Re: Jimmy Savile accused in ITV documentary

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:06 pm

Thank you Pedro.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mps-quiz-bbc-boss-over-savile-025157350.html

'Five to 10' staff in BBC sex probe

The BBC is investigating up to 10 "serious allegations" involving past and present employees, director general George Entwistle said.
He gave the figure as he faced a hostile grilling from MPs about the broadcaster's handling of claims of sexual abuse by former presenter Jimmy Savile over several decades.
He told the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, when pressed on the scale of current internal investigations: "We are looking at between five and 10 serious allegations relating to activities over the whole period in question, the Savile period."
That included claims of sexual harassment made against people still working at the BBC, he added, but he could not say how many.
Mr Entwistle said Savile's alleged behaviour had been possible only because of a "broader cultural problem" at the BBC.
And there was insufficient evidence yet to say whether or not abuse was "endemic".
But he said it was important to differentiate between complaints of sexual harassment and those of criminal behaviour, such as under-age sex.
Opening the hearing, the director general defended the Corporation's handling of the case - including setting up two independent investigations.
"I would accept that there have been times when we have taken longer to do things than in a perfect world I would have liked," he said.
"But I think if you looked at what we have achieved since the scale of the crisis became clear, I think you see we have done much of what we should have done and done it in the right order and with proper respect paid to the right authorities."

--------------

I am still none too clear about just what has been going on at the BBC, but I very much resent one penny of the viewing tax laughingly known as the licence fee being spent on it.

And any victims who sue should NOT be compensated by the taxpayers or the licence payers - those responsible for any cover up, at the BBC or elsewhere, should be held directly accountable for once.

**Pedro Silva** Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:17 pm

You welcome bb1.

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:23 pm

This piece is by Max Hastings is well worth reading for anyone who would like to see something coherent and well-written, which also sheds a great deal of light on BBC practices:

An empire of control freaks and cowards
COMMENTARY BY MAX HASTINGS

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221644/BBC-censors-Jimmy-Savile-emails-Lawyers-pull-messages-hint-cover-up.html#ixzz2A8k0Cjr2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

**Lamplighter** Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:44 pm

I managed to watch the Panorama program this morning on my PC. One thing that struck me was a comment by, I think, Paul Gambuccini, that people on the floors above the third where he was situated actually did not know what went on below them. The reason it resonated with me was because many years ago I had a friend who worked in a very large organisation in Germany and he said to me one day that people in this huge building didn't really know anything about the coming and goings of those on the floors below and above them. He found the whole set up weird and decided it wasn't for him and left. If, like a lot of these old corporations, the BBC was/is 'top heavy' then maybe, just maybe, the upper lot did not know what was going on, especially if the lower downs didn't want them to know. I am not condoning what happened, believe me, but things can happen that a person working for a large organisation may never be aware of. And paedos are secretive, they have to be. LL

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:19 pm

IMO, the only snag with that is that Savile wasn't particularly secretive.....

**Lamplighter** Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:23 pm

bb1 wrote:IMO, the only snag with that is that Savile wasn't particularly secretive.....

No, as such, but look how long it took before they nailed Jonathan King and Gary Glitter. One commentator did say savile did it 'in plain sight', which means it was so obvious nobody cottoned on. What you don't want to believe, you deliberately don't see. LL

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:31 pm

Very true, LL.

One of my many moans about the BBC has always been its lack of accountability. ITV and Sky both have to answer to the free market - if they get it wrong, people switch off = they don't get money.

If the BBC gets it wrong, nothing happens.

**Lamplighter** Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:37 pm

bb1 wrote:Very true, LL.

One of my many moans about the BBC has always been its lack of accountability. ITV and Sky both have to answer to the free market - if they get it wrong, people switch off = they don't get money.

If the BBC gets it wrong, nothing happens.

