Tony Blackburn sacked

I have always thought tony Blackburn as a decent man like his music. How can this be dredged up after all these years when there is no evidence that he did anything wrong.

Will any action be taken against bbc staff who enabled these " people " to carry out the offences?

No statue of limitations. The young people who are abused are usually too scared and blame themselves, to come forward until they are much older and realise what happened was not their fault. That is what grooming is all about. One very young child of 4 was told that if she told her mum, he would have to kill her mum.

With Tony Blackburn, sounds as if he has been sacked because of speaking out.

TB has said that the BBC has no proper evidence to back up the claim that he had been interviewed by a QC and by Billy Cotton Jnr about the girl's (later withdrawn) allegations. If it is true that the BBC has no substantive documentary evidence that these meetings took place, I don't think it is right for it to tarnish his reputation in this way.

Presumably if, as he says he will, TB sues the BBC, both legal teams will thoroughly investigate, and much more light will be thrown on the matter . Hopefully a just conclusion can then be reached.

Wish we could start a Petition to get TB his job back, but the BBC seem to be a law unto themselves.

Let's hope TB's legal team can take the BBC to the cleaners. It could however take years and he is 73, so I doubt we will hear much more of him as a DJ, unless he moves to a small radio station.

Tony has been sacked for speaking up and going against the BBC it's disgraceful that they can get away with this and I feel so sorry for him his reputation and career has been tarnished Tony was and still is a true gentleman.

Think it is a case of burying bad news. All today's discussions focus on the sacking of TB, diverting attention from the Damning of the
BBC by the Saville report.

What does "fell short of the standards of evidence that such an enquiry demanded" actually mean? (Tony Hall on the News). Why can't they speak plainly?

jingl I think it means he can't remember being questioned over something for which the records have mysteriously disappeared. He denied it; Dame Janet insisted that TB had, in fact, been questioned by Bill Cotton and another senior exec at the Beeb (both now deceased). But there are no records.

The pp above, has nailed it, I think. It's all about deflecting attention away from the report on JS and Tony Hall in which the Beeb don't appear in a favourable light.

TB is simply a scapegoat.

Hmm. I wonder. Sounds tio me like he couldn't come up with enough evidence. And the copy of the Telegraph from the time talks of adj. Not several. Who knows? Tony Hall seems a decent bloke. And he's certainly not daft.

I might get off this thread now. I don't want to be sued. And I don't suppose GN wants to be either. So I will shut up.

a dj

It is the enquiry led by former Judge Janet Smith which has called into question the veracity of evidence given by Tony Blackburn to that enquiry. That is where the difference of opinion lies between himself and the BBC.

There's no way they are using this to deflect anything. That wouldn't work.

But they wouldn't just sack someone of his standing willy-nilly.

If he had been interviewed in 1971 why would he deny it. There was an inquest and police inquiry after the girl's suicide, neither of which suggest any impropriety on his part. However, after years of denying any knowledge of the activities at the BBC, documents showing investigations took place apparently exist. Why were they not made available to earlier investigations into Saville, and will they now be made public. Or are the BBC just covering their arses?

I had the time to watch Dame Janet Smith giving a lengthy press conference on her Review on t.v. news stations this morning, which was immediately followed by Tony Hall sharing the same venue.

As far as I read into it Tony Blackburn has not left the BBC because of any 'sexual impropriety' that may or may not have occurred.. That was not in her remit for the Review.

My understanding is Tony Blackburn has 'parted company' with the BBC as she disbelieves Tony Blackburn when he says he was not interviewed by the BBC over a matter from decades ago, as previously mentioned. The BBC, Lord Hall, has in my opinion 'sacked' Tony Blackburn because of the Review and is trying to show the BBC Culture has changed to be a new found whiter than white organisation.

