Fox (n): carnivore of genus vulpes; crafty person; scavenger; (vb) to confuse; -ed (adj): to be drunk.

Monday, 1 October 2012

Blinded by the obvious.

THERE are some types of news which are not news at all.

The pictures of entirely normal weather for the time of year, for example - lambs in spring, sunbathers in summer, and today a house covered in creeper that's (gosh) changing colour, just like it did last year.

Then there's the revelation that the wife of the teacher who ran off to Bordeaux with a child has dumped him. Perhaps some of us were wondering what she'd do but there can't have been many who'd expect her to be thrilled. Finding out she's chucked his stuff in the street is not news so much as an entirely-predictable annotation to the text.

And let's not forget the 'shock' that Liberace was gay, something which millions claimed to have been inexplicably unaware of and is a prime example of how people can be blinded by the obvious.


And today there's something new for us to get our heads around which frankly pretty much everyone already realised: Jimmy Savile was best avoided.

Perhaps there was one person out there who knew only of his charity marathons and jangly jewellery who still had Sir Jimmy at the top of their dream babysitter list.

One person so naive they could see a man who made a habit of plying strange children with gifts, seeking out the places children would be found, and puffing cigar smoke in their faces, and think that it was all perfectly fine.

But aside from Esther Rantzen, is anyone that surprised to find out Jimmy Savile OBE was pretty vile when he thought no-one was looking? Clue was in the name, if you looked.

But then being a little peculiar doesn't necessarily equate with child abuse, or every eccentric egomaniac with unfortunate taste in leisurewear would be locked up on the nonce's wing.

So what would equate with child abuse?

Well, being friends for 25 years with Jonathan King, a man who was found guilty of abusing five boys aged 14 to 16 in the 1980s and whose defence in court included claiming it was unfair that it was illegal.

(A man later invited to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and moan about how he was abused by the Press, thereby turning a reasonable investigation that had merely been badly-executed into a disgusting farce, but that's a different diatribe).

Defending Gary Glitter for "doing nothing wrong" in downloading 4,000 child porn images "of the worst possible type" involving children aged from two to 10, and what's more saying so a year after he was deported from Vietnam for sexual abuse of girls aged 10 and 11.

Or maybe the fact being being subject of allegations made to police in 2007, or a two-month Newsnight investigation which was spiked in part because it clashed with a Jimmy Savile tribute show.

Perhaps the reports in 2008 linking him to Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne, then being investigated by police over historic allegations of child abuse and which has since led to convictions of a former member of staff. Not that a report 'linking' someone is proof of anything; but that Jimmy at first denied ever having been there despite a picture of him playing on the lawn.


If you look at all those things with a critical eye and an inquiring mind, the fact a man has hung around pubescent and pre-pubescent children his entire adult life starts to take on a different tone.

In fact once you take all that into consideration the fact Jimmy Savile offered relationship advice to Prince Andrew and got Frank Bruno to shake hands with the Yorkshire Ripper is frankly small beer, even if Randy Andy is friends with a paedophile and not many people take tea at Broadmoor.

So it's not that much of a surprise to know several women have come forward to say they were groomed and attacked by Savile from the age of 12 having been selected by him from audiences at children's TV shows, discos and a home for emotionally damaged young girls.

Because the allegations have been made a year after his death there are plenty of people who will say they're made up. Maybe, but the accounts have too many consistencies to be entirely fictional.

So why say it now? There are three reasons to expose child abuse - to bring the perpetrator to justice, to stop him doing it again, and to give the victims a say.

As Savile is cold in the ground the first two are moot points and as for the third, well, that's up to them. If saying it makes them feel better, if it exposes anyone else who knew and did nothing, or if perhaps it tells a child today that what is being done to them is also abuse, then it deserves shouting about.

But what will only be whispered is that the real reason Jimmy Savile never faced these allegations when he was alive is because we didn't want him to.

The girls who say he attacked them, the television companies which employed him, the producers who saw goings-on in dressing rooms, the journalists who heard rumours but didn't put enough effort into substantiating them, and yes you too, the audiences and fans who didn't want to look at him too carefully and even now are thinking it's not true on the grounds you used to like him - there was, in every instance, no appetite for finding out more.