I always watched the BBC, it appealed as there were no bl**dy ads every 10 minutes! And their dramas were so well done. Remove the licence fee and you get wall to wall adverts. LL

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:48 pm

Swings and roundabouts, I think, LL. I genuinely rarely watch BBC, with its endless cookery competitions, dancing competitions, repeats of cookery competitions, etc.

I much prefer documentaries and world-class dramas like Boardwalk Empire. Even Dallas isn't on BBC this time around.

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:55 pm

'The girls were teenagers, they were not too young': Reporter's explosive email reveals reason Newsnight editor 'gave her for axing Savile expose'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221941/Jimmy-Savile-Explosive-email-reveals-reason-Newsnight-editor-gave-axing-expose.html#ixzz2A9qPD179
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

**bb1** Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:04 pm

I will say right off that Mary Whitehouse reminds me of nothing as much as a prototype of Bennett, but it is interesting to see just what was considered the height of wit and sophistication by the Director General of the BBC during this era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse

In a speech given in 1965 Greene argued, not naming Mrs Whitehouse directly, that the critics of his liberalisation of broadcasting policy would "attack whatever does not underwrite a set of prior assumptions", and saw the potential for "a dangerous form of censorship...which works by causing artists and writers not to take risks." He defended the right of the Corporation "to be ahead of public opinion."[17] Sir Hugh Greene himself ignored Whitehouse, blocked her from participation in BBC broadcasts and purchased a painting of Whitehouse with five breasts[13] by James Lawrence Isherwood.

IMO, it was a perfect storm of lefty 'permissive society' types at the top, combined with the explosion of the whole pop and entertainment scene.

By those standards - or lack of them - Savile wouldn't have been doing anything much wrong, in their books.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:02 pm

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AnnaRaccoon+%28Anna+Raccoon%29

Oh. My. God.

Nothing like proper records, and eye-witnesses to events - or rather, non-events, is there?

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:42 pm

And details of where to find The Archives and The Records. Anna certainly knows how to do her research. She ever leaves me stunned.

But that won't half set the cat amongst the pigeons.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:52 pm

It is interesting that that is the part of the story we were both suspicious of, Sabot.

Now, I have no problem believing that Savile was a dirty old man, or that all kinds of abuse were ignored by the BBC - it is a very long time since that organisation has been a bastion of morality.

But knowing what dragons women who were matrons, teachers, etc, in that era were, that never did quite ring true.

I wonder if the Wail 'helped' people 'remember' things which didn't actually happen?

Which brings me back to why this is a matter for the POLICE, not the MEDIA - the police are more than able to cross-check dusty old school records, etc.

The BBC is a different matter entirely, given its embrace of left-wing liberalism and the 'permissive society', but Matron Dragons don't/didn't think that way at all.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:14 pm

Anna was actually their at Duncroft during 1965, except for the last month, and then actually back again four months later, and she even knew some of these girls that are hollering abuse. But she didn't even so much as set eyes on Savile, let alone get groped by him.

But it won't half be interesting to see what The Media do with this, if anything. They have picked it up from her Blog.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:18 pm

I do think she would have noticed a huge Rolls Royce pulling up outside, and a bizarre figure stalking the corridors making that wierd yodelling noise...it's not the kind of thing you can miss.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:33 pm

And a girl running screaming from his caravan parked in the grounds. This girl says she was put in detention for three days because no one believed that he had abused her. That'll be in The Records. They were not allowed to put anyone in detention without logging the incident.
This is dynamite.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:38 pm

Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:36 pm

I am utterly stunned by the fact that such absolute evidence of the lies that some of these women have been telling should have been there all of the time.
There was you and me, Bonny, expressing some doubt that such behaviour could have been possible under the circumstances of an Approved School Regime, and all the time we were trying to be a bit careful, just in case he had done it, there was Anna battling with her conscience about what to do, knowing that she would have to expose herself to God knows what kick backs if she did the right thing.
Thank God she did. Very brave if you ask me. I would certainly have thought twice about it.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:45 pm

Agree, Sabot, it is very brave indeed, given the current hysteria in the UK - but the truth is the truth. I don't think that, in the last resort, Anna had any choice - how could she keep quiet about something like that?

