RugbyRebels

It still stinks of a cover up.

How on earth did senior Beeb management not know about the Savile allegations when many people not even employed by the BBC had suspicions? Apparently, bosses were not informed about Savile due to a culture of fear that still exists today. Strangely, that culture of fear did not stop bosses from being told about Hall.

Seems like £6.5M well spent. I'm sure the Daily Mail will lap this up.

Difficult to disagree. When something is that prolonged and so many people claim to have suspicions (even assuming 50% leeway for exaggeration) I find it incredible that there were no suspicions at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

scapegoating Blackburn cannot be a timing coincidence either.

Place is slowly coming apart. If Blackburn turns out to be correct, it's another nail in the coffin.

So Blackburn carries the can for the whole BBC, whose senior management apparently knew absolutely nothing about Saville, despite it going on for years right under their noses.

Yep, that all seems fine and dandy.

I'm missing something. What is the whitewash? What purpose would the whitewash serve?

Where anywhere does it say everythign was fine and dandy?

If witnesses have said - as appears to be the case - that they didn't tell senior management, how exactly are senior management supposed to know? Simply by divining it in the ether?

People need to decide to what extent they want employers and other large organisations to act on unsubstantiated rumour. I'm not saying that they should never act on unsubstantiated rumour or that organisations should always insist on police being called before they do something but I wish people would be a lot less hysterical in insisting "something must be done".

The cover up would serve to protect those who knowingly helped Savile get away with his crimes for years. As for senior management at the Beeb, they may well only be part of that. I find it extremely unlikely that the powers that be at BBC were unaware of the rumours that existed for decades and then chose to do nothing about them. They may well have only been rumours, although many considered them as open secrets, but certainly worthy of thorough internal and external investigations but he was allowed to continue.

Lets face it, it didn't take long to find the damning evidence after Savile died did it? Surely, the evidence was there all along? Shewerly?

However, the cover up may go much deeper than BBC management alone. Therefore, the purpose of the cover up, if indeed there is one, would not only protect senior figures at the British Broadcasting Corporation but also people possibly in politics and higher.

The report is not suggesting everything is fine and dandy which was clearly a tongue in cheek comment from 5p, but it's clearly yet another case 'where lessons must be learned'. It's just such a shame that victims have to wait for the guilty party to rest in peace before they get heard.

WaspInWales wrote:The cover up would serve to protect those who knowingly helped Savile get away with his crimes for years. As for senior management at the Beeb, they may well only be part of that. I find it extremely unlikely that the powers that be at BBC were unaware of the rumours that existed for decades and then chose to do nothing about them. They may well have only been rumours, although many considered them as open secrets, but certainly worthy of thorough internal and external investigations but he was allowed to continue.

Lets face it, it didn't take long to find the damning evidence after Savile died did it? Surely, the evidence was there all along? Shewerly?

However, the cover up may go much deeper than BBC management alone. Therefore, the purpose of the cover up, if indeed there is one, would not only protect senior figures at the British Broadcasting Corporation but also people possibly in politics and higher.

The report is not suggesting everything is fine and dandy which was clearly a tongue in cheek comment from 5p, but it's clearly yet another case 'where lessons must be learned'. It's just such a shame that victims have to wait for the guilty party to rest in peace before they get heard.

A good old fashioned conspiracy theory. Well I won't even bother to respond to that.

There is an inescapable logic there too. If the evidence was as easy to uncover post mortem, what was the difference that held it at bay in Seville's life? True, we then move into speculation and by its very nature it is bound to be conspiratorial. You either have to accept the unlikely scenario that Savile got away with just because..., or that he had powerful allies. If the latter, then you have to wonder why they WERE allied to a known pervert, who was also an unpleasant personality. That leads down the road of speculating on what kind of hold he had over them?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: A good old fashioned conspiracy theory. Well I won't even bother to respond to that.

As conspiracy theories go, this one has got legs.

Just how high did Savile's seemingly elite protection go? He had friends in very high places and mixed with royalty.

I find it baffling that so soon after he died he was pretty much declared guilty and the evidence against him was massive. Was it just because he couldn't defend himself against the claims? Could he possibly be innocent?

