Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Savile and the BBC crisis


Guest Ed209

Recommended Posts

A grim topic I know, but this is surely the BBC's biggest ever crisis. Can't remember anything like this, except may be the sexed up dossier, but this is far wider reaching for the organisation itself

The fallout from this is going to massive, and its only just begun. Appears as though there were some seriously bad things going on at the BBC. I'm sure the Beeb will recover from this, but its in for a very tough time. And deservedly so. A watershed moment in their history for sure and will be a better organisation for it when it comes out the otherside. Can't see this ending any time soon. The press really have their teeth into this and so do the public. This is going to run and run.

Necrophilia claims the other day. Hospitals who did "charity" work at saying they allowed him unattended visits to the morgue.

Tabloids claiming this morning that there will multiple celebrity arrests in the coming days. Expect some big names to making the news shortly.

There will be good that comes out of this. All big organisations will be taking a long hard look at themselves, organisational changes will be made and child protection awareness will increase. There has been a massive increase in abuse victims coming forward as well.

Just a shame the piece of shit will never face his allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just hope that those in power at other institutions that placed Saville in positions where he could take advantage of vulnerable people get as much scrutiny and indignation as the BBC has received this week.

For me, some of the BBC-bashing is clouding the story.

It's highly unlikely the BBC as an organisation covered up what was going on (although there must be some individuals that did), but they are certainly guilty of ignorance.

If only all this had come to light while he was still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Anything that might have been going on at the BBC will have been going on at ITV too. The issue is one of deference to 'stars' and nothing to do with any single organisation, as the same problems at various NHS sites and schools gets to show.

It's also an issue of the culture at the time and the very different culture nowadays towards sexual abuse. Looking back 40 years and being shocked that there was sexual abuse is just like looking back 200 years to the time of slavery and being shocked that there was slavery. ;)

The print media are loving stirring it up, as tho that justifies them being w*nkers to celebrities - but they forget to mention that they never went after the good target of Savile. And they also fail to tell you is that every single one of them published words from Saviles own mouth where he admitted what he was doing. Savile even admitted it to Prince Charles in about 1990, and that convo with his admission was printed on one of the papers.

It is no major crisis of anything. There are a bunch of valid victims - but just as there is at all points in time - and the same old bollocks from the Murdoch press who want to convince everyone it's all the BBC's fault. It doesn't take a genius to realise why.

We will not get anywhere good towards stopping abuse via the hype and bollocks that is being spouted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that might have been going on at the BBC will have been going on at ITV too. The issue is one of deference to 'stars' and nothing to do with any single organisation, as the same problems at various NHS sites and schools gets to show.

It's also an issue of the culture at the time and the very different culture nowadays towards sexual abuse. Looking back 40 years and being shocked that there was sexual abuse is just like looking back 200 years to the time of slavery and being shocked that there was slavery. wink.png

The print media are loving stirring it up, as tho that justifies them being w*nkers to celebrities - but they forget to mention that they never went after the good target of Savile. And they also fail to tell you is that every single one of them published words from Saviles own mouth where he admitted what he was doing. Savile even admitted it to Prince Charles in about 1990, and that convo with his admission was printed on one of the papers.

It is no major crisis of anything. There are a bunch of valid victims - but just as there is at all points in time - and the same old bollocks from the Murdoch press who want to convince everyone it's all the BBC's fault. It doesn't take a genius to realise why.

We will not get anywhere good towards stopping abuse via the hype and bollocks that is being spouted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Bound to be so many people who knew and helped cover it up.

In 1975 there was an organisation freely operating - including adverts in the national press - called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

PIE members exchanged the names and addresses of easy victims between each other. It did eventually become a scandal but not a very big one.

That shows very clearly the culture of the time. Looking at it in today's terms tells you nothing useful, it merely allows people to hype it up into something it never was at the time (to anyone but the victims, anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that might have been going on at the BBC will have been going on at ITV too. The issue is one of deference to 'stars' and nothing to do with any single organisation, as the same problems at various NHS sites and schools gets to show.

It's also an issue of the culture at the time and the very different culture nowadays towards sexual abuse. Looking back 40 years and being shocked that there was sexual abuse is just like looking back 200 years to the time of slavery and being shocked that there was slavery. wink.png

The print media are loving stirring it up, as tho that justifies them being w*nkers to celebrities - but they forget to mention that they never went after the good target of Savile. And they also fail to tell you is that every single one of them published words from Saviles own mouth where he admitted what he was doing. Savile even admitted it to Prince Charles in about 1990, and that convo with his admission was printed on one of the papers.

It is no major crisis of anything. There are a bunch of valid victims - but just as there is at all points in time - and the same old bollocks from the Murdoch press who want to convince everyone it's all the BBC's fault. It doesn't take a genius to realise why.

We will not get anywhere good towards stopping abuse via the hype and bollocks that is being spouted.

Edited by Ed209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1975 there was an organisation freely operating - including adverts in the national press - called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

PIE members exchanged the names and addresses of easy victims between each other. It did eventually become a scandal but not a very big one.

