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

Author Topic:  Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile  (Read 29984 times)

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2012, 08:26:23 PM »
If you take the time to read the Peter Rippon statement properly, you will see that Newsnight investigated the story because they were told by the alleged victim that the case was dropped not because there was a lack of evidence, but because Savile was too old.

In her original statement the key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". Contrast that with the media storm now - and the debate on this forum - which is around allegations of a BBC cover up.

But during the Newsnight investigation, the CPS issue a statement which says the case was dropped because of a lack of evidence, and that age was not a factor. It states:

"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."

So, this directly contradicts the evidence of the alleged victim and the Editor faces a choice. Does he run a story that the CPS says is untrue in a case where the alleged perpetrator is not around to defend themselves? So, after much debate, they chose not to.

Now, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Particularly when, months later, along comes a documentary which is subtly different. They interview a number of alleged victims and do not focus on why the case was dropped (as Newsnight did) but on the rumours themselves along with reaction from TV personalities who had heard them and speculate as to why nothing was done.

These are two completely different 'treatments' of the same story, and that goes part of the way to explaining why one was broadcast and one wasn't.

I assume that neither of the contributors to this discussion have ever worked in any newsroom, so I wouldn't expect them to understand the ethics that govern journalism, particularly at the BBC where they don't just take the word of one source before running a story. But I would expect them to have more respect for the BBC's flagship news programme than to assume that the organisation leans on its editors and they cave in. Believe me, it does not happen. And if it did, they would resign. This is why Peter Rippon has been so vigorous in his defence - because his own journalistic ethics are being called into question by people who do not know him and have never, ever met him. I think I'd be pretty upset too.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 08:38:46 PM by Meerkat »

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2012, 08:53:36 PM »
During this week, much has been said by commentators etc. probably the most important responses have been from the public. I have heard many this week and they should be considered.

The response seems to divide as follows.

Many callers of all genders and ages generally supporting the ITV documentary and praising the courage of the participants. And quite rightly considering the question about allegation after death and the importance of Savile' charity work.

A number of callers who confirm that they had heard the allegations many years ago informally from journalists and police or indirectly from their parents.And are questioning what went wrong

A small minority of callers, which I have to report are only men, possibly over 55 years, who state quite strongly that these are only rumours and conspiracies and that any further investigation must stop because Saville is not alive to defend himself.

AND in response to these men a considerable response from  callers who in anger and pain have called to report their own abuse(not Savile related) and indeed the youth workers who have also called to address the dangers of a cover up.

Now Nicky Campbell this morning had all those elements and it is a very good example.

The Savile defender was called Peter from Eastbourne(although I think he has been on other stations under other names) and he provoked a very signifigant reaction..and Nicky Campbell, although clearly struggling with this callers ignorance, rightly pointed out that even such ignorant/indefensible callers have to be entertained because of the very important calls that followed. It cast a light. And something that we have to do sometimes.

Please listen to this if you can, it is a good example of the discussions taking place.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01n1r55


Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2012, 09:19:45 PM »
Meerkat,

You defend Peter Rippon with passion. That is your right.

Rippon's defence is clearly available on his blog and he is very clear about his reasons for dropping the editorial.

I have read and heard much from journalists and experts who agree and disagree with your view.

You have to respect that others will disagree.

For the reason that if Mark Williams-Thomas had not taken this subject up and ITV had not backed him this subject would not be in the public domain and I think that it does far more damage if it lingers and festers as univestigated rumour on the internet.

And because it is now in the public domain, investigations are now taking place.

That must be a good thing for any vulnerable children who in the future could be put at risk because of powerful people exploiting them.

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2012, 09:46:12 PM »
Meerkat,

You defend Peter Rippon with passion. That is your right.

Rippon's defence is clearly available on his blog and he is very clear about his reasons for dropping the editorial.

I have read and heard much from journalists and experts who agree and disagree with your view.

You have to respect that others will disagree.

For the reason that if Mark Williams-Thomas had not taken this subject up and ITV had not backed him this subject would not be in the public domain and I think that it does far more damage if it lingers and festers as univestigated rumour on the internet.

And because it is now in the public domain, investigations are now taking place.

That must be a good thing for any vulnerable children who in the future could be put at risk because of powerful people exploiting them.

