• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BBC Pedophilia Scandal Could End Several Careers

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This is what seems to have happened: A UK BBC news anchor, Jimmy Savile, was wildly popular and knighted by the Queen. Unfortunately, he was (allegedly) also a prolific and extremely evil sex predator, and some of his victims were institutionalized children who were attacked on BBC property. Savile died in 2011, and the BBC has been in turmoil as it has just recently been made public that the BBC knew about allegations against Savile but did not report them, not to the public and not even to the police. The number of victims is now estimated by the police to exceed 200. The story just broke in the US, and I couldn't find details as to the condition of the institutionalized children who were attacked.

Being dead puts Savile beyond reach, but various individuals who are tainted by this story may lose their careers over this. For example, the NYT's incoming CEO, Mark Thompson, is the former BBC General Manager, and his fitness for employment in journalism is under attack.

BBC director-general George Entwistle has apologized to the alleged victims.“I have made clear my revulsion at the thought that these criminal assaults were carried out by someone employed by the BBC and that some may have happened on BBC premises as well as, we now discover, in hospitals and other institutions,” he said in a statement on Oct. 12. "This is the worst crisis that I can remember in my nearly 50 years at the BBC,” said journalist John Simpson.

BBC Pedophile Scandal: Editor Steps Aside

A senior executive at the New York Times has broken ranks to suggest former BBC chief Mark Thompson is not fit to be her new boss in the wake of a paedophile scandal which has rocked the corporation to its core.
In an extraordinary intervention, Margaret Sullivan questioned the integrity and ability of the man who was director general when a report that would have exposed Jimmy Savile as a predator who targeted young, vulnerable girls, was axed.

Writing in a blog post yesterday, the public editor, who works on behalf of readers and writes about the newspaper itself said: 'How likely is it that [Thompson] knew nothing?'
'His integrity and decision-making are bound to affect The New York Times and its journalism - profoundly. It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job, given this turn of events.'

Jimmy Savile scandal: New York Times editor questions if Mark Thompson is the right man to be her boss | Mail Online

I say anyone who knew and did nothing should be arrested, nevermind have their careers ended. I think this is true even as to anyone who knew nothing until after Savile died in October of 2011.

Do you know more about what happened? Have you formed any opinions yet?

 


Very interesting show in England, one of my favourites still to this day who once had him on the show.

They talk about the allegations.
 
Are there less than 'extremely evil' sexual predators?

How about moderately evil?
Mildly evil?
Not evil?
 
He was not a news anchor. He was a TV personality.

The BBC did not "know" about it, but parts suspected something was wrong. It was only long after the abuse that the victims accounts started to mount that the BBC and others started to take note. Now what the BBC did wrong, or messed up, was not that they did not report him, but that an expose that would out him, was pulled for "editorial reasons", all in the while they were running Jimmy Savile tributes due to his death. That is what is pissing a lot of people off.. what were these "editorial reasons".. so far we dont know.

The Police also knew about it, but choose to believe Savile over the victims. He was pulled in for questioning a few times in the late naughties .. 2007 and 2008.

Hospitals, nurses, doctors and so on, also knew.. or at least were told about it, but they choose like the Police, to believe Savile over the victims.

You see Savile was quite good at this.. he choose victims that no one would believe.. handicapped or institutionalised/damaged children or incapacitated children. When the kids complained they were almost always dismissed.... that was what you did back them.. dismissed children.. seen but not heard attitude. You have to remember what time period we are talking about in history. We are talking the late 1960s to the late 1990s, but especially in the 1970s and 80s. Times were very much different back then....

Abuse of children or women were often ignored or glossed over, and victims were rarely believed. There was an interview with a victim on BBC a few days ago, where she said she complained to the nurses at the hospital at the time.. where she was abused and the head nurse scolded her for coming with such horrible accusations against such a fine man. That was the attitude back then... sad but true... and no it was not unique to the UK.

At the end of the day Savile is dead, most of the nurses and doctors who ignored the abuse are dead, and so are many of the police officers and politicians who protected him by ignoring or dismissing the accusations. All we can do today, is find out what the editorial reasons was in the BBC, and use this case as a warning not to outright dismiss accusations off hand just because they come from children or handicapped. Saying that.. we should of course not just accept them either.
 
He was not a news anchor. He was a TV personality.