We all liked him as he was - the eccentric man in a tracksuit with the funny catchphrases who made children's dreams come true.

Every single one of us ignored the obvious clues because it suited us, and the chances are that once the documentary is aired we'll excuse him again or presume the worst of those girls telling their story, for the same reason.

Because if we look too closely at him, we have to look at ourselves too.

And ask why we didn't realise that some children have very bad dreams indeed.

Nothing good ever came of yellow spectacles.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think we should look at ourselves so much as look closely at the way the police investigated the allegations. Did they really have insufficient evidence as they claim? Did they even interview him? Did they refer a case to the CPS? Did he have a hold over the establishment via the Ted Heath allegations?

Bercher said...

Most of us thought he was just an old eccentric, you need an image to get on sometimes. The real reason he wasn't accused of anything is he was protected by people who couldn't believe it, or chose to ignore it. It's a big shame if he was guilty, as he did a lot of good too. I'm wondering why it all came out now? Everyone will be disappointed if it's the truth,but mostly for the victims who suffered and weren't protected by the one's who should have done.

Jess said...

"The girls who say he attacked them, the television companies which employed him, the producers who saw goings-on in dressing rooms, the journalists who heard rumours but didn't put enough effort into substantiating them, the audiences and fans who didn't want to look at him too carefully - there was, in every instance, no appetite for finding out more."

It makes me absolutely heartsick that so many terrible things could be prevented if people just stopped looking the other way.

The Kraken said...

Yup, I blogged about this on the day he died and have blogged again today about how, if the allegations are true, we paid him to abuse with our license fee and even sent him our kids via Jim'll Fix It. Even if the allegations are not true there are families across the land now having the worst possible conversations a family can have, simply because their kids wanted Jim to fix it for them to drive a train. Think of the parents who sent the letters, drove their kids to the studio...

And as for that jungle jangle, imagine that being the last sound you hear before your innocence is stolen from you? Jim Fixed it alright, didn't he?

SubScribe said...

yes, we are all guilty of wilful blindness. everyone must have seen what he was under all that silver and smoke, yet no one dared speak out loud. because he raised zillions for charity? Yes, well lots of people in all walks of life do that without believing that gives them the right to molest children.
if we, the press, had not been cowed by his 'national treasure' status, we could have done so much good. there must have been many who saw his immunity from criticism as evidence that you could indulge in such perversions and get away with it.
had we instead called him and his egregious behaviour to account, it would not only have given his victims redress, but also sent the loudest message to the world - glitter + king times ten.
Young journalists gasp in amazement when they learn how the press and broadcasters connived to keep the edward and wallis simpson affair out of the public prints. that was nearly 80 years ago.
how shaming that in these days we still wait until someone as wicked as Jimmy Savile O.B.E. is safely underground or in the flames (can't be bothered to google him to find out how he finished up) to speak out.

Anonymous said...

RichardWS‏@RichardWS tweeted:

Those of us who remember Jimmy Saville's lecherous leering face among the young girls on TOTP were always suspicious! #paedo

Where are all his contemporary DJ's who must have known/suspected something was amiss? Or were they all at it?

Anonymous said...

If he was accused of involvement in the Jersey children's home sex scandal and then denied even being there, despite the evidence that he was, that in itself is highly significant. It would be easy to build a smokescreen of devoted charitable service, because people would be afraid to question your motives. Bit like building a fairground and zoo in your garden for the amusment of the young.........

Anonymous said...

Great Blog

webwrights said...

I have a cousin who worked on 'Top of the Pops' many years ago, when Jimmy's a Vile was one of the regulars DJs. He said at the time that his leering behaviour was bordering on the deeply pervy. I suppose that the girls in the audience would not have been young enough for any 'abuse' to constitute paedophilia, and thus he was able to get away with it.

In my family, we often refer to things such as this as an ASBO: another statement of the blindingly obvious.

Richard said...

I grew up in Leeds in the 1960s, and I have to say these allegations are no surprise to me. He was a popular figure, but rumours about his 'unusual' tastes were common. A shame, because there was a side of him that was exceptionally kind.

