Picture it. A 13 year old school girl; head full of the Beatles circa. 1970. You’re about to meet important telly folk, and not just any telly folk, but TV royalty Jimmy Savile. He’s a hero, a saint, and above all – he wants to meet you. The curtain is drawn; suddenly this doesn’t feel quite right. Maybe you should say something, but who will listen? Who would believe you? No-one, apparently.
This is a man who raised an estimated 40 million for various charitable organisations, was the gem in the crown of the BBC and made the dreams of children from all over the county come true (or so the special Christmas tribute said) So, why on earth, once Newsnight had overwhelming evidence that Savile was a child molester, did the BBC not do everything in its power to get the investigation to air? According to the BBC’s own Panorama investigation, the documentary was pulled due to conflicts over the editing. Rather than show him for the villain he was, it was all ‘Saint Jimmy, isn’t he wonderful?” – Good one ‘Auntie Beeb.’ Let’s just handle this delicate issue by giving each victim a massive slap in the face.
Never has the integrity of the BBC been called in question under such difficult circumstances. Some may argue that a media organisation such as the BBC would owe the victims a certain duty of care and respect. Putting the reputation of the corporation before the welfare of the victims is potentially the biggest blunder of all. Especially when that corporation could have stopped Savile (had they not been too busy kissing his arse)
The choice to air the tribute rested with the BBC director general George Entwistle, who clearly only had the damage to the BBC’s reputation in mind. “Fire him!” yelled the mob. Although most probably would have settled for a simple apology, instead Entwistle acknowledged that trust in the corporation has been ‘damaged as a result of the scandal.’ Well, it’s certainly not the shinning beacon of good journalism it once was.
Which raises the question, is this a case of certain individuals failing to act, or is it the twisted ideals of an organisation? Moreover, whose job is it to stop it? If the BBC is viewed as an institution with a personality of its own then surely it should be held accountable for its actions? (Or lack thereof) One would hope that employees at the time would have felt a moral obligation to do something, however they were far too concerned with being laughed at by the ‘big boys’ at the head of the organisation. It’s always difficult being the whistle blower. To stand up and shout ‘Paedo!’ probably wouldn’t have achieved much other than a swift kick out the door. Insult Jimmy? Don’t be silly. However, if the harming of vulnerable children doesn’t constitute as a good enough cause to intervene, then god only knows what is.
Claims people working at the BBC at the time actually ‘picked out’ young girls for Jimmy sends a shudder down the spine of any moral individual. A former BBC reporter remembered Savile emerging from his caravan after a charity run during the 1970s with two girls, both around the age of 12 or 13. Savile apparently indicated in ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ sort of way, that he had just had sex with them. How it is possible that an organisation as trusted as the BBC could knowingly allow a paedophile to continue working for them? And not just allow it, but help the master manipulator to do it.
The reaction from those old enough to remember the 70s has been peppered with a lot of “It was a different time” and “Well, it was all quite normal then.” But was it normal? Of course, being the 1970s, it is unlikely that every celebrity who had sex with an underage girl would have asked for proof of age beforehand. The age of consent was treated much like the running with scissors debacle or driving home when completely rat-arsed. Subjects such as child abuse where not as prevalent as they are now. This was the 70s, no-one really knew what that word even meant.
Surely the fact that ‘everyone was doing it’ doesn’t always justify whatever ‘it’ is. Let’s just say that in this case, genocide was what everyone was doing. Plenty of individuals who aided the Nazi campaign during the Second World War have come out and said they only murdered those poor people because they were afraid they’d be shot if they didn’t. However, just because it took place in a different time where the world worked differently, doesn’t make it right. If it is a crime today, which it most certainly is, it was a crime back then too. Ok, speaking out against the Führer isn’t exactly the same as a TV presenter from the 70s, but Savile clearly had a lot of power and influence. So much so, that he could keep hundreds of victims silent for decades.
It’s hard not to wonder though, why these victims didn’t come forward sooner. This is 2012, attitudes have changed and believe it or not, the police will listen. Women have so many rights now they can string a man up by his tie simply for a passing flirty comment in the work place. Sexual harassment! Pervert! This may be a symptom of our time in that unlike during the 70s, everything is now considered inappropriate. It’s also worrying, considering how the rumours that circulated about Savile for years turned out to be true, that maybe the other rumours are true. You know the ones. He doesn’t just like ‘em young, he also likes them dead. Yes, the same guy that visited the sick and dying also liked to have sex with them. Paedophilia, necrophilia, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a third may surface soon.
Perhaps in regards to Savile, it wasn’t just a case of nobody acknowledging his sordid nature; it was a case of no-one cared. As shocking as these revelations are, the crux of the matter is how non-shocking they were for many people. It has been suggested that certain members of the BBC, both high ranking to a junior DJ, knew about Savile’s predisposition for young girls. What was done about it? Precisely nothing. After all, Jimmy was not just a TV presenter; he was a brand and a star in his own right. Being the extremely valuable asset that he was, it is possible the BBC simply felt he was too good to lose?
It’s no secret that Jimmy joked about and even alluded to his taste in young girls in his autobiography. Aside from him shouting it from the roof tops, the man was almost asking to be caught. Are we expected to believe nobody saw anything? The attitude of the BBC when asked this question has been reticent to say the least. Don’t get me wrong, the BBC is by no means the Catholic Church. That said, if you are a middle aged man and you are having sex with a teenage girl, you are at the very least a bit of a creep. There must be men all over Britain sweating and wringing their hands, images of past encounters flashing through their minds. But she looked so much older! Sorry, doesn’t work like that.
One thing is for sure, there is no doubt that Savile knew exactly what he was doing. The fact that he used his ‘Mother Theresa’ persona as a cover is proof of that. I’m fairly certain though, that no amount of charity work would have saved Jimmy had enough women come out and said what was really going on. These were not just improper comments or even, dare I say, just a bit of groping. This was forcing children to perform sex acts, hundreds of them, and over a long period of time. Come on now BBC, you should have done better.