Peter Saunders Guest Posting.

Peter Saunders CEO National Association of People Abused in Childhood. NAPAC.

Surprising as it may seem if you work with children (in England, Wales Scotland) and see one of your charges being abused or even raped, you might think you and your employer had a legal obligation to report it to the authorities. Not so. There is no legal requirement on anyone working with minors to report allegations or witnessed abuse of a child, including rape, to either the Local Authority Designated Officer  LADO / Social Services, or the police. This situation is just as relevant to you living in Jersey.

Legislation is urgently needed which requires staff in faith groups, national sports bodies and clubs, schools and all similar institutions, which are defined in England as ‘Regulated Activities,’ to inform the LADO (or Children’s Services in Jersey) of all concerns, allegations and incidents of abuse so that experienced and ‘independent’ assessment of referrals can occur to ensure perpetrators are stopped as soon as possible. A volunteer member of our charity who has lived on an island with a smaller population than Jersey suggests that special arrangements would be needed to ensure ‘independent’ assessment of incidents.

• Mandatory reporting of allegations and concerns addresses the distorting factors in what can appear to be complex situations. A headteacher or a bishop might wish to protect his colleague’s or church’s reputation but if he risks a criminal conviction and a hefty fine by so doing then he will think it a poor exchange.

• Under a system of mandatory reporting, staff in schools or hospitals who suspect abuse would have no choice but to report or face prosecution. This means every employee is better protected from blame. Being faced with a conviction, prison or a fine cuts across friendship or loyalty to an institution, and there is no doubt where duty lies.

• A criminal sanction for failure to report also removes any perceived need to weigh up whether the concerns reported are serious enough, or who to believe before having to decide what to do: the person reporting is freed from having to make complex judgements about who is telling the truth.

Too often the decision is made to cover up and/or minimise wrong doing including any abuse of power perpetrated by officers and staff of the Regulated Activity. This is true for failures in schools such as Hillside First School Weston Super Mare and churches including the Diocese of Chichester and the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Local Authority children’s services such as Rochdale, Haringey, North Wales, and public service institutions such as the BBC and the NHS which also have questions to answer as the Savile inquiries continue to reveal.

Countries which operate mandatory reporting include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, USA, and now the Republic of Ireland which on the 10th November 2012 held a referendum which approved mandatory reporting.

Failing to refer in the Republic is now an offence which carries a tariff of up to five years imprisonment. The new law will positively impact the culture of safeguarding in all institutional settings in Ireland.

In England (Wales, Scotland, and Jersey) children are on their own and have no legal right to expect the LADO (or other agency) to be informed of their suspected or discovered abuse. The present situation is not working and the Government shows no sign of recognising these shortcomings.

This has prompted NAPAC and four further charities to start a petition @MandateNow calling on Mr Gove to introduce legislation. How hard is it to see that all too often institutions put their own interests before those of children when abuse is suspected or discovered within? To change this culture of concealment and deception the only option is legislation.


Come and join us by signing the petition now - Click HERE.


Or in 30 years time this will still be happening.

Business As Usual/The Jersey Way.

After the Dean of Jersey, Bob Key, had his commission renewed by the Bishop of Winchester, Tim Dakin, the Dean was back in the island's parliament after a 7 week absence while his commission had been withdrawn.

Regular readers of this Blog Site and that of former Deputy BOB HILL's will be aware that the Dean's commission was withdrawn after the publication of "The Korris Report" which outlined numerous failings, of the Dean, concerning safeguarding issues involving an alleged victim of abuse (now known as "HG") at the hands of a church warden.

Some of the Dean's failings are listed here (from Korris Report).

Alleged victim "H.G."

Bob Key "R.K."

Page 9.

5 days later R.K responded from his deanofjersey work email account saying, “I have not been able to access my gov.je email for a few days so have only just found this”.This seems disingenuous as H.G. had not sent her email to that address. It implies that Dean R.K. had just discovered its contents whereas it is highly likely that he had already discussed it with other recipients, not least with Vicar

Page 23.

H.G. felt disbelieved and publicly humiliated. In reaction to her sense of getting no adequate response to any of the issues she raised she appealed to the higher authority of the Bishop, to Lambeth Palace, and to the media in the form of BBC Jersey, all to no effect. Following this she went on a much publicised offensive against any number of people connected to the Church.

