Nick Pollard deliberately excluded key finding from Savile Inquiry. in The News Where You Are - Page 1
Username:  Password: 
Login with Social Media Follow BBCRadioForum on Twitter

Author Topic:  Nick Pollard deliberately excluded key finding from Savile Inquiry.  (Read 6796 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Remember Nick Pollard? 

He was the very experienced journalist who Chris Patten brought in to report on the failings of Newsnight to report on the abuses of Jimmy Savile. 

His report included this: The dropping of the Newsnight investigation was discussed by BBC Reporter Caroline Hawley at a Christmas drinks function in 2011 with Mr Thompson. She formed the impression that Mr Thompson had no knowledge of the story. Following the function, Mr Thompson checked the story out with BBC News but learnt no specifics of the investigation. Indeed, Mr Thompson told me that the various press stories which followed passed him by. I have no reason to doubt what he told me.

He was the very experienced journalist who omitted Helen Boaden's key evidence - that she had indeed told Mark Thompson of the nature of the investigation - from the report.

He was the very experienced journalist, who lead a £3m inquiry, being paid around £80,000 for his trouble, who then choose to leak this very information to, yes, another journalist.  Here he is, doing just that.

Here's what Peter Oborne said about it at the time:


Following my blog post last week on Nick Pollard’s flawed report into the Jimmy Savile scandal, Mr Pollard’s lawyer has sent me a statement.*

This statement challenges my assertion that Helen Boaden’s evidence was suppressed. It insists that, on the contrary, her evidence was given "full and proper consideration."

This is fascinating and very significant. If we are to take this statement at its word, there is only one logical conclusion to be drawn.

This is that Mr Pollard, having considered Helen Boaden’s letter carefully, concluded that her evidence was rubbish, and there was no reason to believe her assertion that she told Mark Thompson the nature of the allegations against Savile.
The decision to ignore this part of Helen Boaden’s testimony, which was made through a (publicly-funded) lawyer, can mean one of only two things. Either Mr Pollard thinks that Helen Boaden lied to her lawyer, or he thinks she is such an unreliable witness that her testimony carries no weight.

This state of affairs raises a further question. If Helen Boaden is indeed as untrustworthy as Mr Pollard appears to believe, surely she should have been dismissed from the BBC in the wake of the Pollard Review.
Yet she wasn’t sacked. She was given a new and very powerful job, and is now paid £354,000 a year as head of BBC radio. She also sits on the BBC Executive Board, which makes her one of the seven most senior BBC executives.

And yet Pollard felt that testimony from this senior BBC figure carried such little weight that it wasn’t even worth mentioning in his £3 million report, even though it contradicted one of his central conclusions.

It just doesn’t make sense.

*The statement from the Pollard Review reads as follows.
There has been speculation for some time about the Pollard Review’s conclusion about the extent of Mark Thompson’s knowledge of the nature of the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile in 2011. This speculation has been based on a false premise, namely that insufficient consideration was given by the Review, when preparing its report in December 2012, to a letter from Helen Boaden’s lawyers which addressed the issue of Mr Thompson’s knowledge.

However, that letter was fully and carefully considered by the Review before the publication of my report. When weighed against all other evidence on this issue before the Review, it did not prompt any other conclusion than that set out in the report.

Given the interest in this issue since my Report, with hindsight, it might have been preferable if the Review had made reference to the letter in the Report. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter was given full and proper consideration and the Review stands by its conclusion on this issue.

So the name should ring bells of some kind!

Well the very experienced journalist who left out a key piece of evidence from his £3m report has been back in the news this week in an interview with Maggie Brown in the Guardian.  As far as Savile is concerned, Nick has zipped his mouth and put his fingers in his ears, like - I'm sure - all very experienced journalists would behave.  Maggie writes; Pollard’s lips are zipped tight about Savile: he will not talk about his inquiry or the aftermath, when accusations flew about its exoneration of Entwistle’s predecessor Mark Thompson.

