Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal/Archive 2

Savile's autobiography
Is there any reason for editors not having mentioned in the article Love is an Uphill Thing, the rags-to-riches autobiography of Jimmy Savile  (Coronet Books, 1976/1978), "Jimmy Savile's autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents" ? --Qexigator (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some editors might see any mention as using tabloid sensationalism to retrospecitively fuel the flames of the scandal after the event. The book was written, published and mostly ignored, long before news of any "scandal" broke in 2012, and was not really any part of it. But then, second-hand copies of this book are quite pricey these days... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither the self-serving Savile cult while he was alive nor the anti-cult after his death is in the least edifying, but this article narrates the current story in some detail as if the scandal is Savile rather than the scandal that this man had been allowed and encouraged to be promoted as a celeb and raiser of money for charities when he had already published such a book about himself. I had never heard of it before today, but had and has no one read it at the BBC, among the police, the CPS, the DPP, Newscorp et al.? It makes one wonder. I do not propose to join in editing the article beyond the once but those who are may wish to consider this.Qexigator (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if any of claims that Saville makes in that book, about his own sexual "prowess", are exagerations. And how one would ever go about testing such a theory. And does publication by the Daily Record make these cliams any more or less reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) This article was written as the public scandal developed. When all the facts are known - they are not known at the moment, and there are still inquiry reports to be published - we can take an overview, and restructure and rewrite the article as necessary.  But, like it or not, what Savile wrote in his autobiography was not seen as particularly scandalous at the time it was published.  Perhaps it should have been, with hindsight, but it wasn't, and we can't rewrite history.  The scandal that is the subject of this article was nothing at all to do with what he wrote in his autobiography - it was to do with what emerged after the ITV documentary in 2012.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... the paper's article about the book was published in the course of and in connection with the developing scandal which erupted due to suppression of a TV programme followed by later broadcast. If those making the programme knew nothing about the book, how come? If the book has not been taken into account by those who as police and official prosecutors skilled in looking for and examining evidence after its existence had been published in print in Scotland and available on internet everywhere, how come? Of course, editors here must rely on published sources, but failure to mention the fact about the newspaper report with the references linked above, with no comment, would indicate an eclectic use of the information in the public domain. Again, how come? Qexigator (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't know what the police and others have taken into account, and one "shock, horror" report in an obviously tabloid and non-reliable source, about a book published 38 years previously, doesn't mean it has to be reported here. This has been discussed before.  I'm not necessarily opposed to any mention of the autobiography in the article, but I'm certainly against any attempt to present what he wrote as "shocking" or "scandalous", etc.  The world has moved on a lot since 1974.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Incidentally, the scandal did not "[erupt] due to suppression of a TV programme followed by later broadcast". It erupted because of the ITV documentary.  The first news reports that the Newsnight report had been withdrawn, early in 2012, did not create any scandal at all at the time - it was only later that the full story behind that became public, and part of the scandal.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * pps... (I think Coronet Books publishes internationally, not just in Scotland?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link G, showing it was discussed as long ago as October, but neither that nor your comment above really answers my last How come? Look again-- I have not proposed (your words) presenting what he wrote as "shocking" or "scandalous". Nor can I make out what "The world has moved on a lot since 1974" means here. I was around at that time, there were certainly then other scandals, perhaps the most notorious was Profumo, but also such things as endemic corruption in the Met. .."the world has moved on": is that in mitigation of Savile's alleged misconduct or of any supposed misconduct of the BBC and others in and around the time of his alleged misconduct or after his death? Then the notability of all this could be reduced to vanishing point. Are you not aware that the scandal which erupted was in large measure "due to" a chain of events which resulted later in the TV broadcast? __that pps from M: "...evidence after its[the book's] existence had been published in print in Scotland - in the newspaper. Anyhow, it is for you and others editing here to decide what and when. We all know that much has yet to unfold. Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that they were your words. The basic answer to your "How come?" question is, as I've said, because a sensationalist item in an unreliable tabloid newspaper, about a book published 38 years previously, is not of sufficient note to be mentioned here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken.Qexigator (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But if you see an eBay copy, for less than £40, do let me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Less than £20 at amazon. Qexigator (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * tempted... but not beyond endurance, thanks, Good to see such polite disdain from the quality broadsheets: (published last October). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In view of above, would editors consider putting the following or a version of it into the article. It seems to be WP compliant:
 * In his autobiography first published in 1974 and republished later in paperback, Savile wrote about his earlier conduct of the kind referred to in the recent reports. In October 2012, as the scandal was breaking, the book received some attention in the press but no prominence in the official reports. ...Love is an Uphill Thing, the rags-to-riches autobiography of Jimmy Savile  (Coronet Books, 1976/1978), "Jimmy Savile's autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents"  Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that what he wrote in the book was "of the kind referred to in the recent reports". The scandal in the "recent reports" is over his illegal activities - rape, under-age sex, etc. - not about whether or not what he defined as "young girls" (who may have been, say, 17 or 18) spent the night with him.  Most people may find that conduct immoral and reprehensible, but it wasn't and isn't illegal.  Also, I don't agree with referring to the lack of prominence of his conduct in official reports.  It's OR, in my view, to think that the book not being mentioned is significant in any way.  The official police reports are about illegal activity - the BBC and other organisations may have views on the morality of what happened on their premises, but those reports are not yet published.  I haven't seen any evidence that Savile admitted any illegal activity in the book - the quotes in the newspaper report certainly don't show that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The sordid paperback, and its recent coverage, might qualify at the Jimmy Savile article, but not really here, for the reasons succinctly outlined by Ghm above. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G and M: Point settled. As may have been said before, there remains a concern that the way this story is being told is giving undue prominence to some aspects about the deceased man to shield others from responsibility. I am still wondering what is meant by "The world has moved on a lot since 1974". Does it mean anything more than everyone then alive will be nearly 40 years older if still living, and there are now a lot of younger people about who missed the golden years of Top of the Pops? But enough said about reasons for leaving out or not putting in. Perhaps this section is now ready for collapse! (I mean it). Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... as I was frequently reminded, as an undergraduate, all the best survey data are best "broken down by age and sex." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The world has moved on a lot since 1974" in the sense, surely, that an autobiography could be published in 1974 that was regarded at the time as (I take it) merely "racy" rather than "sordid" but which in today's climate shows attitudes towards young women and towards sex that would now be thought unacceptable for public consumption. The absurd Daily Record piece ("astonishing revelations", "we tracked down the only copy in Pitlochry", etc.) makes me laugh -- obviously written by a know-nothing youngster, as is so much nowadays. The book has of course been in the British Library all along for anyone to read, and is also still in several local libraries according to WorldCat. All it comes down to really is that promiscuous and predatory sex had become fashionable in the 1970s and it has now gone out of fashion again. -- Alarics (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He thought he was a flower to be looked at ... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the Daily Record piece as having been written by a canny journalist of some seniority who knew perfectly well what the score was back then and how to write it up now.: good journalism unlike the Sun's recent effort. It is the Telegraph piece that is so absurd. Fashion changes as M.'s referenced article describes (I remember it well, so would Michael Frayn) but if Savile or others had been exposed then he would have been greatly damaged, and he protected himself well. Carnaby Street was genteel compared with the antics of the present Speaker's wife. Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you will see, James likes his "wee fry up": That's a breakfast with some seniority. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Moore commentary
The article now includes this -"On 11 January 2013, Giving Victims a Voice...a report into allegations of sexual abuse made against Jimmy Savile under Operation Yewtree was published under the logo of the Crown Prosecution Service.[60] The document was given wide publicity throughout the media. Journalist Charles Moore wrote in The Daily Telegraph that he had read the whole report and it did not reveal the extent of abuse as the BBC website had stated in the lead headline "Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals extent of abuse". He remarked that there was no evidence in the report which a court would recognise. Instead it assumed that because uncorroborated allegations had been made, the offences were committed, and, treating allegations as facts, it declared that 214 incidents had now been "formally recorded" as crimes. Moore commented that by doing so the report undermined justice." Charles Moore does not have any legal expertise that I am aware of, how does he know that there was no evidence in the report a court would recognise? Why is Charles Moore qualified to declare that 214 incidents have been "formally recorded as crimes" only because allegations have been recorded as facts? Why is the opinion of this one journalist of the many hundreds of journalists who commented on the report given such prominence in the article, unless to represent the view of whoever put it in the article that there is really nothing to all these allegations, a tiny minority view. Wikipedia policy is that views of a tiny minority should not be represented in articles."Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."[] I think Charles Moore's commentary should be removed but I do not like to make such changes without first discussing it on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1_Moore is sufficiently notable as a commentator to have an article about him, and as a former editor of the Telegraph is not ignorant of the law affecting news reporting and comment. 2_It is important to have attention drawn to misleading presentation from a source such as the BBC, especially in this case where the BBC's own conduct is in question. 3_In this country the right to speak of justice is not confined to lawyers. 4_There is a link to Moore's article, which anyone can see has the headline "Treating every allegation against Jimmy Savile as a 'fact’ undermines justice. The self-righteous Operation Yewtree report does not get us much nearer the truth." That is not a minority view, but a matter of fact and reason, not to say common sense. 5_If there has been any report rebutting Moore's remarks, let it be cited. 6_Nothing is implied that Moore condones any wrongdoing that Savile actually committed. Qexigator (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No you don't need to be a lawyer to comment on justice but you do need to have some legal expertise to pronounce on what "a court would recognise". The mere opinion of an ex-editor of the Daily Telegraph is not sufficiently important for the prominence it receives here. The article on the report[] quotes "Jonathan Brown, writing in The Independent viewed that the report "revealed a man who used his celebrity status and outwardly well-intended works to gain access to and ultimately rape and sexually exploit hundreds of vulnerable young star-struck victims..." What makes the Moore quote more worthy of inclusion here than the Brown one? I think this article does not need opinion pieces from journalists in it, only quotes from police, official reports and investigations. If that Moore quote remains, it must be balanced by others, such as the Brown one.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Charles Moore stands here as just one example of several commentators who have questioned the validity of the NSPCC/MPS report and the way it, in their view, presents as fact what are merely uninvestigated allegations. This is important as a counter to the mainstream media's initial presentation. We need to include it as a significant point of view. -- Alarics (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's topic is essentially a running scandal arising within the news/broadcasting arena, concerned with what was and was not done at various times by various parties and responsible bodies in connection with Savile's actual or alleged wrongdoings, including BBC, police and prosecutors, and including the Yewtree and Levitt reports and the follow-up from them yet to come. Comment about that, including the likes of Moore in DT and Brown in Indie, are very much to the point here. Brown should be included not Moore excluded, and others could be added. Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alarics and Qexigator. It's perfectly reasonable to have a section on commentary, setting out the views of notable commentators, though specific points about the report would probably be better at the article on Giving Victims a Voice itself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right,Ghmyrtle, a section on commentary would be reasonable, but that is not what there is this article now, only one opinion by one journalist which as you say would better be at the article on the report it is commenting on (which it is, in a slightly different form, anyway.) Other comments such as the Brown one need to be added or the Moore one needs to come out.Smeat75 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