Goddess Deeva said...

Really good blog. Someone close to me was abused by their uncle for 10 years. That he donated thousands to children's charities just before he died and that people thought him a hero for doing so was what screwed them up the most.

Anonymous said...

If by 'we' you mean self serving journos then you have a point. But myself and most of my friends have always thought he was dodgy and weird.

dewi lennard said...

A very special burial as a favour to a wonderful man, SubScribe. On a cliff outside Scarborough, feet pointing out to sea. And that after a mass in Leeds Cathedral. Make you feel any better? No, I didn't expect it too.

Jay Ramella said...

There's no denying Savile wasn't your run-of-the-mill cuddly, friendly uncle type but that doesn't automatically make him a paedophile. Barry George was a weird nutter but he didn't murder Jill Dando.I am sickened equally by Esther Rantzen grabbing headlines and sobbing crocodile tears on the back of what is an uncomfortable story if, indeed, it is true.Is she not being abusive in turn, using what she claims to be appalled by to give her own jaded career a super-boost? Last week we saw the contrasting treatment meted out by the authorities to 'nice' middle-class Megan and abused 'Suzi' from Rochdale. The former was deemed a victim, the latter an elective prostitute. Both were a few months shy of the age of consent. The majority of girls Savile allegedly had carnal knowledge of were the same age group but Megan was complicitly aware of what she was doing while 'Suzi' was raped. Savile may have had a penchant for nubile young women. That seems undeniable and he may have used his wealth and position to take advantage of the disadvantaged. That does not mean every one was forced against her will like Rantzen is making out, any more than every Page 3 girl is a victim of sexual exploitation.

Anonymous said...

"we didn't want him to."

I get bored of "we're all to blame" nonsense. Anyone who did actually know, had power to do something about it and failed to do so is to blame. And Saville himself. The list ends there.

And it's not harder to say we're all to blame and "take a look at ourselves" - if I look at myself I not surprisingly find that I'd like any and every pedophile caught and locked up regardless of how much crap TV they've made and marathons they've run. It's a lot easier to say we're all to blame than it is to find out who actually was and do something about it.

Richard Pearson said...

I was offered a contract to work on a radio programme presented by Savile, but after meeting himand hearing him boast of having 'had' four 14 year old girls in his trailer that morning, I declined it. When I challenged him, his defence was that it kept him young and that the 'man upstairs' allowed him these discretions, in return for his 'good works'.

Many years later I was having lunch with a friend, in a cafe in Scarborough. He came and, uninvited, sat at our table and introduced himself. I told him I didn't 'sup' with paedophiles and would he kindly f*ck off.

Why didn't I report him to the police? Because like most other people the only 'evidence' I had were his own boasts and hearsay, which in legal definition was no evidence.

After he died it was mooted that a statue of him should be erected in Scarborough, where I live. I wrote to the local paper saying that if such a statue be erected, I would deface it continually and offered my reasons. They didn't print the letter!

Phil said...

I must admit I had never heard of the accusations until this weekend, although then again I am too young to ever remember him on TV either so never knew him as anything other than a face on those nostalgia programs.

If people did cover up for him or supply him with children like this then they are the ones who should be prosecuted now.

Matt Bradley said...

This is a very silly piece, and it follows hot on the heels of a similarly silly piece about the Stammers case. I wonder if perhaps you're suffering from the tabloid obsession with paedophiles which so often results in a complete abandonment of both measured critical thinking and due process.

[1] These are only allegations at this stage, and neither the fact that Saville looked a bit funny, nor his career working with children, or his friendships have any bearing on the accuracy of these allegations at this stage.

[2] The reason Saville was not investigated for such whilst he was alive is simply because no allegations were made against him while he was alive. If they were, I am certain they would have been investigated, just as they were with King, Glitter, Jackson, etc. Are you suggesting that he should have been investigated while he was alive just because he looked funny and worked with children?

[3] I think your closing caption on the final photograph "Nothing good ever came of yellow spectacles." is extremely telling of what is really behind people's eagerness to assume these allegations are accurate.

Alex Greene said...

Nonetheless, there is nobody left to blame. So eat crow, learn, that's it. When there is nothing else you can do, accept your tiny part, smile and realise that it's now all over - for him, for them, for you.

