25/02/2016 Victoria Derbyshire

Hello it's Thursday, it's 9.15, I'm Joanna Gosling,

He claims he's been dismissed over evidence he gave to an inquiry

into sex crimes committed by Jimmy Savile at the corporation,

It comes as that report from Dame Janet Smith on the BBC

culture that allowed Jimmy Savile to abuse victims

while he was working for the corporation

We'll hear from one man who tells us he was abused by Jimmy Saville

after his cub scout group appeared on Jim'll Fix It; he says he doesn?t

after his cub scout group appeared on Jim'll Fix It; he says he doesn't

Also ahead, a stellar night for Adele at the Brits.

Astronaut Tim PeakE dialled in from space to present her

with one of four awards at the ceremony in London.

Congratulations to Adele. You've taken the world by storm. I wish I

was there to present your award. Hello, welcome to the programme,

we're on BBC 2 and the BBC You can get in touch in the usual

ways; use the hashtag Victoria live. If you text, you will be charged

at the standard network rate. And of course you can watch

the programme online wherever you are via the bbc news app

or our website bbc.co.uk/victoria. Let's get straight to our main news;

the story that will dominate much The DJ Tony Blackburn says he's been

sacked by the BBC in a row over his evidence to

the Jimmy Savile inquiry, that he claims is evidence

of a continuing cover-up. He's devastated,

he says and will sue. Tony Blackburn says

the Dame Janet Smith report includes a claim that he was questioned

decades ago by a senior BBC executive and a senior lawyer

about an allegation that he was one of a number of celebrities

who seduced a 15-year old girl. That's not true, he claims not only

was he cleared of any wrongdoing at the time, but he says

the questioning never took place. We're still waiting for BBC bosses

to comment, but let's get the details of Tony

Blackburn's statement. support on Twitter, this morning

he's tweeted: I just want to say thanks so much for your overwhelming

support it means a lot to me. We'll hear from Dame Janet Smith

from about 10 o'clock this morning But first one of Jimmy Savile's

victims says he doesn't understand why he was singled

out by the TV star. Kevin Cook says he was sexually

abused by Jimmy Savile when he was nine years

old after his cub Scout group He's waived his right to anonymity

to speak to us and joins me. You were a nine-year-old boy when

you were abused by Jimmy Savile and you didn't tell a soul until 2002

when wider allegations emerged. Presumably up until that point you

thought you were alone? Yes. I always thought it was a one-off and

it was just me until in 2012 when all the stories started breaking,

there was all the exposure and then every day in the Sun newspaper, I

used to read it, that was just coming out day-by-day. How did you

feel at that point, that you had never spoken out about it and now it

was out there? I personally felt relieved it was other people. Now I

have to deal with the guilt of that, but like I say, it was easier for me

to know that there was others that was coming out every day and it was

mainly female and then there was another male had come forward and

then that just, it was just such a relief for me because for 35 years

inside of me it was all bottled up thinking, why me, what have I done,

I must have done something wrong, and all of a sudden, I know I'm not

to blame. So take us back to when you were a

nine-year-old boy. How did you meet Jimmy Savile? What happened? I was

part of a local Cub Scout group who wrote to Jim'll Fix It. We wanted to

do a milk float race around Brands Hatch which we were accepted for and

we went and done. And you then subsequently went to the studios to

see him for a recording of Jim'll Fix It. What happened then? Well,

when we were split up, some of the cubs, most of the cubs went in the

studio, audience, to watch and eight were picked out to do the main TV

programme be it we'd all done the Brands Hatch race previously. We

were all on the stage, eight of us, so film for that and I was told that

we were going to get one big badge which was disappointing because I

thought we were all going to get an individual badge and then I was

asked if I would like my own one which of course I jumped at. And he

asked you that directly, did he? Yes. That was my first prop ever

conversation with him. I'd met him and we'd been mingling around him

but that was the proper first conversation. He was a huge star at

that time, one of the biggest shows on TV, how did you see him? It was

almost God-like. He was one of the biggest stars. Everybody I know

wrote to the programme, all my friends, everybody couldn't believe

when I was going on there and school friends, you know, it was just

suddenly I became Mr Popular and everyone wanted to be my friend

because of that. He was just the Man at the time.

Suddenly you had an opportunity to get your own individual Jim'll Fix

It medal when everybody else was having to share one? Yes. How did

you... What happened, he said you'd get one but you had to go off with

him in order to get it? Yes. He then came back to me, approached me on

the stage after the filming when we were all on the stage and asked me

if I would like to go and get my badge. I said yes, then I was led

off the stage and walked off with him. We went through some doorsand

then off into a so-called dressing room. After that, what do you

remember? Well, we went into the room, he

closed the door behind him, it was a little dark, din edgy room, not like

his dressing room would be -- dingy. It was almost like a cleaning

cupboard, horrible little room, small desk, vanity mirror with a

wardrobe, and then he pulled out the chair, towards the middle of the

room, told me to sit down, he stood in front of me and that's when it

took place. What was going through your mind?

It was hard to say. Obviously, he started to touch my leg at first and

then I was thinking, what's happening, and you know, what is

actually going on, you can't describe it. Obviously you know it

was almost as if you think, is this happening, it carried on from there

and it was just awful. So how long were you alone with him

at that point? Probably a couple of minutes. It wasn't long at all.

Probably a few minutes at the most. Did he speak? Yes. He was just sort

of talking saying "you'll be OK" and just, "you're fine" but that's all

he was saying until the end of it and that's when he did speak more.

What did he say then? Well, when it was finished, he issued some threats

to me. He told me "don't you dare tell anybody, no-one will believe

you, I'm King Jimmy and we know where you live. " That still

horrifies me to this day. And it did intimidate you into

silence? Yes, definitely. Somebody else came into that room?

Yes. Initially when you spoke about it, it took you some time toe reveal

the full detail of what had happened? Yes. Talk us through what

happened? There was a knock on the door? Yes. The story I initially

told was there was a knock on the door and the man opened the door,

saw the room was occupied and said "oops" and walked back out. But that

wasn't the case. The man walked in, closed the door behind him and then

approached myself where I was sitting down and

approached myself where I was assault took place. I mean, he

sexually abused me and also fizz chill abused me. With Savile there.

Savile actually stopped him the second time, he hit me on top of the

head and Savile stopped him the second time if doing it by grabbing

his hand. By now I was obviously hysterical and crying. How did they

respond to the fact that you were a little boy and were crying? They

didn't care. Savile stopped him the second time striking me. But nothing

was said, apart from telling me to shut up and stop crying and telling

me I'd be all right. But no, it was like animals.

Jimmy Savile then said "I'm King Jimmy"? That's when he said the

threats after the other man finished, went out the room and

that's when he issued his threats. And then did Jimmy Savile take you

back to the other group as if nothing had happened? Yes. That was

it, we walked back on to the stage and that was it, the end of it.

Can you remember how you were feeling? You must have been in a

state of complete trauma? Yes. I mean, I was really, really upset.

But I can't remember the details of that. I can remember someone asking

me on the coach coming back how I felt, what was the matter with me

and I just said "nothing, I'm fine" and then that was it. Why did it

take you even longer to reveal what had happened with the second person

in that room? Obviously Savile died a few years before this all came out

in 2011 and obviously I wasn't scared of him no more. But this

second person, I mean he could still be out there, and I was scared of

facing him, facing possible court action if he's ever found,

protecting my family, because the second part is more horrifying than

the first part. To this day, my wife, my mum, no-one knows the full

story there. It 'll only be what they've read or heard, you know, I

can't bring myself to tell people. I was always scared, but obviously now

I've come to terms with it, you know, it's gone the other way, I'm

not scared no more, I want to face this person.