HMIC report
The report “Mistakes were made” HMIC’s review into allegations and intelligence material concerning Jimmy Savile between 1964 and 2012 is quite an eye opener. It shows that police were aware of specific complaints against Savile in the 1960s, but did little or nothing in response. Most interestingly, it shows that Savile had been linked by police to activities involving Duncroft Approved School as far back as 1964, not the 1970s as previously suggested by the ITV documentary.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

David Icke???
This whole thing keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. Savile is alleged to have committed between 451 and 1350 sex crimes???

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/21/299488/savile-may-have-abused-1350-victims/

Former British TV host Jimmy Savile may have abused 1,350 victims, three times the number of victims who have come forward so far in a sex offence probe, a former Metropolitan police commander says.

Peter Spindler, who led Operation Yewtree investigation into sexual abuses by a number of celebrities until earlier this year, told child safety campaigners there were "probably treble that number who haven't come forward", The Sun reported on Friday. Where did he get the stamina??? How did he get away with it with impunity???

Conspiracy theorist David Icke has maintained since the 1990s that there is a vast "paedophile network" http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child-abuse-mainmenu-74 operating in the UK. Why is he neglected???johncheverly 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (a) a single off-the-cuff unresearched comment by a policeman that gets neatly converted into a truly shocking number for a tabloid headline?
 * (b) because people think he's mentally unbalanced?
 * ... or maybe I'm just cynical. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to think of a less reliable source than David Icke. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * .. on second thoughts, mention of Icke might have some merit, if a WP:RS secondary source could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely Icke is neglected here for the same reason that the whole of the media neglects him, viz. anyone with any sense can see that he is completely barking. -- Alarics (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think we are all dwellers by the river, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a WP:RS, but there's quite an interesting discussion of Icke's claims to have "outed" Savile here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * David Icke was basically repeating the same gossip that everyone else had heard if they spent more than five minutes in the BBC canteen. As Bill Oddie put it "There was just this running sick joke that Jimmy Savile pestered the young youths of both sexes. It was just taken for granted. It doesn’t mean anyone thought they must do something about it – and it probably wasn’t realised how serious it was – it certainly wasn’t realised to the extent of the hospital – which is horrendous. When this came out it was not a surprise at all. The surprise is that it did not come out a lot earlier and the puzzlement is or the question is was it covered up or did people just chose to ignore it or was there an order and if so from whom, by whom and with whom saying we are not going to allow this to get published."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point about Icke is that, although he now claims to have written about Savile's activities many years ago, there's no evidence that he actually did write or publish anything of the sort. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I am interested in is the whole "pedophile network" thang. Icke is definitely squirrelly, but I remember I read his book _The Biggest Secret_ over 10 years ago and he claimed then that there was an international "pedophile network" of shapeshifting elites that needed children for sex to maintain their "Reptoid" identities.  For example, He said that George HW Bush was the leader of the US network and the late "Boxcar Willy" was the chief procuror.johncheverly 20:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you still have the book? Could you give details with page numbers, etc? I think it probably says more about Icke himself than Savile, but perhaps it's still relevant (in a bizarre, twisted, tragic way)? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but here is article from the "Daily Mail" on the relationship between Thatcher and Savile, including documentation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html

Censored, Savile's private letters to Mrs Thatcher: Files edited two months ago... AFTER child abuse claims surfaced Letter from Jimmy Savile to former PM released under 30-year rule Declares his love for her in gushing 1980 note written following a lunch Also refers to his 'girl patients' and says 'they all love you' But other correspondence between the two has been censored Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher By CLAIRE ELLICOTT

PUBLISHED: 19:04 EST, 27 December 2012 | UPDATED: 04:13 EST, 28 December 2012

Comments (264) Share A letter thought to mark the beginning of the warm relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile has been made public for the first time.

