Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by nomadking

That would have been the job of the head of newsnight

Peter Rippon, currently "stepped aside" from his Newsnight editorial duties while his role in canning the expose on Jimmy Saville is investigated.

or head of news section

Helen Boaden, similarly "stepped aside" over the Jimmy Saville afair.

and not the job of the DG.

Given that he was fully aware that two of the most senior managers with responsibility for Newsnight had been relieved of duty, and that any further controversy centred on Newsnight was bound to attract a great deal of attention over and above the norm, thanks to the Savile affair, it is absolutely baffling that you should be trying to argue that the DG did not have a vital interest here.

As a matter of fact, due to BBC spending cuts the deputy director general post, where Editor-in-Chief duties rested until recently, has been made redundant. EIC *is* now the Director General's responsibility and is a responsibility he should have been far more attentive to given the messed up reporting lines in the Newsnight office.

The main failure of the report was that Messham was an unreliable witness.

Bollards. Messham is relating details of traumatic things that happened to him decades ago, when he was a boy. The failure was on the part of reporters to allow for the nature of his evidence, not on Messham himself. Which leads neatly to your final point.

Even is Lord McAlpine had been contacted, what could he have done to disprove the allegations before the report went out.

Even in a newsroom, the notion of innocent until proven guilty is an idea that has some currency. If you contact an individual with details of a scandal said to involve them and they systematically deny any involvement, to the point of denying ever having been in the town in question (except once, when he was accompanied at all times), then you think very carefully about running the story at all. At the very least you hold back while you attempt to corroborate the new information the subject of your investigation has just given you.

McAlpine never had to 'disprove' anything. But he would most certainly have been able to dampen the story enough to prevent it running in the near future, if at all.

[Osem]

Former BBC director general George Entwistle was only prepared to resign for the £450,000 pay-off he would have received if sacked, MPs have been told.

BBC Trustee Anthony Fry told the Public Accounts Committee of his "irritation" at having to pay the full sum, and not the £225,000 payable for a resignation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20441171

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

Meanwhile in other news:

Conservative peer Lord McAlpine has reached a £125,000 settlement with ITV and Phillip Schofield.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20443186

To add to the £185k paid by the BBC.

I must say it's very refreshing to learn that Lord McAlpine intends to donate all such settlements to charity in the form of Children in Need so some good will come out of this.

[Russ]

Just heard the alleged name of the 'tv presenter in his 80s' who the police brought in for questioning the other day. Obviously no names mentioned or implied but I'm getting more and more sad at bits of my childhood being eroded if true

[blackthorn]

Yea it was all over twitter last night. I`m the same as you, when I read that (if its true) I was saddened. Its not a name that would have sprung to mind.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20441171

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

Meanwhile in other news:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20443186

To add to the £185k paid by the BBC.

I must say it's very refreshing to learn that Lord McAlpine intends to donate all such settlements to charity in the form of Children in Need so some good will come out of this.

It is a good thing. It's not as if £185k is much to him, and it does show he wants his name clear.

[AZIMUTH]

Originally Posted by Russ

Just heard the alleged name of the 'tv presenter in his 80s' who the police brought in for questioning the other day. Obviously no names mentioned or implied but I'm getting more and more sad at bits of my childhood being eroded if true

what site did you go to,to get the alleged new paedos name?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by AZIMUTH

what site did you go to,to get the alleged new paedos name?

There are no suggestions this person is being questioned for offences against children.

I'm not going to say where I saw it but the internet is a big place.

[slowcoach]

It's Stuart Hall LINK

So there goes Its a Knockout as a fond memory then

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Why is everyone assuming its anything to do with Jimmy Saville ?

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Why is everyone assuming its anything to do with Jimmy Saville ?

I'm not sure they are, but now the Savile business is out in the open, it will make some people feel bolder to come forward with allegations of their own. It's 'connected' in that sense.

[Hom3r]

Perhaps this thread title should be change to reflect the wider story, that so called idols are just ****.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Perhaps this thread title should be change to reflect the wider story, that so called idols are just ****.

I think by now 'Jimmy Savile Allegations' seems a bit of an understatement anyway.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Perhaps this thread title should be change to reflect the wider story, that so called idols are just ****.

Given that Jimmy Savile is the only person who can be discussed in this thread without committing libel or putting us in contempt of court, I think we'll avoid that particular temptation. And I'd appreciate it if you could remember 'innocent until proven guilty' when you're using the word '****' in this context as well.

[thenry]

and all idols are not ****.