This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
David Grey and Peter Watt (Jan 2013), Giving Victims a Voice(PDF), A joint MPS and NSPCC report
Additional comments
Extensive copy and pastes of large sections of Wikipedia without appropriate attribution or release under the appropriate license.
Re this edit: the background story here is that Savile was originally wanted by the BBC to present the final episode of Top of the Pops live on Sunday 30 July 2006. However, he had already agreed to appear as the honorary chieftain at the Lochaber Highland Games on the same weekend, so he couldn't do it and his appearance in the final TOTP was cut back to a few prerecorded inserts. Hence Savile wearing the tartan tracksuit. I'm not sure if this adds great context to the caption, but it does show that at the time, Savile was still regarded as a national treasure, living saint etc. The faces in the background of the photo are now blurred out. Apparently nobody wants to be seen with him nowadays.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As two editors (and presumably the original caption writer) feel it is a useful detail, I do not have any strong feeling that it should be left out, even though I did revert once. I will say my reason was that as far as I can tell it's the only image of Savile on WP without another face visible (per his own article) so my inclination was that it was included just to illustrate who Savile was and that the extra content just distracted from the topic of the article. Nevertheless you both seem well versed on the topic so I will undo my own edit per the opinion of you and @Martinevans123:. Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk18:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true that Savile was ever regarded as a 'national treasure', let alone a 'living saint'. Certain establishment sources may have encouraged that perception, but it's not what anyone actually thought. He was regarded as odd, a freak and a creep, even when no one knew for sure what he got up to. In the 1980s, on ITV's noted puppet satire show Spitting Image, the Savile puppet was always required to read out letters beginning, 'Dear Jim -- you, sad, man...' Which was about as far as the scriptwriters, including Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, could legally go just then. Savile's revelation, to Dr Anthony Clare on BBC Radio 4's In The Psychiatrist's Chair in 1991, that he spent five days alone with his mother's body after her death, was pretty widely regarded as strange and sinister. Ask anyone who heard it. Indeed the whole interview was quite sinister. https://www.channel4.com/news/how-jimmy-savile-revealed-all-in-the-psychiatrists-chair It's not like nobody noticed that the man was a hazard-to-traffic. Practically everybody noticed, but he retained establishment cover, due, presumably, to careful grooming of the right contacts. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Savile was a bit of a Marmite person during his lifetime. Some people loved him (Margaret Thatcher was a good example), while other people were less convinced (her Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster being a good example). Nevertheless, Savile had managed to convince enough people that he was a national treasure and living saint to make it difficult for any national newspaper to publish allegations about sexual misconduct during his lifetime, even though the allegations were widely known in Fleet Street. The article Jimmy Savile has a 1992 quote from Anthony Clare "There is something chilling about this 20th-century 'saint'" which turned out to be very prescient words.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category covers a range of things, from: Milli Vanilli's fake singing scandal, the American 1950's quiz show scandals, Donald Trump making off-colour jokes on an Access Hollywood bus and a sexual abuse allegation in Woody Allen's personal life. This was admittedly a scandal for the BBC (see Dame Janet Smith Review), so I don't know why it wouldn't apply here.LM2000 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would be WP:NOTNEWS, but given the considerable media coverage and the resignation of Munira Mirza[1] it is probably now notable enough for a mention. As she said: "This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse".[2] What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two current sources The Spectator says this (emphasis added) "In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mirza writes: ‘I believe it was wrong for you to imply this week that Keir Starmer was personally responsible for allowing Jimmy Savile to escape justice. There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion. This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse. You tried to clarify your position today but, despite my urging, you did not apologise for the misleading impression you gave.’"
So the implication was false... "There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion".
