RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: There are masses of people who think that the world is flat and that we never landed on the moon or that god made the world in 6 days 6000 years ago too.

Daft comparison in the light of evidence against Savile.

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: There are masses of people who think that the world is flat and that we never landed on the moon or that god made the world in 6 days 6000 years ago too.

Daft comparison in the light of evidence against Savile.

There is plenty of evidence against Savile. there is no evidence of conspiracy. The comparison is entirely valid.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: There are masses of people who think that the world is flat and that we never landed on the moon or that god made the world in 6 days 6000 years ago too.

Daft comparison in the light of evidence against Savile.

There is plenty of evidence against Savile. there is no evidence of conspiracy. The comparison is entirely valid.

The whole bloody world seemed to know what Savile was like when he was alive...the only people who seemed ignorant of his actions were the very people who could have stopped him. Hence, he was allowed to continue committing his crimes.

The suggestion of a conspiracy or cover up seems far more valid than retarded people believing in an invisible, omnipotent being that made people out of clay and gets 10% of its follower's wages for his/her trouble.

As I said earlier, as conspiracy theories go, this one has legs. The connections Savile had no doubt helped him.

The big issue I had with this whole 'top management knowing nothing' argument is the sheer period of time. With a culture of reverence to the talent, I can understand perhaps 10 years where the top level of management knew nothing, or at least not enough to warrant an investigation.

But over he decades the abuse lasted, those at the bottom who probably did hear rumours about Saville, would have risen through the ranks. I can only assume that either their belief was that it had all stopped and thus wasn't worth a scandal, or that they were afraid of how large the scandal would be.

Sandydragon wrote:The big issue I had with this whole 'top management knowing nothing' argument is the sheer period of time. With a culture of reverence to the talent, I can understand perhaps 10 years where the top level of management knew nothing, or at least not enough to warrant an investigation.

But over he decades the abuse lasted, those at the bottom who probably did hear rumours about Saville, would have risen through the ranks. I can only assume that either their belief was that it had all stopped and thus wasn't worth a scandal, or that they were afraid of how large the scandal would be.

Now that is a very good point. However I'm not sure the producer of Jim'll fix it or Top of the Pops is a prime candidate for elevation to the higher echelons of the BBC. I've not read the report, but I'd hope that they at least managed to realise if the person who was his producer was also the line manager of his producers later on.

Another question I posted earlier was that where did these senior BBC bods move on to...if anywhere?

WaspInWales wrote:Another question I posted earlier was that where did these senior BBC bods move on to...if anywhere?

I imagine a quick google will tell you. Depends what you mean by senior tv bods. The Board of Governors were appointed by government from the great and the good. Many of them were probably already Lords. The DG in those days would generally end up in the Lords as well. The channel controllers move on variously. Some stay in tv and some don't. For example David Attenborough used to be controller of BBC2. Commissioning editors, god knows.

An interesting perspective.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The big issue I had with this whole 'top management knowing nothing' argument is the sheer period of time. With a culture of reverence to the talent, I can understand perhaps 10 years where the top level of management knew nothing, or at least not enough to warrant an investigation.

But over he decades the abuse lasted, those at the bottom who probably did hear rumours about Saville, would have risen through the ranks. I can only assume that either their belief was that it had all stopped and thus wasn't worth a scandal, or that they were afraid of how large the scandal would be.

Now that is a very good point. However I'm not sure the producer of Jim'll fix it or Top of the Pops is a prime candidate for elevation to the higher echelons of the BBC. I've not read the report, but I'd hope that they at least managed to realise if the person who was his producer was also the line manager of his producers later on.

From the talk of other celebrities, the knowledge of Saville 'being a bit odd' wasn't confined to one or two programs. Add in the other celebrities who were abusing children, and it spread across a number of programs and departments. I find it stretching the odds of credibility to suggest that there wasn't someone who made it to higher management who wasn't aware that these rumors existed.

The fact that no evidence was found can mean one of several things:

None of the top management over several decades was made aware of the issue at all. Thats odd in my view.
Any such discussions were verbal only, and no record was made. After a long period of time, memories suddenly become very hazy.
Any paper complaints were destroyed several years ago. Like most organizations, the BBC won't hold onto data forever.

Sandydragon wrote:.....

The fact that no evidence was found can mean one of several things:

None of the top management over several decades was made aware of the issue at all. Thats odd in my view.
Any such discussions were verbal only, and no record was made. After a long period of time, memories suddenly become very hazy.
Any paper complaints were destroyed several years ago. Like most organizations, the BBC won't hold onto data forever.

Maybe some of the top management were complicit with Savile's actions?

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The big issue I had with this whole 'top management knowing nothing' argument is the sheer period of time. With a culture of reverence to the talent, I can understand perhaps 10 years where the top level of management knew nothing, or at least not enough to warrant an investigation.

But over he decades the abuse lasted, those at the bottom who probably did hear rumours about Saville, would have risen through the ranks. I can only assume that either their belief was that it had all stopped and thus wasn't worth a scandal, or that they were afraid of how large the scandal would be.

