Who's being unreasonable here?

[headfairy]

My sister's arguing the BBC should lose the licence fee over the Savile disgrace. I feel heads must roll, senior heads at that but I don't think we should effectively get rid of the BBC in its current form over this.

This is the bit I may well be very unreasonable about, I dunno... But why should the BBC be scrapped when apparently no one in the Catholic church has been made to pay for the decades of abuse on young children and the complicit actions of the senior ranks in allowing it to carry on?

She is being absurd. The licence fee isn't a reward for good behaviour, it's a method of ensuring quality programming of unprofitable material such as local news, educational programmes, etc, and unbiased news.

I don't think the BBC (if such a thing existed as an entity) should be held responsible for anything JS did.

People perpetuating the cycle of silence enabled him to get away with things, but even they're not responsible for what he did.

Nobody's going to scrap the main source of propaganda we have in this country

What Horatia said.

And the last time I went to church, I wasn't charged for the 'pleasure'.

Nobody's going to scrap the main source of propaganda we have in this country

Pheww so MumsNet is staying then?

MN is the country's main source of misinformation

AgentZigzag

I think JS will turn out to be a lesson we'll never forget, if it stops fuckers like him preying on the vulnerable because people are more likely to speak out, it'd worth a thousand useless inquiries into how it happened.

I think we've entered an era when the sorts of atrocities Savile carried out are much harder to hide. Twitter would have crucified Savile if he were alive and abusing today.

Do you not think in doing nothing the BBC was as bad as Savile himself?

I'm very sceptical about the whole business of this; why wait so long after he died to bring this allegations? Are all those who are coming forward genuine or after a quick buck? If so many were abused I would have thought that rumours would have made the press before now

It's typical reactionary behaviour. People feel rightly angry about what he did. He cannot now be punished with being dead and all so people want someone to be held accountable.

The actual people who turned a blind eye, took part, excused his behaviour or were complicit in anyway absolutely should be held accountable and punished in a just way.

The BBC as they are now, are not to blame for what happened. Although they do need to do as they are doing in mounting a thorough investigation.

There's reasonable arguments for scrapping the licence fee. This isn't one of them.

If any of the assaults happened on BBC premises and JS was employed at the time by the BBC then I think they will be liable. They surely had a duty of care to any young person visiting that they would be safe. Still the courts will have to decide.

Erm, why would the BBC be scrapped over the Jimmy Savile allegations?

And what's the BBC got to do with catholic church?

You're both unreasonable for jumping to huge illogical conclusions.

cricketballs the sheer number of Claims make me think it's not just some after a quick buck. And I know it's not uncommon for victims of abuse to say nothing until their abuser has died. Imagine having to face in court someone who destroyed your life.

Ohsiena, I only mentioned the catholic church as an example of another institution where there was large scale abuse of children which went unpunished.

But why wait so ling after his death? Something just doesn't sit right with me about this

Harder to hide in some ways, but easier to access in others HF.

Things like the darknet which is used by activists but also sex offenders because you can't trace where they are.

I expect the "so long" (a year?) is just a reflection of legal processes.

JS had apparently been investigated six times starting in the 60's cricketballs.

There have always been rumours of what he was like in the press.

Why does it matter why they're coming forward now, the passage of time doesn't change the crime.

And it's bollocks of you to insinuate they're doing it for money, I can think of fifty thousand things I'd rather do for a 'quick buck' than pretend I'd been molested by some wankstain of a Z list celebrity.

Actually, pieces like this appear to show that several women came forward over the years in a variety of incidents, but nothing ever came of the cases.

It's the kind of history that just would not remain hidden in the internet age.

x-posts.

It's a very sad article.

Wonders why it's come out now. Takes all the eyes off Murdoch and Levinson in my opinion. Sins of a dead man used to keep the eyes off sins of live ones.

I have not suggested that all are after money, but can you hand on heart say that you believe every accusation knowing that women have been guilty of 'crying rape' when nothing untoward has happened. The man can not offer any defence, denial or alibi

You're not suggesting they're after some cash when you said 'Are all those who are coming forward genuine or after a quick buck?'?

What did you mean by that then cricket?

It's up to the police to get to the bottom of what's happened, I'd rather start with taking their all complaints seriously than brush them all off as liars.

Thankfully the police in this country work with the same aim.

Massive, massive leap, cricketballs. Of course none of us can possibly say "hand on heart" that we know every single accusation to be true. Most of them are not public. How would we know?

But the fact that these allegations do go back years (contrary to your initial confident assertion that it is all coming out now) suggest that some of them, at least, are sadly very likely to be true.