Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

You're right, in the sense that physical and emotional maturity differs from person to person and therefore what's manageable for one is not necessarily so for another. Laws that bar or permit activities by age are set with the aim of providing general protection but they are not effective if they are routinely undermined.

If they are routinely undermined, then you get people who think that copping off with a 14-year-old isn't all that serious - even if they don't do it themselves, they may fail to treat it as seriously as they should if they see it happening. Which is precisely what Mr Rippon is now alleged to have done.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by colin25

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.

He's got a job description, and it does not include wasting his time prying into other department's affairs on the off-chance something might be amiss that needs reporting. That's the way it is in any organisation, and no amount of special pleading after the fact is going to change that.

Originally Posted by colin25

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.

'Working for the BBC' isn't a job description. His job was 'Director of BBC Vision' 'responsible for the channels BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC One HD and BBC HD, and the feature film-making arm of the BBC, BBC Films'. He was not responsible for news output. He did not seek to influence the news output to make his own job easier.

What did he do wrong?

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Damien

'Working for the BBC' isn't a job description. His job was 'Director of BBC Vision' 'responsible for the channels BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC One HD and BBC HD, and the feature film-making arm of the BBC, BBC Films'. He was not responsible for news output. He did not seek to influence the news output to make his own job easier.

What did he do wrong?

You seriously think that he had no responsibility to the BBC, and wider responsibility to the public?

And yes, working for the BBC is in the job description. Any senior member of any organisation has a duty...and that duty is increased when it is a public company.

i presume he was a "senior" member. Or is that the bit you dispute?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Maybe not ,

Yes, let's not worry about proof, STONE HIM!!!!!!

Which in turn points to him being incompetent .

Incompetent in what regard?

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

What did he do wrong?

That's what I'm trying to work out.............ask martyh he knows.

Originally Posted by colin25

You seriously think that he had no responsibility to the BBC, and wider responsibility to the public?

And yes, working for the BBC is in the job description. Any senior member of any organisation has a duty...and that duty is increased when it is a public company.

i presume he was a "senior" member. Or is that the bit you dispute?

He did have a responsibility to the BBC and he did it. He focused on his department and, as he was obliged to do, did not interfere in Newsnight. Remember the reason this became an issue is the implication that he might have. Suddenly the fact he didn't is also bad?

What did he do wrong? What should he have done?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's daft because in one sweeping statement you have removed any obligation of the BBC ,stoke mandeville etc of any responsibility for ignoring the rumors and basically giving Savile the opportunity to continue his sordid behavior by not investigating him and listening to patients and guests .So yes very daft ,i will even go as far as to say ignorant of the wider implications so there should be no "moving on"

It's not the BBC's,. or Stoke Mandevilles place to investigate rumours.

There were plenty of individuals that with apparant 1st hand knowledge that didn't do anything.

I believe the correct thing to do is call the police? not the BBC.

If, for example, Virgin Media accused me of being a paedophile at work, and then could not offer up any real evidence -then they would be looking at a large out of court settlemnt.

However, if enough peoplethat knew of the rumours and eye witnesses had gone to the police, there would have been enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

So it's not down to the BBC it's down to everybody that knew, trying to blame all of this on the BBC is smoke and mirrors and meat and drink to the lynch mob such as yourself

By telling everyone to "move on" you are saying that nothing can be done for the victims .Well yes there is, plenty.The victims can be heard and more importantly believed for the first time in their lives

Good, I hope they find someone to talk to, I on the other hand don't want to hear it every day at 07:00, 18:00 and 10:00.

Well up to now at best he has shown gross incompetence and his grasp of the importance of the problem has been dire ,at worst he has used his position as (at the time) program planning director to protect the BBC from criticism and possible criminal proceedings

I don't see any evidence for any of that.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Incompetent in what regard?

.

seriously????

A man in charge of programming doesn't ask why a planned news program may interfere with his Christmas schedule ,he didn't have the wit to ask what the program was about ,how did it concern Savile or why it would impact on the tribute show ,saying he was incompetent is being generous ,the only thing that would have been worse for him was if the newsnight program had gone ahead as planned alongside the tribute one

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not the BBC's,. or Stoke Mandevilles place to investigate rumours.

There were plenty of individuals that with apparant 1st hand knowledge that didn't do anything.

I believe the correct thing to do is call the police? not the BBC.

If, for example, Virgin Media accused me of being a paedophile at work, and then could not offer up any real evidence -then they would be looking at a large out of court settlemnt.

However, if enough peoplethat knew of the rumours and eye witnesses had gone to the police, there would have been enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

So it's not down to the BBC it's down to everybody that knew, trying to blame all of this on the BBC is smoke and mirrors and meat and drink to the lynch mob such as yourself

I'm afraid I have to agree with this point of view up to a point.What I don't understand is why those who saw or had proof didn't say anything to the police. But investigation is for the police.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not the BBC's,. or Stoke Mandevilles place to investigate rumours.