That shows very clearly the culture of the time. Looking at it in today's terms tells you nothing useful, it merely allows people to hype it up into something it never was at the time (to anyone but the victims, anyway).

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Even if its the press going OTT on the BBC that doesn't stop it being any less of a crisis for the organisation.

It's not a crisis. It's history.

Someone might as well start a campaign against Barclays and Lloyds for having been slave traders.

And just because it was all too common in those times shouldn't be a reason to not consider this as serious as it actually was.

There's victims, and for those victims it's of course as serious as it gets. I have no problems with their anguish being considered in and dealt with within today's terms. I hope they get the help and support they need to get thru what is no doubt a very traumatic time for them - both at the time, and right now.

The perpetrators of those crimes and those covering it up are just as guilty of their crimes then as they would be now

Nope, completely wrong.

The laws are different now. But much more importantly, the public attitudes towards any similarities in laws then and now is absolutely massively different.

That's not me saying that their doings can be excused in any way, but that's me saying how it looks now is not how it looked at the time.

Today it is rightly considered to be everyone's duty to report any suspicion of abuse, but that wasn't the case back then. And particularly for a 'star' of Savile's stature, he would have been given the benefit of any doubt - as it appears that he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saville was doing no different in the 70s to what many rock stars were doing at the same time. I'm sure various members of various bands have admitted shagging underage groupies. Or at least not knowing whether they were 13, 16, or 21.

That 'fake' HIGNFY transcript has been doing the rounds on the Internet as long as I can remember using the Internet.

Edit after re-reading - I'm in no way condoning paedophilia (sp?) - just that Saville was by no means the only perpetrator.

Seems Ben Mitchell is up to no good in real life as well as in Walford...

Edited by TheGayTent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Saville was doing no different in the 70s to what many rock stars were doing at the same time. I'm sure various members of various bands have admitted shagging underage groupies. Or at least not knowing whether they were 13, 16, or 21.

yup. I think that John Peel's public admissions at various times thru his life gets to show how the attitudes have changed so very hugely. If having sex with 13 year olds had been considered in the past by the public in the same way as it's considered now he would never have become the 'music-culture hero' that he was.

That's not me saying that it was ever right, but it very definitely wasn't viewed by society as being as wrong as it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savile is not one of those endemic of the climate and attitudes towards sex at the time, his necrophiliac tendencies, and his liking for disabled sex, make him one of the UK's most prevalent sex offenders who used his position to prey on the vulnerable. What he was doing at the time - shagging corpses was not what many of the stars of the time were doing - if it was that's news to me.

534545_4608109042414_1912030235_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The press have decided it is one, and therefore it is one because the press are going to twist the knife until they get every last drop of blood out.

Only if people like you let them. I'm not letting them, so it's no crisis to me, and there's no crisis at the BBC to me.

The choice is to ride the media bandwagon, or to think for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't think it's the BBC's problem. It's not like Millwards Merchandising got any stick for their workforce is it? Remember Frank Bough, was that the BBC's fault? - no, it's the employees. You surely can't hold an employer at fault for the behaviour when 'off the job' of their employees. We start going down that route again and we'll got arrested for going to those hedonistic hippy festivals (again).

As Neil says his underage sexual proclavities were a symptom of the times, and pretty much the norm, we going to try every rockl star who got his end away with an underage groupie? Surely, we can't use our attitudes today to impinge on those 4 decades ago. As I said having a room in the morgue to say "special goodbyes" to the dead is a bit above and beyond that but it seems the BBC were not aware of that.

Surely the fact it was reported to the police in the late Seventies makes this one they should have handled, not his employers. In a worst case the Wests were reported to the police in the 1970's and the police did nothing but fine (yup fine them), who was culpible then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

well maybe its my age. I've never lived through a time when these things were acceptable ....

I'd have thought that you have, tho you might not have realised it. Then again, perhaps you're younger than I'd been thinking.

To try and illustrate the sorts of things that have changed massively, it wasn't illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with a pupil until somewhere around the mid-80s I think (it was certainly still permissible in the late 70s, a girl in the class of a friend at a Catholic school got knocked up by her teacher and he kept his job).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have thought that you have, tho you might not have realised it. Then again, perhaps you're younger than I'd been thinking.

To try and illustrate the sorts of things that have changed massively, it wasn't illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with a pupil until somewhere around the mid-80s I think (it was certainly still permissible in the late 70s, a girl in the class of a friend at a Catholic school got knocked up by her teacher and he kept his job).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup. I think that John Peel's public admissions at various times thru his life gets to show how the attitudes have changed so very hugely. If having sex with 13 year olds had been considered in the past by the public in the same way as it's considered now he would never have become the 'music-culture hero' that he was.

That's not me saying that it was ever right, but it very definitely wasn't viewed by society as being as wrong as it is today.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't this the best thing that can come out of this, that people still suffering as victims will be able to at least talk about it..?

one of things that baffles me is how people, some people, are saying that anyone who didn't speak up about it at the time is as bad as Savile (or anyone else who was doing it). Really...?

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...