There have been similar claims made against members of the British establishment that seemed to get waved away until potential suspects pass away. Either there's just repeated failings at various levels and everyone realises that mistakes have been made a little too late or there could be something a little more sinister going on.

It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

I wonder how many rock stars are cacking themselves. They may want to revisit their biographies.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

That may be true for many of the huge number of criminal actions of Saville, but not all the evidence was limited to witness testimonial. You can see there's something extremely perverse and psychopathic in the man even from his public televised appearances, where he has said or done things that are not normal, not even for that era. They are things that are very obviously wrong. An example is the below video:


Are you seriously telling me, that you think that the senior echelon of the BBC would not close ranks to protect a high-value BBC celebrity with ties to important political figures? You seriously think at senior BBC management would not have had any idea what Saville was up to?

What has happened is either:
a) Senior management took a dismissive attitude to the claims due to Saville's perceived influence, so as to prevent a scandal at the BBC.
b) Senior management were actively involved in covering up Saville's actions because of pressure from powerful people.
c) Senior management genuinely had no inkling that Saville was getting up something highly dodgy.

In my opinion, (a) is the most likely, (b) is definitely possible, and (c) is ludicrous.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

That may be true for many of the huge number of criminal actions of Saville, but not all the evidence was limited to witness testimonial. You can see there's something extremely perverse and psychopathic in the man even from his public televised appearances, where he has said or done things that are not normal, not even for that era. They are things that are very obviously wrong. An example is the below video:


Are you seriously telling me, that you think that the senior echelon of the BBC would not close ranks to protect a high-value BBC celebrity with ties to important political figures? You seriously think at senior BBC management would not have had any idea what Saville was up to?

What has happened is either:
a) Senior management took a dismissive attitude to the claims due to Saville's perceived influence, so as to prevent a scandal at the BBC.
b) Senior management were actively involved in covering up Saville's actions because of pressure from powerful people.
c) Senior management genuinely had no inkling that Saville was getting up something highly dodgy.

In my opinion, (a) is the most likely, (b) is definitely possible, and (c) is ludicrous.

Scratch a socialist and an authoritarian is revealed. Someone being a bit weird is not evidence.

I doubt the senior management of the BBC ever knew. Why would they? They don't make programmes. The producers knew and said they knew and appear not to have said that they told senior management. If they had told senior management (most of whom are probably now dead) why, having said that they knew, would they now say that they didn't tell senior management? Oh yes, because there's a big conspiracy.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

That may be true for many of the huge number of criminal actions of Saville, but not all the evidence was limited to witness testimonial. You can see there's something extremely perverse and psychopathic in the man even from his public televised appearances, where he has said or done things that are not normal, not even for that era. They are things that are very obviously wrong. An example is the below video:


Are you seriously telling me, that you think that the senior echelon of the BBC would not close ranks to protect a high-value BBC celebrity with ties to important political figures? You seriously think at senior BBC management would not have had any idea what Saville was up to?

What has happened is either:
a) Senior management took a dismissive attitude to the claims due to Saville's perceived influence, so as to prevent a scandal at the BBC.
b) Senior management were actively involved in covering up Saville's actions because of pressure from powerful people.
c) Senior management genuinely had no inkling that Saville was getting up something highly dodgy.

In my opinion, (a) is the most likely, (b) is definitely possible, and (c) is ludicrous.

Scratch a socialist and an authoritarian is revealed. Someone being a bit weird is not evidence.

I doubt the senior management of the BBC ever knew. Why would they? They don't make programmes. The producers knew and said they knew and appear not to have said that they told senior management. If they had told senior management (most of whom are probably now dead) why, having said that they knew, would they now say that they didn't tell senior management? Oh yes, because there's a big conspiracy.

It's not just 'being a bit weird' though is it. If you think the allegations against Saville at the time was just that he was 'being a bit weird', then that says a lot about your attitude towards the whole affair, in my opinion.

I'm not a socialist by the way, and what was authoritarian about what I wrote?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

I appreciate your comments but in this particular case, I find it absolutely baffling considering the allegations made against the man...many of which were reported whilst he was alive. Many of the allegations made against him whilst he was still alive were far were far worse than pinching random women's bottoms.

