As the hour for publication of Dame Janet Smith’s report into the activities of Jimmy Savile draws near, a draft copy has been secured by independent publisher Exaro News, and this was dutifully reported by the BBC, on whose premises much of Savile’s inappropriate behaviour took place, in its main 2200 hours news bulletin yesterday evening. But that was not enough for the Corporation’s sternest critics.
She did nothing about him either ...
So it came to pass that the Sun has told its unfortunate readers “£10m Jimmy Savile review into BBC is a whitewash that will fail his victims … Extracts of Dame Janet Smith's 500-page draft criticises [sic] complacent Beeb bosses”. Tom Wells’ article is then fraudulently billed as “exclusive”, something with which the folks at Exaro might wish to take issue. And the Sun’s stance is all too easy to dismantle.
“THE long awaited report into Jimmy Savile's multiple sex attacks at the BBC is a whitewash that will fail scores of his victims, The Sun can reveal”. Opinion being passed off as fact, but do go on. “Dame Janet criticises senior managers in the 70s and 80s for not paying attention to endless rumours of the DJ's huge sexual interest in young girls”. Not even the Sun would make accusations based solely on rumour.
Then it gets plain silly: “She also attacks the booze-fuelled BBC management culture of the time which left staff too afraid to speak out”. Like, er, the booze-fuelled management culture of Fleet Street in the 70s and 80s, that left staff too afraid to speak out, especially about the excesses of Sun editor Kelvin McFilth, which ultimately led to the Hillsborough disaster front page splash that shamed the paper.
... and NOR DID HE
And there’s more: “But in a move that is likely to enrage victims she ultimately refuses to condemn the BBC saying no senior bosses ever had any ‘hard evidence’ against the monster”. Once again, the inference is that something should have been done on the basis of no evidence at all. Then the Murdoch faithful take the biscuit.
The report is claimed to say ”Bosses should have heeded a series of interviews with Savile in The Sun where he told of picking up girls”. The Sun goes on to tell “The Review also says a three-part series of interviews with Savile printed by The Sun in 1983 should have made senior bosses realise he was unsuitable to present TOTP and Jim'll Fix It … In the interviews the DJ boasted of chasing teenage girls for sex after running marathons”. So, obedient Murdoch doggies, WHAT DID THE SUN DO AT THE TIME?
Readers don’t get to find out, for reasons unknown to us mere mortals. So let me fill in the blanks. The Sun did those interviews with Savile, secured all those confessions, acquired all that information …and then did nothing. And the Sun is still doing nothing about those 1983 interviews, although its editor at the time now writes a twice-weekly column for the paper. So when are the hacks going to quiz Kelvin McFilth on his lack of action?
Never mind slagging off the Beeb - the Sun needs to come clean as to why it got all that dirt on Jimmy Savile and did nothing about it. We’re waiting, Murdoch gofers.
At the time of Savile's death, many obituaries mentioned rumours about his sexual proclivities, before adding that 'nothing was ever proved and he strenuously denied any wrongdoing' and going on to concentrate on the fundraising. This struck me as odd for two reasons:
1. Dead people can't sue.
2. Given the media's propensity to destroy careers and send people to jail (or at least to public ostracisation) on the basis of much flimsier evidence, why was nothing made of Savile? Why was he treated as a national treasure, reminder of how great telly was when you were a kid etc (particularly in the tabloids), when any journalist worth their salt should have been dying to expose him?
I'm not commonly a believer in conspiracy theories, but the guy's entire life raises some serious questions. Face it, if David Peace had invented him as a character in his Red Riding series, I'd be going 'that's stretching it a bit'.
No idea what Savile got up to but do note his estate destined for charity has been decimated by lawyers and a few 100 people have their hand out for compo from everyone they can blame.
Odd that not one of these people claiming to be victims ever phoned any of the services like Childline to complain about Savile and the re-writing of history of him as some sort of super powerful being who could control any investigation into him when for the last 20 years of life he was pretty well a broken down aging joke is, I guess, par for the course with British tabloids.
Another of life's great mysteries.
# my favourite victim tale re Savile was the bloke who claimed someone told him he was abused by Savile but he had no memory of it nor could he remember who told him. And to think m'learned friends were paid small fortunes to produce these reports !
Where were the vocal objections from The Sun when Savile was given his knighthood in 1990? Even the honours committee raised more concerns about Savile's behaviour than the whole of the Fourth Estate!
Can some one from The Scum answer why the reluctance to object in 1990?
Savile's relationship with Mrs T is mirrored, although not quite so close, as Coulson's relationship with Cameron. Both Savile and Coulson had dodgy backgrounds and one would be reasonably certain that they would have been flagged up by the necessary security around a PM.
Both seem to have had those security concerns (safely) ignored. One wonders why? Does The Sun know something we don't?
The Scum and MacFilth, hypocritical?
Well I never.
Just watched a DVD of Ronnie Barker in first episode of "Going Straight". The going rate of getting through The Sun in 1978 was an interrupted one and a half minutes in the loo.
Not having seen The Sun apart from looking at what was on offer in the occasional one left on a train/bus seat I wonder what that time has now dropped down to?
Doesn't the Sun clog your toilet when you flush it?
Post a Comment