For all those years, you buried this in yourself. But, as we said, Jimmy

Savile was one of the most famous people at the time, constantly on

television? Yes. How did you feel ofry time you saw him? Well, I

didn't used to watch his programmes and everything. So did you stop

watching Jim'll Fix It? Yes. Definitely. I can remember when our

show was aired because it was quite a few months after the filming, and

I can remember my nan and grandad coming round and the whole family

watching it and it was just awful for me, I can remember that it was,

you know, just terrible, everyone there, you know, what's supposed to

be a moment us to occasion, I suppose. Yet, you know, it was

horrible for me. But in later years, he was still on telly all the time

and then for a while he sort of disappeared off the screens. The

first time I noticed him again was, I used to watch the London Marathon

and then he would appear on that. Then it obviously all starts back up

again. When you finally started speaking

about it, how hard was it, and what difference did it make's when I

decided to... I told my wife, and as far as I was concerned, I planned it

out the day before, that was going to be yet, I was going to tell my

wife, and that would be the end of it. Within two or three minutes she

was on the phone, reporting it to the police, so I spoke to the

police. They came to see me, and once I had spoken to them, they were

really nice about it, I felt I was believed, because that was always a

big part, not being believed, and then I decided to speak to a

newspaper, I phoned them and straightaway day of the defeat,

which I thought, I discussed it with my family, who didn't want me to do

it, but I decided, I'm going to do it but donate the fee to charity, so

people didn't say I was doing it for money, but then I decided to go to

the press myself and as soon as I have done that, it came out a couple

of days later, it was really good for me. I'd describe it as being in

a pressure cooker and the slow release files has been let out, and

it just sort of came out from inside of me and it felt really, really

good. There have of course now been several investigations and inquiries

into what happened, we have the publication later of Dame Janet

Smith's report, but nothing can change the fact that he got away

with it in his life. How does that make you feel? I am very bitter

about it, because my incident happened in 1976, subsequently when

I'm finding out there are police investigations into him in the early

70s and beforehand, and on the scale of how many people knew, it is a

terrible thing, I should never have been put in that position, he should

never have been allowed to do what he was doing, carrying on in the job

that he did, putting came around children and teenagers, and young

people, he should never have been allowed, so that makes me very, very

bitter, and I hope someone is going to be held accountable for it. What

do you hope to hear from Dame Janet Smith today? The first thing that it

is never going to happen again going forward. That people are going to be

held accountable. That people are going to apologise. They have all

told the truth about what they knew, and when they knew about it, and I

don't know, I would like to hear the reasons why they didn't tell people

all report it. And just basically an apology, and then I can go forward

from there. Thank you very much. We're expecting to hear

from Dame Janet Smith along with the head of the BBC

Trust and the BBC's Director General Tony Hall

from around ten this morning. Still to come: The latest migration

figures are out this morning. We'll be speaking to a farmer

who says he relies on Eastern European workers

to keep his business going. And a stellar night for Adele,

we'll have a full round-up of all the winners and best

performances at last night's One of the BBC's longest serving DJ,

Radio 2 presenter Tony Blackburn, says he has been sacked following a

disagreement over his evidence to an inquiry by Dame Janet Smith into

sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile when he worked at the BBC. Tony Blackburn

has insisted he is not guilty of any inappropriate conduct. The report

into sexual abuse at the BBC is out in half an hour.

The Greek Prime Minister has criticised Austria and a number

of Balkan countries, for imposing new restrictions

Alexis Tsipras said he wouldn't allow his country to become

"a permanent warehouse of souls" as people were prevented

Home Secretary Theresa May will meet her EU counterparts

this morning in Brussels, to discuss the migrant crisis.

Adele was the big winner at last night's Brit Awards,

becoming the most successful solo artist in any one year.

She picked up four trophies, including best album for 25 and best

The London-born singer made an emotional speech.

I said it earlier but to come back, I got really lost for a while, I

didn't know if I would ever come Let's catch up with

all the sport now. Interesting story in football today,

his manager says he needs to learn what serious pain is, pundits have

said he has the heart of a pea and England cannot rely on him. After

suffering knee, thigh, carved and hamstring problems, Liverpool's

Daniel Sturridge has called the doubters disrespectful, despite

being unavailable for half of his three years on Merseyside. To say a

player doesn't want to play is the biggest disrespect you could ever

say to any individual footballer, to be honest. I think it is astonishing

and disappointing. You can understand why Daniel Sturridge is

going through such a rigorous warm up routine. He has made only seven

appearances from Liverpool this season. I'm not somebody that is

sitting in the house chilling, laughing, joking going out with my

friends, living life to the fore when I'm not playing. Devastated I'm

at home, in my house, I'm not enjoying life,

at home, in my house, I'm not not stress-free, I'm at

at home, in my house, I'm not devastated, watching

at home, in my house, I'm not played. Daniel Sturridge has

at home, in my house, I'm not more spectating than scoring this

season. All I want to do is play football, help this team have

success, and that is the most important thing to me, nothing else

matters. With Euro 2016 on the horizon,

storage is likely With Euro 2016 on the horizon,

Liverpool tonight in their uber at the league match. There have been

strong the league match. There have been

United side going for their second leg against FC Michelin. Van Gaal

has found an interesting way to fire up his players. A lot of times I use

the word horny. LAUGHTER.

It is true. LAUGHTER.

If your manager said that, how would you react? Like you, we react like

you! And there will be full commentary on

that batch from BBC radio 5 Live, and updates on Spurs.

There was good news last night for Manuel Pellegrini, whose master plan

There was good news last night for is working in Manchester city. They

sacrificed to the FA Cup at the weekend to be at full force for

their Champions League tie last night and with

their Champions League tie last side thrashed by Chelsea at

their Champions League tie last against Gina McKee had in Ukraine.

Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Yaya Toure scoring in a 3-1 win that put

them on course to reach the quarterfinals of the competition for

the first time. They could be the only British club

to get that far. We will see. That is all the sport

for now. The DJ Tony Blackburn says he's

been sacked by the BBC. He claims it's because of evidence

he gave to the inquiry into the corporation's culture

during the Jimmy Savile years. Dame Smith's report

is published later today. Tony Blackburn is one of the BBC's

best-known and most popular DJs. His was the voice that launched

Radio 1 back in September 1967. Welcome to the exciting

new sound of Radio 1! Our correspondent

Marc Ashdown is here. What has been said about why he is

gone? As he saw, Tony Blackburn had an illustrious career, 49 years at

the BBC, but we are told that is over. He broke the news last night

in South. He says this review today will contain details about an

allegation made in 1971 that he, along with other celebrities,

seduced a 15-year-old girl, Claire McAlpine. Those allegations were

quickly withdrawn and I must say there was never any evidence of any

improper conduct towards her by him. But it is the subsequent

investigation into that by the BBC, which he claims is behind his

sacking today. He says BBC records in this review today

will say that he was interviewed by a BBC senior executive and senior

lawyer. He says that didn't happen. He claims he has never spoken to

them about this case at all, so that, he says, is why he has been

sacked. The BBC will not comment until publication in about half an

hour or so, 20 minutes, but of course we are expecting a rundown of

who you what, when, the victim you have just spoken to about what was

going on in the Jimmy Savile era, also looking into Stuart Hall, the

sports commentator. The BBC director-general Tony Hall has

described it as a dark chapter in the BBC's history, and the report is

expected to criticise the BBC. If you expect it to draw a line under

which a day, that may not happen because of this Tony Blackburn

development. He says he is devastated, a scapegoat, and he is

planning to sue the BBC. Kevin Marsh is a former editor

of BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Obviously we are hearing the details

