[Omah]

Apparently, his job is "not to show undue interest", so he didn't ask what a flagship news program was doing in performing an investigation about the "iconic" JS and paedophilia - he preferred to wait for the "final cut" prior to broadcast, when he would be told he needed to watch it

At this stage, I've got things to do, so I'll catch up later

[Kizzy]

The Observer ran an article chris Patten: The BBC a moral institution.
Hmmmm?..

[Omah]

Apparently, the "interrogation" is over - that Entwistle is DG of the BBC is a matter of some incredulity, when he doesn't take any interest in what his staff are doing and doesn't even ask questions of his staff when serious matters are raised with him - perhaps he just enjoys being important and attending all the free lunches and dinners

[Kizzy]

He has had a 23yr career at the BBC to be fair, and he was only appointed as DG in july of this year and has been active in the role for around 3-4 weeks..?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Omah

The JS charities are not being kept secret - they are being closed down.

..that wasn't what I meant Omah...the charities the money is being distributed to...I don't understand why they have to be kept secret..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..that wasn't what I meant Omah...the charities the money is being distributed to...I don't understand why they have to be kept secret..

They touched on this in the news today, the money around 10 million may be distributed between charities supporting victims of abuse.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

He has had a 23yr career at the BBC to be fair, and he was only appointed as DG in july of this year and has been active in the role for around 3-4 weeks..?

The point is that he has NOT been "active in the role for around 3-4 weeks" - he seems to have done as little as possible, apart from delegate the organisation of a couple of inquiries.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..that wasn't what I meant Omah...the charities the money is being distributed to...I don't understand why they have to be kept secret..

Well, AFAIK, none have been chosen yet - the distribution of several million pounds may have repurcussions and ramifications that have to be considered.

If a charity is wound up it must inform the commission. If there are outstanding funds in the charity's name, they must be donated to a charity that does similar work

Source: The Charity Commission

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-man-lost.html

This morning, MPs questioned Mr Entwistle about the BBC’s actions over the Jimmy Savile scandal. The MPs were openly scornful, more and more so as it became clear that Mr Entwistle, by his own account, had known little about the saga of the dropped Newsnight investigation into Savile. Worse, it seems he’d made minimal effort to find out.

He had “no recollection” of this, “no knowledge” of that. He didn’t know, and hadn’t asked, how many complaints of sexual harassment or abuse had been made at the BBC since the 1960s; nor did he know how many had been made in the past two years. The BBC’s Head of News had told him last December that Newsnight was investigating Savile but he hadn’t asked what had been found out. “I don’t remember reflecting on it. It was a busy lunch…”

In any case, as a former Newsnight executive, he’d been worried that if he asked what it was up to, people might think he was showing “undue interest”.

“It seems your determination not to show an ‘undue interest’ applies to anything at the BBC,” snorted Philip Davies (Conservative). “You need to get a grip of the facts,” snapped Ben Bradshaw (Labour). “An extraordinary lack of curiosity,” tutted John Whittingdale (Con). “You sound a bit like James Murdoch,” scoffed Damian Collins (Con).

[arista]

Todays waste of 2 hours
told us we now need the Editor to tell us who told him
to Ditch the Newsnight Report.

Rippon - A good Editor has been set up
as the fall guy.



Stink and Double Stink.



Should the BBC let Ch4 do Children In Need
this year?



Or should it be re-named
Children Abused in BBC back rooms?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by kizzy

They touched on this in the news today, the money around 10 million may be distributed between charities supporting victims of abuse.

Originally Posted by Omah

Well, AFAIK, none have been chosen yet - the distribution of several million pounds may have repurcussions and ramifications that have to be considered.



Source: The Charity Commission

..they said on the news this morning that the charities names would remain secret because of the money being 'tainted'...I don't understand their thought process there....the money raised is the only good thing to have come out of it all it would seem

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..they said on the news this morning that the charities names would remain secret because of the money being 'tainted'...I don't understand their thought process there....the money raised is the only good thing to have come out of it all it would seem

Savile may have been abusing children WHILE he was raising money .....

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Omah

Savile may have been abusing children WHILE he was raising money .....

..yeah, I understand that, but I don't understand the 'money is tainted' part...it's not so tainted that it's being transferred to other charities so what's the point in not revealing which charities they are.....

...it's only money, however it was raised, it can't do anything but good to any worthwile charity..