Now that is a very good point. However I'm not sure the producer of Jim'll fix it or Top of the Pops is a prime candidate for elevation to the higher echelons of the BBC. I've not read the report, but I'd hope that they at least managed to realise if the person who was his producer was also the line manager of his producers later on.

From the talk of other celebrities, the knowledge of Saville 'being a bit odd' wasn't confined to one or two programs. Add in the other celebrities who were abusing children, and it spread across a number of programs and departments. I find it stretching the odds of credibility to suggest that there wasn't someone who made it to higher management who wasn't aware that these rumors existed.

The fact that no evidence was found can mean one of several things:

None of the top management over several decades was made aware of the issue at all. Thats odd in my view.
Any such discussions were verbal only, and no record was made. After a long period of time, memories suddenly become very hazy.
Any paper complaints were destroyed several years ago. Like most organizations, the BBC won't hold onto data forever.

Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

I wouldn't find it odd that senior management weren't told at all. If you are the producer of Jim'll fix it you have a vested interest in not telling senior management because your hit programme could be gone.

UKHamlet wrote:

12800226_944663985630211_4480407557332277038_n.jpg

An interesting perspective.

Well said Matt Scott from Falmouth, Cornwall.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

But being a whistle blower against the great and the good is.

UGagain wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

But being a whistle blower against the great and the good is.

Being a whistkeblower certainly has been in the past in most large organisations. Which is another reason why producers may not have told senior management.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

But being a whistle blower against the great and the good is.

Being a whistkeblower certainly has been in the past in most large organisations. Which is another reason why producers may not have told senior management.

Maybe you want to think that one through a bit more.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Now that is a very good point. However I'm not sure the producer of Jim'll fix it or Top of the Pops is a prime candidate for elevation to the higher echelons of the BBC. I've not read the report, but I'd hope that they at least managed to realise if the person who was his producer was also the line manager of his producers later on.

From the talk of other celebrities, the knowledge of Saville 'being a bit odd' wasn't confined to one or two programs. Add in the other celebrities who were abusing children, and it spread across a number of programs and departments. I find it stretching the odds of credibility to suggest that there wasn't someone who made it to higher management who wasn't aware that these rumors existed.

The fact that no evidence was found can mean one of several things:

None of the top management over several decades was made aware of the issue at all. Thats odd in my view.
Any such discussions were verbal only, and no record was made. After a long period of time, memories suddenly become very hazy.
Any paper complaints were destroyed several years ago. Like most organizations, the BBC won't hold onto data forever.

Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

I wouldn't find it odd that senior management weren't told at all. If you are the producer of Jim'll fix it you have a vested interest in not telling senior management because your hit programme could be gone.

I was being a bit sarcastic by using the term odd yo describe Saville. Most people who watched him thought he was odd, but there have been accounts from other celebrities on the culture at the time. I think the issue went beyond one programme, and it obviously went beyond one celebrity. I suspect for all those we know about, there were other BBC staff who got a bit touchy feely as that was apparently the standard set.

I gave no doubt that at first the issue wasn't escalated. Then when people rose through the ranks, the issue was buried rather than embarrass the Beeb. When Saville dropped off the screens it then became someone else's problem.

how many of Saville crimes were committed at the bbc? I thought most of what he did was creeping into children's hospitals or care homes and abusing kids there? Not that that is any excuse, obviously, but if you're a bbc manager type the only rumours your going to hear are the ones about what's happened in studios. I think there's a danger of us, knowing what we now know about the extent of what Saville got up to all over the place, and looking back at the bbc of the 60s and 70s and thinking they would have known all that as well. I feel we might be judging the bbc management of the time against knowledge that they couldn't possibly have had?!

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
From the talk of other celebrities, the knowledge of Saville 'being a bit odd' wasn't confined to one or two programs. Add in the other celebrities who were abusing children, and it spread across a number of programs and departments. I find it stretching the odds of credibility to suggest that there wasn't someone who made it to higher management who wasn't aware that these rumors existed.

The fact that no evidence was found can mean one of several things:

None of the top management over several decades was made aware of the issue at all. Thats odd in my view.
Any such discussions were verbal only, and no record was made. After a long period of time, memories suddenly become very hazy.
Any paper complaints were destroyed several years ago. Like most organizations, the BBC won't hold onto data forever.

Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

I wouldn't find it odd that senior management weren't told at all. If you are the producer of Jim'll fix it you have a vested interest in not telling senior management because your hit programme could be gone.

I was being a bit sarcastic by using the term odd yo describe Saville. Most people who watched him thought he was odd, but there have been accounts from other celebrities on the culture at the time. I think the issue went beyond one programme, and it obviously went beyond one celebrity. I suspect for all those we know about, there were other BBC staff who got a bit touchy feely as that was apparently the standard set.

I gave no doubt that at first the issue wasn't escalated. Then when people rose through the ranks, the issue was buried rather than embarrass the Beeb. When Saville dropped off the screens it then became someone else's problem.

I've commented on the general culture at the time. Groping was accepted in the mid-late 20th century in ways it rightly isn't now. A lot depends on the nature of the rumours. Realistically no one in the 60s would ever have reported someone a bit gropey and if they did they'd have received very short shrift - there was a series of documentaries on how women were treated in various types of employment including police and secretaries and the stories included new female officers being asked to raise their skirts so that the station stamp could be applied to their bottoms.