Instead he holds forth on his views that Sky News is always more inventive and energetic than BBC News; one can't help wondering whether he's absolutely sure about this, or of any of his other observations on the news or the gathering process of it; will he be writing in to Maggie to contradict himself next week?

And why has he popped up now?  Well now he is the chief executive of a charity SSVC, which provides broadcasting to British Forces, it will be receiving £200m of public money from the ministry of defence over the next ten years, lets hope he remembers where he's put i
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 05:35:00 PM by BBCRadioForum »


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
Nick Pollard was charged with a responsibility of duty and it was expected that he discharged that duty with integrity and honesty. considering this is a serious investigation into the dumped investigation into child abuse. He failed to do that and should have no further role regarding public trust.

In the tape he is very clear that he has failed in his report. He should answer why he has failed to correct it and now fails to even talk about it.

Pollard has bequeathed a legacy to future investigations It seems acceptable that he was allowed to protect those responsible and even when he has privately admitted that failure, failed to put that wrong right,

It is of even graver concern that the BBCTrust and the DCMS committee failed to compel him to do so.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
This is a copy of letter sent to the BBC Trust, today. And I am publishing the copy that was sent to Nick Pollard.


Mr Pollard,

I am sending this letter to you for information .

It remains a problem that you have not corrected your report.

I cannot understand why.

It must be the case that those charged with public responsibility have to
put the truth and all the evidence before the public.

That is especially important in investigations relating to the abuse of

Tamsin Vincent


Dear Mr Towers

I have now had a chance to read and analyse your letter of 11 July 2014. I'm afraid that it is so full of contradictions, this exercise has taken longer than expected.

As you are acting as Dr Coyle's gatekeeper over this matter, I shall address my questions to you. However, I do find it surprising that Dr Coyle isn't able to speak for herself. After all, she made the decision not to change the Pollard Report, despite overwhelming evidence from Nick Pollard himself about this matter, back in December 2013. Does Dr Coyle feel unable to defend her decision? And can you please clarify to what extent you have been/will be conferring with her in responding to this matter? Dr Coyle, Mr Pollard, the BBC director-general, John Zeff, Fiona Reynolds, John Whittingdale MP and Conor Burns MP are copied into this letter. To be clear, I and the group which I represent do expect a meaningful response from you.

First, in your letter you say that Dr Coyle and three other BBC Trustees considered 'other relevant evidence' when they met on 11 December 2013 to decide what to do about Nick Pollard's 'mistake' (his word) in excluding key material relating to Mark Thompson from his final report. If the BBC Trust really is the transparent organisation it claims to be - and if it truly acts on behalf of licence payers as opposed to being the public relations arm of the BBC - please can you tell me exactly what this evidence is? A full account would be appreciated.

Second, you state that the Trust determined that Nick Pollard had 'properly weighed all of the evidence that was available to him'. Can I request that you and the BBC Trust listen to Mr Pollard's recorded conversation with the journalist again? It has now been posted on youtube and is also available on the Daily Telegraph website. Bearing in mind Mr Pollard had no idea this conversation - which he initiated - was being recorded, your statement is simply false. On the tape he makes clear his regret in excluding Helen Boaden's evidence from the Pollard Review report and admits he made a 'mistake'. It stands to reason that he most certainly had not, therefore, 'properly' weighed the evidence available to him when he wrote the report. In detail I would draw to your attention certain parts of the transcript, below. To answer this question properly, you will need to ask for a full explanation from the Trust members who heard this evidence last December what their reasons were for dismissing it. It cannot be acceptable on any level to simply acknowledge that Nick Pollard now regrets his words. A full public correction is the only way to resolve this and I expect a proper explanation of what it is about this recording that the Trust doesn't understand.

Quoted sections:

Pollard says: "It is clear that it is Helen Boaden's view that she told Mark Thompson [in December 2011 about Newsnight's investigation]"

Pollard says: "I overlooked that"

Pollard says: "If I had thought about it I would have included it in my report..."

Pollard says: "There is not an obvious way of making that public..."

