BBC Squirming like rats in a trap

[lastlid]

Interesting times for auntie.
It's very difficult to put any distance between themselves and Messrs Saville and Peel as they were their main employers for most of their careers. I think this going to run for a while and looks like there maybe one or two more names added to the list yet.
Lets not get carried away with all this BBC is a vehicle for Child molesters bull though as it's not fair to the majority of employees who are doubtless shocked by this story.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and lets not forget that This Conservative supporting alleged paedo scumbag is supposed to have spent 11 consecutive New Years Eves at Chequers with our Prime Minister Lady Thatcher and in 1988 the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state for health Kenneth Clarke appointed SAVILLE to Lead a Taskforce to oversee the managing of Broadmoor Hospital, surely one of the last places you should put an alleged sexual deviant in charge of. Surely nobody is suggesting that Ken Clarke should be arrested or even Maggie for that matter.
This man quite clearly fooled alot of people for a long time along with one or 2 others.

What the legal people are saying is that the BBC is likely to be held vicariously liable. I don't think vicarious liability would apply to Ken or Maggie in that sense. The BBC as his employer would be held vicariously liable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19925344

Here's a good example of vicarious liability under similar circumstances at a boys school:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/o...iability-abuse

[bigmarco]

What the legal people are saying is that the BBC is likely to be held vicariously liable. I don't think vicarious liability would apply to Ken or Maggie in that sense. The BBC as his employer would be held vicariously liable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19925344

Here's a good example of vicarious liability under similar circumstances at a boys school:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/o...iability-abuse

I don't think any liability attaches to Maggie or Ken. My point was that hindsight is a wonderful thing and that if the allegations are true then Saville fooled alot a people for a long time including previous Governments.
The only guilty people in my view are Saville and anybody who knew what was going on and never spoke up. Not a whole organisation.

[lastlid]

I don't think any liability attaches to Maggie or Ken. My point was that hindsight is a wonderful thing and that if the allegations are true then Saville fooled alot a people for a long time including previous Governments.
The only guilty people in my view are Saville and anybody who knew what was going on and never spoke up. Not a whole organisation.

I see what you mean.

Vicarious liability is quite interesting. It implicates an employer even if the employee is culpable.

[bigmarco]

I see what you mean.

Vicarious liability is quite interesting. It implicates an employer even if the employee is culpable.

It seems that a few may have known what was going on and not spoken up.Shame on them and I hope they suffer some consequences now.
But lets not get carried away as he seems to have fooled alot of people for a long time.
The Queen Knighted him and he also received a Papal Knighthood.

[lastlid]

It seems that a few may have known what was going on and not spoken up.Shame on them and I hope they suffer some consequences now.
But lets not get carried away as he seems to have fooled alot of people for a long time.
The Queen Knighted him and he also received a Papal Knighthood.

Yes. It is amazing to think, in this day and age. A bit like the Hillsborough malarkey. Both equally incredible.

[Terpe]

.....The only guilty people in my view are Saville and anybody who knew what was going on and never spoke up. Not a whole organisation.

Agreed.
And as I've said before, there's a lot that should not only hold their heads in shame, but should expect to be both named and shamed.

The culture of an organisation is down to those who run it from the top. Also there is a relationship to society in general.

Having said that, if the people at the top knew (or were aware) of whatever was going-on within that organisation they should expect to be accountable.
Seems this may not happen.

[lastlid]

Agreed.
And as I've said before, there's a lot that should not only hold their heads in shame, but should expect to be both named and shamed.

The culture of an organisation is down to those who run it from the top. Also there is a relationship to society in general.

Having said that, if the people at the top knew (or were aware) of whatever was going-on within that organisation they should expect to be accountable.
Seems this may not happen.

Something I have said for years.

They say that the BBC had a duty of care. That's what it hinges on in terms of their culpability.
I actually think, even though time has elapsed considerably, that the BBC should be implicated too. People at the top evidently knew it was going on.