Username:  Password: 
Login with Social Media Follow BBCRadioForum on Twitter

Author Topic:  Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile  (Read 34264 times)

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2012, 06:15:42 PM »
I am not so sure what the BBC could do, aside from going back through its files? The allegations date back 30-40 years. Many of the people around at the time will be long retired or dead. I doubt the police will launch a criminal investigation given there's no chance of a conviction. As for the treatment of the story by the BBC, it will drop off the radar during the day unless there is something to move it on because that is the nature of the news cycle.

I am also not sure that the BBC has done much uncovering in Rochdale. The story last week came from a review ordered by the local children's safeguarding board in the wake of the convictions. It was widely reported by all media, not just the BBC and got such high profile coverage on all outlets because it has implications for the working practices of social workers and police.

As a rule, the BBC is far more rigorous when it comes to reporting itself than other media organisations. Journalists love nothing better than grilling their managers.

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2012, 06:56:51 PM »
I am not so sure what the BBC could do, aside from going back through its files? The allegations date back 30-40 years. Many of the people around at the time will be long retired or dead. I doubt the police will launch a criminal investigation given there's no chance of a conviction. As for the treatment of the story by the BBC, it will drop off the radar during the day unless there is something to move it on because that is the nature of the news cycle.

I am also not sure that the BBC has done much uncovering in Rochdale. The story last week came from a review ordered by the local children's safeguarding board in the wake of the convictions. It was widely reported by all media, not just the BBC and got such high profile coverage on all outlets because it has implications for the working practices of social workers and police.

As a rule, the BBC is far more rigorous when it comes to reporting itself than other media organisations. Journalists love nothing better than grilling their managers.


Unbelievable?

And quite shocking.

Do you really believe that shoving this under some sort of carpet is the correct way to deal not only with very serious allegations of child abuse but a cover up? and that cover up taking place within powerful places, not just the BBC. Is it really no flipping surprise that there are no allegations that were formally filed under S for Saville? and someone would just go and have a look and say..oh no! we had no idea?

Does the BBC wish to be bracketed with some mismanagement within the catholic church?


And If I have to spell things out to you..about other cases..if the leader of social services is being questioned by a BBC journalist for a BBC program about transparency and cover up..all that person has to do now is question why the BBC failed to act in the Saville case to be let off the hook.And will damage the confidence of the BBC.


And Saville may well be dead but his victims are not and the witnesses are not,

AND I am sure that you are aware that this is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg..and it is clear that if the BBC fails to act other broadcasters will.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 07:18:33 PM by Tiger »

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2012, 07:15:12 PM »
All they can do now is report developments, completely, I've not been up with the news today but I know it was mentioned on the Channel 4 news but not on Radio 4 at 7pm.

It seems they lost control of this when Newsnight binned it - seemingly because they lost their angle on it?  - and then allowed a tribute programme to be broadcast.  In light of the leak from somewhere within the BBC, that decision looks like a monumental mistake.


Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2012, 09:21:50 PM »
Do you really believe that shoving this under some sort of carpet is the correct way to deal not only with very serious allegations of child abuse but a cover up? and that cover up taking place within powerful places, not just the BBC. Is it really no flipping surprise that there are no allegations that were formally filed under S for Saville? and someone would just go and have a look and say..oh no! we had no idea? Does the BBC wish to be bracketed with some mismanagement within the catholic church?

At the risk of repeating myself, the BBC says it has examined all of its files and found nothing. Current management were not around when this all happened. What else could they do? One staff member who claims she witnessed something admits she did not report it.  I am at a loss to understand exactly how BBC management were supposed to know about it. One victim alleges she was assaulted in his Rolls Royce. It is also alleged to have taken place in hospitals and schools. So it is not as if the allegations all centre on BBC premises. But there is no-one who has appeared so far who has said they reported it and it was "shoved under the carpet". Whereas in the Catholic Church, there was evidence of a cover up at the highest level and the abuse was widespread.

And If I have to spell things out to you..about other cases..if the leader of social services is being questioned by a BBC journalist for a BBC program about transparency and cover up..all that person has to do now is question why the BBC failed to act in the Saville case to be let off the hook.And will damage the confidence of the BBC.

Seriously, do you really think that line of defence would hold any water? It would be completely irrelevant. Let's follow through your hypothesis with News International: You're effectively saying journalists from The Times have no credibility because of the News of the World scandal, purely because they are owned by the same company. And this has been tried - a conman on BBC Watchdog last week kept shouting out Dan's name (former presenter found guilty of benefit fraud) as Matt Allwright questioned him. But he just made himself look even more shady. I guarantee you that anyone in public office who tried this line of defence would be on a hiding to nothing.

