:00:21. > :00:28.Welcome to Newswatch. If I am Samira Ahmed. Sexual abuse
:00:28. > :00:36.allegations against Sir Jimmy Sandor Earl. But why did none the
:00:36. > :00:42.BBC view the documentary a year ago with similar accusations. Also, how
:00:42. > :00:52.on to report has sent to cover lengthy live events fill the air
:00:52. > :00:56.
:00:56. > :01:00.time with inane questioning, according to some viewers. Back in
:01:00. > :01:05.the 1970, Jimmy Saville was one of the best-known television
:01:05. > :01:11.personalities in Britain. This week, his reputation is in tatters after
:01:11. > :01:19.a stream of allegations he abused teenage girls. The BBC is also
:01:19. > :01:29.under question because some of the offences were set here and partly
:01:29. > :01:31.
:01:31. > :01:35.also because it is accused of being slow in the investigation. This
:01:35. > :01:40.week's had line sprang from a documentary in which five women
:01:40. > :01:44.said five women had been sexually assaulted and it has emerged a
:01:44. > :01:51.programme had been pursuing its investigation last year but that
:01:51. > :01:57.report was dropped. Some of US detected a lack of enthusiasm by
:01:57. > :02:04.part of the BBC. One him out us to say they instead of burying our
:02:05. > :02:10.heads in the sand, we should launch an investigation. Another added,
:02:10. > :02:17.your silence is very telling. You are starting to look complicit. In
:02:17. > :02:22.a moment, are will be speaking to the BBC director of editorial
:02:22. > :02:28.standards but first to another viewer. Can you sum up your
:02:28. > :02:35.concern? Did you feel the BBC was covering the story well? I felt
:02:35. > :02:41.that when it first hit the news, it was a main headline whereas the BBC
:02:41. > :02:46.had no news about it and for which I thought was very odd. It made it
:02:46. > :02:51.very uncomfortable. Immediately one thought there was some form of
:02:52. > :02:57.cover-up because it was a big thing but it was not presented as such.
:02:57. > :03:04.Hence, I wrote to the BBC. I thought there may have been some
:03:04. > :03:09.form of cover up because it was not broadcast. What is the feeling
:03:09. > :03:14.about the investigation last year from the BBC that was dropped?
:03:14. > :03:19.is such a long time ago now but they should have been the first to
:03:19. > :03:25.react to anything like that, to clear their name, poor themselves
:03:26. > :03:30.in the forefront of the investigation. -- put themselves.
:03:30. > :03:37.The BBC role should have been at the forefront rather than reacting?
:03:37. > :03:41.Indeed. What you think of the BBC now? I think they are moving
:03:41. > :03:46.forward and they have woken up to the fact that this is a serious
:03:46. > :03:52.matter and all the people that have come forward so far have something
:03:52. > :03:58.to say and if there are allegations, BBC must delve into that and go
:03:58. > :04:06.back and find out what they knew and bring these things to prove or
:04:06. > :04:13.disprove. Representing the BBC is a David Jordan. The question remains,
:04:13. > :04:21.the attitude to the story looked suspicious. Can I deal with the
:04:21. > :04:29.fact that we have been accused of being slow to pick the story up. We
:04:29. > :04:34.do not get information about what other news programmes again to show.
:04:35. > :04:43.The BBC was much slower than newspapers and other outlets.
:04:43. > :04:50.think the story was featured in every one of their news programmes.
:04:50. > :04:55.It has been at the story for ITV. The decision to drop an
:04:55. > :05:00.investigation also looks very odd. The editor of Newsnight also
:05:01. > :05:07.explains that what they were looking at was the way in which the
:05:07. > :05:13.Surrey police had investigated the Jimmy Saville in 2007. You look at
:05:13. > :05:23.ITV, they have a 3 million viewers. The story was also about Jimmy
:05:23. > :05:24.