Unless there are other monsters out there on your TV screens, right now, that you could not bear to turn away from, no matter what you know they must be doing ...

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many other 'whispers' of wrongdoing the investigative press know about but do nothing? I never worshipped Savile or any other celeb,in fact after 20yrs out of the country I was surprised he was still popular,always struck me as creepy.
Saying the public didn't want him brought to justice is lame and wrong,how can anyone say if they're not given the facts.
Please don't ever hide crime on 'my' behalf,if investigating journos don't investigate,then whats the point of them? May as well just print press releases! So go for it Foxy!
TallulahM

Alex Greene said...

I think we should all take a closer look at ourselves again. That's where the blame lies.

Instead of actually turning away from watching his shows, turning off the TV screen and staying away from anything where he was involved until somebody got the message ... people just shrugged and accepted he "may have been a little creepy."

It was either that, or accept a monster on the screen for the sake of having your daily dose of telly.

The fact that millions of people accepted the monster means they have no right to start screaming and flailing about now.

Anonymous said...

Surrey Police has stated that they investigated a 2007 allegation as if that was the first time they heard of the possibility! A junior police officer told me in 1997 that police believed him guilty but did not have sufficient evidence. I would like to know if other victims contacted Surrey or other police forces.

Anonymous said...

You were pretty misty eyed when he died. Shows how quickly the tabloids turn.

Mossos said...

Here's a clip of Sir Jimmy helping a girl to polish a python
http://youtu.be/K36bnoIjeBw?t=5m50s

Anonymous said...

I genuinely hadn't heard the rumours, and I'll bet few others outside the London media bubble did.

I therefore won't be looking at myself.

Seems a few Fleet Street journos should be, though. Odd that such an apparently jaw-dropping obvious story was never stood up.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like you, the blogger, knew what was going on just like a lot of others appear to have known yet did nothing. Anyone who knew or had information and did nothing is to blame not 'all of us'. Speak for yourself pal.

mrswupple said...

I heard these rumours many years ago from a journalist who told me the BBC protected him.

Anonymous said...

To the people who ask "Why wait to make allegations until after he is dead?" Dead men don't talk, and paedos work together, who knows how many high profile abusers Savile could have exposed. I remember when Jonathan King was convicted, reading that abuse was rife amongst his peers and that there was one really high profile one that they were all too scared to expose. I though even then that it was obviously Savile.

Anonymous said...

My mum told me, well before any of this broke (I'm saying 20+ years ago) that a 14/15 year old classmate of hers was having a fling with JS while still at school (late 1950s). He was working in Leeds at the time. I have been asking mum about it in the light of recent events and she says exactly the same thing every time.

Before their final year was up, this girl 'disappeared' and the story was that she'd gone to live with her gran in Scotland and that she was pregnant. Mum admits this was just a rumour and even if she was pregnant, the 'father' wasn't necessarily JS but he had a reputation back then for being very fond of young teenage girls. I don't believe some of the more extreme rumours about him (necrophilia and the like) but do find it plausible that he took unfair advantage of his status and may have targeted young girls to satisfy his ego. He certainly wouldn't have been the only one at that time. I also feel that his connections with other high profile figures may have enabled him to get away with certain behaviours more readily. Sadly, I doubt a close approximation of 'the truth' will ever emerge. The women putting forward the allegations will be regarded by some as 'damaged' or money-grabbing no matter what they say and he isn't alive to defend himself. All the same, if he did do these things and some of it can be substantiated, why should his memory be revered without question. The fact that he did lots of good (for his own huge ego as much as for any charity he supported) does not automatically mean that he was unflawed.

Anonymous said...

It is possible that should these allegations prove to be true, that the reason he wasn't exposed was because it was rife throughout the entertainment industry and he was just the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

No need to feel bad about this .Receiving a send off from a corrupted organisation which itself has been responsible for child abuse and the biggest cover up in History is entirely consistent and only to be expected.

Anonymous said...

