I think it if can be shown with hard evidence that people knew what was happening but chose not to act on that information, i.e. passing it on to senior management or the police, they should be held to account, whether they are retired or not.
If they did pass on the information and those who received it did nothing then they are the ones who should be held to account.
I don't know how far back the BBC's records go (I can't imagine they have kept documents from 1964) but they have already said they have no evidence of anyone making a complaint about Savile.
The police did investigate some of the allegations and found insufficient evidence to prosecute. Admittedly it's difficult when it's one person's word against another and no third party witness.Don't forget a lot of these girls wanted to be seen with Savile, wanted to get on TV and willingly went around with him.
Is that some kind of justification ?
Obviously the Police now have more evidence why else would they make this statement ?
"At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in an interview with the BBC.
A couple of posters on here cannot understand why the victims didn't come forward while Savile was alive. It was explained on the documentary that the victims were scared of him and they were scared that there would be threats from Savile if anything was said. Savile really is a creepy horrible man. Does anyone remember a show on Channel 4 in the 1990s called Is This Your Life where Andrew Neil interviewed him and it turns out he was a miserable tight fisted greedy man.
I don't know how far back the BBC's records go (I can't imagine they have kept documents from 1964) but they have already said they have no evidence of anyone making a complaint about Savile.
That quite often the case when organisations investigate themselves. Ask News International.
Suppose we will have to wait until employees from 1964 are interviewed by the Police and are under oath in front of the Culture, media and sports select committee.
That quite often the case when organisations investigate themselves. Ask News International.
In the case of NI, the allegations dated back to a more recent time when not only were the main personnel still employed, emails were prevalent (and where subsequently, millions of emails were archived, numbers of emails were deleted, and other records removed, misplaced or simply lost).
Back in the 60s and 70s, inter-office communication was much different, emails did not exist, and there was a focus upon paper memos and paper reports. Both of which have a limited shelf life in any organisation.
I don't know how far back the BBC's records go (I can't imagine they have kept documents from 1964) but they have already said they have no evidence of anyone making a complaint about Savile.
Had a staff member been involved, directly or as a witness, then any notification of the matter up the managerial chain would have been noted in the personnel file of that individual;
had the manager / personnel officer been complicit in the alleged 'cover-up' then the staff member would have had the option to refer the non-recording
of the complaint to an accredited Trade Union representative;
the staff member would have been encouraged, with Trade Union support, to invoke the Grievence Prodedure, citing the non-recording of the 'complaint'.
This could only be resolved by the recording of the original 'complaint'.
The Trade Union would have tabled the matter at liaison meetings, at an appropriate managerial level.
Both sides would hold agreed minutes recording the matter, and its resolution.
These procedures were robust, in the short term.
An individual's personnel file is destroyed a few years after the termination of their employment -
I can't imagine that archived liason meeting minutes are retain beyond a decade or so - I could be wrong.
So, unless a very young floor assistant, or whatever, was involved is still in continuous employment and has a well-preserved Personnel File, I really don't see what written evidence could be found.
An individual's personnel file is destroyed a few years after the termination of their employment -
I can't imagine that archived liason meeting minutes are retain beyond a decade or so - I could be wrong.
So, unless a very young floor assistant, or whatever, was involved is still in continuos employment and has a well-preserved Personnel File, I really don't see what written evidence could be found.
.... It was explained on the documentary that the victims were scared of him and they were scared that there would be threats from Savile if anything was said. ....
Was anything said in that documentary, to balance this assertion, about systems in place (at the BBC) to protect confidentiality?
It would have taken one 'phone call, letter or private conversation to set such protection in place.
In the case of NI, the allegations dated back to a more recent time when not only were the main personnel still employed, emails were prevalent (and where subsequently, millions of emails were archived, numbers of emails were deleted, and other records removed, misplaced or simply lost).
Back in the 60s and 70s, inter-office communication was much different, emails did not exist, and there was a focus upon paper memos and paper reports. Both of which have a limited shelf life in any organisation.
I believe the concern of certain MPs is the BBC's handling and reporting of the revelations as well as any suppression (if any) up to and including the present management..
Ann Main MP is believed to have written to Leveson asking him to look into the matter.
Adrian Sanders MP and Philip Davies MP both members of the C/S/M select committee have both been reported to have voiced concerns.
Do we know if the people coming forward now are being paid by newspapers or TV for their recollections ? And how clearly can you recall something that happened 40 years ago ?
I imagine once you’ve been sexually abused/raped that memory will haunt you with vivd clarity for the rest of you life. Don’t you think......?
