Most Americans will have never heard of Jimmy Savile, the flamboyant disc jockey, television presenter, and charity campaigner who, by the time of his death last year at the age of 84, had become a legend in the field of what we Brits call “light entertainment.” Savile was best-known for the long-running BBC show Jim’ll Fix It, in which he would arrange for the wishes of youngsters to come true.
Savile was also famous for his gaudy costumes, his jewellery, his mane of silver hair, his cigars, and his numerous catchphrases. He was a bachelor, and managed on the whole to keep his private life private. Perhaps inevitably given his “unusual” lifestyle, and the fact that much of both his charity and broadcasting work involved him being around children, there were rumors of sexual misconduct, and a couple of allegations of indecent assault. Nothing, however, was proven.
So it did not come entirely as a surprise when, shortly after his death, new allegations of sexual assaults on teenage girls as young as 14 began to emerge. But the volume of complaints has grown at an astonishing rate. A few days ago, police investigating the claims described Savile as a “predatory sex offender,” and said they were pursuing 340 lines of inquiry involving 40 potential victims — including young boys — and were dealing with allegations dating back to 1959.
The fact that Savile was apparently able to get away with committing rapes and other assaults for so long is bad enough. But what’s even more disturbing is that most of the alleged attacks were carried out while he worked for the BBC, and in many cases are said to have taken place in its offices and dressing rooms. It’s claimed that senior figures at the BBC turned a blind eye to Savile‘s behavior over the years, and that of other male stars.
And the cover-up continued after Savile‘s death. When the allegations against the star became widespread the BBC’s Newsnight program began an investigation, but the report was never aired. The BBC is investigating both the decision to pull the investigation and the allegations against Savile, and senior figures in the corporation are to be quizzed by a parliamentary committee.
There’s a note of irony about the scandal in which the BBC finds itself embroiled. One reason why, at least in the 1960s and 1970s, Savile‘s bosses and colleagues were able to ignore or excuse his behavior was that it was taking place against the backdrop of the sexual revolution, and the advent of the “permissive society,” which the BBC played no small part in celebrating and promoting (for more on the prevailing “culture” at the BBC, read this eye-popping account by a female presenter). Nowadays, such is the extent to which the corporation has embraced the modern diktats of political correctness, any male employee who so much as holds the lift door open for a female colleague risks being hit with a sex discrimination complaint.
What makes this affair particularly galling for the BBC is that, while any major organization would rightly be castigated for systemically covering up sexual assaults on young girls, none has appointed itself the arbiter of an entire nation’s morals and tastes to the extent the BBC has. It’s by some distance the most smug and self-righteous institution in Britain; in its fervor to impose its liberal-left worldview on the British people (its influence is also growing worldwide) it puts most religious bodies to shame.
But self-righteousness on such a scale inevitably breeds hypocrisy, and the BBC does hypocrisy in spades. This, you may remember, is the organization whose news arm, along with the left-wing Guardian newspaper, hounded Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloid The News of the World over the phone-hacking scandal and subsequent cover-up. Their efforts led to the closure of the NoW with the loss of hundreds of jobs, to the resignation of the prime minister’s press aide, and to several reporters and police officers facing criminal charges.
The BBC now stands accused of a cover-up of its own, but there’s a big difference. The only victims of the hacking scandal were celebrities whose privacy was invaded (the most serious allegation, which directly led to the closure of the NoW, was that its reporters deleted voicemail messages from the phone of a missing schoolgirl who was later found murdered; that claim has since been discredited). By contrast, the cover-up by senior BBC figures of sex attacks by Savile meant he remained at liberty to prey on victims who should have been spared their ordeal.
But hypocrisy comes easily to the BBC, which believes it is answerable to no-one, and under no obligation to adhere to the standards to which it holds other public bodies and individuals. As Britain’s economy has struggled, its reporters have stoked public outrage over “fat cat” bankers and businessmen failing to pay their fair share of taxes, while the corporation was busy running its own tax avoidance scheme for some of its most highly paid stars, and its executives were filing expenses claims that would make many a banker blush.
And day in day out, in its news and factual output, the BBC — which enjoys a virtual monopoly of TV, radio and internet news provision in Britain — holds itself up as a paragon of objectivity, while bias permeates its coverage of everything from Israel and Palestine to climate change. For the privilege of subsidizing this parade of corporate excess and liberal propaganda, each household in Britain is taxed to the tune of $235 a year, despite that fact that on almost every contentious issue the BBC is at odds with a majority of the British people.
The phone hacking scandal led to a costly and drawn-out public inquiry, during which newspaper bosses, police officers, Conservative politicians, and others were interrogated and often humiliated, while the BBC sat gleefully on the sidelines waiting for the next arrest or resignation. At the time, the corporation’s detractors wondered how it had managed to escape scrutiny in the most wide-ranging inquiry into the workings or the British media ever held. They’ll now be hoping that, at long last, it’s the BBC’s turn to stand in the dock.






