Jimmy Savile Was A Loner Looking For Love. It’s Clear As Day, Ain’t It?

Ben Delicious writes from London: Personally, I go along with the perfectly sound version of the Jimmy Savile drama explained to us by the BBC: that he was a misunderstood loner looking for love and affection, sometimes on the premises of the Corporation, while its 40,000 odd staff – who had a soft spot for him – overlooked some of his mischiefs. It’s clear as day, ain’t it?

It’s all quite simple really: Jimmy was a star, a man with a big heart which was not always in the right place. And from time to time he fancied a leg-over with some 14-year-old hottie who was asking for it basically. Was it any wonder that the staff at the BBC kept quiet about Jimmy’s romantic adventures, out of respect for his talent and charity work? No wonder at all.

And I also believe that consecutive director generals of the BBC knew absolutely nothing of Jimmy’s deeply personal hobbies. And why should we not believe them? Mark Thompson, who has just left the BBC to work as chief exec of that impartial organ of print, the New York Times, said recently that he’d never heard a bad word spoken about Jimmy. And why would Mr Thompson, a man of integrity and paranoid honesty, lie to the public which was paying him a million quid a year for the great work he’d been doing? No reason to lie at all.

But what I refuse to believe is the statement by the Metropolitan police that they are conducting 120 lines of inquiry and expect to end up with about 25 to 30 women who were supposedly abused or raped by the great Jimmy. First of all, how come so few ‘victims’, if you consider that Jimmy had been at it since 1959? Secondly, what if they are all lying, trying to get on the gravy train of compensation that the BBC is bound to have to pay? It just doesn’t make sense, does it? The figures just don’t add up. It should either be 200 or 300 women or none at all.

I also can’t understand why it is that some people are claiming that the BBC does not report about the Jimmy Savile ‘scandal’ properly? Pardon me for asking, but why should it be making Jimmy headline news? Who the hell is interested in this sort of thing? I can understand phone hacking by the News of the World. Now that’s a big story. It’s got everything in it: drama, betrayal, suspense, right-wing scum breaking the law. But the Savile affair, what’s so outstanding about it?

Some cynics are now trying to imply that Savile is just the tip of the iceberg and that other people might have been involved, including other BBC stars and members of staff. That is just typical right-wing propaganda. Everyone who knew Jimmy would tell you that he liked to work alone. He was not an orgy man, if you know what I mean. A very private person, actually. A one-on-one kind of guy, if you get my drift.

There are also malicious rumours being spread around that as the BBC is peddling promiscuity in its content it is bound to have a lot of horny individuals working for it. Well, I am sorry, but it just doesn’t work like that. It’s a bit like saying that porn stars can’t be faithful husbands and wives. It’s just crazy. Next thing you’ll be telling me that just because the Beeb is pro-gay it is run by gays. What absolute rubbish!

Leave the Beeb alone, that’s what I say. Jimmy was a good man. Well, sort of. He just couldn’t control his urges and spontaneous erections. So what’s the big deal?

–End–

2 Comments

1. I'm a Moron, whats your excuse says:

   October 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm

   The BBC’s motto is ” see no evil, hear no evil, but speak lots of evil especialy against Israel “
2. Apple Jack says:

   December 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm

   I can totally understand the BBC having reservations about showing that the Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile, especially so soon after his death. They waited until Jimmy Savile was dead to start the Newsnight investigation cos then he wouldn’t be able to fight back and you can’t libel the dead. Meirion Jones saw some woman’s so called ‘autobiography’ on the net and persuaded her it would make a good story for Newsnight. His aunt worked at the approved school she claims Jimmy Savile abused her at, but he never told his bosses that till well late in the game.
   I saw some of the interview of the woman who wrote this ‘autobiography’ on Panorama and thought she came across as a bit disingenuous, the first lie she was caught out on was saying she was 14 when she first met Jimmy Savile at that school, when she would have in fact been a few weeks shy of 16. Newsnight staff were also unable to trace the ‘victim’ she claims she saw Gary Glitter having sex with and she was unable to provide any information about her other than she ‘went to Duncroft and she was 13’. I also felt the way she spoke about/described the alleged abuse and how she felt about it seemed clichéd and a bit shallow and put on.
   Then there was the claim that a 2007 to 2009 police investigation into Savile (again started by ex-pupils of this school) was dropped because he was too ‘old and infirm’ and that they had all been sent letters from Surrey police informing them of this. When the CPS were contacted and contradicted this claim, saying instead that there had been insufficient evidence to charge, one of the main ring leaders was asked to provide proof of her claims that they’d been informed it had been dropped because he was ‘too old and infirm’ by submitting the ‘letter’ she claimed to have been sent by Surrey police, as her claims contradicted that of the CPS. A fair enough request you’d think…? She never supplied them with the letter however and I can hardly blame them for wondering whether they were being told the truth or not by these women at this point.
   All the original complainants (bar perhaps one, though it seems perfectly likely to me that she too had had some sort of contact with someone who knew about the Surrey police investigation, as I find it rather too implausible that a woman from the same part of the country would just all of a sudden decide to go and report an indecent assault that happened 30+ years ago, totally independent of this, during the exact time the investigation was going on – bearing in mind an INI check that was sent to EVERY police force in the country at the start of this investigation returned ‘NO TRACE OF SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS’ at that point) are known to have either attended or have had links to Duncroft approved school. The school where Meirion Jones’s (the journalist from Newsnight, who started the investigation) estranged aunt was head mistress of at the time Savile was there. It was also thought, even by the Newsnight team, that most of them, or perhaps all of them, had been in contact with each other on Friends Reunited and other social networking sites in the years leading up to this (and perhaps even the 2007 to 2009 Surrey police investigation), not to mention the woman who now has a few books out on sale on Amazon, including one about this (this must be great publicity for it, who’d ever heard of her before now? Sales must have increased no end…), was, from about 2010 onwards, writing all about this on a site called ‘FanStory’ using the initials ‘JS’, ‘FS’ and ‘G’ to represent ‘Jimmy Savile’, ‘Freddie Starr’ and ‘Gary Glitter’ (it certainly makes the story a bit more interesting if you throw in a bit of scandal about a few celebrities doesn’t it?). Apart from the fact anyone could have seen this and got ideas, it was the discovery of this blog that prompted Meirion Jones to contact the woman about doing the Newsnight story. How do we know if most of what’s in that story is true? (I seriously hope the police look into it, but they probably won’t as their apparently not actually investigating any allegations against Savile because he’s dead).
   I really don’t blame any of the Newsnight staff for having concerns about showing this piece. Apart from the fact that they only had the testimony of these women (who Meirion himself said in an e-mail to Mark Williams-Thomas on 22 November 2011 that “while ‘most’ were intelligent, ‘most’ were also ‘emotionally damaged’ with a ‘criminal background’ as well as being ‘suspicious… extremely manipulative [and] difficult to deal with”) with virtually no other evidence to help support most of their claims (not one of them could even provide Newsnight with a copy the ‘letter’ many of them claimed to have been sent by Surrey police that would have not only supported their claim that the 2007 to 2009 police investigation into Savile had been dropped because he was ‘too old and infirm’, but also helped restore some faith in their honesty by adding credence to their version over that of the CPS, who had by now contradicted their claim), Jimmy Savile’s body had barely turned cold!! Are Newsnight expected to dance all over a recently deceased man’s grave and show zero respect for any of his family and loved ones off the back of stories from ‘suspicious… extremely manipulative’ women with a ‘criminal background’, who’d already been shown to be dishonest as well as having been in contact (colluding) with each other on various social networking sites for years leading up to this, that are uncorroborated by any evidence other than a few Clunk Click videos that may show that some of them were there, and when they were there, but other than that show absolutely bu**er all in the way of proof that any of them were molested?
   It’s also worth mentioning that the woman who was asked to provide a copy of the letter she claimed to have from Surrey police saying the 2007 to 2009 investigation into Savile was dropped because he was ‘too old and infirm’, but didn’t (nor did any of the others), did eventually hand such a letter over to the Daily Mail in October this year claiming (according to the Mail) that it had been sent to her in 2007!?! FOUR YEARS before Newsnight or the BBC got involved with this story!!! The letter was confirmed by Surrey police to have been a FAKE. I have no doubt that this woman herself is responsible for the letter, either faking it herself or getting someone else to do it for her (more evidence of her dishonesty).
   One of Newsnight’s deputy editors, Liz Gibbons, said she wouldn’t have gone near the story and was very supportive of the decision to drop it ‘on grounds of taste’, the programme was put on the BBC’s ‘Managed Risk Programme list’ (MRPL) because the grounds for risk were thought (and said) to be ‘legal/taste’. Well you don’t say…? Showing a programme about a man who’d died so recently rigamortis probably hadn’t set in yet based on nothing more than the word of a bunch of ‘suspicious… extremely manipulative’ fraudsters with ‘criminal’ backgrounds who’ve probably all been in contact for years and at least one of whom could no doubt benefit greatly from the publicity for the new book she was due to release on the subject…? To say that would have been in bad ‘taste’ would have been an understatement. To show that programme so soon after Jimmy Savile’s death based on no evidence whatsoever ever, save the word of a bunch con artists, would have been EXTREMELY STUPID, and that would have been the sort of action that SHOULD result in ‘damage to BBC reputation’.
   I can’t help but wonder what planet the likes of Meirion Jones and his ilk are living on…? It seems to me that Peter Rippon and Liz Gibbons were among the very few people involved in this with any common sense at all AND IT’S THEM THAT HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS OVER THIS!?! The world is mad.
   Anyone prepared to indulge this, when the dishonesty of most of them is already apparent, without checking the facts and not having the guts or common sense to question or look into their stories and be honest enough to admit when they don’t add up or that the evidence contradicts their claims will deserve everything they get when they eventually end up with egg on their face…