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?