So, did the BBC cover up sex crimes allegedly carried out by Sir Jimmy Savile?
The BBC shelved a Newsnight investigation into allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused a teenage girl in his dressing room at Television Centre, it has emerged. The woman claimed that the presenter molested her when she was 14 or 15 after inviting her to recordings of Clunk Click, his 1970s BBC family show.
Newsnight tracked down several other women who claimed that Savile used his role on the programme to groom and abuse teenage girls. Reporters on the current affairs programme were also told of claims that two other celebrities, both still alive, sexually abused girls at Television Centre in the 1970s. The BBC had hoped to broadcast the Newsnight report in December, two months after Savile’s death, but bosses ordered that the investigation be dropped. Instead, the corporation screened two tribute programmes celebrating Savile’s lengthy BBC career as presenter of Jim’ll Fix It and Top of the Pops, and also as a Radio 1 DJ.
How’s about THAT then?
No wonder they’re on the side of the Pakistani paedos.
just my two penneth!
it seems to lead to al bbc cover up …
i ve mentioned before on the blog
his behaviour, was an open secret
back in the 70s, the word was then!,
that the police had been after him for
a while.
well if it was known then, and the police were
trying to tag him …
it leaves logically only one conclusion,
somebody, somewhere was covering for him.
today daily mail.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=saville%20did%20tv%20bosses&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2210972%2FDid-TV-bosses-turn-blind-eye-Savile-Anger-grows-string-age-girls-come-forward-say-star-abused-them.html%3Fito%3Dfeeds-newsxml&ei=vKRpUNvEMZGr0AXt5oDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNE9FsxNidzs6HTSvNGFZgt_IWFUkw
“Mr De’Ath, now 75, says: I said “where did you pick her up?” And he said “Oh Top Of The Pops”. I remember saying “Is that your happy hunting ground?” and he said “Yes”.’
Another former BBC producer, Sue Thompson, says she saw Savile in his dressing room kissing a girl sat on his knee”
No evidence in the files? Not surprising since nobody filed an official complaint. Nice dodge, BBC.
’No evidence in the files? Not surprising since nobody filed an official complaint. Nice dodge, BBC.’
BBC – Semantic Weasels ‘R Them
Even the home teams seem to feel that a few questions may need to be answered by usually unaccountable powers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/01/jimmy-savile-newsnight?CMP=twt_gu
But hey, it’s worked so far in limiting the damage they have sustained as they uniquely roll over folk…
I believe they may have wiped the files in the same way they wiped those early episodes of Dr Who.
Months ago on THE TAP website it reported that Saville used money when he visited a certain hospital, was allowed down into the morgue to relieve his necrophiliac desires, they knew at the BBC.
A Newsnight spokesman refused to answer any questions about the report or to deny that Helen Boaden, the corporation’s news chief, was personally involved in the decision to kill it. “Any suggestion that a story was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons is completely untrue,” the spokesman said.
“The BBC gathers information on hundreds of stories and not all make it to air. In this case the angle we were pursuing could not be substantiated.”
Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, knew that the Newsnight team were working on the story but is understood to have played no part in the decision to shelve it.”
For completeness, I’ve included the BBC’s denial in the same article.
‘For completeness, I’ve included the BBC’s denial in the same article.’
Good of you. I know I don’t have the advantage of news studio experience to figure this out, but on matters of unique precedent, and not being as experienced in news room etiquette ‘n all, but when an organisation denies there’s anything worth checking out (when even its own staff now seem to be corroborating left, left and left of centre), is it normal practice to expect it all simply gets dropped ‘cos they reckon they’re golden?
Especially when ‘the investigations’, by unique surprise, seem to have been by the BBC on the BBC’s conduct in defence of the BBC’s reputation…. explaining but again not excusing how their quaint complaints system seems to manage a 110% vindication record.
I would suggest that if this story, going to the top, was about any media competitor of the BBC’s, and was dropped in this manner on a ‘we’ve checked and we’ve got it about right again’ basis, the full weight of the national broadcast monopoly treasure chest would be unleashed to keep it in the headlines for weeks.
What exactly are ‘editorial reasons’? It sounds like a highly elastic term to me.
‘What exactly are ‘editorial reasons’? It sounds like a highly elastic term to me.’
Like that which used to preserve Aunty’s knickers at a modest level, such ‘editorial reasons’ seem to have perished to the point of being unsupportable in such context.
Again, it goes to precedent.
