re: Operation Yewtree
 

The accusations don't have the same merit. A load of people claiming first-hand abuse with creditability is the not the same as people saying 'I think he did it'. How could the former not have happened if Newsnight had run the story? We're talking about the Newsnight investigation being pulled?

re: Operation Yewtree
 

i didn't say he was DG then. But he was in charge of tribute programming, and should have at least asked the question.

And the BBC is in focus, because they should have done more, as a public company. But chose to ignore. Hence the focus on them, but not to exclusion of others, hence the other stories coming out.

I am all "henced" out now :)

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

I suspect that inquiry will be a bit of a dead end.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

I don't there is a contradiction there. The sex is assumed to be between two consenting teenagers and the contraception is available because we accept it's going to happen. The issue here isn't sex under the age of 16 but adults having sex with people under 16 which is exploitive and abusive.

I guess damage can still be done if both people are under 16 but the relationship wouldn't have the same exploitive dynamic if both parties are the same age.

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

He could have asked more questions but it's not really an issue that he didn't. The News Programming wasn't his department and he had no control over their output. He didn't have a decision to make other than to pull the tributes if the Newsnight documentary went ahead.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

What i'm saying (probably not very well) is that you could not have one without the other and since we accept that one did happen then the other must have.
Pulling the newsnight investigation may have been a last ditch attempt to protect the BBC or people within it's ranks who new all along that the accusations of abuse where true ,or it could have been just a bad decision by someone who couldn't be arsed to do his job ,either way they don't deserve to be in a job tomorrow

re: Operation Yewtree
 

If you're suggesting that sex between an 18-year-old (adult) and a 15-year-old (child) is routinely treated as criminal, then I politely suggest you're a bit batty. ;)

Actually, I know you're not trying to draw a hard and fast line, but that's precisely the problem, isn't it? Where is the line?

Under-age teens are emotionally vulnerable and, for the girl, also physically undeveloped such that pregnancy carries heightened risks. That's why we have an age limit set by law. "We accept it's going to happen" is a serious, serious problem because it means the risks that led to the law are being over-ruled by the unquestionable rightness of post-1960s permissiveness.

When the law is thus undermined, it is not surprising that the arbitrary line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" underage sex is a blurred and shaky one.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Yeah but there isn't any proof of that. There is proof of Savile's crimes due to the first-hand testimony of the accusers.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

You seem to be offering the fact that a certain event happened, as evidence for your explanation of why it happened, which if you don't mind my saying is a bit of a circular argument.

There is no evidence that George Entwistle knew what was being investigated. There *is* evidence that he avoided finding out what was being investigated. At present, the available evidence points in the opposite direction of "cover up".

re: Operation Yewtree
 

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

[/COLOR]

He could have asked more questions but it's not really an issue that he didn't. The News Programming wasn't his department and he had no control over their output. He didn't have a decision to make other than to pull the tributes if the Newsnight documentary went ahead.[/QUOTE]

He had a duty to ask the question, and as senior member, to put any concerns higher.

He is a public servant, of a reasonably high grade in the BBC even at that time. More culpable than less senior members of staff. Not to ask the obvious says to me, he isn't fit for current job.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

If of course he didn't know..if we accept he didn't (stretching a bit here), he still should have asked the obvious. That is the credibility gap that most others have spotted.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Maybe not ,but lets see what the inquiries bring up ,personally i think that there will be a few people on gardening leave before this weeks out and after the police have investigated a bit further then a few arrests of current personalities ,there where a lot of DJ's on TOTP's in those days and some still with the beeb in some capacity .

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------

Which in turn points to him being incompetent .

re: Operation Yewtree
 

I agree that is difficult and I assume the lack of prosecution when the law is broken but the age is still quite close is a sensible compromise to deal with the difficulty and unfairness in setting such a hard line. It's illegal but the police are allowed some discretion to stop the courts and the sex offenders register dealing with people in relationships who suddenly find themselves breaking the law.

They can still be emotionally unprepared at 16, even 18. Maturity doesn't come about a set age. We put it at a set age to try and do our best to deal with it but that isn't perfect, some will be mature enough (whatever that is!) before that age and others after.

Accepting it's going to happen is just to deal with the possible health consequences, because it does happen. I mean would you want to get the law to deal with two teenagers at 15 having sex? It's just impractical imo.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

No. The suggestion is that he didn't want to know, as he wanted to avoid being seen as not respecting the editorial independence of Newsnight. This resulted in him doing (If I remember the phrase used correctly) 'the wrong thing for the right reasons'.

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

It seems more likely to me that the line between acceptable and unacceptable is actually blurred and shaky and no amount of crying "it's the law, and it's there for a reason" is going to change that.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

To be honest if he had asked more questions that would have been used as evidence he sought to put pressure on them...

re: Operation Yewtree
 

I disagree.

He would have been doing his job. Editorial integrity does not mean wandering blissfully along. Though in BBC, perhaps that is the trait encouraged. :D

re: Operation Yewtree
 

It's not his job. He wasn't part of the news division. Why would it have been his job? He was told that he might have to pull his shows because of what Newsnight were doing, he couldn't influence or be seen to influence the show itself. He stayed back and awaited the outcome.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

His job, is working for the BBC. If he thought there was an issue, he should raise it. Whether it was wise to continue with the tribute, or anything else.

I would worry if everyone acted as you think. It would really be a scary world.