Savile: the Blame Culture

[Gardian]

There was a thread on Savile that stalled 10 days ago: I'm not seeking to resurrect that.

It just seems to me that in this matter, as in so many others that absorb the media and all of us (because we can barely avoid them), that there's a desire to find an immediate scapegoat. Someone to take the can, someone who's to blame. In this case, a BBC producer's career is ruined, the DG is ripped apart very publically on TV, and plenty of others will end up being chastised for what they didn't do to prevent Savile's crimes.

I'm rambling a bit here, but I just feel that there's more emphasis being placed on people's possible / probable errors of judgement, than on the disgusting behaviour of that toe rag and others.

To me, whether Rippon was leaned on from above or simply decided to pull the programme himself, is irrelevent. It was a no-brainer: they had to either dump it or the Tribute programme, they couldn't run the two of them.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this is going to run and run. I hope that there'll be more emphasis on the truly blameworthy and I suspect that there'll be more famous names emerging in the coming days. They're probably already on the social websites.      

[NickP]

 Even more worrying, it was reported last night that there is a paedophile ring in the BBC. So don't worry about blame,  lets hope that the law clamps down on them and gets them into prison where they belong.

[Hoddy]

I absolutely agree Gardian.

The spectacle of newspapers which are still smarting from the scrutiny of the Leveson Enquiry enjoying the discomfiture of the BBC and the MPs on the the select committee enjoying their moment in the limelight is nauseating. At the moment they all seem to be in some sort of competition to see which of them can appear to be the most appalled.

I just hope some decent, quiet investigation into the allegations is gong on somewhere.

Hoddy

[Russethouse]

Hmmm - as far as being appalled is concerned I am far more concerned about goings on within the NHS where surely staff had a duty of care and the responsibility of protecting the vulnerable.

[Quillan]

I watched the DG's performance on BBC Parliament yesterday and I though it was OK. There are obviously things he can't talk about in public because there is a police investigation being carried out like for instance his vague answer on how many people were being investigated, don't want to close the gate after the horse has bolted etc.

There are many issues that need investigating and many more that need to be addressed by the BBC in particular. I feel at this juncture in time it would be very unfair to pressure the current DG to resign until all the investigations have been completed.

I don't think we need worry about a police cover-up this time as there are too many complaints and much press activity to ensure it doesn't happen.

[Russethouse]

Personally, I think all this concern that the DG was told about the Saville investigation at a party is a red herring, surely there are official channels to go through, and that was the way to go, not a 10 second conversation at a party

[Judith]

I dislike the fact that once again we have trial by media - be it the BBC or Savile, or ANO - they have all been judged OUTSIDE a court of law or a judicial inquiry, or criminal investigation.

I am not saying that all or none is true - just that the media trial so common now is just as distasteful as any crime which may (or may not) have been committed.

[NormanH]

I agree Judith. It may well be that he did awful things, but so far nothing has been established in  court of law.

The press seems to need witch-hunts either against other parts of the press, or against targets where 'knee-jerk reactions' can easily be provoked.

[YCCMB]

But I'm moved to think that, in this particular instance, the zeal with which the BBC is reporting every minor development as it unfolds is an attempt to (over)compensate for distinct lack of zeal demonstrated from within its own ranks over the preceding 4 decades or so.

[nomoss]

[quote user="Judith"]I dislike the fact that once again we have trial by media - be it the BBC or Savile, or ANO - they have all been judged OUTSIDE a court of law or a judicial inquiry, or criminal investigation.

I am not saying that all or none is true - just that the media trial so common now is just as distasteful as any crime which may (or may not) have been committed.
[/quote]

I lived briefly in the UK over 30 years ago, so I don't really know much about the country, but it looks to me that trial by the media has become the norm there. There always has to be a culprit.

When enquiries are set up, curiously?, they often seem to come down on the side of the most vociferous and outraged  minority.

I daren't mention that accident at the football game.

[Gardian]

[quote user="nomoss"]

I daren't mention that accident at the football game.

[/quote]

Indeed. This is an extremely sensitive one and I sincerely hope that I cause no offence when I suggest that the issue was not so much the terrible error of judgement (that allowed spectators in to the ground in an uncontrolled way), than the cover-up that took place afterwards. The first, a big mistake: the second, a crime.

Anyway, back to Savile. I'll bet that one or two of the (current) BBC people feel as though they're being treated as if they were the perpetrators of the paedophile offences. They probably feel it, but can't say it.   

[Hoddy]

I agree absolutely Gardian. We should be focussing on how we can change attitudes so that this kind of thing can't happen.

The victims are being forgotten while BBC executives are being pursued with barely disguised glee.

Hoddy

[Georgina]

You know there is no escape from being tried by the media, the media sure runs the country, but tried whilst you are dead, well that is taking it to extremes.  Also the BBC roll over backwards to any allegation that causes scandal, seeing as they are all scared of being a scapegoat and losing their jobs, they will not actually say that these are allegations - allegations are not convictions.