The insinuation in your post is that the “victims” are profiting from this and are either making stuff up or embellishing to satsify the papers.
It seems the majority of allegations concerned events away from BBC premises, and we haven't heard anything yet about his days at Tyne Tees, Granada and Radio Luxembourg.
I believe the concern of certain MPs is the BBC's handling and reporting of the revelations as well as any suppression (if any) up to and including the present management..
Ann Main MP is believed to have written to Leveson asking him to look into the matter.
Adrian Sanders MP and Philip Davies MP both members of the C/S/M select committee have both been reported to have voiced concerns.
That is somewhat different from the BBC investigating itself though (especially as GE had agreed with the Met police that a BBC investigation would take place after the Met's own investigation).
As for their reporting of the revelations, the Newsnight statement, the one that Dan's Dan referred to earlier, here's a large part of it (anyone who sees fit to question why that doc was not transmitted should read it)
:
Why did I pursue this story about Jimmy Savile and why did I drop it?
I decided we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds he was too old. This made the public interest case from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.
Some of the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public interest served by reporting it given he is dead? The nature of the allegations and the level of proof required. The fact the incidents were 40 years ago.
We had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. We had no evidence against the BBC. In her original statement our key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". However, I felt if we could prove the police or the CPS had let the women down in some way we should go ahead.
We did establish the police had investigated the allegations in 2007. However, as the police would be obliged to investigate I wanted to check how they would respond to the allegation that it was not pursued because Jimmy Savile was too old. The CPS told us:
"The CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." The additional guidance noted stated. "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."
This statement specifically denied the allegation that the investigation was dropped because of his age. I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish. There were some of my team who disagreed strongly with my judgement, and others who agreed equally strongly.
However, those who disagreed accepted my decision. There were no rows of any kind as has been reported.
Did we withhold evidence from the police? No. We are confident that all the women we spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police.
Did my bosses order me to do anything? No. I did discuss it with my bosses in News in the same way I do any contentious story we are working on. I was told in the strongest terms that I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the BBC affect my judgement.
The fact that the BBC has the capacity to do this may feel odd to other organisations but it is fundamental to the trust we share with our audience.
As far as I can tell, all other reports of the allegations made, of the ITV programme, and any subsequent revelations and allegations, have all been reported impartially (but without some of the more salacious, sensationalistic slants that some sections of the print media have elected to use, including the naming of that alleged third person).
I don't know how far back the BBC's records go (I can't imagine they have kept documents from 1964) but they have already said they have no evidence of anyone making a complaint about Savile.
Given that the BBC actively destroyed the only copies of their own programming from 1964, i doubt they would thousands of documents kicking around taking up space.
Given that the BBC actively destroyed the only copies of their own programming from 1964, i doubt they would thousands of documents kicking around taking up space.
If theres one thing the BBC aint, its hoarders.
The BBC keep paper records on entertainers going back to the 1930s. I have heard some interesting programmes on Radio Four Extra where they have read out from these files. Letter written by people seeking interviews, comments made on auditions and on programmes and entertainers; artistes writing letters to their managers etc, all still exist.
The destruction of past programmes was done so that the tapes could be re-used, not out of sheer vandalism.
The BBC keep paper records on entertainers going back to the 1930s. I have heard some interesting programmes on Radio Four Extra where they have read out from these files. Letter written by people seeking interviews, comments made on auditions and on programmes and entertainers; artistes writing letters to their managers etc, all still exist.
The destruction of past programmes was done so that the tapes could be re-used, not out of sheer vandalism.
some BBC programmes were rescued from bins outside the BBC.
How can tapes be used again when they are in land fill?
I have also seen programmes from 1960's/1970's from the BBC, doesnt mean they kept all programmes, 90% was wiped or binned, just like probably 90% of all documents would have been binned.
Given that the BBC actively destroyed the only copies of their own programming from 1964, i doubt they would thousands of documents kicking around taking up space.
If theres one thing the BBC aint, its hoarders.
I have been provided with copies of producer comments and contracts going back to the early 50's relating to a relative who was a regular on the BBC.
As has been discussed at length on other threads, videotape was so expensive in the early days (late 50s, 1960s) that programmes were recorded over, not physically destroyed. In fact a VT exists of the very first TOTP presented by Savile in 1964. Being a freelance the BBC would not have personnel files on Savile. I assume if there was nothing noteworthy in an employee's file it would be destroyed after a few years. By the way I do not in any way minimise the affect of a sexual assault on someone I was simply wondering if such details could be recalled with clarity 40 years after the event.