If anyone else attempted airily waving away an issue using such a term in dismissal, Paxo’s eyebrows would hit the the ceiling and his sneer would be heard in Singapore.
They really appear to be saying that they consider they can operate to a different standard… simply because they can.
And any less than happy with that explanation are compelled to support such an attitude from a public service entity through funding imposed by threat of fine or prison?
Unique.
Wait… a big corporation accused of covering for perverts has denied wrong-doing?
Well, that’s good enough for me. There’s no way people who cover for a paedophile would ever stop to dishonesty.
Meanwhile, in the real world, this is exactly what grates so much about the BBC. They claim a God-given right to carry out a prostate exam on any organisation deemed right of centre (‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’), then act like any kind of independent oversight of a publicly-funded corporation with a virtual monopoly would be the Greatest Outrage in History.
Many of us have suspected for a long time Savile’s proclivities for the company of children other than in a purely professional capacity. However, had anyone suggested this publicly, they would have been censured for daring to suggest that this “great man”, of such charitable reputation, should ever do such a thing. The blinkers would be well and truly welded to the heads.
There are stories I’ve heard from erstwhile staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital about him, far from assisting them, being a pain in the arse, interfering and getting in the way, as well as some other tales of a more sinister nature.
Just because he’s dead, doesn’t make him an untouchable hero.
Was Jimmy Savile the subject of this comment?
Campbell made the same point in an article about John Peel in 2004, adding that he knew it to be true:
The only other person I can think of who would fit the “motel” comment (a clear “Psycho” reference) would be Jonathan King (both Savile and King were very close to their mothers). Perhaps, more worryingly, it’s a different person entirely but Nicky Campbell doesn’t reply to my tweets these days so I can’t say.
It’s clear that some very dodgy behaviour was common knowledge at the BBC and nobody did anything about it. Here’s what Esther Rantzen tweeted to Mark Williams-Thomas, presenter of the forthcoming ITV programme about Savile, earlier today:
Incidentally, if Nicky Campbell was referring to Jimmy Savile and knew what he’d been up to, then this is just weird:
Strange to see that the BBC is naming part of a building after a white public school boy. Actually they should really investigate Peel as to why he pretended to be a white working class scouser, and presumably everyone knew but never mocked him for such a conciet. Shouldn’t it be considered a hate crime against the working class.
There was a Beeb documentary on about Peel just after he died which included a recording of him on the radio in the late 60’s. Oddly the fact he had upper crust public school accent then was never even commented on by the voice over person.
It must be some kind of medical complaint where you go to bed an ex public school boy and wake up a scouser.
Scallitosis?
The motel in Psycho was called the Bates Motel, and according to Wiki
John Peel was fond of repeating that he formed a posse with David Jensen and Paul Burnett to attack him [Simon Bates] in the car park but admitted they never actually confronted him.
Bates Motel – ah yes, that makes sense. Wonder what was so dangerous about him.
Bates Motel – ah yes, that makes sense. Wonder what was so dangerous about him.
———————————————
Last heard of (by me at any rate) flogging the mouldering corpse that was ‘Our Tune’.
Now not just aimed at saddoes but pretentious saddoes.
‘As I went down in one knee in front of Dora on the breakwater at Frimley pier the refrain from Barber’s Adagio For Strings ran through my head…’
edit s/b …’Our Tune’ on Classic FM
James Savile was indeed associated with the BBC for a brief period of time, doing some freelance stuff for British Rail and manufacturers of automobile seat blets.
We are disappointed that he chose to behave in a somewhat regrettable fashion and we take these allegations of inappropriate conduct towards young and vulnerable women VERY seriously.
That said-he was , of course, far better-known as a shell suit model than a BBC presenter…and he was-of course-a Catholic.
This being the case, we now have constituted an enquiry with Peter Tatchell, Prof Richard Dawkins and our very own Marcus Brigstocke , in order to see if lessons may yet be learned by the Catholic Church, and not the BBC who employed him to “show that safeguarding policies and procedures are not working at the Vatican”.
Benedict has questions to answer…the BBC never have-and never will!
Brilliant. That sounds as close to the BBC line as one could expect.
I remember many moons ago, maybe even as many as 30 years, that my sister was telling my mother that there were stories about Jim and young girls. Where she got the story from I don’t know, and why when there were rumours so long ago it wasn’t investigated at the time can only be speculated on.
It may or may not be true but rumours of this have been around for years.