But other correspondence between the pair has been censored, raising questions over what it contains.

The Top Of The Pops presenter sent an adoring letter to the then prime minister in 1980, singing her praises and declaring his love for her. Warm relationship: The letter is thought to mark the beginning of a close friendship between Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher. But further correspondence between the pair has been censored because it is 'personal' or 'confidential'

Correspondence: A handwritten letter from Jimmy Savile in which he declared his 'love' for Margaret Thatcher after being invited to lunch with her was released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule

She responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood.

The letter, part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew today, reveals how well connected to the establishment he was.

But parts of some exchanges between Savile and Mrs Thatcher were censored in October this year – eight days after claims that he had sexually abused people surfaced in an ITV documentary.

The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11.

More...

Maggie's war with treacherous Mitterrand over Exocet missile: Archive files reveal relationship with France was stretched to breaking point British government considered pulling out of 1982 World Cup as Falklands war broke out, archive files reveal Thatcher's £1,800 bill over missing Mark: PM paid for rescue operation (and bar tab) after son got lost during Paris-Dakar rally How US nearly betrayed us to the enemy: Secretary of State threatened to tell Argentina British troops were landing on South Georgia New children's TV station to counter 'mindless' shows: Mrs Thatcher considered new channel in wake of riots across the country Archived files show Soviet Union used civil airliners to conduct secret Cold War spying missions over Britain

The information is exempt because it is ‘personal’ or ‘confidential’. But the timing raises the question of whether the information was redacted in light of the negative headlines.

Correspondence remaining in the file includes the gushing letter Savile sent to Mrs Thatcher after a lunch meeting to discuss funding for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. In it, he also hints at becoming a knight, something arranged during Mrs Thatcher’s tenure and awarded in the New Year’s Honours in 1990, a month after she left office.

Close: The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile¿s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name

The letter reads: ‘I waited a week before writing to thank you for my lunch invitation because I had such a superb time I didn’t want to be too effusive.

‘My girl patients pretended to be madly jealous and wanted to know what you wore and what you ate. All the paralysed lads called me “Sir James” all week. They all love you. Me too!!’

The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile’s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name.

There is no record of Mrs Thatcher’s reply, but a later memo to her from her personal secretary asks in a worried tone whether she has agreed to appear on Jim’ll Fix It.

In the message dated March 9, 1981, after the DJ had lunch with Mrs Thatcher at Chequers, Caroline Stephens wrote: ‘Can you kindly let me know if you made any promises to Jimmy Savile when he lunched with you yesterday, for instance:

‘(i) Did you offer him any money for Stoke Mandeville?

‘(ii) Did you tell him that you would appear on Jim’ll Fix It?’

In felt pen, Mrs Thatcher replies to the first saying: ‘Will tell you in detail. MT.’ To the second, she simply writes: ‘No.’

Censored: The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11

Pariah: Savile was invited to lunches at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher who also oversaw his knighthood

Praised during his life for his charity work, especially at Stoke Mandeville, Savile has now been unmasked as a serial child abuser. More than 450 people have made allegations of abuse by the DJ, who died last year aged 84.

The papers released by the National Archive today include an entire Savile file devoted to his correspondence with Mrs Thatcher and her aides about his charity work and pleas for Government money for his projects.

There are also a number of redactions made in October – other files released today were edited much earlier in the year.

In the 1981 section of the file, there are discussions about Savile’s suggestion of a Government contribution to Stoke Mandeville during a meeting with Mrs Thatcher.

No 10 private secretary Mike Pattison wrote: ‘The Prime Minister said was he thinking of a million pounds and Mr Savile replied that they would be grateful for any sum.’

In December 1981, the Government announced that it would give £500,000 to the Stoke Mandeville Appeal.

MOST READ NEWS

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html#ixzz2Rz5ZqdaF Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebookjohncheverly 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Louis Theroux???
Why has Louis Theroux's Documentary on Savile been been omitted??? http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture/2012/10/when-louis-asked-jimmy-about-being-paedophile The culture of silence around the apparently widely known allegations that Jimmy Savile abused children who appeared on Jim'll Fix It in the 1970s was strong, but not impermeable. One of the few people to break it - even slightly - was broadcaster Louis Theroux, who had the following conversation with Savile in When Louis Met Jimmy, which aired in April 2000:

Voiceover: We were nearing the end of our time together, and as we headed back to Leeds, it was clear that Jimmy was pleased about the press coverage of his broken ankle.

But it struck me that his relationship with the press hasn't always been a happy one.

Louis: So, why do you say in interviews that you hate children when I've seen you with kids and you clearly enjoy their company and you have a good rapport with them?

Jimmy: Right, obviously I don't hate 'em. That's number one.

Louis: Yeah. So why would you say that then?

Jimmy: Because we live in a very funny world. And it's easier for me, as a single man, to say "I don't like children" because that puts a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt.

Louis: Are you basically saying that so tabloids don't, you know, pursue this whole 'Is he/isn't he a paedophile?' line, basically?

Jimmy: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, aye. How do they know whether I am or not? How does anybody know whether I am? Nobody knows whether I am or not. I know I'm not, so I can tell you from experience that the easy way of doing it when they're saying "Oh, you have all them children on Jim'll Fix It", say "Yeah, I hate 'em."

Louis: Yeah. To me that sounds more, sort of, suspicious in a way though, because it seems so implausible.

Jimmy: Well, that's my policy, that's the way it goes. That's what I do. And it's worked a dream.

Pause

Louis: Has it worked?

Jimmy: A dream.

Pause

Louis: Why have you said in interviews that you don't have emotions?

Jimmy: Because it's easier. It's easier. You say you've emotions then you've got to explain 'em for two hours.

Jimmy: The truth is I'm very good at masking them.

Also, why has the following Doc Disappeared off YouTube???

