Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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)

Is there a category of UK media sucking-up to showmen? Just as they show an extra-ordinary amount of coverage to the president of the USA or the pope or any current prime minister, or whatever it is they call "the government"? I think that too much respect is the main problem here. Responding to Alarics, I think there are several rape allegations but do not know where to refer to them. A quick google shows the Daily Mail alleging 34, but that's the Daily Mail. Also, harm done is hard to measure. But one rape in the sense of harming the other person sounds a safe bet to me. Tricky subject if I campare with young football fans queuing-up for encounters with footballers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 34 allegations of rape have been reported, but at this stage that is all they are -- uncorroborated allegations. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
For update on DPP/CPS Alison Levitt Report January 2013, see Talk[2]. Qexigator (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


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, 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: 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." -- 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 (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)


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)
Until and unless the knighthood is rescinded, hopefully very soon, it must stay wherever appropriate as per WP:MOS, unfortunately. Quis separabit? 19:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
See Could Jimmy Savile lose knighthood over abuse claims?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:44, 4 March 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. (talk)DBroadley79.75.209.230 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Friendship w/ the late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher not mentioned???


A "Daily Mail" article detailing a lengthy, documented friendship w/Thatcher.

Censored, Savile's private letters to Mrs Thatcher: Files edited two months ago... AFTER child abuse claims surfaced

Letter from Jimmy Savile to former PM released under 30-year rule Declares his love for her in gushing 1980 note written following a lunch Also refers to his 'girl patients' and says 'they all love you' But other correspondence between the two has been censored Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher By CLAIRE ELLICOTT

PUBLISHED: 19:04 EST, 27 December 2012 | UPDATED: 04:13 EST, 28 December 2012

Comments (264) Share A letter thought to mark the beginning of the warm relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile has been made public for the first time.

But other correspondence between the pair has been censored, raising questions over what it contains.

The Top Of The Pops presenter sent an adoring letter to the then prime minister in 1980, singing her praises and declaring his love for her. Warm relationship: The letter is thought to mark the beginning of a close friendship between Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher. But further correspondence between the pair has been censored because it is 'personal' or 'confidential'

Correspondence: A handwritten letter from Jimmy Savile in which he declared his 'love' for Margaret Thatcher after being invited to lunch with her was released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule

She responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood.

The letter, part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew today, reveals how well connected to the establishment he was.

But parts of some exchanges between Savile and Mrs Thatcher were censored in October this year – eight days after claims that he had sexually abused people surfaced in an ITV documentary.

The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11.


Maggie's war with treacherous Mitterrand over Exocet missile: Archive files reveal relationship with France was stretched to breaking point British government considered pulling out of 1982 World Cup as Falklands war broke out, archive files reveal Thatcher's £1,800 bill over missing Mark: PM paid for rescue operation (and bar tab) after son got lost during Paris-Dakar rally How US nearly betrayed us to the enemy: Secretary of State threatened to tell Argentina British troops were landing on South Georgia New children's TV station to counter 'mindless' shows: Mrs Thatcher considered new channel in wake of riots across the country Archived files show Soviet Union used civil airliners to conduct secret Cold War spying missions over Britain

The information is exempt because it is ‘personal’ or ‘confidential’. But the timing raises the question of whether the information was redacted in light of the negative headlines.

Correspondence remaining in the file includes the gushing letter Savile sent to Mrs Thatcher after a lunch meeting to discuss funding for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. In it, he also hints at becoming a knight, something arranged during Mrs Thatcher’s tenure and awarded in the New Year’s Honours in 1990, a month after she left office.

Close: The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile¿s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name

The letter reads: ‘I waited a week before writing to thank you for my lunch invitation because I had such a superb time I didn’t want to be too effusive.

‘My girl patients pretended to be madly jealous and wanted to know what you wore and what you ate. All the paralysed lads called me “Sir James” all week. They all love you. Me too!!’

The note, written in February 1980, is signed with kisses and bears Savile’s distinctive signature, with a smiley face in the J of his name.

There is no record of Mrs Thatcher’s reply, but a later memo to her from her personal secretary asks in a worried tone whether she has agreed to appear on Jim’ll Fix It.

In the message dated March 9, 1981, after the DJ had lunch with Mrs Thatcher at Chequers, Caroline Stephens wrote: ‘Can you kindly let me know if you made any promises to Jimmy Savile when he lunched with you yesterday, for instance:

‘(i) Did you offer him any money for Stoke Mandeville?