So you are admitting you are merely repeating rumours and presenting them as fact. I'd hate to have you as a member of any jury in any trial I was involved in. And I hope for your sake that no-one ever puts the rumours that I have heard about you on to the internet. I have no idea whether or not they are true, but I understand the sheep is now fully recovered but won't be sitting down for a while.  ;D

And while your aim pf protecting vulnerable children is worthy and laudable, it conveniently ignores the fact that these allegations are from 40 years ago, when attitudes to safeguarding were very different. These days, young people would not be allowed to accompany celebrities unaccompanied on BBC premises. There would always be a responsible adult, or chaperone, present. Interestingly, the tabloids (who are baying for the BBC's blood) usually present this type of cautiousness as political correctness gone mad.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 09:51:04 PM by Meerkat »

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2012, 10:40:33 PM »
If you take the time to read the Peter Rippon statement properly, you will see that Newsnight investigated the story because they were told by the alleged victim that the case was dropped not because there was a lack of evidence, but because Savile was too old.

In her original statement the key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". Contrast that with the media storm now - and the debate on this forum - which is around allegations of a BBC cover up.

But during the Newsnight investigation, the CPS issue a statement which says the case was dropped because of a lack of evidence, and that age was not a factor. It states:

"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."

So, this directly contradicts the evidence of the alleged victim and the Editor faces a choice. Does he run a story that the CPS says is untrue in a case where the alleged perpetrator is not around to defend themselves? So, after much debate, they chose not to.

Now, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Particularly when, months later, along comes a documentary which is subtly different. They interview a number of alleged victims and do not focus on why the case was dropped (as Newsnight did) but on the rumours themselves along with reaction from TV personalities who had heard them and speculate as to why nothing was done.

These are two completely different 'treatments' of the same story, and that goes part of the way to explaining why one was broadcast and one wasn't.

I think you would have to keep an open mind as to what the CPS may have said to a vulnerable person or indeed how that may have been interpreted.  As I said previously, Rippon seems to a been blinded by the angle.  He didn't need an angle or hindsight to know this was one of the biggest scandals of the last half century.  So, he choose not to run it, it's now history, from which we can learn a lot.  Cover up or cock up, we shall see.

Quote
I assume that neither of the contributors to this discussion have ever worked in any newsroom, so I wouldn't expect them to understand the ethics that govern journalism, particularly at the BBC where they don't just take the word of one source before running a story. But I would expect them to have more respect for the BBC's flagship news programme than to assume that the organisation leans on its editors and they cave in. Believe me, it does not happen. And if it did, they would resign. This is why Peter Rippon has been so vigorous in his defence - because his own journalistic ethics are being called into question by people who do not know him and have never, ever met him. I think I'd be pretty upset too.

I suggest you read Stumbling Over The Truth before suggesting one source is not taken as word.  It will also show you that on at least one occasion a BBC Executive has attempted to influence what goes into, or doesn't go into a programme.

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2012, 10:48:51 PM »
So you are admitting you are merely repeating rumours and presenting them as fact. I'd hate to have you as a member of any jury in any trial I was involved in. And I hope for your sake that no-one ever puts the rumours that I have heard about you on to the internet. I have no idea whether or not they are true, but I understand the sheep is now fully recovered but won't be sitting down for a while.  ;D

And while your aim pf protecting vulnerable children is worthy and laudable, it conveniently ignores the fact that these allegations are from 40 years ago, when attitudes to safeguarding were very different. These days, young people would not be allowed to accompany celebrities unaccompanied on BBC premises. There would always be a responsible adult, or chaperone, present. Interestingly, the tabloids (who are baying for the BBC's blood) usually present this type of cautiousness as political correctness gone mad.

I do hope you are not a journalist because your ability to disseminate information is rather poor, I haven't seen Tiger admitting to anything of the kind.  My advice though would be to steer clear of anything that may land you in front of a jury consisting of anyone.

And it's irrelevant how long ago these events took place, abuse is abuse.

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2012, 07:06:33 AM »
the tabloids (who are baying for the BBC's blood)

It does seem that this is all some within the BBC see.

The BBC is the licence payers.  There are a few thousand people employed there to look after it for us, but they are simply custodians that should ensure it endures for the next generation.

That many of those will be wanting to know, why a man, who's abusive behaviour was questioned by someone in the BBC, as far back as 1973, was allowed to forge a career in radio and children's television, is hardly surprising?

That is not baying for blood, that is simply wishing to know the truth.  Of course there will be those with vested interests within the media and they have always been there, which makes the BBC's handling of the situation even more bizarre.

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2012, 12:01:15 PM »
I do hope you are not a journalist because your ability to disseminate information is rather poor, I haven't seen Tiger admitting to anything of the kind.  My advice though would be to steer clear of anything that may land you in front of a jury consisting of anyone.

Let's examine what he said. I've put the relevant bits in bold to help you out. Firstly, he said in one post:

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.


