• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

My question is.

We are looking at someone who was close to high up politicians and Royalty.

Would they have been vetted back then?

I ask because they would be vetted now. I know someone who is a subordinate of the County Sherriff, -they have had background checks as to good character to do their job. (Represent the Monarch)

Back in the past there would be concerns over blackmail too. It was the cold war after all.
 
One thing that was mentioned during a documentary concerning JS was when it came to his contacts with the royal family, there is still a form of 'assumption of safety' between public figures and the authorities.

The public figure - in this case JS - has passed through the 'filters' of local civic dignitaries, charity heads, hospital administrators and so on; each assuming that if so-and-so can vouch for the person then they 'must've been good to go'. It's a form of bias used by conmen and frauds - a random bloke in a white coat wandering around a hospital, who looks confident in his being there, must've been checked by someone, eh?

"Well, he's been in the public attention and a subject of several newspaper examinations, then they must be okay, eh? The investigative journalists and coppers would have found anything dodgy by now. Their life must be an open book, yes?"

When it comes to celebrity - public acclaim - then the royal 'firm' are suckers when it comes to old-fashioned thinking: Politically acceptable, no (obvious) criminal record, popular with the hoi polloi and so on.

So ...

We have a popular public figure, accredited by highly-placed officials (most of which aren't 'complicit' but equally reliant on a 'good word' i.e. "Did lower officials flag him up as a wrong 'un? No?") A waterfall of acceptance, if you will.
And the more accepted into the right circles, the higher you can climb, because the assumption is that 'lower level' checks have been made ... all the way back to when the scrote 'fixed' local coppers to say "Y'know Jimmy? A bit dodgy but okay at heart!" In this, JS was incredibly canny and had foresight; he knew how people thought and so set his 'protection' into place. As he got more popular, more influential, he built higher levels of protection. Anyone below him had no chance to complain or raise concerns - "Yeah, you may've seen him grope that kiddie, but who are you going to tell? The coppers? The press? The company?"

Even at his death, as a scraggy old man, his 'walls' of protection were in place. His own body let him down. No one else. And that, I imagine, is what is galling to his victims.
 
He's a monster that continues to haunt the British psyche, I don't know how we get rid of him

Perhaps because for a long time he was considered a national treasure? Or is it because he got away with it?

We've had our fair share of monsters over the years but this one won't go away
 
Jimmy Savile's brother had similar interests.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-31646006

However reports into Savile's activities in relation to other hospitals reveal that his brother was also abusing patients at a psychiatric hospital in south London.

Johnny Savile worked as a recreation officer at Springfield in the late 1970s, until his dismissal in 1980.
 
He's a monster that continues to haunt the British psyche, I don't know how we get rid of him

Perhaps because for a long time he was considered a national treasure? Or is it because he got away with it?

We've had our fair share of monsters over the years but this one won't go away
Some demons are immortal in the human psyche. Some serial killers, predators, dictators, brutes, have a certain abhorrent x-factor which ensures their longevity.

Savile was weird and in a strange way charismatic; his crimes were sickening and radical; his conflict with his faith was paradoxical and hypocritical; his tightrope walk of getting-away-with-it and the strange cover-up and willful blindness around him is intriguing and oddly educational about human nature and the ways of power and fame. He will inevitably be studied and dramatised for some years yet.
 
The BBC are certainly profiting by someone who should have been forgotten by now.
 
One thing that was mentioned during a documentary concerning JS was when it came to his contacts with the royal family, there is still a form of 'assumption of safety' between public figures and the authorities.

The public figure - in this case JS - has passed through the 'filters' of local civic dignitaries, charity heads, hospital administrators and so on; each assuming that if so-and-so can vouch for the person then they 'must've been good to go'. It's a form of bias used by conmen and frauds - a random bloke in a white coat wandering around a hospital, who looks confident in his being there, must've been checked by someone, eh?

"Well, he's been in the public attention and a subject of several newspaper examinations, then they must be okay, eh? The investigative journalists and coppers would have found anything dodgy by now. Their life must be an open book, yes?"

