Savile again

[alumni]

And for the benefit of the myopic scouse.
Taken from the same article your quote was in.

London’s Metropolitan Police said in a statement Friday that its officers had met with representatives from the BBC and a national child protection charity.

“We are now collating information gathered from a range of sources across the UK and will continue contacting individuals who have made allegations in relation to the late Jimmy Savile over the coming weekend,” it said.

“We do not expect to have a clear picture of exactly how many women may have suffered abuse until next week and want to allow time for victims to reflect on what they may have experienced.”

Perhaps you'd like to say they have got it wrong too?

Thankfully, they are approaching the subject rationally.

 

[sooey]

I don't follow your logic there tone.
If he hadn't been widely recognised as a pervert why would the BBC say that they will hold an enquiry after the police have carried out theirs.
What's in it for them apart from a world of sh*t?

 

[sooey]

My post referred to what the BBC (as an organisation with a lot to lose) were saying

Here's what the BBC are saying about Savile there's no ifs buts or allegedly's here

You'll have to explain to me why what the police said is relevant to that, I can't follow your strange logic.

 

[alumni]

My post referred to what the BBC (as an organisation with a lot to lose) were saying

Here's what the BBC are saying about Savile there's no ifs buts or allegedly's here

You'll have to explain to me why what the police said is relevant to that, I can't follow your strange logic.

And already he gets his defence in.
What matters here is the Police investigation. Thankfully not your myopic thinking.

 

[Big Tone]

I don't follow your logic there tone.
If he hadn't been widely recognised as a pervert why would the BBC say that they will hold an enquiry after the police have carried out theirs.
What's in it for them apart from a world of sh*t?

It forms part of “the process” you keep asking about. The BBC’s reputation is at stake. If they did nothing after all these allegations they would be remiss in their duty.

As for “widely recognised” there is a world of difference between that and the truth. It was more “widely recognised” than this case that Sadam held us 45 minutes away from oblivion! I could cite other examples, but you know what I’m like for digressing...

 

[sooey]

And already he gets his defence in.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What matters here is the Police investigation.

I agree, but can that pronounce him guilty. I don't think so.

 

[alumni]

What matters here is the Police investigation.

I agree, but can that pronounce him guilty. I don't think so.

Highly unlikely that could ever be legally done. That said, all academic, you've already decided and stated so.

 

[sooey]

It forms part of “the process” you keep asking about. The BBC’s reputation is at stake. If they did nothing after all these allegations they would be remiss in their duty.

If the BBC thought that there was the slightest chance he was innocent do you think they would have made that statement I quoted? Basically accepting some sort of responsibilty. It's more than just "part of the process".

 

[sooey]

Highly unlikely that could ever be legally done.

Not highly unlikely...impossible.
So what are you waiting for? Have you not heard enough?
Oh, I get it, you're waiting for somebody else to tell you what to think.

 

[alumni]

It forms part of “the process” you keep asking about. The BBC’s reputation is at stake. If they did nothing after all these allegations they would be remiss in their duty.

If the BBC thought that there was the slightest chance he was innocent do you think they would have made that statement I quoted? Basically accepting some sort of responsibilty. It's more than just "part of the process".

Sooey.
If the BBC did not do an investigation, would you be satisfied?

Any organisation would be negligent and leave themselves wide open if they didn't investigate.
That does not mean they accept some responsibility - that only happens dependent on the outcome of the investigations.

 

[alumni]

Highly unlikely that could ever be legally done.

Not highly unlikely...impossible.
So what are you waiting for? Have you not heard enough?
Oh, I get it, you're waiting for somebody else to tell you what to think.

I've stated my position/view on this previously.
But for your benefit, as you seem to struggle with anything other than guilty cos someone said so in the press.

IF he did what he's accused of, then yes, a filthy pervert. However, i'd prefer a proper investigation to uncover all of the facts, and about all those involved, before passing judgement.
This is potentially bigger than scandal mongering about one dead man. It's the possible wide scale institutional abuse that may have occurred.

I wonder if the people at ITV are feeling smug now?

 

[sooey]

Interviewed on a BBC program Saturday, BBC Director of Editorial Policy David Jordan gave what appeared to be the strongest confirmation yet from the broadcaster of wrongdoing on its premises.

"I think the fundamentals of the story are now well established," he said. "We now know that a number of women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile, sometimes on BBC premises, at times during the 1960s and 1970s."

What was it about that statement that didn't accept responsibility.
Admitting that it happened on their premises, under their auspices, enabled with licence fee payers money is accepting responsibilty believe me. Whatever else happens, they can now be sued, and they won't have a leg to stand on.

This is potentially bigger than scandal mongering about one dead man. It's the possible wide scale institutional abuse that may have occurred.

Now that i completely agree with.

 

[alumni]

It's never quite so straight forward, as well you know.

 

[sooey]

Isn't it???
Think about this..
Any woman who was on a top of the pops programme with Savile as a young girl (there must be many), can now say he abused me whether he did or not.
And the BBC would have to settle out of court after making that statement.
I'm assuming that all of the footage still exists in their archives.
The BBC must have known that before making that statement, so you can be sure they haven't made it lightly.

 

[alumni]

Isn't it???
Think about this..
Any woman who was on a top of the pops programme with Savile as a young girl (there must be many), can now say he abused me whether he did or not.
And the BBC would have to settle out of court after making that statement.
I'm assuming that all of the footage still exists in their archives.
The BBC must have known that before making that statement, so you can be sure they haven't made it lightly.

Like i said.

Never so straightforward.

By the way. Have you listened/watched the interview in question?