I have no doubt the Usual Suspects, and those who have been whipping the hysteria up, will now turn their guns on Anna, but that still won't change the truth.

If all this started over a pack of lies, then where does it leave the rest of it?

I hasten to add, I have no doubt Savile was a dirty old man, and chased (to put it politely) girls young enough to be his daughters - or grandaughters. I have no doubt that in the amoral climate of the BBC, especially at that time, no-one greatly bothered.

And if anyone thinks people won't do the most bizarre, outrageous things, and then pretend to be 'victims', they should read this:

http://news.sky.com/story/1001795/woman-set-herself-on-fire-in-staged-kkk-attack

She claimed three men in hoods threw fuel on her, and set her on fire, and wrote KKK on her car.

It very soon turned out SHE HAD DONE IT TO HERSELF.

Now, she is clearly disturbed, to do such a thing, but that isn't really the point.

She was found out quickly - but she could just as easily have started a race riot with God knows what consequences and casualties.

I don't know where this business with Savile will end; in the middle, I suspect, as I said at the start.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:55 pm

I have no sympathy whatsoever for The BBC. They have made me sick for a very long time. But, Ho Ho, they are going to be decimated, whatever now transpires. And it won't be because of proof that Jimmy Savile abused anyone. It will be because of their obvious attempts to cover up whatever they thought might be happening. No one needs to find Savile guilty to prove that.

**bb1** Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:47 pm

I see Bennett is first in the queue to have a go at Anna; not surprising, after her debunking of the 'Hollie Greig' scam.

**Sabot** Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:20 pm

No less than I expected. But I don't think Anna needs to worry about Bennett's opinion.
His attitude to child abuse is far more worrying than Anna's could ever be.

**Lamplighter** Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:25 am

Latest:

Savile probe to investigate doctors
Press Association – 4 hours ago

Legal papers relating to abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile will be reviewed
Information on three doctors who worked at hospitals where Jimmy Savile had links has been passed to police amid claims they were involved in a network of child abusers connected with the disgraced presenter.

The Guardian said the trio were alleged to have abused young people in their care and were identified by victims who came forward in the last two weeks.

Police are examining individuals who might have had access to vulnerable children, some of whom were associated with Savile, the newspaper said.

The former DJ, who died last year aged 84, had a bedroom at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, an office and living quarters at Broadmoor and widespread access to Leeds General Infirmary.

Since the allegations about Savile emerged the children's charity the NSPCC said it has received 161 calls relating to him, which have been passed to police.
A decision not to prosecute Savile over abuse allegations in 2009 will come under the spotlight again after the Prime Minister said Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer would review legal papers from the case.

Surrey Police submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) containing references to four potential offences, including an allegation of indecent assault on a young girl at a children's home, but it was dropped due to a lack of evidence.
David Cameron told MPs it was essential that lessons were learned from the scandal of Savile's decades of sexual abuse.

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, he said: "The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that his principal legal adviser will again review the papers from the time when a case was put to the CPS for prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions specifically is going to consider what more can be done to alert relevant authorities where there are concerns that a prosecution is not taken forward. The Government will do everything it can do, other institutions must do what they can do, to make sure that we learn the lesson of this and it can never happen again."

Mr Starmer said the evidence was considered by prosecutors, but because the alleged victims would not support police action, it was decided not to proceed. As the number of allegations against Savile has snowballed, Mr Starmer asked the chief Crown prosecutor for the South East, Roger Coe-Salazar, to look at the files again. He concluded the correct decision was taken, although the files will again be reviewed "out of an abundance of caution".

**bb1** Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:39 am

More fuel for the conspiraloon McCann-haters, who are dribbling on their keyboards in excitement.

Sponsored content