Page 25.

Following this H.G. was arrested for breaking a harassment order, brought before the magistrate and as she had no money, was at that time of no fixed abode and appeared mentally distressed, she was remanded in custody.

Safeguarding Advisor J.F. records her concern at these extreme measures and worked at setting up care for her with the prison chaplain. She is shocked when on 11th October H.G. was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for three years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her, no planned accommodation and no money. J.F. wrote to Bishop Michael, “Whilst I don’t think this is our responsibility in that the court decision and action was not of our making, I do feel we have a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone, to do all we can to ensure her wellbeing

Page 33.

There seems to be no spirit of willingness or inquiry in this matter. I found that some of the Island clergy had been actively discouraged by the Dean of Jersey from fully engaging with me and therefore complying with the Bishop’s request.

Page 37

However, as a result of the absence, or withholding, of records on Jersey and Dean R.K.’s resistance to co-operate with my requests, against the expressed desire of his Bishop, I have had to look more deeply into the possible reasons for this and comment upon whether there are disciplinary matters involved.

Page 37

The Church let H.G. down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and struggle with some everyday practicalities, H.G. was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socializing and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years H.G.’s life changed from having no history of being in trouble with the law, to having a police record and being a displaced person, homeless on the streets of the mainland.

Page 38.

Dean R.K. has not refuted H.G.’s description of their meeting. The only witness was Dean R.K.’s personal assistant who is his wife and she has refused to be interviewed for this Review.

Page 40.

Safeguarding Advisor J.F. described the annual training sessions on Safeguarding she had offered on Jersey over the past seven or eight years. She was not aware that the Dean of Jersey had attended at any time.(END)

Regular readers will be aware that church lobbyists, to include,former Bailiff, and now Senator Philip Bailhache, wrote to Bishop Dakin, not to support the victim ("HG") but to support the Dean. 

Senator Bailhache actually went one step further in his LETTER as he went on to label "HG" as the abuser where he wrote;

"it was clearly considered by all concerned that that order was in the best interests both of HG and those she had abused." Thus portraying the victim as the perpetrator, or "The Jersey Way" as it has become known.

So the Dean has had his commission renewed and was/is back in his seat at the island's parliament much to the delight of many States Members and to the huge delight of the Bailiff who is the (unelected) speaker of the parliament.

The Bailiff, Michael Birt, gave a rousing speech (below) in support of the Dean in appreciation of his return. This speech DID NOT acknowledge the victim "HG" and went on to receive rapturous applause, in the way of foot-stamping, by the vast majority of our politicians........But not by all.

Anti Child Abuse/corruption campaigner, Deputy Trevor Pitman, spoke in support of "HG" and nobody stamped their feet in support/appreciation of "HG" or Deputy Pitman although Deputy Montfort Tadier did add his support which was quickly shut down by the (unelected) Bailiff.

Constable Juliette Gallichan rose to her feet to proclaim "Deputy Pitman does not speak on behalf of me" So a politician (Deputy Trevor Pitman) gives support to an abuse victim and fellow politician (Juliette Gallichan) goes out of her way to distance herself from that support?

Long time readers might recall Constable Gallichan was the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), back in 2010 when the then (illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, wrote a letter addressed to the "Chairman" of PPC which we published HERE. Constable Gallichan DID NOT share that letter with her committee and went on to reply to the Chief Police Officer HERE again without sharing it with PPC Members. Mr. Power QPM was (illegally?") suspended while his Police Force was involved in the biggest Child Abuse investigation ("Operation Rectangle") the island has ever seen. He was looking for support from PPC..............He never got any.

What the (edited) video below demonstrates to us is that despite "Operation Rectangle", despite the Jimmy Savile (who allegedly abused in Jersey) atrocities and despite all the blustering of "we have learnt lessons" the truth is, in the Jersey Parliament, no lessons have been learnt. Abuse Victims/Survivors get next to NO recognition/support yet those who fail them appear to be hailed as heroes........... Business as usual in Jersey..........The Jersey Way.

Credit, and thanks, to TJW for this recording.

Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron, The JEP, and Facts.

Chief Police Officer, Mike Bowron, has issued a stinging attack on a Jersey politician, and anti Child Abuse campaigner, Trevor Pitman in a letter published in the island's only "news"paper The Jersey Evening Post.