The police have admitted he could and should have been prosecuted whilst he was alive. So, it still begs the question, how one earth was he allowed to get away with his crimes for decades?

There's also no denying that he seemed to mix in very influential circles.

fivepointer wrote:So Blackburn carries the can for the whole BBC, whose senior management apparently knew absolutely nothing about Saville, despite it going on for years right under their noses.

Yep, that all seems fine and dandy.

Reading the report again, it seems clear that the good judge found no evidence of any direct complaint that reached their level. I still find it hard to believe that those at the top hadn't heard rumours.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm missing something. What is the whitewash? What purpose would the whitewash serve?

Where anywhere does it say everythign was fine and dandy?

If witnesses have said - as appears to be the case - that they didn't tell senior management, how exactly are senior management supposed to know? Simply by divining it in the ether?

People need to decide to what extent they want employers and other large organisations to act on unsubstantiated rumour. I'm not saying that they should never act on unsubstantiated rumour or that organisations should always insist on police being called before they do something but I wish people would be a lot less hysterical in insisting "something must be done".

If this had happened over a few months, I'd be inclined to agree. But over decades,there must have been rumours repeating.

Can you sack someone in those circumstances, of course not. But you can investigate. You can also make it very clear to all staff the no one is above reproach, and any complaints would be taken seriously. The corporation was obviously more determined to keep the talent happy, and for that the management should be held accountable.

Would it be possible to find out if any of the BBC senior management bods from the 70s and 80s went on to places like the House of Lords or any other areas in politics and/or civil service or possibly law?

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

I wonder how many rock stars are cacking themselves. They may want to revisit their biographies.

The rock stars will be next, although their groupies have so far kept their stories to themselves.

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really doesn't require a conspiracy. Jimmy Saville was far from alone in people who were not prosecuted for sexual offences in the 60s and later, even on those rare occasions when things were reported to police. The Criminal courts have plenty of cases sweeping up sexual offences of very ordinary people dating back 20 years plus when police officers have dismissed allegations.

Equally the reason that there was lots of evidence after he died was because lots of people came forward after he died, largely because of the enormous publicity that was generated. The evidence is what it always would have been - the word of a witness. In the ordinary course of events the allegations would be tested in court. If cider with the accused being dead there is no such testing of evidence.

Finally, it's worth remembering that social mores have changed a great deal in the past 50 odd years. Pinching the bottoms of random women was once considered acceptable. Now it's sexual assault and child abuse if the person is under 16. That's obviously for the better, but to isolate the behaviour of celebrities and pretend that was unique is bonkers. One of the celebrities was prosecuted for kissing someone who asked to be kissed at a roadshow.

I appreciate your comments but in this particular case, I find it absolutely baffling considering the allegations made against the man...many of which were reported whilst he was alive. Many of the allegations made against him whilst he was still alive were far were far worse than pinching random women's bottoms.

The police have admitted he could and should have been prosecuted whilst he was alive. So, it still begs the question, how one earth was he allowed to get away with his crimes for decades?

There's also no denying that he seemed to mix in very influential circles.

Who's denying that he mixed in influential circles? That does not a conspiracy make. It makes it newsworthy and titillating to those who know little about the realities and I suppose what drives this nonsense conspiracy theory. "He knew important people and was knighted therefore they must have covered for him" is just about as stu[pid a theory as it's possible to come up with.

Many of the allegations not proceeded with in the past against "ordinary" people, rightly resurrected now, are of multiple rapes within families with those children left in dangerous situations.

Remember that you are looking back at a time with no databases, let alone intelligence databases, let alone information sharing across police areas. Most of these allegatioons never got as far as the police. Most of them never got as far as the BBC. Even were you to assume, entirely contrary to the evidence, that the senior managers divined these "rumours" through the ether, you don't know what the content of the rumours was. "He likes them young" could mean anything from "he admires girls half his 40 years of age" to what in fact we now know to be true - he was a serial rapist and sex attacker, particularly of underage girls. Would we investigate that now? Of course we would. Were the child protection procedures so developed even 20 years ago? Not even close. Not in the BBC and not anywhere else.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Who's denying that he mixed in influential circles? That does not a conspiracy make. It makes it newsworthy and titillating to those who know little about the realities and I suppose what drives this nonsense conspiracy theory. "He knew important people and was knighted therefore they must have covered for him" is just about as stu[pid a theory as it's possible to come up with.