‘(ii) Did you tell him that you would appear on Jim’ll Fix It?’

In felt pen, Mrs Thatcher replies to the first saying: ‘Will tell you in detail. MT.’ To the second, she simply writes: ‘No.’

Censored: The text of a letter from Savile to Mrs Thatcher and a phone message that he left for her were deleted from the file under the Freedom of Information Act on October 11

Pariah: Savile was invited to lunches at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher who also oversaw his knighthood

Praised during his life for his charity work, especially at Stoke Mandeville, Savile has now been unmasked as a serial child abuser. More than 450 people have made allegations of abuse by the DJ, who died last year aged 84.

The papers released by the National Archive today include an entire Savile file devoted to his correspondence with Mrs Thatcher and her aides about his charity work and pleas for Government money for his projects.

There are also a number of redactions made in October – other files released today were edited much earlier in the year.

In the 1981 section of the file, there are discussions about Savile’s suggestion of a Government contribution to Stoke Mandeville during a meeting with Mrs Thatcher.

No 10 private secretary Mike Pattison wrote: ‘The Prime Minister said was he thinking of a million pounds and Mr Savile replied that they would be grateful for any sum.’

In December 1981, the Government announced that it would give £500,000 to the Stoke Mandeville Appeal.


Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebookjohncheverly 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One might even start to think you had some kind of an axe to grind here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Those specific issues are already addressed in the section on "Personal life and friendships", sourced from The Guardian and The Independent. Please don't copy and paste articles here - use links if you must. And please consider the possibility of actually reading the article, before embarrassing yourself again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make in both this article and the "Jimmy Savile Sex Abuse Scandal" is that both articles are BIASED. There NEVER was a single criminal charge made against the man in all 80-plus years of his life and you are reporting POSTHUMOUS STUFF/JUNK about him. The articles need to bring in all points of view on these matters. That's my point. How would you like to try and lead a good life, never have a bad thing said against you, and then be accused, tried, and convicted after you were dead for a year and couldn't defend yourself??? Baby, the only ax I got to grind is the truth and both the aforementioned Jimmy Savile articles reek of bias against him. Why???johncheverly 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Most sources before Savile's death presented him in a generally positive light; most sources since his death have presented him in a generally negative light. Given that the Met Police have described him as one of Britain's worst ever sex offenders, it's pretty difficult to maintain a position that the article is "biased" against him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it's all a conspiracy? But he's not even been properly "accused", has he. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. it's 18 months.

Innocent until proven guilty???

This issue troubles me. Unlike Jerry Sanduskey, Sir Jimmy Savile was never officially accused of any criminal or civil charge during his life about anything. Only one year after his death, did all the "accusers" come out of the woodwork. What gives??? Doesn't England have some sort of Constitutional guarantee like the USofA that a person has to be proven guilty of something before he can be "tagged" as such???johncheverly 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But the Great British Press seems to have ensured, for very many years, that one remains guilty, until proven "innocent". The real puzzle is how Savile managed to keep his behaviour out of the tabloids until he was safely tucked up in Scarborough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
So sometimes we accept what "the Great British Press" says, sometimes not. S. Fight (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice the wording in the article. Words like "accused", "suspected", "alleged", "believe to have been" appear throughout. Unlike Sandusky, Savile was never convicted, and will never be, so the wording has to reflect that.LM2000 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The documentary that set it all off was broadcast a year to the day after Sir Jimmy's death. That's when all the alleged victims started to make their claims.johncheverly 22:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you claiming that someone was bribing the BBC to keep the Savile estate untouched by claims in that intervening 12 months? (What does the law saw about such matters, I wonder?) But how does this affect the content of this article, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Does England have laws such as we do??? That is a relevant point here. What is the law about accusing, trying, and convicting a person of crimes after he is dead??? Thank God in the USofA we have a Constitutional Right to face our accusers. What does England's law say about Sir Jimmy's rights to face his accusers???johncheverly 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it says that, in the present circumstances, it might be tricky. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case may be in order. A lot of people are making a lot of wild, unsubstantiated claims against a dead man.johncheverly 02:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to add one. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sex life/Friendships.

