11/01/2013 Newsnight


Presented by Emily Maitlis. How did Jimmy Savile abuse so many for so long? Will Britain have a referendum on EU membership? Plus a tribute to Thunderbirds creator Gerry Anderson.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Honoured bit Queen, the Pope, the Royal Marines, not to mention the


BBC, the paedophile who duped a nation. For over 50 years. How did


Jimmy Savile abuse so many victims. Somebody during that time, maybe


dozens, during that time, could have stopped him. And nobody did.


He abused a dying child, and a boy as young as eight. He used hospital


rooms, studios and schools, the last recorded offence three years


ago. How did the justice system fail so badly, we ask a former


Director of Public Prosecutions and a former victim. George Osborne's


ultimatum to the EU. Are the Tories ready to commit to a referendum on


Europe? The diplomatic row over whether


Britain is trying to cherrypick its terms for EU membership is heating


up and turning personal. The retired stars of International


Rescue gather to pay tribute to the creator of Thunderbirds. Hello,


hello, hello, I did the voice of Parker, a long time ago! Hello,


good evening. He died peacefully in his sleep, unrepentant, and


uncaught. Today he finally claimed his place by sheer scale, as


Britain's most prolific sex offender. Jimmy Savile's depravity


reached those as young as eight, and those close to dying. He


operated as a paedophile for over 50 years, and hid his actions


through sheer visibility in the sheen of celebrity. Today's reports


chart 240 allegations, some as recently as three years ago,


against a man, long suspected, but never charged. As the Director of


Public Prosecutions pointed the finger at police and investigators,


the Crown Prosecution Service apologised, and admitted that


Savile could have been convicted if his victims had been treated


differently. Tonight we ask what failings allowed him to get away


with deceit on an unprecedented level.


Jimmy Savile was a prolific, predatory sex offender, who abused


children on an unprecedented scale. According to the police and the


NSPCC. 450 people came forward, giving information about 214


offences. 126 were indecent acts, and 34 victims were raped. The


abuse spanned six decades. Most of the victims were teenage girls, but


40 offences were committed against boys. The youngest victim was just


eight at the time. The oldest victim was 47. Jimmy Savile


attacked children across the country. On BBC promise, in schools,


hospitals even a hospice. It's clear that their testimony, when


taken together, presents a compelling case of a predatory sex


offender, across the whole of the UK. It could be said he groomed a


nation. He was hiding in plain sight, and yet none of us were able


to do anything about it. Caroline Moore was at Stoke Mandeville in


1971, she had an operation on her spine. She said Savile abused her


there. She has been shocked to learn how many others he had


assaulted. I'm so angry and so sad, but it is for the children, for the


vulnerable adults who could have been quite childlike, and I'm angry,


I'm sad, I'm terribly frustrated. Not one person stood up and tried


to stop him. He could have been stopped, there was so many, it was


so many years that he was doing what he was doing, that somebody,


during that time, maybe dozens, during that time, could have


stopped him. Nobody did. Relatively few victims, abused by Savile, made


formal reports to the police. In the 1980s, a woman reported that


she had been assaulted in Savile's camper van, in a BBC car park. The


police file couldn't be found, the investigating officer has died. In


2003, a woman who had been on Top Of The Pops in 1973 told police


Savile had touched her inappropriately, she didn't want to


proceed, unless other victims came forward, she said. In 2008, during


the investigation into the Haut de la Garenne children's home in


jersey, inquiries were made about Jimmy Savile, he denied ever having


visited the home. The most significant opportunities missed


included abuse at Duncroft Approved School, in 2007 Surrey Police began


investigating two alleged offences there. They also found a victim who


said she had been assaulted at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where


Savile was a volunteer. Surrey Police operated with Sussex Police,


who were investigating an allegation that Savile had


assaulted a woman in 1970. The Crown Prosecution Service said none


of these four cases were prosecuted, because victims were reluctant to


come to court. However, its own report, published today, found that


a prosecution might have been brought. It said police and


prosecutors treated victims, and the accounts they gave, with a


degree of caution, which was neither justified nor required.