Watch the Dame Janet Smith Review for yourselves from this morning it tells you all you want to know from the horses mouth , not tittle tattle. The sacking of Tony Blackburn is not as far as I understood it a fresh story about Tony Blackburn and under age girls or sexual behaviour, more to do with BBC practices and what the BBC consider to be their expectancies of staff behaviour .

To my mind Tony Blackburn could have a damned good case against the BBC. Scapegoat? Unsure. I do know that the bigger story of the BBC management has had a little of the heat took off it due to the Tony Blackburn fiasco.

My understanding of what Dame Janet Smith said was that she didn't find his evidence credible - or words to that effect. He denied having been interviewed on 2 separate occasions about the allegations the young woman made. He denied having ever met her. Dame J had documents in which he'd previously acknowledged twice being interviewed about the allegations and also acknowledged he'd met her a number of times, describing her as a fantasist.
So far as I've heard various news reports today, the reason TB and the BBC have parted company is because TB was thought by Dame J to have given unreliable evidence to her.

I could sympathise with him if his memory was a bit faulty but I find it difficult to accept that any of us would have forgotten two interviews about such significant allegations. I seem to remember the young woman recorded her allegations in a diary, found by her other but later said TB wasn't one of her abusers. What a sorry mess it all is.

I have just put a complaint into the BBC about TB's sacking. I am just hoping enough people cause a stir with the Corporation. He will never get his job back, but I hope his legal team make lifevery uncomfortable for the BeeB.

Going back to an earlier post, we were all well aware of the age of consent. The first thing any new bloke said to you was "How old are you?" Your answer probably depended on how attractive he was.

Dame J had documents in which he'd previously acknowledged twice being interviewed about the allegations and also acknowledged he'd met her a number of times, describing her as a fantasist.

These documents don't seem to be forthcoming though. Where are they?

The documents/file notes that are alleged to record the interviews TB had with a QC and a BBC executive are presumably historical documents made when the issue was first raised by the girl's mother.

It's my understanding that Dame J formed her opinion not because she had seen those alleged documents (they presumably have never been available to her) but because she did not find TB's responses to her to questions re the alleged QC/BBC executive meetings to be credible.

I don't see how any of us can reach a definitive conclusion as to anyone's guilt or innocence when we weren't present at the interviews, haven't seen the transcripts of the interviews and haven't seen any of the other documentation relating to this inquiry.

Why have those documents never been available to her?

How could she find TB's responses to her questions about the alleged interviews not to be credible when she hasn't any documentary evidence to question him on?

I accept that we shouldn't reach a definitive conclusion without all the information you mention, Eloethan, but it seems the BBC has.

The first thing any new bloke said to you was "How old are you?" Your answer probably depended on how attractive he was.
Is it just me, but I find that quite shocking and not the sort of conversation I remember at all with a new boyfriend. Perhaps I was just not part of the London scene.

It isn't the BBC who said they didn't find TB's evidence "credible" - it was Dame J and the BBC's sacking of TB are purported to be in response to that very significant comment. You don't need documentary evidence to say "I have been told that you were interviewed by ...................... and what was the outcome?" If someone, as has been suggested, denies that he was ever interviewed, but then gives conflicting or evasive responses on different occasions, that would presumably make them appear less credible.

On the other hand, if it is accepted that TB is deliberately being made a scapegoat of, then presumably we might entertain the possibility that Dame J is some sort of establishment "stooge" whose comment was made deliberately in order to detract attention away from the BBC's failings - or, alternatively, that the BBC had treated her comment as more significant than she had intended.

I still say only those who have had access to the huge amount of evidence are really at all equipped to come to any sort of conclusion.

Sometimes we forget how things were in the 60,s . There was very little rules or knowledge about protecting children. It was only in 1974 after the death of Maria Colwell things began to change and even later than that that people became more aware of sexual predators.

But by the time Jim'll Fix It came on people should have been aware. Seems incredible what went on. I know people did report their concerns. My daughter wrote to the show and is thank full she wasn't chosen.