'Number 10 link to paedophile ring'-Press association

[kweggie]

'There is "clear intelligence" suggesting a historic paedophile ring may be linked to Downing Street and a former prime minister, MPs have been told.

Labour MP Tom Watson alleged a member of a notorious group was connected to a former No 10 aide'

Am I the only one who thinks I may have been living my who;e life in a parallel (decent)universe.....
how much more sleaze is going to emerge......I'm shocked

I mean that I do not believe that that was really the case.

google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/andrea-davison-jimmy-savile-serco-and.html?m=1

Ooooohhhh to scary.
I know I am being incorrect here but she looks to nice and tiny and blonde to be a spy. Nothing like 007 at all.

place obviously

I can utterly believe that claig. The Xmas schedules had just come out and if this newsnight had come out there would have been major upheaval all plonked on the news night editor's head. I don't believe he wasn't leaned on directly or indirectly. He just knew he had to cancel it. I do also believe there were no in depth senior discussions about it. I can't believe them all saying they knew nothing of savile. Even viewers knew the various rumours about him. They might not have believed them but to say no one heard anything is a joke.

I don't believe that none of them asked questions about the content, but I am beginning to think that the programme was not intended to be go out. If it was about Christmas schedules, then they could have postponed it and shown it in January or February and said that they needed to do some extra investigation.

Six newspapers published that Newsnight dropped the Savile programme in January and February and it seems that some senior BBC executives never saw these reports. But why weren't more questions asked in January and February by the rest of the media. The public was only informed of the full details in October. Where was the investigative journalism? Lots of people must have known about the allegations and the ITV programme being made and yet there seems to be have been little exposure of what has now turned out to be major news with the biggest crisis for the BBC in 50 years.

Why October?

Someone may take the fall, possibly the wrong person for the wrong reason.

'some senior BBC executives never saw these reports' and it seems that none of their support staff told them. Maybe they don't read those newspapers. Did the BBC report those stories too?

Even if the real reason they dropped the Newsnight report was because of the Christmas schedules surely they could have shown it in Jan/Feb, I just don't understand why drop it altogether.

Exactly. The Christmas schedule argument is probably what the public will be told. I think it is obvious that it would have eventually had to come out, because too many people knew about it and there could no longer be any excuse of Savile suing anybody. It was not a matter of if, just a matter of when, and it turned out to be October.

I think the delay in broadcasting was important.

Why claig? To give people time to run away prepare themselves for the scandal?

No, I am guessing, but there were too many important events happening which could not be overshadowed by what has been described as this "tsunami of filth".

It's inconceivable to me to not ask about the newsnight allegations and inconceivable for other journalists. The savile allegations were always going to come out in one arena or another and the news that news night were doing a programme in nov or December 2011 would have killed that appalling tribute for Boxing Day stone dead. - actually it should never have been planned. Like I said everyone knew. But weirdly senior staff - wouldn't have been embarrrassed to have run the programme even just a few weeks after their tribute.

Appalling news judgement but they wouldn't have suffered for it and that's all that matters to them. I truly believe people avoided concersations about it for their own preservation because it would normally work.

I don't believe in a big conspiracy just arse covering.

i think claig means there was too many important events as in the Olympics and the Jubilee happening. In which case there are questions to be asked of society in general not just the BBC as the Jubilee etc was obviously considered to be more important than abuse survivors finally being beleived and/or getting justice.

i Too also think that they didnt want the Xmas schedules buggered up. After all they had already paid Shane Ritchies fee for doing that appalling Jimll Fix It tribute plus the fees of others and production fees.

In one of the links I put in another journalist from another department mentioned it in passing to the execs as "what are you going to do about the clash at Xmas so they did know but still went ahead with the Xmas tribute. I am glad they did. It would have been drowned out by the jubilee and Olympics.

It was foreign correspondent hawley to Thompson at Xmas so they knew intime. Also the editor Jordan who has stepped down he has bowed very quietly out. Presumably when it all calms down he will step back up.

It could all be office politics as it appears the dg job was up at the time and it looks like execs were backstabbing and dropping each other in it. Withholding info on something important could be handy when the shit the fan.
It might not be though they all could be lizards ;)

It was rippon not jordan I meant.i
I was also thinking when he said "it's only the girls" was he not after the stories of js with boys. So he might have other info about boys but need edit corroborated

It's insane to think that news stories come neatly one after another. It doesn't happen like that. Sometimes you have a glut and sometimes during the summer you don't.

It's crazy to think that the jubilee and the Olympics would have killed the savile story even if the investigations were scheduled for then - which they weren't.

People, even those in press offices who should know better, put too much store in news management. If a story is good enough you can't stop it no matter what press officers and news managers like to say.

This was always going to run because it's an irresistible chance to bash the BBC

The original "good day to bury bad news" story was about Labour council chief exec expenses which was due to come out when 9/11 happened. I'd have liked to bury something bigger than that with the biggest news story in recent history. But it added to the news management myth and has earned a lot of mediocre people a lot of wasted consultancy fees over the years so no harm done there.

Sorry limited i sometimes type exactly as im thinking.
Im still in shock with all this even though its been a month since it broke.

This Week did a segment on the reasoning behind Entwhistle's claims to not have asked any questions of Helen Boaden's comments about the Newsnight investigation, as he mentioned in the select committe grilling.

here

John Sergeant explains the structure/hierarchy of BBC management, and how they don't want to be seen giving 'undue influence' etc. when concerned with other branches of the BBC. His report starts at about 7.14, and the discussion between Portillo, Neill, Sergeant & Johnson that follows is interesting, simply in the context of the comments above on why Entwhistle seemed to not be even the least bit curious about what Newsnight were looking into re JS/why the tributes weren't cancelled etc.

Portillo did no one say anything to him ask about any dalliances in the thatcher government. He is bi isn't he . He could have had edwina and ken. Ha

Moor Larkin Today, 13:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moor Larkin

The BBC may have part of the answer in their old Archive, because in 1988 there was an episode of their Forty Minutes documentary series filmed about the new Broadmoor, and reviews of it include some quotations from Jimmy in an interview with the documentary -makers, who followed him around with their cameras.

It's also interesting to me that that there have been a lot of comments in the media about people being afraid of Jimmy Savile suing them.

The only libel case I can find a record of him winning was against The Sun in 1989, when he received undisclosed damages from News International, when they ran a story claiming he was "fixing it" for the release of Broadmoor prisoners without proper expert oversight. Kelvin MacKenzie retracted and apologised for all the content of the articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belinus

There is also the fact in the world of commercial statutes only the legal person can sue and be sued.
I learned that should you understand this position you as a human have only one legal relationship to the legal person, one of power of attorney.

This the elite know, as such if a charge is one of a statutory nature then it is with the prosecution to first prove you are indeed the liable agent for the legal person.

Its the loophole of all loopholes known only to those at aristocracy level and above, that was until I learned of its truth.

In that sense such behaviour which is controlled by statute, cannot touch the elite...
I wouldn't know about all that, but I can read old newspapers as readily as new ones.

"Forty Minutes looks at the changes that have since been brought about by a Government-appointed management team, headed by Jimmy Savile, aimed at allowing the patients a degree of dignity and independence compatible with public safety as well as their own. "What we are trying to resolve," Savile says, "is a nightmare."

Voice from the grave indeed.
news.google.com/newspapers?id...6130%2C3633570
From digital spy

This story has come out one by one. It's waited 40 years easy to hang back for something really important to blow smoke over