When he died in 2011, hundreds of fans gathered in Leeds city centre to pay their respects as the gold coloured coffin of Sir Jimmy Savile, the centrepiece of a typically garish celebration of the flamboyant and eccentric presenter's life, trundled past.
The funeral cortege drove past the BBC TV and radio star’s childhood home and Leeds General Infirmary, where he had committed so much of his time helping sick children. It was the final show in the life of one of Britain's great showman of the past half century. But as with so many showman, they always want one last turn in the spotlight.
One year later film crews gathered at the presenter's grave in Scarborough, Yorkshire; not to film anniversary reports or discuss the state of the flowers at his final resting place, but because Savile's own family said the tombstone would be smashed into pieces.
Within 12 months, the reputation of the man described straight after his death as “one of broadcasting's most unique and colourful characters” by the British culture secretary, was a national disgrace and lightning rod for accusations of predatory sexual behaviour among celebrities in the 1970s and 80s.
What caused such dramatic change of reputation?
Savile, it seems, was a paedophile and sexual predator who had preyed upon many of the sick children he so publicly hugged and laughed with in front of the cameras. Rumours had circulated in British police stations and Fleet Street for years, most agreed that there was something odd about the television star, but under the weight of his immense popularity and the sheer volume of money he raised for charity-- no one knows exactly but estimates run between £40m - £60m, a staggering amount for any one person -- they were put down to envy, muckraking or plain old inaccuracy.
The turning point came when it transpired that the investigative BBC programme Newsnight had actually been planning an expose on Savile’s activities but the star’s death meant the show was shelved. Newsnight said it was for editorial reasons, but when the details emerged on a rival channel a year later, everyone immediately suspected a cover up by the state broadcaster. Allegations that would eventually dwarf that specific programme and be levelled at the BBC for covering up Savile’s sexual mores over a 40-year period.
Within days of the ITV expose on Savile, police were investigating 120 claims of sexual assault by Savile. Within weeks it had grown to nearly 400. Most complaints came from people who had been children when they had encountered Savile-- many of them residing in care homes or hospitals that the star had visited. Many said they had complained at the time, back in the 60s or 70s, but were told by teachers, police officers, even their own parents, to not invent tales and how dare they say something about about that nice man who does so much good work for charity.
Under a public clamour to get to the bottom of the affair, the Metropolitan police initiated Operation Yewtree to look into sexual abuse by Savile, and any of his circle. A series of high profile arrests followed in the next few months: most high-profile BBC presenters from the 70s and 80s, who were favourites among children. Some have still not come to trial a year later, but that Savile himself was a manipulative and vindictive paedophile has been left in little doubt.
The sheer numbers of people coming forward prompted Commander Peter Spindler of the Met to call the case “staggering". It became a sick joke-- how on earth did Savile find any time to run marathons and do any TV presenting when his schedule was seemingly filled with appointments to abuse children?
The investigation goes on into others but the British public feel repulsed at having been taken in by such a depraved individual for so long. And if his antics are anything to go by, his fall from favour will see him not so much turning in his grave as spinning in twisted delight.
This piece appears as a web-special.
Malicious Hyper Reporting is common in the western media as well, and shows the feminist control over it too.
Reminds one of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, except that Sandusky was charged and prosecuted and will spend the rest of his life in prison.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT