Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal

The word "paedophile"

• Regardless of the details of its dictionary meaning, to most people the word "paedophile" (USA: "pedophile") means "man who sexually interferes with boys": here in England down the years paedophilia accusations have been ad nauseam in the newspapers and television news. I feel that care should be taken in using this word, unless any of the provable allegations mention boys rather than girls. And among newspapers, do not trust cheap lying rags such as the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We had a variation of this debate at Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Very_serious_allegations_of_paedophilia. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a paedophile as An adult who is sexually attracted to children. This is how it is used in everyday speech, words like "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" are not in everyday use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that "paedophile" implies sexual feelings towards boys, rather than girls. That has never been my (UK) understanding - the implication relates to any children, not necessarily boys. But, it is a psychiatric condition - not necessarily acted upon - and should not be confused, here or anywhere, with illegal acts of sexual abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. It is a delicate area and we should be careful to use words like this one correctly, according to their medical and legal definitions, not the way the man in the pub or a red-top newspaper uses them. --John (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, unless that I were in fact mistaken, I thought that the Daily Sport had folded some years ago! And no, the interpretation is incorrect, or at least no longer so, unfortunately. Neither the Church of England nor the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the usual suspects in those carry-ons, are very strong in most of these parts. Do forgive and pardon me for saying so, Sir, but you must either be a proud son of Saint Patrick, or had up sticks and emigrated many, many years ago, or both! (It was not Stockport, was it?) -- KC9TV 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Sport can remain well and truly folded as far as I am concerned, unless it has a large Holland's Pie and chips on it. But it's not the only tabloid. It's rather unclear, however, exactly what you are objecting to here. That peadophilia is a psychiatric disorder? Or to whom is your apparently racist/anti-Catholic bigotry directed? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I suspect that there might be some language differences (that one of us is not in, or from, England), but let me put it this way, and simply – the Daily Sport was CLOSED DOWN some years ago, all-right? A recently-closed-down tabloid is often considered unreliable as a source. -- KC9TV 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it closed certainly, and became an on-line newpaper. But I think we can probably agree that it's not really a reliable source for anything, and especially not for correct medical terminology usage. After listening yesterday to Professor Richard Wortley, on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, it seems that, amongst the relevant health care professions, the term "paedophile" is not seen as being particularly useful. The preferred descriptor is rather "men/women who abuse children." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We should avoid using the word "paedophile" in the case of Jimmy Savile, as that's a scientific term meaning a sexual interest in children who have not yet entered into puberty, i.e. those under the age of 11-13. The legal age of consent has nothing to do with this, and it also varies from country to country, and has varied greatly in history. In Spain it's currently only 13, while in Tunisia it's 20 - and in the UK it was 12 before 1875 and 13 from 1875 to 1885, when it was raised to the current age of 16. Although not commonly used terms, Jimmy Savile's alleged activities seem to indicate that he was a "ephebophile" or possibly a "hebephile", i.e. someone who was obsessed with young teenagers. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it should educate its readers, not repeat inaccurate terms used by ignorant journalists.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Wortley's view is that any medical term, although it may be a short-hand way to describe sexual preferences in an abstract or mental way, does nothing to address the wide range of actual behaviours, or indeed non-behaviours, that may arise as a result. The terms "ephebophile" (or hebephile) and "child abuser" are not synonyms and should not be used as such. But that's just one professional's view, I guess. But very largely agree with what you say here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of his victims were prepubescent, like one victim was aged 8 and a couple others were aged 9 but most were adolescent, meaning he has engaged in pedophilia but probably would not be diagnosed as a pedophile. Given allegations of necrophilia, rape and other sexual assaults some other description may be preferred instead of paedophilia. Perhaps the best description would be sexual abuser? Sexual deviant and sexual predator are other options.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the article? So far as I can tell, the article doesn't use any particular terms to describe him. That's as it should be - we should not use uncertain or unjustified terminology, and certainly not terminology derived from unproven allegations. Why are people discussing this as though there is an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article looks very well balanced to me. Maybe the use of Category:Pedophilia is still slightly contentious for some, for a variety of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But it's not in that category.......  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that remains the case. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I'm coming here by way of interaction with Thomas Blomberg, and, seeing as I deal with the topics of pedophilia and child sexual abuse a great deal, I decided to comment here about this. Recently, there was this discussion at a user's talk page and this discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about categorizing people as pedophiles when we cannot know that they are pedophiles unless they have been diagnosed as such and when the term is being used incorrectly to refer to sexual attraction to people who are clearly pubescent or post-pubescent; the list noted at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was deleted for those very reasons, but primarily due to mostly being a WP:BLP violation. For reasons stated in that discussion, where I also commented, I agree with Thomas Blomberg and others about not categorizing Jimmy Savile as a pedophile. While he may have had prepubescent victims, a person who has sexually abused a prepubescent child is not automatically a pedophile; although child sexual abuse and pedophilia often go hand in hand, researchers generally distinguish between the two; read this section of the Pedophilia article for more on that. I am also taking this time to note that, as shown in the Hebephilia article, hebephilia is still being debated as to whether or not it is a mental disorder (meaning the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents, not merely some level of sexual attraction to them) and ephebophilia is not considered a mental disorder by experts in these fields because it involves sexual attraction (though a primary or exclusive one) to people who are either almost finished with puberty or have finished with puberty (of course meaning that they have mostly or fully attained an adult body). Not to mention...ephebophilia extends up to age 19...and people who are 18 or 19 are considered adults in most parts of the world. Although pubescents are also biological adults, whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder is being debated because so many early pubescents, especially boys, still look prepubescent or not mature enough physically. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So what about Category:Pedophilia, on the basis that "some were children at the time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What about pæderast? That refers to actions, not psychology. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Newsnight

