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.

A missing schoolgirl, a selfish teacher and a media storm

This is without question the hardest article I have ever had to write. The case of 15 year-old ***** ******* running off with her maths teacher Jeremy Forrest has been one that has greatly preoccupied the nation for the past week. However, so much nonsense has been written, from men trying to excuse Forrest’s actions, to those already deciding to convict Forrest, I have decided to take a deep breath and write.

The first question to address is “why?” Why this case? Why *****? After all, children in the UK go missing every day – each case equally as important. The simple reason: it is the sort of story the public loves to consume. It had the lot. It was sordid. It had mystery. There were plenty of witnesses, such as classmates, neighbours and teaching staff, ready to contribute to the script.

Tabloid journalists were able to invigorate their own dull and predictable home affairs routine by writing extensively about the case. They enjoyed speculating on what the pair were getting up to. The most frightening aspects of the teacher’s lifestyle were given a full and exaggerated analysis.

Voyeuristic readers were able to consume it, and make value judgements based on what they had read, and anyone who has taken an interest in this story is equally as guilty. As we absorbed the literature, we were able to morally justify our own irrelevant interest in a European missing persons case by criticising the actions of others. Everyone from police officers to staff at the much-criticised school were blamed for allowing it to happen.

The public, for their part, have at times reacted as rationally as you would expect. The majority hoped and prayed that both alleged abductor and abductee would return safe and well. Forrest, 30, has questions to answer. He is likely to face child abduction charges, and if found guilty is likely to serve a custodial sentence.

There is no doubt that any such punishment, if convicted, would be deserved. The lack of regular updates from their daughter would have had *****’s family in pieces. Media reports of Forrest’s bizarre online interests adding to fears that the schoolgirl was not in safe hands. At the very least, Forrest’s apparent selfishness gave no consideration to anyone else. His own parents were also overcome with worry.

For one week of madness, the man has given up his career, his wife and probably his liberty. He would be considered dangerous, if not so apparently stupid.

However, there are also irrational debates playing out in the public sphere. Examples of which can be found on this fleet street fox article and this marathon debate on the digitalspy website.

There are (mainly) men trying to justify Forrest’s behaviour. In its crudest form, some have implied that because the girl in question has a womanly figure, the relationship is somehow justifiable. Another is regarding the dichotomous nature of the age of consent, with 16 being acceptable and 15 not. The girl’s keenness has also been used as a means of justification.

There are two counter-points here. Firstly, the teacher is in a position of responsibility. The law reflects this, therefore until she is 18, any intimacy is strictly prohibited between teachers and pupils. Secondly, I ask just one question to those men who use such justifications: what if it was your daughter? Cue change of tune.

Another crude justification is that “it’s alright when the roles are reversed and it’s an older woman and younger lad – look at Caroline Flack and Harry Styles”. This is actually true and is something that society needs to debate and address. Caroline Flack, 32, received a lot of, erm, flak, when dating the young 17 year-old singer from One Direction – mostly from jealous One Direction fans. Meanwhile, wider debate was merely gossipy, with even begrudging admiration for them. Flack was cast as a ‘cougar’ (the predatory nickname for women who bag a younger model), and Styles as the young lad living the dream. Reverse the roles and you get a very different narrative: the story of the vulnerable and the predator – and not predator in the tongue-in-cheek context of the cougar either.

The idealism of true love has also been offered as a means of justification. It is true that anyone can fall in love. Sometimes people fall in love with someone they should not fall in love with. At 30 years of age, regardless of feelings, it is a matter of self-discipline to ensure that the relationship is not a wholly inappropriate one. All things considered, the relationship was inappropriate and the teacher/pupil context only serves to amplify the fact.

There are some other dangerously extreme writings on the matter, some of which may well fail the tests of libel at a later stage. Some have already taken it upon themselves to assume that something sexual has taken place between the pair. However probable this may be, it goes against any confirmed facts. More worryingly, another libellous term, beginning with the letter “P” is being chucked around extremely recklessly to describe Forrest (see the fleetstreetfox article link above). Again, he has not been convicted of anything, and the “P” word is an exaggeration of whatever he did do, however appalling his actions may be to us.

This was the hardest thing I have had to write for this blog, but that also made it a challenge. Hard, because in many ways it is a risky subject to tackle, and the wrong words can lead to a perception that I am defending the indefensible. These are issues that are not easily addressed by young men. Not that this blog ever has dealt with easy topics – witness my claim that men cannot be authentic feminists from a couple of months ago. The key thing to consider is that for about thirty minutes earlier today, when listening to The Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2, I started to assume the worst had happened. ***** ******* came home safe and well. For that we can be thankful.

