Making the Future Female


After the BBC claimed to be ‘horrified’ at allegations about Jimmy Savile and sex abuse, more women have come forward to add to the controversy.

Yet the media still call this abuser ‘Sir’

According to today’s UK Guardian, two women have come forward with further allegations of sexual abuse by Savile.

The BBC now says it will assist any police investigation.

One alleged victim waived her anonymity to describe how she and a friend were allegedly molested by the Jim’ll Fix It star in the 1970s when they were 14.

Pictures of victim of ‘Sir’ Jimmy Savile with him.

Dee Coles told ITV News that she and her friend were made to perform sex acts on Savile in a camper van when they were on holiday in Jersey.

“He didn’t seem like a stranger. He was on our telly every Saturday night. It was exciting being with someone on TV,” said Coles.

“But I felt immense panic as soon as the door locked. Afterwards, it was shame.”

Unbelievably, Michael Grade told Channel 4 News on Tuesday night that he heard rumours about Savile’s conduct while he was boss of BBC 1, but said any suggestion of a cover-up was ”ludicrous’.

Grade said he had fleetingly heard rumours, claiming: “There were question marks, certainly.” But he added: “I never heard anything that gave me cause to think we should investigate or do anything about it. There were questions, but the entertainment industry is awash on a sea of rumours.”

But as this Savile bloke had access to children and vulnerable people, Grade’s hand-wringing counts for nothing. If he had heard stuff he should have investigated and not stopped his own journalists from doing so properly.


8 responses

  1. Morning, I agree, these things should have been investigated years ago.

    October 3, 2012 at 5:31 am

  2. Pingback: CREEPY JIMMY SAVILE IN CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS – latest update | Mental Health, Politics and LGBT issues |

  3. Technically, as far as I am aware, he hasn’t been proved guilty of anything. These are currently allegations. Nor can he be taken to court posthumously as far as I know. Or maybe things have changed. Either way, there is no reason not to call him Sir Jimmy Savile, certainly before anything is proved, and would that take away his title? Being pedantic here.

    I’m quite interested in this as they can’t prosecute him so where is the defence case? What is actually going on? Spooky stories as Ms Reader, needless to state, finished a book yesterday about a TV personality who did charity work in hospital and was a sexual pervert preying on under age girls … wonder where some authors get their inspiration from?

    October 4, 2012 at 12:15 am

    • Real life is best left to novelists.
      The main reasons I’ve blogged about Savile are, 1) I really didn’t like him and couldn’t believe others thought he was great
      2) I was more than a little surprised the BBC blocked investigation of him as allegations mounted over the years and 3) I was abused as a kid and when I told my folks in later life (it was mum’s best friend and her husband) nobody believed me and accused me of making stuff up to excuse my troubled teenage years.
      When about a dozen women come forward with the same stories and a female produced says she caught him red-handed (if that’s not an indelicate phrase here) it seems to me that using a title is slightly surreal.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:45 am

      • I didn’t like him either as far as that goes, nor am I defending him. I was just looking at it from an objective (ok maybe a journalistic) point of view and thinking about the legal aspects.

        Nor am I saying that the allegations are unfounded. To the people concerned they will be real and horrible incidents, but because someone says something happened doesn’t mean it did. A bit like me discussing the so-called terrorists arrested in La Linea, one of whom had been working in Gib for years.

        The reason I mentioned the novel was because no-one would believe a media figure and charity worker could be guilty of anything, which presumably was the reason none of these women came forward before. It’s difficult at the best of times, even worse when you are dealing with a public figure who is known to ‘do good’.

        Abuse is such a loaded word. There are so many types. It doesn’t have to be sexual to scar you for life, mental abuse, violence, threat of violence – the list is endless. I would call manipulative behaviour abusive too. But not everyone agrees, and unless it is clear cut, there just seems to even more damage caused.

        Look at the infamous child abuse cases – Cleveland and Orkney. How disruptive and traumatic must that have been for the children concerned?

        I’m getting off topic. It will be interesting to see what develops.

        October 4, 2012 at 8:04 am

      • I accept some of these points, but use of the word ‘objective’ means you can see clearly while others don’t – I would say that is questionable here.
        My main point is that why should anyone be called ‘Sir’? It seems that giving the bloke this honour actually made him seem more respectable and made it harder for those affected to come forward. If someone does good things or says great stuff that’s enough for me. Honours are a throwback to the feudal times and must be discontinued.
        You see the states are corrupt – so why accept their honouring of people who support them?

        October 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

  4. No, that isn’t what I meant by objective, it was rather more about not having a view (based on the little I have read about it anyway) about it either way, but also that in media terms, there are rules about what you can write, and what you ‘should’ write. OK so lots of rules are broken, but they are still there.

    I have no interest in whether he is called sir or not. The cynical reason I can think of for the media continuing to use it, is that it makes it more of a story to emphasise the titled media charity person – and the allegations of abuse. Before you say anything, I’m not saying I agree with that, but it’s a possibility. If I was writing about him on my blog, which I wouldn’t dream of doing, I’d probably call him Jimmy Savile because that’s how I always thought of him. Similarly I wouldn’t call Margaret Thatcher Lady Thatcher or Baroness Thatcher. So I’m not defending titles per se.

    Titles are like honours (OBEs etc). The amount of people who have received them for sucking up to politicians or just turning up at the office every day is ridiculous. As you say, if someone is good at what they do, or enjoys working for/helping others – why dish out a ‘reward’? It’s not something I can get worked up about. It’s there, it happens, it goes on in most western countries that I know of.

    Anyway I need to look up drugs and arthritis instead of spending time on titles!

    October 4, 2012 at 9:16 am

    • Thanks matey – I’ll be very interested in what you find as I’m a little concerned at what I might be given by the rheumatologist.
      I’m off to the gym for an hour to exercise the bits that still work 🙂
      Look forward to consulting when I get back.
      PS I’m reading about GIb and the international system of offshoring and will chat about this later.

      October 4, 2012 at 9:20 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s