First copying over comments from Ghmyrtle talk about reversion to suggested changes about Newsnight investigation of Savile

The revert on Savile Scandal is not helpful Newsnight investigation comes at end of 2011 before Exposure in Timeline although Pollard stuff obviously can come later. Ellizzia (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not a simple timeline - it tells a story. The information about the Newsnight investigation did not become known until after the ITV documentary, and so it is dealt with in the text at that point. It can obviously be written in different ways, but it wasn't helpful for you to duplicate information already clearly set out in the article. If you want to pursue this, the place to do it is at the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to say factually this isn't true Sunday Mirror ran the BBC AXE INVESTIGATION INTO SIR JIMMY story on January 8 2012 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-axe-investigation-into-sir-jimmy-157675 and the Oldie ran a longer version in February 2012 which was picked up by the press for instance Telegraph 10 Feb 2012 BBC BURIED SAVILE SEX ABUSE CLAIMS TO SAVE ITS REPUTATION http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9073142/BBC-buried-Savile-sex-abuse-claims-to-save-its-reputation.html That's why it should be reported in story before the Exposure section. Ellizzia (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those refs, and apologies for my error. We can certainly use the Telegraph ref in the article - the Mirror is not usually considered a reliable source. I think the references need a bit of tweaking, but the basic info can certainly be included at the point you suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC sexual abuse cases

Some of the information in the article BBC sexual abuse cases is duplicated here, but a recent AFD closed without consensus. I've started a discussion on the talk page for those who are interested in the way forward with that article, possibly we could merge the relevant information here, and spin the rest off into another article, but we need a discussion on how to proceed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation

The obvious conclusion is that the sexual abuse claims are true, but shouldn't this article take a more neutral stance and explicitly mention that there has been no official report published on this matter until one has been published? This seems to be an open and shut case, but nonetheless Wikipedia's tone shouldn't be based on public opinion. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The joint Met Police / NSPCC report has now been published. I'm reading through it now. It's interesting that substantial chunks of the Background section seem to be copied verbatim, or almost verbatim, from this and other linked WP articles. The article will need to be updated to take into account reports on its publication. I've added the report itself as an external link, and a brief summary, as reported by the BBC, to the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This also happened with the Leveson Report.[1]. Cribbing from Wikipedia is a guilty secret of many people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

[2]So there is a lot of information that needs to go into the article, thank you Ghmyrtle for your work on this article, I think you will make the right decisions on what needs to be included. From first reading of the reports in the Guardian of the Met / NSPCC report, several things leap out at me that I feel are important for the article - there is at present no mention of Gt Ormond St hospital where "the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward." Savile threatened the police with legal action if they pursued charges against him "Savile appears to have issued a veiled threat to two Surrey police officers when interviewed under caution in 2009.

A police log of the interview records Savile saying: "I have no kinky carryings on. But because I take everything seriously I’ve alerted my legal team that they may be doing business and if we do, you ladies [the two female officers] will finish up at the Old Bailey as well because we will be wanting you there as witnesses. But nobody ever seems to want to go that far."

and it is reported that Sussex police discouraged a victim from pressing charges due to Savile's fame and power "The CPS report details the case of one of Savile's victims who said she was told by a Sussex police officer in 2008 that no-one would believe she had been abused because Savile was a "big celebrity" and would make "mincement" out of her at a "big court in London".