.

Of course it is ,that sort of thing happens every day and if the internal investigations reveal anything untoward then the police are informed

So it's not down to the BBC it's down to everybody that knew, trying to blame all of this on the BBC is smoke and mirrors and meat and drink to the lynch mob such as yourself

Of course it is ,if the culture exists within the BBC then it is down to the BBC (meaning, as you well know, the directors and trust to deal with)

Good, I hope they find someone to talk to, I on the other hand don't want to hear it every day at 07:00, 18:00 and 10:00.

then don't listen ,don't involve yourself in discussion and don't post crass inane comments ...simples

I don't see any evidence for any of that

Yeah i had that opinion at the start of this thread but eventually given the amount of evidence out there it is obvious to even a cretin that something very bad was going on at institutions like the BBC ,stoke mandeville and some care homes ,so if you don't see any evidence of that then you are not looking

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

seriously????

A man in charge of programming doesn't ask why a planned news program may interfere with his Christmas schedule ,he didn't have the wit to ask what the program was about ,how did it concern Savile or why it would impact on the tribute show ,saying he was incompetent is being generous ,the only thing that would have been worse for him was if the newsnight program had gone ahead as planned alongside the tribute one

Serously,

as someone who works in a large organisation where different departments can be working on the same thing but not communicate with each other, I can relate to it entirely.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm afraid I have to agree with this point of view up to a point.What I don't understand is why those who saw or had proof didn't say anything to the police. But investigation is for the police.

Wrong ,criminal investigation is for the police ,any institution can instigate an investigation into one of it's employees .I'm sure you have seen plenty at schools you have worked in ,the BBC currently have 2 ongoing investigations into this afair and if anything criminal is uncovered then that is when the police get involved ,something the BBC should have done 30yrs ago

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Serously,

as someone who works in a large organisation where different departments can be working on the same thing but not communicate with each other, I can relate to it entirely.

well that answers the question, why doesn't VM work ?

Nobody gives a damn if a private company is run by a group of imbeciles ,it simply goes under eventually ,but an organisation like the BBC that is public funded and sets itself up as a moral compass for society should do better than it appears they have been

Originally Posted by martyh

seriously????

A man in charge of programming doesn't ask why a planned news program may interfere with his Christmas schedule ,he didn't have the wit to ask what the program was about ,how did it concern Savile or why it would impact on the tribute show ,saying he was incompetent is being generous ,the only thing that would have been worse for him was if the newsnight program had gone ahead as planned alongside the tribute one

He would have had time to pull the show. He would have waited until it aired. The questions above wouldn't have made a difference and we don't know if he would have had those questions answered. The BBC News department isn't the servant of Entertainment division.

He would also have wanted to avoid any implication that he attempted to influence the editorial decisions at Newsnight. That really would have been bad for him. This is indeed what the BBC detractors were hoping for and what the BBC were scared of.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Nobody gives a damn if a private company is run by a group of imbeciles ,it simply goes under eventually ,but an organisation like the BBC that is public funded and sets itself up as a moral compass for society should do better than it appears they have been

The BBC is designed to ensure the integrity of it's news division. It's paramount that the rest of the organisation isn't seen to influence it's content. It's not acceptable for directors of other departments to influence it's editorial decisions and this firewall is likely what deterred him from asking questions.

Let's be honest here. If he had come out and he was sending off e-mails and having discussions with newsnight about the content of the reports this would scream 'cover-up'.

Originally Posted by Damien

He would have had time to pull the show. He would have waited until it aired. The questions above wouldn't have made a difference and we don't know if he would have had those questions answered. The BBC News department isn't the servant of Entertainment division.

He would also have wanted to avoid any implication that he attempted to influence the editorial decisions at Newsnight. That really would have been bad for him. This is indeed what the BBC detractors were hoping for and what the BBC were scared of.

.

All he had to know was what the subject was about and concidering he was the one who would be planning the programming is not really a big ask is it ? and well within his job description considering he was in charge of factual programming

Originally Posted by martyh

Wrong ,criminal investigation is for the police ,any institution can instigate an investigation into one of it's employees .I'm sure you have seen plenty at schools you have worked in ,the BBC currently have 2 ongoing investigations into this afair and if anything criminal is uncovered then that is when the police get involved ,something the BBC should have done 30yrs ago

Wrong!

I suggest with allegations of rape it is better for the police to investigate not public institutions.Rape is a crime that needs very sensitive handling and I suggest that the BBC possibly do not have the necessary skills and resources to conduct an investigation.