.1 "When Louis Met...Jimmy" 13 April 2000 Louis visits his childhood hero – 73-year-old Sir Jimmy Savile OBE, the TV and radio personality, at his homes in Leeds, Scarborough and Glencoejohncheverly 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (a) if you have a good source, you could add it, with a quote.
 * (b) probably because the poster got fed up with it, or because it breached copyright, or possibly both. Who knows.
 * .. but then, I'm not David Icke. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does User:Johncheverly think it's been omitted? It's right there, in the second paragraph of "Background", and always has been.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks for setting me straight.  But in the six months since the Savile Scandal erupted, I notice a lot of "pro" Jimmy Savile interviews and docs have disappeared off of Youtube.  For instance the BBC did a very complimentary obituary/memoir of Savile at the end of 2011.  In it the singer Lulu said she met Jimmy Savile for the first time when she was 15 and that she loved him.  Former "Pan's People" dancer Dee Dee Wilde also was interviewed and she was gushing in her appreciation of him.  I guess I am at a loss as to why so many people --including the late Margaret Thatcher-- spoke so well of Jimmy Savile while he was alive and why he has been so badly contemned since his death when NO charges were ever made against him???johncheverly 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What did Margaret Thatcher actually say about Savile? And when? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we need to remind ourselves that this page is about improving the article, based on reliable sources - not a forum for speculating on what might have happened, or why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if there had been anything notable to link Thatcher with Savile, even a single documented comment, it would probably have surfaced by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your wish=my command: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html

Censored, Savile's private letters to Mrs Thatcher: Files edited two months ago... AFTER child abuse claims surfaced

Letter from Jimmy Savile to former PM released under 30-year rule Declares his love for her in gushing 1980 note written following a lunch Also refers to his 'girl patients' and says 'they all love you' But other correspondence between the two has been censored Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher By CLAIRE ELLICOTT

PUBLISHED: 19:04 EST, 27 December 2012 | UPDATED: 04:13 EST, 28 December 2012

Comments (264) Share A letter thought to mark the beginning of the warm relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile has been made public for the first time.

But other correspondence between the pair has been censored, raising questions over what it contains.

The Top Of The Pops presenter sent an adoring letter to the then prime minister in 1980, singing her praises and declaring his love for her. Warm relationship: The letter is thought to mark the beginning of a close friendship between Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher. But further correspondence between the pair has been censored because it is 'personal' or 'confidential'

Correspondence: A handwritten letter from Jimmy Savile in which he declared his 'love' for Margaret Thatcher after being invited to lunch with her was released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule

She responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood.

The letter, part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew today, reveals how well connected to the establishment he was.

But parts of some exchanges between Savile and Mrs Thatcher were censored in October this year – eight days after claims that he had sexually abused people surfaced in an ITV documentary.

The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11.

More...

Maggie's war with treacherous Mitterrand over Exocet missile: Archive files reveal relationship with France was stretched to breaking point British government considered pulling out of 1982 World Cup as Falklands war broke out, archive files reveal Thatcher's £1,800 bill over missing Mark: PM paid for rescue operation (and bar tab) after son got lost during Paris-Dakar rally How US nearly betrayed us to the enemy: Secretary of State threatened to tell Argentina British troops were landing on South Georgia New children's TV station to counter 'mindless' shows: Mrs Thatcher considered new channel in wake of riots across the country Archived files show Soviet Union used civil airliners to conduct secret Cold War spying missions over Britain

The information is exempt because it is ‘personal’ or ‘confidential’. But the timing raises the question of whether the information was redacted in light of the negative headlines.

Correspondence remaining in the file includes the gushing letter Savile sent to Mrs Thatcher after a lunch meeting to discuss funding for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. In it, he also hints at becoming a knight, something arranged during Mrs Thatcher’s tenure and awarded in the New Year’s Honours in 1990, a month after she left office.

Close: The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile¿s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name

The letter reads: ‘I waited a week before writing to thank you for my lunch invitation because I had such a superb time I didn’t want to be too effusive.

‘My girl patients pretended to be madly jealous and wanted to know what you wore and what you ate. All the paralysed lads called me “Sir James” all week. They all love you. Me too!!’

The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile’s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name.

There is no record of Mrs Thatcher’s reply, but a later memo to her from her personal secretary asks in a worried tone whether she has agreed to appear on Jim’ll Fix It.

In the message dated March 9, 1981, after the DJ had lunch with Mrs Thatcher at Chequers, Caroline Stephens wrote: ‘Can you kindly let me know if you made any promises to Jimmy Savile when he lunched with you yesterday, for instance:

‘(i) Did you offer him any money for Stoke Mandeville?

‘(ii) Did you tell him that you would appear on Jim’ll Fix It?’

In felt pen, Mrs Thatcher replies to the first saying: ‘Will tell you in detail. MT.’ To the second, she simply writes: ‘No.’

Censored: The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11

Pariah: Savile was invited to lunches at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher who also oversaw his knighthood

Praised during his life for his charity work, especially at Stoke Mandeville, Savile has now been unmasked as a serial child abuser. More than 450 people have made allegations of abuse by the DJ, who died last year aged 84.

The papers released by the National Archive today include an entire Savile file devoted to his correspondence with Mrs Thatcher and her aides about his charity work and pleas for Government money for his projects.

There are also a number of redactions made in October – other files released today were edited much earlier in the year.

In the 1981 section of the file, there are discussions about Savile’s suggestion of a Government contribution to Stoke Mandeville during a meeting with Mrs Thatcher.

No 10 private secretary Mike Pattison wrote: ‘The Prime Minister said was he thinking of a million pounds and Mr Savile replied that they would be grateful for any sum.’

In December 1981, the Government announced that it would give £500,000 to the Stoke Mandeville Appeal.

MOST READ NEWS

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html#ixzz2Rz5ZqdaF Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC) johncheverly 21:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think the significance of all that might be, it seems irrelevant to improving the content of the article. All this correspondence was discussed before Thatcher's death, and is mentioned under "Public image and friendships" in his biography article.  What changes do you think should be made to the article?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it.

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.johncheverly 04:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Gambaccini???
Please listen to this nearly 12 minute interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 IMHO, sounds like a bunch of insinuendo, rumors, and outright sourgrapes.johncheverly 20:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gambaccini came across as very sincere in the Panorama documentary. I find his commentary in that Nicky Campbell interview wholly sincere, balanced and convincing. News International gets quite a drubbing. I think most people would forgive Gambaccini for his subdued outrage the day after the Panorama broadcast. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have listened to the radio interview linked above, GAMBACCINNI ADMITS HE RARELY EVER SAW SIR JIMMY SAVILE, HE HAS NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF SAVILE, NEVER REPORTED ANYTHING TO THE POLICE ABOUT SAVILE. IT'S A BIG BUNCH OF NOTHING FROM A GUY THAT JUST WANTED TO HAVE HIS NAME SAID ON THE RADIO.johncheverly 22:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * His office was next to Savile's. He knew the canteen gossip as well as any other Radio One DJ. I'm not sure he is claiming any special knowledge. He seems to be sincerely describing the atmosphere and circumstances surrounding Savile at the time he worked there. I'm personally surprised that he got involved, I can't see he's had anything to gain by doing so. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DUDE!!!He's cited as a source in the article and the motherfucker has a whole big bunch of nothin'.johncheverly 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my point that no one seems to be getting on any of this: DOES ANYONE DESERVE TO BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME OR HAVE HIS NAME BESMIRCHED LIKE SIR JIMMY SAVJLE OBE??? DID WIKIPEDIA TREAT SAVILE'S CONTEMPORARY, JOE PATERNO, THE SAME WAY???johncheverly 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that Savile is dead and he left no heirs. He has no one to speak in his defense such Lord McAlpine and Joe Paterno did.  My whole thing is that there have been many systemic failures in England: with the media and the police especially.  I wonder if the Commons will form a select committee, hold special hearings, and issue a report such as it did with "The News of the World" phone hacking scandal, which led to that paper being completely shut down in its wake???johncheverly 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea. You've been blocked before for ignoring talk page guidelines.  How soon do you want it to happen again?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias. Expert Opinions Needed.
Has this article been vetted by a licensed/certified solicitor or barrister in the UK for opinions as to what right a dead person has in the UK with regard to his reputation and protection against potentially defamatory conduct vis a vis Constitutional Common Law in England???

