Catholic bishops not obliged to report clerical child abuse, Vatican says

BigJackC

The Catholic church is telling newly appointed bishops that it is “not necessarily” their duty to report accusations of clerical child abuse and that only victims or their families should make the decision to report abuse to police.

A document that spells out how senior clergy members ought to deal with allegations of abuse, which was recently released by the Vatican, emphasised that, though they must be aware of local laws, bishops’ only duty was to address such allegations internally.

“According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” the training document states.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says

Is there any other legal organisation on the planet that instructs its members to turn a blind eye to child abuse? In any case where it's found that bishops or other members of the Catholic church knowingly turned a blind eye, we should absolutely prosecute them as accessories along with the abuser(s).

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Religion aside, job aside.
Anyone who stands back and doesn't report someone who is a danger to children is an absolute cu nt.

Wibbs

That official missive is nothing short of evil. That they apparently can't see that speaks volumes. That they still haven't copped on and are still attempting to brush it under the carpet and have the stones to be public about it? That truly beggars belief.

osarusan

Shows all the nonsense they spouted over the last few years for the tokenistic lip-service bullsh!t it really was.

kneemos

That they have got the wit not to touch anything concerning child abuse is very disturbing.

Akrasia

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says
bishops’ only duty was to address such allegations internally.

Holy Sh1t. Have we gone back in time?

Is the new pope's honeymoon period over yet. He's just as bad as all the monsters that came before him

They are obsessed with sex between consenting adults while turning a blind eye to people in their own organisation who prey on innocent children

Evil thy name is 'The Vatican'

Wibbs

That the laity still support this organisation is as troubling for me.

Ken.

I fully believe that anyone becoming a priest should be neutered. If they are that committed to their imaginary friend they should have no problem submitting to it.

Akrasia

ken wrote: »

I fully believe that anyone becoming a priest should be neutered. If they are that committed to their imaginary friend they should have no problem submitting to it.

It might also improve their terrible singing at mass


Bring back the Castrati

ectoraige

Census 2016 approaching - how many people are going to tick the Catholic box?

osarusan

Has this become law yet?

One regular feature of Ireland's endemic list of child abuse scandals is that on many occasions the abuse of children was suspected or known but not reported to the authorities. The Children First Bill 2014, which was approved by the Cabinet last week, will put existing voluntary guidelines in the 'Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children' on a statutory footing.

Under the new bill's provisions, those who will be legally mandated to report their suspicions include members of the clergy, teachers, medical practitioners, nurses, psychologists, pre-school carers, youth workers, social workers, gardai, emergency paramedical staff and probation officers.

If so, I'd love it for the minister for justice or gardai to come out and say that regardless of the Vatican's position, failure to report abuse is a crime and will be punished under law.

Pat Mustard

BigJackC wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says

Is there any other legal organisation on the planet that instructs its members to turn a blind eye to child abuse? In any case where it's found that bishops or other members of the Catholic church knowingly turned a blind eye, we should absolutely prosecute them as accessories along with the abuser(s).

I hope they get sued out of existence.

Penn

Anyone even remotely surprised? I mean for me the most surprising part is how easily this information was revealed. Thought they'd at least try and keep it a secret for a while.

RobertKK

Why would abuse victims not go to the police themselves and instead expect the church to deal with it.

I think the church is taking the right approach, if a person is abused you go to the police and not the church. It was going to the church and not the police that caused the problem to remain in the first place.

btw the Catholic church in Ireland has higher child safety standards than what the state has.
A priest is not allowed to be alone with a child so the child is safe, and the priest is safe from false accusations.
This is what the church has implemented.

El_Duderino 09

I'm watching the head of Google answering questions to UK Parliament, so I'm looking at this as a multinational corporation protecting it's interests. To be fair, I believe that the Irish subsidiary of the catholic church has cleaned up it's act and children are safe today.

They are investing in growing their business in Africa, South America, Asia which are analogous to Ireland 50 years ago when this abuse was rife.
They are protecting themselves against historical sexual abuse in western Europe and current and future abuse in their expanding markets.

The morality behind this business decision, to inform bishops that it's not necessarily their job to report allegations of abuse to the police, is the same as Google saying they don't necessarily have to pay any more tax.

It's a business decision. Morality doesn't enter into it.

