Sep 302012
 

Sir Jimmy Savile has been accused of raping and otherwise sexually abusing young girls.

In a documentary to be shown next Wednesday on ITV, a number of women will claim that the celebrity abused them when they were in their early teens.  Although a complaint was made to police in 2007, four years before Savile died at the age of 84, no further action was taken.

The allegations are that he abused young girls in a variety of locations: hospitals, schools and BBC buildings.  Why hospitals and schools?  Because, of course, Sir Jimmy was well known for his fundraising activities.

In a statement, the BBC said that it …

…  has conducted extensive searches of its files to establish whether there is any record of misconduct or allegations of misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile during his time at the BBC. No such evidence has been found.

“Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action.

Do you find all this as creepy as I do?

Substitute the name Father Brendan Smyth for Sir Jimmy Savile.

Substitute the word Churches for BBC buildings.

Substitute the Catholic Bishops for the BBC.

Is there some difference?

Two men, both above reproach in the public eye, visiting hospitals and schools.

Two ancient hierarchical institutions interested in protecting themselves above all else.

Powerless victims.

We don’t know if Jimmy Savile committed these crimes or not, but back in 1975, few people thought a priest of the church was capable of such things either, and that was why all the abused were disbelieved.  A thorough investigation would have prevented further crimes, but instead, Fr Seán Brady swore the abused children to secrecy.  I will say this, however.  I never liked Jimmy Savile.  It wasn’t the silly hair.  It wasn’t the cigar.  It wasn’t the Rolls-Royce.  It wasn’t the fact that he was too old to have been a DJ in the 60s.

It was because his eyes didn’t smile.

Jimmy used to appear on the Late Late Show and lap up the glory as Gay Byrne fawned on him, but essentially, taking away the beard and the dog collar, he was a secular version of Father Michael Cleary, the singing priest and general all-purpose hypocrite.

Sir James explained to his friends that he didn’t own a computer in case anyone would think he might be downloading child pornography.  Is that disturbing?  Why would it even occur to him that anyone would suspect him of doing that?  I’d be very worried about any man who said such a thing.

There are suggestions that “stories” circulated in the BBC about Savile’s conduct.  One employee reported being shocked to walk into the star’s dressing room and find him having sex with a young teenager.  Similar rumours circulated among the Catholic clergy who worked with all our home grown abusers, and a similar mindset prevailed.  Ignore this and it will go away.

Did that happen with Jimmy Savile?  Did the BBC behave exactly like the Catholic church?  Did Jim fix it?

Maybe this is how all large hierarchical organisations react when faced with an unpalatable reality.

 

 

____________

Elsewhere

Jimmy Savile defends Gary Glitter: What’s Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really

All BTR posts on Jimmy Savile

 

 

  24 Responses to “Sir Jimmy Savile Accused of Sex Abuse – Disturbing Parallels With Irish Roman Catholic Church”

Comments (24)
  1.  

    So isn’t witholding evidence and perverting the course of justice (pardon the unfortunate pun) illegal. ………..so when does the ‘Brady’ Bunch appear in court ?

    I,m confused (but not in that way )

  2.  

    I read this beginning to one of the sentences: “We don’t know if Jimmy Savile committed these crimes or not…”
    My minimal grasp of law would lead me to say: too true we don’t know, so let us assume that the late Jimmy Fixit must be regarded as innocent unless proved guilty.
    OK, there’s an ITV documentary coming up for screening, and the publicity department has issued some startling pre-publicity. But we haven’t seen the documentary and its allegedly startling revelations yet. So until we’ve seen this evidence mum’s the word about innocence and guilt.

  3.  

    he is guilty of defending a paedo

  4.  

    No surprise. Personally, I never liked Jimmy. The way he waved and wiggled that cigar around. Too much power to make children’s dreams come true, that awful jingle-‘ Jim’ll fix it and you know that he will.’ I am surprised that people seem so shocked. Give a man a white collar and a parish; give a man a big chair, a cigar and a few shitty medals to give to kids. I don’t trust the media, the church, the government, the banks. The are hiding places and support networks for corrupt individuals. How Jimmy got away with this deviant behaviour for so long is what rattles me. Somebody must have known. The question to ask is, ‘why this is only being exposed now after the creep is dead?’.

  5.  

    maybe the person protecting him has died too

  6.  

    Irvine Welsh had a character in one of his books which was based on Jimmy Saville suggesting the reason he volunteered for night portering duties in Stoke Mandeville Hospital was that he was into a bit of necrophilia.

    There was also a strange story about keeping his mother at home for a while after she died, then keeping all her clothes and stuff long after her death. Louis Theroux tried delving into the story but got threatened by Jimmy that he knew people who could damage his career.

    In isolation none of the rumours would blacken his name, but wrap them altogether and you have a very strange individual.

