The Beeb’s self-inflicted wound

24 October 2012

And so the Savile stuff rumbles on with George Entwistle’s singularly unimpressive performance before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It still seems to me that the bosses are being evasive over the issue of pressure applied, or otherwise, to the Newsnight editor Peter Rippon. Someone is hiding something, I think.

But this whole catastrophe need not have occurred. There is no great crime in a senior manager quizzing a programme editor about a controversial investigation. There is no crime at all in a programme editor deciding not to run a story because he has doubts about it. And I take issue with the Times today which says that forcing Newsnight to treat Savile as if he were still alive (and thus require a much higher burden of proof) was wrong: quite the reverse, it seems to me morally right. The tailspin, howl-round or goat-f***, call it what you will, has been occasioned by the evasions. Which has in turn been occasioned by the BBC’s terror of the press.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice blog.

  • Austin Barry

    I have only, knowingly, met one person who worked at the BBC. It was forty years ago on the overnight train from London to Inverness, when somewhere near Rannoch Moor the Beeb’s food critic and chief voice-over man, drunk and wheedling, made an unsuccessful attempt to importune this callow youth in climbing boots. So plus ça change, then.

  • Andy Gill

    The BBC deserves a good kicking over this. It’s smug, lefty, out of touch with ordinary people and a law unto itself. A good dose of opprobrium from the general public will do it a world of good.

  • blindsticks

    The BBC’s terror of the press? I wouldnt have thought so. If anything they seem to thrive smug on being everyone’s favourite punchbag. Well they wont be able to smug their way out of this lot – will they. The bastards.

  • Swanky for Romney

    Weird. The Coffeehouse Wall was suspended because apparently it was too difficult to ‘moderate’ it. (By what standards, was never explained.) And yet we have a commenter here that swears and curses and can’t be civil, and is very much ad-hominem. Does the Spectator have no moderation policy? I think there is too much censorship on The Telegraph’s blogs, but I do support a certain level of civility, and I know, based on its admittedly trigger-happy record that the Telegraph would have yanked a comment on this page as needlessly aggressive.

    • Eddie

      Yes, I agree. We have a poster here (Sarah) who libels and slanders other posters, accusing them of rape, child abuse racial hatred and much else besides.

      But let’s not ban here eh? Free speech allows morons to hoist themselves by their own petards.

      Please do try not to be so American-puritan eh? Open debate in the UK is not anti-septic as in the US.

  • Jez

    Don’t some insects also rip the heads of their partners and shit (or something) down their throats once their usefulness is over.
    These liberal media publications seem to be quite similar this last 24 months

  • statman

    Tha awful creepy Saville is disproportionately focused upon when the real problem is the sexualisation of children and young teens by porn,rap,pop music,films and TV.The disastrous witches brew is mediated by the left and destroys large numbers of young people hence the rates of teen VD,teen pregnancies,etc. and children with no childhood.If people really care about young people that’s what they need to focus on.

    • William Reid Boyd

      I think that’s right (also Melanie Phillips’ view).

      I also think it’s increasingly the view of the British public, which the BBC patronises but does not know because it is essentially elitist. I suggest it took the British public about 10 seconds of watching Karin Ward’s account of her abuse by Savile to finally understand what in truth it had long suspected, that Savile was an abuser. It’s remarkable how quickly and how completely public opinion turned against Savile.

      But not at the BBC. It’s out of touch.

    • Eddie

      I agree but wouldn’t blame the left for that – it’s our society generally, heavily influenced by the US rap culture.
      But I would agree that it is leftie British feminists (apeing their US cousins) who seem to that that girls have the right to dress up as whores and be drunken slags – in what in the Savile case is called the ‘childhood’ years.
      Also, evidence shows that girls who grow up in families with no fathers start puberty earlier and are moire promiscuous and at an earlier age too.
      And the biggest opportunity for those who want to fiddle with kids is our epidemic of single mother families, where women have a succession of boyfriends who have access to the children of another man. The rate of child abuse is at least 5 times higher in step families too.
      It would be good if people mentioned these issues sometimes: the left’s policies create the context where abuse is more likely to happen, true.

      • Baron

        you see, Eddie, you can make sensible points without barking, except perhaps that it wassn’t the American rap culture alone, or your favorite target, the horde of feminists, perhaps it was more the insidious forces of the Marxism infected intellectual elites, the Gramscis,the Hobsbawms,the Alinskis that bestowed respectability on the post war convulsions of the young generation, told them it was OK to disrespect their fathers, shag on demand, break the law in the name of some future nirvana, this and the strong economic growth that allowed the same ‘revolutionaries’ to just sit on their arses, smoke dope, revolt but collect the giro cheques each week…..

    • Daniel Maris

      Let’s not get carried away. The age of consent used to be 13 under the Victorians. If many ways modern society does protect children from sexualisation. Pre-porn, we had Jerry Lee Lewis over here with his wife (his 13 yeard old cousin). There are problems of course but there is progress as well.

      • Fergus Pickering

        You seem to empathise with child molester Jimmy Saville, fellow traveller perhaps ?

  • Sarah

    My friend got groped by him when she was a young teen. She announced to me the other day. She has no intention of reporting it. And I know I believe her. Case closed.

    • WoodstockWastrel

      Is that the new badge of honour amongst fat lesbo socialist women of a certain age?

      • Sarah

        And you two twats are the reason she has no intention of reporting it.

        • Eddie

          Sarah: fuck off.
          No, I am no-one else here is responsible for your friend being groped, actually. And yes, women DO wear their ‘abuse’ badges as rosettes of honour these days – the thing is, I just don’t believe many women’s sob stories and always want to hear the man’s side. Women can be the most awful maniulative devious liars, y’know.
          You Sarah and other feminasty manhaters like yoiu ARE responsible for devaluing the words ‘rape’ and ‘abuse’ – a crying wolf strategy that ultimately has led to rapes and abuses being unpunished.
          Your friend was a teenager, went to a party, go a bit pissed, started snogging with a boy who then touched her breast. That is NOT a crime and that is NOT groping – and ,most women (and all sane ones) would realise, especially the mothers. I am sure mums do not want their sons struggling with growing up jailed just because they touched some girl’s bra-strap!
          GROW UP SARAH! Women are REALLY not always the victims!

        • Eddie

          Errr…I seem to remember feminists getting very angry and hysterical when David Cameron referred to some persons as ‘twats’.

          Tut tut!

          Sarah, you have sinned – so please say three Hail Germanes and beg forgiveness from the big fat earth mother Dworkin for your appropriation women’s reproductive organs as terms of abuse.

        • WoodstockWastrel

          She should report it Sarah, She could be in the running for some compo.

          • Eddie

            Oh yeah! I was horribly abused by Jimmy Saville too. I had nightmares after watching Jim’ll Fix it – some awful albino northerner was hiding under my bed. I was traumatised and abused. That is why I got a B and not an A in O-level Maths – and that has traumatised me further, and ruined my life boo hoo hoo!

            Now the now then – give me the compo, pal! £32000 is the going rate, I believe.
            The money is of course not important or the issue (……..) – it’s the principle that matters! One worth £32k – as it ‘appens!

    • Eddie

      Most young teens of both sexes get groped – it’s called life, love. Not abuse. Teenagers growing up and making mistakes. You assume the male who ‘groped’ your friend (probably an imaginery one eh?) is guilty; well, maybe your ‘friend’ came onto a boy her age after school, and he understandably reached out to her, and was then utterly baffled when the mental girl who’d been teasing his prick had then run off squealing…
      But then silly manhating bints never seem to realise that there are two sides to every story and your ‘friend’s’ story is incomplete without hearing the opinion of the male she has accused. We should all know better than to trust anyone’s word for it, especially women craving victimhood and sympathy.
      Women do often lie: look at child custody cases! This deception and manipulation has always been central to female power, and still is: look at the way girls bully each other (and girls are always the worst and most bitchy evil bullies).
      Though someone like you sees all females as victims and all males as rapists eh?
      I could also cite a woman teacher at my primary school who enjoyed inflicting emotional abuse on 10 year old (the evil menopausal witch), and plenty of people I know remember being slapped by their mothers – which would count as child abuse too.

    • Robert Taggart

      Lucky for Jimmy it was not you – Sarah !

  • David Lindsay

    Peter Rippon was right.

    Exposing Jimmy Savile was a story. But it was arguably not a BBC story. And it was certainly not a Newsnight story. This is simply not the sort of thing that Newsnight, like the Today programme, is for.

    Would Liz McKean or Meirion Jones have been in breach of contract if they had made this a freelance contribution to The Sun or the Daily Mail? And even if so, would anyone have dared to pursue the matter against them?

  • Baron

    Not broad enough, deep enough, hard hitting enough take on it, young Liddle.

    Look, anyone watching either the Panorama’s exposure, the earlier ITV stab, the succession of Newsnights with the bemused Paxman cannot but figure that what’s wrong with the BBC is its culture, and the culture is in large part nourished by the license fee. Those outside the excellent artistic cum production side, the BBC managerial layers nurtured in this tightly knit, insular environment for most of their careers have figured their mouth watering monthly salary checks, pensions and stuff are there for the taking provided they avoid risk, in particular risks that may endanger the license fee backed sinecures.

    As Sir Jimmy’s abuse grew, dealing with it, reporting it to the police, would have at best created uncertainty for those who knew, at worst it would have led to their being kicked out. Hence they not only did nothing but, Baron suspects, they may have had a finger or more in stopping anyone outside the BBC, to whom Jimmy’s abuse got reported, to pursue it further. They had that influence if Max Hastings’s story that he was resigned to sign a letter he disagreed with after pressure from the BBC. If Max Hastings backpedaled, what chance did any of the abused girls, the social service personnel, even the police had?

    It may smell of revenge, (Baron backed the lot of the Old Australian but onlyfor the sake of strong competition to the BBC), but the time may be right to scrap the license fee, cut the behemoth to size. The BBC is the world largest broadcasting company. Why? By population size, we aren’t anywhere near the US, india, China. Its £5bn plus annual budget enables he BBC to dominate virtually every news delivery platform, old and new. Its influence iss largely uncontrollable, its social engineering unwarranted, it has never received a popular mandate for it.

    we should do the decent thing and relieve the unwashed of the BBC compulsory tax, the current chairman may transfer somewhere else like Brussels, another monstrosity that needs cutting to size or closing downm.


      Whistleblowers in the public sector, including the police, are often contractually forbidden to, well, blow the whistle – remember the school dinner lady sacked for telling parents that their daughter had been bullied and bound with rope?
      As for the BBC, even those, like Oborne in the DT, who criticize it, still perpetuate this myth of a great national institution that’s just gone off the rails. I think, like all left wing organisations, it speaks with forked tongue! But it has been demonstrably pro-appeasement in the Thirties, the sainted Lord Reith expressing his personal support for the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, they were pro-IRA, anti-Thatcher, pro-New Labour, have concluded that Global Warming is as the left say it is, that the EU is a good thing so won’t debate it, and tell us day in day out how awful The Cuts are, forgetting to mention that actually in real terms, there aren’t any.
      They are only independent in the sense that Pravda and Tass were independent. I threw my TV away 10 years ago, haven’t missed it one bit, and get a ridiculously disproportionate pleasure in my less than helpful dealings with TV Licensing!

    • Swanky for Romney

      Well said, Baron.

      • Baron

        Swanky, you too generous, forgiving the many mistakes of syntax, grammar. It’s no excuse for Baron to make them except he has poor command of the language, even less time to write, he hits the keyboard in haste, never checks what hehas typed, typical of the poorly educated Slav, you see.

        • Swanky for Romney

          All inessentials, Baron. It’s the decent heart and working brain that count.

          • Eddie

            Oh really?
            But then there you were just criticising one small typo in my post and saying that made it unintelligible!
            You seem confused, Amanda!
            And with the same double standards as a US courtroom judge (I am the black man here whose type is a jail-able offence; when one of your croneys makes more typos, they are forgiven!)
            US justice in a nutshell really. Utter hypocrisy!

            • Baron

              you jealous or what, Eddie, ha,ha, ha

              It should teach you a lesson, give up on the rothveiling here and there, you may be forgiven, too, here and there.

              • Eddie

                Nope – not jealous (I most certainly do not consider Amanda to be mine to lose, Baron, thank fuggly!); I am merely identifying hypcocrisy as per usual.

                If one is to critcise typos (which is silly anyway on a message board) then fine, but if a poster then tells another poster that typos don’t matter, then that poster have proved themselves a hypocrite, a liar and a prat. Ha ha ha indeed!

                The US justice system works on similar barmy lines – 98% of people plea-bargain because the odds are so stacked against innocent people pleading not guilty. Maybe that’s wher Amanda got her fuzzy logic from eh?

  • fitzfitz

    The elephant still in the salone is that the Mail, Sun etcetera knew the Savile situation for years yet failed to act …

    • Eddie

      Any evidence for that? If the Mail, Sun etc knew then also the other papers new, and the TV companies.
      I also happen to know that The Guardian etc knew about the Muslim gangs raping and abusing young girls in the north of England for years – but would never run a story which showed ethnic and religious minorities as NOT enriching our diverse society. Ditto with ‘honour’ killings.
      You have to understand that rumours and gossip in medialand do not have the sort of partisan political loyalty that you exhibit: certain rumours are known about certain people – for example, I knew Mandelson was gay a decade before the news story broke. If one hack on a national paper knows, then many others on other papers know – including the broadsheets hacks who see themselves as so superior to the tabloids, yet who feed off the same gossip and celebrity culture and report it to sell their own rags, thus encouraging more of it.
      And I won’t even mention the Duke of Edinburgh…

  • mikewaller

    Liddle’s view is so much tosh. Those on Monday’s Panorama programme who claim to have been abused struck me as very plausible and it seems that there were others who told similarly consistent stories who would not come forward when he was alive because they were afraid of being torn apart by the kind of top-notch hired gun (= barrister) that Savile would unquestionably have retained. With him in the grave, the choice now lies between a dead man who may be innocent being traduced, or living people who may have suffered appallingly at his hands again being told to shut up. Here, I think, the balance of probability has to apply and that weighs very heavily against Savile.

