Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by martyh

and i've accepted that ,so if we accept that and count that as credible evidence then other accusations such as those levelled at the BBC in general must be true because otherwise the former could not have happened, the only question in my eyes is how much the high up in the BBC turned a blind eye ,and it appears to be a lot

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?

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Damien

He wasn't Director General at the time of the Newsnight airing. He was in charge of programming, or entertainment programming, at the time as is alleged to have been told from the News Director that the investigation may impact upon his plays to air tribute shows. There isn't any evidence that he then tried to influence the investigation at all.

This whole thing has become far too focused on the BBC alone. We're talking all the time about the decision to drop a Newsnight investigation and little about the fact that Saville abused several girls. The entire story has been hijacked for the purposes of pushing against the BBC.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As well as paedophilia and incest, i've just been reading that Savile has now been accused of being a necrophile. Just where will this end?

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/...d-necrophilia/

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

Originally Posted by Chris

It's not entirely surprising though, is it. While the State decrees that sex under the age of 16 is illegal, the State on the other hand is quite willing to hand out contraception, up to and including the morning after pill, to underage girls, not always with the knowledge of the child's parents.

The notion that underage, teenage sex is tolerated, if not technically approved of, has become embedded in our society, and all we have left is a messy, ill-defined debate over exactly when it should be treated as a crime and when it should simply be covered up with a quick, secret visit to Boots.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by colin25

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

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

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Going ahead with Xmas tributes to Savile even while the smoke was drifting up through the floorboards? Maybe it's the cleft stick: To have cancelled them would have stoked those same fires.

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".

[colin25]

---------- 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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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".

Which in turn points to him being incompetent .

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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.

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Which in turn points to him being incompetent .

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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.

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.

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

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

Originally Posted by colin25

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.

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.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.