Operation Yewtree

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any other news sources are often simply relaying the original story and not independently researching the same issues. How many of your listed sources would actually be researching something themselves?

I was more thinking about the story not being run at all. O.k more "local" news than anything else - but to show what I mean. The murder /attempted murders in Cardiff. Not reported or at least not seen by family in States, like wise a story about a missing child in the States I have seen nothing about here.Seems to be a April Jones type story ( Not that, again they had heard about that). My point being if you only watch the news on one channel or read one newspaper/magazine.Then many stories will pass you by. So easy to bury a story for a lot of people. I sometime wonder what has happened but as it "is not in the people interest " it gets the drop the dead donkey treatment

An email is now doing the rounds in which Peter Rippon, the "stood aside" editor of Newsnight, is described as saying Savile's offences were not that serious, happened a long time ago and were perpetrated against girls who were not too young.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ked-email.html

This description of his alleged attitude towards the story comes from Liz Mackean, the reporter who did the interviews for the exposé that was ultimately canned by Newsnight, in emails sent to colleagues at the time ... Emails BBC lawyers have recently tried to prevent the publication of.

If this is an accurate description of Rippon's attitude, then it adds weight to the BBC's insistence that he was not being leaned on from above by bosses who didn't want their Christmas tribute to Savile to be ruined. However, it also would serve to bracket him with the very many of his colleagues, past and present, who created and perpetuated a culture which allowed the routine exploitation of underage girls by perverts on BBC premises, which frankly is a heck of a lot more worrying.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

If this is an accurate description of Rippon's attitude, then it adds weight to the BBC's insistence that he was not being leaned on from above by bosses who didn't want their Christmas tribute to Savile to be ruined. However, it also would serve to bracket him with the very many of his colleagues, past and present, who created and perpetuated a culture which allowed the routine exploitation of underage girls by perverts on BBC premises, which frankly is a heck of a lot more worrying.

What evidence (other than the fact that Savile was able to operate seemingly undetected), is there that there are very many of his colleagues (past and present) that share this attitude?

Originally Posted by Chris

An email is now doing the rounds in which Peter Rippon, the "stood aside" editor of Newsnight, is described as saying Savile's offences were not that serious, happened a long time ago and were perpetrated against girls who were not too young.

Ouch!

Originally Posted by danielf

What evidence (other than the fact that Savile was able to operate seemingly undetected), is there that there are very many of his colleagues (past and present) that share this attitude?

I'm thinking along the lines of passive, permissive attitudes rather than "yeah, paedophilia!" attitudes really.

What struck me during the Panorama report last night was how many people knew, or suspected, what was going on, or treated it as a sort of 'common knowledge'. It fits with much of what has been said about "groupie culture" over the past couple of weeks - essentially, that the idea that underage teens being felt up or shagged by celebrities a decade or more older than them, in their dressing rooms was perhaps a bit racy but not particularly serious.

It seems to me that a lot of people cared too little and allowed the outrageous to become mere background noise.

Originally Posted by danielf

What evidence (other than the fact that Savile was able to operate seemingly undetected), is there that there are very many of his colleagues (past and present) that share this attitude?

I think that if we are going to accept that Savile did what he is being accused of we must also accept that he did not act alone and Savile would need that kind of attitude to be prevalent to be successful in his attempts to get at young girls.I would also say that the attitude is still prevalent in state run institutions as shown in the recent sex abuse case in Rochdale where at least one of the victims who was in care complained only to be ignored

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm thinking along the lines of passive, permissive attitudes rather than "yeah, paedophilia!" attitudes really.

What struck me during the Panorama report last night was how many people knew, or suspected, what was going on, or treated it as a sort of 'common knowledge'. It fits with much of what has been said about "groupie culture" over the past couple of weeks - essentially, that the idea that underage teens being felt up or shagged by celebrities a decade or more older than them, in their dressing rooms was perhaps a bit racy but not particularly serious.

It seems to me that a lot of people cared too little and allowed the outrageous to become mere background noise.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also wondering how much of that should be seen in the context of the time. I'm not trying to condone what happened in any way, but I'm not convinced (as yet) that things were particularly bad at the BBC compared to other organisations. The reality is that Savile abused children in several organisations not just the BBC. Let's also not forget the abuse in the Catholic Church, and recently the US boy scouts. Then there's John Peel who legally married a 15 year old in the 60s.

Once again, I'm not condoning anything, but I think we should also be careful to exclusively chastise the BBC. I think that the fact this was allowed to happen was at least partly an indication of wider society at the time, and we shouldn't lose track of that.

---------- Post added at 20:29 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I would also say that the attitude is still prevalent in state run institutions as shown in the recent sex abuse case in Rochdale where at least one of the victims who was in care complained only to be ignored

I don't accept that this attitude would be encountered more frequently in 'state run' institutions.

Originally Posted by danielf

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also wondering how much of that should be seen in the context of the time. I'm not trying to condone what happened in any way, but I'm not convinced (as yet) that things were particularly bad at the BBC compared to other organisations. The reality is that Savile abused children in several organisations not just the BBC. Let's also not forget the abuse in the Catholic Church, and recently the US boy scouts. Then there's John Peel who legally married a 15 year old in the 60s.