Please reference the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_McAlpine#False_allegations_of_child_abuse

specifically

6.1 False allegations of child abuse [edit]

In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal, after the BBC Newsnight TV programme accused an unnamed "senior Conservative" of abuse.[41] McAlpine was widely rumoured on Twitter and other social media to be the person in question.[41] After The Guardian reported that the accusations were the result of mistaken identity,[42] McAlpine issued a strong denial that he was in any way involved.[43] The accuser, a former care home resident, unreservedly apologised after seeing a photograph of McAlpine and realising that he had been mistaken.[44] The BBC also apologised.[44] The decision to broadcast theNewsnight report without contacting McAlpine first led to further criticism of the BBC, and to the resignation of its Director-General,George Entwistle.[45] The BBC subsequently paid McAlpine £185,000 in damages plus costs.[46] He also won £125,000 in damages plus costs from ITV following a November 2012 edition of This Morning which linked Conservative politicians to allegations of child sex abuse.[47][48] McAlpine is to pursue twenty "high profile" tweeters who had reported or alluded to the rumours.[49] In February 2013, he dropped the defamation claims against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers in return for a £25 donation to Children in Need.[50] In March 2013, McAlpine's representatives reached an agreement with writer George Monbiot, who had tweeted on the case and had at that time more than 55,000 followers on Twitter, for the latter to carry out work on behalf of three charities of his choice whose value amounts to £25,000 as compensation.[51] for direction.

Also, how does it compare with the way the late Penn State Head Football Coach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Paterno was treated in the Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_sex_abuse_scandal

An Expert, Neutral Legal Opinion is needed on article Jimmy Savile Sex Abuse Scandal. Thanks.johncheverly 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't copy and paste large chunks of articles from other websites, or other wikipedia articles, here, as it's almost impossible to read/ understand. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ONCE AGAIN, Here's my point that no one seems to be getting on any of this: DOES ANYONE DESERVE TO BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME OR HAVE HIS NAME BESMIRCHED LIKE SIR JIMMY SAVJLE OBE??? DID WIKIPEDIA TREAT SAVILE'S CONTEMPORARY, JOE PATERNO, THE SAME WAY???jjohncheverly 23:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dead people don't have legal rights. They are dead. As for the rest, we don't engage lawyers to check over article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well do live people??? Savile never had any charges preferred on him. I have read the article. And I do question the neutrality, just the same way I question the whole way the English media has handled the Savile affair, as I would call it. For 50 years the English media delighted in the guy. Four women make unsubstantiated allegations against him in a documentary a year after his death and suddenly he's the devil himself. When I start pointing out media that is favorable to Savile such as a woman's claim that she had a 40 year off and on relationship with him and refuting the paedophile claims http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg I am told that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, even after the article uses a Daily Mail source in an attempt to accuse Savile of paedophllia through speculation and hearsay. Also, the article does not use BBC and other news reports that exonerate Savile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets. That particular video features an Assistant Chief Constable on the West Yorkshire Police force stating that it does not have any evidence nor reports against Savile, let alone any criminal charges against him.

I think this is a witch hunt. All it is is a bunch of posthumous he said/she said stuff.

Compare the Savile Article against the Joe Paterno and Penn State Child Sex Abuse Articles and there is no comparison. Wikipedia is like the English Court of Public Opinion, out for a witch hunt that the facts do not substantiate.johncheverly 02:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NOTFORUM. If you persist in repeatedly spamming the same material across multiple talk pages, I will report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dude. Whatcha gonna do about the same biased bullshit across a bunch of pages.  I don't assume good faith on your part.johncheverly 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you assume. Wikipedia isn't here to provide you with a soapbox. If you wish to complain about the behaviour of the media, do it somewhere else. Meanwhile, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we report what sources we consider reliable on the subject say, regardless of your opinions on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is never a good idea to go around accusing other Wikipedians of bias. Jimmy Savile's reputation in the UK is ruined, deal with it. Obviously he cannot be put on trial or sue for libel when he is dead, but the evidence that he had an unsavoury sex life is considerable. The article looks at what reliable sources have said, and this has received huge coverage in the UK media.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is worth pointing out that the biggest single source for the material in this article is BBC News, along with broadsheet newspapers. Care has been taken to point out that these are allegations made after Savile's death, and that they remain unproven in the strict legal sense. Slapping a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article makes little sense if it is merely to point out that Savile is dead and cannot be charged or sue for libel. This should be clear to any intelligent reader.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, How did Sir Jimmy Savile OBE get away with 450 cases to 1,350 cases of child sexual abuse over his lifetime? Will an extensive report on appalling police incompetency be in the UK be forthcoming and cogently summarized in Wikipedia?  Is the English conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that a vast paedophile network that reaches into the Royal Family been operating for years???johncheverly 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal in the article, there have already been several investigations into why he was never prosecuted during his lifetime. As for David Icke, he did not fearlessly expose Savile while he was alive, and might be taken more seriously if he did not make very silly allegations involving reptiles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

