Rolf Harris Charged On Multiple Child Sex Offences...."Shocker"

(30-06-2014 22:10 )tony confederate Wrote:  

(30-06-2014 22:00 )lancealot790 Wrote:  Of course there was a cover up, in Savilles case there are people at the BBC who have come forward to admit they knew about what he was up to but said nothing

Saying nothing doesn't constitute a cover up. They said nothing because they couldn't prove anything.

What about the Newsnight programme into savilles crimes that was dropped on the orders of the BBC hierarchy?

(30-06-2014 22:21 )lancealot790 Wrote:  What about the Newsnight programme into savilles crimes that was dropped on the orders of the BBC hierarchy?

It wasn't dropped on the orders of the BBC hierarchy.

There was no management interference into that story or the dropping of it. The decison not to broadcast that programme was made by the editor of Newsnight himself.

Sorry my mistake NOBODY! at the BBC knew anything about his activities, they are all completely innocent and of course knowing what he was doing and saying nothing about it is not covering up it,s just one of those things.

if someone knew what was going on but didn't come forward, then their silence, for whatever reason, constitutes a cover-up

Nobody knew for a FACT what was going on. They had suspicions but felt (rightly) that you can't condemn someone on the basis of rumours.

(30-06-2014 23:42 )tony confederate Wrote:  Nobody knew for a FACT what was going on. They had suspicions but felt (rightly) that you can't condemn someone on the basis of rumours.

how can you make this statement? do you know for a fact that nobody knew for a fact? i don't see how you could.

Nobody has yet come forward saying they knew for a fact, that's the point I'm making. But there is an ongoing enquiry into Jimmy Savile's time at the BBC, so if anyone witnessed anything untoward this is their chance to say something, along with an explanation of why they didn't say anything at the time. Maybe a more interesting question is whether BBC executives SHOULD have known what was going on. If they were aware of rumours, maybe they should have looked into Savile's activities more than they did?

If you suspected that a colleague or a friend was abusing children would you not report them or at least try and look into what was going on? Take Esther Rantzen for example, who openly admits that she had heard the rumours about Saville, but did nothing, and she,s the founder of childline for god sake, you would have thought that if anybody was going to raise concerns at the BBC it would have been her, instead she stuck her head in the sand and kept quiet.

(01-07-2014 09:33 )lancealot790 Wrote:  Take Esther Rantzen for example, who openly admits that she had heard the rumours about Saville, but did nothing, and she,s the founder of childline for god sake, you would have thought that if anybody was going to raise concerns at the BBC it would have been her, instead she stuck her head in the sand and kept quiet.

She was a junior researcher at the BBC at the time and was told of a rumour by another junior researcher. She had no reason to believe it at the time because most rumours she heard turned out to be untrue. Even if she had been concerned about it there was nothing specific she could have reported to anyone. Simply helping to spread the rumour around wouldn't have achieved anything. If there had been any specific allegation she would have reported it, but reporting a rumour wouldn't have achieved anything. BBC management were aware of the same rumour anyway and they did confront Savile about it, but of course he said many celebrities are subject to runours and there was nothing in it.

(30-06-2014 21:39 )tony confederate Wrote:  The main problem was always the reluctance of victims to come forward. Look at the Rolf Harris case. Several apparent victims only came forward during the trial itself.

And more have come forward since the verdict was announced.