Tony Blackburn Sacked By BBC - Sex Probe

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It was Blackburn's word against two separate documents made contemporaneously.

By whom?

 

[bluethrunthru]

You do wonder about the Beeb though - I listen to R4Extra a lot. Today they had an episode of Steptoe and Son which will be repeated three times. Now this is on today of all days - it featured Graham Stark as a filthy perverted psychiatrist - he quizzes Harold constantly about his mums tits and his girlfriends tits and so on.

For those of you who can't see how this might be a bad day for this particular episode and aren't familiar with Stark just Google him. From the Wiki pics you will recognise the face then read the Telegraph article from 2014. An odious man and you will see what I mean. He seems to have been protected by association with an untouchable in Peter Sellers . Really bad day for this to be on IMHO.

 

[Cityfan]

By whom?

I don't know.

 

[BigJoe#1]

The Smith report stated that there was evidence that Blackburn was lying and not cooperating.
It was not Blackburn's word against someone else's. It was Blackburn's word against two separate documents made contemporaneously.
Sounds like they were right to sack him, whatever your opinions on the merits or otherwise of the BBC.

I Understand where you're coming from but I cannot reconcile why Blackburn would want to lie or mislead the enquiry deliberately.

Obviouly as Denislawsbackheel noted, I nor anyone else for that matter knows exactly what was said, nor how. However if you consider the wider implications it seems less likely that Blackburn would have any reason to deny the talks took place unless he simply genuinely does not recollect them, in which case what else could he say?

As for the contemporaneous evidence, no reason to suspect it wasn't genuine, but do we know for sure it was created at that time - unlike today where electronic documents are dated and time stamped, back then it was a pen and paper. Did these documents have Blackburns signature on? We can't and we don't know.

 

[Cityfan]

The people who are at the top today have little to gain by claiming that the Senior people before interviewed Blackburn and a huge amount to lose if caught forging documents.
I have no idea why Blackburn would wish to lie, it may be self deception ,it may be he thought the documents were more incriminating than they were. He may have genuinely forgotten though it seems unlikely and he specifically denies it is possible.

 

[dickie davies]

Anyone who goes into a rainforest and talks to a piece of wood, just to get the public onside so he can win the title of "king of the jungle" is a fucking wrongun

 

[BigJoe#1]

The people who are at the top today have little to gain by claiming that the Senior people before interviewed Blackburn and a huge amount to lose if caught forging documents.
I have no idea why Blackburn would wish to lie, it may be self deception ,it may be he thought the documents were more incriminating than they were. He may have genuinely forgotten though it seems unlikely and he specifically denies it is possible.

I'm not suggesting the people at the head of the organisation today forged anything, nor anyone come to that, but it is no less likely than him forgetting?

Clearly the whole thing stinks.

Why such drastic action as sacking him? For what benefit?

I agree he is unlikely to forget such an interview, if indeed it happened (and therein lies the debate and opinion) though bear in mind, back then there was not as much publicity, though this story did hit the papers.

 

[Cityfan]

When the biggest enquiry in your organisation's history states in their report that one of your employees lied to it you have to take appropriate action.

 

[BigJoe#1]

When the biggest enquiry in your organisation's history states in their report that one of your employees lied to it you have to take appropriate action.

Totally agree, but do we know that he lied? That is the question I would need some kind of evidence for. Dame Janet Smith said it was her opinion on the balance of probability that he had but she had no proof.

The BBC commissioned a report on itself to review its procedures by the Good Corporation. This report concluded they were doing excellent and had 32 recommendations. The exact same thing when reviewed in Smiths Report said they were lacking and had no confidence that there was the right environment or culture in place to enable people to report things to their managers, and that's there today - so which report do we believe?

 

[Cityfan]

I'm not trying to defend the BBC in anything other than their sacking of Blackburn.
As far as the BBC culture is concerned I have no reason to believe that the Smith report is anything other than evidence based and reasonable.