Pollard says regarding the evidence he received: "It was a mistake of mine not to have picked up on this and recorded it in my report"

Third, you go on to describe the conclusions of Mr Pollard's report as 'robust'. Not only is this a matter of opinion - and not a matter of fact - but it is self-evidently untrue: Mr Pollard's inquiry was so slipshod it didn't even manage to name the individual responsible for canceling the Newsnight programme in question. Furthermore, Mr Pollard felt so badly about his report's faults later on, he took it upon himself to ring a journalist and admit that he felt uneasy about missing out this other key element of the BBC's cover-up of Newsnight's investigation. He told the journalist that, according to Helen Boaden, Mark Thompson knew of the allegations against Savile before Christmas 2011; then allowed the BBC to broadcast tribute programmes to Savile despite knowing the allegations against him; and then pretended that he knew nothing about the Savile allegations for the next nine months while he was lining up a job with the New York Times.

Fourth, you say that the Trustees present at the 11 December 2013 meeting 'did not consider the recording undermined the conclusions of Nick Pollard's report'. How do you square that statement with Mr Pollard's conclusion in his report that he had 'no reason to doubt' that Mark Thompson was unaware of any allegations against Jimmy Savile during the eight years that he was in charge of the BBC, bearing in mind Mr Pollard's admission to the journalist whom he rang that he had made a 'mistake' in excluding Helen Boaden's evidence about Mark Thompson from his report?

Finally, you go on to state that the Trustees acknowledged it would have been 'preferable' if Helen Boaden's legal letter had been referred to in the Pollard Review report. Not only does this statement undermine the Trust's overall position but, since this is the case, I am bound to ask why on earth the Trust still refuses so stubbornly to amend the Pollard Report accordingly? Nick Pollard admits he made a mistake; you have admitted that the Trustees also recognise that he made a mistake - and yet still the report hasn't been changed to reflect the facts. Why not?

Chris Patten has left the BBC Trust. He exercises no authority over this matter anymore. Please - do the right thing and change the report which you, the Trust, and Nick Pollard have all already admitted is inaccurate and misleading. Not only is it scandalous that £3 million of licence fee money has been spent on a faulty report - and we only know it is faulty because the author of the report felt so badly about it that he rang a journalist to unburden himself - but, as I keep saying, this ultimately relates to the sexual abuse of children. On a human level you must see that this is wrong.

Incidentally, you will understand that I shall also be raising this with Teresa May to pass to the CSA inquiry to examine how the BBC and other public bodies have dealt with allegations of child sex abuse. I shall also be arranging for the tape recording of Mr Pollard's conversation with the journalist quoted above to be sent to the inquiry as material evidence. I have no interest in whether Nick Pollard was speaking 'off the record' to the journalist or not. Neither should the BBC Trust. The crucial point is that Mr Pollard admitted he excluded key evidence from his £3 million report and, despite acknowledging this, the BBC Trust is refusing to change his report.
The Pollard report is a document of high importance. It is the first documented review into BBC management handling of allegations regarding Savile. And yet as it stands it is inaccurate. For the sake of reference and of honesty, the report must include a full transcript of Mr Pollard's conversation with the journalist. Pollard's words now form an important part of the evidence of the Pollard Review. A full explanation for the Trust's decision as explained above should also be included. The Trust must also include Helen Boaden's lawyer's letter of December 2012 to Nick Pollard: now that we know of its existence (thanks, again, to Nick Pollard) the people who actually paid for the report - licence fee payers - deserve to see what evidence Nick Pollard was privy to but didn't include in his report.

 I do not wish to humiliate Nick Pollard further. Any damage done to his reputation has been self-inflicted. But he and the Trust must see that if reputations are to be restored, amending the report accordingly would go a long way to doing this.
I look forward to your full response.


Tamsin Vincent

BBC Radio Forum


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
I know how busy we all are, but if you can spare a bit of time. Please listen to the Pollard tape that Darcy has posted.

Then walk a few steps in the shoes of the victims of Savile that were interviewed for Newsnight.

Think how they must have felt when the investigation was dumped , because tributes to Savile were already organised. There is no doubt that decision was made by senior BBC staff.

And if it had not been for important journalists and ITV  Savile would remain as a "Hero of the North."

Mark Thompson was aware  of Savile and his abuse and he has been protected by Nick Pollard. That sort of thing should be exposed, quickly and Pollard dismissed and dealt with by the BBC Trust and the DCMS Committee. They failed to act properly, hoping that this issue would go away, but it has not and should not.

Remember that £3m of licence fee money was spent on an inquiry that has little credibility and was used as a white wash.

That money should be used properly and would go a long way in protecting BBC local radio , for example.

The BBC Trust conducted that inquiry in our name, but have failed to even deliver the truth.

I hope you agree that must be challenged?


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
A great robust letter Tiger, thank you for giving up your time to compose it.  I would certainly urge everyone to listen to the tape, it's not everyday you hear a man LEAKING against HIS OWN report, contradicting parts of his conclusions. Bonkerers!


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Worth considering Meirion Jones words on this article in the DM BBC monitored 81 staff email accounts.  Tweets read bottom up.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
This is a very sorry situation. It is much worse, when no one who could have said sorry and corrected the BBC's decision has done so. These are people with power and influence and have been paid by the public to tell the truth, admit that truth and ensure that there is a decent public record.

It is without doubt that Meirion Jones deserved much better, with his initial instigation into Savile. Everyone needs to know who pulled the Newsnight exposure in favour of tributes. This will never go away until those/ that person is fully exposed and their reasons documented. Then perhaps they should apologise and resign. Or accept their mistake and apologise.

I have been reading reviews of the new book by Dan Davies; In Plain Sight. And he has linked Mark Thompson's lies about knowing nothing about Savile to the general cover up. Will post that review.

It is also depressing that the public and the public on this Forum seem unable to show any reaction at all to what has happened with Newsnight dropping an investigation, the BBC then running tributes, and then £3m of their money being given to Nick Pollard who admitted in his tape record with a journalist that he had ignored crucial evidence. It just defies belief?


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
This is the review of the book," In Plain Sight" by Dan Davies that I mentioned.

"JIMMY SAVILE had an IQ of 150, which might explain why he could cultivate friendships with Prince Charles, Margaret Thatcher and senior Yorkshire police officers while embarked on a lifelong spree of predatory sexual crimes.

The details of his 450 reported sexual offences — with many, many more still to be collated — are chilling enough. But worse, even, than reading of the rapes of young girls, as well as some boys, is the awful realisation that people who should have known better let him get away with it. This is the central theme of Dan Davies’s reporting, and hence the title of the book. Savile committed his crimes in plain sight, never leaving any real doubt about his proclivities.

Indeed, the prospect of discovery seems to have spurred him on. One woman recounted that after taking her virginity when she was 15, Savile would have sex with her while his friends watched.

In his autobiography he boasted of spending the night in a caravan with six teenage  girls, one of whom rose naked from bed in the morning and looked out of the window to see her parents waiting outside. Savile dressed quickly, and pretended that he had just arrived for breakfast. “Heaven be praised, the parents stood for it,” he wrote.

Time and again, people just “stood for it”, or actively encouraged the myths around him. Cardinal Basil Hume was so impressed by Savile’s devout Catholicism and charitable work that he proposed him for membership of the Athenaeum, and none of the club’s erudite members blackballed him for fear Hume would resign.

Thatcher, who would have Savile over to Chequers for New Year’s day lunch, was enraged when civil servants blocked his knighthood, though they finally relented in 1990, to her delight.

When Savile died aged 84 in 2011, the BBC’s director general Mark Thompson said,“We shall miss him greatly”, seemingly oblivious to the many rumours that had gone around the corporation for years. Prince Charles, who regarded him as a mentor and confidant, was “saddened”; Ricky Gervais was moved to tweet his admiration for “a proper British eccentric”.