of Tony Blackburn going. What do you think about what you are hearing? It

is difficult to read because we only have the statements that Tony

Blackburn has made. Clearly he felt it necessary to get his account out

before the Smith report comes out, because he was found completely

not... He was exonerated, no evidence against him, he is not

culpable of the things that we talk about during the saddle era, so he

was keen to make sure his name was not wound up with general reaction

to the report -- the Savile era. But whichever way you slice this one it

is not great for the BBC. Either there was no need to be with Tony

Blackburn and the allegations that Claire McAlpine made were not fully

investigated, or there was an investigation and, as we think Dame

Janet will say, the BBC took Tony Blackburn's denials at face value

when they should have been investigated further. Whether Dame

Janet is right and the BBC paper trail, such a disease, is right, or

Tony Blackburn is right and he says there was no interview, in this

context it is not good for the BBC. How difficult will today be? Very

difficult, the director-general will clearly have to repeat what he said

before, that this is a dark chapter in the BBC's history, he will have

to accept Dame Janet's report pretty much in full, and that'll mean

accepting, if the leaks are correct, that some of culture that allowed

Savile's activities to go on is still present at the BBC, a culture

in which people don't feel they can go to their managers with misgivings

about what the stars are doing or even just bullying. If Dame Janet

really does find that that culture is still to some extent in the BBC,

that will be very difficult for the director-general. A leaked copy of

the report talked about a deferential culture within the BBC.

How do you see that? There are lots of BBCs. The news department where I

have always worked is slightly different, deference is not a

characteristic of news culture. But you have to understand the

entertainment side, the shiny floor shows, as we used to call them,

where the success or failure of the show depends completely on quite an

expensive star, normally. A channel controller or programme director,

their reputation hinges on the star performing well, and so you can

understand how for a junior producer who sees something, or someone who

has spotted something in a green room or whatever, there is a real

reluctance, there was a real reluctance to come forward. The

really damning thing, if this truly is in Dame Janet's report, is that

senior managers, it is claimed, were aware of some of these allegations,

but kind of cut themselves away from investigating them by saying, well,

there is no hard evidence. Now, that is a difficult one to defend,

actually, because if you are in charge of a programme, in charge of

a channel, and you are aware of the rumours, of allegations, I think the

public will feel, well, isn't the manager's job to ask more questions,

to step into the situation and say, what is going on here? I think that

will be quite BBC. The other tough thing for

the director-general will be, it is easy to change the rules, to change

protocols and systems, but much harder to change a culture, and one

of the issues around broadcasting at the moment is that it is a pretty

insecure industry. If you are coming into the industry as a young

producer, John researcher, you are never quite sure what your status

is, what you are supposed to do, never quite sure that by

whistle-blowing you will probably damage yourself more than reveal

some wrongdoing. So changing that culture I think will be really quite

difficult. Thank you very much. Coming up: Our reporter at the Brits

will be here to reflect More on her awards and the rest

of last night's winners. The latest official migration

figures which have just been released by the Office

for National Statistics, show that the difference

between the numbers coming to live in the UK and those emigrating

has risen to 323,000, an increase of 31,000

on the previous year. The net migration of EU citizens

to Britain was 172,000 in the year to September 2015, an increase

of 14,000 on the previous year. Since the end of 2012,

net migration has been Net migration is the key figure

we look for, because the Government is aiming to bring it down

to below 100,000 by 2020. Critics say that is unachievable

and should be dropped. So how important are

European workers to some Let's talk about this

with Guy Poskitt, who runs Poskitt's Carrots in

Goole in East Yorkshire. They are one of the UK's biggest

carrot growers and rely on Eastern European

staff to function. Thank you very much for joining us.

How much do you rely on Eastern European workers? We rely on them

heavily. We have a lot of local workers but have a lots of Eastern

European workers as well. What proportion of your staff? In the

pack house, 60-70% of workers are Eastern European. Why is that? We

can't recruit enough local workers. We are a fresh produce business and

demand seven-day a week availability or our customers do and with that we

have to have a seven-day workforce to support the business and we can't

find enough people who'll do that, pack venl vegetables on a Sunday or

Bank Holiday Monday. That's why we have overseas workers. Do you

advertise locally? Yes, and we advertise internally and we do

recruit some good people. I will challenge anybody to come and apply

and see if we can accommodate them with a job but we just can't find

the people toe meet the needs of our business. We have some good ones,

just not enough of them. What do you say to people who say workers like

the ones you are employing take away jobs from local communities? I'll

dispute that every day because we don't see that. We don't see the

local communities applying for the jobs and, so come and have a go, you

know, the door is open, apply and let's see if you want to turn up on

a Sunday morning and pack carrots at 6am. What happened before this

Eastern European migration? Well, we were in a very difficult situation

in terms of recruiting staff, but also, the world's changed, we have

become a seven-day a week world, we all expect availability and

freshness every day. I think roll back the clock ten or 15 years, we

didn't demand that, but the retailers, consumer-driven, are

demanding this availability and freshness every day of the week and

things have changed and we had to change our business to meet the

demands. Tell us more about why you think it is that local British

people will not co-the seven-day a week jobs, because presumably

there's not zero unemployment there? I wish we had more of the hard

workers. It's hard work, unfavourable hours, sometimes cold,

and I don't know, maybe it's the Tullture, I don't really know the

answer but what I do know is we can't find the numbers and any

politician who challenges me on that, I'll say, tell you what, come

to my factory on a Sunday morning and find them for me because I can't

find them. Do you, as a local business, feel a responsibility to

employ locally? Of course. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than

to employ a huge amount of people out of our village. When I was a

little lad, we had a lot of workers out the village but slowly they have

disappeared and the only ones left are the older generation, the

younger ones aren't coming forward for these type of jobs, it's not

fashionable probably, probably getting jobs in bars which is more

fashionable than packing carrots. What would you think about the UK

leaving the European Union? I'm a big in man because I can't see the

benefit to my business in lots of ways. Thank you very much.

Now, liberals regard the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage

as a sign of progress in the US, but many Conservatives see it as a

challenge to their traditional values. As part of the BBC's divided

America series, we went to Arkansas to talk to young American who is say

discrimination is getting worse. They care about what their

interpretation of the Bible is and they often interpret that by kicking

their child out of the home. I've been pushed, hit, got things thrown

at me. Arkansas is the heart of America's Bible belt where faith

comes first. For many here, homosexuality is incompatible with

their religious beliefs and these feelings are deep-rooted, meaning

the change that has been seen and felt in other parts of America

hasn't quite reached here. 21-year-old Kaylan wants to be a

chef. He ran away from home several times before getting his own place

in low-income housing. He came out to his mother who couldn't accept

it. My mum mentioned the Bible, you know, if there's a gay person, it's

a sin. How do you feel about going to church, given that shaped your

mum's beliefs towards sexuality? I believe when I go to church I go to

hear from the Lord so I pray before and after. I don't personally worry

about people are saying. People used to tell me I was a demon and I was

like, no, because I'm personally, you know, I know that's not true.

Penelope run's Lucy's Place which helped Kaelon find a place to live.