The current first sentence of the article reads, "Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work." This is almost completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is fitting for the article Jimmy Savile, but it is unfit for the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" article, which is the article that preoccupies us in this page. Said sentence doesn't even mention sex abuse nor scandal. How is this first sentence considered useful at all for the current page? Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is [...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Therefore, the first sentence of the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" should tell what the subject is, and the subject is about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not about who Jimmy Savile is. A first sentence exclusive on who Jimmy Savile is belongs in the article Jimmy Savile, not in this page. Thinker78(talk)18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfC about the first sentence in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Is the current first sentence appropriate for this article (Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not Jimmy Savile)? My edit got reverted (more information starts with the thread above, before this RFC subsection). Thinker78(talk)22:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Edited 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Edited again 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree; the current first sentence should focus on the sexual abuse since that is the topic here. I think this is the obviously correct answer, to the point I think you could just cancel the RFC and change it now, but perhaps there is history I don't know about.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78 Ahh, I see–in that case, it makes sense to gather more input before making the change. Yes, I think the current first sentence doesn't fit the topic and should be changed in the way you describe. Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate. I do think this will be a more impactful RfC if we consider a specific alternate option. I'd favor an opening paragraph something like Draft #1 below. In general, I'd prefer an opening focused on the scandal and not Savile's personality. The draft includes most status quo info, but adds that rumours had been around since the 70s and excludes mention of his knighting or eccentricities. I have no objection to these being mentioned later in the lead. Anyone should feel free to propose a new draft, or edit #1, but I do ask that major changes be discussed first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that MOS:FIRST is relevant here: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." The status quo has a first sentence that is not about the scandal, and I support any reasonable proposal that remedies that issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate. I can understand what the first sentence was attempting to do, I think - emphasizing how beloved he was to make it more clear why the scandal had such an impact - but it comes across as awkward and strange to spend two sentences praising him before even mentioning the topic of the article. I'm not a fan of putting donations and charitable work anywhere in the lead of even the main article for anyone who isn't primarily notable for it (anyone who has significant amounts of money is going to have impactful donations; just because coverage exists doesn't mean it's significant enough to be leadworthy.) But on this article, which isn't even about Savile's entire life but solely about the sex abuse scandal, it comes across as a bit absurd. And the language is somewhat non-neutral, too - eccentricities is a bit eyebrow-raising, and generally respected for his charitable work isn't well-cited (the only mention is cited to an obituary, which is WP:PRIMARY in the context of describing the reaction at the time of his death.) I would avoid any use of the phrase generally respected anywhere in the article unless we can cite it to a high-quality secondary source - not to an obituary. EDIT: My thinking about this prompted me to write an essay, WP:OBITUARIES, about the risks of relying on obituaries as sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate. Starting this article with mentioning how beloved Savile was feels insulting. An article, that should focus on Savile's crimes, uses its first sentences to endear Savile to the readers. It feels like the article is saying "Before we talk about Saviles crimes you need to know that he was such a likable person. He even donated to charity. Anyway, there were reports abaut sexual abuse ... "
Not appropriate. Usually I'm in full agreement with Ianmacm's approach, but I disagree with this edit. The wording that was reverted was not perfect, but it was an improvement on the existing wording and the mention of earlier complaints about Savile could have been incorporated fairly easily. The first sentence should be about the subject of the article - which is the scandal, not the individual. I think that Draft #1 is a big improvement on the current wording and should be accepted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NotSupport draft 1 - Draft 1 is pretty clumisly worded. I actually think the status quo was OK. If people couldn't make it to the third sentence to read about the sexual abuse, do they deserve to know? Anyway, if folks want to get the sexual abuse in the first sentence, that's fine too, but it should read something like "Jimmy Savile was a noted English media personality, charitable worker and sexual abuser." That wording is simple, concise and touches on all the points for which he was notable. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT how was the status quo ok? The first sentence had almost nothing to do with the topic, which is the sexual abuse scandal. It was a first sentence for Jimmy Saville, not about the scandal, which was not even mentioned. Thinker78(talk)20:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of this wording. The key thing that people need to know is that Savile was lauded like a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, but it all fell apart rapidly after his death. I always assume that not everyone reading about Savile is British, and they should not get the impression that he was a sex abuser along the lines of Harvey Weinstein who actually did end up in prison during his lifetime. The other thing that people need to know is that Savile was able to use a mixture of lies and legal threats to prevent all of this from coming out during his lifetime.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm: - I think you're responding to the wording I proposed but I'm not sure b/c you didn't indent. Assuming you are, I understand the details you want to add and agree they are important. That said I don't think the level of detail your looking for is appropriate for the lead sentence. If you try to put all of that in the lede sentence it will be convoluted. It's best just to say "Person X was notable for A, B and C." Then, in the next sentences, go on to describe A, then B, then C. P.S. I wasn't raised in the UK and think I only read one or two headlines about this guy before coming to this discussion. NickCT (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm, you stated, "The key thing that people need to know is that Savile was lauded like a national treasure". No. Wikipedia is not for promotion. This page is about the sexual abuse scandal involving Saville, not about how great Saville was. Therefore, the key thing that people need to know from the article is about the sexual abuse scandal and the first sentence should be about that, not about how great Saville was. Thinker78(talk)20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about promoting Savile, because he did succeed in acquiring the image of a national treasure during his lifetime. Not everyone was convinced, and Anthony Clare said "There is something chilling about this 20th-century 'saint'". I've already said that the lead needs tweaking, but the main thing is to understand how Savile's reputation fell apart after his death.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how hard is for dead people to defend themselves. But I insist, the main thing in this article is about the sexual abuse scandal from a neutral point of view. Thinker78(talk)17:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they should not get the impression that he was a sex abuser along the lines of Harvey Weinstein ... Indeed. He was worse. Far worse! Child sex trafficking is far worse a crime than sexual harassment (which is what).