[Nedusa]

So here's a moral teaser, considering Jimmy Savile raised millions of pounds for children's charities and has almost certainly enriched the lives of many children, do you think bearing in mind all the alleged victims of his sexual abuses that he has done more good than bad or more bad than good...????

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, I understand that, but I don't understand the 'money is tainted' part...it's not so tainted that it's being transferred to other charities so what's the point in not revealing which charities they are.....

...it's only money, however it was raised, it can't do anything but good to any worthwile charity..

Totally agree, whilst people now would not give money in Jimmy Savilles name, they did and that money was given to the charities for good causes. If nothing else people should gain some solace (however small) in that some people will benefit from him now.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by anniek76

Totally agree, whilst people now would not give money in Jimmy Savilles name, they did and that money was given to the charities for good causes. If nothing else people should gain some solace (however small) in that some people will benefit from him now.

..I also don't understand why they just don't remove his name from the charity but keep it going...however, they've made the decision to close it and transfer the money elsewhere..so the secrecy thing seems unnecessary..and well, just pointless

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

So here's a moral teaser, considering Jimmy Savile raised millions of pounds for children's charities and has almost certainly enriched the lives of many children, do you think bearing in mind all the alleged victims of his sexual abuses that he has done more good than bad or more bad than good...????

1 child sexually abused is bad, 10 is awful, 100 is appalling, 1000 is horrific .....

No moral teaser for me - no amount of charity work can make up for 100's of violated vulnerable children or provide a smokescreen for the sex-fiend activities of Sleazy Savile .....

[Ammi]

..yeah, but the money exists, regardless of the past Omah..unless they intend to burn it on bonfire then it may as well continue to do some good..it isn't tainted, it's the only positive thing to come out of it all..

[Sticks]

General William Booth the founder of the Salvation army was once asked why he accepted money from breweries as it was tainted money.

His reply that the only thing wrong with tainted money was that there was "Tain't enough of it"

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, but the money exists, regardless of the past Omah..unless they intend to burn it on bonfire then it may as well continue to do some good..it isn't tainted, it's the only positive thing to come out of it all..

So s.......g children can be offset by contributions to good causes .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Sticks

General William Booth the founder of the Salvation army was once asked why he accepted money from breweries as it was tainted money.

His reply that the only thing wrong with tainted money was that there was "Tain't enough of it"

Brewing and abusing children are rather different social activities - after all, 1 is illegal .....

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by Omah

So s.......g children can be offset by contributions to good causes .....

I don't think that is what is being said at all.....what Ammi is rightly saying is the money is there and was donated by hardworking people in good faith so it should be used to benefit those good causes irrespective of whose name was used to raise it.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Omah

So s.......g children can be offset by contributions to good causes .....

..well, this is the last post I'm going to make on this, because I'm obviously not explaining myself properly Omah....

...JS helped raise a lot of money for these charities, we've since found out that his reasons for this were very sinister indeed, and that's something which is now being investigated...

.. I understand that his charity feels the need to close, as they in no way want to be associated with either his name or his actions..however, there are still funds in the charity, which they intend to transfer elsewhere..hence a charity or charities will benefit from these...so why not name the charities...?...them being given the donation in no way associates or taints them with what he did...they have nothing to do with it..to me, it all seems silly that it has to be so secretive..I would have thought there had been quite enough secrets already....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by anniek76

I don't think that is what is being said at all.....what Ammi is rightly saying is the money is there and was donated by hardworking people in good faith so it should be used to benefit those good causes irrespective of whose name was used to raise it.

Well, it will do ..... the name of Jimmy Savile is being erased, the money is being laundered .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..well, this is the last post I'm going to make on this, because I'm obviously not explaining myself properly Omah....

...JS helped raise a lot of money for these charities, we've since found out that his reasons for this were very sinister indeed, and that's something which is now being investigated...

.. I understand that his charity feels the need to close, as they in no way want to be associated with either his name or his actions..however, there are still funds in the charity, which they intend to transfer elsewhere..hence a charity or charities will benefit from these...so why not name the charities...?...them being given the donation in no way associates or taints them with what he did...they have nothing to do with it..to me, it all seems silly that it has to be so secretive..I would have thought there had been quite enough secrets already....

Why not write to the JS charities if really you want an answer ..... perhaps feelings run higher in those places where Savile abused children in care .....