An important quote: "Detective Superintendent David Gray, who led the inquiry, said: "He has spent every minute of every working day thinking about this. Whenever an opportunity came along he took it. He picked on vulnerable victims and he was clever enough to choose people who he knew would not speak out."

Summary of the report from Sandra Laville at Scotland Yard reads in part:"Savile raped 34 people, including 28 children. He used every opportunity and every institution he had access to because of his fame to target young people. The report reveals Savile abused children at the BBC between 1959 and 2006 – his last offence there took place at Top of the Pops in 2006 when he sexually assaulted a teenage girl on the show.

Fifty-seven of the allegations took place in 14 hospitals and a hospice in the UK. At Great Ormond Street hospital the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward.

He assaulted 16 victims at Leeds general infirmary, 1 at Great Ormond Street, and he assaulted someone who was visiting a dying child at the Sue Ryder Wheatfield hospice in Leeds.

He also assaulted children and young girls 33 times in TV and radio studios and there were 14 assaults in schools. Savile was invited into the schools – which have not been named – by children who wanted to appear on Jim'll Fix It, police said."Smeat75 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) What chunks of text has been copied from wikipedia? Can you paste them here? Wikipedia has copyright for text - it can't be reused without attribution. I have searched the report and there is no mention of wikipedia so attribution has not been given.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Para 5.2 of the report reads:

During the Second World War Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines. He later began a career in dance halls, first playing records and then moving on to manage them, including the Mecca Ballroom in Manchester. He began working as a DJ at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960. In 1964 he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops and from 1968 worked on BBC Radio 1. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It. As well as his television and radio work he supported charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.

Compare that with the (current) second paragraph of our article on Jimmy Savile which reads:

Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines as a Bevin Boy during the Second World War. He began a career playing records in, and later managing, dance halls. His media career started as a disc jockey at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960, and he developed a reputation for eccentricity and his flamboyant character. At the BBC, he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops in 1964 and broadcast on BBC Radio 1 from 1968. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It, a popular television programme in which he arranged for the wishes of viewers, mainly children, to come true. During his lifetime, he was noted for fundraising and supporting charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire....

That's just the first example of close paraphrasing that I've come across - there may be others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IP comment

Expression of opinion, not relevant to improving the article

Summarising what I have written below as important and not merely opinion I would say 1)The fact that these are all totally unproven allegations that have not been defended in any court. The fact that the police make reports on people is irrelevant.Those reports are often found when examined by defence lawyers etc to be flawed 2)The fact that these matters are taking place under the shadow of the Leveson Report that is highly critical of the press and which suggests controls on its investigations 3)Saviles image should be made more clear. His personality was deliberately designed to be naughty and shocking although it was in reality no different to all those involved in the pop world at the time 4)The laws relating to underage sex should be made more clear. As stated nearly all the male population of Britain are liable to the same attacks and censure as Savile. I write the remarks merely to help in making this business clearer. However if people wish to remove them then they presumably can ..I will leave you to to roll around in this unpleasant mess.80.98.113.13 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) This is supposed to be a page intended to improve the wiki article .I therefore cannot see why my comments here have been removed as they throw much more light on the subject. The fact is that this is a shocking business in which the British press and now police have made allegations none of which have been presented in any court and none of which have been defended in any way The allegations and language used are themselves grotesque. To present this person as a 'predatory paedophile always looking for potential victims is in a way hilariously funny. Like everyone involved in the sixties and seventies pop scene there was no one who did not have to almost fight off the thousands of young teenage girls who used every trick every ruse to get near their pop heroes or idols .Although not a pop star there was not a day in his life when he did not attract attention and when he wasnt pestered by eager excited and willing girls . This is not made clear in the report or anywhere Further this entire affair is taking place under the shadow of the Leveson Inquiry and its report recEntly published. The Leveson Inquiry was set up to investigate the methods the Press used --including tapping mobile phones and bribing the police for information-in carrying out their investigations. The report suggests that controls should be put on the press and its investigative methods Without presenting a point of view it is clear that one way the press are fighting back is by presenting the exposure of this person as an example of value of an unfettered press. Unless people have lived though the sixties they can have no idea of the sudden change in sexual attitudes that took place.It should be made clear that Savile created an image that was both caring and kindly but which was deliberately shocking and sexually outrageous There was not a mother in the country who would not laugh at her daughters liking him saying Well I like him too but dont stand too close to him or his hands will be all over you..This was his image and added to his appeal..just as everone has a naughty uncle who always livens things up at the family Christmas party. The more serious accusations can be dismissed as being attempts to rub in even more dirt The laws relating to underage sex and so called pedophilia should also be made clear. With the age of consent being 16 in the UK it means that any sixteen year old boy whose girlfriend is fifteen and who kisses her and indulges in petting etc is guilty of what is now called sexual abuse and is even, according to the police attacking such a girl. He is likely to be put on the sexual offenders register for the rest of his life. If the boy actually has sex with his girl friend he is guilty of committing rape and subject to more serious punishments. The Savile business suggests that there is no time limit for such 'offences' which makes probably nearly the entire population of Britain liable to face the same charges as Savile These are important points and however much you may dislike them they will come up more and more as this sick business continues to evolve These comments should not therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.113.13 (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Report, Alison Levitt QC, January 2013