People like 'BBC Producer' Sue Thompson knew and saw what was going on... They should be ashamed that they quietly closed the door and walked away saying nothing preferring to protect their own career over the innocence of a child.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/video/2012/oct/01/former-bbc-producer-jimmy-savile-video?newsfeed=true

SoupWaiter said...

That's the whole point, there is no need to "force" youngsters, you can groom and manipulate them instead.

"a penchant for nubile young women"? It's called peadophillia, rape, child abuse.

Anonymous said...

This is a joke.

If people knew - like maybe some people around him knew - and then carried on watching or listening to him regardless then you'd have a point but they didn't so you don't. All this "we" stuff just deflects from those people who did know - if they did - and said nothing.

SoupWaiter said...

just in reply to point 2, yes everyone who works with children should be investigated, I thought that was procedure now.

Anonymous said...

Many of your blogs hit the mark so I suppose you can be excused the occasional miss. Unless the target was yourself and the rest of the 'in the know' media village you inhabit? In which case, bullseye. As has been mentioned, I am sure most people would happily have paedophiles incarcerated. There is of course the small matter of proof and as far as I am aware, and you admit yourself, 'being a little peculiar doesn't necessarily equate with child abuse'. Neither is 'the fact a man has hung around pubescent and pre-pubescent children his entire adult life' a demonstration of guilt. If either of those statements were true then the majority of teachers, paediatric medical staff and a host of other specialist employees would be behind bars. And a lot of the rest of us. I am not an apologist or defender of Jimmy Savile - you claim to be out there hunting the truth so why not prove his guilt or innocence?

As for 'every single one of us ignored the obvious clues because it suited us', er no, I did not actually. Trying to claim 'we' all ignored his misdemeanours and did nothing is offensive and allows those who actually did to escape their responsibility. Like many others I never met Jimmy Savile, rarely watched anything he did and on the few occasions I saw anything of him on television none of it screamed (or whispered) 'never let me near your children'. If, as you suggest, he was a paedophile and you, your colleagues and anyone else knew something why did you not say or do anything and prevent further abuse? Or was the time invested in activities such as listening into the likes of Jude Law and Hugh Grant more fulfilling and worthy?

Anonymous said...

"Why didn't I report him to the police? Because like most other people the only 'evidence' I had were his own boasts and hearsay, which in legal definition was no evidence"

It's not for you to decide evidence strength. That would be CPS and Police. You literally had his words, and you had a decision to make whether to do something about it. If you had reported him, worst case he was investigated and cleared, best case he was found out. Hope you make a better decision next time.

Foxy said...

Because, as has been said many times, hearing rumours is not the same as having substantive facts you can use to publish a newspaper story. Perhaps journalists could have devoted resources to investigating rumours thoroughly - but if the person in charge of the resources chooses to spend them investigating something different, there's not much a foot-soldier can do about it.

And for the umpteenth time, I've never listened into any celebrities' voicemail messages. I've left them voicemails, but never heard nor hacked any.

Anonymous said...

In which case I am confused - if there are no facts why make the comments or are we just condemning somebody based on rumours? Public trial on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations is an interesting, if not exactly enticing, future for justice. I am more than happy for the guilty to be named, shamed and punished. But they should be proven to be guilty of whatever they are being accused of - or is that a little old-fashioned?

And I have read your comments about not listening to celebrity voicemail messages umpteen times. My question was directed at 'you, your colleagues and anyone else (who) knew something'. Are you really saying that the whole of Fleet Street (et al) and the police could not find a single piece of evidence from all of these victims (including the colleagues, cousins, offspring of mums etc who have replied to your article)? Or the 'obvious clues' you mention. I know there are finite resources, but were all the other stories run by papers more worthy of having assets devoting to them than those required to investigate an alleged paedophile? Especially someone so famous. Foot-soldier or not, if you 'know' someone is a paedophile it should take a lot more than your boss telling you not to devote time to it to give up on revealing the truth. Unless, of course, you are blinded by the obvious.

Foxy said...

You are asking me to defend or explain an entire industry, which as one individual in it I cannot nor will I try. My points above were not to accuse anyone so much as point out that, with hindsight, the allegations substantiated or not are hardly surprising, and that even having been made there are many of us who have turned and would prefer, in some case, to turn a blind eye.