Will BBC's new Director General drag the broadcaster back to the centre?

This week, George Entwistle has taken up his role as the new BBC Director General. All eyes will be on him, watching with interest in anticipation of which direction he will take the broadcaster. In particular, left-of-centre observers will be keen to see it brought back to the centre, following the excessive move to the right in a bid to correct its previously assumed leftist bias.

The myth of the BBC being substantially biased to the left (with the in-built implication of the broadcaster favouring the Labour Party) remains, often floated as a concept in newspapers which are explicitly biased towards the right - so hardly a neutral jury themselves. Demonstrations of this can be found in the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and even The Sun. A Google search of "BBC bias" generates a whole plethora of websites of right-whingers claiming to feel hard done-by.

Such falsehoods become easy to promote when even the previous Director General of the BBC has claimed the broadcaster had to be seen to be compensate for a perceived leftist bias. Yet while under Thompson, the BBC may have been playing appeasement politics with its right-wing critics, the facts demonstrate that there are fewer and fewer visible leftist biases - in fact the opposite could indeed be argued.

It may have simply become in the interests of BBC reporters and researchers to take a right-wing standpoint on certain issues. While the structure of the BBC may be designed for it to be unbiased, the agents within it can speak their biases through their narratives. Furthermore, I would speculate that it is in the interest of many who are handsomely remunerated in the broadcast industry to share the interests of wealthy Tories. This is partly how the BBC is able to parade the Jeremy Clarksons of the world.

Can we really expect balance when Clarkson can go on whatever light entertainment programme he feels like, inflicting his views on anyone who will listen, all with a bit of a laugh? What about the BBC's Political Editor, Nick Robinson, who was a Young Conservative at the University of Oxford? And why is the Chairman of the BBC Trust a Tory? Why did Mark Thompson feel it necessary to steer the broadcaster, whose 'left bias' was only ever tenuous at best, to the right?

With the BBC in its current state, it is difficult to envisage voices of opposition and contention to the coalition government being sufficiently aired. An example of this malaise has been the coverage of the piecemeal privatisation of the NHS. For me, the process started with the Private Finance Initiative schemes, where public services were produced in association with private-sector providers. The benefit to the government was they got their new hospitals, schools and prisons up front, and the corporations that supplied the goods were paid back in installments over years, often decades. Now there is an expansion of this creeping privatisation.

All public spheres will inevitably have some relationship with private suppliers. Schools will not be expected to make their own calculators, for instance. However, the sale of ever greater slices of our public services has been woefully under-reported by the BBC. There is a quiet outrage on social networks about the unequal relationship between the reporting of the government's health upheaval and the breasts of the Duchess of Cambridge. This discursive media struggle is yet to play out on the main stage of debate.

This under-reporting may be because of the BBC’s own awkward position regarding the use of the private sector to provide services. A reasonable amount of its programming is produced by independent production companies, and the new Director General is keen for that to be increased.

However, on a broad level, there is still potential for BBC to reassert its role as the premier impartial public broadcast source - a status arguably lost to ITN. The following recommendations are ones which the BBC would do well to heed:-

1. The Staff: Employees in senior positions of the BBC hierarchy should neither be sourced from political parties, nor be strongly attached to one. The reason for this is it may lead the public to believe their public service broadcaster is (er...) biased! It would help if high-profile presenters were not using their light entertainment shows to sneakily transmit their political agendas.

2. Fair discussion for both sides of a debate: There should be rules for debates carried out applicable to all broadcasts. There should be a proponent, and opponent, and an agreed structure for their debate.

3. Fixing the in-built Question Time bias problem: Question Time is the BBC's leading political debate programme, but it is in serious need of a review. In the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats take turns along with the Tories to ask questions to the Prime Minister, as they are part of a coalition. On Question Time, no such compromise has been made, as both parties from the coalition government benches are given representation. This would be less of an issue if the coalition had not set a precedent for collegiality in British coalition-building. On Question Time, therefore, we end up with two people making a slightly different defence of the government position, from their slightly different party political positions. These panelists are usually supplemented by the obligatory right-wing noise supplied by the David Starkeys and Kelvin MacKenzies of the world. This is nowhere near 'balanced' enough for a public service broadcaster.

At present, there is a fertile environment to generate distrust of the BBC and their news agenda. As I hope to have demonstrated here, addressing some of the above concerns, where practical would go a long way to rebuilding the trust the left has lost in the BBC.

The left certainly not suckered in by the Olympics

'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.

The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.

The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.

My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.

The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.

The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.

It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.

Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.

To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.

The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.

There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.

I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.

Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.

So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?