There has
been a lot written about why I took the decision not to run a story into
allegations of sex abuse by the former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile. It has been
suggested I was ordered to do it by my bosses as part of a BBC cover-up. It has
also been suggested that we deliberately withheld information from the police.
Both
these allegations are totally untrue and despite consistent strong denials keep
getting repeated. I felt it would be useful to share more about what really
happened.
The BBC
has the highest editorial standards and with any story an editor has to weigh
many things before putting something to air. BBC editors have a lot of power
and responsibility and I have never, in the many years I have done this job,
ever been told by one of my superiors not to do a story against my will. I
would not still be working here if they had.
Why did I
pursue this story about Jimmy Savile and why did I drop it?
I decided
we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because
the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had
been dropped on the grounds he was too old.
This made the public interest case
from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some
sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.
Some of
the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in
celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public
interest served by reporting it given he is dead? The nature of the allegations
and the level of proof required. The fact the incidents were 40 years ago.
We had no
evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about
the allegations.
We had no evidence against the BBC. In her original statement
our key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea
whatsoever of the goings on".
However, I felt if we could prove the police
or the CPS had let the women down in some way we should go ahead.
We did
establish the police had investigated the allegations in 2007. However, as the
police would be obliged to investigate I wanted to check how they would respond
to the allegation that it was not pursued because Jimmy Savile was too old. The
CPS told us:
"The CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." The additional guidance noted stated. "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."
This
statement specifically denied the allegation that the investigation was dropped
because of his age. I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we
had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the
story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish. There
were some of my team who disagreed strongly with my judgement, and others who
agreed equally strongly.
However,
those who disagreed accepted my decision. There were no rows of any kind as has
been reported.
Did we
withhold evidence from the police? No. We are confident that all the women we
spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new
evidence against any other person that would have helped the police.
Did my
bosses order me to do anything? No. I did discuss it with my bosses in News in
the same way I do any contentious story we are working on. I was told in the
strongest terms that I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that
I must not let any wider considerations about the BBC affect my judgement.
The fact
that the BBC has the capacity to do this may feel odd to other organizations
but it is fundamental to the trust we share with our audience.
Peter
Rippon is the editor of Newsnight