I have been provided with copies of producer comments and contracts going back to the early 50's relating to a relative who was a regular on the BBC.
And yet we’re supposed to believe that the BBC has not one single solitary complaint in writing against Savile in more than 40 years of employment history. When stacked up against the daily rising total of people coming forward this doesn’t just seem unlikely it seems impossible. One can only assume in their desire to expunge their culpability that these have been destroyed at some point or conveniently lost. The wording in the BBC’s statement allows plenty of leaway for them to say their files are clean now whilst admitting nothing about what took place in the past.
And yet we’re supposed to believe that the BBC has not one single solitary complaint in writing against Savile in more than 40 years of employment history. When stacked up against the daily rising total of people coming forward this doesn’t just seem unlikely it seems impossible.
And how many similar letters of complaint have been unearthed concerning his times at Stoke Mandeville, Leeds Royal Infirmary, Dunstone Approved School ....
Did any actually make a complaint (BBC or any other organisation)?
And remember that these 120-odd leads are not necessarily exclusive to his time at the BBC.
The wording in the BBC’s statement allows plenty of leaway for them to say their files are clean now whilst admitting nothing about what took place in the past.
It could of course be the case that there is nothing to admit to if they really cannot find any such records.
But in any case, it's nice to know that people are not rushing to pre-judge anything, and are happy to wait for proper evidence to come out.
And yet we’re supposed to believe that the BBC has not one single solitary complaint in writing against Savile in more than 40 years of employment history. When stacked up against the daily rising total of people coming forward this doesn’t just seem unlikely it seems impossible. One can only assume in their desire to expunge their culpability that these have been destroyed at some point or conveniently lost. The wording in the BBC’s statement allows plenty of leaway for them to say their files are clean now whilst admitting nothing about what took place in the past.
Have any of the girls in question said that they made a complaint to the BBC?
Time will tell, but I would think that it is highly likely that none of the girls ever wrote to the BBC to voice their concerns about Jimmy Savile.
Given that the BBC actively destroyed the only copies of their own programming from 1964, i doubt they would thousands of documents kicking around taking up space.
Videotape was very expensive, both to buy and store over the longer term. - The tape reclamation policy addressed both points and together with that of scarcity of supply.
It is untrue to claim that these were the 'only copies', many show with residual value in future sales were transferred to film and sold abroad by Transcription Unit / Television Enterprises.
This has no bearing whatsoever on items that are lodged in the Written Archive at Caversham.
some BBC programmes were rescued from bins outside the BBC.
Really? Where, and on what format?
How can tapes be used again when they are in land fill?
Any tape sent for destruction would no longer fulfil the engineering requirements of reclamation.
I have also seen programmes from 1960's/1970's from the BBC, doesnt mean they kept all programmes, 90% was wiped or binned, just like probably 90% of all documents would have been binned.
This has no bearing whatsoever on items that are lodged in the Written Archive at Caversham.
And how many similar letters of complaint have been unearthed concerning his times at Stoke Mandeville, Leeds Royal Infirmary, Dunstone Approved School ....
Did he have a 45 year history with all of them? Letter/files may well exist at those institutions - I haven’t heard them make a categorical denial as the BBC have done. No doubt you’ll let me know if any of them has done.
or one can assume that is not a part of an ongoing conspiracy.
Contradicted by the recent statements of BBC personnel so I don’t see why you would assume that just because one witmess didn’t think top brass knew that that would necessarily be the case. It’s self-evidently not the case!
Comments
I don't know how far back the BBC's records go (I can't imagine they have kept documents from 1964) but they have already said they have no evidence of anyone making a complaint about Savile.
Is that some kind of justification ?
Obviously the Police now have more evidence why else would they make this statement ?
"At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in an interview with the BBC.
That quite often the case when organisations investigate themselves. Ask News International.
Suppose we will have to wait until employees from 1964 are interviewed by the Police and are under oath in front of the Culture, media and sports select committee.
Back in the 60s and 70s, inter-office communication was much different, emails did not exist, and there was a focus upon paper memos and paper reports. Both of which have a limited shelf life in any organisation.
had the manager / personnel officer been complicit in the alleged 'cover-up' then the staff member would have had the option to refer the non-recording
of the complaint to an accredited Trade Union representative;
the staff member would have been encouraged, with Trade Union support, to invoke the Grievence Prodedure, citing the non-recording of the 'complaint'.
This could only be resolved by the recording of the original 'complaint'.
The Trade Union would have tabled the matter at liaison meetings, at an appropriate managerial level.
