The total confirmed count of Savile's victims as I write this is approximately 300. Just think about that for a minute - three hundred.
I think the worst part is obviously the child abuse, but secondary to that there were plenty of clues that BBC TV and radio presenter sexually abused girls throughout his career — and by "clues," I mean multiple allegations — and no one dared challenge him.
Dee Coles is just one of up to ten women who told ITV news in their programme "Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile" that she was molested by the host. She was 14 and on holiday with a friend when Savile forced the girls to perform sex acts on him in a campervan.
"He didn't seem like a stranger. He was on our telly every Saturday night. It was exciting – with someone on TV," said Coles. "How it made me feel at the time? Immense panic as soon as the door locked. Afterwards, it was shame."
It turns out that police in a number of counties had previously looked into accusations against Savile but dropped all of the cases due to "insufficient evidence." The BBC dismissed all allegations, too. Lord Michael Grade, who worked with Savile as a Controller at BBC1, said there were "question marks, certainly" but that he "never heard anything that gave me cause to think we should investigate or do anything about it. There were questions, but the entertainment industry is awash on a sea of rumours."
Seriously? You really don't think that when there are question marks - plural! — regarding a coworker rumored to be a child molester, it might be a good idea to investigate?
Another woman said she saw Gary Glitter having sex with an underage girl in Savile's dressing room at the BBC, and that she had been abused by another TV star when she was 14 in the very same room. Funny thing: she actually told BBC's Newsnight that story last year, but Newsnight didn't air the story because it hadn't established any "institutional failure" around the Savile allegations. In retrospect, it seems they didn't look very hard. To say the least.
I mean, if allegations weren't enough, surely combined with a few excerpts from Savile's 1976 autobiography "Love Is An Uphill Thing" alarm bells should start ringing? Here's one:
"A high ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me the picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home.
"Ah." says I all serious, "If she comes in I'll bring her back tomorrow but I'll keep her all night first as my reward.'
The law lady, new to the area, was nonplussed. Back at the station she asked 'Is he serious?'
It is God's truth that the absconder came in that night. Taking her into the office I said, "Run now if you want but you can't run for the rest of your life."
She listened to the alternative and agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, come home with me, and that I would promise to see her when they let her out. At 11.30 the next morning she was willingly presented to an astounded lady of the law. The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me."
Err, what? So Savile admitted to coercing a runaway teenager into going home with him for the night — and to coercing an adult police officer into letting him do that, simply because he was a celebrity? In his own f***ing autobiography?
Here's another:
"Let me tell you about the fun part of the charity deal. I got a call one day from the chairman of a local council. He'd got a new idea for the annual mayoral ball and wanted to turn it into a big youth dance. and would I come? For years the affair had been just a bit stuffy and only attracted a couple of hundred locals. He wanted 2,000 and did I have any ideas? Sure I had. Good ideas are my strong point. I will come, to Orley in Yorkshire it was, if you will arrange for me to sleep in a tent up the local hillside with another tent alongside with six girls to sleep there as my bodyguards!
My demands really put the dance on the map and 2,000 tickets went like hot cakes. My ultimatum of "no tents, no girls, no me" meant the council had to go through with it."
Ok, yeah, cool. Savile was famous enough to do whatever he wanted. Just listen to the man himself; he says so in his own words.
"Who would I have told? Who would have believed me?" Cole asked ITV, regarding why she stayed quiet for so long. "I was never going to see him again in my world and there was nothing I could do about it then."
There are sceptics posting on forums with views such as this:
"I am always very sceptical when these rumours only appear after a person has died. There have been over 200 complaints since the first accusation was made against Jimmy Saville. How on earth could over 200 people all have kept quiet for all those years? Why not expose him before he died? Saville was a huge character up until the early 90s, but not in later years.
Now, what will a criminal investigation achieve? Nothing. How can there can a criminal investigation when there is nothing substantial to investigate? I don’t think it is fair to savage a person’s character when they cannot defend themselves. Plus, these so-called victims can still claim compensation, apparently, from Saville’s estate. As soon as I hear money mentioned I question the motives of those making the complaints."
But, come on, there are too many accounts. And people who worked with Savile have backed these claims; admitting they were fully aware of his penchant for young girls! Not to mention the necrophilia claims...
I think that the elites that created Savile, both as national treasure and indemnified pervert are culpable and must be exposed. Anyone who watched the BBC Panorama documentary, "Jimmy Savile - What the BBC Knew" (you can watch here if you missed it), would know it made for disturbing viewing.
The focus of the documentary was why BBC's Newsnight dropped its investigation into Jimmy Savile in November last year after they interviewed Karin Ward - one of Savile's victims - but decided to kill the story. The Panorama programme revealed that managers at the organisation had known about such allegations since the early seventies. Senior managers were revealed to have been content with Savile's mere denial.
The programme showed how Savile was able to exploit his position as a BBC star and a famous charity fund-raiser to gain access to vulnerable children. It details how he used his position as presenter on "Jim'll Fix It" to exploit children.
The BBC claim that the story was dropped because it had been about the Surrey Police investigation in 2007 is clearly refuted by the Panorama investigation. Yet, due to the refusal of senior BBC managers to be interviewed, the journalists were unable to ascertain the real reason for the decision. The viewer is left with the suspicion that the BBC was already committed to broadcasting a series of programmes eulogising Savile and an exposé of him as a paedophile would have been too embarrassing.
The documentary has already forced BBC senior managers to make a number of corrections to assertions previously made. In the light of the revelations, the BBC has acknowledged that the Newsnight investigation was not into the Surrey Police's handling of the allegations. This admission alone invalidates the BBC's rationale for dropping the Newsnight story, a rationale that had been parroted by the BBC's Director General, the Chairman, and the head of editorial policy.
The programme has left the reputation of senior management at the BBC in tatters. Which begs the question for me - can they come back from this? But actually, if not, does it matter? How much do we still really need The Beeb?
The basis of the BBC’s continuing existence is its status as a “public service broadcaster”, right? Surely the cream of its public service broadcasts, such as Don't Tell The Bride and Hotter Than My Daughter, could be preserved by an independent broadcaster? Perhaps its charter should not be renewed in 2016; it should be broken up and sold off?
Hate to get all David Icke on you (who of course new about Savile all along), but maybe at a time of ever-encroaching state intrusion, a state broadcasting service is unnecessary and perhaps a little sinister? Perhaps when it has gone we shall look back at the licence fee and wonder why we ever tolerated it. Is Aunty due some good old-fashioned euthanasia?
I do believe that whoever played a hand, or turned a blind eye to Savile's disgusting sexual deviances deserves to be held accountable; I'm just gutted he's not here to face this himself. I do really hope though that this helps to change the perception of celebrities being above the law - but I can't ever actually see that happening. Ego and delusions of grandeur are evidently very powerful and prevalent things in the world of celebrity.
I mean, they are even now accusing Savile of DRIVING some of the London marathon, pah! Can you believe it?! :/
L.
P.s. If you're interested Icke's stuff, listen to this:
