Jimmy Savile series Netflix

Cafe Society
,
101

Savile did not start off with minor heat of the moment altercations and work his way up to paedophilia, necrophilia and serious sexual assault because no-one ever pulled him on on it.

Clarksons punch was never covered up, was dealt with, and was never at risk of escalating to crimes similar to Savile or acting as a example for others to follow. There was never a point at which the two situations were remotely comparable.

That some fans will suport the object of their fandom even in the face of all the evidence is irrelevant. That’s the nature of fandom. In any case Savile’s public support was never tested in that way because what he did never came out until he died.

As I said in a previous post, if there is a point to be made about letting famous people get away with or covering up crimes that then escalate and spread then there is no shortage of examples out there. The Clarkson incident simply does not make that point. No more than Will Smith, Ben Stokes, George Michael etc. etc. There is no path from such incidents to Savile. The culture that allowed Savile to do what he did is nothing like those other cases and the biggest indicator of that is that we know about those other cases and they have been dealt with, now, while the people are still alive.

The point of not letting people get away with things because it might get worse is fair enough, also that a cover up culture is bad. I agree fully. But the example given is a shockingly bad one, an irrelevant one and a borderline offensive one.

102

Of course there is. You’re thinking in terms of the perpetrator of the mere assault also being the perpatrator of the gross sexual abuse. That’s not the path.

The path is:
Celeb A keeps his job after assault because he’s ratings gold
Celeb B keeps her job after a bullying incident, because she pulls in audiences
Celeb C gets away with coming in drunk because they’re really popular with that key demographic
Celeb D had that unpleasant incindent with the intern at the party, but she didn’t press charges so we’ll follow the template set with Celeb A
Look, sure, we don’t let Celeb E spend time alone with teenagers but we can manage it and he’s a big favourite of the PM so let’s not the rock the boat
Those are just rumours
I told you, I’m not listening to gossip
You haven’t got any proof
We’re pulling that Newsnight report

You can see this pattern in any failling institution you care to name. It doesn’t happen all at once, it’s bit by bit and it begins with stuff that is minor. Do you think that when Savile was worming his way in to various institutions, his were the only incidents that were being let slip and anyone else’s transgressions were being met with the full force of institutional discipline?

The BBC did do the right thing with Clarkson. That’s not @Gyrate’s point. The point is that there were still prominent voices saying they should let standards slip. Check out this from GQ:

The money made by Jeremy Clarkson’s Top Gear allows the BBC to produce other, much less commercially successful output. Viewers of arts shows, or the niche historical and cultural broadcasting of the BBC will see the effect of killing a globally successful formula. Whichever host is found to replace Clarkson, the series will lose the defining character that has won it millions of admirers. Doubtless Clarkson will have offers thrown at him by rival broadcasters, and the loyal audience will go elsewhere. For a Corporation which relies upon the goodwill of politicians for the renewal of the unique license-fee arrangement, this episode has the potential to cause major political controversy. A broadcaster with a shameful recent history, the BBC has fired a beloved celebrity.

Or here:

AA Gill has said a Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson will be an “empty coat” if the BBC decides to sack the presenter after an inquiry following a ‘fracas’ on set earlier this week.

Celebrity plus success warp people’s minds and lead them to consider overlooking incidents that would get no-profile backroom staff rightly sacked. This is obviously true and well illustrated by many people’s response to the Clarkson incident. It is also the self-same mentality that contributed to allowing Savile to get away with his crimes for so long.

103

I don’t think that bears any relation to what happened with the Clarkson incident. He wasn’t an employee and the incident wasn’t covered up, nor was any attempt made to do so. Your causal link fails at the first step.

Neither of those two paragraphs is suggesting that the incident should be ignored or that no consequences should come of it.

They do say what will likely happen if they don’t use Clarkson again. Nothing wrong with saying that and understanding what it means. The BBC had to balance the seriousness of the incident with what they lose by the potential action they take.
Note, this discussion is all taking place in the open, in the glare of publicity. The key feature that was purposefully avoided in the Savile case.

Certainly not, the lack of openness, the secrecy, the cover-ups. the back-handed deals and under-the-table nod and wink culture are the reason why Savile and others could be allowed to operate.
That secrecy has gone and the way in which the Clarkson episode was handled and discussed was evidence that it has gone, not an indication that it is in danger of coming back.

104

Oh FFS…

105

One last try, and then I will just agree to differ:

Here is what @Gyrate originally said:

Italicised bit mine.
The point is not that the BBC made the wrong call and kept employing Clarkson. Because they did make the right call. The point is not and never has been based on what the BBC did. The point is that fans demanded his assault be ignored because of his popularity. Which they evidently did. The lesson from Savile (which the BBC had evidently heeded!) was that this is a really bad idea (for the reasons subsequently laid out). And yet there it was, in the mainstream press; there were the c. 900,000 signatures on the petition: let this guy off because he’s cool!

The way in which the Clarkson episode was discussed is evidence that ignoring transgressions by popular stars is now a minority view - but it has not gone. It’s still there, waiting, and needs to be guarded against because it could very easily come back. The incentives to keep the big star are significant and it needs a strong culture of bright line, damn-the-consequences standards enforcement to stop those incentives taking over.

106

Yes, please!

107

Then we agree to differ. There is nothing of additional substance in your post that makes me think using the Clarkson incident is a good or useful example.

108

Just a few hundred thousand idiots. You know, “the few”. Nothing representative or anything…

/s

109

Not a Brit but grew up there in the 70s and 80s. Saville was part of the zeitgeist, a household name like Rolf Harris, Tony Blackburn, Noel Edmonds, and Mike Reid. I was a Top of the Pops fan and he was on the regular rotation every Thursday.