RobertKK

I am amazed at how many people in this thread think you don't report a crime to the police, but you go to the church instead.

Ken.

It's not the not reporting it yourself to the police that's annoying people. What I'm reading is that if a bishop knows about it and it hasn't been reported then their not allowed report it themselves.

Or what S/he said below

Hyzepher

RobertKK wrote: »

Why would abuse victims not go to the police themselves and instead expect the church to deal with it.

I think the church is taking the right approach, if a person is abused you go to the police and not the church. It was going to the church and not the police that caused the problem to remain in the first place.

btw the Catholic church in Ireland has higher child safety standards than what the state has.
A priest is not allowed to be alone with a child so the child is safe, and the priest is safe from false accusations.
This is what the church has implemented.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am amazed at how many people in this thread think you don't report a crime to the police, but you go to the church instead.

Are you so blinded by your faith that you think this is a good idea.

This is about clerical abuse - not some random crime on the streets.

So if one priest sees abuse by another priest you think it's up to the CHILD to decide to report it to the police!

Unbelievable!

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

Why would abuse victims not go to the police themselves and instead expect the church to deal with it.

I think the church is taking the right approach, if a person is abused you go to the police and not the church. It was going to the church and not the police that caused the problem to remain in the first place.

btw the Catholic church in Ireland has higher child safety standards than what the state has.
A priest is not allowed to be alone with a child so the child is safe, and the priest is safe from false accusations.
This is what the church has implemented.

Are you completely ignorant of the history of the RCC church and what they have historically done to keep abuse victims silent?

While the worst is over in Ireland (as we embrace secularism), the RCC still has a very strong grip over many less developed countries.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you completely ignorant of the history of the RCC church and what they have historically done to keep abuse victims silent?

While the worst is over in Ireland (as we embrace secularism), the RCC still has a very strong grip over many less developed countries.

That is living in the past, and no one in this thread apart from me, has even mentioned how the church has put in child protection for the child, and protection for the priest from false accusations, and we had a number of cases of false accusations by people looking for money for a crime that never happened.

Show me a report where people were told they couldn't go to the police?
The problem is the abuse victims in the past expected the church to deal with it, and didn't go to the police.
The church in this are saying the victims or their families should go to the police, not the church to report abuse.

If someone abused a child do you:
A: go to the family of the abuser and tell them to deal with it?
B: go to the police?

Jaden

What is even more surprising is that someone can read a relatively short article, and not fully understand what it is saying.

The issue of to whom the victims report alleged abuse is not in question.

The issue is that guidelines state that disclosure of allegations should only be made internally (ie, within the Church), and not to authorities:

"A document that spells out how senior clergy members ought to deal with allegations of abuse, which was recently released by the Vatican, emphasised that, though they must be aware of local laws, bishops’ only duty was to address such allegations internally."

RobertKK

Hyzepher wrote: »

Are you so blinded by your faith that you think this is a good idea.

This is about clerical abuse - not some random crime on the streets.

So if one priest sees abuse by another priest you think it's up to the CHILD to decide to report it to the police!

Unbelievable!

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

Azalea

RobertKK wrote: »

I am amazed at how many people in this thread think you don't report a crime to the police, but you go to the church instead.

You are amazed?

That's a bit *too* obtuse in fairness.

It's not "a crime" (as in any crime by anyone) which people are saying should be reported to the church, it's abuse by church members.

Same as reporting abuse by a teacher to the principal of the school.

Same as reporting abuse in the workplace to a manager/HR.

I agree children are not at risk from clergy now like they would have been in the past, but I wouldn't rule out risk either. Predators are still willing to take huge risks.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

That is living in the past, and no one in this thread apart from me, has even mentioned how the church has put in child protection for the child, and protection for the priest from false accusations, and we had a number of cases of false accusations by people looking for money for a crime that never happened.

Show me a report where people were told they couldn't go to the police?
The problem is the abuse victims in the past expected the church to deal with it, and didn't go to the police.
The church in this are saying the victims or their families should go to the police, not the church to report abuse.

If someone abused a child do you:
A: go to the family of the abuser and tell them to deal with it?
B: go to the police?

Ah, I get it. it's all the victims fault

Got it.

