BBC criticised for shelving Sir Jimmy Savile alleged sex abuse investigation

Following Sir Jimmy Savile’s death last year, the BBC’s current affairs show, Newsnight, apparently began an investigation into claims that Sir Jimmy abused teenaged girls while working for the BBC.

However, the Daily Mirror reports that the broadcaster has come under fire for ditching the investigation, with The Oldie magazine claiming that the edition of Newsnight that dealt with the allegations was shelved as a face-saving exercise.

A BBC spokesperson denied that the investigation – which was prompted when a woman came forward to allege that Sir Jimmy “groomed” her while filming his show, Clunk Click – was ditched in order to protect the BBC’s reputation.

The paper states, “Our sister paper, the Sunday Mirror, revealed a month ago a Newsnight report was due to be screened in December, two months after Savile’s death, but was pulled…”

It goes on to say that all the women who subsequently came forward to make similar allegations were former pupils at the Duncroft Approved School in Staines, Surrey, which Savile visited regularly.

Some of the women claim Savile took girls out of the school for a ride in his car and gave them cigarettes, records and money in exchange for “sexual favours”.

Newsnight’s editor, Peter Rippon, said, “It is untrue that our investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.

“The piece was not broadcast because the story could not be substantiated. To allege that we are withholding evidence from the police is also damaging and false.”

Meanwhile, Sir Jimmy’s friend, Stephen Purdew slammed the allegations, saying, “Sir Jim was a great man, a legend who should be remembered for all the wonderful things he did.”

And of course, also since his death, a woman has claimed to be his daughter and is currently seeking DNA tests to prove her claim.

One Response to “BBC criticised for shelving Sir Jimmy Savile alleged sex abuse investigation”

  1. lilmiss says:

    Quote – “The piece was not broadcast because the story could not be substantiated.

    Funny they come forward AFTER his death so he can’t defend himself.
    Not saying it didn’t or did happen but these women had years to file a claim when he was alive.
    As for the woman who thinks she may be his daughter, she said she doesn’t want his money, but she does have the right to have closure on who her father is. If it is true ( and she bears an uncanny resemblance) then she should have a % of his fortune, in lieu of what he could have contributed financially to her childhood. I also would have thought if she tried to make contact with him in the past, the door, like for many people would have remained firmly shut.