    As to the BBC staff involved, I think Entwistle, Boaden and Rippon should go now. I say this for two reasons. First, the BBC’s reputation for fearlessly reporting the truth counts for infinitely more than its reputation for putting on successful Christmas Specials and they seem to have got this back to front. Second, regarding Boaden, readers of the yesterday’s Daily Mail (my mother-in-law’s paper!!!!!!!) will know that according to Max Hastings, she bullied him (though shame on MH) into to apologising for having described Ian Paisley’s role in the early years of the most recent troubles in deeply unfavourable terms. This in spite of the facts that he had said much the same elsewhere without challenge and he still stands by this view. The upshot was that Paisley got about £35,000 of licence fee funds. Seemingly, with both Savile and Paisley, the Beeb’s motto has been “anything to avoid trouble”, not my idea of a fearless protector of the truth..

  • Wilhelm

    Meanwhile in the parallel universe that is the BBC. Over on Radio 5. Shelagh Fogarty was discussing the badger cull. The Drive Time show Johnathan Overend and Louise Minchin ( a couple of donuts ) was talking about their favourite subject ” waayscism ” in football. God, it’s mind numbingly tiresome.

    And Richard Bacon ( not the sharpest knife in the drawer ) is bewildered why people think the BBC is a sinister leftwing organization.

    • mikewaller

      I think that it stands for human decency and that it why the Savile affair is so deeply depressing.

  • Wilhelm

    MPs Select Committee ” Why didn’t you ask the producer of Newsnight why they were investigating Jimmy Saville ? ”

    George Entwhistle ” I dunno.”

    Does anyone buy that line ? It was like pulling teeth. A 3 year old child could come up with a better excuse.

  • William Reid Boyd

    Like you Rod, I think someone is hiding something and I don’t discount at all the possibility that actually there was collusion in Savile’s abuse. Frankly that seems to me the most reasonable hypothesis.

    But assuming it’s as the BBC claims, them I am struck by the nature of its decision-making process. I can’t think of a word, but it’s actually the opposite of ‘bureaucractic’ as I understand it, a system designed to ensure no individual amasses too much power.

    If Peter Rippon had misgivings about broadcasting the program, was he as producer really the only individual with any input in the decision to cut it? Really never (as must be the case if we are to believe the BBC account) discussed his misgivings with his production team? Never ever sought to get the advice of a superior?

    It is scarcely credible to me that Rippon acted alone, any more that the head of television broadcasting at the time, George Entwistle, was not informed and disinclined to learn more. There have always been rumours about Savile’s sexuality. His obituaries routinely mentioned that he deflected these rumours with the implausible assertion that he disliked children. Of course Entwistle must have pricked up his ears when he got that 10 second heads-up we do know about: “oh god, not his paedophilia” surely the thought that crossed his mind.

    Really, when we the public are invited to accept the BBC version of events, what they are basically asking us to do is indulge the same sort of blinkered indifference they themselves must have indulged over Savile on the most charitable view of their conduct.

    The whole thing stinks of decay and corruption.

  • Frank P

    Betcha wish you hadn’t appeared on Newsnight last night, Rod. It didn’t work, did it?
    And the best way to lose weight is buy a bigger suit, when you get to a ‘certain age.’

    • WoodstockWastrel

      oooh er

    • William Reid Boyd

      Looked at it on iPlayer (time lapsed, honest). Struck me as asking the right questions. Suit was fine :).

      But we’ve heard from Mark Thompson now and Wilhelm’s child of 3 below can now indeed fathom what actually happened behind the scenes.

      Heads had better roll.

    • Baron

      Frank P, sir, everything in this world is relative, and on that basis even you must admit young Liddle looked remarkably slim compared to the colorfully dressed lady who wanted more laws, watchers and such like if the money can be squeezed from those who still have some.

      • Frank P

        Very true, but a stitch in time saves nine and last time I clapped eyes on Rod (not all that long ago) he was sylphlike by comparison. It creeps up on you. Just sayin’. A bigger whistle can be a stop gap, particularly if one volunteers to sit on those daft seats Newsnight provides.

    • Swanky for Romney

      If you were a woman they’d be saying ‘miaow’. It’s always fun when men are bitchy.

  • Baron

    A silver lining in the sad story?

    Chris Patten was in charge of Hong Kong, Hong Kong has gone. Then in charge of the RUC, the RUC has gone.

    If things do really go in threes, tomorrow….

    • WoodstockWastrel

      He couldn’t really have done much about Hong Kong Baron- a deal is a deal fair and square.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Just shows how much you don’t know. The Chinese communists asserted that the treaties were invalid but 1997 was as good a date as any to regain sovereignty. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon peninsular were ceded to Britain in perpetuity, whereas only Kowloon north of Boundary Street and the New Territories were subject to the 1997 treaty date. Of course Britain failed to exploit these subtleties.

        But you are correct in as much as Britain had already caved in to the PRC, the architects of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, eager as ever to divest herself of anything worthwhile. Fat Pang had the job of scraping as much democracy as possible for the abandoned territory and its people before the Reds took over.

        • Belisarius2

          As always, the Foreign Office acted in their usual role of looking after the interests of Foreigners. But to recommend handing over the free people of Hongkong+Kowloon to one of the most repulsive regimes in world history was taking this misunderstanding too far, even by their contemptible standards.