Referring to a witness, the principal legal adviser to the CPS


wrote. That it was difficult not to conclude that the officers had,


even if unintentionally, dissuaded her from pursuing her allegation.


Each victim was nervous of being the only witness against Savile,


but the police did not tell any of them there were others. Today's CPS


report found there was no justification for that. The CPS


lawyer was at fault too, according to the police notes. He did not


feel there was a case to proceed. The Director of Public Prosecutions


has said this should be a watershed moment. That the approach of police


and prosecutors to credibility and sexual assault cases has to change.


That more support should be given to complainants, and that a point


panel of the police and CPS should be set up to look again at claims


of sexual assault made in the past. Stod's report says Jimmy Savile


abused -- today's report says Jimmy Savile abused victims at 13


hospitals and one hospice. At Leeds General Hospital, where he


volunteered as a porter, victims reported assaults over three


decades. At Stoke Mandeville, over 23 years. These two hospitals,


together with Broadmoor, have begun investigations, looking at the role


Jimmy Savile had. At whether his behaviour was reported, and whether


hospital policy was followed. The BBC has commissioned a review,


chaired by Dame Janet Smith. It's investigating the extent to which


staff were, or ought to have been aware of unlawful, and/or


inappropriate conduct by Jimmy Savile. That is according to its


terms of reference. That phrase is absent from the terms of reference


of the NHS inquiries. Lawyers for Savile's victims say it should be


there. In a civil sense, we would need to show, or one element of


what we would need to show is whether or not the institution knew


or ought to have known, clearly if the inquiry, which involves


numerous interviews and investigations, reaches that


conclusion, it will certainly help within the civil context. I think


that what we also need to appreciate very much so, is it's


what the patients, what the victims, sorry, need, that is the


reassurance that these inquiries will lead to conclusions which will


ensure this never happens again. The Health Secretary says the terms


of reference are appropriate. will do the work that's necessary,


I know every NHS institution will do absolutely everything that it


takes, because we want to be able to reassure people using the NHS


today. We want to know that we have the right procedures in place. A


lot has changed. We have CRB checks now, we have local safeguarding


children boards as well. We need to be absolutely sure that this kind


of thing can't happen again. And I want to make sure the NHS does


everything possible to do that. an approved school, Duncroft was


direct low administered by the hoves. Lawyers say there should be


a full investigation here too, none has been announced.


Where do we start, what went wrong, could it happen again. With us are


Ken MacDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions until 2008,


Lisa Harker from the NSPCC, co- author of the report. And a lawyer


who represents more than 50 of Savile's victims. Kim, just to


start but for a second. We heard from one victim there, Caroline


Moore, the anger and frustration in her voice. The scale is incredibly


hard to believe. What does this mean for victims? You are right.


The solicitors where I work, we have a long history of representing


victims of sexual abuse. But we have never come across anything of


this scale of the we are literally being contacted -- of this scale.


We are literally being contacted every week by more victims. We are


out across the country, and even abroad, interviewing these victim.


There is people interviewing them as we speak now. And when you hear


about the number, and when they hear about the numbers, does it


make them feel relieved, if you like, that there are others in the


same position, or do you just ask how, how it was possible that this


was missed for 50 years? I think there is a big mixture, it is


important not to lump all the victims together. That people feel


very, very differently, there is that mixture of relief that they


are not the only one. That is tinged with guilt, which they


shouldn't feel, but a lot of victims of sexual abuse do feel


guilty and feel that if they had spoken out, maybe they could have


stopped others being abused. And they shouldn't feel guilty for that.


But there does need to be real questions asked as to why others


didn't stop this offending. We had an apology from the Crown


Prosecution Service today, a serious miss for them? Yes, the


real gravity of this is that this was the one opportunity, one real


opportunity that we had, I think, to prosecute this man. In fact,


reading the CPS report today, it is clear that if the victims, whose


cases were being looked at at that time, had been properly encouraged


to come to court and had come to court, there wouldn't just have


been a case against Jimmy Savile, there would have been a strong case


against him. I think a jury would have been persuaded by the fact


that three women, quite independently, many years later,


had come out with essentially the same sort of story about this man.