Demon many of the rumours appear to have been commonplace in Leeds where in the 50’s and 60’s Saville ran youth dances. This was even before he went to the Beeb.
Yes, but what I want to know is have ‘lessons been learned’…..
It’s not a true public sector outrage without that being thrown in.
Those of us with the misfortune to live in the area covered by the “Look North” regional BBC news show were treated to one of the most bizarre spectacles I have seen on TV after he died. Every night at 6:30pm for what seemed like a month (it was probably for a week or two) just about the entire show was devoted to a report on Saville’s corpse being hauled around the Yorkshire region in a fancy hearse. At every town Look North interviewed assorted old biddies and local charity big wigs telling us just how good Jimmy was. It was all most weird given the fact that even I (the least connected to media land person in England) had heard a variety of rumours about him and knew it was just a matter of time before it came out.
Just what was Saville’s hold over the Beeb ? Enquiring minds would love to know.
It seems very odd for these allegations to only surface now, 35+ years after the fact.
According to someone in the link above, he apparently held the keys to many Beeboid skeleton-cupboards.
According to Rantzen, on Jermy Vine today, Saville was a devout Christian, a ‘friend’ of Thatchers and a confident of Pricess Diana.
Three sins that are unforgiveable at the BBC.
Odd that ‘real’ sins should be ignored.
Or even Princess Diana.
Scandal hidden….
To protect the BBC’s reputation?
To protect Muslim communities’ reputations?
As said before…the BBC don’t seem to give a monkeys about these girls except when ‘poverty’ or ‘disadvantage’ can be used to embarrass the Tories.
Same with squaddies……the best soldier for the BBC is a dead one or mangled one….but they make sure they have the address of his grieving wife or mother so they can film the tears.
Please see my comment above. This is going to be used to embarass the Tories whether there is any truth here or not.
‘The BBC shelved a Newsnight investigation into allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused a teenage girl in his dressing room at Television Centre, it has emerged.
Something not adding up here.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-documentary-tv-star-1351439
‘In a statement yesterday the BBC said: “Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action.” ‘
At the very least, even within the BBC there seem to be two very different versions of the truth, as Newsnight had ‘something’, yet shelved it, yet the default would appear to be to opt for the ‘moving on’ option.
Not, I’d suggest, how the BBC tends to react in other ‘newsworthy’ instances.
Holding which power to account again, George, Helen?
But the BBC are fond of telling us they only ever report stories if they have 2 independant sources
Were they both lying?
The BBC routinely covers up instances of known paedophile groups. They did the same with an investigation into the Holly Grieg case and with another looking into allegations surrounding various children’s homes.
Many people have come forward with their stories of how Saville abused them… There is corroborating evidence, but it seems he had friends in high places who shared his passions for children.
One them being a (now deceased) very large Liberal MP! Am I allowed to state that? Allegedly, then…
I don’t recall that the bbc were so coy about reporting the behaviour of Jonathan King. I do recall that there was extensive negative publicity for the man. And for Garry Glitter.
I just wish someone would start to investigate members of the bbc management and significant personnel and start to expose their behaviour, which I suspect is worse than anyone has imagined. The bbc has to be the next edifice to be knocked down. After all they’ve been a major player in undermining just about every institution in our nation.
@ Guest Who
It is very interesting to deconstruct that oh-so-carefully worded statement by the BBC in the Mirror article you link to.
Before doing that, let’s pause for a moment to reflect on the seemingly-official BBC Point Of View on 1. Rape and 2. child abuse within the Catholic church.
With regard to rape, the BBC has for years now bemoaned the low conviction rates for rape and the frequent difficulty of lack of corroborative evidence on the issue of lack of consent. The BBC often seems to have advocated for a kind of guilty-by-accusation situation.
With regard to child abuse within the Catholic church, the BBC has, of course, “gone large” for many years with a stance that damns the Catholic church for its failure to investigate and act on allegations of abuse.
Now back to the BBC’s statement on Saville. It accepts that allegations of abuse have been made – indeed, it condemns any behaviour of that type “in the stronget possible terms”. Why then has it taken no further action? Well, they say that they couldn’t find any corroborating evidence at the BBC. Excuse me? “Corroborating evidence”?? What “corroborating evidence” were they expecting to find 30 years after the event?? Jimmy’s fetid semen stains on a dusty couch in the props department? Withered hymens lying about the place? Since when was “corroborating evidence” a pre-requisite of taking seriously allegations of sexual abuse?
