BBC Jimmy Saville child abuse scandal

[RandBlade]

Late children's entertainer Jimmy Saville, host of a number of BBC Children's shows when I was young such as Jim'll Fix It died a few years ago. Within days of him doing so a number of reports started to surface that he abused young girls - these appeared to be nasty slander at first.

Now however more and more evidence seems to be coming out that not only were the allegations true, but that they were known about and covered up for years by people at the BBC. Some abuse allegedly happened on set at the Beeb.

There is no way Saville himself can be held to account anymore, except through reputation, but with the Beeb it seems to me to mirror in some ways the Catholic Church paedophile priest scandals, albeit only one individual.

If its proven that Saville did indeed abuse children on set at the Beeb and people who worked for the organisation covered it up then should the BBC be held liable/sued by his victims?

[Steely Glint]

It's hard to see how they wouldn't be liable.

[Loki]

The problem with holding these kind of organizations liable (particularly government-owned/run ones) is that none of the people responsible for the mess are still around and you're punishing people (including taxpayers in this) for doing nothing wrong. I think the proper thing to do would be to sue all the BBC executives from the time period where this was happening.

[Steely Glint]

What's not clear to me the extent to which this was, like, a BBC sanctioned cover up or did the people concerned just take it upon themselves. Because if it's the latter, the criminal charges need to be involved in my opinion.

[Loki]

I would imagine that the statute of limitations would prevent criminal charges.

[Hazir]

I would imagine that the statute of limitations would prevent criminal charges.

Criminal charges against a corpse are generally seen as redundant. If there were any people involved in this, then of course they should be charged, but I have this feeling that we're never going to get to the bottom of this whole sordid affair because Saville will never be put on the dock and thus it will be near impossible to prove anything.

Still, it's really one of those 'WTF' moments, I mean, I always felt a bit soiled whenever I saw that geezer on TV, he made my skin crawl and kick of desperate searches for the remote. It is so difficult to believe that nobody knew what went on or that nobody thought there was something seriously off if a grown man spends an hour behind closed doors with a 14 year old girl.

Very icky indeed, monetary compensation is an entirely different story though; you would force people totally unrelated to the crimes to pay for them.

[Aimless]

Very icky indeed, monetary compensation is an entirely different story though; you would force people totally unrelated to the crimes to pay for them.

On a scale of injustice I think that would earn a fairly low rating.

[Steely Glint]

Heard an old interview of Saville back when he died. I remember some pretty weird attitudes to woman and relationships generally. Now we know why: he was busy raping 14 year old girls.

[Hazir]

On a scale of injustice I think that would earn a fairly low rating.

Actually it is a matter of principle for me; liability is being stretched way too far already as far as I am concerned.

[Hazir]

Heard an old interview of Saville back when he died. I remember some pretty weird attitudes to woman and relationships generally. Now we know why: he was busy raping 14 year old girls.

Well, that's what I mean. If the casual observer would see something odd about his attitudes, how come he managed to keep going on as long as he did ?

[Aimless]

Actually it is a matter of principle for me; liability is being stretched way too far already as far as I am concerned.

I approach it in more or less the same way that I approach taxation and the things we uses taxes for, rather than seeing it as a collective punishment of people unrelated to crimes.

[Loki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19856081

[Hazir]

I approach it in more or less the same way that I approach taxation and the things we uses taxes for, rather than seeing it as a collective punishment of people unrelated to crimes.

And I don't believe getting money from tax payers makes you less of a rape victim. I have got nothing against rape victims getting support in the shape of counselling or treatment, but I fail to see why you should get financial compensation from the state for being the victim of a crime.

[RandBlade]

And I don't believe getting money from tax payers makes you less of a rape victim. I have got nothing against rape victims getting support in the shape of counselling or treatment, but I fail to see why you should get financial compensation from the state for being the victim of a crime.

Firstly the BBC technically isn't funded by taxpayers but licence fee payers (virtually but not entirely the same).
Secondly the BBC has a restricted, ring-fenced budget. Unless it can convince the government to allow an increase in the licence fee then any additional costs would need mirrored savings elsewhere in the organisation.
Thirdly if the state/BBC were complicit (not proven) in a crime then they'd have a legal responsibility no less than the Catholic Church or any other organisation.

Finally even if the state is not complicit, the primary duty of the state is the protection of its citizens. Where the state fails in that duty it has some responsibility. Compensation schemes can and do exist for certain victims of violent crime.

