What MPs should ask about Savile
Lest we forget, this is a scandal first and foremost about whether a BBC star was a predatory paedophile abusing his status to gain access to the most vulnerable young people in Britain for decades. It is about whether a culture of inaction, silence and failure by some at the BBC, the NHS and the police allowed Jimmy Savile to continue unchallenged despite long held suspicions and even complaints. But this week – partly thanks to the civil war in the BBC that has led to the release of emails and personal testimony – the focus is also about whether the corporation failed last year when it dropped an expose of Savile and ran a ghastly tribute programme within days.
The new Director General George Entwistle, who was head of vision at the time the story was dropped so had no formal power over BBC News, faces the culture, media and sport committee this morning but the MPs on it may find it a frustrating experience. He almost certainly will not know the answers to all their questions. Here’s some of what they need to ask :
What were the full editorial reasons for Newsnight’s decision to drop the investigation into Savile?
We still don’t know. As the BBC’s Chief Executive has he found out? Or asked Peter Rippon? Or is that all being left to the inquiry?
Was Newsnight directly pressured to drop the Savile investigation?
MPs will want to know what the Head of News Helen Boaden told George Entwistle about the Newsnight investigation? Did he have any inkling or suspicion that it was about sexual abuse? Did he express any view? Is he aware of anything Head and Deputy Head of News Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell or anyone else in senior positions said to the Newsnight editor Peter Rippon?
Watch the video: Paxman’s no comment on Newsnight editor
Was there indirect pressure on Newsnight to drop the investigation?
MPs will want to know whether George Entwistle reacted in any way to put indirect pressure on Helen Boaden or anyone else? Is he now aware of what was said to Newsnight’s editor about the investigation by senior executives inside or outside the news division? Was the Newsnight editor put under any indirect pressure by reinforcing the high stakes of getting this one either right or wrong?
Why did the BBC run a tribute programme when there had been an investigation into Savile?
What reaction did George Entwistle have to what Helen Boaden told him about the Newsnight investigation? Did he not have any concerns about what Newsnight had been looking into, and whether it might affect the wisdom of a tribute programme? If not, why not? Should the news division have told the BBC executive board what the investigation had been about after it had been dropped, given the sensitivity of the allegation, so it could decide what to do about the tribute?
Did the BBC have a duty to investigate the claims further, even if the story was not strong enough to transmit at that time?
As a former producer and editor on Newsnight George Entwistle knows that stories that are not strong enough for transmission, or not legally watertight, or not satisfactorily proven may still be true or worth checking. Was it normal to drop a story and do nothing more? Given the exceptional nature of the story should those who knew what the allegations were have taken it further? Should the police have been informed? Was this discussed by the BBC executive board after it was told the Newsnight investigation had been dropped? If not, why not?
Why were inaccurate statements on the BBC website about the dropping of the investigation by the Editor of Newsnight allowed to go uncorrected for so long, and repeated by other BBC executives in answer to questions?
Did Liz Mackean and Meirion Jones contact Mr Entwistle or any other executive to raise their objections to what Peter Rippon had said on his blog? What was done about it?
Why were the concerns of the Newsnight team about public statements made by the BBC not addressed more quickly?
How did the DG react to Meirion Jones’ email saying his emailed statement to staff that the investigation was about the police investigation, rather than Savile being a paedophile, was wrong? Why wasn’t it corrected straight away?
Should BBC executives in future ask more questions?
It is the old dilemma: Was it cover-up or cock-up? The suggestion of cover-up demands that there are people who would suppress a story of terrible abuse and wrecked lives to save either a Christmas tribute programme, the reputation of Jimmy Savile or the reputation of the BBC. But none of the people involved in these decisions were involved in Jimmy Savile’s time at the BBC – for them there would have been no personal shame in exposing what went so badly wrong in the 1970s and 1980s. It doesn’t quite make sense. It would be a hard cynic who questioned the sincerity of George Entwistle’s televised reaction to the Savile allegations and apology to the alleged victims on behalf of the BBC.
The cock-up theory is more simple to imagine : that Newsnight’s Editor Peter Rippon took a decision to drop the story for a combination of flawed reasons, that various senior executives didn’t ask enough questions, didn’t realise the implications of the scandal, didn’t understand they had a duty to pursue such allegations beyond whether or not they made it onto the airwaves, and didn’t quite get to grips with what had happened quickly enough after ITV broke the story.
So far the BBC’s position has been that the Newsnight Editor Peter Rippon took an honest decision to drop the story for what he thought were sound editorial reasons. MPs tomorrow should ask George Entwistle whether he still thinks that. And when it comes to Peter Rippon did anyone in a senior position at the BBC, as Jeremy Paxman famously once asked of another scandal, “threaten to overrule him?”.
You can follow Krishnan on Twitter @krishgm
There are 13 comments on this post
Interestingly, Savile was obviously a subject of considerable gossip in the early 1990s. I was watching a CD of “Drop the Dead Donkey” from October 1991 where a reference is made to him, admittedly in a throw-away line, but the context would indicate that there were plenty of seedy rumours going around about him. It seems very odd that no-one was ever prepared to follow any of it up.
The danger is that this becomes focused as merely a ‘BBC problem’, and thus enables the rest of the 40-year cover-up to remain in place.
Truth is, Savile was not alone and he operated in spheres which guaranteed protection from exposure because of what/whom he knew. If the current investigation opens up all that expansive can of worms, there will be far more embarrassment in far more establishment places than the relative gnat-bite the BBC is currently enduring as the (hopefully) temporary initial focus.
That said, George Entwistle, DG, looks like a man with a great future behind him.
I too share your concerns about the apparent shift away from saville`s role over the years and just who he had access to,the BBC looks like the usual stall and bluff tactics we`ve come to expect from all major corporations.I was speaking to a woman today who was a regular pilgrim to lourdes,she went as a helper.Saville helped fundraise and was a regular pilgrim helper on many occasions,he was never present on any trips she had been on but is really upset at the thought of Saville having access to thee most vulnerable of children,those seeking a miracle cure.This took place in scotland,lourdes pilgrimages are organised all over the country.The head of the Catholic church in Scotland Cardinal Keith o¬Brien devoted a full frontpage eulogy to Saville ,4th November ,following Saville`s death in the Scottish Catholic Observer,specifically praising Saville`s fundraising for Lourdes and the practical help he gave.Major questions to be answered there and dare we think the unthinkable here?Oh dear.
On the few occasions I saw Jimmy Savile i was appalled and disgusted by his manner attitude and demeanour. I could not understand how he could be so popular. He oozed offensiveness but his skill as an entertainer presumably gave him a great following . He hogged the limelight by his exaggeration of the norm and his giving to charity.
Comedy is so often manifested by exaggeration of some of the seamier sides of life. In his case he craved the limelight and achieved it. Why his unethical behaviour was not investigated is I think very much a sign of the times Pop culture was full of excesses, sex ,drugs violence etc. But the recent cover up is appalling. Why was it covered up for so long.? Ratings maybe played a part.
I agree totally with Mudplugger. Just how many MPs and others who lived in Dolphin Square attended Savile’s parties? I know that some lived there for years. It is inconceivable that none of them got involved in some way.
This is a matter for the police not the BBC – providing police officers are not themselves involved!
And what a BBC we pay for! Patten says that the BBC is independent. Recently we have seen how they advised people to work through Limited Liability Companies to avoid tax and NI. We now have the Savile affair and it is clear that they have no regard for spending our money
In the private sector they would get sacked – with no compensation
It is time that managers who are responsible are publicly brought to account for their actions
Another sickening example that once again the great British press are standing on a platform of indignation about the Savile scandal, when their reporters chose to ignore the same rumours and not investigate. The same thing happened with Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch. They have no balls to stand up to the rich and/or powerful, but as soon as something is uncovered, then they can’t wait to jump on the bandwagon.
MPs need to press for full explanation of why Savile was appointed, by Edwina Currie, to the board of Broadmoor top-security hospital? Is this the most egregious example to date of politico/sleb cosying-up?
Re Peter Rippon’s dropping Newsnight story ‘stone-dead’: seems to me he either (agreed to be) sat on or ran scared of the implications of broadcasting the programme. Though his ‘it’s only the girls’ comment has rightly become a twitter hash-tag – betraying as it does the same mind-set towards young females today as it did in the ’70s – this sounds like a (desperately ill-judged) excuse, as the programme’s reporter, the outstanding Liz MacKean, has already commented. Ben Bradshaw MP, member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, was correct to ask for a denial that a (financial) deal had been done with Rippon inside the BBC to ensure that the enquiry-buck stops with him.