Both sides would hold agreed minutes recording the matter, and its resolution.
These procedures were robust, in the short term.
An individual's personnel file is destroyed a few years after the termination of their employment -
I can't imagine that archived liason meeting minutes are retain beyond a decade or so - I could be wrong.
So, unless a very young floor assistant, or whatever, was involved is still in continuous employment and has a well-preserved Personnel File, I really don't see what written evidence could be found.
It would have taken one 'phone call, letter or private conversation to set such protection in place.
I believe the concern of certain MPs is the BBC's handling and reporting of the revelations as well as any suppression (if any) up to and including the present management..
Ann Main MP is believed to have written to Leveson asking him to look into the matter.
Adrian Sanders MP and Philip Davies MP both members of the C/S/M select committee have both been reported to have voiced concerns.
I imagine once you’ve been sexually abused/raped that memory will haunt you with vivd clarity for the rest of you life. Don’t you think......?
The insinuation in your post is that the “victims” are profiting from this and are either making stuff up or embellishing to satsify the papers.
There you go, hot off the press (so to speak).
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1590873_exclusive-police-investigate-allegations-sir-jimmy-savile-sexually-abused-children-in-salford
You'll be pleased to note
"The incidents are NOT said to have happened on BBC property".
As for their reporting of the revelations, the Newsnight statement, the one that Dan's Dan referred to earlier, here's a large part of it (anyone who sees fit to question why that doc was not transmitted should read it)
:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/10/newsnight_and_jimmy_savile.html
As far as I can tell, all other reports of the allegations made, of the ITV programme, and any subsequent revelations and allegations, have all been reported impartially (but without some of the more salacious, sensationalistic slants that some sections of the print media have elected to use, including the naming of that alleged third person).
Given that the BBC actively destroyed the only copies of their own programming from 1964, i doubt they would thousands of documents kicking around taking up space.
If theres one thing the BBC aint, its hoarders.
The BBC keep paper records on entertainers going back to the 1930s. I have heard some interesting programmes on Radio Four Extra where they have read out from these files. Letter written by people seeking interviews, comments made on auditions and on programmes and entertainers; artistes writing letters to their managers etc, all still exist.
The destruction of past programmes was done so that the tapes could be re-used, not out of sheer vandalism.
How can tapes be used again when they are in land fill?
I have also seen programmes from 1960's/1970's from the BBC, doesnt mean they kept all programmes, 90% was wiped or binned, just like probably 90% of all documents would have been binned.
I have been provided with copies of producer comments and contracts going back to the early 50's relating to a relative who was a regular on the BBC.
And yet we’re supposed to believe that the BBC has not one single solitary complaint in writing against Savile in more than 40 years of employment history. When stacked up against the daily rising total of people coming forward this doesn’t just seem unlikely it seems impossible. One can only assume in their desire to expunge their culpability that these have been destroyed at some point or conveniently lost. The wording in the BBC’s statement allows plenty of leaway for them to say their files are clean now whilst admitting nothing about what took place in the past.
And how many similar letters of complaint have been unearthed concerning his times at Stoke Mandeville, Leeds Royal Infirmary, Dunstone Approved School ....
Did any actually make a complaint (BBC or any other organisation)?
And remember that these 120-odd leads are not necessarily exclusive to his time at the BBC.
It could of course be the case that there is nothing to admit to if they really cannot find any such records.
But in any case, it's nice to know that people are not rushing to pre-judge anything, and are happy to wait for proper evidence to come out.
Time will tell, but I would think that it is highly likely that none of the girls ever wrote to the BBC to voice their concerns about Jimmy Savile.
It is untrue to claim that these were the 'only copies', many show with residual value in future sales were transferred to film and sold abroad by Transcription Unit / Television Enterprises.
This has no bearing whatsoever on items that are lodged in the Written Archive at Caversham. Really? Where, and on what format? Any tape sent for destruction would no longer fulfil the engineering requirements of reclamation. This has no bearing whatsoever on items that are lodged in the Written Archive at Caversham.
Did he have a 45 year history with all of them? Letter/files may well exist at those institutions - I haven’t heard them make a categorical denial as the BBC have done. No doubt you’ll let me know if any of them has done.
Nobody has said they are.
I strongly suspect there is nothing left to find in the BBC archives but I doubt that’s because it was never there in the first place....
Yes, you sound like you’ve made your mind up already.
Contradicted by the recent statements of BBC personnel so I don’t see why you would assume that just because one witmess didn’t think top brass knew that that would necessarily be the case. It’s self-evidently not the case!