Browse content similar to 06/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Welcome to Newswatch. If I am Samira Ahmed. Sexual abuse | :00:21. | :00:28. | |
allegations against Sir Jimmy Sandor Earl. But why did none the | :00:28. | :00:36. | |
BBC view the documentary a year ago with similar accusations. Also, how | :00:36. | :00:42. | |
on to report has sent to cover lengthy live events fill the air | :00:42. | :00:52. | |
:00:52. | :00:56. | ||
time with inane questioning, according to some viewers. Back in | :00:56. | :01:00. | |
the 1970, Jimmy Saville was one of the best-known television | :01:00. | :01:05. | |
personalities in Britain. This week, his reputation is in tatters after | :01:05. | :01:11. | |
a stream of allegations he abused teenage girls. The BBC is also | :01:11. | :01:19. | |
under question because some of the offences were set here and partly | :01:19. | :01:29. | |
:01:29. | :01:31. | ||
also because it is accused of being slow in the investigation. This | :01:31. | :01:35. | |
week's had line sprang from a documentary in which five women | :01:35. | :01:40. | |
said five women had been sexually assaulted and it has emerged a | :01:40. | :01:44. | |
programme had been pursuing its investigation last year but that | :01:44. | :01:51. | |
report was dropped. Some of US detected a lack of enthusiasm by | :01:51. | :01:57. | |
part of the BBC. One him out us to say they instead of burying our | :01:57. | :02:04. | |
heads in the sand, we should launch an investigation. Another added, | :02:05. | :02:10. | |
your silence is very telling. You are starting to look complicit. In | :02:10. | :02:17. | |
a moment, are will be speaking to the BBC director of editorial | :02:17. | :02:22. | |
standards but first to another viewer. Can you sum up your | :02:22. | :02:28. | |
concern? Did you feel the BBC was covering the story well? I felt | :02:28. | :02:35. | |
that when it first hit the news, it was a main headline whereas the BBC | :02:35. | :02:41. | |
had no news about it and for which I thought was very odd. It made it | :02:41. | :02:46. | |
very uncomfortable. Immediately one thought there was some form of | :02:46. | :02:51. | |
cover-up because it was a big thing but it was not presented as such. | :02:52. | :02:57. | |
Hence, I wrote to the BBC. I thought there may have been some | :02:57. | :03:04. | |
form of cover up because it was not broadcast. What is the feeling | :03:04. | :03:09. | |
about the investigation last year from the BBC that was dropped? | :03:09. | :03:14. | |
is such a long time ago now but they should have been the first to | :03:14. | :03:19. | |
react to anything like that, to clear their name, poor themselves | :03:19. | :03:25. | |
in the forefront of the investigation. -- put themselves. | :03:26. | :03:30. | |
The BBC role should have been at the forefront rather than reacting? | :03:30. | :03:37. | |
Indeed. What you think of the BBC now? I think they are moving | :03:37. | :03:41. | |
forward and they have woken up to the fact that this is a serious | :03:41. | :03:46. | |
matter and all the people that have come forward so far have something | :03:46. | :03:52. | |
to say and if there are allegations, BBC must delve into that and go | :03:52. | :03:58. | |
back and find out what they knew and bring these things to prove or | :03:58. | :04:06. | |
disprove. Representing the BBC is a David Jordan. The question remains, | :04:06. | :04:13. | |
the attitude to the story looked suspicious. Can I deal with the | :04:13. | :04:21. | |
fact that we have been accused of being slow to pick the story up. We | :04:21. | :04:29. | |
do not get information about what other news programmes again to show. | :04:29. | :04:34. | |
The BBC was much slower than newspapers and other outlets. | :04:35. | :04:43. | |
think the story was featured in every one of their news programmes. | :04:43. | :04:50. | |
It has been at the story for ITV. The decision to drop an | :04:50. | :04:55. | |
investigation also looks very odd. The editor of Newsnight also | :04:55. | :05:00. | |
explains that what they were looking at was the way in which the | :05:01. | :05:07. | |
Surrey police had investigated the Jimmy Saville in 2007. You look at | :05:07. | :05:13. | |
ITV, they have a 3 million viewers. The story was also about Jimmy | :05:13. | :05:23. | |
:05:23. | :05:24. | ||
Savell. They were investigating the police investigation. They had made | :05:24. | :05:26. | |