West Yorkshire Police Had NO reports or any investigations against Savile.
West Yorkshire Police, covering Savile's hometown of Leeds, has NO records of any kind against Jimmy Savile, except for a report made by Savile of losing his eyeglasses in 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Why isn't this kind of info included in a biased article???johncheverly 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So, um, no news is bad news? And so that's makes the article biased, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please point to me any news articles reporting that there was ever ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST JIMMY SAVILE WHILE HE WAS ALIVE??? But I won't wait until hell freezes over.  My whole point is that this Jimmy Savile stuff is as nutty as David Icke's website.johncheverly 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion - reliable sources point in a different direction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you think wikipedia is part of "who and what is really controlling the world"? Our own giant lizard would be pleased, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you view the abovelinked BBC report??? An Assistant Chief Constable for the West Yorkshire Police reports it had NO EVIDENCE AGAINST Sir Jimmy Svaile OBE.  Are those statements included???  Is there anywhere in this article that there NEVER a criminal charge against Jimmy Savile and that all the MEDIA HYPE IS UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION???johncheverly 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite disgusting. The police ought to have the decency to invent some, I say. Can't see past their own noses. Especially with those rose-tinted hippy things! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That clip is coyly entitled "SAVILE'S PAEDO CRIME REPORTS WERE DESTROYED BY WEST YORKS MASONIC COPS". I'm not sure that BBC Look North were actually trying to make such a claim? Or is this yet another conspiratorial cover-up? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the tabloid style description at YouTube, the subject of that BBC Look North piece might be worthy of mention, although even there it seems a little sensationalist. By the way, that YouTube channel belongs to something called the "International Mens Organisation" which seems to be interested in exposing various "mafia" conspiracies all over the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder - we can't cite most material hosted on YouTube for copyright reasons. If we are to cite the BBC piece, we will have to find another source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although based on the report by HMIC (which, one assumes, is in the public domain) it's a somewhat confusing piece that combines a few separate threads: (a) Savile had weekly "coffee mornings" with WYP officers in his Leeds flat (b) no-one (apparently) ever made any complaints about Savile directly to WYP (c) an anonymous letter accusing Savile of stalking in Roundhay Park was never acted upon (how could it have been?) (d) information from the Met was passed to WYP but was never acted upon and/or was lost, oh... and (e) Savile had once reported to WYP that he had lost his spectacles. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The full HMIC report is here in PDF form. It is contritely titled "Mistakes were made", mainly because police failed to correlate evidence over a long period of time. There is no smoking gun evidence of a cover-up in the report.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do editors think it worthy of mention in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary of "Giving Victims a Voice" in lead misrepresents the report
It currently says "The report of the investigations undertaken jointly by the police and the NSPCC, Giving Victims a Voice, was published on 11 January 2013. It reported (but did not attempt to prove) allegations covering a period of fifty years, including 214 alleged crimes by Savile, some involving children as young as eight, and including 34 claims of rape or penetration. Offences allegedly took place at 13 hospitals as well as on BBC premises." This is not what the report says. Page 4 says "On the whole victims are not known to each-other and taken together their accounts paint a compelling picture of widespread sexual abuse by a predatory sex offender.We are therefore referring to them as 'victims' rather than 'complainants' and are not presenting the evidence (bolding added) they have provided as unproven allegations", so saying that it did not "attempt to prove" "allegations" is exactly wrong. Also the report says"to date 214 formal crimes have been recorded across 28 force areas in which Savile is a suspect"(page 11) and "Within the recorded crimes there are 126 indecent acts and 34 rape / penetration offences" (page 12). Not alleged crimes any more, formal, recorded crimes, and it does not say "claims" of rape either, it says "rape / penetration offences". Also it does not say "Offences allegedly took place at 13 hospitals", it says "List of hospitals and hospices where Jimmy Savile is reported to have offended (recorded crimes)." So I am changing that to (Giving Victims a Voice) "reported evidence covering a period of fifty years, including 214 acts formally recorded as crimes by Savile, some involving children as young as eight, and including 34 cases of rape or penetration. Offences took place at 13 hospitals as well as on BBC premises." Some may not like what the report says or the conclusions it draws, but it should not be misrepresented in that way.Smeat75 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the BBC report used as reference for those sentences says "Police and the NSPCC outlined offences by the late presenter at venues including 13 hospitals and a hospice.Some 214 crimes were recorded across 28 police force areas, including 34 of rape or penetration, the report said" [], it does not say "alleged crimes", "claims" of rape or that offences "allegedly" took place at 13 hospitals.Smeat75 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From page 23 of Giving Victims a Voice: "Hundreds of people have now given accounts of being abused by him and police have taken the unusual step of presenting their uncorroborated accounts, when taken together, as compelling evidence (italics added) of similar facts."Smeat75 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what police/NSPCC say, but that is only their POV, it does not make it fact. Don't forget that NSPCC is a campaigning body with its own non-neutral POV in these matters. Note the report itself says "uncorroborated accounts". The subheading of the report is "Joint report into sexual allegations made against Jimmy Savile (italics added), so we ought to call them "alleged" crimes. At para 1.9 the report admits that the police have not even interviewed all the "victims who have come forward". So we do need to emphasise that these supposed facts are merely uncorroborated allegations which, as Charles Moore points out in his Telegraph article, would not have stood up in a court of law even if Savile had been alive to stand trial. -- Alarics (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it is WP editors' place to decide that a report is from a biased source,you need to find a source that says that not just state it as a fact, and "just because the police say something that doesn't make it true" applies with equal force (at least) to Charles Moore. However, as the paragraph stands now I only have a major problem with one thing, and that is "34 claims of rape or penetration". The report does not use the word "claims". I hope it is OK to change " It reported allegations covering a period of fifty years, including 214 alleged acts by Savile which, though uncorroborated, have been formally recorded as crimes, some involving children as young as eight, and including 34 claims of rape or penetration." to It reported allegations covering a period of fifty years, including 214 alleged acts by Savile which, though uncorroborated, have been formally recorded as crimes, some involving children as young as eight."Within the recorded crimes there are 126 indecent acts and 34 rape / penetration offences.", in quotes, which are the actual words of the report, page 5.Smeat75 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

West Yorkshire Police Report
So the info was added in a new subsection - "On 10 May 2013, West Yorkshire Police published a report into the relationship of the force with Savile. It concluded that he had not been protected from arrest or prosecution, but that there had been an "over reliance on personal friendships" between Savile and some officers" - yes it does say that, as the link [] shows, and as the same link also says "West Yorkshire Police (WYP) said there were "currently 76 crimes involving 68 victims committed in the West Yorkshire area relating to Savile", but claimed none of these were reported to the force before his death.The youngest of these victims was five years old at the time and eight others were aged nine or under." I do not see why this should not also be included in the article. It does not mean we are saying it is true, we are reporting what the BBC says the report says.Smeat75 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Savile's Glen Coe cottage goes on sale
This is in the news today. It looks like attempts to demolish the cottage have been dropped.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is here on the estate agent's website, minus any mention of Savile. This cottage was in the Louis Theroux documentary, in the part where Savile broke his ankle and had to go to hospital.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The auction is today. Perhaps the article should mention that some people wanted the cottage to be demolished.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also on the BBC. I don't think a mention that "some" people wanted it demolished needs to be repeated here.  Who were "some"?  The Sun?  Some random bloke in a pub?  No evidence of any notable campaign to that effect.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Highland councillor Andrew Baxter said the local community might want the cottage to be pulled down." -, although it doesn't say if he was in the pub at the time, nor which newspaper he reads. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Back in January 2013, the broadsheet Herald reported that "many locals" wanted the cottage demolished. This was rejected by mountaineering expert Cameron McNeish, who commented "The idea that you should just pull down anything that is tainted by Savile is a strange attitude. It's almost like a Middle Ages thing, this hysteria that breaks out when something like this happens." The phrase "many locals" is somewhat WP:WEASEL, but there is reliable reporting of a local desire to demolish the cottage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to wait until after the auction before updating, but I've no objection if someone wants to refer to the Herald article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprising that more people, including locals, don't want it sold for the highest price possible, in view of the mounting claims against the Savile estate? I think most people would agree that Savile chose much less secluded locations for most of his abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed_Gein came to mind here. The locals probably burned down Gein's Wisconsin farmhouse in March 1958 because they were worried that it would become a ghoulish tourist attraction. Police from Operation Yewtree said that none of Savile's offences related to the cottage in Glen Coe.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is similar. I also think that while the Herald article is usable, it is likely to be eclipsed by news of the auction result. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Theroux
So let me get this right.