It's the only centre of its kind in Arkansas. We have gay marriage now

and transgender people can serve in the military, so we have made all

these strives and I believe what we are seeing is that adults are

feeling more emboyered to come out as who they actually are, but their

parents are not changing, they are the same and still believe that LGBT

don't deserve to exist. There's been a generational shift in

attitudes towards LGBT rights but in some parts of America, views remain

deeply entrenched. Records were broken

at last night's Brits. Coldplay became the most successful

band in the award's history, accepting the Best British Group

award - the act's ninth Brit. However, it was Adele

who dominated the ceremony, getting four gongs, becoming

the most successful solo act She took home Best British Single

for Hello and Best British Female To come back after so long

away and be so warmly received is really lovely,

thank you so much. And to all the other

girls that are nominated, thank you for letting me

be in your company. You are all incredible,

you are all amazing, and it is a privilege

to be alongside you. # Is it too late

to say sorry now...? I would like to just

thank my family, my Just for being here

with me tonight and Thank you so much everybody

and thanks for being so

nice to us when we played. And we would like to thank

the other bands, Blur - the first album I ever bought,

Leisure, by Blur, in 1991. On the 10th of January this year,

the world was stunned and shaken by the news that David Bowie had

suddenly passed away. The President of America played a

part in the tribute to Ray Charles. President Obama said he had two

things that got him through, a strong mother and music. The

President then made a promise to his audience. I will not be singing. But

for our last one, it is fitting that we pay tribute to one of our

favourites. And one of the most brilliant, influential musicians of

our times, the late great genius himself, Mr Ray Charles.

# Hey, ho, hey, ho... # Baby it's all right

# It's all right # Thank you, everybody, hope you had a

great time. Still to come: Live coverage of Dame

Janet Smith's inquiry into how failures at the BBC allowed Savile

to carry out abuse for so long while working at the Corporation. Let's

get a weather update with Carol. Good morning. Good morning to you.

It's been a cold start today. We have had widespread frosts,

temperatures in Shap fell to minus 8, the lowest in the land. Beautiful

pictures sent in by our weather-watchers.

Frosty but sunny starts to the day in Cumbria. We have been watching a

band of rain and cloud moving into the south-eastern corner, that's

more or lease cleared now but there's a lot more cloud coming in

across the west than we originally thought. For many parts of the UK,

it will be dry and fine with one or two showers. Snowing at the moment

across the north-east of Scotland in Shetland. It will ease off in the

north-east of Scotland but continue for much of the day in Shetland. For

south-west England, more cloud coming in, it's not going to be

wall-to-wall blue skies but still there'll be some brighter breaks

across Wales. A bit more cloud and that cloud thick enough here and

there for the odd shower. Into Northern Ireland after this

morning's showers drying up, some bright spells but quite a bit of

cloud at times as there will be across Scotland. We hang on to the

snow falling across Shetland. Again, if you are in the sunshine in the

east, it will feel quite pleasant. North-west England also seeing a wee

bit more cloud, the north-east seeing some brighter skies. The

Midlands, variable amounts of cloud, down into Kent, a similar story,

bright spells or sunshine and that prevails all the way down towards

Hampshire. Through the evening, temperatures will drop quickly under

any clear skies and once again, it's a widespread frost. In the

south-west, in through Wales and also up towards Northern Ireland,

you can see temperatures are going to stay above freezing because we

have got a bit more cloud around and also some showers.

Tomorrow, again where we have the clear skies, we'll have sunshine

from the word go. A few more scattered showers in southern

counties than today and this band of rain coming across the Isles of

Scilly and Cornwall just edging into southern parts of Northern Ireland.

We could see a bit of snow on the hills associated with this. It's an

area of low pressure and, as we head on through Friday into Saturday, we

can see how it starts to pull away, taking the occlusion wrapped around

it with it. The direction of the wind will change. The wind starts to

come from a cold continent from the east, and that will have an adverse

impact on the temperatures across southern parts of England and also

Wales, so despite the fact there'll be some sunshine, it's going to feel

cold. The temperatures you can see here on the chart, six to eight, are

probably a bit optimistic anyway, then when you add on the wind chill,

it will feel colder. As we move north, we are back in the sunshine.

Parts of Scotland, cloudy in the north and also Northern Ireland,

temperatures lower but the winds are lighter so it won't feel as bad.

Into Sunday, again a lot of dry weather around. It will be a frosty

start, so a cold one obviously. With the lighter winds, it will feel that

bit better and there'll be quite a bit of sunshine around too. In

summary for the weekend, if you have outdoor plans, not too bad. It will

stay cold with bitter winds, especially in the southern half of

the country, but mostly dry. Hello, welcome to the programme

if you've just joined us. A culture of fear that prevented

staff reporting abuse, a macho environment and young

girls in moral danger. Just some findings of

Dame Janet Smith's review of how Jimmy Savile was able to carry out

abuse with apparent impunity One of Jimmy Savile's victims has

been speaking exclusively to us about the abuse he suffered at the

hands of the Jimmy Savile. It was easier for me to know

that there were others They were mainly female and then

another male had come forward, and it was such a relief for me,

because for 35 years inside of me, it's all bottled up, thinking,

why me, what have I done? You know, I must

have done something. And all of a sudden,

I know I'm not to blame. The radio DJ Tony Blackburn says

he's been sacked by the BBC. He claims he's been dismissed over

evidence he gave to an inquiry We will bring you the reports

findings live. The report on sexual abuse by Jimmy

Savile when he worked at the BBC has just been published. The review by

Dame Janet Smith says 21 people were also assaulted by the broadcaster

Stuart Hall at the BBC. The review found the

Stuart Hall at the BBC. The review with a match our environment and

culture of fear which prevented staff reporting abuse. One of the

BBC's longest serving the case -- DJs, Radio 2's Tony Blackburn, says

he has been sacked over a disagreement into his evidence into

the inquiry. Tony Blackburn has insisted he is not guilty of any

inappropriate conduct. 'Keep your mouth shut,

he's a VIP.' That's what a BBC staff

member was told on being made aware That's been disclosed

in a report just out. Savile is revealed in

the Dame Janet Smith review to have committed abuse over nearly half

a century of his BBC career. And the inquiry finds that the BBC

was infused with a macho environment,

along with a culture that made it That meant, it says,

that young girls coming to the BBC

for TV shows could have with no real concern for the welfare

of its young audience. It says the atmosphere

of fear still exists today, and the evidence makes 'sorry

reading' for the broadcaster. It's now time, says Dame Janet,

for the BBC to demonstrate that it takes the criticism seriously

and is making changes. She says it's possible that a child

abuser could be lurking Our correspondent Nick Higham

has seen the report - Tell us, what is in it.

It is a substantial and have the report, two reports, Dame Janet

Smith's report into Jimmy Savile's behaviour at the BBC, and also an

investigation into Stuart Hall and his time at the BBC, and what, if

anything, the BBC knew about Paul's activities and about Jimmy Savile's

activities. I will hand this to a colleague to get rid of it. It is,

as you said in the introduction, it damaging report for the BBC because

it suggests a widespread Nacho culture, a culture of lab dish

activity, of sexual harassment, and it suggests the BBC was not aware at

the highest level of the allegations against Jimmy Savile -- eight Nacho

culture. The report details at least eight occasions when people

complained about Savile's behaviour to BBC staff and on each of those

occasions it seems the staff concerned, relatively junior, did

not refer up, and so the BBC, corporately, Dame Janet says, at

head of department level, were not aware of what was going on. Slightly

different situation in the case of Stuart Hall, a of debates, a great

deal of rumour and gossip, and the hedge of regional television in the

north-west, in Manchester, Ray Colley, Dame Linda Dobbs, who

conducted that report into Stuart Hall, believes he did know, because

he questioned Stuart Hall about what was going on, but he did not monitor

whether Hall modified his behaviour as he had been advised to do. In

that, she thinks Ray Colley failed. Let me talk about the Tony Blackburn

business. He says, as you reported in your introduction, that he has

been sacked by the BBC with immediate effect. He says that is

not because of any misconduct on his part but because his version of

events back in 1971 doesn't tally with the BBC's, and he says he is

not guilty of any inappropriate conduct, and he says he is suing the

BBC. What happened in 1971? A woman called Claire McAlpine, who was 15,

went to Top Of The Pops on a number of occasions. Her mother rang the

BBC to complain she had been seduced by a celebrity, taken back to his

flat, even though she was underage, and she later killed herself, and it

was widely reported at the time, the News of the World and elsewhere.