It is truly mystifying that Savile had this hold on people, because to those of us who saw him on television, he always seemed such an obvious creep. He handed out £10 cash inducements to teenage girls he fancied to sit at his feet during the recordings of his Saturday-night chat show Clunk Click in 1974. Incredibly, a Freedom of Information Act request discloses that the BBC even reimbursed Savile from licence-payer funds for this dubious behaviour.

In 1977, a 12-year-old girl was raped by Savile at Stoke Mandeville hospital, where he was allowed unfettered access to the wards while volunteering as a porter — the perfect cover for a sexual predator. When the traumatised girl told a nurse what had happened, she replied simply: “Don’t say anything, I’ll get into trouble.” Again and again in Davies’s book you are faced with examples of Savile’s actions being known to people in responsible positions, yet almost always they failed to exercise what these days is called “duty of care”.

Davies interviewed Savile over a period of 10 years, and although he challenged him on all the rumours that he liked young girls, he concedes that he never managed to pin his subject down and he should have pressed him harder about the disturbing things he said and wrote about his sex life.

It is possible that Savile, like many sex offenders, was abused as a child, but there is no firm evidence for this. The youngest of seven children, he was born in 1926 into a poor Leeds household, and went down the mines during the Second World War as a Bevin Boy. Later he managed dance halls, was known to use local “muscle” to intimidate those who made trouble and got to know the Rolling Stones and the Beatles in their early days.

He was incapable of maintaining normal relations with adults, moved restlessly around the country covering his tracks, and would dump his girls when they turned 18. His only enduring relationship was with his mother, whom he called “the Duchess”, and who lived around the corner from him in Leeds.

The notion of some sort of childhood trauma would tend to be supported by Davies’s revelation that Savile’s elder brother Johnnie was also a sex offender. He was sacked in 1980 from a psychiatric hospital for assaulting a female patient, and a second woman said he had raped her in his office.

Davies handles his unsavoury material with tact and deftly weaves the BBC’s disastrous suppression in 2011 of the Newsnight investigation into Savile around the story of his life. This is a relentlessly depressing story, but one that is well told."


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
I have to report this reply from Alex Towers at the BBC Trust.  It has to be noted that the Trust spent £3m of public money on an inquiry that failed to find out why Newsnight did not broadcast evidence that Savile was a child abuser and then ran tribute programs. Nick Pollard decided to exclude key evidence from his report and the BBC Trust decided not to challenge that. This is a very serious failure. and those responsible must be held to account.

Here is the reply from Towers. My reply will follow.[/img]


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
This is my reply to Alex Towers of the BBC Trust.


Dear Mr Towers and Ms Coyle,

Thankyou for your reply, which has raised some concern, not least for the
dismissive tone of the narrative.

I will remind you the BBC Trust is charged with representing the public that
they serve. They must be open to criticism and show clearly that they accept
that they are accountable. The public has every right to explore decisions
made on their behalf by senior members of the Trust.

I cannot accept that you have asserted that it is my personal disagreement
(, regarding the Trust's decision not to compel a correction by Pollard,
that is relevant). And that the opinion of four Trustees has to be accepted.
It is probably of use to list the problems raised for clarification.

1. It will need to be made clear by the Trust how they represented the
public in their decision. I formally request a complete record of complaints
made to the BBC regarding the loss of the Savile Newsnight broadcast. That
should include all complaint regarding the Pollard review and complaint made
after the tape recording was made public. It is very clear from social media
and indeed comments on BBC web articles that the public were not happy to
accept Pollard's report.

2. You have stated in your reply that " Clearly the Trust could not and did
not, re-interview the witnesses and look at all the documentary evidence" I
would request an explanation and detail that determines this remark. I
request that you provide me with a statement from each of the Trustees that
details what documentary evidence they examined. This must include a full
reading of the transcripts of the Pollard questioning and whether that took
place. I also request that you reassure me and the public I represent that a
full examination of all the documented evidence took place officially by a
member of the Trust and that person is named.