So he is stating as fact that there is someone who is alive that witnessed the alleged offences.

But he later admits:

I think that it does far more damage if it lingers and festers as univestigated rumour on the internet.


So now it is just rumour.

Hope that spells it out for you.

I am also concerned that you both seem perfectly happy to impugn Peter Rippon's reputation by implying that he is lying when he states clearly that there was no pressure to drop the piece. 

Tiger says: "perhaps the question should be how Peter Rippon as a human being acted? or failed to act.." which I find extremely unsavoury. They had one person's word, a load of rumours and a police investigation that failed to come up with enough evidence.  Meanwhile, you now have the wonderful benefit of hindsight.

And stating, as you did, that "on at least one occasion a BBC Executive has attempted to influence what goes into, or doesn't go into a programme" is neither here nor there in this case.

Peter Rippon has given an explanation and categorically denied that it happened. But that's not good enough for you because it doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

And there's more. You also call into question the statement the CPS issued to the police by stating, rather mysteriously:  I think you would have to keep an open mind as to what the CPS may have said to a vulnerable person or indeed how that may have been interpreted..

What exactly does that mean? The fact is that the CPS clearly stated that the case was not dropped because of his age, which is why Newsnight were initially interested in it.

You would both get eaten alive in any courtroom in the land going around joining the dots here and making assumptions there, as you both appear happy to do on this forum.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 12:54:33 PM by Meerkat »

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2012, 02:46:28 PM »
Let's examine what he said. I've put the relevant bits in bold to help you out. Firstly, he said in one post:

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.


So he is stating as fact that there is someone who is alive that witnessed the alleged offences.

But he later admits:

I think that it does far more damage if it lingers and festers as univestigated rumour on the internet.


So now it is just rumour.

Hope that spells it out for you.


Thanks so much for putting it in bold for me, yes it does spell it out.  It spells out to me that you are the sort of person who will take the quotes of others out of context in order to satisfy some pre-formed opinion you have concocted.

Quote
I am also concerned that you both seem perfectly happy to impugn Peter Rippon's reputation by implying that he is lying when he states clearly that there was no pressure to drop the piece. 

Tiger says: "perhaps the question should be how Peter Rippon as a human being acted? or failed to act.." which I find extremely unsavoury. They had one person's word, a load of rumours and a police investigation that failed to come up with enough evidence.  Meanwhile, you now have the wonderful benefit of hindsight.

And stating, as you did, that "on at least one occasion a BBC Executive has attempted to influence what goes into, or doesn't go into a programme" is neither here nor there in this case.

Peter Rippon has given an explanation and categorically denied that it happened. But that's not good enough for you because it doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

Sorry but I think you are mistaking a willingness to keep an open mind with some pre-formed opinions of implications you think we're making.

Tiger's quote doesn't imply he's lying.

My quote is entirely valid, as you did ask us previously in this thread to 'believe me, it does not happen'.  Sorry, but it did.

To quote myself 'cover up or cock-up, we shall see'.

Quote
And there's more. You also call into question the statement the CPS issued to the police by stating, rather mysteriously:  I think you would have to keep an open mind as to what the CPS may have said to a vulnerable person or indeed how that may have been interpreted..

What exactly does that mean? The fact is that the CPS clearly stated that the case was not dropped because of his age, which is why Newsnight were initially interested in it.

You would both get eaten alive in any courtroom in the land going around joining the dots here and making assumptions there, as you both appear happy to do on this forum.

Well it means I'd have to see the facts for myself and then I could make an informed opinion.  It's about walking around with eyes open and mind open, not with blinkers.  I'm sure in your world the CPS and the police are infalliable and that must be nice.


Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2012, 06:19:14 PM »
Darcy, there really is no point in engaging with this poster.

He either deliberately misrepresents posts, resorts to abuse, and has no argument other than to attack this forum and myself, that is a sign of many things. None of which are impressive.

The fact that he decides to peddle himself here is because he knows that he would be destroyed elsewhere.

He is either unable or selectively unable to appreciate what is happening in the real world.

I would expect him to attack Question Time, if his arguments have any integrity at all, because the panel and the audience almost exactly echo my own posts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n7q77/Question_Time_04_10_2012/


And in future please refer to me as she..I have the misfortune to be a female in a world that is often dominated by  middle aged men who are unable to grow up.

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2012, 07:23:52 PM »
George Entwistle has now ended a rather uncomfortable silence. And confirmed that the BBC will now be co operating with a multi force police investigation.