When it comes to celebrity - public acclaim - then the royal 'firm' are suckers when it comes to old-fashioned thinking: Politically acceptable, no (obvious) criminal record, popular with the hoi polloi and so on.

So ...

We have a popular public figure, accredited by highly-placed officials (most of which aren't 'complicit' but equally reliant on a 'good word' i.e. "Did lower officials flag him up as a wrong 'un? No?") A waterfall of acceptance, if you will.
And the more accepted into the right circles, the higher you can climb, because the assumption is that 'lower level' checks have been made ... all the way back to when the scrote 'fixed' local coppers to say "Y'know Jimmy? A bit dodgy but okay at heart!" In this, JS was incredibly canny and had foresight; he knew how people thought and so set his 'protection' into place. As he got more popular, more influential, he built higher levels of protection. Anyone below him had no chance to complain or raise concerns - "Yeah, you may've seen him grope that kiddie, but who are you going to tell? The coppers? The press? The company?"

Even at his death, as a scraggy old man, his 'walls' of protection were in place. His own body let him down. No one else. And that, I imagine, is what is galling to his victims.
Bingo. Higher status (and money) does gain protection from the plebs. Look at how long it takes for people like Savile (Weinstein, Nygard etc) to be taken down via public scrutiny and accusations by people not in those spheres of status.
 
I remember when I was about twelve or thirteen that there was a religious programme called 'What's it all about'? ( I think) on a Sunday evening on TV, probably BBC. Chaired by Joan Bakewell and Savile was on the panel along with Marge Proops.
Savile was also on Radio One on a Sunday afternoon presenting a discussion programme about modern affairs, moral and ethical issues 'Speakeasy' -or a similar name? .Both would have been mid 1970's.
Found it interesting to talk to younger people who remember Savile in his later years when his career was in decline, but seem unaware of how famous he was at one point.
Personally found that if the TV series had to be made, that Steve Coogan played the part well, and the programmes were quite hard hitting, but still felt that a lot was left out. Particularly the famous interview with John Lydon denouncing Savile from 1978 which only came to light years later.
 
Marge Proops
She was a very famous agony aunt. Some of her advice was appallingly bad.
Can remember reading in her Daily Mirror column a question from a teenage boy about his anguish at being called a pouf by classmates. Proops' advice was to play up to it and act as camp as possible. WAY to get his head kicked in. :dunno:
 
... still felt that a lot was left out. Particularly the famous interview with John Lydon denouncing Savile from 1978 which only came to light years later.

This might be a Mandela Effect type of thing - while I can find later footage of Lydon saying how he had previously had suspicions about Savile, I don't recall an actual interview at that time.
 
This might be a Mandela Effect type of thing - while I can find later footage of Lydon saying how he had previously had suspicions about Savile, I don't recall an actual interview at that time.
It was a radio interview, and not broadcast at the time; the pertinent quote is "...into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it but we’re not allowed to talk about it. I know some rumours".

IMO Mr Lydon sounds like a bit of tit, obviously grandstanding and sneering for shock value, but also shows in the clip his intelligence and knowledge (eg., about libel).

...John Lydon talks about Jimmy Savile and his 'seediness' during an interview recorded for BBC radio in late 1978, this excerpt was not broadcast but has just been made available as part of the reissue of the first PIL album. Interviewer: Vivienne Goldman...

 
Last edited:
So what would have happened if an innocent Russian spy had got to hear of this?
 
It was a radio interview, and not broadcast at the time; the pertinent quote is "...into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it but we’re not allowed to talk about it. I know some rumours".

IMO Mr Lydon sounds like a bit of tit, obviously grandstanding and sneering for shock value, but also shows in the clip his intelligence and knowledge (eg., about libel).

...John Lydon talks about Jimmy Savile and his 'seediness' during an interview recorded for BBC radio in late 1978, this excerpt was not broadcast but has just been made available as part of the reissue of the first PIL album. Interviewer: Vivienne Goldman...

Yes Mr Lydon was 'grandstanding' and must have realised that the interview would never be aired in such a form.
What worries me is that if John Lydon, who had not been in the music business very long in 1978 had picked up on Savile's gross behaviour, then plenty of others must have suspected.
 
Which is a shame because it'd be a lovely home to people utterly unconnected to JS.
Apparently it had belonged once, these guys say, to a pioneer of mountain rescue in Scotland so it's got some historic importance, as a building as well, which makes this even worse.

The flat in Roundhay Park was literally removed from the top of the building, so that has been erased from the face of the earth (I guess he bought it as a "penthouse" originally). I'm guessing the flat he bought for his mum and sometimes lived in, in Scarborough, was in one of those Victorian buildings next to the bridge (so far as I can tell from photos) so couldn't be demolished, easily. This has just been abandoned (the YT video mentions it was sold on by whoever inherited his estate or however the estate was divided to benefit some victims).

When you think about it, it's rare for somewhere associated with an "evil" person or events, to be utterly erased - happened with the Wests' house and the school caretaker's house in Soham that Huntley lived in - and 10, Rillington Place - (probably scheduled for clearance anyway) - but those are all killers' houses and Savile was something else.
 
Yes Mr Lydon was 'grandstanding' and must have realised that the interview would never be aired in such a form.
What worries me is that if John Lydon, who had not been in the music business very long in 1978 had picked up on Savile's gross behaviour, then plenty of others must have suspected.
In the context of the 1970s' BBC - which seems to have been a viper's nest of sexual predators - he must have been bad, to stand out from the others enough for Lydon to have picked it up.

I think the Coogan drama was good and interesting and a stellar and brave central performance, as ever - but it totally dodged the BBC's role in this and its culpability.

The recent TV show ducked all responsibility - claiming they had a "strict" and scary lawyer who asked Savile hard questions. But surely it was not an internal disciplinary matter but should have been a police matter - handed straight over to the police, not for the BBC to use a tame lawyer to decide nothing to see here..?

Also, wouldn't be much of a lawyer, surely, if it didn't occur to him to question the girl who committed suicide's friends, as to which DJ it was, when she was attending recordings, and apparently, didn't even uncover that a photo existed of the girl with Savile..? So it seems like a half arsed enquiry if it was as that TV programme alleged.
 
Last edited:
It was a radio interview, and not broadcast at the time; the pertinent quote is "...into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it but we’re not allowed to talk about it. I know some rumours".

IMO Mr Lydon sounds like a bit of tit, obviously grandstanding and sneering for shock value, but also shows in the clip his intelligence and knowledge (eg., about libel).

...John Lydon talks about Jimmy Savile and his 'seediness' during an interview recorded for BBC radio in late 1978, this excerpt was not broadcast but has just been made available as part of the reissue of the first PIL album. Interviewer: Vivienne Goldman...


Lydon made much of his suspicions, but research showed that he knew nothing and had never even been under the same roof as Savile:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...elations-aftermath.50455/page-53#post-2166507

maximus otter
 
But the BBCs role is profiting by all this?

Hes the gift that keeps on giving.

And hes much more useful as a villain than a hero (seeing as there are no direct descendants to offend).
 
Apparently it had belonged once, these guys say, to a pioneer of mountain rescue in Scotland so it's got some historic importance, as a building as well, which makes this even worse.

The flat in Roundhay Park was literally removed from the top of the building, so that has been erased from the face of the earth (I guess he bought it as a "penthouse" originally). I'm guessing the flat he bought for his mum and sometimes lived in, in Scarborough, was in one of those Victorian buildings next to the bridge (so far as I can tell from photos) so couldn't be demolished, easily. This has just been abandoned (the YT video mentions it was sold on by whoever inherited his estate or however the estate was divided to benefit some victims).