The opening statement from the release of the report contains much of the fcatual background. I'd encourage people to read it. I don't see how it can sensibly be described as a whitewash:
http://www.damejanetsmithreview.com/wp- ... .02.16.pdf

Donny osmond wrote:how many of Saville crimes were committed at the bbc? I thought most of what he did was creeping into children's hospitals or care homes and abusing kids there? Not that that is any excuse, obviously, but if you're a bbc manager type the only rumours your going to hear are the ones about what's happened in studios. I think there's a danger of us, knowing what we now know about the extent of what Saville got up to all over the place, and looking back at the bbc of the 60s and 70s and thinking they would have known all that as well. I feel we might be judging the bbc management of the time against knowledge that they couldn't possibly have had?!

There was a victim on the radio the other day, who was about 9 at the time, but was abused by not only Savile but A N Other backstage of the set of Jim'll Fix it. It was a hard listen.

bruce wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:how many of Saville crimes were committed at the bbc? I thought most of what he did was creeping into children's hospitals or care homes and abusing kids there? Not that that is any excuse, obviously, but if you're a bbc manager type the only rumours your going to hear are the ones about what's happened in studios. I think there's a danger of us, knowing what we now know about the extent of what Saville got up to all over the place, and looking back at the bbc of the 60s and 70s and thinking they would have known all that as well. I feel we might be judging the bbc management of the time against knowledge that they couldn't possibly have had?!

There was a victim on the radio the other day, who was about 9 at the time, but was abused by not only Savile but A N Other backstage of the set of Jim'll Fix it. It was a hard listen.

It normally is.

Donny osmond wrote:how many of Saville crimes were committed at the bbc? I thought most of what he did was creeping into children's hospitals or care homes and abusing kids there? Not that that is any excuse, obviously, but if you're a bbc manager type the only rumours your going to hear are the ones about what's happened in studios. I think there's a danger of us, knowing what we now know about the extent of what Saville got up to all over the place, and looking back at the bbc of the 60s and 70s and thinking they would have known all that as well. I feel we might be judging the bbc management of the time against knowledge that they couldn't possibly have had?!

I would argue that if it were just Saville then it could easily have been a bad apple. But there are several cases, that we know about. Several celebrities across multiple programmes. Its logically difficult to ignore the conclusion that there would have been several rumours, and if some low level investigation was undertaken, why was the top level management completely unaware? In my opinion, there was probably enough rumours abounding to justify top level management ordering an investigation. But that would mean upsetting the talent and potentially them all leaving for ITV.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Being a bit odd is not an imprisonable offence. Hell it's not even a sackable offence.

I wouldn't find it odd that senior management weren't told at all. If you are the producer of Jim'll fix it you have a vested interest in not telling senior management because your hit programme could be gone.

I was being a bit sarcastic by using the term odd yo describe Saville. Most people who watched him thought he was odd, but there have been accounts from other celebrities on the culture at the time. I think the issue went beyond one programme, and it obviously went beyond one celebrity. I suspect for all those we know about, there were other BBC staff who got a bit touchy feely as that was apparently the standard set.

I gave no doubt that at first the issue wasn't escalated. Then when people rose through the ranks, the issue was buried rather than embarrass the Beeb. When Saville dropped off the screens it then became someone else's problem.

I've commented on the general culture at the time. Groping was accepted in the mid-late 20th century in ways it rightly isn't now. A lot depends on the nature of the rumours. Realistically no one in the 60s would ever have reported someone a bit gropey and if they did they'd have received very short shrift - there was a series of documentaries on how women were treated in various types of employment including police and secretaries and the stories included new female officers being asked to raise their skirts so that the station stamp could be applied to their bottoms.

The opening statement from the release of the report contains much of the fcatual background. I'd encourage people to read it. I don't see how it can sensibly be described as a whitewash:
http://www.damejanetsmithreview.com/wp- ... .02.16.pdf

I agree about the groping bit. I'm also not accusing Dame Smith of a whitewash, she went after factual evidence. However, as I wrote below, I doubt any factual evidence existed or if it did then it was probably destroyed some time ago. Denying a verbal conversation from decades ago isn't difficult.

This could be posted in it's own thread but it may turn out to be connected. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the final report states that nothing improper occurred to protect anyone and that more lessons must be learned...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35695665

Someone just reminded me of something very significant indeed and I can't believe I had forgotten it.

In the old days - and I'm not precisely sure when it changed - there was a requirement in sexual offences that the allegation be corroborated. there had to be evidence which supported the allegations made. This means that plenty of these allegations wouldn't have stood a hope in hell of securing a conviction as the judge would have been duty bound to dismiss it. Most sexual offences take place when there are just 2 people present. In the 80s and before there was no DNA testing. Complainants were even less likely to come forward at the time events happened and the courts didn't understand that delay.

I wonder how this one will end?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35765395

£17.9M budget for this year for a 5 year inquiry. Seems kinda costly but at least it'll be thorough.