The BBC permalink
Newsnight - Jimmy Saville
-
Message 1.
Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Monday, 1st October 2012
Interesting article in the Guardian, particularly in the light of another investigative programme on an alternative channel.
www.guardian.co.uk/m....
Most interesting is the response of the BBC at the end........ -
Message 2
Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Monday, 1st October 2012
Why would the BBC be investigating JS in the first place. I thought there job was to report news? If there are any allegations made about somebody surely the police should do the investigating not journalists on the BBC.
-
Message 3
Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Monday, 1st October 2012
Have a look at the article Zelda- he was being investigated by the police and he was an employee of the BBC.
-
Message 4
Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Monday, 1st October 2012
Have a look at the article Zelda- he was being investigated by the police and he was an employee of the BBC. Sorry... I mis read the article. My apologies.
-
Message 5
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 6
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have very little sympathy for the "victims" of Saville's alleged misdemeanours .
You are kidding, aren't you??
He used his fund-raising to protect himself. There's also his voluntary hospital work. The BBC would do well to really sort this out or more will come out bit by bit. It's in the past so it would earn credit. It's a pity the Newsnight programme was stopped -
Message 7
Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have very little sympathy for the "victims" of Saville's alleged misdemeanours .
Now then, now then!
-
Message 8
Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The BBC has to sort this out asap.The longer they sit on it and hope it goes away the worse it becomes. Yesterday another channel led their evening news on it, whereas on the BBC website it could only be found under their "Entertainment" section and only then mentioned briefly. Today on the BBC website it is not listed at all on the front page, not even under "other news". Ironic that under "other news" they cover a ridiculous item "Head in bin man had lost hat", but have not covered some of the important news. Only today have they shifted the investigation of Keith Vaz onto the front page, - whereas at the beginning of yesterday it didn't appear at all and then by lunchtime they hid it under "politics". No disrespect to Peta and her team who do a grand job under difficult circumstances when there are oldies like me wittering on, - but some serious sorting out needs to take place at the BEEB.
-
Message 9
Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Not true. What can they do? At the time, they thought that they couldn't take it any further because the CPS had decided not to take it any further for a lack of evidence. What are the BBC supposed to do? Take the evidence that the CPS has said is insufficient, and use it anyway? I am not sure that they could do that.
-
Message 10
Posted by Peta (U24) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
According to the Guardian article
The BBC said: "It is absolutely untrue that the Newsnight investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.
We have been very clear from the start that the piece was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated.
The responsibility for investigations rests with the police, not the BBC. -
Message 11
Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
To me it seems that the OP wants to start a discussion about allegations that have been speculated about in the press and in a programme on another channel that has yet to be seen and a Newsnight investigation that went nowhere
So not about a BBC programme as nothing has been broadcast -
Message 12
Posted by ARENA (U3567614) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The BBC has to sort this out asap.The longer they sit on it and hope it goes away the worse it becomes. Yesterday another channel led their evening news on it, whereas on the BBC website it could only be found under their "Entertainment" section and only then mentioned briefly
It ISN'T news, It's wild speculation and what's more it cannot be proved. -
Message 13
Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Of course the investigation lies with the police and there may well be another one to come after the programme, but the BBC has a responsibility to cover major stories in their news coverage, including ones where the BBC is mentioned in a negative way.
-
Message 14
Posted by Peta (U24) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
They are covering the story on the news pages
www.bbc.co.uk/news/e...
This story was obviously not seen to take priority over other current stories on the main home news page - the main one at the moment being a missing child.
-
Message 15
Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
It ISN'T news, It's wild speculation and what's more it cannot be proved.
Serious allegations have been made against a popular radio and television presenter, well known for his work with children both on and off screen.
The allegations may or may not be true, you may or may not believe them, but this /is/ news. -
Message 16
Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The BBC will be damned if they do and damned if they don't on this one, I'm afraid. If they re-broadcast reports in other media they'll be accused of adding fuel to the fire, if they don't, they'll be accused of chickening out.
If - and only if - there is incontrovertible evidence of a crime having been committed by Mr Saville, then I feel very sorry for the victim/s. If not, I feel equally sorry for him and his family.
In general, I would have felt less uneasy about the whole thing if the victims had accused the man while he was in a position to go on BBC - or indeed any other medum - to defend himself. -
Message 17
Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have very little sympathy for the "victims" of Saville's alleged misdemeanours .