I think...Why Wouldn't they, they were actively discouraged, it seems


like? It sounds from the report, that if there was active


discouragement, it was inadvertant. The problem is, they were told,


none of them were told that I in of the others existed, that any of the


others complained. They were told that corroboration would be needed


for their individual stories. They weren't told that they could be


offered anonymity if they went to court. And the police failed to


consider, and it seems the prosecutor failed to consider, the


fact that each of these case, because they would have been tried


together, would have supported the other. They didn't let them know


about each other? No. I think the reason for that is, that in a


previous case, when the police were investigating offences in a


children's home, they had been criticised for broadcasting the


fact that the offences had taken place, and then sending letters to


everyone who had been at the home over a 20-year period. They were


accused of fishing for complaints. Do you think they feared a sort of


hysteria? They may have had some fear they would face criticism


again. It may have been appropriate at the beginning of their inquiries


not to share the knowledge with the women. But at the time when they


were thinking about bringing a case to court, they should have clearly


told these victims that they weren't alone, that other people


were making the same allegation, and if they went to court together,


there was a strong prospect there would be a conviction and this man


would be sent to prison. For some of this time this was on your watch,


do you agree with the police and KierStarmer that it was the


sensitivity in the approach over the time. Things have improved.


last attack was 2009? The number of sex cases brought to court has


improved dramatically in ten or 12 years. This is a very, very bad


case, and it is a recent case. The failings which are apparent in this


case should never have happened as recently as that. I think, it is


perfectly plain, that the approach that was taken to these victim, by


the prosecuting lawyer, was insufficiently sympathetic, there


was an instinctive feeling that they were, perhaps, isolated, that


it was a long time ago, that the assaults didn't go as far as rape.


All of these sorts of inappropriate considerations. We have had an


apology, which many victims will say isn't enough? It is clearly not


enough. What the victims want in case like this is justice. They


want to seat man who has abused them put on trial and sent to


prison. Jimmy Savile would have been sent to prison for a long time.


He was in a position of trust, these were vulnerable women, it was


a persistent course of conduct, he would have got a long prison


sentence if he had been prosecuted and convicted. A lot of people said


early on it was a sort of 70s thing, it was a cultural thing, we know


now this was happening in 2006, it was happening in 2009. And the


truth is, that people would still be cautious, wouldn't they? Of


prosecuting a much-loved celebrity of the same kind of allegations


raised now? The concern about the undue caution that we have seen


from the police applies to society more widely. There is, clearly, a


concern exposed by this case, about people coming forward to report


concerns about abuse of children and others. What we have seen since


the publicity around the case, is a dramatic increase in the number of


people coming forward. Not only to talk about Jimmy Savile, and others,


related to that case. But also to report concerns about child abuse


more widely. What do the actual institutions have to do now?


Because, you know, we are at the very beginning of this, the BBC has


launched its own investigation, the NHS hospitals and schools were told


on notice, but this all comes back to the failings of the state,


right? I think it is beyond, it starts with a question for society


at large about whether we are prepared to take action when we


have concerns about children, and whether we are prepared to listen


when children report concerns. Clearly the organisations involved


need to look at what happens within their own institutions, but it goes


wider than that. Kim Harrison, when you hear it is a question for


society at large, I'm wondering what your victims and others do


with a statement like that? What do they want to get now? They want


justice. They want to be believed, what happened to them they want


recognised. They want justice for themselves, they want to make sure


that nothing like this is ever allowed to happen again. We do need


to get to the bottom of exactly how this was allowed to happen. The


report today is a start, but it is not the end of the process, we


really need to get to the bottom as to how he was allowed to get away


with this for so long. Who knew and what institution, did anyone know?