          • Swanky for Romney

            What should they have done, though? Start a war over it?

        • Stephen Hedges

          You simply couldn’t divide Kowloon and the New Territories along Boundary St by the 1980s-even the British Forces quarters straddled it.
          The fact that most of Hong Kong’s water was supplied from China also slightly weakened our negotiating position, would you say?

          • Colonel Mustard

            Yes, of course, there is always a logical case for craven surrender.

            • Stephen Hedges

              That was Singapore 1942….

              • Colonel Mustard

                No, Singapore was surrendered after putting up a fight. I wouldn’t call it “craven” or based on a logical case even though there were many blunders and in the final days Yamashita was bluffing. There is no comparison with Hong Kong where a successful, self-contained, self-developed territory and society whose very existence was due to Britain was simply handed over to a communist regime (largely on its own terms) that had recently demonstrated its totalitarian brutality. That was craven.

                And of course, being Britain, there was no shortage of wise, reasoned arguments as to why it was quite impossible to entrench or negotiate anything other than capitulation. That gentlemanly capacity to always see, if not prefer, the other chap’s side is what will do for us eventually.

                • Stephen Hedges

                  I wasn’t aware Yamashita might have been bluffing. Sweeping through the Malay peninsula, reaching Johor about 2 weeks after landing in Kelantan sounds a pretty convincing bluff to me. We’ve no way of knowing the truth but a little while ago at lunch in Hougang I heard the Singaporean version. Call it hearsay if you like, but it was suggested to me that the British troops in Malaya just ran for their lives from the approaching Japanese.Probably our greatest military disaster in 500 years even though I am aware we had no heavy armour or air cover.

                  The handover back to China was agreed before Tiananmen square, so what could we do about it? In this case capitulation really was the only viable option. I think it’s best to forget that and take pride from our achievement in turning Palmerston’s ‘barren rock’ into one of the world’s richest and most vibrant cities. A suitable epitaph to a glorious imperial history.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You need to do a bit more reading about it then. Even Yamashita admitted to his endgame bluff before they hanged him. At the surrender table he was almost out of ammunition and supplies as well as badly outnumbered. His LoC were stretched and his troops close to starving. His eastern offensive stratagem at the Straits that wrong-footed the island defence was continuously driving lorries backwards and forwards with headlights on out and off back in to give the impression of a huge movement of troops. And it was the knowledge of his true situation that made him bang the table in frustration and “bully” Percival who visibly blanched.

                  Also your hearsay is rather offensive to those who died fighting in the many battles down through Malaya. Unlike your hearsay I have actually talked with those who were there and who fought, including Japanese, Malay and Chinese participants.

                  Somehow your last opinionated paragraph about Hong Kong manages to sum up the wretchedness of it all. You and people like you perfectly represent that epitaph.

                • Stephen Hedges

                  I think you’d be well advised to stop ignoring inconvenient truths whilst quoting a few other ‘facts’ for which you have no evidence. You state the Japanese were almost out of ammunition and supplies which puts them in the same situation as the the Commonwealth troops in Singapore. Whilst you state a few ‘facts’ you’ve mostly quoted from various internet sites you don’t seem to have applied much thought to any of it. The Japanese had the whole of Malaya under their control by then so it would have been much easier to feed their army than our troops stuck on a tiny island like Singapore. Where on earth would they get more food?

                  If you’ve really spoken to any Singaporean Chinese then they would have been very disparaging indeed about our military efforts there. They trusted us to defend them. They knew what would be their fate if the Japanese took over. They felt totally let down and never forgave us. As to the Malays they just stood aside whilst the invading army swept through the land about which they are so patriotic nowadays. Most accounts suggest many supported the Japanese thinking they would be a useful means of being rid of us. I too was offended by the comment but if you take into account the speed of the invasion it is entirely credible. Maybe you’ve never travelled by road from Kota Bharu to Alor Setar or KL but I have and it doesn’t look like the sort of terrain well suited to an invading army. If any sort of decent resistance had been put up the invasion would have taken much longer.

                  On the subject of HK you live in a fantasy world if you believe it was possible for us to remain there after 1997. The China with whom we negotiated in the early 1980s was hardly a colossus on the world stage, it was just a country with a large population. Today they are an economic superpower and they are starting to assert their authority in all sorts of disputes with their neighbours over territories of far less importance than HK.

  • LB

    Come on.

    The cover up is irrelevant.

    The important bit is the BBC employed a child molester and by all accounts didn’t take action to get rid of him. As a consequence Savile went on and molested or raped more children.

    For that alone they should be stripped of all children’s programs along with the license fee, and a punitive fine of a cut in funding.

    • Eddie

      LB – actually Jimmy Savile would have passed an Enhanced CRB check with flying colours! He was NOT a convicted child molester.
      The people who covered his pervy deeds up thus prevented him being identified as one (if indeed he was one) and thus expopsed children to more danger – just like the Catholic church’s cover up.
      The cover up is the main issue therefore.