I was in London a few weeks ago for about 8 days and found the BBC news to be a bit freakish. The women looked like Stepford wives and the reporting had an almost unnatural calm about it. It was really weird watching them.
Another news report that I couldn’t get over was the deaths of two policewomen. These two young women, unarmed as the British police are except for nightsticks, were sent to arrest a man who had already shot and killed someone in a pub, and killed another person with a hand grenade. And the BBC reporters were shocked, shocked, that the women were killed! When faced with a criminal like that, in the US there would be a SWAT team sent along with helicopters to arrest the man.
I came away from that visit thinking the BBC needs some real competition.
Modern Brits — with the exception of the combat arms of their military — are “Elois” (from The Time Machine, H.G. Wells).
Brits have been celebrating decadence and degeneracy for decades, so the awful behavior of their media stars was no secret for a very long time. It is being exposed as shocking only now under the new prevailing attitudes.
“Eloi’s”
Well played.
You have earned……..”a shrubbery”
My understanding is that those women were “news readers.” Sensibly, the British don’t dignify TV talking heads with the title “reporter” or try to make people believe they actually practice journalism. And from what I remember of the BBC on shortwave, their delivery has always been pretty low-key. Compared to them, our newsies are practically hysterical.
So the obvious question is how much of this goes on in our own wonderful American news and entertainment industry? I suspect that if nothing else, we’re going to be hearing some real horror stories from today’s sexed-up television toddlers when they get older. There will certainly be coverups as well, and we’ll all be wondering how, in the age of jerry sandusky, such a thing could be permitted to happen.
Those horror stories are already out there. Corey Feldman has plenty of horror stories. Hollywood has been providing cover for perverts for decades, all while decrying the Catholic Church. If you ask me, their plan is to use their pretend offense at the topic of “child sexual abuse coverup” to destroy the Church, and then the day after (the VERY DAY AFTER) the Church is closed up, Tinseltown will begin their campaign to “end the stigma surrounding adult-child sexual relationships.”
Mark my words.
Are you kidding? They’re starting the campaign to “end the stigma surrounding adult-child sexual relationships” *NOW*.
Gawker had a nice long article talking about how pedophiles are just misunderstood.
Let’s not forget Roman Polanski, either. Anal Rape is fine, so long as you’re a famous director.
A famous Democrat famous director. Let’s imagine Clint Eastwood or Charlton Heston being suspected.
The name Roman Polanski springs to mind…
well, no worries on the roman front. as liberal icon whoopi goldberg tells us, it wasn’t “rape-rape” – so, no big deal.
The biter irony is that any of thiose sef-righteous liberals will not doubt a second about maling snide comments about paedophiles between Catholic clerics (BTW a study in Germany made by a non Catholic institution found children were more at reik from “civilan” children tahn from priests). Don’t expect them to be so conccerned about childre,n and BTW we should make jokes about liberals and pedophilia
Lest anyone shoud think that Mr McNally is speaking for anyone but himself let’s correct a few points here.
He states that the BBC is at odds with the views of the population. Curious that it enjoys such widespread support then. In numerous polls the licence fee (which is not levied on every house despite what the ill-informed Mr. McNally claims) remains popular and the BBC is regarded as a trusted news source, scoring considerably higher than other media.
Now I realise that for Mr. McNally and the other ideologically-driven opponents of the BBC facts are a malleable concept, but for the rest of us they do provide some grounding.
Now let’s be quite clear. If the allegations against Jimmy Savile are substantiated and it can be proved that the BBC turned a blind eye then that is extremely serious indeed. The response from the BBC will need to be conclusive and unequivocal. There is a saying at the beeb “assistant heads will roll”. There can be none of that.
A link to those polls would be nice. There is a growing backlash at the BBC’s political views and power, and anger at the outdated, and unfair, concept of a television license. I’d wager those who like it and view it as a trusted news source either agree with its political stance or just don’t think about things too much, as long as their favourite shows are on.
True, the telly tax isn’t charged on every household. Only those under 75, and only if they watch live broadcasts (from any station, not just the BBC). Oh, and the blind get half off.
I will say I like the effete toff accent. Very BBC.
“There is a saying at the beeb ‘assistant heads will roll’. There can be none of that”
Exactly. I’m not expecting anything to happen, either.
