It’s been a week since I wrote my last piece, talking about a trip I made over ten years ago to Jimmy Savile’s flat in Leeds.
Since then I’ve been talking about little else and it’s been fair to say that Savile has been possessing my thoughts.
I met him many times and it’s rare that any of us actually come into contact with someone so lacking in any morality. I feel I have genuinely been touched by evil, ridiculous as it may sound.
Since I wrote my piece, we have been bombarded with fresh information about Savile. It is almost too much to process.
I have seen that his flat is on the market:
The expression ‘house of horrors’ makes me think of 25 Cromwell Street,
home of Fred and Rose West. The building was demolished but it would be hard to demolish Savile’s home, situated as it is within a block of flats. Imagine being his neighbour. Would you sell or just tough it out – the media are bound to get bored of him eventually.
I also read that Savile’s waxwork is being banished from Madame Tussauds – surely they missed a trick by not placing it straight within the Chamber of Horrors.
Maybe they could do this:
Or maybe not.
It’s very easy to be flippant about Savile; maybe that’s what we do when confronted with something or somebody so terrifying or repellent that it shocks us to the core. Someone we all grew up with – if you’re my age anyway.
I got into a heated debate with a friend on my Facebook page on whether people of my generation – late 30s to mid 40s – were actually ‘groomed’ by Savile. I’m not sure we were but there is some logic to what she was saying. We all accepted this deeply flawed and peculiar man and by accepting him enabled him to ruin the lives of hundreds of poor unfortunate people. Maybe we are all to blame for Jimmy.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about why he was able to behave in such a flagrant way – whatever Jimmy was, he wasn’t exactly a subtle person. As I wrote before, it was totally accepted that his camper van was full of ‘school girls’; again props to The Mirror for publishing these amazing photos:
What I can’t stop wondering is WHY.
Why was Jimmy tolerated by managers and his fellow personalities at the BBC? It seems absolutely bizarre.
Even Esther Rantzen, a noted children’s campaigner, has been criticized:
Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail, but I do feel that these questions should be asked.
I’m going to stray down the path of pure speculation now.
I wonder if Savile was a blackmailer.
Before you accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat, give me a few minutes to explain my theory.
Savile notoriously hobnobbed with incredibly famous people. There are photos of him with Margaret Thatcher, the Royals, the Pope and another Reese favourite:
Let’s face it he had access to cameras at a time when most people didn’t – unlike now when we all can record what we like on a camera phone or cheap home video recorder. Savile behaved in an outrageous and immoral way and yet somehow nobody challenged him. Why? What hold did he have over others?
Then there are the seriously weird and lurid rumours that Savile was a pimp for both leading members of the entertainment industry and even politicians.
That he procured underage boys for both Brian Epstein
and Joe Orton
in the 60s.
Then there are the even more peculiar rumours that he provided underage boys for senior politicians – including the leaders of two major parties in the 70s. I’m not talking Thatcher or Callaghan or even Harold Wilson.
Work it out.
It’s all very murky and weird but then isn’t pretty much everything we’ve read about Savile in the past week or so. Why did he have a free ride in Broadmoor? Why on earth was he able to organise ‘lasses only’ discos in a hospital for the criminally insane and why on earth was he given a set of golden keys to this notorious institution?
I somehow feel we are just at the start of the revelations.
My fear is that all of this will destroy the BBC. OK, the BBC is not perfect; I’ve worked there myself and can testify to a culture of waste and inefficiency. But do we want to see it carved up and sold to Murdoch? No. So let’s be careful not to run it down too much – even though there are obviously serious questions to be asked about the blind eye that was turned towards Savile (and others).