recommendations to the Crown Prosecution and subsequently it had | :05:26. | :05:31. | |
been dropped because they thought there was a lack of evidence. We | :05:31. | :05:38. | |
can argue about whether you or I had or would have taken at | :05:38. | :05:41. | |
different... Everyone else is reporting it. It looks if nothing | :05:41. | :05:46. | |
else that the BBC was not good at gathering information. The editor | :05:46. | :05:52. | |
has to make the decision on the fact and we do not know what facts | :05:52. | :05:57. | |
he had at his disposal. He made an honest decision. He decided that | :05:57. | :06:03. | |
was not the angle he wanted to pursue. It is difficult to say it | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
was a mistake given we were not there. Somebody else might have | :06:07. | :06:13. | |
made a different decision. Clearly the documentary on Wednesday night | :06:13. | :06:18. | |
made a different decision. Newsnight could run a story now but | :06:18. | :06:24. | |
given that the story is out there now, there is a limit at reason to | :06:24. | :06:30. | |
do so. Why does not Newsnight show the programme now? The fundamentals | :06:30. | :06:34. | |
of the story are now well established. We know a number of | :06:34. | :06:40. | |
women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savell in the BBC | :06:40. | :06:46. | |
premises.. There is concern about the damage to the BBC. The major | :06:46. | :06:51. | |
concern we ought to have is not about the reputation of the BBC, | :06:51. | :06:56. | |
there is no suggestion the BBC was complete set, his reputation has | :06:56. | :07:00. | |
taken a big hit, the main concern should be for the women who were | :07:00. | :07:04. | |
abused in this way and to make sure they have the opportunity to tell | :07:04. | :07:10. | |
the story and hopefully put it behind them. Are you satisfied the | :07:10. | :07:19. | |
BBC has done everything it can? its look at the situation about the | :07:19. | :07:24. | |
people working in the BBC, his colleagues and friends and other | :07:24. | :07:30. | |
presenters, who, to me, going by what I saw, it was blatant and | :07:30. | :07:33. | |
other people must have seen things going on who have never come | :07:33. | :07:39. | |
forward. For whatever reason - a job security, who knows. It has | :07:39. | :07:43. | |
been pushed under the table. want to the BBC to investigate its | :07:43. | :07:49. | |
staff? It is not for the police to look at. It is for the start to | :07:49. | :07:59. | |
:07:59. | :08:03. | ||
come forward to collaborate stories. Thank you to both of you. Do let us | :08:03. | :08:09. | |
know your thoughts on that or any other aspects on the BBC. Now for | :08:09. | :08:13. | |
some of your other Commons. When they saw two highly distressing | :08:13. | :08:18. | |
stories covered live and extensively on the news channels. | :08:18. | :08:27. | |
We followed the continued search for April Jones and also we | :08:27. | :08:36. | |
followed the funeral of a PC. local resident here, do you know | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
April's family and how are they now? We are a small community so | :08:41. | :08:46. | |
everyone knows everyone. My thoughts are with them. Let's talk | :08:46. | :08:56. | |
:08:56. | :08:56. | ||
to somebody who knew her. She worked with Nicola used. When you | :08:56. | :09:01. | |
heard the news about the murder, what was your reaction to that? | :09:01. | :09:10. | |
we were very sad. But you're sort those interviews and did little | :09:10. | :09:14. | |
more than fill in times between news conferences and services and | :09:14. | :09:24. | |
:09:24. | :09:49. | ||
not in the most sensitive ways. She Coverage of the search for April | :09:49. | :09:56. | |
Giants lead to more letters. mother of a missing five-year-old | :09:56. | :10:00. | |
breaks down in tears as she appeals for the public to help find her | :10:00. | :10:10. | |
:10:10. | :10:31. | ||
There was a different. Later that Finally, of those watching | :10:31. | :10:35. | |
breakfast on Wednesday morning got rather more than they bargained for | :10:35. | :10:40. | |
as an interview began, the voice of a reporter could be heard off- | :10:40. | :10:50. | |
:10:50. | :10:58. | ||
camera swearing in terms which An on-air apology was made and the | :10:58. | :11:05. | |
BBC later said it was reviewing its procedures. A microphone had been | :11:05. | :11:10. |