3. If it is the case that basic investigation did not take place then I
cannot accept that the Trust were able to consider Pollard's omissions as
weighed against evidence. It has to be noted that you have incorrectly
represented the situation regarding Mr Pollard's interaction with the
journalist. It is clearly documented that although the journalist made
enquiries to Pollard and indeed they spoke around the publication of the
report the journalist applied no pressure to Mr Pollard and the conversation
that was taped was a result of Mr Pollard contacting the journalist without
invitation. Mr Pollard made that decision and wished the information to be
made public. I expect a full explanation from you regarding your acceptance
that Mr Pollard did not contact Lord Patten and the Trust with his concern.
That has not been answered . I expect you to record why Pollard did not
contact the Trust and I would like evidence that this question was put to

4. You have provided me with a brief explanation of other evidence that the
Trustees considered as part of their decision. You have referred to "RW"
letters. To whown are you referring? You have casually said that this is in
the "public domain". That is without question unacceptable and shocking. The
Pollard review has to be regarded as one of the most serious that the Trust
has had to manage in terms of public money and public trust. The critical
point here is that crucial evidence that guided the Trustees has not been
published on the Trust website. The Trust is compelled to publish all
evidence and material that is pertinent to any decision taken on behalf of
the public. That policy has always been regarded by the Trust in all it's
publications. You will need to explain the omission in this review.

I cannot accept that Ms Coyle is unable to engage on this matter. Ms Coyle
is acting Chair of the BBC Trust and it is appropriate that she discharges
her public duty.

I look forward to your reply and remind you again that the BBC Trust has a
responsibility to respond to criticism with courtesy and respect.

It has to be noted that my Forum works hard to represent listeners' concerns
to BBC management we also are pleased to celebrate BBC Radio and have
received  many messages of gratitude for the role that we have played from
senior BBC staff including Tony Hall. Our work is entirely voluntarily


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
Re: Nick Pollard deliberately excluded key finding from Savile Inquiry.
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2014, 08:56:23 PM »
There is correspondance that I need to update here.

It is very depressing, I have to warn.

In meantime I have sent a letter to the potential new chair today, because if democracy works she will be asked about Pollard on Tuesday. Here is letter.

"Dear Mrs Fairhead
I am writing to you on the assumption that you are going to be the next chairman of the BBC Trust. The matter on which I write relates to the sexual abuse of children on BBC premises

I think that it is important that you are aware of the public response to the Pollard Review.I am enclosing correspondence with the Trust. It is an expectation that the DCMS committee will put questions to you regarding this issue, which remains unresolved and is central to public trust being restored to a public service broadcasting institution. It is important that you are fully aware of this issue before you may have to answer questions.
I represent a group called The BBC Radio Forum. We have 4,000 members, including many BBC staff. The enclosed article, from the September 2014 issue of The Oldie magazine, has generated significant interest among our membership.

I am sending it to you because I want you to be aware that the cover-up to which the article refers continues to be a major concern to many people. I am currently pursuing this matter through the BBC Trust, which is taking it seriously, but I want you to be aware of it before you take up your post as it is a matter which is bound to cross your desk.
As you will see from the Oldie article, the BBC spent £3 million on an inquiry relating to the Jimmy Savile scandal - the Pollard Review - which turns out to be faulty. Either Mark Thompson or Helen Boaden misled the Pollard review; and Nick Pollard has repeatedly failed to correct his report - despite admitting that he excluded key evidence from it.
If you do become Trust chairman, it will be within your power to put right this disgraceful episode. I very much hope that on behalf of licence payers you insist that the Pollard Review report is amended to reflect all of the facts. Chris Patten was unable to address this matter but everything I have read about you suggests that you will take a different approach. Even though this predates your chairmanship, the seriousness of this situation will, I am sure, strike you immediately.
Ultimately, this is about the sexual abuse of children on BBC premises.The BBC enjoys its highly valued and powerful position because of public trust alone. That trust is in serious danger because of the refusal of Pollard and Patten to admit the truth in this matter. With respect, I would like to make clear that unless the Pollard Review is corrected to reflect all the evidence it heard, my Forum, in conjunction with other public groups, will start a public campaign for the review to be re-opened and key evidence re-examined.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration.