He also was in PIFs (UK variant of PSAs) particularly a series about wearing seatbelts. So you would know Jimmy Saville as well as you knew Basil Brush. And when Jim’ll Fix It came on, it seemed like the coolest thing ever - writing a letter and this friendly eccentric guy would make it happen. I think I even remember writing a letter once. (Favorite episode was when he took a kid on a flight in the back of a KC-135 air tanker.)

Now when I got to my teen years he was beginning to come across as cheesy and naff - he was looking noticeably older and the schtick wasn’t as funny. I think if you came of age in the 70s you literally grew up watching and listening to him daily and you knew of his charity work. So the affect would be a lot like how Cosby was viewed in the US. Ubiquitous, quirky, funny, and a “good guy.”

Amazing how many nonces were gracing telly screens in 1970s Britain. :grimacing:

110

Same. Also, as an American, when I hear his name I can’t help but think of Alvin and the Chipmunks.

111

I wrote a few letters to Jim’ll Fix It when I was a kid, and so did my best friend. It was a popular show, and I liked it, but it was the kids doing fun stuff part that I liked. Everyone my age remembers the scout pack eating their lunch on a rollercoaster, their food going everywhere; it was a big show. One kid got to fly a plane, another was “Queen for a day,” which included going to Buck House back when the public couldn’t get in - the show did cool stuff.

That’s not to defend Savile, obviously, just to point out that he wasn’t on some obscure unpopular show that was mainly about him.

There were lots of weird presenters on TV at the time - there still are now, particularly those aimed at children.

That’s one of the exact reasons he got away with it for so long: surely someone that weird wouldn’t actually put their weirdness out there on show so blatantly, right? It’s just an act, just his schtick.

And there were huge numbers of DJs and other male celebs who were abused young women and underage girls. HUGE numbers. Sometimes, when the name of a man from that era comes up, it’s a relief to click on it and merely find out they’re dead rather than that they were a rapist.

And while Savile was doing what he did, Bill Wyman from the Rolling Stones was openly living with a 14-year-old girl, and the Sun was posting photos of topless girls on their 16th birthday (so obviously taken before they turned 16, which was then the minimum age for topless photos), on page 3 of the most popular newspaper in the country - not a porn mag, a regular newspaper.

Lots of my friends dated adult men in their mid-teens. I was was harassed in very, very public and non-subtle ways (as in actually grabbing and kissing me) by adult men from about the age of 12, and their friends - male and female - saw it, laughed, said “he likes 'em young” and otherwise treated it as a joke. It was not the same world at all, and that was the 90s.

It’s a bit weird seeing people astonished that someone was famous “merely” for being a DJ and presenter - there are tons of those in every country, aren’t there? I can think of a fair few from the US.

112

I think some of that might be a language difference - from what I can tell, a “presenter” might be a “talk show host” or a “news anchor” in the US and they might be famous to one degree or another, but it seems it would also refer to the host of a documentary/educational series - and they are not generally famous for being the host. Some might also be a matter of size/audience - assuming you mean the same thing by DJ that I would in this context (someone who plays music on the radio) , then someone in Maine would very possibly have never heard of a DJ who mostly worked in Los Angeles. I can only thing of maybe five or six who might have been famous outside a local area - and three of them had syndicated programs.

113

Many of our DJs are nationally famous, not just him. Less so now that there’s more diversification of channels; Radio 1 DJs (like he was) are still relatively well-known, but in the 60s-80s they were pretty big celebs. The station is national - almost all the well-known ones are.

In the US you also have quiz show hosts, people who present property shows and makeover shows, and plenty of other people who do something or other on TV, but it’s not acting or being on a reality show.

When Jim’ll Fix It was on, there were only four channels in the UK. When Top of the Pops started, there were three.

114

I wasn’t as clear as I could have been - for the most part , those people either aren’t generally famous outside of their audience or were famous for something else first. There are a few exceptions , but even the exceptions don’t have the sort of fame that Jimmy Savile seems to have had.

115

Yeah, I agree with @doreen. Most of the “presenters” here are low level celebrities…barely celebrities at all. Are there any nationwide US radio stations? Syndicated programs exist, so lots of people know who Casey Kasem is (was?), but he could be unknown to wide swaths of the population.

116

I can name two hosts of Queer Eye (Jonathan Van Ness and Tan France), and I’ve only seen it once. Plus RuPaul, who’s only otherwise famous for the Hugh Grant thing, and several quiz show hosts and chat show hosts, most of whom are only famous for being quiz show hosts. The quiz show and chat hosts mostly host shows I’ve never even seen because they’ve never been shown in the UK, like Alex Trebeck and Jay Leno*, so I’d think that counts as famous.

(I think his show might have been on here briefly at some point, but it wasn’t a big thing).

117

Wait, what?

118

Ah, sorry, mixed him up with someone else, apologies. But his career is all presenting, right? There are a few movie roles where he basically plays himself/his drag queen persona. He’s not famous as an actor, he’s famous as a presenter.

I guess mixing two people up now means I’m entirely wrong about everything though, as it sometimes happens on here.

119

Yes, I’m afraid I’m going to have to fetch the Shame Bell now.

RuPaul did have some minor celebrity prior to hosting Drag Race as a successful drag performer and general “scene” personality. He wasn’t strictly a presenter, although that’s definitely where the bulk of his fame comes from today.

120

Alex Trebek was actually one of the exceptions I mentioned ( Pat Sajak is another) - but Jay Leno was known as a stand-up comedian and did some acting before he began hosting The Tonight Show. And as far as Queer Eye - that’s kind of what I meant by not being famous “outside their audience”. I have no doubt that they are well-known to their viewers and to viewers of makeover shows in general - but I didn’t even know there was a reboot until you posted.