Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

Seen but not heard - how victims of paedo Jim were let down

"Children should be seen and not heard." I never did care much for that expression. Even as a child, I could detect oppression a mile off, and for me that phrase was oppressive. Now, in light of the revelations that for 50 years Jimmy Savile was presenting a paedophilic lie to a public tricked into adoring him, I realise how dangerous such beliefs are.

Fast forward to 2012, and those who cannot accept they have been hoodwinked by a cunning confidence trickster for the past 50 years are now trying to say that victims are wrong for waiting until he died to come forward. Yet these children, now adults, were terrified to come forward. It was safer to be seen and not heard.

They were terrified of not being believed. They were terrified of what the consequences would be if they were believed. They were terrified of being the ones who threatened the charity work he was using as a cover for his misdeeds. The victims who did come forward to the police while he was alive found their complaints ignored.

Those who should have come forward, did not. These same people - other celebrities 'who knew', agents and assistants - are still not exactly falling over themselves to come forward now either. In some ways this is understandable, for they should be in the dock for treating his depravity like a joke. "We all knew about Uncle Jimmy" they smirked, as though he was nothing more than a slightly more paedophilic version of Benny Hill.

This is serious though. Anyone who knew Savile's behaviour was more than just a little tomfoolery, and kept his dirty little secret for him, should be put on trial.

The BBC should also be closely examined over their mishandling of the affair. For 40 years, they put Savile on television and radio, gave him children's programmes to work on and made a hero out of him - meaning that in some small way we were all victims of the decades-long stunt.

Following the emergence of the scandal, one which took an ITV documentary to reveal, the BBC response has been defensive, then inconsistent, before finally realising that an independent investigation is inevitable.

This is more evidence that the BBC is far too big an institutionalised beast, and should be broken up, with its local and national, TV and Radio divisions split, so that institutionalised power bases cannot be formed so easily. If there is a call to break up the Murdoch press over transgressions due to its size and crass bureaucracy, then a call to split up the BBC in the same manner is a perfectly acceptable one.

The BBC is not the only organisation with questions to answer. Police forces received numerous complaints about Savile's sick actions over the years. Any police or Crown Prosecution Service failings must be examined.

Then there are the "charity" visits to hospitals where nurses told child patients to pretend to be asleep. I can understand how the nurses felt. Sometimes it is easier not to act, for speaking up often opens up a vault of greater unpleasantness. Anyone who has worked in a public facing role, perhaps in a bar or a restaurant, will have experienced the situation where someone deeply unpleasant occasionally visits. The desire is to impose a permanent ban of the person from the premises, but often it is easier to tolerate the oaf, usually with the comfort of knowing they will be gone in half an hour. Life can carry on as normal until their next visit.

However, this is insufficient in this situation. If these health practitioners knew something, they should have done something. This was about someone taking children to his grubby car to abuse them.

The children who were victims of Savile were let down by everyone. The abuses were allowed to happen by those charged to look after them. Although the misery they experienced was clearly known about, they were left to suffer in silence. To put it another way, they were seen but not heard.