Chief Officer Bowron's letter centre's around questions/statements allegedly made by Deputy Pitman in the island's parliament concerning complaints made against Chief Officer Bowron and whether the he is under investigation by an outside Police Force. We reproduce the letter (below) and further reproduce the questions/statements made in the island's parliament that the letter appears to be addressing.

Readers will see that the questions attributed to Deputy Pitman were in fact asked by fellow politician and anti Child Abuse/corruption campaigner Deputy Mike Higgins and NOT Deputy Pitman.

Regular readers will not be surprised at the shoddy journalism and total disregard to the facts when it comes to the Jersey Evening Post who infamously accused Bloggers of publishing "allegations without substance" and then turned down an invitation (from Bloggers) for a live head to head, on State Radio, to substantiate their claims. But for the Chief Police Officer to pay such little attention to facts, and believe what he reads in the JEP, is more concerning. To openly attack (the wrong) an opposition politician in the island's only "news"paper is equally concerning/disturbing and brings into question the motives of the Chief Officer bearing in mind he was/is THE CHOSEN ONE.

Police chief: 'No complaint against me'
From Mike Bowman, chief officer, States of Jersey Police.

"I WAS most surprised and somewhat aggrieved to read your report on States question time in Wednesday's JEP, where Deputy Trevor Pitman referred to 'a complaint against the chief of police and asked the minister if he was aware of an external report compiled by an outside police force about that complaint.

Let me make it absolutely clear that there is no such complaint and I am not being investigated by an outside force.

I note with interest that Deputy Pitman will be asking the same question again 'in a few weeks and he hoped that by then the minister would have read the report'. Let me reiterate that no such report exists.

Perhaps Deputy Pitman will check his facts for future before he impugns my, or anyone else's integrity within the safety of the States Chamber."(END)

Here are the "Facts" for you Chief Officer Bowron which are NOT what you read in the disgraced Jersey Evening Post.



Will Chief Officer Bowron and/or the JEP be apologising to Deputy Pitman? Will the apolog(ies)y be given the same prominence in the "news"paper as the offending/offensive article? (A Leveson recommendation). Has the Chief Officer learnt not to believe what he reads in the JEP? Has he learnt that if he wants credible information and facts he will be better placed coming to the Blogs? (Jersey's only independent media).

We must also keep in mind that the questions asked by DEPUTY MIKE HIGGINS raise some very important issues and should not be overshadowed by the Chief Officer's/JEP's incompetence. Rico Sorda will be addressing these questions on his Blog tonight.

VFC would like to credit, and thank TJW for making the recording possible.

BBC Edging Toward Revival of Savile Culture?

So far this year, there seems to be a pattern emerging of BBC executives actively engaging in biased behaviour that appears to attack those who are attempting to uncover atrocities against children and other vulnerable people on the island of Jersey.

This is especially surprising, considering the BBC stands accused of turning a blind eye to Child Abuse within its ranks in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal. 

We, at The Voice, can exclusively reveal a disturbing series of events: The BBC Promoting Internet “hate sites,” issuing statements on Twitter we can only call highly concerning. This causes us to believe that the BBC may be continuing to nurture a similar culture to the one that enabled paedophile Jimmy Savile to "terrorise" people across the British Isles for six decades, frequently right in the offices of the BBC.

As you will see, evidenced below, this predatory culture is still alive and well within this publicly funded organisation today.

The first incident that caught our eye was in January of this year, when "The Voice" observed BBC staff actively promoting a hate site on Facebook attacking a fellow journalist investigating Child Abuse on the island.

Since then, we have seen additional worrying activity by members of the BBC on Twitter, including by the head of BBC Jersey himself, plugging the accounts of other Twitter users clearly set up to bully and harass those advocating for the victims/survivors of Child Abuse.

Interestingly, members of the BBC have been caught out posting, then deleting, much of this biased material, indicating they themselves are conflicted in addressing issues of Child Abuse/paedophilia. 

As a case in point, last week, Managing Editor of BBC Jersey, Jon Gripton, appeared back on Twitter after his account mysteriously disappeared earlier this year when he tweeted in support of another Twitter account that looks to be set up to bully and harass at least one sitting Jersey politician. In the same tweet, Mr. Gripton cast aspersions on the character of another sitting politician.

The two politicians were Shona and Trevor Pitman, respectively, both politicians in Jersey's Parliament who are advocating for abuse victims/survivors and challenging Jersey’s legal system when it comes to its questionable treatment of the vulnerable and defenceless.

In one of his Twitter comments (since deleted) Mr. Gripton stated that Trevor Pitman would probably respond to the online bullying and harassment by going on a "witch-hunt." This hardly seems to be the type of behaviour becoming of a BBC executive, particularly on the heels of recent events.

The hate site, set up on Facebook, that appeared to be promoted by the BBC, included death threats against the fellow journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, an American who has been investigating Child Abuse on the island. The Facebook site is still up, although some of the most offending content has been deleted, at: HERE 

It should be noted that one of the producers of BBC Jersey, Julie Flanagan, actively promoted this site in January – the same month Ms. Goodman’s UK/Jersey travel ban was lifted. To this day, the members list for the site contains the names of other BBC staff.

I wrote to Mr. Gripton in January, requesting he investigate the unethical and unbecoming behaviour of his staff (this was before he started joining in this behaviour himself). But, as readers will see below, my concerns fell on deaf ears. Instead of conducting a proper investigation, Mr. Gripton warned me of potential “redress” should I publish our correspondence.

However, I believe our correspondence to be of huge public interest, which is why I have decided to publish it below.

E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE.

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
cc:	Julie Flanagan
date:	28 January 2013 10:26
subject:	Disgusted and appalled.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Jon.

I feel compelled to write to you as Managing Editor of BBC Jersey concerning a member of your production team Ms. Julie Flanagan (copied in).

Yesterday my attention was brought to a Facebook site Titled "Leah McGrath Goodman....Get your facts right."

It appeared to be set up in response to a comment made by Ms. Goodman in an interview she did with Max Keiser from "Russia Today" where Ms. Goodman had stated that books were banned in Jersey, notably she said "books" not "all books" although the basis of the Facebook group was built on the latter. 

The Facebook group was full of inaccurate information, personal insults, bordering on hateful and certainly spiteful comments against Ms Goodman, and others. 

After further perusal I discovered that Ms. Flanagan was actively promoting the site by inviting quite a number of people to join it, to include, members of the BBC staff.

I have to say that I was disgusted, and appalled, not only by the content/comments posted on the group's wall, but more worryingly that a producer at the BBC would be actively promoting a site that was attacking a fellow journalist in such a hateful and spiteful manner.

Behaviour of this sort (IMO) only further erodes the credibility of the BBC and causes one to question its motives. Thankfully it appears that the Facebook group has now been closed down, whether it was Facebook who closed it down, or the administrator, I am not sure. 

Not only did the group show the people of Jersey in a bad light by attacking a journalist who is researching the Child Abuse atrocities, and related issues on the island, but the fact that it was being promoted by a member of the BBC production staff is just as, if not, more concerning.

What is equally perplexing is that (to the best of my knowledge) Ms. Flanagan did not sign, nor promote, the e-petition in order to have Ms Goodman's (a fellow journalist) visa restored so that she could return to Jersey in order to resume her research into the Child Abuse atrocities yet here she is, a member of a group that is discrediting Ms. Goodman in the most appalling manner.

That all said, I believe the administrator of the Facebook group, though misguided, created the group with the right intentions, but it turned into, as mentioned above a hateful and spiteful attack on a journalist that was promoted by Ms Flanagan, and possibly others at the BBC.

I hope you treat this "incident" with the seriousness it deserves and consider, at the very least, an internal investigation into the actions of Ms. Flanagan and other BBC staff who might have been involved?

Neil.

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
cc:	Julie Flanagan
date:	29 January 2013 16:48
subject:	Re: Disgusted and appalled.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Jon.

As is so often the case you've not even sent an acknowledgement of the e-mail below, and once more I am left wondering if you are going to be ignoring it?

Could you please do me the courtesy of replying to the e-mail by advising me whether you are going to be taking any action into the conduct of your staff, or not?

If you have no intention of addressing my (and others) concerns could you please let me know sooner, rather than later, so I can pursue those concerns through other channels?