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2012, 10:17:22 PM »
Well I think serious questions are going to be asked of BBC management and the management of the hospitals and schools, some may have passed away but retirement isn't any kind of defence.

I'm really struggling to understand why Newsnight dropped this, because of the CPS 'angle' not coming to anything - were they investigating Savile or the CPS? - the subsequent leak tends to suggest that others couldn't understand either.

The very idea that they were going to find anything in their 'files' is completely preposterous and their quotes of such as an explanation of any kind is bizarre.  The problem is that Newsnight have dropped it, BBC 1 broadcasts a tribute programme, the likes of Paul Gambacinni is now saying he's been waiting 30 years for all this to come out and the story itself doesn't seem to be making many of the BBC's own news bulletins.  It all looks a bit ooky.

Many questions to be asked and answered, it would have been nice if the BBC had taken the lead in that as many would have expected them to.

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2012, 07:33:51 PM »
Well, at last it seems that some are coming around to the idea that sweeping under the carpet, is a bit of a faulty policy as is checking files. BUT that move by BBC bosses took some pressure and that is unacceptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/02/jimmy-savile-sexual-abuse-claims-bbc


It is very clear that the CMS Committee will have quite a bit of work to do in the next few days and weeks.

Already , further allegations are being published which should have been made the subject of very very serious police investigations many years ago.


Personally, I find it a complete joke that BBC management over reacted about the Jonathan Ross/Brand gate episode, causing major panic and the introduction of absurd over compliance..(no one was actually the victim of child abuse or rape or worse_)

AND yet, react to the Saville case in the way that they have.

It beggars belief and the trust in such management.

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2012, 09:29:38 PM »
I cannot understand why an editor of Newsnight, would say the following about confronting institutional failure and then drop it, after collecting evidence of child abuse but not fulfilling his agenda, about the fact that Saville was too old and frail to be investigated?

It makes no sense..And must be seen as incredibly irresponsible and incompetant?

"Writing on a BBC blog, Mr Rippon said it was 'totally untrue' he had come under any pressure to drop the story from within the corporation.

He said: 'I decided we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds he was too old.


'This made the public interest case from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.'

He added the CPS told Newsnight no action was taken against the star because of 'lack of evidence' and 'it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason'.

Mr Rippon said: 'I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish."

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2012, 06:39:11 AM »
Rather than just looking at quoted extracts, it is worth reading his blog posting in full....

Newsnight and Jimmy Savile
Peter Rippon | 17:05 UK time, Tuesday, 2 October 2012
There has been a lot written about why I took the decision not to run a story into allegations of sex abuse by the former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile. It has been suggested I was ordered to do it by my bosses as part of a BBC cover-up. It has also been suggested that we deliberately withheld information from the police. Both these allegations are totally untrue and despite consistent strong denials keep getting repeated. I felt it would be useful to share more about what really happened.

The BBC has the highest editorial standards and with any story an editor has to weigh many things before putting something to air. BBC editors have a lot of power and responsibility and I have never, in the many years I have done this job, ever been told by one of my superiors not to do a story against my will. I would not still be working here if they had.

Why did I pursue this story about Jimmy Savile and why did I drop it?

I decided we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds he was too old. This made the public interest case from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.

Some of the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public interest served by reporting it given he is dead? The nature of the allegations and the level of proof required. The fact the incidents were 40 years ago.

We had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. We had no evidence against the BBC. In her original statement our key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". However, I felt if we could prove the police or the CPS had let the women down in some way we should go ahead.

We did establish the police had investigated the allegations in 2007. However, as the police would be obliged to investigate I wanted to check how they would respond to the allegation that it was not pursued because Jimmy Savile was too old. The CPS told us:
"The CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." The additional guidance noted stated. "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."

This statement specifically denied the allegation that the investigation was dropped because of his age. I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish. There were some of my team who disagreed strongly with my judgement, and others who agreed equally strongly.

However, those who disagreed accepted my decision. There were no rows of any kind as has been reported.

Did we withhold evidence from the police? No. We are confident that all the women we spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police.

Did my bosses order me to do anything? No. I did discuss it with my bosses in News in the same way I do any contentious story we are working on. I was told in the strongest terms that I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the BBC affect my judgement.