Tamsin Vincent"

And here is article in Telegraph that reflects the work of Miles Goslett.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
Re: Nick Pollard deliberately excluded key finding from Savile Inquiry.
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2014, 10:22:12 PM »
I hope that democracy is alive and well during the questioning of Mrs Fairhead tomorrow and important issues are aired. This mail was sent to MPs on the DCMS regarding probably the worst crisis that the BBC has faced.


Re: appointment of BBC Trust chairman/interview of Rona Fairhead.

As you know, the primary duty of the BBC Trust chairman is to represent the
interests and concerns of licence fee payers.

With that in mind, the attached letter was sent to Rona Fairhead, together
with recent correspondence to the Trust and recent press articles.

I would politely ask that you put to Mrs Fairhead the continuing problem of
the total lack of public trust in the conclusions of the Pollard Review. It
cost £3m of public money yet did not even identify which senior BBC manager
was responsible for the shelving of Newsnight's 2011 investigation into
Jimmy Savile's abuse of children. Moreover, it is now clear that, despite
Mark Thompson and Helen Boaden knowing of the allegations of criminal
activity against Savile, the BBC broadcast tribute programmes to him anyway.
It is also the case that either Mark Thompson or Helen Boaden lied to the
Pollard Review - and that Nick Pollard himself has admitted excluding this
from his final report. We know about the Boaden/Thompson lie because Nick
Pollard himself told the journalist Miles Goslett about it in a taped
interview which is available to hear online.

Public trust in the BBC Trust has been wrecked by the fact that evidence of
that communication between Mark Thompson and Helen Boaden was withheld from
the Pollard report by Mr Pollard himself. Furthermore, there has been no
understandable justification from the Trust for this serious omission. All
the Trust did, under Chris Patten, was bury this as an inconvenience.Chris
Patten dismissed public concern over this issue with extraodinary arrogance
which was insulting and unacceptable to the public he was charged with

With respect, I would hope you recognise that it would be unacceptable if
this issue were not raised with Mrs Fairhead during a public interview. As
MPs, you have a duty to discuss this matter so that Rona Fairhead can be
encouraged to tackle it in the public interest. Although it predates her
arrival at the Trust, it is a fact that the future cannot be addressed until
past cover-ups have been acknowledged; admitted to; and dealt with.

Those of us who do not receive publicly-funded salaries may be able to see
this more clearly than the people who do. Please believe me when I say that
licence payers DO care about this. You should as well, and so should the
incoming BBC Trust chairman

The questions put to Rona Fairhead now, will have a bearing on how she will
manage serious issues raised by the Janet Smith Review , which will be  high
profile and is linked very closely to the Pollard Review.

Thank you very much for your help

Tamsin Vincent
BBC Radio Forum

Share via delicious Share via digg Share via facebook Share via furl Share via linkedin Share via myspace Share via reddit Share via stumble Share via technorati Share via twitter

Similar Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
Nick Pollard appears to lose all credibility in Savile report.

Started by Tiger

55 Replies
Last post May 29, 2014, 12:00:44 AM
by Tiger
BBC post Savile Inquiry shows widespread bullying and fear.

Started by Tiger

7 Replies
Last post October 07, 2013, 11:28:29 PM
by Tiger
An initial pre representation to the Leveson Inquiry.

Started by BBCRadioForum

41 Replies
Last post June 14, 2012, 07:28:38 PM
by Tiger
Public Inquiry Threat Hangs Over BBC

Started by darcysarto

0 Replies
Last post November 04, 2012, 07:14:07 PM
by darcysarto
BBC bullying - new inquiry started into BBC radio unit.

Started by Tiger

4 Replies
Last post January 26, 2014, 06:09:41 PM
by Tiger