There seems something sinister about the whole Jimmy Savile thing. And I don’t mean the apparent trail of victims he has left behind (I hope it’s a given that I mean Savile’s alleged crime is sinister). I mean something else.
Clearly JS is unable to defend himself as he’s dead. I don’t have an issue with this (though I probably should). It says something about either fear or power that it has taken some people a long time to be able to/want to/be allowed to voice their accusations. When accusing anyone of any crime hard evidence is clearly ideal. However a lack of it isn’t a good enough reason to dismiss an allegation. Especially if there is significant corroboration from lots of other people.
Unlike some other people I wish it had come out years ago and he’d been found guilty. I don’t think protecting the memory of his work for charity and his legacy of TV work is sufficient to mean it should be brushed under the carpet. I did used to love Jim’ll Fix It. I don’t remember why – but it was almost certainly the concept rather than the presented. Even back then I didn’t like old people. Jimmy Savile – like Peter Stringfellow – seemed to be about 50 from the age of 30 for the next 40 years or so. And that was old for me then. I never saw him present Top of The Pops.
I don’t remember a time when I didn’t think he was a weird old fuck. And that’s not because ‘I just knew’. As I said I just don’t like old people and he has always been old and that specific old person hair he has just makes me feel sick. The Louis Theroux programme a few years ago just made him seem fucking madder. He came across as one of them annoying, smug fucks who because of being important at some stage in their existence thinks they are above listening to anyone who isn’t telling them they are right. And the sad thing is he was kind of right – he was above listening to anyone else. He kind of was untouchable and was never put under the slightest bit of duress or anguish despite there certainly being a lot of talk and rumour.
I still didn’t get to the sinister bit. It’s this whole implication of the BBC in many reports. I don’t think anyone is saying there was a mandate from the Director General saying “Let Jimmy Savile force 13-year-olds to do whatever he wants.” This is way BBC are being portrayed with the responses they have made. Is it fair that the BBC should be questioned about all this? I think there are some questions to be answered. The allegations and statements contain references to his TV shows being part of his grooming. I would suggest there was a degree of looking the other way going on by some people working around Savile. But unless people admit this it is going to remain unprovable conjecture. I don’t see that many people coming forward and admitting they were complicit in the sexual assault of minors not being addressed. It is surely inconceivable such an arrogant twat as Savile was the soul of discretion about what he got up to.
If anything is to come out of this. And I mean something positive – not the legacy that rather than an eccentric old man was actually a sexual predator (which is of course can’t be a positive, if true, because of what it is) – then the something has to be to use this to try and ensure people report any kind of inappropriate behaviour to The Police regardless of the person involved being famous, in a position of authority or anyone else really. And of course hand-in-hand with that goes a hell of a lot of other stuff. People have to respect the fact that some allegations might be false. But I think of the utmost importance is that we have a society where victims feel no shame and are not in any way intimidated by anything stopping them reporting these crimes, so many of which go unreported because of fear.