The BBC did not "know" about it, but parts suspected something was wrong. It was only long after the abuse that the victims accounts started to mount that the BBC and others started to take note. Now what the BBC did wrong, or messed up, was not that they did not report him, but that an expose that would out him, was pulled for "editorial reasons", all in the while they were running Jimmy Savile tributes due to his death. That is what is pissing a lot of people off.. what were these "editorial reasons".. so far we dont know.

The Police also knew about it, but choose to believe Savile over the victims. He was pulled in for questioning a few times in the late naughties .. 2007 and 2008.

Hospitals, nurses, doctors and so on, also knew.. or at least were told about it, but they choose like the Police, to believe Savile over the victims.

You see Savile was quite good at this.. he choose victims that no one would believe.. handicapped or institutionalised/damaged children or incapacitated children. When the kids complained they were almost always dismissed.... that was what you did back them.. dismissed children.. seen but not heard attitude. You have to remember what time period we are talking about in history. We are talking the late 1960s to the late 1990s, but especially in the 1970s and 80s. Times were very much different back then....

Abuse of children or women were often ignored or glossed over, and victims were rarely believed. There was an interview with a victim on BBC a few days ago, where she said she complained to the nurses at the hospital at the time.. where she was abused and the head nurse scolded her for coming with such horrible accusations against such a fine man. That was the attitude back then... sad but true... and no it was not unique to the UK.

At the end of the day Savile is dead, most of the nurses and doctors who ignored the abuse are dead, and so are many of the police officers and politicians who protected him by ignoring or dismissing the accusations. All we can do today, is find out what the editorial reasons was in the BBC, and use this case as a warning not to outright dismiss accusations off hand just because they come from children or handicapped. Saying that.. we should of course not just accept them either.

Odd that you claim that the BBC did not "know", but the police and hospital staff did "know". This is as convincing as similar claims made by the hierarchy of the RC church.
 
Are there less than 'extremely evil' sexual predators?

How about moderately evil?
Mildly evil?
Not evil?

I take your point, Ali, but I infer from the reports I heard that the victims were disabled and/or unattached to their families in some way, which is why they were in an institution.

One of the RCC priests the current pope covered up for abused hundreds of kids at a school for the deaf. Choosing kids who have no families and suffer from a disability that makes it hard for them to protest, resist, report, etc. is a speshell kind of evil, but of course, all child rape is evil.
 
I take your point, Ali, but I infer from the reports I heard that the victims were disabled and/or unattached to their families in some way, which is why they were in an institution.

One of the RCC priests the current pope covered up for abused hundreds of kids at a school for the deaf. Choosing kids who have no families and suffer from a disability that makes it hard for them to protest, resist, report, etc. is a speshell kind of evil, but of course, all child rape is evil.

I figured. Maybe the English can bring back the old tradition of treating the corpse of this news presenter in the same way they treated Cromwell's corpse.
 
Odd that you claim that the BBC did not "know", but the police and hospital staff did "know". This is as convincing as similar claims made by the hierarchy of the RC church.

Hmm that is not what I tried to mean.

The BBC and the police and hospital staff did not "know", because there was no cases brought up because those involved did not believe the victims or rumours. In that way they did not "know" or "acknowledge" the issues. I am not trying to defend the BBC or police of the time in any way, but I do have to consider the times the abuse was happening and how big a figure Savile was.

Now in the case of the RC Church, they did know, but choose to ignore it and were actively trying to hide the abusers and still do. But even here, the abuse over centuries by priests was never actively pursued because of the standing of the priests in society, the protection of the Church and how society tended to cover up "bad sexual exploits" of people. This was the time when girls who got pregnant outside of marriage was kicked off to nunneries to hide the shame..... going around calling priests gay or child abusers... gezz.. would have been unheard off.... far up into the 1970s and 1980s... and this was when Savile was abusing children and women. I mean governments were force sterilizating orphans and mentally handicapped far up in the 1970s and early 1980s.. that would be unheard of today, but back then it was accepted. So what I am trying to say, it has to be put into perspective on when this was happening.

Did the BBC and others drop the ball big time? Yes big time..., but again I come back to when this all was happening.