You are kidding, aren't you??
He used his fund-raising to protect himself. There's also his voluntary hospital work. The BBC would do well to really sort this out or more will come out bit by bit. It's in the past so it would earn credit. It's a pity the Newsnight programme was stopped Correct. None of us has been in the position - I hope and imagine - of suffering what victims of child sex abuse go through. Say, a 13 year old girl goes through it and is told "Don't tell anyone" by the perpetrator, who does she turn to if she is feeling humiliated and used? Suppose she does pluck up the courage to talk to another adult, will that person believe here, and if she has been the victim of a high profile celebrity, what then? While the perp keeps lying, the victim may suffer even more, with the risk that her name be dragged through the mud.
I make no comment on what is alleged about Jimmy Savile, but nothing sums up the difficulties of different accounts more painfully than this sort of thing -
Message 18
Posted by ARENA (U3567614) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
You cannot make 'serious allegations'about someone who is dead. They can not be substantiated and totally inadmissable in law.
-
Message 19
Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
You cannot make 'serious allegations'about someone who is dead.
Of course you can.
They can not be substantiated and totally inadmissable in law.
I am very aware of that fact.
The fact that they have been made is news. -
Message 20
Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Interesting article in the Guardian, particularly in the light of another investigative programme on an alternative channel.
www.guardian.co.uk/m....
Most interesting is the response of the BBC at the end........ At least the TV companies have investigated this which is more than the Guardian has done. -
Message 21
Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The fact that they have been made is news.
Indeed. As is the fact that there had been a police investigation (for sexual assault and rape) into Savile, and that he had been interviewed under caution in 2007, a tiny little bit of information that did not come out until yesterday and the BBC has deemed so unimportant as to omit in most reports.
I am afraid the BBC is not coming out looking too good about this.
-
Message 22
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 23
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 24
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 25
Posted by ARENA (U3567614) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
You obviously have zero knowledge of the psychological effect of sexual abuse on a young child.
and you have no proof of this nor the pain caused by false accusations of this type. -
Message 26
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The strange aspect is that for some reason people did not speak out about this. Paul Gambacini said, "You didn't mess with Jimmy". What's that about?
It is a sad thing that the BBC has always had a barrier around itself whereby it keeps its doings to itself and it looks like that has served this situation.
'Back then' all sorts of things went on in the entertainment industry involving well-known and loved figures, and that inevitably had to cover the BBC as well. Someone who worked in the pop-industry told me, about 1980, a lot of hair-raising stories and about JS he just laughed. A girl, local to me, was known to have 'gone out' with JS in 1965. There is also something even more lurid concerning him that will emerge. The Beeb has to handle this well or it is more ammunituion for its enemies. -
Message 27
Posted by St Maddenus patron saint of reprobates (U14314874) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
It is sad though, that the good image of the man is being tarnished now he is dead. He did do a lot of good work and all of that will be overshadowed by doubt about his motivation.
he MAY have taken advantage of this but now he has no opportunity to defend himself at all. if any of these reporters actually had guts they would have done it while he was alive.
By waiting for his death they MAY have abetted his actions and should take partial responsibility for it.
If they had acted earlier MAYbe they could have prevented it if they truely believed it was so awful. No, this is more like robbing a grave for the rings on his fingers, crows feasting on his carcass.
Dear Jim, please can you fix it for me to find out the motivation for these allegations seeing as APPARENTLY if true it wasnt serious enough to act on while you were alive and were apparently a potential threat to others.......
I recommend the reporters look at themselves and their own actions first.
I have altered my original post to say MAY instead of actually. Obviously actually means fact whereas Maybe is a suggestion. this is not a fact it is my opinion.
-
Message 28
Posted by megamain (U12800305) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I hope the people who have chosen now, after his death, to accuse him of these things are not accepting any sort of payment for their stories. Or if they are they are donating the money they are making to sex/child abuse charities.
Otherwise their allegations should be taken with a pinch of salt. -
Message 29
Posted by BBC auto-messages (U294) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'BBC Television ' to 'The BBC'.
Not about a BBC TV programme, so moving to the BBC topic.
This is not the place to generally debate the news story.
Discussion of news stories is off topic.
Libellous posts will be removed.
-
Message 30
Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Libellous posts will be removed.