Came here to check whether Levitt Report has yet been mentioned, and recognised as a more reliable source of information than Yewtree or commercialised and otherwise tendentious reporting in press and elsewhere. It shows a far greater (but imperfect) respect for evidence as distinct from populist bombast based on tabulating uninvestigated and unverified allegations. Remember the DPP and CPS also are in the political arena with backs to cover. Even this report would have been treated with the critical caution required if Savile were now living. If this gets the proper critical scrutiny it deserves, it wiil be shown to contain superfluous and prejudicial remarks and comments which no prosecuting authority should have been allowed to publish before trial, and would be at least debatable in a civil claim. For:

1_ DPP Statement on Savile cases 11 January 2013 see[3]

2_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of Alison Levitt Report see[4]

3_Full version of Alison Levitt Report, signed on page 116 of 128 "Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, January 2013", published by

Just squeezing in again to let a little breath of intelligence into this discussion ..if its edited out again then I will gladly leave you all to your fun.. There seems to be a great concentration here on Police Reports. The Police make many reports all the time on crime and criminal,these are considered by the DPP to see if a case can be made for prosecution.

In Britain and the rest of the world not under dictatorship, the police are not a judge and jury in these matters

When the case goes to court the defence lawyers will examine the police reports and if necessary so discredit them in cross examination that they be thrown out completely. This happens often The police acknowledge the dangers of relying on their own reports as is shown by the fact that while Savile was still alive several women made complaints about his behaviour forty years earlier. These complaints were thoroughly examined and the police decided there was no case to answer .The police now admit they were wrong on that occasion. If they were wrong then why shouldnt they be wrong on this occasion?

The fact remains that there is no evidence for any of these allegations In the reports I have read there are only a few sentences before we come to the point where he touched me etc. What is even more extraordinary is that virtually all of the 'abuse' described took place in full public view where Savile was being watched by hundreds of people in audiences ,discos, family parties etc..and yet he is ceaselessly described as someone who was cleverly planning his evil tricks all the time The idea that he choose his victims carefully etcetc is almost amusing. Here was someone who for a good twenty years of his life never opened his front door to get a bottle of milk without having a dozen pretty girls pushing in and and surrounding him..we wanted to see you Jimmy we've waited hours,we'cold can we come in Can we have an autograph ,My friend wants you to kiss her...If he does let them in and kisses and fondles a few is this really the same as the serious abuse found in institutions etc or families or involving people in respected positions as in the priesthood? As for what the real pop stars were doing whose lives were a continuous endless string of sex orgies ,it doesnt begin to compare! I hope this will stay here but I realise that many people love this kind of dirt rolling, or nose picking ..its a very British thing so if you dont want any intelligent thinking about this business I will you get on with it..at some time there will be books written that will put the whole thing in place in particular regarding the importance of the Leveson report ,which is really what this business is all about,that is ,showing how a brave free unfettered British press exposed this evil man.. so keep Britains Press free from any Leveson created controls!!! Cheers..80.98.113.13 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DPP, CPS,see[5]. Qexigator (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course media reports summarising the Levitt report should be covered in the article - without necessarily commenting on how reliable it is compared with other sources of information. There seems to be a distinct shortage of editors revising this article at the moment, which I find surprising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the well-known problem that if Wikipedia must rely for sources on press, broadcasting etc which in turn rely on faulty reports (even if the report is relying on Wikipedia!) Wikipedia may be able to do nothing better than repeat matter in ways unsuited to a reputable encyclpaedia. May I propose that this article should now include at least a passing reference to the Levitt Report, which could be expanded in due course when the issues have become clarified in the public domain (beyond the few better informed blogs which of course are not acceptable as sources)? May I leave that to editors already active here who would know how best to do that? Qexigator (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a very short couple of sentences on the Levitt report. Feel free to expand it further. Ghmy rtle (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, nothing to add at this stage, but it's a question of time to see whether sooner, later or never, more of the facts about the scandal behind the scandal emerge (cp. "Plebgate" to name but one).Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Have now added an update in section Operation Yewtree. Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)