But I very much admire the logic which says that pointing this out means I am somehow culpable in covering up, excusing or not investigating child abuse.

Anonymous said...

We were told at a dinner in London about 15 years ago, by one of 'his contemporary DJs', that something was most definitely amiss, but an agreement had been reached with the gentlemen of the press that he would raise so much money for charity in return for their silence ...

Fleet said...

Nice blog!! Thanks for sharing with us.

Anonymous said...

The Child-Catcher personified.
How many creeps are hiding behind libel lawyers and charities?

Anonymous said...

Carol Malone (on Sky News) said that 20 years ago, when she was a young journalist, rumours about Savile were rife, ’We all knew - everyone knew about it’. The presenter asked her, if that was the case, why newspapers had done nothing about it. Carol Malone replied that no one was willing to talk about it because it was all rumours and if you got it wrong you’d be in big trouble. Malone said that Paul Gambaccini - who for worked for the BBC at the same time as Savile - confirmed that this had been an open secret for 30 years. She said if Gambaccini knew about it then so too must the BBC.

Given the kind of libel lawyers we have in this country, and Savile’s high level connections, I can understand why the media were reluctant to publish anything negative about him. What I don’t understand is - if his activities were common knowledge as Carole Malone and others have said - why did the media continue to promote the saintly fa├žade, which they knew for years, was false? What about the media’s responsibility to the kids who were put in harm’s way because they were unwittingly drawn into Savilles clutches? Savile’s fake halo was created by the media, and it was perpetuated by the media right up until his death and because of it he was given access to some of the most vulnerable kids in society – those in childrens homes and special schools. There is no one more easily exploited than an unprotected young teenager. It’s almost as though those in the know believed that his fund raising and charity work negated his evil behaviour - and the kids were viewed as nothing more than collateral damage.

The media should stop awarding unconditional sainthood status to certain individuals and certain groups/organisations - it puts them above the law and makes them untouchable, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they please. The result Is, innocent people- especially children - get hurt and no is held accountable

Jim said...

And I always used to defend him as well when people threw accusations around. Right enough, that was when someone was telling me he was into necrophilia.

But the staying nights in hospitals, the rumours, the strangeness, the keeping his mother's old clothes. Such a strange bloke.

Guess it's true what they say, 'No smoke without fire'.

John McClane said...

"I get bored of "we're all to blame" nonsense. Anyone who did actually know, had power to do something about it and failed to do so is to blame. And Saville himself. The list ends there."

You're absolutely right, Anon. The people who are to blame are the BBC who probably knew but covered it up, the police who probably heard something but failed to investigate, and the journalists who probably know but agreed to let it pass provided Savile carried on his charity work.

Those who could have protected these children didn't. They carry the responsibility and they carry the blame.

Anonymous said...

The reason he was protected, was that there is a high profile group of paeodophiles some of whom go even higher in society then Savile.
He knew where the bodies were buried!!
Another one to be named this weekend allegedly!

Old Blue Eyes said...

"We all liked him as he was" - not true. I for one couldn't stand the sight of him and couldn't understand how on earth such a man of zero talent could have reached the dizzy heights that he did.

Mark McIntyre said...

Many people are still asking, why now?

Well, the bottom line is that fear can paralyse people for a lifetime, and most victims of abuse do want to forget it and live as normal a life as possible...

However, given the atitude of people towards abuse victims today what chance did people have in the 70's onwards?

http://2012in366.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jimmy-savile-garry-glitter-and-freddie.html

This goes much much further than savile, by making themselves heard, the brave people could stop abuse happenning today, whether that's in peoples homes or at TV studios of childrens productions.

There must be absolute oppenness by the BBC to investigate fully, that does not mean telling that they checked their 'records' and all is fine, it means scrutinising everybody who was in the position of trust at that time who worked for the organisation, starting with details that are brought forward by the victims...

If any written records were available, im sure they would have been keeping the shredders busy this weekend...

Whats more, as the BBC has cleerly been complicite (which is a criminal offence) does that mean we are all funding criminal behaviour so long as we pay the TV license ? (a thought)

Anonymous said...