When I was assaulted I applied for and got compensation off the state. I got £8000 for having a shattered eye socket, broken nose and scarring. The attacker didn't pay it, the state did. Normally I'm not in favour of the state paying, but on this I am. Why? Because not only would the attacker never be able to, but I blame the state too. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, my attacker had already 10 previous convictions and got a pathetic 6 months in prison (would have been out to offend again after 2-3), I have little reason to believe my being his 11th victim was also the last. Had he been where he belonged (in prison) I would never have been assaulted and I'd rather that than the money. I'm still in pain 8 years later and will be for life from it, but others face much worse.

If the state fails to catch criminals (Saville and Rotherham if you've followed that horrific story here) or incarcerate them properly when caught (my attacker/the repeatedly convicted criminal paedophile just arrested for the murder of 5-year old April) because prison is "too expensive" then the state should shoulder some of the costs of its failure. While justice is expensive, there are costs to not enforcing it too and they should be realised or else there's a perverse fiscal incentive not to act.

[Steely Glint]

The other issue is that some of the allegations say the assaults happened on BBC premises or while shooting BBC TV Shows and in those cases the BBC had a duty of care to the victims, who were either children there to appear on their TV shows or members of staff.

[Hazir]

Firstly the BBC technically isn't funded by taxpayers but licence fee payers (virtually but not entirely the same).
Secondly the BBC has a restricted, ring-fenced budget. Unless it can convince the government to allow an increase in the licence fee then any additional costs would need mirrored savings elsewhere in the organisation.
Thirdly if the state/BBC were complicit (not proven) in a crime then they'd have a legal responsibility no less than the Catholic Church or any other organisation.

Finally even if the state is not complicit, the primary duty of the state is the protection of its citizens. Where the state fails in that duty it has some responsibility. Compensation schemes can and do exist for certain victims of violent crime.

When I was assaulted I applied for and got compensation off the state. I got £8000 for having a shattered eye socket, broken nose and scarring. The attacker didn't pay it, the state did. Normally I'm not in favour of the state paying, but on this I am. Why? Because not only would the attacker never be able to, but I blame the state too. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, my attacker had already 10 previous convictions and got a pathetic 6 months in prison (would have been out to offend again after 2-3), I have little reason to believe my being his 11th victim was also the last. Had he been where he belonged (in prison) I would never have been assaulted and I'd rather that than the money. I'm still in pain 8 years later and will be for life from it, but others face much worse.

If the state fails to catch criminals (Saville and Rotherham if you've followed that horrific story here) or incarcerate them properly when caught (my attacker/the repeatedly convicted criminal paedophile just arrested for the murder of 5-year old April) because prison is "too expensive" then the state should shoulder some of the costs of its failure. While justice is expensive, there are costs to not enforcing it too and they should be realised or else there's a perverse fiscal incentive not to act.

The other issue is that some of the allegations say the assaults happened on BBC premises or while shooting BBC TV Shows and in those cases the BBC had a duty of care to the victims, who were either children there to appear on their TV shows or members of staff.

With this kind of logic the state should compensate any victim of an unsolved crime too. It goes to show that the sense of entitlement people always accuse liberals and lefties of is well entrenched on the other side of the aisle as well.

As far as I am concerned there should be no compensation schemes whatsoever. If actual people are found guilty of either sexual abuse or being an accessory to such they should be punished, but to me that's the end of it. If it turns out that the BBC as an organisation enabled this behaviour and actively was covering up crimes, then the BBC should be dissolved altogether. FYI; I don't understand why the Catholic Church wasn't dealt with a lot harsher than it was in the countries where the hierarchy was complicit in covering up child abuse. Still, even in that case I think it was wrong to let them pay compensation to their victims. Priests, Bishops and Cardinals should be in prison as we speak. I may be wrong on the figures but I think preciously few are.

[Steely Glint]

With this kind of logic the state should compensate any victim of an unsolved crime too.

Just run the logic behind this statement by me, would you?

FYI; I don't understand why the Catholic Church wasn't dealt with a lot harsher than it was in the countries where the hierarchy was complicit in covering up child abuse. Still, even in that case I think it was wrong to let them pay compensation to their victims. Priests, Bishops and Cardinals should be in prison as we speak. I may be wrong on the figures but I think preciously few are.

The reason is that the name of their organization has "church" in it.

[Hazir]

Just run the logic behind this statement by me, would you?



The reason is that the name of their organization has "church" in it.

On 'church', I realise that. It's still very wrong

On the other statement; Randblade seems to think that he's entitled to money if the state doesn't keep him safe. In his case it was a violent attack, but why stop there? Why not demand money from the state if they didn't stop a pickpocket from lifting your wallet? They know these people are on the subway and could have prevented the theft if only they had made a police person available to watch over you (a bit of a hyperbole, but that's what we're talking about). You seemed to support this kind of thinking (I don't necessarily accuse you of the 'talking to the Right, lining of the pockets on the Left RB is promoting here, IIRC you're not a supporter of the Conservatives or any party to the right of them).