The fact that the BBC has the capacity to do this may feel odd to other organisations but it is fundamental to the trust we share with our audience.

Peter Rippon is the editor of Newsnight

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2012, 07:33:22 PM »
I would recommend The Media Show R4 broadcast this afternoon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dv9hq


It questions the decision to drop the Newsnight editorial with BBC management.


I have to say that this subject was covered on BBC Surrey and Sussex this morning. But in spite of the opening interview with Mark Williams-Thomas regarding the conduct of the BBC , the emphasis was on a tabloid cover up and how perceptions about Saville may have changed.


Also Victoria Derbyshire on 5 Live interviewed two victims and took calls. Not easy but she , as usual ,was brilliant at delivering a intelligent debate.


I still, have no idea why an editor of Newsnight acted in the way he did, considering what his investigation found. Or perhaps the question should be how Peter Rippon as a human being acted? or failed to act..
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 07:35:31 PM by Tiger »

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2012, 08:03:56 PM »
It is probably now important that the "BBC Investigations Unit" appears before the CMS committee.

And, to all those in a minority posters who have expressed the view that Saville should be respected in his death and that there should be no further investigation,  I would say that as one of the victims said today.."bad things happen, because good people did nothing"


And, of course there are 2 other BBC stars(alive) who are very much a part of this. Surely the one whose reputation at the moment has not been damaged must be investigated and charges brought and a court case occur, in that way the evidence will be tested.

Otherwise all the other Radio1 DJs of the 70s will be considered guilty, which is what further speculation will facilitate.

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2012, 09:01:22 PM »
It is probably now important that the "BBC Investigations Unit" appears before the CMS committee.

And, to all those in a minority posters who have expressed the view that Saville should be respected in his death and that there should be no further investigation,  I would say that as one of the victims said today.."bad things happen, because good people did nothing"


And, of course there are 2 other BBC stars(alive) who are very much a part of this. Surely the one whose reputation at the moment has not been damaged must be investigated and charges brought and a court case occur, in that way the evidence will be tested.

Otherwise all the other Radio1 DJs of the 70s will be considered guilty, which is what further speculation will facilitate.

I have to say I find your comments offensive. You are suggesting that anyone who was at Radio One in the 1970s must have known what was allegedly going on, and therefore they are as guilty as him by association. Just because people who worked in the same building as him refuse to comment, or are vague in their response - 40 years later - does not mean that they are trying to cover something up. It is fairly well reported (eg: Tony Blackburn's autobiography) that Saville was something of an enigma, never socialising with other DJs and generally just acting in 'character' whenever they saw him. I have no doubt that those former colleagues who have raised concerns all these years later do regret not taking action, and they will have to live with that on their consciences. But I doubt very much whether the CPS will consider it in the public interest to prosecute them, especially if they didn't actually witness anything. What exactly would they be charged with? I also presume that you always, without fail, act on rumours and gossip you hear about other people, and report it to the relevant authorities, regardless of whether or not it is just hearsay?

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2012, 09:21:22 PM »
I have to say I find your comments offensive. You are suggesting that anyone who was at Radio One in the 1970s must have known what was allegedly going on, and therefore they are as guilty as him by association. Just because people who worked in the same building as him refuse to comment, or are vague in their response - 40 years later - does not mean that they are trying to cover something up. It is fairly well reported (eg: Tony Blackburn's autobiography) that Saville was something of an enigma, never socialising with other DJs and generally just acting in 'character' whenever they saw him. I have no doubt that those former colleagues who have raised concerns all these years later do regret not taking action, and they will have to live with that on their consciences. But I doubt very much whether the CPS will consider it in the public interest to prosecute them, especially if they didn't actually witness anything. What exactly would they be charged with? I also presume that you always, without fail, act on rumours and gossip you hear about other people, and report it to the relevant authorities, regardless of whether or not it is just hearsay?

Why should you find my comment offensive?

What I am saying is that many reputations are being put at risk because there is a superinjunction in place that is protecting one individual.Who is alive and is a signifigant witness and has to answer the charges made.

There is  considerable evidence, now I believe with not only the Surrey police, but with the Sussex police and the met and I would think within the BBC and they need to act upon it, within the law and then rumour can be dealt with .


The BBC took a huge risk in ignoring this for many years and now need to act with integrity. Otherwise their reputation will be damaged considerably and that matters because we need an honestly managed public service broadcaster.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:24:22 PM by Tiger »

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2012, 12:27:39 PM »
Why should you find my comment offensive?

