Newsnight and Jimmy Savile

Damage limitation propaganda exercise ?

Fascinating. Just so I understand, what you are saying here is that if the institutional failure had been either the police or the CPS, it would have been a story, but not if the institutional failure had been the BBC's.

I'm glad that's all cleared up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The BBC is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. I welcome your clear explanation of why you investigated the allegations, and why they ultimately weren't broadcast, but there will be foamy-mouthed conspiracy fanatics who will see the above as excuses. The BBC is damned if it doesnt too. If you had stayed silent, you would have been accused of secrecy and a cover-up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@M90R Surely the BBC have stayed silent and they have been accused of secrecy and a cover-up!

We can only consider Peter Rippon blog if we know what it was that Newsnight decided not to show , then if we found they have the same evidence as ITV will air tomorrow ,then I believe he has more questions to answer .So Newsnight should now show us what they decided to cut .

@Jolly Rodger I don't think you have been keeping up to date on this. Historically, girls did make complaints and were ignored or dealt with. People at the BBC chose to ignore all the signs. His name was in the frame with the Police on at least two occasions. Also, Sir Jimmy was not averse to engaging Queen's Council to frighten off the media.

Or maybe Newsnight reaised at the last minute that some of the few people who still watch it would be offended by this issue being subjected to its usual pointless shouty panel of US neocon, obnoxious writer, ex-Sun journalist, raving MP or anyone else who can be relied upon to know nothing but shout a great deal.

I was told by nurses at a party in the 1980s that Saville was (allegedly) notorious at Stoke Mandeville hospital. Adult women, maybe, but Saville's reputation seems to have been an urban myth for decades.

Still, the BBC gave up investigative journalism back in about 1975 so maybe it's no surprise they were the last people to find out what a pest Saville was; he only worked there.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Alluded to for decades.

BBC didn't do a damn thing about it.

For shame.

"scandal", "cover up", all the things the BBC regularly attacks the Catholic
Church for with regards to child abuse... seems when it's the other ay round the BBC doesn't seem to like it.

'I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the BBC affect my judgement.'

This could be read as a veiled threat. I imagine Peter Ripon decided that criticising the corporation might ultimately be career limiting.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Looks the BBC and the Catholic Church have something in common after all

Does Peter Rippon really think that if the CPS had dropped the charges against Jimmy Saville because of his age, that they'd have admitted this? The scandal would have been huge. If journalists never reported something because an official denied it, there wouldn't be a great lot of news.

The heart of the matter is institutional wrongdoing at the BBC. Peter Rippon didn't think to investigate within the BBC.

As for "BBC has the highest editorial standards," I have made numerous complaints about BBC omitting information from its output which appears in other media unedited. Editors & journalists regularly censor facts from BBC material to mislead and to obfuscate.

Girls were taken from an Approved School and raped on BBC property. But, you say there was no institutional failure.

You say there was no public interest served by reporting it given he is dead and the incidents were 40 years ago. Funny, what was that programme about Fr. Kit Cunningham on the BBC earlier this year? There seems to be one rule for Catholic priests and another for BBC employees.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Youdon't acknowledge the very interesting timing of your decision not to publish. My understanding is that your decision was taken in the days before the BBC was due to screen programmes celebrating Jimmy Saville's career. I don't know that this issue was important to your decision. But your failure to acknowledge the timing makes me suspicious.

Another step down the slippery slope. If the newspaper allegations of a BBC cover-up are true, why not sue?

'2. At 17:48 2nd Oct 2012, RobinsonMJ '
BBC headlined they were appalled they were being accused of something, which came across as more concerned about their reputation than with the victims of the accusations corporation's caught up in.

Poorly phrased wording can do that when media play with them for good, bad or simply inept reasons.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'7. At 18:25 2nd Oct 2012, Bob Hughes
One gets the impression they feel they only get to ask others questions, or hold them to account. Not so keen on the other way. As with 'interactive' blogs and their modding.

'6. - Jolly Rodger '

Post-mortem 'news' coverage of any individual is a sensitive issue.

However, as a matter of precedent, and consistency, I am intrigued by those who claim certain things are not worthy of such on various bases, be they retroactive time periods or other mitigating criteria, when I doubt the BBC would wish to be constrained by such limitations in theirs elsewhere.

I've been watching the BBC's reaction over the past few days, first, total denial, then damage limitation and now (the day of the documentary) back to denial. This institution loves to stick it to others about its failures pity it can't face up to its own. This blog is a prime example of covering up this humiliating scandal. Shame on you.

I think many are misunderstanding what he is saying: he CAN hold the BBC to account and CAN report coverups etc. In this case, it wasn't even the case- it was the CPS saying lack of evidence.... Honestly, please read what he writes not what you think he's writing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9581615/Farmers-fight-back-against-BBC-bias-around-badger-cull.html

BBC record with 'evidence' varies, mind. Badger controversy activist un-named 'source': credible & 2B protected . ExBBC on-record testimony: 'no one complained/nothing happened anyone aware of', then deploy hounds 2 discredit any not 'moving on'. On the same 'news' day.

Well maybe the work of journalist Leah McGrath in exposing Jersey as a sort of Butlins for rich and powerful pedos will be exposed now. She had her visa revoked for investigating Haut de la garrene, no doubt too many powerful figures, not just saville , have got things too hide.

I look forward to seeing the BBC report on their own failings to act swiftly and assertively with their own child abusers having witnessed their confident and largely hostile investigations of the Roman Catholic Church. It'll be interesting to see what processes the BBC has in place around child protection in the 1970s

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

After watching Louis Theroux in 2000 I was suspicious, then when Jimmy said he couldn't remember being in Isle of Wight even though there were pictures of him I definitely was very suspicious. If I, as a member of the public, thought that I'm sure people who knew him must have been very suspicious.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture/2012/10/when-louis-asked-jimmy-about-being-paedophile

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Peter Rippon needs to also speak to the matter of the allegations against two living BBC 'celebs' who are alleged to have sexually abused girls at Television Centre. Or is that not in the public interest either?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Interesting BBC news mentioning another connection with another person under investigation round about at the same time?
I worked in a night club and regularly we heard about young girls who would go off with artists, band members etc (groupies ) back to hotels etc. We would get all sorts of stories of what went on.. The people involved all knew they were under age but never asked the question.

30. Peter Nicholls > In this case, it wasn't even the case- it was the CPS saying lack of evidence....

That is the reason given in this blog, yes. But don't forget that, as clearsighted points out in comment 23, the Newsnight in question was pulled *just before a big BBC tribute to Savile was about to be aired.* I hardly think that was a coincidence.

Furthermore, Joshua Rozenburg, who was on the staff of the BBC for 25 years and still freelances for them, said in an article in today's Guardian referring to this BBC editor blog regarding the CPS:

> There seem to be no issues of law here.

I agree with him. It doesn't seem to be an issue of law at all...