[Steely Glint]

My argument is basically that, like any employer, the BBC has a duty of care to anyone that works for it, and certainly for any minors that are there to appear on their TV shows. According to the link that Loki posted, it was an open secret that Saville had a thing for little girls and so they were basically negligent in continuing to let him appear on air with children, and have access to them generally. Likewise the adult Radio 1 presenter who was sexually assaulted. She was there working for them in their building with their employees, so it's their job to take reasonable precautions ensure she's not, e.g. groped, raped, assaulted etc while she's there just in the same way they have to ensure a large girder doesn't fall on her head.

That's also probably the logic Randblade is using with regard to the guy who assaulted him. They knew the guy was violent, yet they continued to let him wander around attacking people therefore they are in a sense responsible for what happened to Randblade. The examples you give don't really fall under the standard of 'reasonable', which as you probably know is a major thing in Common Law based systems.

[Hazir]

Well, you have problems, and then you have the right solution and then you've got the wrong solution. The right solution for dangerously violent people is to stick them in prison or treatment or whatever. The wrong solution is to go for the much easier way of paying a pittance to the victim and not change your system of keeping the people safe.

As for the BBC thing; I don't believe in this institutional responsability you talk about. Not here, not ever. The perpetrator(s) should be put on trial and face their punishment, if the BBC did not have it as a company policy to cover up for child abusers for me that's the end of it. If there on the other side is a problem with the BBC that runs that deep, the BBC should be dissolved as if it were a criminal organisation. Oh, and reasonable is as reasonable goes. I gave one example, which happens to be an infringement on one of my most basic rights, not far behind that one that supposedly guarantees the integrity of my body. It's not as random as it seems. The social contract implies that the state keeps my person and property both safe, so that I accept their monopoly on the use of force.

[Steely Glint]

It wasn't BP company policy to deposit 4.9 million barrels worth of oil into the gulf of Mexico, but they were still held to be liable for doing so, because they were negligent. If Saville had been more covert about his activities then perhaps you could make the case that the BBC wasn't really at fault, but he wasn't and they really should have and could have done something about it, but they didn't. Hence, negligence.

[Hazir]

It wasn't BP company policy to deposit 4.9 million barrels worth of oil into the gulf of Mexico, but they were still held to be liable for doing so, because they were negligent. If Saville had been more covert about his activities then perhaps you could make the case that the BBC wasn't really at fault, but he wasn't and they really should have and could have done something about it, but they didn't. Hence, negligence.

For me the two are totally different, the oil spill was not with criminal intent. There is no way you could classify child abuse as anything other than criminal intent. You're talking about two entirely separate branches of both law and judicial system.

[Timbuk2]

.... and the snowball builds.

Plaques to Jimmy are being removed from walls, awards are being stripped of his name, and now there are calls to posthumously strip him of his Knighthood.

Should his alleged abuse, if proven to be true, negate his extensive and commendable charity works?

[Hazir]

.... and the snowball builds.

Plaques to Jimmy are being removed from walls, awards are being stripped of his name, and now there are calls to posthumously strip him of his Knighthood.

Should his alleged abuse, if proven to be true, negate his extensive and commendable charity works?

Well it seems those works were merely a means to an entirely different goal.

[RandBlade]

.... and the snowball builds.

Plaques to Jimmy are being removed from walls, awards are being stripped of his name, and now there are calls to posthumously strip him of his Knighthood.

Should his alleged abuse, if proven to be true, negate his extensive and commendable charity works?

Yes.

[Hazir]

Yes.

The only thing I find going a bit too far is stripping him of the knighthood. I sympathize with the emotion, disagree with the whole idea of putting dead people on trial. He deserves no commemorative plaques honoring him, but we can't unsay the honorifics spoken.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, but we can. There's a procedure and everything.

[RandBlade]

There wouldn't be a procedure (and precedent) for repealing an honour if we couldn't do it. I'd have thought the precedents for dropping honours would probably go back centuries to feudal disputes in fact.

My biggest qualm (besides if its true that he never faced justice) is that he's not here to defend himself.

[Flixy]

Oh, but we can. There's a procedure and everything.

Will they dig up his body and put it on trial?

[Hazir]

Oh, but we can. There's a procedure and everything.

Given that it expired on his death anyway, what would be the use? Will people have to write solemn declarations they retract saying 'Sir Jimmy' on april 7th, 1998? The sensible thing would be to quietly drop the use of 'sir' in front of his name now, as he no longer is one anyway; he s a corpse.