Libellous of whom? The subject of the thread is dead, he cannot be libelled. -
Message 31
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Unfortunately there is still the Reithian reflex-impulse to keep up appearances.
-
Message 32
Posted by Peta (U24) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Libellous posts will be removed.
Libellous of whom? The subject of the thread is dead, he cannot be libelled. The journalists and the girls - for example. -
Message 33
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 34
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 35
Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Are you suggesting we all sign up to that, OriginDance?
No, thanks. I'll need a lot more convincing of the actual facts about this case before I do anything like that. -
Message 36
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 37
Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I think the best thing all round at the moment it to keep well out of this one. The bloke isn't here to defend himself, the women have no real evidence. It's a hot potato this one. The media will as ever have a field day whatever the outcome of any investigations that may or may not take place.
-
Message 38
Posted by St Maddenus patron saint of reprobates (U14314874) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
"I think the best thing all round at the moment it to keep well out of this one."
right now it's a waste of time typing anything at all....
-
Message 39
Posted by St Maddenus patron saint of reprobates (U14314874) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I've appealed a removal. You need to get the people to read carefully and understand what is written as I havent written anything libellous at all, nor have I encouraged unlawful actions.
right now it feels like a gag order is in place. -
Message 40
Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have been banned from the Guardian site St Madds.... I know how you feel!
-
Message 41
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
At least wait until Wednesday night.
-
Message 42
Posted by Peta (U24) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I've appealed a removal. You need to get the people to read carefully and understand what is written as I havent written anything libellous at all, nor have I encouraged unlawful actions.
right now it feels like a gag order is in place. In your last post, where you explained how you had changed the text you repeated the libellous comment and explained that you understood it to be libellous.
Please just be careful about what you post. It isn't fair or reasonable to make accusations or attribute blame. -
Message 43
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have been banned from the Guardian site St Madds.... I know how you feel! Crikey, zelda ..... how did you manage that? (The language there is now sometimes APPALLING!.)
-
Message 44
Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have been banned from the Guardian site St Madds.... I know how you feel! Crikey, zelda ..... how did you manage that? (The language there is now sometimes APPALLING!.) Well......... I was on a thread and someone posed a question. I said that I knew the answer to that question but if I posted it I would be in trouble with the mods. I was then banned. (I had been put on pre-mod a couple of times previously.)
The Guardian, I have found to my disquiet is one of the most heavily censored forums I have ever some across. They are fine as long as you tow the very left line but if you don't they can be ruthless.
Still all water under the bridge. - My next move, Speakers Corner!
-
Message 45
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 46
Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Well, don't get arrested! ( I got expunged for saying something innocuous about the director of PE ....
) -
Message 47
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 48
Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
The fact that they have been made is news.
Indeed. As is the fact that there had been a police investigation (for sexual assault and rape) into Savile, and that he had been interviewed under caution in 2007, a tiny little bit of information that did not come out until yesterday and the BBC has deemed so unimportant as to omit in most reports.
I am afraid the BBC is not coming out looking too good about this.
Should the BBC have broadcast allegations that the CPS had insufficient evidence to prove. -
Message 49
Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
I have been banned from the Guardian site St Madds.... I know how you feel! Crikey, zelda ..... how did you manage that? (The language there is now sometimes APPALLING!.) Well......... I was on a thread and someone posed a question. I said that I knew the answer to that question but if I posted it I would be in trouble with the mods. I was then banned. (I had been put on pre-mod a couple of times previously.)
The Guardian, I have found to my disquiet is one of the most heavily censored forums I have ever some across. They are fine as long as you tow the very left line but if you don't they can be ruthless.
Still all water under the bridge. - My next move, Speakers Corner!
I read alot of Guardian discussions and I have seen no evidence of people having to toe "a very left line" at all! (it is "toe" by the way, not "tow"). -
Message 50
Posted by DoverSoul (U14934992) ** on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Quick question St Maddenus, how do you know who the accusers were in 2007 and that there are different ones now?
About this Board
The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.
Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.
Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!
Go to: BBC News Have your say for news discussions.
Complaints? Refer to the BBC complaints website
Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300
This messageboard is reactively moderated.
Find out more about this board's House Rules
Search this Board
Recent Discussions
BBC iD
BBC iDbbc.co.uk navigation
BBC links
BBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.