... who actually did end up in prison during his lifetime. Ah, so he's innocent bc he got away with it, I see...
Draft #1 does at least make clear that the major controversy occurred after his death. Savile was able to deflect allegations during his lifetime by lying and making legal threats, even though journalists had heard stories about him which they believed were true but would not be guaranteed to stand up in court in a libel action if Savile played the "national treasure and living saint" card.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft one is the lede you'd use if the article was about the sexual abuse. Not about the person. In lede sentences about people, you introduce who the person is and why they're notable. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change it.I don't like Draft 1 either, but the current version needs to be fixed. It needs to follow MOS:LEAD. The lead sentence needs to contain within it the most important information of the page. Yes, it should include that he was a well-known English media personality, but it also needs to include the sexual abuse scandal. Neither the current version nor Draft 1 includes both of those features. (Draft 1 is more like a lead sentence for a page specifically about the scandal.) The lead sentence should introduce readers to both of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woops! You're not confused. But I was! Somehow, when I replied to the RfC listing, I somehow got it into my addled head that this was Talk:Jimmy Savile, the talk page for the BLP. But it isn't. Sorry all, and especially sorry NickCT, because Draft 1 looks a lot better to me now, although I still think the lead sentence could be rewritten the way I suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these - yes, per MOS:FIRST the focus should not be identifying ‘Jimmy Savile’, but neither should it be about identifying the ‘Jimmy Saville sexual abuse’ crimes. The full title is for a “scandal”. The scandal, like the article content, includes and is largely about the decades of failures by BBC, CPS, Department of Health, and Hospital facilities. Perhaps something more like “The Jimmy Saville sexual abuse scandal was a series of reports that began to surface in 2012 that the late media celebrity had sexually abused hundreds of people over decades with numerous failures to stop him at the BBC, CPS, Department of Health, and hospitals involved.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the drafts at the time of this writing indicate that the reports surfaced a year after Savile's death. When @Ianmacm: did revert my edit, they stated, "People had received complaints about Savile's behaviour as far back as the 1970s, but nothing was done about it at the time". Thinker78(talk)15:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate, the first sentence should identify the scandal somehow. Not sure what the best way would be, but it is about the scandal, not Savile. PrisonerB (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work. He was knighted in 1990. In late 2012, almost a year after his death, reports surfaced that Savile had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life, with alleged male and female victims, ranging from prepubescent to adult, following a 2007 police interview and 2008 allegations by The Sun. Savile often came into contact with these alleged victims through his creative projects for the BBC and his charitable work for the National Health Service (NHS).
Draft 1
Draft #1
In late 2012, almost a year after the death of English media personality Jimmy Savile (1926–2011), reports surfaced that he had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life. Savile allegedly abused both male and female victims, ranging from prepubescent to adult. Rumours dating to the 1970s, a 2007 police interview, and 2008 allegations by The Sun preceded the 2012 reports. Savile often came into contact with these alleged victims through his creative projects for the BBC and his generally respected charitable work for the National Health Service (NHS).
