Talk:Jimmy Savile

Sir Suggestion

I suggest we change the title of "Sir" with "Saint" since Savile was a saint, and has always been one of Gadd's saints.

Allegations of rape

I've added this article to Category:English rapists, a category which I believe is now uncontroversial: Savile may have been one of the most prolific sex offenders in British history, and his assaults included a large number of rapes -- 34 recorded so far, according to the NSPCC/Met Police report.[1] -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed this category. The rape allegations are mere assertions, completely unsubstantiated at this stage. The NSPCC/MPS report, which is merely a catalogue of uncorroborated "victim statements", makes clear that they have not yet been investigated. -- Alarics (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. On p13 we see "7. Summary of victims’ accounts: 7.1 On the whole victims are not known to each other and taken together their accounts paint a compelling picture of widespread sexual abuse by one offender. We are therefore referring to them as 'victims' rather than 'complainants' and are not presenting the evidence they have provided as unproven allegations." --John (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The NSPCC/MPS report opines that the accounts, taken together, "paint a compelling picture" -- that is their opinion, not proof -- "of widespread sexual abuse", not rape. -- Alarics (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For update on DPP/CPS Alison Levitt Report January 2013, see Talk[2]. Qexigator (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Suspicion, allegations etc. do not make a person a criminal (or rapist). He was never prosecuted or tried, let alone convicted. Retrospective repoorts such as Alison Levitt for DPP and CPS are not sufficient either. Qexigator (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that. Based on what? --John (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all think of a quite few historical figures who were never "tried, let alone convicted." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

West is a great comparison. He avoided prosecution by killing himself, but no-one seriously questions that he was a murderer. I'd say we go with the reliable sources, and remember that BLP does not apply. --John (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, except that he was a pretty poor builder. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

He was very good at laying patios though. --John (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical figures stretches the point made above. There may be sufficient evidence for history, in the case of persons mentioned or others. In Savile's case there appears to be evidence of a small number of cases per Levitt (there may be more to come). One such case of rape would be enough to support inclusion in Category. The great majority mentioned in the NSPCC report are unexamined allegations, Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Savile is dead, he will never face criminal charges or be convicted on some of the allegations against him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you see Fred West as an "historical figure"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to the The Shipman Inquiry. A commission after a person's death is not the same as a court case while the person is alive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another good example, except again without the millstone of public-celebrity-turned-to-hatred to weigh him down after he had died. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dame Janet Smith is conducting an inquiry into Savile.[3] However, as with her inquiry into Harold Shipman and the Warren Commission, a trial cannot be conducted In absentia in common law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Shipman was already convicted by a court prior to the enquiry so that isn't really relevant. Fred West is a better comparison, perhaps. --John (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is notable that Dame Janet Smith was asked to conduct inquiries into Shipman and Savile. The estimate of up to 300 people killed by Shipman cannot be proved in court because he is dead. There is a similar situation with Jimmy Savile, whose self-penned epitaph "It was good while it lasted" expresses a similar sentiment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees it lasted much too long... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am partly with Qexigator on this one. We should be clear that the allegations remain for the most part unsubstantiated, pending further reports by Janet Smith and probably others. The Duncroft allegations, or at least one of them, are the main exception at the moment, Alison Levitt having found in her report that in the case of one such instance there is enough evidence to have been persuasive if it had gone to court, contrary to what the police said at the time. This by the way would have been "gross indecency", not remotely approaching rape. -- Alarics (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the report. That isn't what it says. Why are we discussing this under two sections? --John (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read the NSPCC/MPS report and the Alison Levitt report. The former is a collection of unsubstantiated allegations, designed to "give the victims a voice", not to meet any standard of proof, let alone proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has already been widely criticised for appearing to state these claims as definite facts. The Levitt report is very much more solid but covers a much narrower range of allegations. -- Alarics (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, on p17: "1965. A 14-year-old girl met Savile in a nightclub. She later visited his home and was raped. (Classified as rape)." --John (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is merely an assertion on the part of the NSPCC/MPS report. They are simply listing the allegations that various people are supposed to have made. There is no suggestion that they have investigated this allegation and found that it stands up (and the likelihood of standing it up after nearly half a century must be very low). -- Alarics (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stands up" in what sense? Also, are we reading the same report? --John (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stands up" meaning the allegations appear prima facie to have a reasonable chance of being proved beyond reasonable doubt if they had been brought in a court of law. There are two different reports and we should not conflate them. The NSPCC/MPS report ("the Yewtree report") simply catalogues a series of unsubstantiated allegations (i.e. it chooses to believe everything claimed by the "victims" without further investigation) and has been widely criticised for its lack of rigour (see this and this and, perhaps most particularly, this). The report by Alison Levitt QC (in full here; executive summary here) is a much more rigorous examination, from the point of view of a DPP lawyer, of just a handful of the allegations (the Duncroft allegations) and it concludes that one or two or them might have stood a good chance in a court if the police had decided at the time to proceed; it's clear that the offences in question fall a long way short of rape. Levitt at no point address the actual allegations of rape. -- Alarics (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps those who practice dispassionately and disinterestedly sifting evidence in such cases know something about "stands up", but even the DPP and persons reporting to him (such as Alison Levitt QC) are in the public arena and have backs to cover. Qexigator (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am having trouble decoding what you mean by that. Is there something equivocal about extracts like these?