Would the BBC take such an understanding view if the police had failed to prosecute a man who had been accused by 5 separate victims of rape because they’d visited the scenes of the alleged crimes and couldn’t find any “corroborating evidence”?
Would the BBC have given the Catholic church a free pass if the church said “yeah, we heard about these 5 boys making allegations against Father such-and-such so we took a look around the vestry where this was supposed to have happened 30 years ago, and we couldn’t find a single bit of corroborating evidence. So you’ll completely understand that we have no choice but to sweep this under the carpet”
The fact is that there detailed allegations have been made by multiple apparent victims. That is enough to ask serious questions. The BBC would prefer that it be swept under the carpet. How ironic, and how utterly unsurprising that, when faced with embarassment, the BBC behaves EXACTLY LIKE the Catholic church or South Yorkshire police or anyone else that the BBC so-nobly “holds to account”
Their arrogance and hypocrisy is symptomatic of an organisation that is utterly unaccountable.
Thumbs up for this post x100.
My thumb, my arse.
Were I a mischievous type, I would wonder about Jimmy Savile operating out of the same M62 corridor that produces 7/7 bombers and all manner of Muslim paedophiles that seem to know how many kebabs and ciggies it takes to abuse white trashy girls in the “care” of Social/Childrens Services-all the way from Blackpool over to Scarborough…a coast to coast pleasure cruise for the crrepas that do such things-and the shadow creeps who won`t dare confront Allahs little helpers that do it.
And although these services are despicable babywipes for Islam, I do wonder about the never-mentioned “parents/guardians or responsible adults”…are Dewsbury djinns supplying THEM with kebabs,ciggies, skunk or Strongbow?
Rochdale-Rotherham-what`s the difference as far as the BBC are concerned?…only that they might actually catch some perps and protectors in one at the moment…but can crow and weep away now the trail is growing cold in the other one.
Savile and the BBC-made for each other eh?
Given that it took five months between conviction and “BBC panic” in Rochdale?…expect Rotherham to be bothering Humph, Monty etc in March next year.
Radio-active half life-toxicity=5 months.
the BBC no doubt will be holding the doors and looking for small fish to tickle…the big ones will sleep soundly, having “got it all just about right”
Jim’l is innocent. If Rancid Rantzen say’s otherwise then I must be right. Yes he was a pain in the arse ( that was not a freuden slip ) he did emotionaly blackmail celebs to appear on many many programs that they would rather not, and I include our royal family here, but I do know personally a family in the north with a learning disabled child that Jim’l was a genuine good guy to, bringing joy to vunerable people that only a media star can do.
But hold on, what could possibly be the cause of Jimmy Saville being a pedophile?
Oh, what about; he was a devout christian who attended church several times a week.
There are countless other examples of white christians who have abused children…
White christian pedophiles:
http://bbc.in/NZkIw6
White christian pedophiles:
http://bbc.in/PQnv9l
White christian pedophiles:
http://bbc.in/NZkpBj
Strange that no one this blog has made the connection.
But of course everyone and everything is to blame, it seems, apart from that which propels these deviants – namely their faith system.
The BBC archive serving you reliably as ever. Very thorough of them. Lots of coverage.
Now about how the BBC, from the top down, through to Newsnight has decided eslewhere that, having had a cursory peak and in customary style decided they got it about right, SOP in their newsroom is of course to all agree there is nothing there and moving on is the only sensible course.
Now I realise your reading seems limited to within the echo chamber, but it seems another right wing rag appears not to share your sudden conversion to no questions being asked and no one being held to account… uniquely…. depending…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-denies-coverup-over-claims-savile-targeted-underage-girls-8191512.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/i/
It would be interesting to analyse the incidence of paedophilia by religion on a per capita basis.
Any BBC reference to that?
I’m struggling in any of these links to see, or even infer where the children were targeted on the basis of their race or religion.
Oh, silly me. The BBC is covering it up.
Dez is attacking Christians. That makes him a vile racist according to Nicked Emus. Unless the Beeboids have a uniquely different attitude to the two religions, which if they did would be very racist in itself.
There are none so racist as the avowedly “anti-racists”. The UAF being a perfect example.
Can someone please explain Dez’s post? It reads like a counterpoint to some argument or other but I’m damned if I know what.
Dez is pretending that the people those links are about have stated that their religious beliefs directed them to view certain young girls as lesser beings and valid targets, just like the Rochdale groomers stated, the judge in the case stated, and those guys in Adil Ray’s documentary stated that their religion informed their behavior regarding certain young girls. Dez is pretending these things are exactly the same, and hoping nobody will notice.