Here’s a twelve year back experience with BBC News I will never forget –
The story was about George W. Bush (hsssss! Spit!) visiting South Korea, and making the obligatory trip to the DMZ. The story starts with a rundown of why relations between North and South were particularly bad at the time. I remember vividly them going down a list of things like “a railway linking north and south…but that has not happened.” “A new economic agreement… that was not implemented.” etc etc. In other words, a list of wonderful things that just didn’t happen, well, apparently because Martians came down and put a stop to them. Not a peep about the absolute FACT that South Korea had done everything called for, down to building a railroad right up to the DMZ and then stopped to wait… and North Korea had abrogated EVERY SINGLE element of the agreements. And all the BBC could do was adopt this blatantly passive “oh, golly, these things just sort of never did happen, who knows why…”
Ah but then, friends and neighbors, comes Mr. Bush’s trip to the DMZ, and the standard shot of the Prez with the binocs, staring over…. and the good ‘ol Beeb plays subtle dark music underneath the shot, the kind of music you hear when the Death Star approaches Aalderan. As we look at Bush’s face.
Lemme tell ya, FOX News would never do that, not in an outright news report. Never. I wonder even if MSNBC would. But BBC news thought it was cool, probably had a jolly good chuckle.
I have encountered BBC News since while switching channels, I don’t think I’ve ever watched it since. I sure as hell don’t expect to. I have called them an enemy of liberty on this planet, and see no reason to reassess that opinion today.
Oh it gets better. Part of the brouhaha about Savile, who is conveniently dead, is to distract from the current crop of light-fingered gropers at the BBC. Andrew Marr, senior political correspondent and all-around self-important BBC icon is in a spot of hot water. How bad is he? Well, let’s just say worse than Dan Rather with a dash of Walter Duranty. Only the smuggest of the smug could write a book with the title “My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism” or produce a series entitled “Andrew Marr’s History of the World”. Yet this self-regarding socialist was recently photographed with his hand down a female assistant’s pants — neither her choice nor in her job description, it seems, just part the droit de seigneur of all BBC grandees. Marr’s wife is a sanctimonious moralist at the very socialist Guardian newspaper (yes, that one, the rag that tried to interfere directly with the choice of Ohio voters in 2002).
Decent people everywhere who’ve encountered the grisly Marr’s are now tingling with schadenfreude. Yet the proles of Britain — just about everyone, that is — continue to shuffle on silently, more defeated, dejected and Dickensian than ever. “What can you do? Nuffink. Vey should do somefink, vey should”. Well, it’ll do as an epitaph.
Past time, many would say, to turn out the lights on this failed state.
Having grown up in UK, Jimmy Savile was the personification of creepy. He shouldn’t have been let w/in three feet of any kid w/o parental supervision. As for the BBC… their influence is pervasive. They’ve had control of the airwaves forever. Loosened now w/ cable, but still like a NYT (with all those connotations) on the air. There’s a market in UK for talk radio… someone needs to do Radio Caroline or Radio Luxembourg experiment but w/ talk radio.
Oh, I just remembered another BBC tale -
Now, this may be apocryphal, but it’s still pretty telling, and all too plausible.
Seems there was an older Englishman, very pro-military, supportive of the troops during their blessed help to the US in the Iraq War (2003). He would listen to BBC News on his way to and from work, and of course, he grew more and more depressed because, obviously the US and Britain were losing the war, getting their butts kicked, just a disaster led by incompetents and moral reprobates all around.
He got so depressed that after work, he would go to a local watering hole to wallow in his cups over the unfolding catastrophe for British arms. There was a TV there, but the sound was off, so at least that helped.
And then he noticed… the news on the BBC just got worse and worse… and then the maps on the telly kept getting closer and closer to Baghdad! WTF?!?!?
I dunno if it’s true, but it is a great tale. What IS true is that British forces in the gulf ordered the BBC cut off to the troops because of their appallingly mendacious coverage. THAT is true. So by all means, let’s pile on.
(I should say that BBC drama and documentaries are top notch, and they did give us Monty Python, which earns about 200 years of good will. It is their “News” that is a monstrous travesty.)
I was told all about Savile 18 years ago by a TV producer friend who had worked at the BBC. He told me it would only come out after his death, as he had too many rich and powerful friends in the media and the establishment for it to come out while he was alive. He was 100% correct. I worked in the music business at the time, and everyone in music and TV knew exactly what Savile had been doing. It just wasn’t ‘public’ knowledge. There’s no way all these sanctimonious BBC producers and colleagues claiming they hadn’t a clue what he was up to didn’t know.
“…The BBC — which enjoys a virtual monopoly of TV, radio and internet news provision in Britain….”
I’m not sure when Mike McNally last visited Britain but I’m guessing it was the 1950s or earlier. The BBC lost its monopoly on TV with the start of ITV in 1955! Channel 4 started broadcasting in 1993. I believe there are other TV broadcasting services as well, including Sky.
A monumental error like this greatly undermines the author’s credibility.
Mike McNally isn’t suggesting the BBC is the only television broadcaster in Britain. He said the BBC “enjoys a virtual monopoly of TV, radio and internet *news* provision in Britain” (my emphasis).
“A monumental error like this greatly undermines the author’s credibility.”
Quite.