Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:20 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

As previous posters have said, the Beeb should take a much more robust stance on this and tell politicians to butt-out.

Would you have said that if it had been a Sky News report making untrue allegations about a Labour peer?

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:52 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Would you have said that if it had been a Sky News report making untrue allegations about a Labour peer?

The BBC report did not name anyone. It did not, therefore, make "untrue allegations about a Labour peer".

Whether true or false, there have been rumours about Lord McAlpine for years – these have even appeared in blogs. No BBC programme was required to create that situation.

It was apparently the police who misnamed McAlpine when Steve Messham identified a photograph of one of his abusers. Not the BBC. That the investigation team should have checked the identification is another point, but it does not change this one.

Nobody appears to be suggesting that there was no abuse in North Wales – yet this is almost, in effect, what some are effectively using this situation to imply. The Waterhouse Inquiry never named names and there were no prosecutions, although it found evidence of abuse. The previous inquiry saw all its papers pulped. It's little wonder suspicions abound of a cover up.

Now we've dealt with the factually incorrect suggestion contained in your question – in answer to what you really want to ask: do I think any abuser should be hidden/protected? No.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:11 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Would you have said that if it had been a Sky News report making untrue allegations about a Labour peer?

If it had been Sky News who had reported on allegations without naming the Labour Peer and were then being blamed for the Peer's name being made public ... yes.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:55 pm  

Mintball wrote:

– in answer to what you really want to ask: do I think any abuser should be hidden/protected? No.

I agree, its a great shame that the incompetence of the BBC has made that more likely.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:46 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I agree, its a great shame that the incompetence of the BBC has made that more likely.

The BBC aren't being hung out to dry by politicians because they were incompetent, they are being hung out to dry by politicians with a different agenda and who think that the distraction from the subject is a minor issue in pursuing their different agenda.

When the dust has settled and there is no news reporting from the BBC at all, I fully expect the rabid print media to take up the baton and run with it instead, I just won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen though.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:49 pm  

Cibaman wrote: I agree, its a great shame that the incompetence of the BBC has made that more likely. It's rather more complex than that, isn't it though? After all, it was the police who told Steve Messham in the first place that the person he identified on a picture was Lord McAlpine. The agency that made the film should have checked again. The Beeb should itself have checked once more after that. But then you could point out that the BBC has been butchering numbers of journalists (not management, but actual journalists) for years and checking and cross-checking stories takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. However, in terms of the chance of proper justice, this is a very interesting development.

Cibaman wrote: I agree, its a great shame that the incompetence of the BBC has made that more likely. It's rather more complex than that, isn't it though? After all, it was the police who told Steve Messham in the first place that the person he identified on a picture was Lord McAlpine. The agency that made the film should have checked again. The Beeb should itself have checked once more after that. But then you could point out that the BBC has been butchering numbers of journalists (not management, but actual journalists) for years and checking and cross-checking stories takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. However, in terms of the chance of proper justice, this is a very interesting development.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:53 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The BBC aren't being hung out to dry by politicians because they were incompetent, they are being hung out to dry by politicians with a different agenda and who think that the distraction from the subject is a minor issue in pursuing their different agenda.

When the dust has settled and there is no news reporting from the BBC at all, I fully expect the rabid print media to take up the baton and run with it instead, I just won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen though.

One of the side issues (if you will) of all this is the way in which some (note the word there) on the political right are not simply playing with child abuse as a political football, but they way in which they are quite happy to rubbish a victim. Yesterday's piece in the Mail on Sunday, by David Rose and Bob Woffinden was, quite frankly, a disgrace. Fortunately, most of those commenting have seen it for pretty much what it was.

And yet the right likes to claim that it's the left that cares nothing for victims of crime.

But reading forums on the Telegraph at the time of the Rochdale abuse verdicts, for many (not all, note) the only issue was the ethnicity/religion of the abusers – it wasn't any concern with the abused.

It really is quite sickening.