Thanks David. I thought it might be something like that. Here’s some classic Steyn on Dez and his ilk:
Dez being as dishonest as ever misses the point. Everyone knows that paedos exist in the christian community as elsewhere, but the point is why did the BBC choose to cover it up while moralising about the Catholic church,
Jeremy Vine has acknowledged there’s a ‘situation’ on his twitter (views anyone’s but his… or the BBC’s, natch).
Interesting to note which, of possible thoughts prevailing, his ‘team’ has filtered and published:
Amanda Burt @burt625
@theJeremyVine Whether he is guilty or not, he only died last year and it seems a cowardly tactic to raise this issue now and not before
The ‘if it happened a long time ago it isn’t news and should be left’ meme being another odd precedent the BBC and its apologists seem to apply somewhat uniquely to taste.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9578533/Jimmy-Savile-accused-of-child-abuse-for-me-jury-is-not-out-says-Esther-Rantzen.html
Two BBC employees, one claiming to be a direct witness, prepared to go on record.
Not quite sure how this equates with ‘in the absence of evidence of any kind’.
Certainly the notion that no questions should be asked, much less left unanswered, seems in the circumstances a new lack of curiosity from the world’s most trusted and professional news medium, its employees, management and supporters.
No one had officially filed a complaint (unlike how Jo Brand made an official complaint about Carol Thatcher’s golliwog remark), so there’s nothing in the BBC files they could look to. Hands washed, line drawn under it.
Esther Rantzen illustrates the disgraceful silence of Savile’s colleagues. She told Sky News: “There were always rumors that he behaved very inappropriately sexually with children.”
“Always rumors”? ALWAYS rumors? How far back is “always”? Are those colleagues who knew or suspected him – producers, fellow DJs, other pop stars – complicit in their silence ?
The BBC has been dishing it out for years: “An investigation has uncovered new evidence that cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales failed to act appropriately when dealing with pedophile priests in his former diocese of Arundel and Brighton.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml
“In a BBC This World documentary screened on BBC Northern Ireland last night, it was claimed that, in 1975, the Catholic Primate of Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, failed to inform parents that their children were being abused by the notorious pedophile priest, Brendan Smyth.”
http://dooleyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/05/why-the-leader-of-irelands-catholics-must-quit.html
So, what next? Who in management knew about this man? When did they know? Why didn’t anyone speak out? What will happen now?
(A comment made in one article about Savile points out that he regarded “Top of the Pops” as fertile ground for harvesting underage girls. Will there be any investigation into this?)
Hypocrites? You bet.
So Esther Rantzen set up a telephone line for children to report abuse but failed to stop abuse herself?
What a fitting tale for modern Britain.
Does she get paid for her work for Childline perchance?
Some clips from the documentary, including a former producer who witnessed Mr Saviles’ activities. Sickening, and the BBC claim they knew nothing….
Despite the BBC’s best efforts not to get held to account or answer any questions, looking at the morning headlines this does not seem to be a tactic that is bearing the best of fruits. I wonder why they persist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9580096/Jimmy-Savile-Questions-about-why-BBC-dropped-Newsnight-investigation.html
“If a person is a national treasure, they become almost untouchable’
That could, of course, extend to organisations too, really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7354991/The-BBC-from-national-treasure-to-broadcasting-bully.html
And how do bullies behave?
Seems it is ‘we’ who should look to ourselves more..
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2012/10/blinded-by-obvious.html
Not so sure about that. Perhaps the focus should be more on vast, well-resourced corporate news entities with pretensions to investigative rigour and a holier than thou reputation more in the claim than practice?:
‘“It should be recognised that the BBC is leading the way in safeguarding children involved in productions with robust policies and a designated child protection officer,”
Leading the way into a Green Room stocked with sweeties, more like, by the sound of it.
Others have been brought lower for a lot less.
One can see how Newsnight and the BBC higher echelons could not find any reasons to be concerned about any rumours, being they were unaware of the possibility ‘n all.
Thereux is a nasty piece of work whose whole schtick is to belittle and degrade his interviewees.
Give him is due he is very good at making people look stupid (and no doubt it’s all well editted) but in the end that is all he is.
Remember his programme on the Hamiltons where he set them up for a rape charge on behalf of Max Clifford. Remember the Max Clifford programme where Thereux was threatened with ‘exposure’.
