. They will end up hiring somebody else with an astronomical salary to oversee this facet of the BBC and tell us that this cannot happen again. and 'lessons have been learned'. Justice will not be done - on that I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 17, 2012 15:48:01 GMT
Whatis is it with the beeb and their obsession with glorifying dead pedos....Savile...Mohammed...
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 18, 2012 22:41:16 GMT
I should make clear at this point that I'm not trying to cover every development in this Savile case as concerns the BBC. What will happen as a result of it is something we'll all see in due course as the facts emerge. What I am looking for are those elements that highlight the mindset and mentality of the BBC, the inner workings of that force, so that everybody can understand for themselves just how insidious an organisation it is, entirely at odds with the values we cherish in our society. An example today is John Humphrey doing his best to deflect attention away from the BBC by referring to what is going on there now as a 'witchhunt', and trivialising the kind of sexual abuse that happened as 'not so serious'. n a heated interview with Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman he also denied that some victims had suffered 'serious sexual abuse'.
Mr Humphrys added that the BBC has been drawn into a 'witchhunt' over the issue.
Reacting to his 'banter' comment Ms Harman said: 'We’re talking about serious sexual assault here'.
Humphrys then responded: 'Well we’re not always though, are we? In some cases girls are talking about him putting his hand on their leg.
'That’s not the sort of behaviour we should accept. Nonetheless, in many cases, it’s not serious sexual assault.
'There is a danger of a witchhunt here,' he added, saying that it is very important there is an independent inquiry into what Savile may have done while at the BBC. His opinion might have more weight if the BBC themselves had not pursued Murdoch and the Catholic Church with such zeal. We have the saying 'what goes around; comes around', and it fulfils our sense of justice when those who have lost balance in pursuing their own agenda are subject to a similar scrutiny and criticism. Even though there is far less pressure so far on the BBC than they have exerted when it suited them. There is also the fact that the BBC as a publicly funded organisation supposedly has a responsibility over and above any private one to be completely stain free. We know for many reasons that they are far from that, and what Humphrey shows is that this aspect doesn't enter his consciousness for one moment. He shows himself as human slime, as I believe so many others in the BBC inner circle share with him. The following article highlights other aspects within the BBC, and thankfully shows that at least some of the staff there are disappointed with its inner workings.
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 18, 2012 23:49:36 GMT
The victims should go straight to Scotland Yard and put an official complaint in against the beeb.
Plod would have no option but to investigate and no amount of humming and hawing about them having their own internal investigation would get them off the hook.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 16:06:31 GMT
You'll be pleased to know then that as a result of the complaints of abuse, the Met have upgraded it to an official criminal investigation.. How much this will involve the BBC is not really clear yet, but I hope the Met will recall the way the BBC has been criticising them over the years, targeting the police instead of rioters as an example, when knocking on their door. I do believe the usual BBC arrogance is likely to be taken down a notch or two Also in the news today is the question over why a BBC Panorama programme investigating the various elements of the scandal, that was expected to be aired next Monday, has been postponed. Eyebrows are raised as to whether it has anything to do with the fact that BBC director general Entwistle is appearing before the MPs to answer questions on Tuesday. Fresh BBC controversy as airing of Panorama's Savile investigation may be delayed
- Show was meant to be broadcast on Monday but now may be aired later in the week
- Delay would mean programme is shown after BBC director-general George Entwistle has appeared before MPs
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 16:27:27 GMT
Till now the BBC officially gave the reason they shelved the Newsnight investigation into the Savile abuse story was because 'the it could not be substantiated. Now a leaked email has surfaced which seems to show that the more likely reason was that it conflicted with a Savile tribute series that the BBC were due to run shortly after, and that the BBC were going to be shown to have been complicit in the scandal. Something that was suspected to have been the real reason since it was first aired.
Great to see the truth coming out, and the culprits about to be further humiliated.
Even the way the BBC have responded to this email paves the way for further humiliation.
But a spokeswoman for the BBC dismissed the email as 'simply an exchange between a junior press officer and the Newsnight producer asking for further information about the Jimmy Savile investigation'.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 16:56:16 GMT
Apparently a former BBC head of human resources claims he was forced out of his job after he tried to blow the whistle on sexual discrimination and harassment of women. BBC whistleblower 'was forced out after raising alarm about sexual discrimination' If so it shows the prevalent mindset at the Beeb quite clearly, and gives more credence to the reason, as I noted above, why the BBC selected Dame Janet Smith to lead their internal inquiry. When commenting on the wider significance of "whistleblowing" in her report on the Shipman case said that barriers to whistleblowers included, " the fear of being seen a troublemaker or "maverick", the fear of recriminations and a feeling of impotence grounded in the belief that, even if the report is made, nothing will be done about it".I feel the BBC want to be seen as having been impotent to reveal the abuse of Savile because of everybody else there. Each person can claim - "it wasn't me - it was them".
|
|
|
Post by thehighlandrebel on Oct 19, 2012 18:24:40 GMT
All this and the first item on tonights news on R4 is still that someone used the word 'pleb'
A descent into farce.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 19, 2012 19:30:46 GMT
Which just shows how little they attempt to grade the news they present when it comes to pursuing their own agenda. I would like somebody at the BBC to justify how one minister who supposedly calls a policeman a pleb, and this weeks ago, is of greater public interest than the news surrounding child abuse that the BBC has been complicit in aiding and abetting.
For this alone their role should be terminated.
|
|