• p13 "7. Summary of victims’ accounts: 7.1 On the whole victims are not known to each other and taken together their accounts paint a compelling picture of widespread sexual abuse by one offender. We are therefore referring to them as 'victims' rather than 'complainants' and are not presenting the evidence they have provided as unproven allegations."
• p17: "1965. A 14-year-old girl met Savile in a nightclub. She later visited his home and was raped. (Classified as rape)."

As the perpetrator is dead, there is no possibility of a criminal trial, so this is likely to be as close as we get. If Levitt says he was a rapist, and secondary sources report on it, then that's good enough for our purposes. --John (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

John, I think you must have confused the two reports. Your 1965 quote is not from Levitt, it is from p.17 of the MPS/NSPCC report ("Yewtree"). The Yewtree report quotes it as "an example of a victim account of sexual abuse", i.e. it is an unsubstantiated allegation. That is certainly not "good enough for our purposes". Levitt does not say he was a rapist. The Levitt report does not address the rape allegations at all.-- Alarics (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

John: maybe but beware of Lawyer-speak. p.13: We are being told that the evidence as described in the report could be considered sufficient to charge and commit for trial, but we would do well to remember that at a well conducted trial a jury would not necessarily find the picture as compelling as the word may be understood out of its present context, including media management. Its use conveniently allows the present DPP (government appointed lawyer paid to decide how high profile cases shall be treated) to speak prejudicially in the public arena of "victims". p.17. ditto. What corroboration is there?. Qexigator (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way Alison Levitt is the second wife of Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew. If MSM tittle tattle is to be taken into account, here are some items:

1_"Anti-terror peer dumps his 'boring' wife for a glamorous barrister By AMANDA PERTHEN and CHRISTINE CHALLAND Last updated at 23:33 27 January 2007"[4]

2_"Phone hacking: Rebekah Brooks could challenge charging decision because prosecutor was victim of tabloid sting - Rebekah Brooks is considering challenging the decision to press charges against her on the grounds that the Crown Prosecution Service QC who took the decision was once the victim of a tabloid sting." By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent 9:20PM BST 17 May 2012.[5]

3_"Rebekah Brooks may use affair between DPP's top prosecutor and Lib Dem peer to challenge perverting course of justice charge - Affair between Alison Levitt, QC, and a Lib Dem peer made national headlines in 2007, But Director of Pubic Prosecutions says 'preposterous' to question her judgement because of publicity" By Tom Gardner PUBLISHED: 11:10, 18 May 2012 | UPDATED: 13:39, 18 May 2012 [6]

4_and see[7]