Dame Janet says that Bill Cotton, then the head of light entertainment

at the BBC, questioned Tony Blackburn about this, because Claire

McAlpine's mother named him as a celebrity in question. He denied it,

he was later interviewed by a man called Brian Neill QC, conducting a

separate inquiry into allegations of paying DJs to play records, and was

told the girl was a fantasist, that there was no basis and Brian Neill

thought the allegation was an invention. The problem arises with

Dame Janet's investigation into this, she says Tony Blackburn told

her in 2013 that he had never met Claire McAlpine, which contradicts

what he told Brian Neill many years ago, and he also told Dame Janet

that he had never been interviewed by Bill Cotton, Dame Janet says the

documents suggest that he was. In terms of the culture, which is

being discussed, which enabled Jimmy Savile to get away with it, Dame

Janet says it could be the case that things could potentially still be

going on, that things haven't necessarily changed?

She says the culture has changed, that the BBC, like many

organisations, is much more alert to allegations of sexual misconduct,

more aware of the protection of children, the importance of making

sure that underage people and young adults are properly treated, it says

it has a whistle-blowing policy in place which makes it much easier, in

theory, for people who have concerns, staff who have concerns,

have complaints, to raise them with the hierarchy, so in that sense she

says things have changed that the BBC. As indeed they have changed in

society at large. One of her criticisms of the BBC back in the

70s and 80s was it seemed more concerned about protecting its own

reputation than protecting young people coming to Top Of The Pops or

taking part in shows like Jim'll Fix It. What she say she cannot

guarantee is that there are not people, paedophiles, in the BBC at

the moment, and in some cases I think she suggests that however many

whistle-blowing policies you have in place, however good your procedures,

of course it is still not easy for people in any organisation to raise

concerns with superiors, there is always an element of risk involved,

and she thinks that, particularly at the BBC, where lots of people work

as freelancers and on short-term contracts, a lot of people may be

inhibited about raising concerns because they fear for their jobs and

careers. Thank you. We are awaiting the live

presentation of the report by Dame Janet Smith. Earlier I spoke to one

of Jimmy Savile's victims, Kevin Cook, who says he was sexually

abused by Jimmy Savile when he was ninth after his Cub Scout group

appeared on Jim'll Fix It. He has waived his right to anonymity

to speak to us. Kevin said he initially thought what had happened

to him had been a one-off until stories appeared in the papers four

years ago about the scale of Jimmy Savile's abuse. He told be what

happened to him on that day in 1976 on Jim'll Fix It.

When we were split up, most of the Cubs went in the studio audience to

watch, I was -- eight were picked out to do the main TV programme bit,

we had all done eight brands Hatch race previously. We were all on the

stage, a Top Of The Pops, to Film4 that, and I was told we would get

one big badge -- to film for that. I was disappointed because I thought

we would all get an individual batch. Then I was asked if I would

like my own one, which of course I jumped out. He asked you that

directly? Yes, that was my first proper conversation with him. I met

him and we had just been mingling around him but that was the first

proper conversation I had with him. And he was a huge star at that time,

one of the biggest shows on TV. How did you see him? He was almost

godlike, one of the biggest stars, everybody I know wrote to be on the

programme, my friends, everybody couldn't believe when I was going on

there, school friends, suddenly I became Mr popular. Everyone wanted

to be my friend because of that. He was just the man at the time. And

suddenly you had an opportunity to get your own individual Jim'll Fix

It medal, when everybody else was having to share one. What happened?

He said he would get one, but you had to go with him in order to get

it? He came back to me, approached me on the stage after the filming,

when we were all on the stage, and asked me if I would like to go and

get my badge. I said yes, I was led off the stage, walked off with him

through some doors then off into a so-called dressing room. After that,

what do you remember? We went into the room, he closed the door behind

him, a little dark, dingy room, not like his dressing room would be. It

was almost, I described it as a cleaning cupboard, horrible little

room, small desk, vanity mirror on top of a wardrobe. Then he just

pulled out the chair towards the middle of the room, told me to sit

down and stood in front of me, and then that is when it took place.

What was going through your mind? It was hard to say. He started to touch

my leg at first, and I'm thinking, what is happening? What is actually

going on? You can't describe it. You know it is wrong, but it was almost

as if I couldn't say anything, and then it carried on from there, and

it was just awful. How long were you alone with him? Probably a couple of

minutes. It wasn't long that all, probably a few minutes of the most.

Did he speak? Yes, he was just sort of talking, saying, you will be OK,

just, you are fine, that was all he was saying, until the end of it, and

that is when he spoke more. What did he say then? When it was finished,

he issued some threats to me, he told me, don't you dare tell

anybody, no one will believe you, I'm king Jimmy and we know where you

live. Which still horrifies me to this day. And it did intimate date

you into silence? Yes, definitely. Kevin Cook, who was abused by Jimmy

Savile when he was nine. We are still awaiting the start of

the news conference by Dame Janet Smith outlining her findings into

the inquiry into Jimmy Savile and those years that the BBC when he

carried out abuse. Let's go back to our correspondent Nick Kiam, who has

seen the report. Bring us up to date with the main headlines out of the

report. The main headlights are that Jimmy

Savile sexually harassed or had inappropriate sexual activity with a

large number of people, mainly teenage girls but including some

children, both male and female, and adult women, either on BBC premises

or as a result of his BBC activities, over very long period

from the 1960s right through until 2006. She found that there were a

number of complaints made relatively junior staff, mainly in the 1970s,

that these were discounted, they weren't followed up, word referred

up. In some cases the women and girls have made the complaints were

seen as a nuisance, others were told, it is just a bit of fun. In

one case someone was told not to make a complaint because Jimmy

Savile was a VIP, he was the talent, and there were fears by BBC staff

that if they complained they wouldn't be believed. The BBC

corporately, therefore, is cleared of failing to act, but Dame Janet

suggests that if there had been more communication, if that had been more

willing on the part of staff to refer upwards, then Jimmy Savile's

activities might have become more widely known and something might

have been done about it, she talks of lost opportunities. She also said

at the time there was a widespread culture which the BBC was a part of

in which sexual harassment and the protection of children were not

given the sort priority they are given to date there was a general

macho laddish culture, especially in the entertainment section where

Jimmy Savile worked, and there is a report conducted separately by Dame

Linda Dobbs into what the BBC knew about Stuart Hall up in Manchester,

and that report finds that many BBC staff working with Hall were aware

he was engaging in sexual conduct on the premises, they were not aware

that some of that was with underage girls will stop he was warned by a

senior manager about his sexual conduct, but the manager in question

took no positive steps to ensure that Hall, as it were, behaved

properly in future, there is no evidence that anything else was done

about Hall, and Dame Linda Dobbs, who compiled that report, says there

is an absence of vigilance on the part of BBC management. I understand

Dame Janet Smith is about to start her press conference, so let's see

what she has to say, she is of course a Court of Appeal judge.

Savile and Stuart Hall were serial sexual predators. Savile buzz a

danger to young people, both boys and girls, opportunistic and

shameless. I have identified 72 BBC victims of Savile, of whom 34 were

under the age of 16. His youngest victim was aged eight. His abuse

included eight cases of rape, the youngest victim being only ten years

old. Stuart Hall targeted and groomed young girls, often plying

them with alcohol. Dame Linda identified 21 victims of abuse, of

whom eight were girls under the age of 16, the youngest was ten.

Both of these men used their fame and positions as BBC celebrities to

abuse the vulnerable. They must be condemned for their monstrous

behaviour. But the culture of the BBC certainly enabled both Savile

and Stuart Hall to go undetected for decades. I have identified five

occasions when the BBC missed an opportunity to uncover their

misconduct. I want to leave ample time for questions, so I intend in

these opening remarks to address only three central matters; these

are the complicit effect of BBC culture, the question of who at the

BBC could have done something to stop Savile and Stuart Hall and

finally, I want to speak to and about the victims. Before that, I

want to deal head-on with criticisms that have arisen in recent weeks.

First, at no point has the BBC ever sought to influence the review,

either as to the content of my report or as to the date of

publication. If it had, I would have paid no heed. Second, the delay

following the completion of the report in April 2015, was due solely

to the concerns expressed by the Metropolitan Police who feared the

publication might prejudice their ongoing investigations. There was no

other reason. I come to the first of my three main

points. The features of the culture of the BBC which enabled Savile and

Stuart Hall to hide for decades, and for which I must criticise the BBC.

There was a culture of not complaining or of raising concerns.

BBC staff felt and were sometimes told that it was not in their best

interests to pursue a complaint. Loyalty too and pride in a programme

could hinder the sharing of concerns. There was a reluctance to

rock the boat. The management structure at the BBC

was not only hierarchical but deeply deferencetial. Staff were reluctant

to speak tout to managers because they felt it was not their place to

do so. Also, there was a culture of separation, competition and even

hostility between different parts of the BBC, so that concerns arising in

one part would not be discussed with others. There was also a macho

culture in particular in Radio 1 and light entertainment. There were very

few women in management positions, women found it difficult to report

sexual harassment. All the problems of reporting were

compounded in the case of the talent. Celebrities were treated

with kit gloves and were virtually untouchable. One witness told me

that the talent were more valuable to the BBC than their own values. If

these cultural factors had not existed, there would have been a

real chance of Savile and Stuart Hall being discovered. I do

recognise that many of these factors were common in the British work

place and some still are. But these are all matters which the BBC must

now address. Most important of all, in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, child

protection was very low on the BBC's radar. In this, the BBC was far from

alone. At that time, our society did not recognise the prevalence of the

sexual abuse of children, complaints were disbelieved and therefore

rarely made, we were not sufficiently shocked by the signs of

older men being sexually involved with teenage girls and we were

unaware of the damage which such unequal relations can cause.

Sexual harassment was not taken seriously. The BBC's attitude to

child protection might have been understandable but for one

exceptional factor. This makes it deeply disturbing.

This related to Top of the Pops. In 1971, there were allegations in

the press about young girls being picked up for sexual purposes on Top

of the Pops. And pornographic pictures being taken after the show.

There were also press allegations of corruption. The reaction of the BBC

is illuminating. It investigated the allegation thoroughly, but not the

allegations about the young girls with anything like the same focus.

It was plainly concerned about its reputation but was not concerned to

the same degree about what should have been a wake-up call that there

were young girls who might be exposed to moral danger on Top of

the Pops. The BBC seemed to regard the young

audiences as necessary but a nuisance. One note of a management

meeting describes the girls as "unbalanced". There was no sense

that they were young and in need of protection.

So, when complaints were made about Savile, by two teenage girls who

were assaulted on Top of the Pops, their complaints were not recorded

or passed upwards to management as they should have been.

Instead, they were brushed aside. One girl was told to "move out of

the way of the camera" and the other was ejected from the building and

left on the street. The failure to heed these complaints

about Savile amounted to two missed opportunities to detect and stop

him. I cannot say that proper investigation of those complaints

would have resulted in prosecution, but the BBC would at least have

become aware of Savile's nature. I turn to my next main point. Who at

the BBC could have done something about Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall?

In respect of Savile, there were three individuals. The first was Ted

Beston, Savile's BBC Radio One producer. On one occasion, he was

prepared to act as a provider of a young woman to Savile for sex. I

found that he knew that Savile would have casual sex with teenage girls

as and when he could get it, although he denied it, I'm satisfied

Mr Beston must have realised from their appearance that some of the

girls might well be under age. He admired Savile and I do not think

it ever crossed his mind that he should report him. But he should

have done. The second was cannon Colin S empar,

a producer in the religious broadcasting department and worked

closely with Savile -- Sempar. With commendable honesty when giving

evidence to the review, he accepted that he had come to think that

Savile had casual sex with a lot of girls, some of whom might have been

under age. He did not discuss what he knew with his managers because he

thought that they already knew about Savile and did not seem to be

concerned about it. In my view, he should have discussed his concerns

with his line manager. I think he now deeply regrets that he did not.

The third is Douglas Mugrovich, the controller of Radio 1 and 2 in the

early '70s. He died many years ago. In 1973, he heard rumours about

Savile's sexual activities and prompted some inquiries. Savile was

asked about the rumours and denied them.

I think Mr Mugrovich generally believed the rumours to be untrue.

However, in my view, he should have retained his concerns, should have

shared them with colleagues and had a watch kept on Savile.

Had he done so, Savile might well have been uncovered in the 1970s.

This was a third missed opportunity. Although I have found that none of

Savile's senior managers in television were aware of his sexual

misconduct, I do criticise them in another important respect. By 1983,

there was a good deal of material in the public domain which showed

Savile in a very bad light. Wlaefr the truth about him, this material

showed Savile boasting of past associations with violent criminals

and proud to be described as having a prolific casual sex life with

young women many decades younger than himself.

It is amazing that it never occurred to Savile's managers at the BBC that

on account of this, they should not give him a platform to promote his

image as a good man. It is amazing that it never occurred

to them that Savile was not a suitable role model for the young

audiences of Jim'll Fix It. In Manchester, there were two

individuals who could have done something to stop Stuart Hall.

Raymond Collie and Tom German. Raymond Collie was the regional

television manager in Manchester from 1970 until 1986. Dame Linda

found that when Collie took up his post, he challenged Hall about

rumours he was having sex with women in his dressing room. These rumours

did not suggest that these were under-age girls. Mr Collie warned

Stuart Hall as to his future conduct.

But he did not follow up his warning. He assumed that Stuart Hall

would desist. He overestimated his own authority and underestimated

Stuart Hall's duplicity. Had Mr Collie kept a watch on Hall, it's

likely that he would have been stopped. This was the first missed

opportunity in respect of Stuart Hall, the fourth overall.

Mr German was the news editor in Manchester in the 1970s and 80s. He

is dead. Dame Linda has concluded that he was probably aware that

Stuart Hall was involved in inappropriate sexual conduct on BBC

premises. If people's, it seems to me that he should have shared his

concerns with Mr Colley. He did not do so, and this may well have been

the fifth missed opportunity. This report makes sorry reading for the

BBC. Dame Linda and I have found disturbing things and have not

hesitated to expose them. From a conversation I had with Lord Paul on

Tuesday after he read my report, I'm satisfied that he entirely accepts

that there is much work ahead for him, the BBC trust, and the

executive board if the BBC is to regain the confidence of the public

in respect of its culture and its child protection practices. I wish

now to speak about the victims. I must record might annoyance at the

complete disregard for their welfare shown by a website that chose to

publish part of an early draft of my report. This unexpected and

selective publication was highly distressing for them and had no

public interest justification whatsoever. I want to thank every

witness who gave evidence to me and to Dame Linda, but above all I want

to send a personal message to the victims of and Stuart Hall, many of

will be listening. -- victims of saddle. Thank you for your

contributions and your courage. Some of you have told me and Dame Linda

that you blame yourselves for what happened, and for not reporting it

at the time. You are not to blame. And your reasons for not reporting

are wholly understandable. I know that it was very difficult for you

to speak to the review. You did so in order to help us understand what

had happened, and why it had not been discovered. Society owes you a

great debt. Your legacy is that you have helped to convince us all of

the importance of ensuring that young and vulnerable people have the

confidence to report abuse, and that when they do so their voices will be

heard, and treated with the same respect as those who hold power in

our society. I think that is a legacy of which you can be

justifiably proud. Thank you. I'm going to take questions now.

Wait a moment. We have two microphones, please wait until you

get one. Otherwise I will not be able to hear you. I will try and

organise one question ahead, so I will choose two now and try to keep

one head at the same time. When you start, please give your name and the

organisation that you represent, because I don't think I know any of

you at all. The lady there who had her hand at first. And then, why not

the man next to her? Thank you very much, Lucy Manning from BBC News.

You say in your report that 117 people at the BBC heard rumours or

stories about Jimmy Savile's sexual conduct, including some senior

people, yet you say that no senior managers knew what Savile was up to.

Isn't this, as some of the victims think, a whitewash? It certainly

isn't a whitewash. It is right that 100 and teen witnesses told the

review that they had heard rumours about Jimmy Savile -- 117. As a

matter of fact, 180 witnesses, rather more than 117, told me that

they had not. But, you see, I did find that a number of people at the

BBC, junior people, it did know about Savile, either they knew from

what they saw or they've realised and drew influences in their own

minds and realised what he was doing. They didn't report these

matters upwards, and that I attributed to the culture of the

BBC. I found that two people at producer level also knew, and I have

mentioned their names in my opening remarks. They didn't report upwards

either. I don't think that the fact that a producer you about Savile

means that the BBC as a corporate body knew. I had to make a judgment

about what level of BBC management can be equated with the BBC as an

organisation, and I came to the conclusion, as I explain in my

report, that that level should be pitched at head of Department level.

I did consider whether it should be pitched at producer level, and I

came to the conclusion that it should not for reasons that I

explained. To go back to the rumours, I'm a judge, or I was, and

I still think like a judge, and I have to reach conclusions based on

evidence that I hear. Rumour is not evidence. I have to have evidence...

Somebody switch their phone off. I have to have evidence, either direct

evidence or circumstantial evidence from which I can sensibly and

properly draw an inference. I can't do that from rumours. True, there

were lots of people who heard rumours. Many of them heard rumours

about a lot of other people as well. You may know, some of you, my

question may know that the BBC is something of a rumour Mill, there

are rumours about all sorts of people. I simply could not properly

draw the inference from the fact that some people had heard rumours

that senior managers had. I explained already that the BBC was a

hierarchical organisation and a deferential one. The fact that

people heard rumours in the canteens does not mean that people in

management circles knew, I cannot draw that inference, and I will not

do so. It would be quite wrong. Yes, you were next? David Henke, ex-RM

news. I know the website you are referring to. Two questions... You

are only allowed one and a supplementary, choose your best. Do

you regret, in hindsight, the fact that you gave away half your terms

of reference to look at child protection, obviously because you

thought the report was going to come out earlier, and, dare I add, are

you satisfied as well as a judge that you couldn't compel people to

give evidence? You going on two questions. Do I regret giving away,

as you call it, part of my terms of reference? The BBC told be that --

told me that they realised their policies needed updating, and they

wanted to get on with that work. They got on with it. They then

wanted to have somebody look at those new policies, criticise them,

give advice about them, sooner than I was going to be able to do it. I

agreed that that was a perfectly sensible thing for them to do, and,

no, I don't regret having given that material away. The good corporation

was able to report much more quickly than I would have been able to in

the event, last July. That has been useful to the BBC because they have

been able to get on with putting into effect the good Corporation's

recommendations, and I'm sure Lord Hall will have something to say

about that later this morning. I don't regret it. It was a reasonable

thing to do. You, with the pencil in your hand, next one along.

Sorry, forgive me, I'm juggling some material that I need to read out.

Forgive me for that. Commentator for the Daily Telegraph. One of the

questions that you considered both in the draft and the final report

was whether the predatory child abuser could be lurking in

discovered in the BBC today -- whether a predatory child abuser.

You used two different weddings in your answer. In the draft, you said

you think it is possible. In the final report, you said, my answer is

I do not think there is any organisation that can be completely

confident that it does not harbour a child abuser, so my question is,

those are two very different conclusions. One is a conclusion

specifically about the BBC which has been widely reported, the other is a

broad statistical point. I wonder what evidence and on whose

representations you changed your conclusion? First of all, I received

no representations at all in relation to that part of my report.

Second, you have quoted from the leaked version a single sentence. If

you quoted, and I would like you to do so, if you have it in front of

you, if you quote the whole paragraph you will see that the

sense of what I say has not changed. Read it out, will you? The answer is

that I think it is possible, it must be recognised that child sex abusers

can be highly intelligent, article at, and charismatic but manipulative

people. Stuart Hall is an example, so, it seems is Rolf Harris. Savile

was intelligent, charismatic, and extremely manipulative, if not

always article at. Coupled with celebrity, the power of which shows

no sign of diminishing in our society, it makes a powerful

combination which makes detection difficult. Until a complaint is

made, such people are likely to enjoy the confidence and approval of

all those around them. So, what I am saying there, is it not, that it is

extremely difficult to detect a child abuser in an organisation. The

only changes that I have pointed out more clearly, as warning to the rest

of society, that any organisation might be harbouring a child abuser,

and they don't realise it, and they need to be on their guard. My

supplementary, this has been a very widely reported, very sensational

conclusion. I'm not responsible for that. What you are responsible for,

as you said to the previous question, is that you may conclusion

only on the basis of evidence, and I wonder what the evidence was that

you used to make that specific conclusion about the BBC in your

draft report? The specific conclusion in my draft report is

that the BBC might have, I didn't say that they have. What I was

seeking to point out is that no organisation can ever know. This is

a really good example of the irresponsibility of the website

publishing a report at a time when it has no business to do so. I was

entitled to read read that passage of my report and amend it, and I did

so, and nobody put me under any pressure to do so, I did so because

I thought I could express it more clearly. That is the answer. Wait a

minute, who was next? Who did I promise? It was me, I have the

microphone. Katherine Rushton, Daily Mail. Did you speak to Mark Thompson

as a witness at any point during your inquiries, and if not, why not?

I did. Excellent, I have not found that page it. If you named in the

report? Yes, I think so. There is not a great deal to report about

him, but I did speak to him. Yes, I think you will find a passage about

him in... Chapter ten, I think. Thank you. Don't hold me to that,

but he is there. Who was next? At the got the microphone? After that,

white shirt. I promise you next. Peter Saunders, from Mate Pavic,

supporting survivors of abuse. To help you out with the previous

question, what you said about the likelihood of an abuser working

within the BBCi think was an entirely appropriate thing to say,

because not only is there almost inevitably going to be other abusers

within the BBC, there are, as you indicate, abusers in every

organisation, large and small, that is a statistical reality that we

have to grasp. But my question was initially to thank you for

acknowledging the contribution of survivors of Savile and Hall, and

having spoken to one or two of them in recent days, they have been

dreading this day, as you can appreciate, so thank you for banking

them in the appropriate date. It comes from the heart, I hope you can

see that. I can see that clearly, Dame Janet. The question is, are you

satisfied that those victims, survivors that have come forward now

receiving the appropriate and proper support that they need in order to

move on with their lives, because, again, we are still hearing from

many survivors, including some of Savile's victims, that they are

still not able to make progress in their life because, unlike myself,

who can afford my weekly therapy session, I know many victims and

survivors out there simply cannot afford to have private therapy, and

it is time that the NHS were brought into this equation in order to help

the many survivors. Sorry to go on. It's very difficult for me to answer

this question because I don't have any resources to dispose of towards

these victims but I can see that many of them will need help and I

hope that they will be able to get it. But other than that, I really

can't say anything. Now, then, who was next? The white

shirt there, and then I promised you. Right, how are we doing for

time? We're all right for time yet, OK. The white shirt? Patrick Foster

from the Daily Telegraph, thank you. Sorry we are monopolising this. The

Daily Telegraph have done rather well, your second go purely by

chance. Purely by chance. You mentioned in

the report and again in your statement, that you set the bar for

corporate responsibility at the head of department. Yes. I wondered if

you could give us a bit more information on how you came to set

that level and specifically can you tell us, did you take any

submissions from the BBC as to what the barrier, what the level was set

at? I'll answer the second part of your question first and the answer

is know, the BBC made no submissions of any kind in relation to my

report. The law doesn't help about this

issue. In the criminal law, for a company to be held responsible and

to have knowledge of what was going on, you have to show that the

controlling mind of the company was aware of an could be convicted of

the offence if the company's going to be convicted of an offence. So

that wasn't very much help to me because I didn't think that it was

reasonable to limit BBC knowledge to such a very high level of

responsibility. That would have really been maybe the Trust, not

even the Trust, the executive board, and that would be far too narrow.