Had it been happening 5 years ago or even 10 years ago... then hell yes it is a scandal, but 30 to 40 years ago... a scandal yes, but it a lot of crap has happened in the past that we have to accept happened because of how society and politics was at the time. It is a scandal that the people of Diego Garcia were evicted by force and not compensated by the British government 60 years ago, and still is a scandal that nothing has happened, but we cant punish those that not only gave the order but carried out the order.. because they are all dead and at the time it was common to see non white's as inferior and not have to live up to simple human rights. All we can do is compensate where needed (something not happening with the people of Diego Garcia btw), and make sure that such horrible acts do not happen in the future.
 
Hmm that is not what I tried to mean.

The BBC and the police and hospital staff did not "know", because there was no cases brought up because those involved did not believe the victims or rumours. In that way they did not "know" or "acknowledge" the issues. I am not trying to defend the BBC or police of the time in any way, but I do have to consider the times the abuse was happening and how big a figure Savile was.

Now in the case of the RC Church, they did know, but choose to ignore it and were actively trying to hide the abusers and still do. But even here, the abuse over centuries by priests was never actively pursued because of the standing of the priests in society, the protection of the Church and how society tended to cover up "bad sexual exploits" of people. This was the time when girls who got pregnant outside of marriage was kicked off to nunneries to hide the shame..... going around calling priests gay or child abusers... gezz.. would have been unheard off.... far up into the 1970s and 1980s... and this was when Savile was abusing children and women. I mean governments were force sterilizating orphans and mentally handicapped far up in the 1970s and early 1980s.. that would be unheard of today, but back then it was accepted. So what I am trying to say, it has to be put into perspective on when this was happening.

Did the BBC and others drop the ball big time? Yes big time..., but again I come back to when this all was happening.

Had it been happening 5 years ago or even 10 years ago... then hell yes it is a scandal, but 30 to 40 years ago... a scandal yes, but it a lot of crap has happened in the past that we have to accept happened because of how society and politics was at the time. It is a scandal that the people of Diego Garcia were evicted by force and not compensated by the British government 60 years ago, and still is a scandal that nothing has happened, but we cant punish those that not only gave the order but carried out the order.. because they are all dead and at the time it was common to see non white's as inferior and not have to live up to simple human rights. All we can do is compensate where needed (something not happening with the people of Diego Garcia btw), and make sure that such horrible acts do not happen in the future.

40 years ago?

This guy just died....why do you say all the abuse happened 40+ years ago, Pete?

I am sick to my stomach over this story -- if any business had clean hands IMO, it was the goddamned BBC. I'll never look at them the same way ever again.
 
This is what seems to have happened: A UK BBC news anchor, Jimmy Savile, was wildly popular and knighted by the Queen. Unfortunately, he was (allegedly) also a prolific and extremely evil sex predator, and some of his victims were institutionalized children who were attacked on BBC property. Savile died in 2011, and the BBC has been in turmoil as it has just recently been made public that the BBC knew about allegations against Savile but did not report them, not to the public and not even to the police. The number of victims is now estimated by the police to exceed 200. The story just broke in the US, and I couldn't find details as to the condition of the institutionalized children who were attacked.

Being dead puts Savile beyond reach, but various individuals who are tainted by this story may lose their careers over this. For example, the NYT's incoming CEO, Mark Thompson, is the former BBC General Manager, and his fitness for employment in journalism is under attack.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
BBC Pedophile Scandal: Editor Steps Aside


Jimmy Savile scandal: New York Times editor questions if Mark Thompson is the right man to be her boss | Mail Online

I say anyone who knew and did nothing should be arrested, nevermind have their careers ended. I think this is true even as to anyone who knew nothing until after Savile died in October of 2011.

Do you know more about what happened? Have you formed any opinions yet?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

We know this happens all the time here in the United States as well. This is one time I think we need a new law making every adult over the age of 25 (or whatever) a mandatory reporter.

If a prosecutor can prove that someone knew (or should have known) that a child was being abused and failed to report it to the authorities, they should be sitting in jail. (Not report it to your boss...not report it to the father...to the mother...report it to the appropriate authorities.
 
40 years ago?

This guy just died....why do you say all the abuse happened 40+ years ago, Pete?


Much if not all yes. He was at his height of power in the 60s, to early/mid 1990s, when he basically retired for the most part.. yes there was showing up here and there once in a while, but nothing like what he did in the 60s to the early/mid 1990s.