Neil. 

from:	Jon Gripton
to:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
date:	29 January 2013 20:07
subject:	RE: Disgusted and appalled.
mailed-by:	bbc.co.uk

I have investigated the matters you raise.

I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook – to share a page and bring it to the attention of journalist colleagues, is not to “promote” it.

Leah McGrath Goodman herself has praised our coverage of her plight, and has granted us interviews whilst at home and also when she arrives in Jersey.

I too was surprised at the reaction of various islanders to the debate – it is something we are aware of and indeed are looking into.

In the meantime, as ever, if you are not happy with my response you may escalate your complaint – the details of how to complain to the BBC are here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
date:	30 January 2013 12:33
subject:	Re: Disgusted and appalled.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Jon.

With the greatest respect I find your response somewhat patronising and find it difficult to believe you have conducted ANY kind of an investigation.

The patronising bit is where you suggest that I don't understand the nature of Facebook. On the contrary it is BBC Jersey who don't understand the nature of Facebook as the radio presenters regularly read out comments from clearly fake accounts.

To elaborate a little further on the patronising you try to convince me that Ms.Flanagan was only bringing attention to the "hate site" to fellow journalists and not "promoting" it. To make fellow journalists aware of the site Ms. Flanagan would/could have e-mailed/texted/private messaged or phoned her colleagues to bring it to their "attention."

The fact is Ms. Flanagan "joined" the group and openly "invited" others to join it, if that is not "promoting" the site, and your "investigation" didn't come to that conclusion then this proves my point made about you not even conducting an investigation.

As for making a complaint to the BBC about you, and your staff's latest display of biased and unprofessionalism you know as well as I do it would be a waste of time so I will just post our correspondence on my Blog and forward it to interested parties.

Neil.

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
date:	31 January 2013 09:44
subject:	Complaint.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Jon.

After sharing our latest correspondence, with interested parties, involving BBC producer Julie Flanagan's membership and promotion of, what has become known as, the Leah McGrath Goodman hate group on Facebook I have been encouraged to submit a complaint to BBC and elsewhere.

It has been suggested that the complaint should also include yourself and your refusal to take my concerns seriously, or assure me , that my concerns have been addressed adequately in favour of protecting the BBC, Its staff and reputation. 

I have been convinced that there will be merit, in having documented, the practices of the BBC and their reluctance/refusal to take the concerns of the public seriously even now after the Jimmy Savile debacle.

I believe I have demonstrated that Miss Flanagan DID, not only join, but "promote" the Facebook Group "(Leah McGrath Goodman....Get your Facts Right") and that you are ignoring this and have taken the position of protecting the BBC over addressing the concerns of the public.

Before I embark on submitting my complaint against yourself, and Ms. Flanagan, could you please detail for me the extent of your "investigation" and if you still maintain that Ms. Flanagan was making other journalists "aware" of the "hate site" rather than "promoting" it?

I should note that I don't believe, in the short term, that either yourself or Ms. Flanagan will in any way be held to account for your actions, or inactions, by the BBC Trust or anybody else at the BBC for that matter.

What I believe this exercise will achieve, possibly in the long term, is that the culture within the BBC that enabled Jimmy Savile to abuse vulnerable children for decades, by people turning blind eyes, not taking the public's concerns seriously and possibly more sinister motives still remains today.

I look forward to you prompt response on this grave matter.

Neil. 

from:	Jon Gripton
to:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
date:	31 January 2013 21:44
subject:	RE: Complaint.
mailed-by:	bbc.co.uk

I take all complaints very seriously and investigate them appropriately.

I have already answered your complaint on this matter, in an email to you on 29 Jan 2013.

If you wish to take the matter further, I have given you details of the BBC Complaints procedure.

Furthermore, as per my email to you of 26 April 2012, I again formally request that you do not publish our email conversations on your blog without prior consent.
If you wish a response to be 'for publication' then please make this clear in advance. Failure to agree or to adhere to this request may prevent me from corresponding with you, and may result in redress where appropriate.

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
date:	1 February 2013 11:21
subject:	Re: Complaint.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Jon.

You continue to demonstrate that the culture within the BBC that enabled Savile to abuse for decades is still prevalent today and NO lessons have been learnt.

You refuse to address my concerns or assure me you have conducted ANY kind of investigation. I asked for you to detail your investigation for me as I believe I have proven beyond any doubt the Ms. Flanagan joined and actively promoted the Facebook Hate Group.