No, sorry citing Thereux is not evidence as he is as much part of the machine as anyone else.
The ‘evidence’ that exists in this piece is no more and no less than what is said by those on screen.
My point was that the BBC’s claim to be unaware of anything regarding Mr. Savile is looking a little thin day by day, as here in the past, one of their own in ‘the machine’ certainly seems have got wind of something that Newsnight was also interested in… and then dropped it like a hot brick for ‘editorial reasons’.
As you do.
What evidence is there in the film? That he was odd? That he loved his mother? That he was rich enough to indulge a morbid interest in her? How does any of that make him a nonce?
There may well be other ‘evidence’ elsewhere but this surely isn’t it.
Why on earth you think I’m dropping anything ‘like a hot brick’ is beyond me. Please explain.
‘Why on earth you think I’m dropping anything ‘like a hot brick’ is beyond me. Please explain.’
I don’t have to, because I didn’t. Read it again.
As to the piece in question, if you think the line of questioning was indicative only of an appreciation of familial affection, I have some swamp land in Florida you may also be interested in, along with any BBC execs who were unaware of any controversy regarding this man, and seem keen to ‘move on’.
Meanwhile, if you want to pick a fight with those who think they should have a view while denying it to others, knock yourself out…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100183488/how-do-paedophiles-like-jimmy-savile-get-away-with-it/?
Why on earth you think I’m dropping anything ‘like a hot brick’ is beyond me. Please explain.’
I don’t have to, because I didn’t. Read it again
Considering the previous sentence, what does ‘As you do’ refer to otherwise then?
.. and seem keen to ‘move on’
Err? No. If he’s guilty then hang him high. Please tell me where I said, or even implied, I wanted this subject covered up (the implication of ‘move on’)?
The problem with the current allegations is that they are all from girls at the same source (one school) and from the ’70’s. Did he stop from 1980 onwards? And did he really have such powerful friends that they’d cover up for him? Would the NoTW hide the ‘truth’? After all he was an odd, Christian, Tory with friends in the Royal family? A prime target for the media I’d’ve thought.
I don’t think this is a clear as some would like it to be. It may well be, but I’m yet to be convinced.
Meanwhile, if you want to pick a fight with those who think they should have a view while denying it to others, knock yourself out
Again, what? Don’t tell me you are one of those people for whom any contrary position is a declaration of war? Ever heard of discussion? Or pots and kettles?
Oh dear, ITV have announced they have a witness who reported her observations to newsnight! OOps…. now then Helen, how can you slither away from this one?….head in sand aint gonna work here!
(and was it how i heard it, that a certain G Glitter and St Jimmy were both engaged on misdeeds in the same dressing room? )
I think I just heard Paul Mason say it’s kicking off everywhere!
Ah newsnight has begun, and the 3 main topics:
Milipede, the afghan interpreter denied residency here, and something about science ( why hot water freezes faster then cold).
Nothing else on the minds of UK folk then, nothing about jimmy at all?
Is that the witness Rippon dismissed because the CPS told him they dropped their investigation into her claim due to lack of evidence? Or is there another witness?
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/more-alleged-victims-jimmy-savile-speak-press-why-did-bbc-fail-air-newsnight-investigation
Some interesting comments, not least of which from ex-BBC employee Michael Crick.
regardless of the Savile allegations, i bet there’s been a lot of bumming going on in the dressing rooms at the BBC over the years
Its a well known fact that the BBC employees a abnormal amount of homosexual employees. I don’t what the BBC’s Islamic friends think of this.
i bet most of the BBC’s islamic friends attend Elton John’s annual white tie and tiara party
If it helps advance the cause of global jihad to help establish the caliphate then they will.
For those who still deny Savile’s guit, in his autobiography, he detailed extensive and indiscriminate sex with young teenagers. He made it obvious that one was underage and implied that all or most of them were. If he said it himself, why doubt it?
it also seems unlikely that his own nephew would have come forward to recall being taken at 13 to child sex parties if it was not true.
I first saw allegations about Savile on the internet just after his death. They seemed ridiculous. It was claimed that he was a necrophile who had also procured boys for Edward Heath. It was obvious that the HIGNFY transcript was faked and I was disgusted by it.
I was therefore sceptical when the new allegations came out. I spoke to my partner who is very truthful. He said he had seen Savile behaving oddly if not illegally with a girl at a Mensa meeting in !974.