I think I did hear him expressing his sorrow for the victims, but that does not seem to have been reported.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/05/jimmy-savile-allegations-bbc

I have no doubt that there will be serious inquiries within DCMS and Leveson.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 07:26:31 PM by Tiger »

darcysarto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Viva Happiness
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2012, 09:25:28 PM »

I would expect him to attack Question Time, if his arguments have any integrity at all, because the panel and the audience almost exactly echo my own posts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n7q77/Question_Time_04_10_2012/


Yes indeed and the parallels with Rochdale etc.

The Guardian Media Talk podcast is also worth a listen.  BBC Stoke supporter Paul Farrelly makes it clear the BBC has questions to ask and answer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2012/oct/05/channel4-bbc


Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2012, 04:45:40 PM »
Thanks so much for putting it in bold for me, yes it does spell it out.  It spells out to me that you are the sort of person who will take the quotes of others out of context in order to satisfy some pre-formed opinion you have concocted.

Excuse me, but as far as I am aware, I did not take her quote out of context. Perhaps, to clarify, Tiger can explain what she was referring to when she talked about "uninvestigated rumour on the internet" if it was not - as you are asserting - the person she claimed was alive and was a witness.

Meerkat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2012, 05:00:13 PM »
Darcy, there really is no point in engaging with this poster.

He either deliberately misrepresents posts, resorts to abuse, and has no argument other than to attack this forum and myself, that is a sign of many things. None of which are impressive.

The fact that he decides to peddle himself here is because he knows that he would be destroyed elsewhere.

He is either unable or selectively unable to appreciate what is happening in the real world.

I would expect him to attack Question Time, if his arguments have any integrity at all, because the panel and the audience almost exactly echo my own posts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n7q77/Question_Time_04_10_2012/


And in future please refer to me as she..I have the misfortune to be a female in a world that is often dominated by  middle aged men who are unable to grow up.

Firstly, I am sorry that I thought assumed you were a man. I wasn't sure but thought I'd seen an earlier post in which someone else referred to you as he, so I followed their lead.

Secondly, I would take issue with your claim that I have resorted to abuse.

Thirdly, I didn't catch Question Time this week, but I disagree with a lot of what is said by the panel and the audience most weeks, so that wouldn't be a surprise! But what it does have in common with both you and Darcysarto is that it is a programme based around opinion rather than fact. And it is the facts, as we know them at the moment, that I have consistently been referring you both back to - because you both spend most of your time posting speculation to suit your own agenda.

I do rather agree with Deborah Orr, who has written a piece in today's Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/06/jimmy-savile-blame-deborah-orr?INTCMP=SRCH - arguing that the anger that is felt about this issue is linked to the fact that we were all conned by Savile's public persona, and are looking for scapegoats to blame as he is not around to answer the allegations. That is human nature. But I still don't see what is being achieved by all the vitriol being directed at the BBC around things alleged to have happened 40 years ago. It will not change the fact that it happened. And as I have already explained, safeguarding rules now are very different.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 05:10:53 PM by Meerkat »

Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
    • View Profile
Re: Charlie Chaplin & Jimmy Savile
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2012, 06:57:52 PM »
I find it very hard to believe that anyone seems unable to confront public opinion and the opinions of a diverse panel such as Question Time because they say that they never agree with any of the panel or the audience.

That would be quite disturbing and shows a disconnection with society.


This forum has always based its opinion upon the collection of evidence. We have spent many many hours contacting BBC managers, select committees, Unions, BBC staff and listener groups and many other interested parties including journalists.


You have to be aware that Darcy started this thread well before it became tabloid news, that was important. Because at that time there was no evidence to suggest that the BBC were going to continue in any way with investigating the allegations.

I would say that the majority of public opinion is that these allegations had to be made public.

Opinion is vital, it is evidence of the possesion of intellect, judgement and evaluation of fact. That is what defines us as human beings and is the most important trait.


Otherwise monsters such as Hitler would present facts and demand that they are accepted as fact.


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

1 Replies
1371 Views
Last post March 29, 2013, 09:33:01 PM
by Tiger
xx
The Kershaws and Jimmy Savile.

Started by Tiger

3 Replies
1368 Views
Last post June 03, 2014, 06:02:58 PM
by Tiger
xx
Chris Patten On Jimmy Savile & The BBC

Started by BBCRadioForum

56 Replies
12971 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
by darcysarto
xx
Jimmy Savile - Panorama, What the BBC Knew.

Started by darcysarto

1 Replies
1115 Views
Last post October 21, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
by Tiger
xx
Countdown to DQF: Charlie Brooker gets cutting with those glossy BBC trails.

Started by darcysarto

4 Replies
2871 Views
Last post October 04, 2011, 08:21:12 PM
by Tiger