" In 2012, Barry expressed surprise that other journalists had not pursued the matter, saying "Maybe in the UK they were slightly closer to him."16

Is relevant. (though btw, THAT POINT/QUOTE IS NOT ACTUALLY IN THE SOURCE HAVE ANY OF YOU REVERTERS EVER CHECKED??)

But a sourced point that directly responds to it, 4 people in cahoots are now reverting as irrelevant/offtopic?? "Theroux himself had narrated at the end of his disturbing documentary that "To my surprise, I was sorry to say goodbye. I had a newfound respect for Jimmy and although I still didn't feel that close to him, I thought that probably made me no different to anyone else in his life."IMDB quotes from 'When Louis met...Jimmy 2000 Sighola (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It has issues with relevance, it does not really need to be in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are just repeating the same unexplained line as 4 others. Sighola (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Barry quote is in the source: there is a 'read more' tab at the bottom. And if multiple people suggest that your addition seems to lack relevance, it would seem that the onus is on you to explain why they are incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry I missed that little 'more' tab at the end of the article. But I don't agree about where the onus is - that Theroux endorsed Savile at the end of his documentary, and said the issue was lack of closeness not too much closeness, is prima facie relevant to the preceding several sentenecs about his documentary and why more questions weren't asked about it. p.s. you seem to have just changed 'he responded "What rumours?"' to 'she responded' in the article - wrongly as it's referring to Saviles response not Barry the interviewer. Sighola (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops! Right you are - I've corrected my error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see so the onus is alleged to be on the adder to explain, but when they do you ignore it - nice Wiki. Meanwhile you've followed me to an article I've created & caused it to be nominated for deletion - nice (btw on a sexual abuse victim & one of longest detained psychiatric patients in the UK who was in Broadmoor under Savile). Sighola (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern was not so much with relevance as with notability. One might argue that the entire interview was "relevant". But Theroux is just one popular interviewer with a reputaton for tackling odd individuals - do people still see the personal conclusion he came to at the end of his programme as "notable"? or even reliable? - I'm sure Theroux is occasionally accused of being deliberately provocative or "edgy". I was also concernd that what seened to be a long-established consensus was being changed without adequate discussion, but by edit-summary tit-for-tat contradictions. I've not ignored anything you have said, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't. Violating some unknown consensus by adding a related sentence seems a bit melodramatic & statist. Again it seems like your points apply just as much to the preceding sentence - an irish journalist speculating without evidence in one little quote that perhaps people didn't investigate the documentary revelations in the UK as they were too close to Savile? Fact that famous tv presenter ended the documentary by seeming to endorse Savile (but saying no one close to him). Sighola (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I violate something? Sorry. But it now sounds like a case of "two wrongs don't make a right"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to include the text referring to the Orla Berry interview was discussed here last year. The consensus at that time seemed to be to leave it in, but I've no objection to the removal of the whole paragraph.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

relevant??
Possible links to Jimmy Savile[edit] Jonathan King once claimed veteran TV presenter Jimmy Savile as one of his closest friends - they have known each other for 25 years. Savile once said of him: "He's a sabra. A sabra is an Israeli fruit that's prickly on the outside and all soft and lovely inside. That's Jonathan King." A year after Saviles death, hundreds of allegations of child sex abuse and rape became public, leading the police to believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender, and may have been one of Britain's most prolific sexual offenders.[50] as bothe were sex offenders, celebrities, and friends, is this link relevant to the article?(Dave006 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC))
 * No. There are millions of words written about Savile - what King thought of him, or what Savile thought of King, is not important.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did he mean this sabra - it seems to be Mexican, not Israeli? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Savile is not a reliable source on the origins of domestic fruit, eh? Shall we add that to his article as well?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd give the King fruit quite a wide berth here also. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination for Giving Victims a Voice
I thought it might be useful to inform editors that a GA nomination is currently underway for, in case anyone feels inclined to contribute to its improvement. In particular, I expect to introduce some new content soon. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hospital findings
The findings of all the enquiries into Savile's behaviour in hospitals are indexed at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-and-department-of-health-investigations-into-jimmy-savile

I'll let someone who better understands reference formatting add a link in an appropriate place.

The conclusions of some of the individual reports may also be worth quoting from, rather than just quoting press comment on the reports. 2.28.60.253 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added it as an external link.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Connew
Re this edit: the previous version was loaded with POV language. Neglect implies that Paul Connew failed to do his job properly. This was in 1994, when Jimmy Savile still had his "national treasure" halo intact. Lawyers unsurprisingly advised against publication, and he took the advice. The parts about English libel law being worse than in other countries are off topic commentary. The stuff about Charles and Diana sourced to Fox News is speculative junk. The part about whether Savile would have hired George Carman is also speculative and unnecessary. Connew describes himself as "frustrated and somewhat guilty" that he did not publish the story in 1994, but that was then and this is now.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach and the new wording. To clarify (as the history may be confusing) - the material was added in these edits, not by me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I saw that it wasn't added by you. The editor concerned acted in good faith but got a bit carried away with the POV. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the decision not to publish this story in 1994 was a mistake. To put this in context, Sunday tabloid newspaper editors are approached with similar claims every week, and would have to consider the likely legal consequences of publication. The pity is that if Savile had sued the Sunday Mirror for libel, his position would have been far weaker than he liked to think it was. Numerous people might have come forward and made similar allegations about his behaviour. The Paul Connew non-publication in 1994 can be seen as one of the luckiest let-offs of Savile's career.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The nature of English libel law is absolutely relevant. If this was the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc, Savile would have had no case as he would have needed to show Connew's allegations as false, and the article would have run. So, the nature of English libel law at least deserve a mention, or link the word "libel" to the more specific target of English libel law, not mere libel. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the sourcing in the reverted edit makes comparisons between English libel law and the laws of other countries. Paul Connew did his best within the information in front of him at the time, it but would have been risky to take the case to court in 1994. If the women did not want to be named, it would have significantly weakened his case. English libel law can be controversial at times, and it has been modified since BCA v. Singh. However, I think that a mention of the pros and cons of the libel laws of different countries is beyond the scope of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken - but how about at least a link? Ego White Tray (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is some more detail here which has been added to the article. In 2013 Connew admitted that the cost of losing a libel action would have been prohibitive, and that he was worried that a jury would have been "starstruck" by Savile. The women were once at Duncroft approved school, which was at the centre of the 2012 ITV documentary. Savile would no doubt have played the "you can't trust them kids because they're wrong'uns from borstal" card in court, and in those days, when he was Saint Jimmy to many people, he might have been believed by a jury. How times change.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

John Lydon
Re this edit: John Lydon did say in an October 1978 radio interview "I'd like to kill Jimmy Savile. I think he's a hypocrite. I bet he's into all kinds of seediness that we all know about, but are not allowed to talk about. I know some rumours". The full interview is on YouTube here. This was never broadcast at the time and came to light in 2013. This is mentioned in Jimmy Savile, but all it proves is that Lydon, like many people in the 1970s, had heard stories about Savile.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Hibiscus report
This is in the news today.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of dubiously sourced claims
I am just looking at the revert done by User:Ghmyrtle. It removes the following claims:


 * 1) that Savile's body would be exhumed in January of this year
 * 2) that the wax work of Savile had been removed from Madame Tussaud's in London and melted down
 * 3) that an episode of TOTP2 accidentally used a clip of Savile
 * 4) that episodes of Only Fools and Horses had been recut to remove Savile in repeats
 * 5) that Doctor Who DVDs had been withdrawn from sale until Savile's presence had been removed

Let's go through these one by one.

