Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter
Blog Posted in avatar   Alexander Baron's Blog

Jimmy Savile Ate My Hamster

By Alexander Baron
Posted Oct 12, 2012 in Odd News
Since the screening of The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile last week, the number of allegations against him has run into three figures. Assuming all or the bulk of these allegations are true, sum up Savile in one word. How about prolific?
Many of us are prolific, most of the time in a totally non-controversial or benign sense. Paul McCartney is a prolific songwriter, okay, he is now seventy years old, but there is no disputing his prodigious output. Ted Bundy was a prolific serial killer, but he was brought to book. The most prolific serial killer in the world in recent years was Harold Shipman, like Savile, an Englishman from the north. Shipman got away with murder for decades, and if he hadn't forged the will of his last victim, he may never have been caught. He can be summed up in two words: prolific and discreet.
In Shipman's case, if he hadn't been so discreet, he wouldn't have been so prolific, because someone would have informed on him after his first murder, or the second or...the tenth. Granted that the crimes of which the late Jimmy Savile has been accused fall far short of murder, it is to be expected that somewhere down the line his gross lack of discretion (according to both victims and witnesses) would have led to his undoing decades ago.
Instead, until this programme was screened there was one allegation made in 2007 relating to an alleged incident many years before that, which the police investigated as they would have been expected to, and which led nowhere - insufficient evidence, which can mean anything.
To date we have had: Jimmy Savile groped me; Jimmy Savile raped me; Jimmy Savile groped a brain damaged girl on a hospital ward; Jimmy Savile indecently assaulted a girl on a train, and I punched him; Jimmy Saville was in league with Gary Glitter; and...Jimmy Savile ran a paedophile ring at the BBC.
An angry Freddie Starr has now seen his name dragged into the fray, and through the mud. He isn't the last, and there will probably be more.
An infamous newspaper headline published in an infamous newspaper.
An infamous newspaper headline published in an infamous newspaper.
Creative Commons
What did all these people do when they saw Savile grope, slobber over, feel up, even rape underage girls? Well, one bloke says he thumped him. As this alleged indecent assault was committed on a train, presumably in front of or in the immediate vicinity of other witnesses, the next step - one assumes - would have been an arrest, probably preceded by a citizen's arrest followed by a court appearance and national headlines like I Saved Schoolgirl From Pervert DJ. Instead: nothing.
All these good citizens stood by and did nothing because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed, afraid of Savile himself, or simply afraid.
Furthermore, many staff at both the BBC and in the hospitals where Savile volunteered knew what he was doing, and not only covered up for him but allowed him to keep doing it, and wrote glowing obituaries for him.
Can this really be the case, or instead do his belated accusers now want their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of a man who is unable to defend himself against any charge, however wild or ill-deserved? Which scenario is the more horrifying?

Latest News
Top News