Jimmy Savile and the BBC: Poetic justice for UK pedophile press and political practice?

Could the pedophile allegations against Jimmy Savile cause a News of the World-Millie-Dowler-phone-hacking like contagion for the BBC?

Could the licences-funded BBC's arguably delayed expression of horror at allegations of Savile's licentiousness lead to a Murdoch-like humiliation and loss of credibility not only by the UK public but internationally?

I'm not sure why, but something about suggestions of a BBC cover-up of Savile’s alleged dastardly deeds recalls the fire storm that enveloped Murdoch's news empire last year.

It would be premature to simplistically equate the two things at this point, but I get the sense that thoughts of the BBC shielding a possibly savage, seducing Savile's pedophilia from scrutiny may yet lead to a popular revulsion and backlash resembling that which followed news of the alleged hacking of murdered school girl Millie Dowler's mobile phone, by News of the World journalists.

I think that similar public outrage would already have been triggered, were it not for the high regard in which the British public - generally - holds the BBC.

The U.S.-based News Corporation subsidiary News International - and more pointedly, the US-based Australian Rupert Murdoch - did not have that level of good will.

Murdoch, as we all know, was regarded with suspicion and even antipathy for his apparent ruthlessness in business matters long before “Hackgate” erupted.

Add to this the perception of him as a foreigner - an outsider - a concern raised repeatedly when he seemed set to have his way with the BSkyB deal, and you will have a sense of why the inferno that engulfed news Corp spread as rapidly as it did. And this is to by no means understate the moral bankruptcy of New International's operations that "Hackgate" revealed.

The British Broadcasting Corporation, on the other hand, is viewed as having a mostly benign or beneficial influence on British culture, politics and economics: a benign or beneficial influence on British society in general.

As far as most people in the UK and the international community are concerned, arguably, the idea that the internationally renowned BBC could have been party to Savile's alleged predatory pedophile practice is simply beyond the realm of possibility.

But there now seems to be a possibility that we might learn that the globally esteemed BBC is guilty of a level of deviance and duplicity rivaling that of Murdoch's media machine.

We may learn that just as the News of the World under Rebecca Brooks' editorship was transgressing the kind of common sense, moral constraints that should have governed its reporting on Dowler's disappearance – and doing so while championing child protection principles - the BBC may have been complicit in press pedophilia, literally, systematically shielding a lecherous, wolf-like Savile, who was cloaking his lechery in charitable work with schools, children’s homes and other supposedly safe pastures for children - the vulnerable, sheep-like charges of every society.

Worryingly, if this is the case, it would not be the first time that someone from the BBC has been found to be violating that public body’s pastoral role by preying on society’s most vulnerable sheep.

One news report I came across earlier this year revealed that former BBC Bristol and Somerset radio presenter Peter Rowell - who like Savile also has a background as a DJ (1980s) – “admitted a string of sexual assaults on teenage girls."

According to Wikipedia, "Rowell began his career as a presenter for BBC Radio Newcastle. During this time, he played the role of a fictional DJ in the 1988 drama series 'Geordie Racer' as part of the long-running BBC Schools series 'Look and Read.'"

For the sake of my own and other children being raised in the UK, I hope that however uncomfortable the days ahead may be, Scotland Yard, UK journalists, and the British and international publics will have the courage and discernment to "look and read" the full implications of what possible BBC complicity in Savile's alleged sexual child abuse could mean.

At the very least, we should be prepared to discuss how this may relate to wider issues of children's well-being, a social index on which the UK has been performing poorly for some time when compared to other developed countries.

Perhaps the recent scandal around GCE marking should also be viewed in this context - as indeed the whole phenomenon of profit-making in or by the UK’s education and knowledge industries.

Perhaps teenagers who have been caused significant emotional stress and otherwise abused or disadvantaged by private or public sector pedagogical blunders should be viewed as victims of “political paedophiles."

Perhaps past and present British political leaders – Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Michael Gove – should be viewed as having inappropriate contact with our children’s minds.

Perhaps Cameron’s and Gove’s backgrounds as journalists point to something more menacing than political spin.

As I recall, significant concerns were raised about Gove’s apparent aversion to transparent communication or consultation (relative to the Tory-Lib Dem free schools initiative) at a London Civic Forum (LCF) and Race on the Agenda (ROTA) sponsored meeting of black and minority ethnic (BME) and other parents and education professionals last year.

Perhaps his and Cameron's journalistic and political praxis points to more persistent, pervasive problems: problems around “privileged communication” (information) which the Savile-BBC paedophile scandal may yet bring to light.