      • Eddie

        Worth remembering here that children are far more likely to be abused in step families or when mothers have numerous boyfriends, and most child sex abuse is done by family members, family friends or other children and young people.
        Stranger danger is almost non-existent – the number of kids abducted and killed is tiny and the same as 50 years ago – but the perception that a paedo skulks behind every lamp post means children now grow up overprotected with no trust in adults and that is very harmful indeed. Already many children never go out and play, because of parents utter stupidity and inability to calculate risk – egged on by a media aimed at creating fear in the ignorant. It is actually extremely offensive and wrong to portray all men as dodgy and a potential danger; moreover, it does nothing to protect children who now are safer than at any time in human history actually.
        Also, most of those who kill babies and children are women, usually mothers. Just worth remembering whenever some feminist comes along and tries to demonise all men and paint all women as non-violent non-abusers…

        • Sarah

          “until some feminist comes along…”
          Well at least you know that feminists are better at statistics than you are:

          “Killings of children by a natural parent are committed in roughly equal proportions by mothers (47%) and fathers (53%), but where the child is killed by someone other than a [birth] parent, males strongly predominate”.”. Office of National Statistics.

          As for demonising groups of people based on false evidence, Eddie…

          • Eddie

            Now Sarah, what have I told you before about making up numbers?

            Most children and babies who are killed are killed by women – murder, manslaughter and the great big get-off ‘unlawful killing’. Of course, these women often make excuses and get 2 years probation; a man committing the same crime would be life. Equality huh?
            Moreover, the vast majority of children killed are killed at home: abduction and murder by strangers is VERY rare – but that hasn’t stopped hysterical sanctimonious feminasties ensuring that all men are not suspected paedos until they can prove they are not (perhaps be hating Jimmy Savile or agreeing with vile little runts like manhating Harman.
            Fact is, we should remove many more babies from their unfit mothers and put them up for adoption – that rarely happens these days because of the feminists in the social work ‘profession’ who are obsessed with keeping a child with its unfit mother.
            What usually happens is that a few years later the unfit slag drunken druggie mother can’t cope and so a damaged 5 year old gets put into care – with a life ruined too.

            I think we shoul all just be grateful that you don’t have children, Psycho Sarah. Any boy would be doomed in your femi-hell.

            The sad thing is, parents don’t have to pass any SRB check to make babies, so any idiot can breed and plenty do.

            Abuse is of course much more likely to happen in single mother families or step-families – and that fact is deliberately kept from the public by a feminisewd media.

  • Eddie

    “Someone is hiding something, I think.”
    Oh yes – I would use the word KNOW, not ‘think’ here. BBC managers lie – anyone who has dealt with them knows that. It’s like it used to be in the airline industry when pilots got punished for admitting errors – so they didn’t; then it changed and pilots were encouraged to come forward and wouldn’t be punished for making mistakes – the result was that the number of plane crashes went down.
    It is of course morally right to stick with the innocent until proven guilty tradition always – and one problem that will now occur (even more than it does already) is people assuming a man (and it is usually though not always a man) who is accused of something sexual must therefore be guilty. We know mad feminists think this already, and would love to castrate any man accuses of rape or sexual abuse, something seeing the de-bollocking of innocents in witch-hunts as the few egges broken in the making of the moral omelette here. I disagree.
    Also, as Rod said on Newsnight, this story will make BBC programme makers even more risk-averse then they are already – and that is not ‘all good’ at all: the BBC already is obsessed with compliance and never offending anyone (esp from a minority group), hence the lack of honest programmes about Islam on TV (or the Mohammed cartoons), and this will make the BBC even wetter and more cowardly.
    What an omnishambles!

    • Barry

      “It is of course morally right to stick with the innocent until proven guilty tradition always”

      In most cases, yes. The differences here are the number of accusations, the number of locations, the number of people who knew something or had strong suspicions, and the time scale involved. We’re not talking about two or three people trying to extract compensation simply because he’s dead. “No smoke without fire” is a poor principle to judge someone by, but this is exceptional.

      • Eddie

        But it’s VERY dangerous when one assumes all accusers are telling the truth – and yes, the ‘smoke without fire’ rule, much-cited, is absurd.
        Many men have been accused of rape or abuse – perhaps by vindictive ex-wives who want full custody of kids, or those wanting compensation, or nutters – and have had their lives ruined despite being absolutely innocent. If a man is accused of such a thing he is, whether we like it or not, assumed to be guilty and has to prove his innocence – something that some amoral vile lowlifes exploit: the accuser is all-powerful, the man saying he didn’t do it is unbelieved.
        The only comparable case is when someone is accused of being a racist or racially discriminating against someone. People such as teachers have to face both types of allegation, and many men have left an already overly-feminised misandrist education system to get away from this crap – and that is detrimental to children’s education.
        When someone is identified and accuses, that fact that others join in does not mean the accused is guilty – cf witch trials old and new.
        All we can say is that there is a high probability that some people were abused – though to what extent we do not know (one suspects exaggeration here) – and should instead focus on those who covered the abuse up.