I am sick to my stomach over this story -- if any business had clean hands IMO, it was the goddamned BBC. I'll never look at them the same way ever again.

Come on.. while the BBC is at fault yes, you are more sick of them than the police who ignored the allegations or the charities and hospitals who also ignore the accusations? It is not the job of the BBC to hunt peadophiles.. however the police...

On the bright side though, this case has caused a flood of new cases (not against Savile) pouring in at the police and charities that deal with such abuse.
 
Wasn't this guy just a glorified disc jockey? I remember him as a DJ during my time in England. Doesn't make his crimes any less reprehensible, but let's not elevate him to the Huntley-Brinkley level.
 
Wasn't this guy just a glorified disc jockey? I remember him as a DJ during my time in England. Doesn't make his crimes any less reprehensible, but let's not elevate him to the Huntley-Brinkley level.

Basically yes... he was the first and last presenter (not only I believe) of Top of the Pops... a well known music show on TV in the UK and around the world actually.
 
Basically yes... he was the first and last presenter (not only I believe) of Top of the Pops... a well known music show on TV in the UK and around the world actually.

Meh, give me the peel sessions
 
We know this happens all the time here in the United States as well. This is one time I think we need a new law making every adult over the age of 25 (or whatever) a mandatory reporter.

If a prosecutor can prove that someone knew (or should have known) that a child was being abused and failed to report it to the authorities, they should be sitting in jail. (Not report it to your boss...not report it to the father...to the mother...report it to the appropriate authorities.

Amen, sista.
 
Basically yes... he was the first and last presenter (not only I believe) of Top of the Pops... a well known music show on TV in the UK and around the world actually.

Why on God's green earth would the Queen knight some dufus disc jockey?
 
What say you guys as to the NYT's incoming CEO, Mark Thompson, who is the former BBC General Manager? Should he be fired? Should he be arrested?

I certainly think so.
 


Very interesting show in England, one of my favourites still to this day who once had him on the show.

They talk about the allegations.


Why is there so much studio audience fake laughter on that show, given the topic? What's funny about this?
 
Why is there so much studio audience fake laughter on that show, given the topic? What's funny about this?

It's their Daily Show, filmed in front of a live studio audience so the laughter isn't fake. What's funny is what they said.
 
It's their Daily Show, filmed in front of a live studio audience so the laughter isn't fake. What's funny is what they said.

Must be a cultural difference then. I guess there's nothing they can't spin up some cheap humor about. Even child rape. :( British humor... :roll:
 
Must be a cultural difference then. I guess there's nothing they can't spin up some cheap humor about. Even child rape. :( British humor... :roll:

Pretty sure Colbert, Stewart and other American comedians will do segments on wars, mass murderers and general injustices that involve death and destruction that will garner laughter. It´s probably because you don't get the jokes that you find it offensive, but they're all at the child rapists expense.
 
Pretty sure Colbert, Stewart and other American comedians will do segments on wars, mass murderers and general injustices that involve death and destruction that will garner laughter.

Mmm, maybe. I still think Jon Stewart has more class when it comes to topics as horrible as this.



It´s probably because you don't get the jokes that you find it offensive, but they're all at the child rapists expense.

I don't find the things the hosts are saying very offensive at all... just the audience's giddy laughter.
 
Mmm, maybe. I still think Jon Stewart has more class when it comes to topics as horrible as this.





I don't find the things the hosts are saying very offensive at all... just the audience's giddy laughter.

[/quote]

I like Stewart but he comes across as a bit of an actor. I don't buy him when he goes into "solemn" or "outrage" mode (though usually for the purpose of a punchline so I forgive him).

The audience laughter was sometimes inappropriate, even when the points made were meant to be serious, but they were there for a comedy news show and were probably in such a mood. Regardless, a comedy news show can´t avoid a major story and they can't pick and choose which they will/won't make jokes about.
 
Meh, give me the peel sessions

Sadly, John Peel hasn't escaped accusation either.

It may well be that back in those rock n' roll times, groupies were all too common and nobody was asking too many questions about ages, enabling those such as Savile to fly under the radar, and effectively as they said on HIGNFY, hide in plain sight.
 
Last edited:
The Boy Scouts, the RCC, the BBC, Penn State.....apparently, child rapists are everywhere and there is no place you can blindly entrust a child to AT ALL.
 
Back
Top Bottom