Once again, I'm not condoning anything, but I think we should also be careful to exclusively chastise the BBC. I think that the fact this was allowed to happen was at least partly an indication of wider society at the time, and we shouldn't lose track of that.

Quite right - and by focusing on the BBC I don't mean to minimise any of the other awful things that were going on. I'm appalled and sickened at Haut le Garenne's re-emergence into the limelight, for example, and the implication that it was operating as some sort of paedo pick'n'mix operation. It just so happens that the BBC is the institution under the spotlight this week.

However, whatever may be the case about the acceptability of "groupie culture" (or "gropie culture" as Janet Street Porter dubbed it) in the 1970s, I find it troubling that Peter Rippon appeared to be exhibiting those same attitudes as recently as last December.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

However, whatever may be the case about the acceptability of "groupie culture" (or "gropie culture" as Janet Street Porter dubbed it) in the 1970s, I find it troubling that Peter Rippon appeared to be exhibiting those same attitudes as recently as last December.

Absolutely, and it's even more worrying that he saw fit to express that attitude in writing. But I'm not sure if very many of his present colleagues share the attitude. I've not seen a lot of evidence of that (yet).

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't accept that this attitude would be encountered more frequently in 'state run' institutions.

perhaps institutions would be a better word ,i accept that the institutions or organisations don't necessarily have to be state run ,it just so happens that the modern example i gave is state run or state controlled

Originally Posted by danielf

Absolutely, and it's even more worrying that he saw fit to express that attitude in writing. But I'm not sure if very many of his present colleagues share the attitude. I've not seen a lot of evidence of that (yet).

Just to be clear on this - the email doing the rounds this afternoon is not written by him, it's written by one of his reporters, and describes his alleged attitude. None of the media reporting on this has had a moment's hesitation in doing so, which means they're all confident enough that it's accurate. But nevertheless, we do not have a first-hand quote from Rippon's mouth, pen or keyboard on this issue (not yet, anyway).

Originally Posted by Chris

Just to be clear on this - the email doing the rounds this afternoon is not written by him, it's written by one of his reporters, and describes his alleged attitude. None of the media reporting on this has had a moment's hesitation in doing so, which means they're all confident enough that it's accurate. But nevertheless, we do not have a first-hand quote from Rippon's mouth, pen or keyboard on this issue (not yet, anyway).

or they are determined not to miss the boat on claiming some scalps as they did over the whole Savile affair even if it means printing some unsubstantiated claims .Which means that any name mentioned will be immediately linked as a peodo or a colluder

[Osem]

That Savile did a hell of a lot of good work for charity is without question. That he did a hell of a lot of immoral and even illegal things in the process now looks pretty much without question too. Like him or loathe him, I can see that an awful lot of people saw him as an inspiration and would never have wanted to think the worst of him or believe he could have been a paedophile and abuser. Maybe that accounts in part for why he was able to get away with so much. What went on at the BBC will no doubt become clearer in the not too distant future and I dare say there will be people who'll be facing some very tough questioning and harsh realities. As well as those directly complicit in any abuse, there'll probably be those who had some suspicions but turned a blind eye and those who had first hand experience of Savile's dubious activities but chose not to make it public for one reason or another.

When I was in secondary school in the 70's there were all sorts of rumours about at least 2 male staff and their unhealthy interests in young boys and girls. It was 'common knowledge' but nothing was done and even the staff (who must have known more than the pupils) laughed it off. In one case we found out years later that the rumours were true and the teacher concerned had a string of convictions to testifty to the fact. In the other case the guy conerned died before anything was proved.

It doesn't sound that long ago but things were very different in those days and if Savile learned his trade and honed his skills of deception to total perfection during those years it wouldn't surprise me at all. There are lots of things we now consider wrong and immoral that weren't treated quite so seriously not that long ago. This is one such area I believe and expecting the BBC as it was then to have been entirely free of abuse, harrassment etc. is living in cloud cuckoo land. Sections of the press are of course having a field day at the prospect of the BBC's demise but I wonder what their newsrooms, cafeterias and office parties were like in those days?

The additional sadness here is that Savile was able to conceal his abuse to the day he died but I don't that is just because he may have had powerful friends who helped him hide or even carry out some of the abuse. I think he simply exploited, to the full, a glowing reputation for charitable work coupled with a reputation for an eccentric disposition.

I'd hate to think that, from now on, genuinely good, kind and decent people who work within and raise money for the charity sector are put off from so doing due to increased suspicion surrounding their motives. That truly would make Savile's legacy all the worse.

[Russ]

I've been told by someone in broadcasting that in the next few days a massive dollop of brown stuff will hit the fan as other big names will be brought in to this. Certain prominent bloggers have been ordered to take information offline immediately. Very dodgy legal ground.

[colin25]

I doubt we will ever get the whole truth.

The statement by the DG of the BBC, that he didn't ask about what the investigation was about, seems implausable. At the very least, he should lose his job. Not sure he is fit to run the BBC, if he doesn't even have the capacity to ask the "right" questions.

They were commissioning tribute programmes, and he never ever thought to ask what the inquiry was about? Bah