Did anyone try to stop him? If not, why not? There are so many


questions still to be answered. that with an aim to getting


compensation from this, or civil prosecutions? When you talk to


victims, what do they ultimately want to get from it? Obviously one


of the main regrets is that there was a chance to prosecute Savile


whilst he was still alive, and that was missed. Had that gone ahead,


then other victims could have come forward at that stage. There would


have been potentially that justice there. We are obviously looking


into the difference of the legal avenues that the victims can pursue,


but you know, a big opportunity has been missed there. There is an


opportunity for civil compensation, but this isn't just about civil


compensation, this is about justice. How ashamed, Ken MacDonald, do you


think we should be, that he died before any of this came to light?


think a lot of the institution, care homes, our national


institutions, the police, and prosecutor, they will be thinking


very hard about themselves, and so they should be. Will it be a bill


for tax-payers, should this be where the victims go to be


compensated? Victims are entitled to compensation from some of these


organisations which owed them a duty of care, and failed to give


them that care. As a result of that failure they suffered sexual abuse.


I'm not a civil lawyer, but I think many of these victims will have a


strong case for civil compensation against some of the institutions,


including the broadcaster. Thank you all very much.


If the Chancellor told the European Union it had to change for Britain


to stay, would he hear that as an ultimatum. George Osborne has made


clear he wants Britain to stay on the inside of the EU, but with


conditions. In an interview with the German


newspaper, Die Weld, published today, the Chancellor was asked,


quite starkly, will Britain be in His answer.


After interventions this week from the US, Austrian and Dutch


Governments, and ahead of a major speech on Europe by David Cameron,


where do we now stand. Our diplomatic editor is just back from


Berlin. What do you read into those comments from George Osborne, first


of all? It is a significant statement for a British cabinet


minister to make. Making that conditionality about change in the


EU, making it the price, if you like, of continued membership. A


rallying cry for many Conservative backbenchers, and that broader


section of the British public that we could characterise as euro-


sceptic. On the other hand, how significant does change in Mr


Osborne's terms really have to be. He was in Berlin this week, making


all sorts of positive statements about Europe and its future


direction as well. What many in the Government had been hoping is they


could keep this on the one hand and the other-type policy going for


some time, some might say pretty close to the next election, until


they defined exactly what Britain wanted in terms of change. The


problem is, increasingly there are signs that the rest of Europe is


getting cross about this, and wants Britain to sexually say what it


wants, and stop, if you like, as some would say, holding them to


randsom. We have had a lot of these sort of tentative interventions,


haven't we? What kind of response from members, I guess you would


call it, the Europe club? Well, you have already pensions those two


leaders. The Austrian Prime Minister in an interview, that was


published today, he has been talking about this on the one hand,


on the other policy quite explicitly, saying we hear one


thing in the European Council, and another thing when Mr Cameron goes


home. He added that they all talk about it in the European Council.


Clearly they are implying a dual policy they don't like. We have had


the head of the German parliamentary European committee


using the word "blackmail" about what Britain is engaged with.


Britain has tried, we think there has been some briefings suggesting,


no there are others who share the view, the Dutch Prime Minister


himself, there is a speech coming up, doesn't disagree with us, about


perhaps taking some powers back. We had the Dutch Prime Minister's


spokesman saying, we don't know anything about what Mr Cameron


might say, and we don't agree with opt-outs, at this particular time.


It is clear that a lot of people in Europe want the British to, if you


like, put up or shut up. Is there any actual support for the UK


position as we understand it? well, at the popular level you


could say there is quite a bit. Let's face it, the party that went


into last year's French presidential elections with an


explicitly anti-euro platform, the National Front, actually did rather


well, in the Dutch elections, in the latter part of last year, there


were quite a lot of euro-sceptic messages. Both of those countries


voted no to the European constitution several years ago in


popular referenda. You could argue that on the popular level there is


sim thee. But the type of ruling class interest, -- sympathy, but


the type of ruling class interest, politicians, business leaders,


often get in the way of that, and insist on a "politics as normal"


type approach in Europe, in which basic membership is not challenged.


It will be very hard for the British Government to breakthrough


into that political class, and business class, and to convince


them that doing this, and raising these kinds of issues is not


undermining or destablising the EU, at a time when most of its members


want to concentrate on economic recovery.