Not perfect, but the original text is better. Overriding this article is the status of the man when he was alive. There would not have been a scandal of this scale had he not been such a character. Consider, why Mark Page, also a sex offending Radio 1 DJ, does not get the same attention as Savile. It is because of Savile's status in society at the time, that Page did not have. The JS scandal and his social status are inexorably linked. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger the status quo text did not follow Wikipedia guidelines for MOS:FIRST sentences. It is usually a good idea for this latter to be about the topic at hand, which is not the case with the status quo in this page. There is an article for Jimmy Savile, in which place the present first sentence in this article about the sexual abuse scandal would be appropriate. But for this article, the first sentence should inform the reader about the scandal not mainly about Savile. Thinker78(talk)22:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft 2
Even shuffling the first sentences with light copy-editing might be an improvement and provide a way forward. Something like this:
Draft 2: The NebY Shuffle
In late 2012, almost a year after his death, reports surfaced that English media personality Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life, with alleged male and female victims, ranging from prepubescent to adult. During his lifetime Savile had been well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and generally respected for his charitable work, and he was knighted in 1990. Savile often came into contact with these alleged victims through his creative projects for the BBC and his charitable work for the National Health Service (NHS).
That's dropped "following a 2007 police interview and 2008 allegations by The Sun" (which didn't fit very well after "ranging from prepubescent to adult" anyway and might do better in the start of the next paragraph) but goes some way towards introducing the scandal rather than Savile in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST, followed by a quick explanation of who Savile was and the opportunities he was exploiting. NebY (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In late 2012, almost a year after his death, reports surfaced that English media personality Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) had for decades sexually abused hundreds of people, both male and female, ranging from prepubescent to adult. During his lifetime Savile had been well known in Britain for his eccentricities, and was respected for his charity work and fundraising; he was knighted in 1990. Savile often came into contact with his alleged victims through his work for the BBC and his fundraising activities, particularly for the National Health Service (NHS).
"his fundraising activities" looks a little narrow. Wasn't a significant part of his abuse done while "volunteering" or as a celebrity visitor that no-one dared turn away, though not directly fundraising or doing PR during those visits? NebY (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft 3
Draft 3
The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal broke out in late 2012, almost a year after the death of Jimmy Savile. Savile, an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work, was found to have had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life."
Per MOS:FIRST, "the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject [in this case the scandal, not the person] is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to wordsmith that eg "The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal broke out in late 2012. Savile, who died [the previous year / in 2011], was an English media personality who had been well known..." NebY (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have two issues with that: first, Savile should be linked early in the intro, but not in the bolded text; and second, the rewording makes the first sentence far too short. I am rewording the draft in a slightly different way. Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal broke out in late 2012, when Savile, an English media personality who died the previous year, was found to have had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life. During his lifetime Savile had been well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work.
This is my new favourite, delivering all the introductory essentials in one flowing sentence. Purely on style, I'd like to avoid the near-repetition "... throughout his life. In his lifetime ..." eg by skipping the second, leaving "... had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life. Savile had been well known ..." After all, he continued to be well known and even respected after his death, at first. NebY (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right! "During his lifetime" is utterly redundant. In my defence, I was only copying it from previous drafts/the current version. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2014, TV presenter Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was found by the Scotland Yard[1] and the UK Department of Health[2] to have sexually abused around 500 vulnerable victims as young as two years old at his shows on the BBC, 14 hospitals and 20 children's hospitals across England.[3]
The highly public scandal began in 2012, and the public did not have to wait for formal conclusions in 2014 to be convinced and scandalised, or for various actions to be taken. Not Scotland Yard - the Metropolitan Police (we have a wide readership). It's not clear to me from the article which of the BBC or hospitals we should lead with; if any comparison's possible, I find the abuse of exceptionally vulnerable children in hospitals most horrifying but I don't know which was more numerous. NebY (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“The Jimmy Saville sexual abuse scandal was a series of reports that began to surface in 2012 that the late media celebrity had sexually abused hundreds of people over decades with numerous failures to stop him at the BBC, CPS, Department of Health, and hospitals involved.”
Savile should be linked early in the intro, but not in the bolded text. I suggest "reports that began to surface in 2012 that [[Jimmy Savile|the late media celebrity]] had sexually abused..." Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