        • Barry

          We’re not, however, listening to a group of manipulative children or mediaeval farmers. The current trial by media is the only reason so many people have acquired the confidence to come forward.
          The presumption of innocence hasn’t served them well, and the celebrity culture must carry much of the blame.

          Perhaps there’s justice in a talentless disc jockey being hanged by the media that he ruthlessly exploited.

          • Eddie

            I agree with you about the celebrity culture – and it is the same media that elevates such weirdos to positions of such power that they can abuse the vulnerable at will (and then get the media to cover it up) who are now being demonised by that same media.
            The courage to come forward? Well, if I saw some old man abusing a child in a hospital, I would immediately contact someone and report it. Why didn’t people do that? All the staff of hospitals, charities, the BBC et al? And I’m afraid that there are always people wanting to jump on bandwagons – maybe one was patted on the knee by Saville in 1973 and now claims abuse as a badge of honour? Not saying he didn’t abuse anyone, but you seem to be assuming anyone who said he did something to them is to be automatically believed. That way witch hunts lie – and the mob instinct is the same too.

            • Barry

              “Why didn’t people do that?”

              I believe that some people claim they did but Savile was too powerful to be challenged – maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.

              The investigation shouldn’t be restricted to the BBC. Lots of people must have known – including those whose responsibilty specifically involved caring for others.

          • Colonel Mustard

            The presumption of innocence is only ever intended to serve the accused and to prevent the abuse of justice outside the rule of law, which is precisely what has been happening. Believing in allegations without a trial is no different to what a lynch mob does and the principle involved is not – or should not be – a burden to the offence alleged or the amount of distaste/repulsion elicited by it. As soon as we make exceptions based on perceptions about the individual or our personal values we are in trouble. And we are. The principles and cornerstones of our once cherished rule of law are being eroded, to the benefit of nothing except some transient sensationalism and the selling of vile rags.

            • Eddie

              Funny how some people – (Muslims, feminists, Savile-hunters, hysterics) – want to pick and choose when they suspend the innocent until proven guilty principle. Perhaps if one suggested any child at school accused of anything should be assumed to be guilty and expelled without an investigation (perhaps their little kid) then they wouldn’t be in such agreement.
              And it is noticeable that a great many women and women’s groups support the utterly unfair guilty-until-proven-innocent stance regarding child abuse because it won’t be them who’ll face a false accustion – as it is almost always men.
              So how about any woman whose baby suddenly dies of cot death is assumed to be a killer until she can prove otherwise?
              Same dumping of the principle that the feminists want whenever men are accused of sex crimes, that.
              The principle of innocent until proven guilty with evidence may well mean than some wrongdoers walk free – but that is a price well worth paying, and far better than locking up and destroying the lives of innocent men (and it is usually men – so much so that perhaps women shouldn’t even have the right to comment on this; the feminists say men shouldn’t have the right to have a part of the abortion debate after all…)

            • Baron

              Colonel, you seem to have got in the military hierarchy where you claim to be without being touched by common sense.

              If common sense informed your take on the question of guilt per se you may have figured one’s guilty the minute one commits an act that harms someone, goes against the societal norms, principles, the belief system of the society.

              In the religious Britain we used to be, it was a guilt answerable to Him, in a largely secular society of today, it must be the society at large, one’s conscience, Dawkins, or whatever, Baron reckons. One can therefore be guilty in the eyes of the society, but not of the law.

              But even if you were to dismiss this as nonsense, the presumption of innocence ain’t the only way how to ensure a fair trial, or to establish whether one’s guilty or not. Presumption of innocence is a device employed only in adversarial legal systems, it’s absent in criminal justice systems based on the inquisitorial principle (here the ecclesiastical court of the CoE for inst.) where it’s the judge who gathers evidence, hears testimonies and stuff, the presumption of innocence doessn’t come into it.

              More still, even you must have heard of criminal proceedings where the culprit isn’t present, is ‘in absentia’, one of the most famous one was that of Martin Bormann, head of NSDAP’s Chancellery. It doesn’t happen often, we could have it for Sir Jimmy, it would cost us, but even you and the local Rottveiler Eddie must surely know the guy’s guilty as charged, he hinted at it himself more than once, just get real, will you.

              • Colonel Mustard

                I don’t think it is I should get real. What you advocate has little to do with the rule of law as it pertains to criminal cases and you confuse guilt with being found guilty by due legal process.

                I do not know he is guilty because I am not privy to the evidence and I am not his judge. Take your lynch mob elsewhere Barry. It has no place in England.

                • Baron

                  Colonel, my blogging friend, if Baron were to murder someone, leave the country, criminal proceeding against him never took place, he died unpunished, he would not be guilty in law, agreed, but he would be guilty of murder by the common sense notion that anyone who murders is guilty of murder, the proceedings of the criminal court are but one of the ways to confirm the guilt, to punish the offender, they are not the only ones. Every sane man and woman would agree the pockmarked Georgian who ruled over the USSR until he dropped dead in 1953 was guilty of murdering tens of millions, yet there has never been a trial, any trail whether under the English law, or any other law system.

