Peter Rippon is unlikely to be the only BBC casualty of the Savile scandal

The question director general George Entwistle must answer is why he still ran the Savile eulogy.

A former editor of Panorama said last week that it "beggars belief" that the person who put the eulogy of Jimmy Savile on BBC TV did not know about Newsnight’s investigation into the DJ’s paedophilia. That person was George Entwistle, the newly installed director general and a major reason why this affair has now spiralled into what the lugubrious John Simpson described as "the worst crisis" facing the Corporation in 50 years.

An inquiry into how Savile managed to escape BBC action over five decades is yet to begin, but the fall-out has already started. And it is ironic that the next step in this now apparently out-of-control scandal will be taken by Panorama itself in a special investigation at 10.30 tonight. This led to the first internal casualty from the affair this morning when the BBC announced that Newsnight editor Peter Rippon was “standing aside” during investigations into why he scrapped a report into Savile’s paedophilia. He could be “standing aside” for quite some time.

Even as Panorama’s grim conclusions were being leaked in advance to every newspaper in the land, the mad scramble by other BBC news programmes to distance themselves from any guilt by association continued apace. With Radio’s 4 and 5 feverishly competing with the news channel, BBC1 and BBC2, any attempt to get control of the situation failed as the story was swamped at every opportunity. Everybody who was anybody, and several who weren’t, were being booked and counter-booked to demonstrate the BBC’s impartiality over itself. And it is clear that the potential involvement of editor-in-chief Entwistle has paralysed other BBC bosses as they too manoeuvre to remain untainted by it.

It was Steve Hewlett, the former Panorama editor turned media pundit, who articulated the key question about the new DG’s involvement last week. We know from tonight’s programme that BBC Head of News Helen Boaden had a "10 second" conversation about the Newsnight Savile investigation with Entwistle before the programme was aired last year.

What we do not know is why Entwistle, a distinguished journalist in his own right, did nothing about it. His defence so far is that he was observing the traditional Chinese walls between news and other programmes to prevent interference. Which leads many to what they see as the killer question. Having been told that Newsnight had concerns about Jimmy Savile, why did he nonetheless run the eulogy without further inquiry? This, as Steve said, ”beggars belief.” And it is Entwistle's involvement in the whole affair that has led to the total confusion that now surrounds it. His first attempt to get a grip was to announce an independent investigation into the Newsnight decision by former Sky News chief Nick Pollard. But even before Pollard could dig out his notebook, Panorama, aided by the Newsnight team, whose original story was spiked, announced their own inquiry - and who in the BBC would dare say no.

With Pollad still not in the door, Entwistle, who refused to be interviewed by the BBC’s own programme, then contacted the House of Commons culture select committee and volunteered to meet them tomorrow. By the time he turns up at the committee, he will be faced with the very questions Panorama wanted to ask and answers will be expected.

The whole fiasco has come as welcome relief to the government, in the stocks for its own incompetence, and a welcome early Christmas present for the traditional BBC-bashers of Fleet Street. But the wider issues of the scandal also look bad for the Corporation whose new leader is self-hobbled in his attempts to get back in control. Rippon may not be the only casualty.

People walk near the entrance to BBC Broadcasting House on October 22, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Peter McHugh is the former Director of Programmes at GMTV and Chief Executive Officer of Quiddity Productions

Getty
Show Hide image

Let's face it: supporting Spurs is basically a form of charity

Now, for my biggest donation yet . . .

I gazed in awe at the new stadium, the future home of Spurs, wondering where my treasures will go. It is going to be one of the architectural wonders of the modern world (football stadia division), yet at the same time it seems ancient, archaic, a Roman ruin, very much like an amphitheatre I once saw in Croatia. It’s at the stage in a new construction when you can see all the bones and none of the flesh, with huge tiers soaring up into the sky. You can’t tell if it’s going or coming, a past perfect ruin or a perfect future model.

It has been so annoying at White Hart Lane this past year or so, having to walk round walkways and under awnings and dodge fences and hoardings, losing all sense of direction. Millions of pounds were being poured into what appeared to be a hole in the ground. The new stadium will replace part of one end of the present one, which was built in 1898. It has been hard not to be unaware of what’s going on, continually asking ourselves, as we take our seats: did the earth move for you?

Now, at long last, you can see what will be there, when it emerges from the scaffolding in another year. Awesome, of course. And, har, har, it will hold more people than Arsenal’s new home by 1,000 (61,000, as opposed to the puny Emirates, with only 60,000). At each home game, I am thinking about the future, wondering how my treasures will fare: will they be happy there?

No, I don’t mean Harry Kane, Danny Rose and Kyle Walker – local as well as national treasures. Not many Prem teams these days can boast quite as many English persons in their ranks. I mean my treasures, stuff wot I have been collecting these past 50 years.

About ten years ago, I went to a shareholders’ meeting at White Hart Lane when the embryonic plans for the new stadium were being announced. I stood up when questions were called for and asked the chairman, Daniel Levy, about having a museum in the new stadium. I told him that Man United had made £1m the previous year from their museum. Surely Spurs should make room for one in the brave new mega-stadium – to show off our long and proud history, delight the fans and all those interested in football history and make a few bob.

He mumbled something – fluent enough, as he did go to Cambridge – but gave nothing away, like the PM caught at Prime Minister’s Questions with an unexpected question.

But now it is going to happen. The people who are designing the museum are coming from Manchester to look at my treasures. They asked for a list but I said, “No chance.” I must have 2,000 items of Spurs memorabilia. I could be dead by the time I finish listing them. They’ll have to see them, in the flesh, and then they’ll be free to take away whatever they might consider worth having in the new museum.

I’m awfully kind that way, partly because I have always looked on supporting Spurs as a form of charity. You don’t expect any reward. Nor could you expect a great deal of pleasure, these past few decades, and certainly not the other day at Liverpool when they were shite. But you do want to help them, poor things.

I have been downsizing since my wife died, and since we sold our Loweswater house, and I’m now clearing out some of my treasures. I’ve donated a very rare Wordsworth book to Dove Cottage, five letters from Beatrix Potter to the Armitt Library in Ambleside, and handwritten Beatles lyrics to the British Library. If Beckham and I don’t get a knighthood in the next honours list, I will be spitting.

My Spurs stuff includes programmes going back to 1910, plus recent stuff like the Opus book, that monster publication, about the size of a black cab. Limited editions cost £8,000 a copy in 2007. I got mine free, as I did the introduction and loaned them photographs. I will be glad to get rid of it. It’s blocking the light in my room.

Perhaps, depending on what they want, and they might take nothing, I will ask for a small pourboire in return. Two free tickets in the new stadium. For life. Or longer . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times