What I am saying is that many reputations are being put at risk because there is a superinjunction in place that is protecting one individual.Who is alive and is a signifigant witness and has to answer the charges made.

There is  considerable evidence, now I believe with not only the Surrey police, but with the Sussex police and the met and I would think within the BBC and they need to act upon it, within the law and then rumour can be dealt with .


The BBC took a huge risk in ignoring this for many years and now need to act with integrity. Otherwise their reputation will be damaged considerably and that matters because we need an honestly managed public service broadcaster.

I find your comments offensive because you state: "Otherwise all the other Radio1 DJs of the 70s will be considered guilty". Why will they? By whom? You?

You seem to know an awful lot about this story. I cannot find any news story online about a superinjunction taken out by a person who is alive and was a witness. So, is this a matter of fact? Or are they just internet rumours that you are happy to spread without substance because it suits your point of view?

I suggest you take a look at this article here by legal expert Joshua Rozenburg, who - I would venture to suggest - knows a lot more about the law around this than you or I, about what could happen next:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/03/jimmy-savile-abuse-allegations-next-legal-steps

There is also a post by a reader under this article which makes some good legal points, although I am not sure I agree with the final sentence. It states:

"There seems to be a widespread misconception amongst many people that those who knew about Savile's alleged criminal activities but failed to make the fact public are vulnerable to prosecution. Sadly , mere passive knowledge of an offence is not sufficient to make a person a criminal accessory. For this reason alone most of those lusting for legal vengeance against the BBC and Savile's former friends and work colleagues are likely to be disappointed unless it can be proven they actively aided and abetted him in his crimes or took steps to cover up his activities. Of course, morally their position is far less tenable but then that also applies to much of the press currently baying for the BBC's blood since it is clear they also knew long ago about Savile's proclivities but did nothing. At the end of the day any new police investigation into Savile is likely to achieve little and the forces time and money would be better devoted to catching and prosecuting sexual abusers who are active today."


I also notice you have not answered my question as to whether you always report any rumours or gossip of alleged wrongdoing to the relevant authorities. As the old saying goes, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2012, 05:21:04 PM »
Meerkat,

I have no idea why you have chosen to misrepresent or misunderstand my comments. It is quite clear what I have said. And indeed is being discussed in all the national press and indeed on the majority of BBC local stations.


Of course, I would report any allegation made to me to the relevant authorities, if I judged it to be honest and threatened the vulnerable.

The BBC is now quite clear that they have activated an investigation and indeed are asking for as much information that they can gather from BBC employees, past and present and from the public.

Surely, you will agree that is to be encouraged and is a first step in putting some of this mess right.


I have listened to some of the interactive programs about this , including today and the caller contribution has been very signifigant. There is a clear pattern emerging and I will post later.

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2012, 05:25:51 PM »
I think it's safe to come out now, haven't seen or heard the BBC reversing a ferret all day, thought for a moment  that Bill Oddie was going to get involved.

There's no doubting there are elements of the press who are 'lusting' as some would put it.  But that should in no way detract from the need a full and proper investigation into all the public - and/or private - bodies that may have allowed Savile to carry on in the manner he did.

Mr. Rippon may like to reflect that he was so busy looking for the angle that he lost sight of the real story.  I personally still don't understand why he decided to bin it.  The point I made in the opening post of this thread, that the BBC is, correctly, the most trusted source of news we have, has taken a bit of a punch on the conk this week -, perhaps it was from he rake Mr. Rippon stepped on whilst he was busy reading the editorial guidelines at an angle - and that leaves them weaker as a result.  Perhaps even more amazing that the BBC didn't see how it would play out, suggests complacency somewhere.


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
xx
The Kershaws and Jimmy Savile.

Started by Tiger

3 Replies
1486 Views
Last post June 03, 2014, 06:02:58 PM
by Tiger
xx
The Kershaws and Jimmy Savile.

Started by Tiger

1 Replies
1490 Views
Last post March 29, 2013, 09:33:01 PM
by Tiger
xx
Jimmy Savile - Panorama, What the BBC Knew.

Started by darcysarto

1 Replies
1224 Views
Last post October 21, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
by Tiger
xx
Chris Patten On Jimmy Savile & The BBC

Started by BBCRadioForum

56 Replies
14987 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
by darcysarto
xx
Countdown to DQF: Charlie Brooker gets cutting with those glossy BBC trails.

Started by darcysarto

4 Replies
3198 Views
Last post October 04, 2011, 08:21:12 PM
by Tiger