When you think about it, it's rare for somewhere associated with an "evil" person or events, to be utterly erased - happened with the Wests' house and the school caretaker's house in Soham that Huntley lived in - and 10, Rillington Place - (probably scheduled for clearance anyway) - but those are all killers' houses and Savile was something else.
The flat in Scarborough belongs to someone who use it as a holiday home apparently, it's on the top near to Bird cage walk
 
Also, wouldn't be much of a lawyer, surely, if it didn't occur to him to question the girl who committed suicide's friends, as to which DJ it was, when she was attending recordings, and apparently, didn't even uncover that a photo existed of the girl with Savile..? So it seems like a half arsed enquiry if it was as that TV programme alleged.
But the lawyer doing the inquiry could be pressured by his 'employers' to back off.
In the programme, one lawyer confronts JS with a photo of him on a young girls bum. Very clearly.
"It's on her back," JS announced.
"It shows your hand on her bottom!"
"Lower back then!" JS went on to criticise the interviewer for being posh and so on, completely derailing the line of questioning. Remember, the only witness was a stenographer, so the incriminating photo might've got 'misplaced'. Point is, he never verbally admitted anything. He was not under oath, and - as he wasn't in court - he could flex his 'protection'. As it was, the inquiry announced something had gone on but couldn't name names. "Protections were put in place" which means it was a BBC arse-covering excercise rather than looking into his misbehaviour.
 
Last edited:
The idea was to rebuild it but I haven't heard if that's been done yet.
Hopefully, that idea will be quietly dropped.

Wonder how many of the other Yorkshirefolk on here played in Roundhay Park as kids? My dad had grown up in that part of Leeds - his own grandad had a farm just up the road - so he took us there often, even though we lived in a village 15 miles from Leeds. It used to be one of the highlights of any week to go to play at Roundhay Park with me mam and me dad and be bought an ice cream at that cafe. Now I wonder if he wasn't perving on us - chilling to think that a place that has so many happy memories for so many Leeds and surrounding folk, had that sinister side to it, literally one of the worst serial sex offenders in UK history (despite the lack of a court case to prove it), living in a place where he'd be surrounded by kiddies (ditto Scarbro). I guess it's like the British version of Neverland.
 
But the lawyer doing the inquiry could be pressured by his 'employers' to back off.
In the programme, one lawyer confronts JS with a photo of him on a young girls bum. Very clearly.
"It's on her back," JS announced.
"It shows your hand on her bottom!"
"Lower back then!" JS went on to criticise the interviewer for being posh and so on, completely derailing the line of questioning. Remember, the only witness was a stenographer, so the incriminating photo might've got 'misplaced'. Point is, he never verbally admitted anything. He was not under oath, and - as he wasn't in court - he could flex his 'protection'. As it was, the inquiry announced something had gone on but couldn't name names. "Protections were put in place" which means it was a BBC arse-covering excercise rather than looking into his misbehaviour.
Should have been handed to the coppers. He'd have had less sway with the Met than he had in West Yorkshire and they could have saved many more victims from a lifetime of nightmares and all the struggles in adulthood that happen when you've been abused as a child/teenager. I missed that bit (often distracted by my supposedly grown up sons when watching TV) but am about to re-watch because son 4 hasn't seen it yet. That said, the 60s and 70s when it seems to have been hardly regarded as an offence if Fred West getting off with a small fine for kidnapping and raping a girl is owt to go by.
 
My partner’s watching an episode per evening and I’m catching bits and he seems more appalled than I am, perhaps because he loved Jim’s Fix It when he was young. Coogan is eerily and disturbingly good in the role.

There was a part which is probably fantasy as Saville seemed very close-mouthed or would obfuscate. It showed him in the confessional talking about a ‘friend’ who was clearly himself and that he forced himself on young girls, but also did so much good in the world. It was as if he thought by raising all this money for good causes he was ‘paying’ for his appetites which seems completely macabre, but I wonder if there was any truth in it. I can’t even imagine him being really religious, only paying lip-service but that kind of mind is so alien.
 
Back
Top