The sourcing for (1) seems rather dubious: those highly reliable organs, the Daily Star and Daily Express are the top results on Google, followed by local press who are probably just following the lead of the national tabloids. The articles seem only to suggest that there are plans for it to happen, not that it actually has happened. This seems to speculative to include.

As for (2), anorak.co.uk is not a WP:RS but there is a brief mention in the Evening Standard, which I think is probably good enough.

Regarding (3), I'm okay with using the New Musical Express as a source. It's also backed up by an article in the Daily Mail and an article on Ariel, the BBC's internal-facing news website. This seems pretty solidly sourced.

I can't find any good sourcing for (4).

As for (5), Doctor Who News may not be an ideal source, although it is used on 388 pages on en.wp. I don't have access to the full article, but The Times confirms the basic details: that A Fix with Sontarans was removed from the recut DVD.

If there aren't any objections, I'll restore claims 2, 3 and 5 since there seems to be good sourcing for those. If anyone can find sources for 1 and 4, that'd be helpful. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very thorough and quick - thanks. But, we surely don't need to add to this article every mention of a reference to Savile being excised from TV shows. Just because it's been reported somewhere (especially but not only if it's only been reported in a blog, or an unreliable tabloid), it doesn't mean that we should report it here, in an encyclopedia.   Essentially, it's trivia.  If a decision is taken and reported in reliable sources to exhume and cremate his remains, we should report that.  But until then I stick by my decision to remove all of that additional material, and don't see a need for it to be re-inserted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Re (2): I'm not sure of the expected shelf-life of ex-DJ TV/ charity personalities, but I'd be surprised to see Sa-vile at Madam Tusauds, even if everyone still thought he was a saint. Or is it the melting down bit that makes it special? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with leaving (1) out. Even the Star story eventually admits that no-one's agreed to pay £20k for the exhumation and cremation, and it seems the council know of no such plans.
 * For the rest, I do sympathise with Ghmyrtle. This section is in danger of becoming a repetitive list of incidents and these latest ones probably won't be the last, given how often he appeared. Should we instead amalgamate many of them, along the lines of (very clumsily and hastily phrased) "Reports have continued to appear of accidental rebroadcasts of material showing Savile and of the removal of images and recordings of him" followed by a string of references, to which any fresh ones could be added? NebY (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (4) also appears in Sickness and Wealth, added in 2013 and unsourced. I've tagged the section as unreferenced. NebY (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 is a tabloid story and based on something that happened in 2012. There is no immediate likelihood of Savile being exhumed.
 * 2 the waxwork story is also misleading and has been discussed previously. It may have been removed before the controversy simply because it was no longer needed on display.
 * 3 the TOTP2 story is true, but not very notable per WP:10YT, as are 4 and 5.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. I really don't think the article gains anything from the inclusion of any of these. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the TOTP2 item is trivial in the extreme, just an editorial mistake by the Beeb and certainly not worth mentioning in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath
We now have a section "Aftermath" which deals solely with the repercussions on four BBC employees of their involvement in reporting Savile's abuse. The aftermath of the scandal has been much greater than that and affected many more people, for better or worse, and is still continuing; a great deal of this article could come under that heading. Instead, this short paragraph would sit better in the Journalism section and I'll move it there now. I don't think it needs its own subsection there, but if it did I'd suggest "Repercussions" rather than "Aftermath".

It's less clear whether all four employees should be mentioned in this way. The implication is that all the career moves described have been for the worse and are because of their involvement in breaking the story. From the material presented here, I can't tell whether that's accurate in all four cases or whether there's a degree of WP:SYNTH or innuendo here. Any thoughts on what we should include and how? NebY (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More media coverage
Savile is on the front page of The Sun today, story here. Meanwhile, John Lydon's claims about Savile have resurfaced here. I don't think that either of these stories is worth mentioning in the article, but they show the media's ongoing fascination with all things related to Savile.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Leaked Smith report
There is a good deal of media coverage this morning of a leaked draft of Dame Janet Smith's report. The report is said to be an early draft over a year old and the BBC has declined to comment on it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Streets should not be named after local heroes in case they are later found to be paedophiles, councils told"
This is in the news today. There was once a Savile's View in Scarborough but it has been removed as part of the process of damnatio memoriae. Things have now gone a stage further and councils are discouraged from naming streets after anyone in case sexual abuse allegations are subsequently made against them. Strange times we live in. I'm not sure if this is suitable for the article, what do others think?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not here - it's only indirectly related, and only one organisation's advice which can be ignored - but maybe it could be worth a brief mention at Street or road name (which could probably use a specifically UK section).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Lowel Goddard resignation
Should the resignations of all the previous inquiry chairmen be included in the article or just some of them? Amisom (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC) This issue has been resolved at WP:RSN. RfC tag removed.  General Ization  Talk   19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Include all of them including Lowel Goddard. No brainer. Butler-Sloss' resignation is listed. Woolf's resignation is listed. Why would we not list Lowel Goddard's? But for some reason thinks he should keep removing true information from Wikipedia in breach of WP:PRESERVE and the editing policy we have here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=788816285&oldid=788815925 Amisom (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The material is being removed not because I question its relevance, but because it has been repeatedly added without the inline citation of a reliable source. Continue and you will be headed to WP:AN3.  General Ization  Talk   17:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave you the source! Why don't you fix it ("Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself") instead of being a pain and a WP:DICK about it? Amisom (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As previously explained to you both by myself and by, it is your responsibility to include an inline citation when you introduce content, especially controversial content, to an article. As I also already explained (on your Talk page), "While the "try to fix problems" guidance you linked to is appropriate when encountering unsourced edits by someone who may not know better, you do or you should. Please do not expect other editors to fulfill your obligations for you, especially since your rights here suggest that you are familiar with and are tasked to uphold our editing policies." If you continue to fail to get the point, you may call into question the wisdom of your having been granted those rights.  General Ization   Talk   17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself". That's what a policy says. It's not optional on you. Do you honestly think you're complying with the policy? Answer is either 'yes' or "no' and I think we both know what it is. Amisom (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Savile in Gimme Gimme Gimme
There were already cynical jokes about Savile's abuse of girls in the 2000 BBC comedy series Gimme Gimme Gimme (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtTuHC_iZDA). Worth a mention?  Y intan  13:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327055327/http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data/files/resources/51/Just-the-Women-Nov-2012.pdf to http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data/files/resources/51/Just-the-Women-Nov-2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Checked the link, it works.  Y intan  13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Louis Theroux interview
This is on Sky News today. At the Edinburgh TV Festival, Theroux talks about whether his famous 2000 television documentary let Savile off the hook. Theroux also discussed this on Desert Island Discs in May 2019.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)