Well the law must have changed since I worked in England, allegations were known as just that.  I am absolutely gobsmacked that all this can come out when there is nobody to prosecute anymore. 

 I was a victim of a sex attacker (more than once) I know bad luck for me, but i know one thing, I was young, I was vulnerable and I made damn sure that bloke was sent to prison, whilst he was still alive!! Nothing in the world would have made me wait till he was dead despite having to face him directly as well.

It is easy to convict a dead person but so so very easy to convict the BBC bunch of pathetic pussys they are!!!

Now obviously no one is paying for Jimmy Saville's defence, they are having a field day.

[Quillan]

The thing is Georgina is that obviously somebody believed you which resulted in the evil person being convicted and sent to prison, for a long time I hope.

Now imagine if you can if you were not believed and not believed for many years, being told not to be so silly, the person was not capable of doing such a thing, even your own parents telling you such and what an evil little girl you were for even suggesting such a thing. Then, many years later, discovering that you were not the only one and there were other victims as well yet for all those years nobody believed you or them.

This is not about prosecuting Savile after his death, this is about the victims and them finally being believed, for them hopefully it will bring final closure and they will be able to finally move on just as you have. There is also the issue that he may not have acted alone and some of those that aided him in these terrible things are still alive and may possibly have continued till the present day. We also have the fact that there were several complaints to the police over the years about Savile and they were all shelved for 'insufficient evidence' i.e. they couldn't find anyone to substantiate what he had done, allegedly. This also needs to be investigated more thoroughly.

Whilst I do agree we should not have 'trial by media' the one good thing that may come out of it is that public opinion is so great now that the police will have to carry out a full and open, no holes barred, investigation and in doing so hopefully bring closure to his and his 'friends' victims.

Personally I don't care about him or his mates other than those that are still living get put in prison, what I do care for is the victims.

[mint]

Q, I must say that, in all the years of reading your posts, this is the best one ever [:)]

How well you have put your view!  Yes, I can now see the point of all these posthumous investigations.  Besides, who is out there still and should be brought to book?

[Quillan]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

Q, I must say that, in all the years of reading your posts, this is the best one ever [:)]

How well you have put your view!  Yes, I can now see the point of all these posthumous investigations.  Besides, who is out there still and should be brought to book?

[/quote]

Why thank you, that's quite a compliment.

I guess I feel more for the victims than I do for the people who do this things. Pedophilia and rape are in my book two of the most horrendous crimes, even worse in some cases than murder. I, like hopefully many men, am so 'cold' when it comes to the perpetrators of such crime because as a man I simply can't get my head round it at all. I don't understand it, the though of what it involves is truly alien to me, my head is simply empty if you understand what I mean. It's a bit bit like jumping off a cliff, I wouldn't think about it because it's not in my mind to ever consider doing such a thing and anyone who did must be absolutly crazy.

I once listened to about ten minutes of an interview with a little boy, I forget his age, that had been abused. Ten minutes and I had to stop, I just couldn't listen to a second more. I am not ashamed that I cried nor to I admit to having a few sleepless nights for a month or so after and when I hear these stories it brings some of it back. I can't possibly even start to imagine what it must be like for anyone to suffer abuse of this type. I asked Mrs 'Q' how she could possibly take such cases and her answer was simple, somebody has to prosecute these evil people for the victims sake if nothing else. I think she is very brave to have to listen to this both on tape and in the court then watch as the victim is told they made it all up didn't they because quite frankly I couldn't, I fear my actions would result in me being in prison for assault or worse.

This is why I think it is so important that there is a open and proper police investigation in to this, as I said it is for the victims and only for them. If on the other hand the police move a stone and find others underneath who were involved and are still alive I hope the full weight of the law will be applied.

Another thing I have a major problem about is those that knew, not just by gossip, by seeing and did nothing because they feared for their job. I am sorry but to my mind they are just as guilty, job or no job, there is no way if I saw something like this happen that I could keep quiet. I would have to speak out even if I lost my job.

[Renaud]

Who'd have thought it would be Simon Jenkins in the Grunidad who spoke most sense this week on Savile:

http://bit.ly/R1LSiG

[mint]

Thanks for the link, Renaud.

I couldn't write with the elegance of Simon Jenkins but I have always thought that the BBC is much too big, too unaccountable with diffuse and obscure lines of responsibility.

Furthermore, it's always done minute navel examination as a past-time.

The media, in general, always imagine that the public are more interested in their workings than they actually are: a case of trying to push their own agenda of establishing how important they are.

Indeed, the media are critically important in any society (why else do "rebels" always capture radio and TV stations first in any coup d'état?) but I believe that only "saddos" like me are interested enough in their workings to watch hours of TV er....talking about TV!

