• 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

escargot said:
Has anyone else caught the Coogan series? I've one-and-a-half episodes. It's squirmingly authentic so far; plenty of scenes with the truth dawning on horrified teenage girls that Uncle Jimmy was not such a jolly pal after all.
Click to expand...
Lets not forget he was (allegedly) an equal opportunity abuser, girls, boys, damaged adults. If (again, accepting we have no proof) there was ever a narrative that proved sexual abuse is about power and control and not sex as an end in itself, this is it.
 
escargot said:
Has anyone else caught the Coogan series? I've one-and-a-half episodes. It's squirmingly authentic so far; plenty of scenes with the truth dawning on horrified teenage girls that Uncle Jimmy was not such a jolly pal after all.
Click to expand...


Watched the whole 4 episodes on iPlayer last night.

Coogan played him very well. Uncanny , the voice , the mannerisms.


I read that although it was shown on BBC, it was an outside ITV production company that made it


A well made program. They didn't shy away from the "necro" rumours either did they


What a detestable individual he was . His old mum in Catholic confession was interesting as well . She knew something was up


I wonder if they may have been abuse from the father when they were growing up, as JS 's brother has been done for sexual offences too
 
I wonder who the second man was in the Kevin assault .... I saw him speak ok the program last night. Poor kid/,man.


Imagine the excitement of going on TV the roller coaster ect, then getting abused by 2 men at the BBC !!!! .... He carried that for all those years and didn't say a thing until he saw JS on Celeb Big Brother in the Naughties. . . He then told his wife who urged him to go to the police .

The second man could still be alive..... In the show it showed Ray Terret (spelling?) being at BBC studios a lot . He was Savilles live in "assistant" and a gay relationship was suggested. Saville and found him on the streets when he was homeless . Took him home and made him call him "Father". Very creepy again. Could be him. He has been done for Sex offences too. Don't know if he's still alive.
 
FunkyTT said:
I wonder who the second man was in the Kevin assault .... I saw him speak ok the program last night. Poor kid/,man.


Imagine the excitement of going on TV the roller coaster ect, then getting abused by 2 men at the BBC !!!! .... He carried that for all those years and didn't say a thing until he saw JS on Celeb Big Brother in the Naughties. . . He then told his wife who urged him to go to the police .

The second man could still be alive..... In the show it showed mspelling?) being at BBC studios a lot . He was Savilles live in "assistant" and a gay relationship was suggested. Saville and found him on the streets when he was homeless . Took him home and made him call him "Father". Very creepy again. Could be him. He has been done for Sex offences too. Don't know if he's still alive.
Click to expand...
Teret died in prison while serving a 25-year sentence for sex offences.

I don't think he was the other man in the room as he didn't fit the description.
Beside which, Teret was not important at the BBC and wouldn't be able to walk in and out as Savile did.

I heard a lot about Teret back in the day, though I was too young to have met him. In the late 60s/early '70s he ran a nightclub in Newcastle, Stoke on Trent called The Place. My older sister went there most weekends so I bet she bumped into him.

There was a The Place newsletter he wrote that she'd bring home: news about upcoming acts, snippets about famous people Teret knew, jokes, that sort of thing. Nothing remotely unseemly.
Teret later had a show on Piccadilly Radio in Manchester so when I lived there I heard him broadcasting. Again, nothing at all objectionable.
He came across as nothing like Savile, except for addressing his radio audience on a Sunday morning as if they all had hangovers.

Here's a previous post of mine about Teret -
#1,344
 
FunkyTT said:
I wonder if they may have been abuse from the father when they were growing up, as JS 's brother has been done for sexual offences too
Click to expand...
Genetics more likely.

I think the current research on pedophilia seems to indicate it's more likely a mostly genetic/hardwired thing (like most other sexualities/desires) not a result of CSA (hence why it can exist in people who have never been abused and also why many victims don't become pedophiles themselves). There's some research to indicate that the idea of victims becoming abusers is promulgated by pedophiles seeking sympathy and/or a self-justification for their desires. Brain damage/tumours etc also seems to be able to change people into pedophiles.

Like everything else in life, it's a matter of bad luck. Life is cruel.
 
As @FunkyTT says, Coogan plays Savile to perfection. I sometimes caught myself thinking 'old on, don't switch off, it's still Steve, it's not really Savile! during the more repugnant scenes. Although of course the assaults are not shown in detail.

I've read that Coogan would spend time with the young actors playing the victims before the assault scenes, reminding them that they were only acting and he was always Steve. One wonders how a more Method-based actor, or indeed director, would approach it.
 
I've just watched it.
The portrayal was absolutely chilling, but considering the subject matter, it was also done fairly sensitively. I didn't get the impression that the BBC was let off the hook, because it was absolutely blatant how they were so interested in damage limitation to the Corporation that they gave Saville 'the benefit of the doubt'.
It struck me, too, that at the end of his life he still wanted attention. He always pushed Daniel away when the journalist got too close to the reality, when the pose as a Sphinx-like master started slipping ... but cajoled - teased - him back with promises of 'truth'. It seemed very familiar with Ian Brady's last days when he tried flexing, teasing the authorities.
 
Stormkhan said:
I've just watched it.
The portrayal was absolutely chilling, but considering the subject matter, it was also done fairly sensitively. I didn't get the impression that the BBC was let off the hook, because it was absolutely blatant how they were so interested in damage limitation to the Corporation that they gave Saville 'the benefit of the doubt'.
It struck me, too, that at the end of his life he still wanted attention. He always pushed Daniel away when the journalist got too close to the reality, when the pose as a Sphinx-like master started slipping ... but cajoled - teased - him back with promises of 'truth'. It seemed very familiar with Ian Brady's last days when he tried flexing, teasing the authorities.
Click to expand...
Yup, Savile is shown being bumped out of the limelight once his protector Bill Cotton dies. We see him raging at his short appearance in the final edition of Top of the Pops and shouting abuse when Jim'll Fix it gets the chop.

There'd been a decision to stop Savile's access to vulnerable audience members and visitors. He sees visitors being escorted from a studio and reminded to sign out: nobody's wandering up and leading kids off to dressing rooms any more.

One wonders if Savile really meant to spill the beans for the book? I don't believe so. When he begged Dan to come back ('We're friends!') it was obvious he'd say anything to keep him visiting; nobody else was bothering with him.

(Reminds me of the poisoner Graham Young, who was believed to be so dangerous even after he was locked up that nobody would go near him. He wasn't even welcome at the prison chapel tea parties.)

It seems that Savile didn't even confess on his deathbed when he believed he was about to meet his Maker.
We can't know that for sure of course, as a Catholic priest can't break the seal of Confession even to confirm that no sins were mentioned.

If he didn't confess though, he'd surely believe he was dying unshriven and was going to Hell.
 
He always claimed that no one could judge him but God so I think he was so arrogant, he wanted to 'confess' to God and no mere mortal. I'm not sure, of course, but I think that near the end he wasn't afraid of death but of his power, his influence, his very personality that he'd meticulously created being torn away and revealing him to be a perverted, frail old man. A disgusting nobody.
Perhaps he actually felt guilty, very deep down, but not of what he'd done - the lives he'd wrecked - but of letting down his mother. He saw her as flawless goodness and regretted not meeting her expectations.

This is all assuming his guilt, of course. I'm not talking of 'trial by media' and so on, and the idea of innocent until found guilty is a noble one. But part of any trial is presenting evidence including witness statements and victim testimony to convince the jury. And all that has been reported, in public, by alleged victims, friends, workmates, and official 'concerns' has convinced me of his guilt.
 
escargot said:
His religious persona was just another useful cover, like the charity work and 'wacky' image. He didn't really believe in God.
Click to expand...
I think one of the documentaries suggested that he did really believe, and was genuinely scared of hell. Dunno.
 
Delightful said:
I think one of the documentaries suggested that he did really believe, and was genuinely scared of hell. Dunno.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Well, if he was that scared, you'd at least expect he'd confess. I'd agree with Scargs.
 
If Savile had been the Catholic he claimed to be then he'd've confessed.
The drama shows a fellow hospital porter being asked to witness the priest giving Savile the last rites. The porter reluctantly agrees and watches as Savile refuses to confess anything at all.

I'm wondering if this really happened and if so, is it normal? It's a good way round answering the question of whether Savile confessed without breaking the confidentiality of the occasion.
 
I’m glad they had the courage to tackle the necrophilia and at least allude to the royal connection. I couldn’t watch the abuse scenes, I found myself having to fast forward through them. It was too much for me.
 
escargot said:
A lay person being asked to witness a priest giving someone the last rites.
Click to expand...

I can say that in my bit of catholicism it's not unknown. The witness isn't close enough to hear etc but will see the priest prepare, put a stole on etc. It can be comforting for some families to have another witness that the sacrament was carried out, and it means the priest isn't drawn in to conversations about "but what did they SAY??????". Well, not quite so much, although I gather that it's anoccupational hazard!

Any use?
 
Frideswide said:
I can say that in my bit of catholicism it's not unknown. The witness isn't close enough to hear etc but will see the priest prepare, put a stole on etc. It can be comforting for some families to have another witness that the sacrament was carried out, and it means the priest isn't drawn in to conversations about "but what did they SAY??????". Well, not quite so much, although I gather that it's anoccupational hazard!

Any use?
Click to expand...
Very helpful, thank you.
In the Savile drama, the porter is close enough to hear him refuse to confess and afterwards remonstrates with him about it.
 
Carse said:
I’m glad they had the courage to tackle the necrophilia and at least allude to the royal connection. I couldn’t watch the abuse scenes, I found myself having to fast forward through them. It was too much for me.
Click to expand...
The abuse wasn't shown graphically. It was all about the intimidation. I see what you mean though, as even that was gruelling to watch.
 
As you say, it was the intimidation and power imbalance I couldn’t handle. In the scenes where he finally latched on to each victim the sense of tension and menace was so huge I had to look away and move on; they had cast such vulnerable looking young actors and Steve Coogan’s Savile was so deeply unpleasant that I just couldn’t stick it. It was worse knowing that those actors respresented the four real people seen at the start and end of each episode. Of course that’s how abusers get away with their crimes - society doesn’t want to know anything about it and the victims feel they cannot speak up.

One thing that watching this has made me realise is that his behaviour seems to have been more about power than sexual gratificiation per se. Or maybe the power was the sexual gratification. I had previously assumed he was just a prolific old perv who would try it on with anyone with (or without) a pulse but he seemed to take care to select vulnerable victims to dominate. Almost more like a serial domestic abuser but using kissing and touching rather than his fists to control his victims. That may also be why he was always making remarks in public that suggestively just brushed up against the truth of what he was doing, as a way of feeling the thrill of the power that he wielded over society and his victims.
 
Finally watched all 4 episodes and have to agree with pretty well all the comments already made.
The scenes of abuse were depicted sensitively and Coogan played an absolute blinder and deserves an award.
The only consolation for Savile's victims is that, if the drama was accurate on this point, Savile had become paranoid about being found out in his later life and went to his grave in a state of bitter turmoil, unable to reconcile his staunch Catholicism with what he had done.
 
There's a bit of an unholy Partridge/Savile mashup here, I've heard people who have seen it say that however good a mimic Coogan is, he's always a bit Partridge and it comes through... adding an additional layer of unsettling.

iu


"Lynn, these are sex people!" "Now then, now then!"
 
Carse said:
As you say, it was the intimidation and power imbalance I couldn’t handle. In the scenes where he finally latched on to each victim the sense of tension and menace was so huge I had to look away and move on; they had cast such vulnerable looking young actors and Steve Coogan’s Savile was so deeply unpleasant that I just couldn’t stick it. It was worse knowing that those actors respresented the four real people seen at the start and end of each episode. Of course that’s how abusers get away with their crimes - society doesn’t want to know anything about it and the victims feel they cannot speak up.

One thing that watching this has made me realise is that his behaviour seems to have been more about power than sexual gratificiation per se. Or maybe the power was the sexual gratification. I had previously assumed he was just a prolific old perv who would try it on with anyone with (or without) a pulse but he seemed to take care to select vulnerable victims to dominate. Almost more like a serial domestic abuser but using kissing and touching rather than his fists to control his victims. That may also be why he was always making remarks in public that suggestively just brushed up against the truth of what he was doing, as a way of feeling the thrill of the power that he wielded over society and his victims.
Click to expand...
Yup, you might remember how in the last episode Dan the writer reminds Savile of how there have been clues all along, as if Savile was always giving hints about a 'dark side' of himself. Savile replies 'What's the point of committing the perfect crime if nobody knows you've done it?'
Sounds like a confession to me. Well, it's the closest we get.

The series is based on the book Dan is seen researching. As this conversation was held in private between Dan and Savile, and we're shown Dan recording everything, I take it as a verbatim account.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
There's a bit of an unholy Partridge/Savile mashup here, I've heard people who have seen it say that however good a mimic Coogan is, he's always a bit Partridge and it comes through... adding an additional layer of unsettling.

iu


"Lynn, these are sex people!" "Now then, now then!"
Click to expand...
Partridge was based on various smarmy TV personalities (I've heard Alan Titchmarsh singled out) so there's bound to be a whiff of him there.
 
Carse said:
As you say, it was the intimidation and power imbalance I couldn’t handle.
Click to expand...
He attacked different types of victims in various ways. Women and teenage girls were mainly cornered and overpowered, whereas children could be led away quietly. Abusers are sly like that.

Poor little Kevin (who incidentally states elsewhere that Savile had an accomplice) was warned not to tell his mother because it would upset her.
From what Kevin has said about the attack, one infers that he might have suffered injuries which Savile couldn't have explained away.
A doctor could have confirmed this, and Savile possibly even stopped, if only Kevin hadn't been too terrified to ask for help.
The same went for all the victims, of course. Makes the blood boil.
 
Only watched the first two programmes but I'd agree that Coogan does good job and it was a brave decision to take on the role and incredibly brave of those victims to appear. It isn't easy viewing.

Many years ago I watched a programme about the (obviously) fictionalised trial of Custer, where it was assumed he had escaped the Little Big Horn and was being court martialed for the disaster. It relied on transcripts of previous court(s) martial where he evaded questions by muttering answers, blaming subordinates etc. It was very effective in demolishing his, at the time to some, heroic reputation. I know circumstances are very different and a similar programme could not happen for Savile; at least for a long while for all sorts of legal and moral reasons; but in the hands of a knowledgeable and sensitive writer it could be interesting.

The Coogan programme portrays how Savile dismissed or talked or threatened his way out of accusations; it would be interesting to theorise what his reactions would be to concrete accusations put to him by experienced barristers in a court where threats and evasions would be challenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top