I've heard quite a lot of evidence about the BBC's management structure

and it seemed to me that the lowest level of the structure at which you

could say that somebody had management responsibility for a

defined part of the BBC was head of department. A head of department

would be entitled to instigate an investigation I think, whereas

anybody lower than that would not be. Producers wouldn't be. If

producers had knowledge, their duty would be to report it to somebody

senior but they wouldn't be able to do anything of their own motion.

Similarly with an executive producer and editor of a news programme. That

was really why I came to that conclusion. I just had to make a

judgment as to what I thought was reasonable and to what I thought the

public would think was reasonable, and there you are, that was my

decision. Now who, was next, it really was you, wasn't it? Thank

you, Julian from five news. You have said about the reluctance of some

BBC to come forward. You have said an atmosphere of fear still exists,

you have called it the culture of not complaining, that's extremely

worrying, is it not? Yes.

I must point out that I saw the bulk of the BBC witnesses that I saw in

2013, some in 2014 and it saddened me that some of them were not

prepared to speak unless they were guaranteed anonymity and it was

clear that they were concerned that there could be some form of

disadvantage, detriment to them, if they criticised the BBC. Since then,

the good Corporation, well the BBC has amended its whistleblowing

policies and has I think genuinely taken on board the fact that their

culture of not reporting is deeply detrimental. The good Corporation

has approved their policies, says they have got a lot of work to do

still to implement them properly. But I think the good Corporation did

find an increasing number of people were saying they felt a degree of

confidence, so I hope that there's been a little bit of movement since

the time that I saw those witnesses. But I do stress that the report that

Diana Rose gave to the BBC called Respect at Work, she had exactly the

same kind of report to her attitude to her that people were not prepared

to come and talk to her group, her panel unless they were sure of

anonymity. So that again was 12, 2012, 2013. I hope there may have

been a little movement since then. I think there's a long way to go.

Now, who did I promise? Who's got the microphone?

I haven't done it properly. You're there with the red tie. You can have

one and you, all right. Black jumper. There. OK. Now then, red

tie? Mark Watts from Exero. Oh, that's two goes you've had. Like The

Telegraph. You say in the report that DJA 7 told you that he was

unaware of any complaint in relation to 15-year-old Claire McAlpine and

he also told you that he was not interviewed by either of two

investigations conducted by the BBC. You make, as a finding, that these

claims are untrue. Can you be explicit? Are you accusing DJA 7 of

lying to you? I'm not prepared to say whether I am or not, you must

read the report and make of it what you wish. I had before me documents,

contemporaneous documents from 1971, one relating to a conversation that

took place between Bill Cotton and A 7. The other conversation between Mr

Brian Neil QC, as he was then, the now Right Honourable Sir Brian Neil,

both of whom said they had had conversations with A 7. A 7 told me

that no such conversations had taken place and that this was not a lapse

of memory on his part, they simply had not taken place. I rejected that

evidence. That's really all I can say. You must understand that the

truth or falsity of the allegations that Mr Cotton and Sir Brian were

investigating was no part of my terms of reference, no part of my

inquiry. What I was looking at is how did the BBC in those days deal

with a complaint or a raising of a concern of a sexual nature?

Particularly one involving a celebrity, as this one did. And, us

see if you read chapter 9 of the report, you may not have had time to

do that. I've read the draft and the final... Of course you have.

You will see if you read chapter 9 that I'm deeply critical of the way

in which the BBC conducted its investigation into those matters,

that allegation was not properly investigated, A 7 was asked about

it, denied it and the book was closed. That was not satisfactory

for reasons which I explain in detail in my report. Can you explain

why... Is this your supplimentary? It is. Can you explain why you

agreed with DJA 7 why you would not name him? Was there concern in your

team of libel? No, no, the reason that I agreed to anonymise him was

the reason that I've just explained to you now. I was not concerned

about the truth or falsity. His identity was not a matter of

interest to me. My interest was the BBC received a complaint about

sexual impropriety by a celebrity, how did the BBC handle it? It didn't

matter to me what his name was. It obviously would matter to him so it

would only be reasonable he'd not agree to come unless he was afforded

anonymity. Would it not have been of vest interest to your readers? -- of

interest. It is but my interest is limited to matters which fall within

my terms of reference, and that is, as far as I am concerned, all that

the public is entitled to know from me. Thank you. The fact that they

might be interested generally is nothing to the point. Thank you,

Dame Janet. Who was next? You in the black jumper I think? Has anybody...

Yes, now I'll take this one and then one more. You at the back, now there

are two hands that are overlapping. Two women sitting next to each

other. You two. You choose between you. And you are going to be the

last. Now then? Is A 7 right to say you made no suggestion he was guilty

of any misconduct whatsoever? I did not make any such allegation. That

is, as I've just explained, not within my terms of reference. I was

interested in how did the BBC handle this complaint. The answer was, I'm

sorry, very badly. Yes, at the back?

Hi, Beth rig bifrom the Times. -- Rigby. In terms of the victims, Liz

Ducks, the lawyer, said around the leak that it beggared belief that

no-one in the management of the BBC would have known about what was

going on. Do you accept that the victims might be disappointed today

by your conclusions? And for the BBC, do you think that this report

is a blow from which they can't recover reputationally? No, no, no,

wait a minute that,'s definitely two questions. Sorry. Which one do you

want? The Liz Dux one. In a sense I've already answered this, you

know, because I spoke earlier on act the need for evidence -- about the

need for evidence, either of a direct nature or circumstantial

evidence from which I can properly draw an inference and I explained

that I cannot draw an inference that the BBC knew at the level that I

have explained to you I think is necessary for me to say that the BBC

knew, namely head of department level. I can't draw any inference

that they knew from rumour. I'm sorry if the victims do not have

confidence in my conclusions, I'm really sorry about that. I hope that

the victims, some of them might be listening, some of them might be

watching, I hope they hear what I say now, but I hope they'll read the

report and then they will, I hope, understand why I've reached the

conclusion that I have. You simply cannot make that leap

from people who've heard rumours. It simply doesn't work. Can I just ask

a supplimentary question quickly? It's very quick. Just in terms of

the lawyer, she also said that mandatory reporting laws should be

introduced to insist that people do report the cover-up of abuse. Do you

agree with that? No, I don't. I think it's a matter for the BBC, but

I would expect it to be a rule think it's a matter for the BBC, but

employment that people should report matters of concern of which they

employment that people should report become aware, but I'm not in favour

of the criminal law think that it's extremely difficult

to know where to draw the lines between what should be an offence

to know where to draw the lines and I don't think it's a good idea.

I think what is and I don't think it's a good idea.

something that and I don't think it's a good idea.

just at the and I don't think it's a good idea.

It's really important that we