:05:24. > :05:26.Savell. They were investigating the police investigation. They had made
:05:26. > :05:31.recommendations to the Crown Prosecution and subsequently it had
:05:31. > :05:38.been dropped because they thought there was a lack of evidence. We
:05:38. > :05:41.can argue about whether you or I had or would have taken at
:05:41. > :05:46.different... Everyone else is reporting it. It looks if nothing
:05:46. > :05:52.else that the BBC was not good at gathering information. The editor
:05:52. > :05:57.has to make the decision on the fact and we do not know what facts
:05:57. > :06:03.he had at his disposal. He made an honest decision. He decided that
:06:03. > :06:07.was not the angle he wanted to pursue. It is difficult to say it
:06:07. > :06:13.was a mistake given we were not there. Somebody else might have
:06:13. > :06:18.made a different decision. Clearly the documentary on Wednesday night
:06:18. > :06:24.made a different decision. Newsnight could run a story now but
:06:24. > :06:30.given that the story is out there now, there is a limit at reason to
:06:30. > :06:34.do so. Why does not Newsnight show the programme now? The fundamentals
:06:34. > :06:40.of the story are now well established. We know a number of
:06:40. > :06:46.women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savell in the BBC
:06:46. > :06:51.premises.. There is concern about the damage to the BBC. The major
:06:51. > :06:56.concern we ought to have is not about the reputation of the BBC,
:06:56. > :07:00.there is no suggestion the BBC was complete set, his reputation has
:07:00. > :07:04.taken a big hit, the main concern should be for the women who were
:07:04. > :07:10.abused in this way and to make sure they have the opportunity to tell
:07:10. > :07:19.the story and hopefully put it behind them. Are you satisfied the
:07:19. > :07:24.BBC has done everything it can? its look at the situation about the
:07:24. > :07:30.people working in the BBC, his colleagues and friends and other
:07:30. > :07:33.presenters, who, to me, going by what I saw, it was blatant and
:07:33. > :07:39.other people must have seen things going on who have never come
:07:39. > :07:43.forward. For whatever reason - a job security, who knows. It has
:07:43. > :07:49.been pushed under the table. want to the BBC to investigate its
:07:49. > :07:59.staff? It is not for the police to look at. It is for the start to
:07:59. > :08:03.
:08:03. > :08:09.come forward to collaborate stories. Thank you to both of you. Do let us
:08:09. > :08:13.know your thoughts on that or any other aspects on the BBC. Now for
:08:13. > :08:18.some of your other Commons. When they saw two highly distressing
:08:18. > :08:27.stories covered live and extensively on the news channels.
:08:27. > :08:36.We followed the continued search for April Jones and also we
:08:36. > :08:41.followed the funeral of a PC. local resident here, do you know
:08:41. > :08:46.April's family and how are they now? We are a small community so
:08:46. > :08:56.everyone knows everyone. My thoughts are with them. Let's talk
:08:56. > :08:56.
:08:56. > :09:01.to somebody who knew her. She worked with Nicola used. When you
:09:01. > :09:10.heard the news about the murder, what was your reaction to that?
:09:10. > :09:14.we were very sad. But you're sort those interviews and did little
:09:14. > :09:24.more than fill in times between news conferences and services and
:09:24. > :09:49.
:09:49. > :09:56.not in the most sensitive ways. She Coverage of the search for April
:09:56. > :10:00.Giants lead to more letters. mother of a missing five-year-old
:10:00. > :10:10.breaks down in tears as she appeals for the public to help find her
:10:10. > :10:31.
:10:31. > :10:35.There was a different. Later that Finally, of those watching
:10:35. > :10:40.breakfast on Wednesday morning got rather more than they bargained for
:10:40. > :10:50.as an interview began, the voice of a reporter could be heard off-
:10:50. > :10:58.
:10:58. > :11:05.camera swearing in terms which An on-air apology was made and the
:11:05. > :11:10.BBC later said it was reviewing its procedures. A microphone had been