And you are actually saying, right on this thread, that if a bishop hears credible information that a priest is abusing children, that he should Not report it to the State authorities, instead, that they should deal with it 'internally'

cdeb

It's not about the individual going to the church and reporting it. It's about the church keeping an eye out for abuse as well and reporting it to the police.

There's a stigma about reporting sexual abuse which many people find it hard to overcome. It's a very standard policy in many organisations that if they have evidence of abuse, they will report it to the authorities themselves and not assume the person has reported it. The point is to raise the chance that the issue gets detected and dealt with.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

Absolutely rubbish analogy

We're talking about priests being trained that they're not obliged to report abuse to the police.

If a priest sees evidence that a child is abused by another member of the clergy, he should absolutely be obliged to report that to the police, he should not go to his bishop so the bishop can deal with it 'internally'

ectoraige

RobertKK wrote: »

I am amazed at how many people in this thread think you don't report a crime to the police, but you go to the church instead.

That's not the point. The point is if a clergyman beings aware of abuse that has so far gone unreported, the Vatican are saying it's okay to not report it either, unless local laws insist on it.

Priests in the part who have committed asks have told their bishop instead of going to the police, and the bishops moved them and allowed then be in a position to reoffend. The scum cannot be trusted to do everything in their Pierre to keep children safe.

Hyzepher

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This is about clergy being aware of abuse and not reporting it. Why would any priest assume that it was being reported by anyone.

usually victims dont report the crime as they are being influenced by their attacker. In your example, the parent wouldn't be aware of the abuse.

El_Duderino 09

RobertKK wrote:

Why would abuse victims not go to the police themselves and instead expect the church to deal with it.

Even if the Bishop has knowledge of sexual abuse of a child? They should leave it to the child to report it to the police?

RobertKK wrote:

I think the church is taking the right approach, if a person is abused you go to the police and not the church. It was going to the church and not the police that caused the problem to remain in the first place.

Fair enough if you think the catholics are talking the right approach. Would you apply the same standards to analogous organisations?

Do you agree that school principles would be taking the right approach by not reporting sexual abuse to police?

Do you agree that a regional manager of a multinational would be taking the right approach by not report child sexual abuse to the police?

RobertKK wrote:

I am amazed at how many people in this thread think you don't report a crime to the police, but you go to the church instead.

The child needn't be involved on the discussion.

Priest A: Hello bishop. I walked in on priest B sexually abusing a child.
Bishop: oh right.
Priest A: are you going to report it to the police?
Bishop: the boss said its not necessarily my job to report sexual abuse to the police. I'll see if the law compels me to tell the police or not. The child should report it to the police.

RobertKK: I think the bishop is taking the right approach.

DavyD_83

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

You see your neighbour abuse a child, or are fairly sure it is happening;
You tell the head of the neighbourhood with expectation he will go to police?
You tell the police?
You tell the head of the neighbourhood and agree it's probably grand, sure he's always at it, lets keep it to ourselves, it'd bring down all of our house prices. and while we're at it we better let all the other neighbourhoods know that this is the best way to deal with these sort of things. (oh, and somebody keep an eye on him and make sure he's told not to be at that again)?


As far as I am aware any responsible company/organisation's child protection policy in this day and age outlines how to avoid false claims (never alone with child etc.), but also has reporting guidelines. These guidelines, should never equate to "keep it internal"

Rubber_Soul

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

Of course you go to the bloody police. Literally the only people saying you don't have to is the Church. How are you not getting this?

kylith

This isn't necessarily just about clerical abuse, but all abuse. Back when I was a swimming teacher part of our training involved spotting signs of abuse and it was impressed in us that if we suspected physical, psychological, or sexual abuse then we were supposed, obliged, and expected to report it. Priests are still involved with youth organisations such as scouting and choirs. This means that if a priest suspects that a scoutmaster, or indeed another priest, is abusing children he has no obligation to do anything.

Priests: held to a lower moral standard than part-time swimming teachers.

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

Your sibling is abusing your neighbour's child and you find out.

Rather than go to the police, you chastise your sibling and do nothing else.

Yet, somehow the neighbour is the one in the wrong.

Pathetic, shameless apologism on your part for an evil organisation. Inexcusable. Yet you'll no doubt continue bleating on in relation to ethical and moral topics even though you've now proven yourself bereft of both.