I saw allegations about Savile on the internet immediately after his death. They included the obviously faked HIGNFY transcript, stories of necrophilia and a claim that he pimped boys for Edward Heath. One of the sources was David Icke, hardly a reliable witness. I therfore dismissed the stories and was just disgusted at the apparently uncalled for malice behind them.

When the recent story broke, I discussed it with my partner who is very truthful. He said he had seen Savile behaving oddly if not illegally with a girl at a Mensa meeting in 1974. I therfore found the 'Exposure' story quite convincing if not absolutely conclusive.

It is dismaying that some have called the complainants 'fantsists', 'slappers' and other awful things as if they hadnt been through enough.

In the last hours, revelations have been coming thick and fast. Furthermore, Savile himself detailed orgies with teenagers and sleeping with a youn girl on the run from a remand home, in his autobiography. Although he did not specifically say they were underage, it is obvious the latter was, as a policewoman considered charging him instead of thanking him when he later handed her in. If he said it in print, why should anyone doubt it?

Marianne

Anonymous said...

@ Matt Bradley - now that time has passed this week you will see that allegations and complaints were made, and that they were hushed up. Children were told they were wrong. One described being punished with isolation in a locked room because she spoke out. A relative of Savile has exposed Savile as a procurer of young boys.

I could cite many more examples of the attempts people made to make an allegation. The evidence was there and the adults either didn't believe the evidence or they quietly turned away and refused to do anything about it.

When you try to make an allegation against someone who has abused you and you are told you are lying, you end up blaming yourself because the blame has nowhere else to go. That can affect your relationships, your sex life, your ability to trust people and can have a very damaging effect on your confidence and self-worth right through to adulthood.

There will be more "names" coming out in the next few weeks and beyond. They abused young children. They deserve what's coming.

highmyope1955 said...

Savile claimed to be a devout Catholic. In the Bible, I believe that it says "Do good by stealth". I have always thought that a lot of his fundraising was for his own self-aggrandisement. That does not lessen the benefit his charities derived from his efforts; but there would have been someone ready and willing to take on this work.

Wolf E Boy said...

A reasonable blog perhaps, and some valid points without doubt, but to suggest every single one of us was in on it, is absolute nonsense. I think you would probably have managed to upset a huge swathe of people with that idea, depending on how many read this blog that is. If that truly is the crux of your thesis here, then I have to say it's a total fail, which is a shame, because until then I thought it might be leading somewhere interesting.

Anonymous said...

Creepy pervert men hit on me and my friends constantly whilst a teenager. They were everywhere and a daily problem pretty much. Until females get equality with men in the world I very much doubt things will change.

Anonymous said...

Savile's behaviour is rife throughout the world...girls' have always had to contend with flashers and pests. Nobody cared about the welfare of young girls.Some girls just grew up wondering why some males were so weird

HerbsandHags said...

I love the way Esther Rantzen is getting more criticism than the men who covered up what was going on and may themselves have participated in it but we'll not find out just yet because of their super-injunctions.

Megan Stammers was not complicit in her own abuse, that is victim-blaming talk. She was groomed by a much older man at a different life-stage, to accept his flattering attentions after our culture had groomed her to think that this is desirable. To blame her for that, to say that she is "complicit" in that grooming, is victim-blaming, please be clear on that.

HerbsandHags said...

It's not just the BBC who were to blame. They operated in a culture of male entitlement to sexual access to women and young girls, particularly in the wake of the sexual revolution. The reason they didn't recognise it as abuse, was because the rest of society didn't recognise it as abuse - hell, they still don't, look at what happened in Rochdale when much less popular and influential men than Jimmy Savile got away with raping children because they were the wrong sort of rape victims, 40 years after Jimmy Savile and the other famous child abusers were carrying on. Unless we as a culture stop accepting abusive sexual behaviour from men and start believing women and girls who say they've been abused, we are partly to blame.

HerbsandHags said...

That wasn't the worst case scenario though. Richard Pearson could have been sued for libel, lost his home and ruined his career. The reason powerful men get away with raping women and children, is because they are powerful.

Anonymous said...