    He is coping a feel of Colleen Nolan in the picture linked for sure.

  7.  

    Watched the doc this clip came from a while back and came to the conclusion that perhaps he was asexual. The entire program reeked of secrets and darkness. I had assumed that such a hi profile person would surely have been found out had he been involved in pedophilia.

  8.  

    There are parallels for sure, the most striking when comparing brendan smith with jimmy saville are the access and opportunity they had with children and young people added then is a grave sense of authority………..terrible combinations if someone is up to no good.

    Of course Jimmy Saville hadn’t taken a vow to not act on the most basic and natural of the human condition………sexual desire.

    The catholic church and the bbc is a little bit of a stretch but not implausible.

  9.  

    I can honestly say that I have no idea who this guy was, so it puzzles me how a TV presenter in the UK could have attained the same status as a Bishop in Ireland.

    By the way, the last piece of the puzzle you are missing Bock is the systemic one. These cases rarely happen in isolation—the Archdiocese of Dublin being a case in point. There’s every possibility that beneath the Oxbridge accents and tea-time bulletins, the BBC could be a can of very rotten worms waiting to be opened. If so, then it may be just as difficult for the UK to come to terms with this as it was for Ireland to do so with the Church.

  10.  

    I’m surprised you don’t remember Jim’ll Fix it, but let’s leave that aside. I didn’t say he achieved the same status as a bishop. I said that his role is analogous to that of a priest who gained access to children and who was seen to be above reproach.

  11.  

    The bbc a rotten can of worms waiting to be opened………really ?

    It is not implausible that a cover up of sorts could have happened but to compare the bbc to the catholic church child abuse scandal is not plausible……to me at least.

    The suggestion then is the bbc has undergone decades of cover up concerning hundreds of its employees across cities, counties, countries and continents and that it still employs individuals in high ranking positions that have been exposed in that very cover up and that the bbc firmly believes it has its own sets of rules that supersede statue law…………that is too much of a stretch….for me.

  12.  

    they covered for Glitter and Saville

  13.  

    alledgedly

  14.  

    i see its true now that they were protected, i feel this is as close as you can get to the Catholic church, if not worse

    They were motivated by greed ( they didnt want to lose the show ) as were the Catholic church who didnt want to lose control of the country

  15.  

    Just heard a few minutes of Joe Duffy’s show. Dickie Rock (why?) tries to defend him. “What is motivating these women to come forward now?”. And another gem “Was it just girls?”.
    Just girls????? Jesus, I’m fuming.

  16.  

    What was Joe Duffys response,

  17.  

    Listen here

    In fairness to Dickie, he didn’t say “Was it just girls?”. He said “Was it all girls?”, which is something I’d ask as well to find out the extent of Savile’s activities. To my ear, he sounds shocked, and towards the end of the clip, he compares it to the church thing in Ireland.

  18.  

    thats fair

    but how did Joe Duffy respond to the question about the victims motives

  19.  

    have no access to links, ill have a listen st home, just noticed the link, sound

  20.  

    “Talk to Joe” if you want to know how he responded to Dickie Rock and allegations about Jimmy Fixit. (Mr. Rock as a 1960s popular singer famously evinced the quotable exhortation from his young female fans: Spit on me, Dickie! The phone companies must be happy with the Joe Duffy show – even if Fintan O’ and the rest of the intelligentsia aren’t.

    Sorry I didn’t view that ITV docu on Fixit. What was your verdict then, scumbag or cigar-twiddling angel? Is Aunt Beeb a hex?

  21.  

    According to today’s IT, Louis Theroux confronted Jimmy with the paedophilia allegations ten years ago.

  22.  

    its clear to me that saville used his influence and clout to gratify his perverse desires, some might say that its strange this all comes out after his death.its Worth remembering that he has enormous influence in the industry and charities like Stoke Mandeville wouid have suffered accordingly without his input.,he believed he was untouchable, i blame in a way some of those who knew this was going on and didnt blow the whistle, those of us dedicated to charity work are appalled he was allowed(yes,allowed) to carry on.

  23.  

    The 1960’s was the era of Beatlemania and this set a whole sub-culture for this kind of thing —- mass hysteria and hoards of young girls just flinging themselves at these men —- idols they were called. Drugs were another element that appeared alongside and all sexual morality sank into the gutter. It is hardly important what these fellows did personally; Savile is dead and Glitter has been up for this kind of thing so often before that hardly makes a difference: WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THESE AND THEIR IKE MADE THIS KIND OF CONDUCT ACCEPTABLE. (so long as it remained within the sub-culture) and from there the morass has extended.
    However, they did not function without large institutional and financial backing of which the BBC was one. Now we see the BBC self-rightously devouring its own children in a dreadful saturnalia as it tries to show us all how respectable and indignant they are when in actual fact they were a beneficiary of the wreckage of sexual morality !!

Leave a Reply