PS: and before anyone accuses me of doing another version of this, my response yesterday to Harriet Harman jumping on the Bash-The-Beeb bandwagon was not positive.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:18 pm  

Mintball wrote: One of the side issues (if you will) of all this is the way in which some (note the word there) on the political right are not simply playing with child abuse as a political football, but they way in which they are quite happy to rubbish a victim. Yesterday's piece in the Mail on Sunday, by David Rose and Bob Woffinden was, quite frankly, a disgrace. Fortunately, most of those commenting have seen it for pretty much what it was. And yet the right likes to claim that it's the left that cares nothing for victims of crime. But reading forums on the Telegraph at the time of the Rochdale abuse verdicts, for many (not all, note) the only issue was the ethnicity/religion of the abusers – it wasn't any concern with the abused. It really is quite sickening. PS: and before anyone accuses me of doing another version of this, my response yesterday to Harriet Harman jumping on the Bash-The-Beeb bandwagon was not positive. The mysterious David Rose? A real can of worms is still yet to be opened

Mintball wrote: One of the side issues (if you will) of all this is the way in which some (note the word there) on the political right are not simply playing with child abuse as a political football, but they way in which they are quite happy to rubbish a victim. Yesterday's piece in the Mail on Sunday, by David Rose and Bob Woffinden was, quite frankly, a disgrace. Fortunately, most of those commenting have seen it for pretty much what it was. And yet the right likes to claim that it's the left that cares nothing for victims of crime. But reading forums on the Telegraph at the time of the Rochdale abuse verdicts, for many (not all, note) the only issue was the ethnicity/religion of the abusers – it wasn't any concern with the abused. It really is quite sickening. PS: and before anyone accuses me of doing another version of this, my response yesterday to Harriet Harman jumping on the Bash-The-Beeb bandwagon was not positive. The mysterious David Rose? A real can of worms is still yet to be opened

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:23 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Whether true or false, there have been rumours about Lord McAlpine for years – these have even appeared in blogs.

Well, if they've appeared in blogs then they must be true! Blogs were just the precurser to Twitter and Facebook, and about as reliable. Rumours are just that: rumours. They should never be mistaken for facts, whether on blogs or in any other context. There can be many reasons for rumours starting - malice being the most common I'm sure.

Unfortunately for Steve Messham he has form when it comes to being an unreliable witness in that he has been mistaken about things before. The police should have been more careful, bearing that in mind. But I suppose the police can't win here either because if they don't take such claims seriously then they will be lambasted.

As for the BBC's involvement, so far as I can gather their mistake was not to check closely enough the so-called research done by the company who investigates on behalf of the Newsnight programme (the name of which escapes me just now). They didn't name McAlpine but apparently the programme managed to make the link even so, although I did not watch it and so I don't know how they achieved that. Twitter then just spread the word, as it does.

I'm not sure I agree that policitians are using this to have a go at the BBC although in some ways I think they should. Although consistently left wing in its reporting, the BBC is still the channel I trust the most and of course there is a wealth of other stuff the BBC do spectacularly well which I would hate to see lost as a result of this debacle. But I do think there needs to be a serious shake up among the management of the BBC. Too long it has been a club, and one which has been shown to be outragiously cavalier with taxpayers' money - the latest example being the pay off to Entwhistle of £450,000: a full one year's salary for failing to do anything right. That is just frankly immoral and all that kind of stuff needs challenging and changing. If that means interference by the present coalition government then so be it because after all the BBC IS financed in part by the taxpayer.

Re: The BBC and Jimmy Saville : Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well, if they've appeared in blogs then they must be true! Blogs were just the precurser to Twitter and Facebook, and about as reliable. Rumours are just that: rumours. They should never be mistaken for facts, whether on blogs or in any other context. There can be many reasons for rumours starting - malice being the most common I'm sure.

Unfortunately for Steve Messham he has form when it comes to being an unreliable witness in that he has been mistaken about things before. The police should have been more careful, bearing that in mind. But I suppose the police can't win here either because if they don't take such claims seriously then they will be lambasted.

As for the BBC's involvement, so far as I can gather their mistake was not to check closely enough the so-called research done by the company who investigates on behalf of the Newsnight programme (the name of which escapes me just now). They didn't name McAlpine but apparently the programme managed to make the link even so, although I did not watch it and so I don't know how they achieved that. Twitter then just spread the word, as it does.

I'm not sure I agree that policitians are using this to have a go at the BBC although in some ways I think they should. Although consistently left wing in its reporting, the BBC is still the channel I trust the most and of course there is a wealth of other stuff the BBC do spectacularly well which I would hate to see lost as a result of this debacle. But I do think there needs to be a serious shake up among the management of the BBC. Too long it has been a club, and one which has been shown to be outragiously cavalier with taxpayers' money - the latest example being the pay off to Entwhistle of £450,000: a full one year's salary for failing to do anything right. That is just frankly immoral and all that kind of stuff needs challenging and changing. If that means interference by the present coalition government then so be it because after all the BBC IS financed in part by the taxpayer.

What are your views on Rebekah Brooks walking away from NI with a £7m bung?