I am old enough ( sadly ) to remember Jim Fix it and like plenty of other children then, I wanted to write and ask him to do something for me. Only for my parents to turn round and say, I wouldn't let you near him. Obviously, I didn't know what they meant by that. However, now all this has come out, my mother said only yesterday, now you know why I didn't want you to go on that programme. Seems to me, it was common knowledge back in the early 80s as even my parents knew. So, why wasn't something done then. The BBC have a lot to answer for in my opinion, if and it's a big if these allegations are proven.

Anonymous said...

Is it not about time that the media stopped hero worshipping celebrities who happen to do a bit of work for charity? Savile and no shortage of others have always used this to manipulate
the pandering press. For that matter is it not time our obsession with these people was discarded for good.

Savile manipulated the media especially the absurd BBC and they are as complicit in his beahviour as all of the fellow perverts he befriended and protected, even after they were exposed.







Pete Brown said...

I'd suggest the mighty Half Man Half Biscuit nailed him on this in the mid-eighties:

"Went down to Stoke Mandeville to talk to Mr IQ
I said 'Hey Albino this is not 1972
So stub out your King Edwards and take that small boy off your knee'"

Out here in plebland we always thought he was a freak rather than a lovable eccentric. We weren't 'in on it' at all - we simply had no power to do anything about it.

Anonymous said...

In 1945 and afterwards, tens, hundreds, tens of thousands of death camp survivors told law enforcement what they each had experienced from Irma Grese, Rudolf Hoess, Amon Goeth & Josef Mengele. When freed from the threat of death, torture, and the every day depravities, they told it all.

I have a problem with these women coming out now. Why the moral weakness?

Was Jimmy Savile invested with more authority than Irma Grese? Did he perform horrible medical experiments on them like Josef Mengele? Did he have the full power of the state backing him as Amon Goeth did?

Some of you may be aware of the Jerry Sandusky case, the Penn State University football coach recently sentenced to 30-60 yrs in prison for child and minor-adult rape.

All his victims endured the same acts that Savile is alleged to have done. They all had the same emotional turmoil. Their lives were turned upside-down by Sandusky as Savile's victims claim he upended theirs.

Sandusky's victims talked when it counted; Savile's did not.

Again, I have a problem with these women. Why the moral weakness?

Law enforcement can't work if you don't give it the chance or refuse to cooperate. And I don't accept they were more afraid of Savile than Holocaust survivors were afraid of Hitler.

So Savile is dead; he had a splendid sendoff. He got away with 50 years of crime.

And because of his victims' weakness or poor judgement, justice is reduced to pulling down a crap headstone and removing a vandalised plaque, which means justice hasn't and can't be done.

Chris said...

That "side of him that was exceptionally kind" is part and parcel of the abuser. He needed the good acts, the charity, community standing to hide in the open. Without those good acts, he'd never have got away with this scale of abuse for so long. He may well have thought he was doing the "exceptionally kind" things with the right motive, but it was not only a great disguise, it allowed him to "balance" in his own head against the molestation. The Catholic culture of multiple forgiveness may well have helped him square this mentally too.

highmyope1955 said...

I think that this post hits the nail on the head; if there were rumours of this kind over the years, then the BBC could have sidelined this man. I am convinced that other people, probably other celebrities, would have come forward and taken on the charity work that Savile did. Would so much have been lost? "To labour, and not ask for any reward, save that of knowing that we do Thy will". Savile did ask for, and get, plenty of rewards.

I cannot and will not believe that this man was indispensable.

Anonymous said...

I recently came across old video archive footage
of TOTP (1965 maybe?) in which the 60's band The Rockin' Berries featuring Geoff Turton (later known in
his solo career as Jefferson).
In the video, in which the group sang their then
current hit "He's In Town", Turton walked in front of
Jimmy Savile at the very end of the song.
What struck me was the way Savile was leering at Turton as he passed by....arms folded, leaning on a post and giving Turton a most lecherous staredown....creeped me out completely.
Even though Savile at the time was only in his late 30's, his long, stringy hair died bleach blonde and his ogling, thoroughly homely face made him look already like the dirty old bugger he was.
I cannot believe he wasn't found out early on...he must have had a lot of 'help' in covering up his dirty business with friends in high places.

Post a Comment