America has had a thousand Jimmy Savilles. Some were entertainers. Some were televangelists. Some had talk shows. Some ran for president. Some won.
Without remembering history we are nothing.
To me, it seems like Savile was the Kardashian of his time. No real talent except getting people to accept him, which turned into fame. Mind, I’m not saying that the K’s are pedophiles, just that they (and way back when, Paris Hilton) were famous for being famous.
StG
Some cursory Googling show that Savile took decades to raise a fraction of the amount that Bob Geldorf did in ‘84-85. That may be why Geldorf was knighted in less time, or because the palace knew the dirt on Savile.
I’m not so sure. Geldof has a lower rank than Savile.
Not sure if that really tells us much though.
I was a generation too early for TOTP, but I did see “Jim’ll Fix It” a few times. I disliked JS, who I found slightly “creepy”
When I was at school in the 50s, the discovery that a Scout Leader or Parish Priest was “interfering” with boys (and it seems mostly boys) was no big deal. The back pages of some newspapers were often given to exposés of “kiddy fiddlers”, who would get away with a small fine. Priests were well known for “it” and all that happened to them was a transfer.
JS was far from unique. Gary Glitter was another pervert pop star, Jonathan King another. No doubt there were many more whose activities stayed secret.
Savile was different in how well connected he was to the British Establishment. They saw him as a celebrity that was much loved by the working class. Politicians like Thatcher and the Monarchy sought his advice on how to connect with ordinary people. He gave them advice on how to become more popular.
Once endorsed by these senior figures, he had could fend off challenges by his victims who had no such influence.
I watched the first part of the Netflix series. It is very good. I was afraid it was going to be a drama and was very doubtful that would work. But it is a documentary format and the first part deals with how he developed his popularity and positive public image. With the few hints that there was something darker behind this image.
We talk a great deal about celebrity culture these days, but in the years before the Internet, it was national TV that delivered huge audiences. Before that, it was Hollywood. Centralised production and distribution of mass entertainment. These days everyone can have their own channel and develop an audience. Whether this is progress, I am not so sure. Savile was what in todays terms would be regarded as a powerful ‘influencer’.
The second part looks at what was going on behind all this zany showmanship and the victims. How he got away with it for so long.
The U.S. has it’s fair share of goofy TV show hosts where it’s unclear what ability they have beyond the gift of gab. Ed McMahon and Regis Philbin, for instance.
I hope you mean the Netflix series …
Saville’s weird mannerisms and dress sense were actually a large part of the appeal: they made him instantly recognizable, and one of the most parodied public figures. Comedians would still do impressions of Savile many years after he’d retired from presenting.
He was able to read out autocue in a jokey, fun way, which actually was a big deal early in his career, as British TV was still quite stiff and formal (outside of actual comedy shows obviously). But the time presenters had become more fun in general, Savile was already a household name.
Yeah, he was always a bit creepy but you tended to ignore that because, from only knowing his public persona, all you knew about was the charity work, and so you assumed he must be a kind figure IRL.
My memory of them was: McMahon was a bespectacled loudmouth, and Philbin was a beady eyed schmoozer. But they weren’t goofy in any way. Boring maybe.
Soupy Sales is a pretty close American analogy to Savile’s public career and shtick.
I’m too young to have seen him on TOTP regularly, but as soon as the BBC became available in the Netherlands i did watch Jim’ll fix it, because my dad thought it was a good way to practice English. I was like 8 or 9 or so and I distinctly remember being thoroughly creeped out by the man. As far as I can remember my mum felt the same.
As I later learned he became a big name surrounded by a culture at the BBC where sleeping with young girls wasn’t particularly frowned upon. In the Seventies there were rock albums with underage nudes on the cover (Led Zeppelin, Scorpions) and no one batted an eyelid. So it was IMHO a combination of another time and culture and a psychopath who thrived in that environment and knew how to cover his tracks. If I recall correctly a lot of his enablers and fellow perpetrators came out of the woodwork with Operation Yewtree. Still, it’s a pity he hasn’t been punished.
I like to think he’s being punished now.
Yes, of course. Me and my poor writing skills. I didn’t finish the series yet. I found I’d had enough horror yesterday just watching the news.
If it’s any consolation, the worst descriptions of Savile’s crimes are by the victim at the beginning of episode one. That gives you context so they don’t have to go into excruciating detail later in the episode.
I would suspect that the gender difference was because ‘interfering’ with girls was seen as a failure on the part of the girl, unless she was very young, and in any case, was something to keep quiet about.
Even by the time I was a teen, as late as the 90s, older men having sex with underage girls was seen by a lot of people as just as much the fault of the child as the predator, unless she was literally snatched off the street. I personally was told that it was only natural that older guys would find teenage girls interesting, so it was my responsibility to say no, and enforce that, even if I was under the legal age of consent, though that revolting attitude thankfully was starting to change.
ETA; I suspect that many female victims of such celebrity rapists, especially those from less fortunate demographics, if they were believed, would have been basically told they should be flattered that such a famous guy was interested in them.
Perhaps Peewee Herman is closer to the mark.
I thought of that, but Peewee is clearly a fictional character and not Paul Reubens’ public persona.
Pop music attracts young teenage girls who idolise boys in bands. DJs like Savile were essential in the promotion of records and had access to the stars and were able to extract favours from girls who wanted to go to tye parties. This ‘gatekeeper’ role seems to be a pattern. Football obsessed boys and girl gymnasts. Sports coaches and talent scouts held all the cards. Ditto Hollywood producers like Weinstein and ambitious actresses.
Savile, however, made the transition to TV and had friends in high places who owed him favours. He was able to extend his network far and wide on the back of his charity fund raising, which made the scandal far, far bigger. He no doubt had connections with other perpetrators.
The first part covered his interest in charities and institutions that provided homes for disruptive, difficult teenage girls who were in the social care system and were known to the police.
This group of difficult teenagers were later identified as the frequent targets for other criminal networks in later scandals. While it is convenient to focus on high profile cases like Savile, these later cases revealed serious structural weaknesses in social care and policing.
These teenagers did not come from stable family backgrounds. They came from very troubled families, were there may have been abuse, addiction and criminality. These problems echo down the generations. Every community has families who are well known to social services and the police. Their children have the very worst start in life.
The scandal is that no-one really cares about them and the public services with responsibility for their care are often unable to manage them with the resources they have. Politicians are not interested, there are no votes to be won. Just a few under resourced charities. These situations are widespread in the UK and I daresay many other countries. Local criminals and abusers know this very well. It is a pattern and it clearly exists in other areas. Abusers target weak institutions where the supervision of the vulnerable is weak or inaffective.
If it were just the marginalised, lost teenagers in social care, that would be an in issue in itself. But it clearly extends to much more privileged parts of society. In British society, it goes all the way to the top. The ‘public schools’, which are private, high fee charging private schools that educate the elite in the UK, have had many scandals where abusers have operated for decades. So it happens at the very top and the bottom of society.
Savile and the subsequent inquiry was a milestone and there are now many more inquires in progress. Hopefully it will result in some important structural changes that take note of whistleblowers and warning signs at an early stage. Responsibility for safeguarding is becoming part of national public policy to make institutions address this problem. I am not sure there is an easy solution. For that, some fundamental cultural values have to change.
One of the most appalling revelations in the series is that when Scotland Yard finally got around to setting up a paedophile task force for the entire country, it only had a staff of 6.