                  Look, here’s the definition of guilt: “guilt is the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law.”

                  Note that in the definition there ain’t any ‘proven by the court of law safeguarded by the presumption of innocence….

                  And who’s Barry by the way? Baron’s butler’s name is Bob.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Again you are conflating accusation and presumption with proof. The definition you present says “having committed”. How is that to be established? Because Baron says so? Because an accuser says so? The old English burden of proof was “beyond a reasonable doubt” and it had to be tested in a court of law. What has been happening and what you are promoting is dangerous territory indeed. It might be fine and dandy when you get it right but it is devastating for the innocent should you get it wrong. That sounds very much like Hobsbawm’s justified death of 2 million innocents as a means to a communist end and is completely contrary to the traditional basis of English Common Law.

                  Even more disturbing is the current police practice of seeking publicity by pronouncing judgement on an “offender” not just before conviction but before even their investigation is completed. That is not the role of the police. They are not there to judge and proclaim on morality but to enforce the Rule of Law by taking accused or suspected offenders before a court.

                  Baron might consider the situation differently if he should be falsely accused and a mob gather quickly to pronounce his guilt and punish him without reference to a court of law. As with unproven guilt only he might know his innocence.

                  Let’s stick with the Rule of Law, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a very quiet police who do not declaim in judgement but leave that to the courts, as is proper.

                • Eddie

                  You are, of course, absolutely correct Colonel – and I suspect those who disagree wouldn’t if they (or their sons perhaps) ever found themselves having to defend themselves against allegations of this nature (though men tend to be thought guilty anyway if accused of such things!)
                  I would like to see a new law: one that ensured those who made false allegations (evidence would of course be needed) are jailed for a similar term that their victim (the innocent accused man) would have been jailed for.

          • Swanky for Romney

            I find that ‘presumption of innocence’, while a fine-sounding ideal, is actually overstating things: a civilized court system does not haul up those presumed to be innocent on charges of killing people or nicking things; it brings the person most overwhelmingly likely to have done the crime. It is simply up to the system to prove it. But that’s not a presumption of innocence — rather the opposite.

            • Eddie

              Well, you would say that: you speak from a country where often it’s the nearest poor black man who gets arrested for any crime on the assumption he dodn it!
              Innocent until proven guilty does not presume guilt. It’s a value that goes back to Anglo-Saxon law and Hwll Dda in Wales, and really should not be dumped just because some hysterics want to lock more men up for rape and child abuse.
              It is not relevant that some guilty people go free: if there is insufficient evidence, then that is just and fair.
              Or would we all prefer a criminal justice system that condoned mob rule, concentration camps and lynching of anyone accused of being a witch?
              Perhaps this country could divide in two: all those who believe in mod rule and the end of the presumption of innocence could do and live somewhere olde worlde together – East Anglia perhaps – where they can burn effigies of Jimmy Savile of November 5th Bonfires and wield their pitchforks at all local loners they accuse of witchcraft.
              The rest of us could then be civilised without them…
              I wish…

              • Swanky for Romney

                Your first sentence is rendered nearly unintelligible at the end but in any case, it expresses pure ignorance. I didn’t bother to read the rest.

                • Baron

                  Swanky, hi, you right, of course, and whoever released the Rottveiler Eddie from the leash should be hanged, no presumption of innocence needed, agreed?

                  Baron hopes you’re ready to throw a party when the messiah walks.

                • Swanky for Romney

                  I shall be ready with several bottles of the good stuff, Baron my friend.

                • Eddie

                  One typo does NOT make a sentence unintelligable, except to semi-literates. Just for you: ‘dodn’ OBVIOUSLY should really ‘did’.
                  Then stay ignorant and don’t learn from those who know that thousands of innocent men are rotting in US jails. It’s not my country, thank F.

    • Sarah

      Saville is neither guilty or innocent. He is dead. He has no rights. He’s dead. As in dead.

      • Eddie

        Jimmy Savile’s dead? Really?
        Well thank you Sarah for that bombshell.
        Also, love, according to your odd logic, anyone who is dead can’t be guilty of anything. Would you perhaps like to rethink your position regarding people like: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Rosemary and Fred West, Myra Hindley, and all convicted rapists, and the women who kill children, who are now dead too? Are they all innocent then? According to you, YES!
        No-one is talking about a corpse’s ‘rights’, silly – that’s your misunderstanding; what we’re debating is the morality of judging someone who cannot defend himself or be charged, when the evidence has not been expertly examined or made public. Needless to say, Savile was a man and you hate men – so I think we can all ignore your opinion here, to be honest.
        Important to acknowledge that a dead man can’t sue though: one can say anything about a corpse really, make any unproven allegation based on rumour and lies – and the media know that, I can promise you.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here