[Loiseau]

A breath of sanity from Jenkins. Thanks for the link, Gus.

Angela

[Georgina]

Wow Quillie, we are always poles apart.  If Saville had been convicted

and had a fair trial, I for one would be first in line to beat him black

and blue.  The facts are that he is not a convicted anything.  Anyone

in the public spotlight is subject to allsorts of allegations at some

time or another. Imagine trying to defend allegations against yourself

when you are dead.  First stone and all that. The fact is you can say anything about someone who is dead, and unless someone has the money and time to defend it for you, you have no chance.

If you are the victim of a sexual predator

you want only the perpetrator to suffer, not in this case, the charities,

his relatives, the BBC.  The original person who brought the charges

decided to drop them when he was alive, she was listened to.  She is not

interested in justice. The law has to listen, the police have no option

but to listen.  No one can decide, ah well, sorry I don't believe you.  

Even a sniff of this allegation would have ruined him, true or not

true.

There are many men that have had sexual allegations

against them and even though proved innocent had lost their jobs.   

My real point though is the British public CONVICTING someone a. without trial and

b:: who is DEAD.  That is not justice.

[Rabbie]

This thread has raised some interesting issues. Firstly is it right to accuse someone who is dead of committing offences that would if he was alive and convicted result in a prison sentence. It does seem that allegations against JS were made while he was alive and were not investigated properly. That IMO gives rise for concern and we should make sure that being a celebrity and a philanthropist does not prevent allegations from being swept under the carpet.

This short article in the Guardian outlines some of the dangers of the celebrity cult that is so prevalent in modern day Britain. It also seems that living celebrities who may have been involved in these abuses are getting plenty of warning to dispose of any incriminating evidence before they are investigated properly.

[NormanH]

In Arthur Miller's play the Crucible which on one level is about the witch-hunts in 17th century Salem in the USA, but which also refers to the McCarthy 'un-American Activities committee) there is the line

"is the accuser always holy now?"

One of the things that now seems to have become standard is to assume that accusations are automatically true,  and to drop the presumption of innocence as a principle.

This was also the case with the DSK allegations in New York.

There seem to be a huge amount of people who are ready to judge before any real evidence has been heard.

I am in no way condoning anything either of these men might have done, but I am also aware that people's lives have been destroyed by false accusations as well as by offences that have not been properly investigated, and I think the balance has swung  a bit too far.

Remember the case of Outreau 8 years ago in which there was a serious miscarriage of justice, in particular based on a witness who wasn't telling the truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial

[Quillan]

I think that this is not just about Savile, it is about the institutions he worked with and for, the people he associated with and those that allegedly witnessed him abusing children and of course the police.

What was it he had over the police for example as he famously said when running his club up north that if the police tried to close him down there wouldn't be a copper left in the local nick with what he had on them. That does not of course necessarily refer to any abuse, probably something else completely but isn't it strange that allegedly several times complains made about him abusing children were dropped, coincidence, we need to know. Alternativly they may have investigated properly and found the allegations not to be true, we just don't  know. But hey, accusations across eight different police forces and the only time anyone allegadly took noticed resulted in a senior police fficer being sent round to tell him to keep away from children. Now in what context was that said i.e. we reckon your guilty so in this case just a warning or we reckon your innocent but to stop being accused again keep away frm kids?

Thankfully the DPP is now investigating all the complaints that were made about him to the police which quite frankly I don't think would have happened if it were not for the press. Likewise the DG being interviewed by the MP's, it was not about him personally but about why a program was pulled and if others still living had been identified as possible abusers or knew and said nothing.

At the moment nobody actually knows what is true and what is not but there is no smoke without fire as they say and that is why it is so important that this be investigated , properly, thoroughly and openly which as sad as it would not have happened without the press.

You can still find proof after a person has died, you can't prosecute them or put them in prison but you can find the truth.

[Gardian]

[quote user="Georgina"] There are many men that have had sexual allegations against them and even though proved innocent had lost their jobs.   

My real point though is the British public CONVICTING someone a. without trial and b:: who is DEAD.  That is not justice.
[/quote]

Whilst accepting the general point you are making, I would suggest that the Savile situation is a bit different.

The police have revealed that they have received over 300 allegations of abuse by him. Some of those just may be seeing an opportunity for compensation, but whether its 10% or 90% of the cases that are genuine, that's a lot of people.

The evidence is overwhelming surely?  

[mint]

[quote user="Gardian"]

The evidence is overwhelming surely?  

[/quote]

Don't know about "overwhelming", Gardian and this IS the Daily Mail quoting the Sun [:-))]......even so....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223965/Caught-camera-Jimmy-Savile-gropes-terrified-teenage-girl-presents-Top-Of-The-Pops.html

I am in so much shock that I no longer know what to think until further findings are revealed and I'm not sure that it's possible to reveal everything at this late stage.