KomradeBishop

We should have laws covering an institutional failure to report child abuse, which can be used to fine an organization such a huge amount of money (millions, hundreds of millions - billions - depending on scale of problem), to the point that the organizations future existence in the country comes into question, due to the financial damage.

Organizations which view themselves as above the law like this, should have some form of corporate 'death penalty', in the form of gigantic/unbearable fines.

joey100

Under Children's First their is mandatory reporting of any suspicions of any form of Child abuse, not just sexual. Only just recently commenced. Problem with it though it doesn't really state any punishments for not reporting within it. Seems to say that people can be prosecuted under the Criminal Justice act for withholding of information of offences against Children and Vulnerable persons or under recklessness endangerment, but in my experience I haven't seen any cases of recklessness endangerment taken against anyone, or withholding information but that is a newer act.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

So your neighbour abuses your child, you go to your neighbour and ask them to deal with it, you don't go to the police yourself?

the article says:

The Catholic church is telling newly appointed bishops that it is “not necessarily” their duty to report accusations of clerical child abuse and that only victims or their families should make the decision to report abuse to police.

So that's equivalent to a me knowing that a neighbour is abusing another neighbours child and deciding it's up to the child/parents to report the abuse.

Why should the RCC be excused from reporting instances of child abuse? It's continuing the culture of silence that lead to priests abusing children without fear of punishment!

RobertKK

Azalea wrote: »

That's a bit *too* obtuse in fairness.

It's not "a crime" (as in any crime by anyone) which people are saying should be reported to the church, it's abuse by church members.

Same as reporting abuse by a teacher to the principal of the school.

Same as reporting abuse in the workplace to a manager/HR.

I agree children are not at risk from clergy now like they would have been in the past, but I wouldn't rule out risk either. Predators are still willing to take huge risks.

The abuse victims should report the crimes to the police. Children are more likely to be abused in the BBC or RTE than the church, and have we heard of any child protection measures implemented by any of these?
The BBC didn't report abuse even when they knew decades ago, and you have people who love John Peel who had to flee the US over having sex with an underage girl.
The thing is the church has done more than any organisation to fight abuse.
The article says:
Indeed, a church official familiar with the commission on abuse said it was the committee’s position that reporting abuse to civil authorities was a “moral obligation, whether the civil law requires it or not”. The official said the committee would be involved in future training efforts.

So many people with their knickers in knots to express their horror. It is mostly fake. I know of a priest who was suspended about 10 years ago here in Ireland and he was reported by the church to the Gardai, he was found to be innocent. I think most here are not involved with the church so believe the worse.

Abuse victims should go to the police. From what I see, the church do go to the police to investigate.

RTE didn't go to the Gardai when they falsely accused Fr Reynolds, The church did immediately suspend him when the allegations were made. RTE were prepared to let what they believed to be an abuser to be free to continue. They didn't go to the bishop, they refused to allow DNA to show they were wrong. They believed he was an abuser.
RTE is a bigger threat to child safety in this country, as they have shown they would allow a person who they believe to be an abuser to be free to abuse, until they had their program made, and refused to believe a priest could be innocent.
They should have went straight to the Gardai, who would likely have DNA tested to see if there was a case to be answered.
This is why people should go straight to the Gardai or police.

cdeb

RobertKK wrote: »

The abuse victims should report the crimes to the police.

They should. But you're completely missing the points, which are -

• History has shown there's a stigma over doing that, and many people don't report sexual abuse
• Children in particular can be cowed by an adult telling them to keep quiet
• It is common practice nowadays for organisations to monitor and report such suspicions within their own organisations to the police

Can you address the above points? Can you give me a reason why the Catholic Church shouldn't report such acts to the police, given that "Let someone else do it" isn't acceptable?

RobertKK wrote: »

Children are more likely to be abused in the BBC or RTE than the church, and have we heard of any child protection measures implemented by any of these?

Where do you get this from?

I think you just made it up.

runawaybishop

RobertKK wrote: »

I think the church is taking the right approach

The churches approach is to further cover up abuse by members of the clergy or others, unless to report said abuse is a crime.

The "right approach" is to further facilitate abuse by covering it up. Christ on a ****ing bike.

Jaden

So:

RTE withholds information on allegations of abuse = BAD.
BBC withholds information on allegations of abuse = BAD.
The Catholic Church withholds information on allegations of abuse = Ah, Grand. No problem there.