All you have told me is that your so-called "investigation" was appropriate but have not detailed it in any way for me. I bring your attention to the paragraph in my previous e-mail that I believe you have an obligation, to the licence fee payer, to answer in full.

"Before I embark on submitting my complaint against yourself, and Ms. Flanagan, could you please detail for me the extent of your "investigation" and if you still maintain that Ms. Flanagan was making other journalists "aware" of the "hate site" rather than "promoting" it?"

I would like it made very clear, to whoever this complaint ends up with (and possibly my readers) that issuing me with a threat not to publish our correspondence with the public, and licence fee payer, IS the very tactic used to prevent people speaking out against Savile and other abusers. You are seeking to instil fear into me so that I keep quiet by threatening me with "redress" should I inform the public (licence fee payer) of the goings on in your institution the BBC.

It might give you some satisfaction to learn that every day of my life is filled with fear ever since I have discovered we have a corrupt, and politicised, judicial system. I live in fear every day of my life knowing how powerless the ordinary folk of this corrupt island are. I live in fear every day of my life knowing that the one institution (the BBC) who I grew up believing and trusting as an independent organisation who people could turn to against a corrupt and oppressive regime is actually part of that regime. I am scared Jon fear fills my life in Jersey.

So with that in mind, your latest threat, or scare tactic, does frighten me possibly more than you could know. Not because you have threatened me with redress but the fact I have been threatened by the BBC who I believed were there to protect the public and its interests.

It is your call whether you reply to this e-mail, or not, or address my concerns adequately by answering my straight forward questions with straight forward answers. I will not guarantee that our correspondence will not be published on my Blog, or a number of other Blogs/websites across the internet as I believe it is imperative for people to speak out and the public are made aware of the scare tactics still being used against those who want nothing more than truth, honesty, and integrity. The public need to know that the very culture that enabled Savile and others to carry on abusing for decades carries on today by the BBC who threaten those who attempt to hold the BBC to any kind of account.

I believe I have "more than" fulfilled my obligation to try to resolve this issue locally with yourself and Ms. Flanagan, the latter who never even acknowledged my e-mails, let alone attempt to offer any kind of explanation or assurances.

I'll give it 24 hours for you to reply (adequately) to this e-mail and will then set about escalating my complaint against Ms. Flanagan and yourself further up the BBC ladder and elsewhere.

Neil.

from:	voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
to:	Jon Gripton
date:	2 February 2013 11:50
subject:	Re: Complaint.
mailed-by:	gmail.com

Now that the 24 hours has come and gone and you have ignored my previous e-mail and genuine concerns, I will be escalating my complaint against yourself and Ms. Flanagan and going public across the internet, and elsewhere, to include UK MP's, national journalists, and others.

I will be Blogging the entire journey, from start to finish, and with documentation, demonstrating how the BBC's policy appears to be to protect their staff and attempt to keep everything (complaints etc.) "in house" by ignoring the concerns of the public and "threatening" into silence those who dare contemplate "going public."

I believe I will be able to demonstrate that the culture within the BBC that protected a prolific paedophile for decades remains as strong today as it ever was.

I intend on "going public" and escalating my complaint next week and before publishing the first Blog Posting on this subject I will offer you a right of reply by way of a videoed interview.
Neil.(END)

In conclusion I made a complaint, it was not, in my opinion, dealt with adequately and, more disturbing still, I was pressured not to share the full correspondence of that complaint with the licence fee-paying public. From what I can see, this is the kind of cover-up behaviour that got the BBC in hot water in the first place.

I contacted Mr. Gripton again last week, informing him of my intent to publish our correspondence today, and again offering him an opportunity to provide further clarity into the situation. Unfortunately, he did not respond to attempts to revisit the conversation.

I also want to make clear the BBC has never denied its active involvement in questionable Twitter postings and the hate sites mentioned above.

Readers are asked to make up their own minds, after considering the evidence, the online bullying, and the  e-mail exchange above as to whether the BBC, a publicly funded organisation that has vowed to do better, has really learned any lessons from the Jimmy Savile scandal.

At least in Jersey, where Savile abused multiple children, it seems high-level BBC executives, including Mr. Gripton and Ms. Flanagan, have a great deal to answer for.