Supreme Court Gives Us Presidents...
News9 mins ago
Tony Blackburn Sacking. Fuzzy Logic
107 Answers
I don't think TB has done himself any favours in combating the accusations when he says:
“The reasons for the BBC taking this decision are that my evidence to Dame Janet Smith shows, I believe, that a cover up took place - one that I had no knowledge of. This goes against what the BBC believe."
Huh?
“The reasons for the BBC taking this decision are that my evidence to Dame Janet Smith shows, I believe, that a cover up took place - one that I had no knowledge of. This goes against what the BBC believe."
Huh?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can only go by what I heard the judge say on Radio 4 today - that she had sight of documents which led her to believe that two interviews had taken place, and that is why she disavowed Mr Blackburn's denial of them.
She must have felt that she was on firm legal ground to say that - but obviously Mr Blackburn's legal team will investigate further.
Dame Janet also said that there was a culture of celebrity 'worship' at the BBC, and a culture of fear that prevented people from speaking out - and she believes that culture is alive and well in the BBC today.
That would suggest to me that there is a long queue of people ahead of Mr Blackburn when it comes to being sacked from the BBC.
She must have felt that she was on firm legal ground to say that - but obviously Mr Blackburn's legal team will investigate further.
Dame Janet also said that there was a culture of celebrity 'worship' at the BBC, and a culture of fear that prevented people from speaking out - and she believes that culture is alive and well in the BBC today.
That would suggest to me that there is a long queue of people ahead of Mr Blackburn when it comes to being sacked from the BBC.
If the BBC runs Conduct & Discipline "CD" files, as other public bodies do, then that's where documentation of any such meeting would have been put.
Having said that, it might be feasible that one staff member does something inappropriate but out in the open, others witness it. Interview held; slapped wrist, lesson learned, there is no repetition or behavioursl lapses yet it is on file in perpetuity.
Savile, meanwhile, is surruptitious about his activity; people suspect but he is never caught in the act and no one has the confidence to file a complaint based on things they didn't see, first hand. Compounding this, someone with the authority to discipline him (line manager) declines to do so and his file is clean as a whistle, compared to the "one-off" case, above, serially offending, all the while. Not a classic "cover-up", with shredding/burning, just that procedures were never carried out in the first place - nothing to document.
The line-manager's priorities appeared to have been:-
i) protect the reputation of the star (who gets us ratings)
ii) protect the reputation of the organisation (be a team player)
iii) protect the reputation of self (appear promotable; do not trouble higher management with news of systemic problems which threaten the entire edifice)
iv) (conjecture) need 'n' years' service (10, in early 70s?) for pension rights, try not to get fired in year n-1.
v) (potentially libellous; redacted)
Having said that, it might be feasible that one staff member does something inappropriate but out in the open, others witness it. Interview held; slapped wrist, lesson learned, there is no repetition or behavioursl lapses yet it is on file in perpetuity.
Savile, meanwhile, is surruptitious about his activity; people suspect but he is never caught in the act and no one has the confidence to file a complaint based on things they didn't see, first hand. Compounding this, someone with the authority to discipline him (line manager) declines to do so and his file is clean as a whistle, compared to the "one-off" case, above, serially offending, all the while. Not a classic "cover-up", with shredding/burning, just that procedures were never carried out in the first place - nothing to document.
The line-manager's priorities appeared to have been:-
i) protect the reputation of the star (who gets us ratings)
ii) protect the reputation of the organisation (be a team player)
iii) protect the reputation of self (appear promotable; do not trouble higher management with news of systemic problems which threaten the entire edifice)
iv) (conjecture) need 'n' years' service (10, in early 70s?) for pension rights, try not to get fired in year n-1.
v) (potentially libellous; redacted)
The claimed existence of documentation seems to be ambiguous. If it was presented to the inquiry, why did Tony Blackburn deny that the interviews took place? In those circumstances it makes no sense to deny it. According to last night’s London Evening Standard the inquiry found that //the BBC concluded it had not “corporately” known about his [Savile’s] offending as heads of department were not aware.// Heads of department may not have been aware, but if the inquiry has been presented with the truth, Bill Cotton must have been. It appears this inquiry has opened a can of worms that the BBC weren’t expecting. If they wanted to come out of this with an element of respect, sacking Tony Blackburn wasn’t the way to do it. Whatever happens now will be interesting.
It will be very interesting Naomi.
I wonder whether, when Mr Blackburn was 'interviewed', he was aware that it was being seen by the BBC as a formal interview, with records kept, or whether it was perceived as simply a conversation.
That would explain the differences in perception between the two sides.
Mr Blackburn cannot reasonably be expected to view a conversation as an 'interview' if he was not made aware of its status at the time.
Similarly, the BBC cannot whistle up a piece of paper and call it a 'record of an interview' and then use the denial of it as grounds to sack Mr Blackburn.
It does all seem very fishy indeed, and as I have opined earlier, I am sure there is a long line of BBC personnel who should be heading the queue for dismissal, before they reach Mr Blackburn.
I wonder whether, when Mr Blackburn was 'interviewed', he was aware that it was being seen by the BBC as a formal interview, with records kept, or whether it was perceived as simply a conversation.