Tangentially – delighted that Sarah Smith, C4 business correspondent, quoted some of BBC bosses’ (taxpayer-subsidised) salaries on news yesterday. They also receive handsome partly publicly funded pensions. Time to review all top public-official pay, methinks.
Channel 4, I am very disappointed and will never believe your story again!!!
Well, it was interesting to see the research conducted by the Channel 4 team when again berating the management of A4e contradictory and probably immoral and illegal, was factually incorrect.
Having worked for this organisation before I have to say they are not my favorite organisation, but to see the factually incorrect and derogatory assumptions publicised on prime time TV is abhorrent.
Working within the Work Program framework, I fully understand that the “Outcome” relates to those jobseekers who have found work and remained in employment for either 3 or 6 months (A fact which in fact is at the very beginning of the new report and contradicts most salient “Facts” thereafter).
What this does not relate to is those people who have moved into work and have not yet reached the outcome stage, which 15 months into the contract could easily reach into many tens of thousands.
The manner in which Krishnan attacked a business leader in an uninformed and uneducated manner has angered both myself, my partner and our colleagues as this has highlighted the ammatueristic, sensationalist nature of the modern day channel 4 team.
Many references were made to A4E gaining work programme funding this year for £40million+ and then being contradicted by stating the work programme was payment by results. If A4e had amassed £40million+ in two years on a payment by results basis this would make them one of the most successful UK companies there were.
The fact is that the financial allocation is for the contract term, on payments by results basis, and not a payment up front, another fact that channel 4 got monumentally wrong.
To conclude, I used to respect Channel 4 for their “Journalistic Integrity” and thought A4e had become a Corporate Monster, when in fact I think the opposite is true.
Please Channel 4, ask A4e how many people they have moved into work and do the right thing and broadcast this along with your apology and retraction for todays farce!!!
Did any M.P. ever get approached by a constituent with a complaint about Savile or his ilk? If so, what did they do about it?
Are there more TV employees – or what some named TV stars, behaving in the same way that JS did???
Not sold a year from now this enquiry will make any difference. Think the whole media coverage so far has had more heat than light. Not convinced that when the heat is off anyone abused will get any better treatment from the system than now.
Was Savile mentally ill?. Perhaps his charity work was a bizarre Catholic effort at atonement? Victims are treated as a nonpersons and their treatment needs revision, especially in court. That is why it took his death and the fact they’d be no court case, for these people to speak out. What MPs should ask for is access to his medical records. Was his behaviour that of a cannibis abuser or a mentally ill person??
It’s no good leaving it to MPs to ask questions as anyone reading numerous blog spots and other websites will realise that the political ‘elite’ and judiciary are heavily involved themselves. Google it – this trail goes back years. Some of the stories may sound too horrifying and outlandish to be true but there is no smoke without fire and those in power have been shown time and again in other scandals to protect themselves and get away with things that the rest of us mere mortals cannot.
Only decent and brave investigative journalism and victims prepared to give evidence publicly will break this establishment ring and then it won’t be easy and may take a long time. Many people are scared to lose their job, reputation or (if claims are true) their lives. But it could be done. Those involved who are still alive no doubt still indulge in their sick activities and once they have suppressed this latest media expose they will quietly return to abusing. Others will know, photographic evidence that backs up victims claims can be obtained, more victims will come forward.
Even after the outrage that so many people knew about Savile and did nothing we are still seeing the criminals protected and the victims suffer. Already the establishment is busy diverting attention to what the BBC or NHS did or didn’t do and we are sucked into that argument instead of digging deeper to the real issues here.
Disappointed that the bottom line of the Jimmy Savile item tonight was that ‘everyone was fooled’ by him and that a nation was ‘hoodwinked’. This right on the heels of evidence showing there was a culture of deliberate complicity, cover-ups and blackmail. It exposes a rotten system, not one lone genius confidence mastermind. As long as you keep selling the latter idea some element of that complicity continues.