Hyzepher

This is a debate about the catholic Church's stance on abuse, not RTE, BBC or any other institution.

Q. Do you think a priest should report abuse to the police if they witness or suspect it by one of their fellow clergy?

If you do then how do you explain the church's stance?

1hnr79jr65

The Roman Catholic Church, there is only 1 cure for this pathetic, corrupt scumbag organisation.....

wipe it off the face of the planet.

REXER

RobertKK wrote: »

The abuse victims should report the crimes to the police. Children are more likely to be abused in the BBC or RTE than the church, and have we heard of any child protection measures implemented by any of these?
The BBC didn't report abuse even when they knew decades ago, and you have people who love John Peel who had to flee the US over having sex with an underage girl.
The thing is the church has done more than any organisation to fight abuse.
The article says:
Indeed, a church official familiar with the commission on abuse said it was the committee’s position that reporting abuse to civil authorities was a “moral obligation, whether the civil law requires it or not”. The official said the committee would be involved in future training efforts.

So many people with their knickers in knots to express their horror. It is mostly fake. I know of a priest who was suspended about 10 years ago here in Ireland and he was reported by the church to the Gardai, he was found to be innocent. I think most here are not involved with the church so believe the worse.

Abuse victims should go to the police. From what I see, the church do go to the police to investigate.

RTE didn't go to the Gardai when they falsely accused Fr Reynolds, The church did immediately suspend him when the allegations were made. RTE were prepared to let what they believed to be an abuser to be free to continue. They didn't go to the bishop, they refused to allow DNA to show they were wrong. They believed he was an abuser.
RTE is a bigger threat to child safety in this country, as they have shown they would allow a person who they believe to be an abuser to be free to abuse, until they had their program made, and refused to believe a priest could be innocent.
They should have went straight to the Gardai, who would likely have DNA tested to see if there was a case to be answered.
This is why people should go straight to the Gardai or police.

Just more SPIN!!!:eek:

1hnr79jr65

The Roman Catholic Church, there is only 1 cure for this pathetic, corrupt scumbag organisation.....

wipe it off the face of the planet.

joey100

What the BBC did and RTE did might not be right but it doesn't excuse what is said by the church about telling bishops it is not necessarily there duty to report examples of child abuse. By saying that they are in direct opposition to Children's first 2015. Which states;

'Any work or activity which consists of the provision of-

1. Eduactional, research, training, cultural, recreational, leisure, social or physical activities to children

2. Any work or activity as a minister or priest or any other person engaged in the advancement of any religious beliefs which would or could bring that minister, priest or other person, as the case may be, into contact with a child.

The person is considered a mandated person and must report any suspiscions of any form of child abuse.


(There are many more people covered too, I didn't want to have to type them all out because I don't have an electronic copy to hand, Garda, Drivers, childcare workers, career guidance counselors are all covered too for example)

Azalea

RobertKK wrote: »

The abuse victims should report the crimes to the police. Children are more likely to be abused in the BBC or RTE than the church, and have we heard of any child protection measures implemented by any of these?
The BBC didn't report abuse even when they knew decades ago, and you have people who love John Peel who had to flee the US over having sex with an underage girl.
The thing is the church has done more than any organisation to fight abuse.
The article says:
Indeed, a church official familiar with the commission on abuse said it was the committee’s position that reporting abuse to civil authorities was a “moral obligation, whether the civil law requires it or not”. The official said the committee would be involved in future training efforts.

So many people with their knickers in knots to express their horror. It is mostly fake. I know of a priest who was suspended about 10 years ago here in Ireland and he was reported by the church to the Gardai, he was found to be innocent. I think most here are not involved with the church so believe the worse.

Abuse victims should go to the police. From what I see, the church do go to the police to investigate.

RTE didn't go to the Gardai when they falsely accused Fr Reynolds, The church did immediately suspend him when the allegations were made. RTE were prepared to let what they believed to be an abuser to be free to continue. They didn't go to the bishop, they refused to allow DNA to show they were wrong. They believed he was an abuser.
RTE is a bigger threat to child safety in this country, as they have shown they would allow a person who they believe to be an abuser to be free to abuse, until they had their program made, and refused to believe a priest could be innocent.
They should have went straight to the Gardai, who would likely have DNA tested to see if there was a case to be answered.
This is why people should go straight to the Gardai or police.