Qexigator (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, faith in our noble judiciary... that's what I like to see. My word, almost looks like investigative journalism at its best. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting next section "21 January 2013", who owns the Sun newspaper and employed Rebekah Brooks at News of the World? Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ... at its best... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what any of that has to do with the price of fish. Could we stick to the serious matter in hand? -- Alarics (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

--what is the price of stinking fish or good red herring ? As I am sure you know, the serious matter at hand is the extent to which Savile and/or BBC should be denounced by DPP and sundry others, and the extent of making Wikipedia an accessory. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The timing and media management of the reports is remarkable and has succeeded in causing confusion pretty well all round. The Levitt report should have been put in the forefront not drowned out by ACPO. Accidental? And Levitt also writes of "victims", conveniently allowing the other to do the same. "Having spoken to the victims I have been driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible." p.4, 6.vi. Qexigator (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

21 January 2013

Savile is on the front page of the Sun and the Daily Star today (screenshot). They have worked themselves into a lather over a 2001 episode of Tweenies which was repeated on CBeebies, with one of the characters imitating Savile (Sun Star). This is mentioned in Tweenies but is probably not notable elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, "fury", "storm", etc., etc. Who or what was harmed by this repeat? The sensibilities of outraged parents, of course. The puppet looks comparatively pleasant, in my view. I see that Ghm has already added a note at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. One way to boost the hits on the inevitable YouTube clip, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

'Twasn't me, m'lud, 'twas User:82.31.138.48. I just tweaked it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is here on YouTube, guys and gals. As Savile impressions go, it is lacklustre. Obviously a slow news day, never mind all that is going on in Algeria.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No doubt it'll get added to BBC controversies. It's nothing whatsoever to do with Savile himself, and shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And in any event we should not be taking any notice of the foamings of the gutter press. -- Alarics (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We now have 13 YouTube offerings to choose from, including a couple of commentaries - one of which is quite wise: [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As discussed on the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show today, by media journalist Jason Stone and Peter Saunders, CEO of National Association for People Abused in Childhood, the incident seems to have wider implications e.g. that the BBC may never again be able to broadcast those editions of Top Of The Pops where Savile was a host. I'm not quite sure what the policy was after the convictions of Glitter and Jonathan King. I guess we'll all just have to make do with "UK Gold Medallion" etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC apologised after removing King from a repeated TV programme and agreed it should not have done so. -- Alarics (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for that apology? Did they remove just King, or the whole progamme? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"We are sorry that Mr King's appearance was edited out of this particular programme. We accept that this should not have happened and we would like to apologise for any upset this caused." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8835884/BBC-apology-to-Jonathan-King-after-he-is-cut-from-repeat.html -- Alarics (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Very different circumstances, since King was performing not presenting, and so much easier to edit out. And he had already been out of jail for some six years by 2011, so punishment should certainly have been replaced by rehabilitation by that time. But even that removal was described as "a Stalinist revision of history". There'll never be any rehabilitation for Savile, of course. And the amount of "punishment" is still being calculated by the lawyers, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that, unless I'm mistaken, not a penny has been paid yet, and how exactly do you prove guilt against a dead man?(Frankymole) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.89.82 (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A memory hole would come in useful here, but it is depressing if the tabloids are going to scream blue murder every time Savile is mentioned. Even Wikipedia is in on the act, because the background faces in his photo are now blurred. Savile is fast becoming like Leon Trotsky in Stalin's Russia, because he has to be airbrushed out of the official history books.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Knighthood

I dont believe the title "Sir Jimmy Savile" should be used anywhere on the article at all, It should be noted that he was kighted very clearly but his name should only simply be referred as "Jimmy Savile" (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC))

Previously discussed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Death/End of Life Care Pathway

What did the death certificate say was the cause of death? Was his GP in attendance when he died, and was he officially receiving 'End of Life Care' AKA the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying? He'd been unwell for a fair length of time, so it would have been perfectly lawful, but the actual fine details of his death have been somewhat overlooked in amongst everything else arising since. 79.75.209.230 (talk)DBroadley79.75.209.230 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)