Here's where surely the only -- his was surely the only coffin in


history to arrive with flowers of thunder bird 2. The creator, Gerry


Anderson, who died last month, was remembered from a 300-strong


congregation and the actors who worked with him. Hailed for his


vision, the film maker, diagnosed with Alzheimer's two years ago, was


hailed off with his puppets, a march, and Lady Penolope's pink


Rolls-Royce. For anyone of a sup certain age, me


included, the name -- of a certain age, me included, the name Gerry


Anderson on the credits means guaranteed excitement. He changed


children's TV by, for the first time, not making TV for children,


instead, he just made quality shows that children could enjoy without


being talked down to. The episodes were made meticulously,


huge attention to detail. Of course, it was a one-off, there was no


other show in the world like it. pink Rolls-Royce gave a hint as to


whose funeral it was in Reading today. Gerry Anderson's stars could


not attend, without someone to work their strings. Many of their voices,


though, made it. Not that many people may recognise your face, if


you say something they might recognise who you are? "yes, they


might recognise that I did the voice of Parker, a long time ago".


I was the angels voices in Captain Scarlet. All of the angels? I did


three of them. Would you rather live on Tracey Island? I would.


weather is not bad there? weather is fabulous. I was lucky


enough to meet Gerry Anderson about 18 months before he died. He had


been diagnosed with Alzheimer's a year previously. This was one of


his last interviews. He told me that advice he had got early in his


career still rang true. It's very simple, never second guess your


audience. You do what you want to do, and if you find that the


audience like what you want to do, you will be famous, if they don't


like what you want to do, open a greengrocer shop.


But early on, he could only get commissions working in a genre he


couldn't stand. Some people liked the puppets, and watching puppets,


I hated puppets, and hated working with them. So, he made it his own,


doing it better than anyone else. Always working round the puppets'


limitation, they can't walk convincingly, well, however bikes


and conveyor-belts then. I remember one -- hover bikes, and conveyor-


belts. I remember one moments, when I was saying "wait, wait, captain


scarlet" starting crying, and then I got the button, puppets don't


cry! He got so many productions here into the American market, they


wouldn't allow them before he cracked it with Thunderbirds. They


were watching it, they had a specialised showing, I don't know


where it was. They had the head of NBC saying we have to have it, it


is a killer. His most creative period coincided with the space


race. He, in common with his young audience, was obsessed with rockets


and astronauts. On one trip to New York, he remembers lecturing a


stranger on the mechanics of space travel. So I told him how the


astronaut escape system worked. He was very interested. You know, the


speed you have to go to break-away from earth's gravity, all these


sorts of facts that I knew, he listened. It was quite obvious he


was very interested. He was doing the occasional "really"! And "I


didn't know that"! Having talked myself dry, we got up, we shook


hands and he gave me his card. And I gave him, I took mine and gave


him mine. And I turned his card over and it read Captain James


Lovell! Well I nearly fell through the floor. It was the biggest put-


down, not only I have ever had in my life. It was the biggest put-


down anyone could have in their life. I was so take Anne back, I


said, you bastard! In Gerry Anderson's shows, technology


brought salvation, the prief of our better angels. It is further


fueristic and optistic, -- futuristic and optimistic, it shows


us a better mankind? Good was always supreme, we always won in


the end. But he became disappointed by how the full-sized world failed


to measure up. The only thing that hasn't changed and hasn't advanced


are people. That, I think, is tragic. Because there have been so


many opportunities opened up, what have we done? We have started for


whatever reason one war and another war, and I often think to myself,


in a way, us human beings deserve what we get. He was a massive


influence on tell vision, and children's television, and I think


the greatest thing about all his work is that it was entertaining.


There was no gratuitous violence, there is so much violence around


these days. He will be remembered as long as television is remembered.


Review is up next. Kirsty is in Glasgow. What have you got for us?


Tonight I'm joined by John Mullan, David Hayman and Anne McElvoy. We


plan to sing our way through Review, to see if it does for us what it


has done for Mister Dillon, for all you Modern Family, how will you


take to The New Normal this. One with Ellen Barkin as a homophobic


racist granny. Comedy of another stripe, PG Wodehouse is back with


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis. How did Jimmy Savile abuse so many for so long? Will Britain have a referendum on EU membership? Plus a tribute to Thunderbirds creator Gerry Anderson.

Download Subtitles