This is pretty repulsive.

Can you explain in further detail how a child is at risk of abuse via RTE?

Can you explain how one false allegation you know of = most of the proven cases of abuse are fake?

Can you explain how anger over abuse = getting one's knickers in a knot?

Please answer these questions instead of dodging them.

Duggy747

RobertKK wrote: »

The abuse victims should report the crimes to the police.

Yes, but historical cases time and time again have shown social stigmas and attempts to silence a victim's claims. Let's not forgot about priests who had been moved from clergy to clergy upon allegations brought against them.

Children are more likely to be abused in the BBC or RTE than the church, and have we heard of any child protection measures implemented by any of these?

Absolute bullshít, a piss poor attempt to deflect away from the church's scumbag behaviour.

The fact that people will still defend this type of blatant attitude from any organisation in 2016 is just incredible.

It's full-on willful ignorance.

Azalea

The BBC's handling of the abuse that went on within its ranks was appalling - this thread is not about the BBC though. Another thread can be started re same.

When whataboutery is resorted to, argument lost.

One eyed Jack

Robert this draft policy has nothing to do with whether victims are encouraged to go to the police or not.

It's intended to absolve bishops of any responsibility to report any knowledge of child abuse to the authorities that they may become aware of, regardless of the laws of that jurisdiction that may compel them to do so.

Thankfully it's only a draft proposal, and has no chance of being implemented.

cdeb

Azalea wrote: »

The BBC's handling of the abuse that went on within its ranks was appalling - this thread is not about the BBC though.

Actually, the BBC is very relevant here.

Lessons should be learnt from what went on there - but the Catholic Church's policy seems to explicitly ignore everything that should have been learnt from the case.

What happened in the BBC was bad. But for an organisation with arguably a worse record in this regard to actively ignore the lessons from another organisation is worse.

RobertKK

cdeb wrote: »

They should. But you're completely missing the points, which are -

• History has shown there's a stigma over doing that, and many people don't report sexual abuse
• Children in particular can be cowed by an adult telling them to keep quiet
• It is common practice nowadays for organisations to monitor and report such suspicions within their own organisations to the police

Can you address the above points? Can you give me a reason why the Catholic Church shouldn't report such acts to the police, given that "Let someone else do it" isn't acceptable?


Where do you get this from?

I think you just made it up.

The reports showed that some of these abuse victims didn't want the law involved, believing the church could deal with it.

It is no harm if the church is making clear that this approach is not acceptable, that instead of going to the church, they instead go to the proper authorities.


The BBC had Rolf Harris do a program telling how to protect your child against abusers, he is in jail for abuse against girls.
They knew from 1959 that Jimmy Savile was a danger, as the first allegations were made then, yet he had free reign for decades to abuse.
Had no problem with John Peel being on their radio stations when it was clear he had underage sex in the US.
Have you heard of any child protection measures the BBC have implemented since their abuse scandals?

From January of this year:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/21/bbc-staff-jimmy-savile-dame-janet-smith

In all major sex abuse scandals – from Rotherham to the Catholic church, as well as Jimmy Savile – the perpetrators are aided by a culture of silence. And the most searing indictment in the report into the BBC’s handling of the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal is that this culture of silence continues.
Decades after children who spoke out about abuse by Savile were bustled out of the studio, BBC employees still feel too scared to speak out about their workplace in case they lose their job or fail to get promoted, according to Dame Janet Smith’s draft report. Extraordinarily, the draft report records that one teenager abused on camera was told it was “just Jimmy fooling about”.
Even after Savile’s death, those who chose to talk to the officially sanctioned review did so in the main if they were allowed to remain anonymous. They spoke of their fear that they would suffer the consequences for doing so.

the article goes onto say: But if a culture of deference to celebrity is allowed to continue unabated, amid rising job insecurity, of course there could still be predatory child abusers “lurking undiscovered in the BBC”. To be honest, they could be in any workplace.

But sure people watch the BBC, they don't go to church, so it is easy to target the organisation that is doing most to protect children over an organisation where people are sfraid to speak out in case they lose their jobs.
This is the hypocrisy we will see. How many will stop watching the BBC or other media due to abuse, where measures are far lower than the church to protect minors?