http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21440827

And so its started – I wonder how many of the hundreds of “Victims” will sue the Estate / BBC / anyone else they think they can get money from

I think that the only ones ultimately liable are the Savile Estate. The BBC did not know the extent until much more recently. I only think that the BBC are being chased is because they have money.

Sounds about right.

i beg to differ here ...
the BBC had a duty of care for the children that attended any function of the BBC

and no one can tell me that the management, lower middle upper, who ran these BBC functions with children involved had no knowledge of the situation and of events that occurred repeatedly for over 50 years ...

While I have a lot of sympathy and empathy for the victims. I do think that Savile was cunning in picking vulnerable girls who would not be believed if it reached the police and courts. While there may have been some knowledge within the BBC I do not believe that there was any coverup and without that active covering up there should be no liability of the BBC. I suspect that the BBC will probably be pressured into making a goodwill payment without admitting guilt.

it was not just savile, there were others
and this does not include hospitals, prisons and children's care homes

i hope that the claims get to them later ...

Yes but how was it covered up by the BBC. As the BBC is a pretty large organisation there will always be the odd bad apple. The same problem exists with any large group, purely as a result of statistics. What should happen is that those that were involved should be prosecuted especially if they knew and covered it up. That is the same no matter what institution was involved. Ultimately it is people who committed these crimes not necessarily the organisations that they worked in. The Catholic church has had to pay out because they deliberately covered up the cases and protected the priests. I do not think that happened at the BBC.

"odd bad apple" after 50+ years its a lot of "rotten bad apples"
and as stated

Statistically there will be more than just Savile. Though I do not necessarily think that it will be thousands of them. The other problem is did people really know. The BBC moves people around a lot so there may be very few who were around Savile on a regular and continuing basis.

You also need to account a but for Saville's character. People like him are by nature manipulative and devious. Whether he could keep his activities entirely secret without some cooperation I don't know but possibly the reason this stuff only came to light after his death is while he was alive, the libel laws required a greater level of proof to be found before any story could be published. For a journalist to accuse a living person of a crime like child abuse, you virtually require a level of proof where you might as well just hand it all to the police and say 'there you go, lock the fecker up'.

Look what happened to the BBC over their false accusation in the wake of the Saville revelations. It would surprise me if nobody knew, but it wouldn't surprise me if nobody had the proof they were willing to go public with for fear of getting sued out of house and home - or were just told by their company's lawyers 'there's no way you're printing that with the evidence you've got'.

History suggests fear and the simple abdication of responsibility we are all subject to is quite enough to keep reprehensible things form being uncovered for a very long time. Often, no organised conspiracy is required, just simple human nature. Time and again, people like Saville have exploited these flaws in the rest of us to carry on their abuse. It's just this time, it's someone whose name we know who was doing it.

Savile was exceptionally manipulative because he targeted vulnerable girls. What people knew may have only part of the puzzle so not enough to have any real idea of what was truly happening.