Many of the allegations not proceeded with in the past against "ordinary" people, rightly resurrected now, are of multiple rapes within families with those children left in dangerous situations.

Remember that you are looking back at a time with no databases, let alone intelligence databases, let alone information sharing across police areas. Most of these allegatioons never got as far as the police. Most of them never got as far as the BBC. Even were you to assume, entirely contrary to the evidence, that the senior managers divined these "rumours" through the ether, you don't know what the content of the rumours was. "He likes them young" could mean anything from "he admires girls half his 40 years of age" to what in fact we now know to be true - he was a serial rapist and sex attacker, particularly of underage girls. Would we investigate that now? Of course we would. Were the child protection procedures so developed even 20 years ago? Not even close. Not in the BBC and not anywhere else.

The fact he knew very influential people including politicians and royalty doesn't make a conspiracy on it's own. When used in perspective with the crimes he committed and the repeated failures to act on them, it does add some weight to the theories and is credible to many people.

Maybe others are happy with blaming the systems, or lack of rather than people who may be connected with the crimes and potential cover ups. That's up to them.

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Who's denying that he mixed in influential circles? That does not a conspiracy make. It makes it newsworthy and titillating to those who know little about the realities and I suppose what drives this nonsense conspiracy theory. "He knew important people and was knighted therefore they must have covered for him" is just about as stu[pid a theory as it's possible to come up with.

Many of the allegations not proceeded with in the past against "ordinary" people, rightly resurrected now, are of multiple rapes within families with those children left in dangerous situations.

Remember that you are looking back at a time with no databases, let alone intelligence databases, let alone information sharing across police areas. Most of these allegatioons never got as far as the police. Most of them never got as far as the BBC. Even were you to assume, entirely contrary to the evidence, that the senior managers divined these "rumours" through the ether, you don't know what the content of the rumours was. "He likes them young" could mean anything from "he admires girls half his 40 years of age" to what in fact we now know to be true - he was a serial rapist and sex attacker, particularly of underage girls. Would we investigate that now? Of course we would. Were the child protection procedures so developed even 20 years ago? Not even close. Not in the BBC and not anywhere else.

The fact he knew very influential people including politicians and royalty doesn't make a conspiracy on it's own. When used in perspective with the crimes he committed and the repeated failures to act on them, it does add some weight to the theories and is credible to many people.

Maybe others are happy with blaming the systems, or lack of rather than people who may be connected with the crimes and potential cover ups. That's up to them.

It's credible to credulous people ignorant of the facts.

ask yourself these questions: Why protect him and not Rolf Harris? If it is his connections who have saved him, then who has saved the dozens of people who were not proceeded with at similar times who do not have those connections.

When there's a tiny bit of evidence beyond "he knew some people" I might give it some credence. However right now it's right up there with creationism as theoretically possible, but unlikely and unnecessary to explain how we are were we are.

Well, seeing as Harris was jailed in 2014 for crimes dating back to the 70s, some might suggest he was protected for quite a long time. Maybe Savile dying was his downfall?

Besides, this thread is about Savile and his uncanny ability to avoid charges whilst he was alive.

There's masses of apparently 'incredulous people ignorant to facts' who believe Savile was protected based on his criminal activities spanning decades and personal relationships. However, others are free to believe the official line of events. Perhaps a few more obituaries may shed some more light on things?

WaspInWales wrote:Well, seeing as Harris was jailed in 2014 for crimes dating back to the 70s, some might suggest he was protected for quite a long time. Maybe Savile dying was his downfall?

Besides, this thread is about Savile and his uncanny ability to avoid charges whilst he was alive.

There's masses of apparently 'incredulous people ignorant to facts' who believe Savile was protected based on his criminal activities spanning decades and personal relationships. However, others are free to believe the official line of events. Perhaps a few more obituaries may shed some more light on things?

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.