Talk:Jimmy Savile

New Louis Theroux documentary

This is on the BBC News website today. Louis Theroux looks back at his meeting with Savile, also covered in The Guardian here. Louis Theroux: Savile is broadcast on Sunday, 2 October at 9pm on BBC2. Worth watching as it may be useful for expanding the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06: 39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

New ITV documentary

There is a new hour long documentary about Savile on ITV at 9 PM this evening, Savile: Portrait Of A Predator.[1] How's about that then, guys and gals?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

He isnt a Sir please remove this. He was stripped of this and its disrespectful to the people he abused. 2A00:23C6:7002:9701:4078:FCBA:DA0D:2661 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done. He was not stripped of the knighthood during his lifetime, and cannot be stripped of it afterwards. Please check the talk page archives for previous discussions about this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Mining injury

The lead section now says "Savile worked in coal mines as a teenager Bevin Boy, reportedly sustaining spinal injuries at the age of 18, during the Second World War." I was about to remove the source, as per WP:LEADCITE, but I see that the BBC source used says: "During World War II he is conscripted as a Bevin Boy, working in the coal mines, reportedly suffering spinal injuries in a mining accident aged 14." Of the sources used in the main body The Guardian gives no age and The Times has no online link. Any suggestions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Things that Savile said about himself as a coal miner are a bit dodgy and WP:AUTO. We've previously discussed whether he actually was a Bevin Boy as some of the things he said about this don't add up. This would also apply to some extent to the injury.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Bevin Boys says: "Chosen by lot as ten percent of all male conscripts aged 18–25, plus some volunteering as an alternative to military conscription." So 14 seems doubly implausible. But then it is grim in Leeds, isn't it. Maybe it doesn't really belong in the lead at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RS have reported that Savile was a Bevin Boy, but they are going along with what Savile said, with experts such as Warwick Taylor doubting this.[2] Likewise, if the spinal injury can only be traced back to something Savile said, the usual Zaphod Beeblebrox problem applies. But it's hard to overrule the BBC and the Guardian.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. He's quite the hero at the Beeb, isn't he. A real record breaker (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased this sentence in the summary to tie in with what has been written of his coal mining experience in the Early life section, as the age chronology is at odds. At age fourteen, the latter section states, he left school and worked in an office pre working in the pits. As he was born 1926 Savile would have reached Bevin Boy age of 18 in 1944 when WWII was still ongoing.Cloptonson (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That is logical, thanks. But what about WP:LEADCITE? Do we include stuff in the lead (partly) because the BBC has said it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

My only reservation on the BBC as a source is the possibility the information given could be erroneous if it was based on what Savile as an interviewee had told them about his past (either by mistake through inaccurate recall or deliberately). I think that should be taken into account. BTW, if Savile had sustained his pit injury as a 14 year old school leaver then he would have been less than a year on from recovery (noting the three years he was allegedly incapacitated) when he reached the age to be balloted.Cloptonson (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the BBC source. Why should anyone believe anything he said about himself? But am a bit confused about the timeline - did he get injured before he was a Bevin Boy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

About the injury, a possible avenue to investigate to pinpoint the accident might be in local newspaper reports. It used to be press procedure (until, by my experience of local news reading, the 1990s) to identifyingly list people reportedly taken to hospital as casualties in accidents reported say on the roads or in workplaces. No doubt Savile's injury would have been hospitalisable and, had he died of it, been subject to inquest which in those days were reported in greater detail than is usual today. Something that might be of interest to those in WikiProject Yorkshire who have access to those sources via public archives. At the time Savile was yet to be famous, but he could have been reported under his full Christian names and age detailed.Cloptonson (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect, for many people an inquest would have been a better outcome. I must admit I've not read any of his autobiographies, as it happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Savile and Lord Longford

As one who lived through the 70s as a teenage news follower, I recall (IIRC) that Savile was one of a number of figures who supported or endorsed Lord Longford's then anti-pornography campaign and House of Lords Report on the subject. I well recall a JAK cartoon of Longford addressing a meeting of his campaign group that included a cigar smoking Savile in his audience when (referencing Longford's other cause in penal reform) Longford makes the caption comment: "When we've put the pornographers in prison we'll look for ways of getting them out again!" In view of the later revelations of Savile's private life, this now seems incredible in hindsight. If published evidence could be found from news files (more likely those published at time rather than since Savile's death) that would make an interesting addition. It would have been another feather for Savile's respectability cap.Cloptonson (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No Knighthood

Savile is not a Knight or a Sir.

That particular club is only for life. Now he's dead, there is no reason anyone should be calling him Sir or referring to him as such.

This is from The Guardian, but you can find other sources on this elsewhere (including The Cabinet Office)

'The Cabinet Office confirmed on Tuesday morning that in Savile's case there was no knighthood to revoke, after David Cameron had raised the prospect of the Jim'll Fix It presenter being posthumously stripped of the honour in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse against young girls.

"It's a living order and then you cease to be a member when you die," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "There isn't an honour to revoke."'

Continuing to refer to him as Sir is both incorrect and offensive.

Put a paragraph in about his Knighthood, in life, for sure - but take the Sir away from this bastard?

Do the right thing.