That would explain the differences in perception between the two sides.
Mr Blackburn cannot reasonably be expected to view a conversation as an 'interview' if he was not made aware of its status at the time.
Similarly, the BBC cannot whistle up a piece of paper and call it a 'record of an interview' and then use the denial of it as grounds to sack Mr Blackburn.
It does all seem very fishy indeed, and as I have opined earlier, I am sure there is a long line of BBC personnel who should be heading the queue for dismissal, before they reach Mr Blackburn.
andy-hughes, //I wonder whether, when Mr Blackburn was 'interviewed', he was aware that it was being seen by the BBC as a formal interview, with records kept, or whether it was perceived as simply a conversation.//
That very thought occurred to me. I have visions of Tony Blackburn bumping into Bill Cotton in a corridor, and Bill saying, "Hello Tony, have you heard what they're saying about Savile?"
That very thought occurred to me. I have visions of Tony Blackburn bumping into Bill Cotton in a corridor, and Bill saying, "Hello Tony, have you heard what they're saying about Savile?"
Naomi - The BBC has handled this entire debacle with stunning incomprehension about the seriousness of what they have allowed to happen, and the unwillingness for anyone, anyone at all, to step up and take some responsibility.
Their sacking of Tony Blackburn seems like a panic effort to look as though they are holding someone responsible - petty they couldn't make it someone who actually was, and is responsible.
Their sacking of Tony Blackburn seems like a panic effort to look as though they are holding someone responsible - petty they couldn't make it someone who actually was, and is responsible.
Hyognosis - //What the heck are we paying them these mega-salaries for?
//
I have held forth on this subject around dinner tables for the last thirty years - the fact that we assume that people in charge are there because of intelligence, integrity, ability, and most important of all - accountability.
And the more you see and hear of large organisations - the larger the worse - you see that this is patently untrue.
//
I have held forth on this subject around dinner tables for the last thirty years - the fact that we assume that people in charge are there because of intelligence, integrity, ability, and most important of all - accountability.
And the more you see and hear of large organisations - the larger the worse - you see that this is patently untrue.
The way I see it Tony Blackburn was completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and indeed the allegations were retracted so why if this meeting took place does he deny it did, it cannot have harmed him to say yes the meeting took place after all he was and is totally innocent something is not sitting right here, however, I feel for the parents of that young girl who are having to go through this ordeal again.
I am cynical enough to think that the BBC are blwoing smoke here.
While the public is taking a serious interest in the mistreatment of a cultural legend, it is not turning its questioning eye on the actions of an organisation that it pays for, that acts like it is its own fiefdom, and not subject to simple concepts like honour, protection, value for money, honesty - things like that.
While the public is taking a serious interest in the mistreatment of a cultural legend, it is not turning its questioning eye on the actions of an organisation that it pays for, that acts like it is its own fiefdom, and not subject to simple concepts like honour, protection, value for money, honesty - things like that.
There are no documents pertaining to the interviews themselves. Perhaps none were ever taken. But there is reference to the interviews in correspondence between Cotton and the lawyer, and it is that which Dame Janet has seen.
The Police saw the diary in 1971 and did not prosecute, so Blackburn has to be treated as innocent. To sack him 45 years later for the offence is a cynical move by the BBC.
The Police saw the diary in 1971 and did not prosecute, so Blackburn has to be treated as innocent. To sack him 45 years later for the offence is a cynical move by the BBC.
Gromit - //But there is reference to the interviews in correspondence between Cotton and the lawyer, and it is that which Dame Janet has seen. //
OK - that fits with my perception that an 'interview' may mean different things to different people, and I can't see how dismissal is justified simply because one party does not view the issue in the same way as the other.
OK - that fits with my perception that an 'interview' may mean different things to different people, and I can't see how dismissal is justified simply because one party does not view the issue in the same way as the other.
// the allegations were retracted //
This was mentioned in Blackburn's Tweet, but I am not sure it is true. When the mother was told of Blackburn's denial, she prevented her daughter from attending TOTP again. After the girl killed herself, the mother contacted the News of the World to make the allegation about Blackburn to them. The NotW heavily hinted that the DJ was Blackburn, but he did not sue them. (The article on-line always seems to be redacted with one paragraph blurred out).
Other than Blackburn's I can find no mention (in Dame Janet's report or anywhere else) that the allegation was retracted.
It was dismissed by the BBC and the Police as fantasy, but that is very different.
This was mentioned in Blackburn's Tweet, but I am not sure it is true. When the mother was told of Blackburn's denial, she prevented her daughter from attending TOTP again. After the girl killed herself, the mother contacted the News of the World to make the allegation about Blackburn to them. The NotW heavily hinted that the DJ was Blackburn, but he did not sue them. (The article on-line always seems to be redacted with one paragraph blurred out).
Other than Blackburn's I can find no mention (in Dame Janet's report or anywhere else) that the allegation was retracted.
It was dismissed by the BBC and the Police as fantasy, but that is very different.
Latest Posts
Anyone Using The Nationwide App?
How it Works19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
ChatterBank58 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.