In this interview on ITV's "This Morning" program in May 2012, Sue Hymns states that she and Savile were "together" for almost 20 years until his death in October 2011 and is "out to sea without him." So her statements don't mean anything???johncheverly 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of her in reliable sources - only in the Daily Mail, which doesn't count. There is no way of knowing whether her claims are true. And, regarding whether or not she was central to his life, "One person mentioned in the Savile will was Sue Hymns, who in an attempt to quash rumours of Savile’s sexual misbehaviour, revealed last year that she and Savile had been romantically involved for 43 years. The will allocated £1,000 to her, but misspelled her surname." - [9] How romantic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
And why doesn't "The Daily Mail"??? It has a wikipedia page, so it must be legit. "First published in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe, it is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun.[4] "johncheverly 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. The Daily Mail is generally not very highly regarded for the quality of its journalism. Obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There you have it, video on a nationwide television show in the UK w/ Ms Hymn's stating that she and Savile had an ongoing relationship since 1993 up until his death, and a _Daily Mail_ report of a bequest that Ms Hymns mentions in the ITV interview. Do you know what the death duties aka inheritances taxes are in the UK??? It would be beneficial to her for Savile to give her the money before he died, don'tcha think??? Have you ever payed any kind of capital gains taxes in the USofA??? Pretty hefty.johncheverly 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, isn't it funny "The Daily Mail" is used already as a source???

^ Davies, Dan (6 October 2012). "'Little slaves', sordid boasts and the dark truth about my 'friend' Jimmy Savile, by the biographer who tried to unmask him". Daily Mail (London). Retrieved 8 November 2012.johncheverly 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe that should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No the Sue Hymns article should be added. 02:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Mail source should be removed - unless it presents reliably sourced and notable information which is unavailable from better sources elsewhere, which is possible but unlikely. I also think that the Alison Bellamy book, How's About That Then? should be mentioned, as should the other new book, Savile - The Beast by John McShane. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Daily Mail is at best a 'biased' source, but don't feel it can be dismissed as a source.PeterM88 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of KSGC, OBE, And Knighthood

I have removed these all from the page as they cease to exist after death, therefore he no longer has these honours ( PurpleMesa (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that? It looks like complete and utter bullshit to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) "an OBE or a knighthood expires when a person die" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleMesa (talkcontribs) 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times before. There is a problem if the real motive is to strip him of these honours posthumously, which cannot be done under current UK law.[10] Sure, they ceased to apply after his death, but Wikipedia articles such as Winston Churchill list titles that a person had in their lifetime in the first sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah they ceased to apply and do you honestly believe that we should keep it there if it doesnt apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleMesa (talkcontribs) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are selectively reading a contradictory source. Are you proposing that we no longer refer to Sir Francis Drake for example under that name? It is entirely normal, as far as I'm aware, to still refer to the honours an individual receives after his/her death, and I see no reason to revise normal encyclopaedic practice based on a single questionable statement from the BBC. Savile received the honours, and there is as yet no reason to treat him differently from any other deceased individual, as far as I can see. If he is posthumously stripped of his honours, our article can reflect the fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree. Does that BBC source really say "after a person dies, he or she cannot be referred to using those titles"? I had assumed that what was meant by "expires" there was in the sense of "how many knights of the realm are there at the moment" and "how many people had OBEs on 1st January 1988". etc. But it doesn't actually clarify what is intended there, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite so. There is no case at all for PurpleMesa's edit unless and until Savile is officially stripped of his honours. It is not for Wikipedia to take arbitrary moral stances. -- Alarics (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't cease to apply, the individual is simply no longer a member of the order. It may well be right to strip Savile of these honours, but removing them from his history is also wrong. You would have to do the same for anyone who died. Wikipidea is supposed to be 'even handed' and simply speak the truth, without regard for the individual being discussed. PeterM88 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to israel

why won't the article address his extensive link to Israel and the many awards he received from Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamLowenstein (talkcontribs) 20:10, 8 October 2013‎

Why don't you add a mention of it yourself, with suitable sources cited of course -- Alarics (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, how many awards was that, exactly? Have they all been officially rescinded yet? And if not, why not... I think we all deserve to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"Extensive link to Israel" is probably overdoing it and could have WP:NPOV issues. If Savile did receive some awards from Israel, it could be mentioned as long as it was reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
There's some context here - but not much confirmation elsewhere. A lot of mentions on antisemitic racist blogs and forums, but obviously we discount them. I don't think there's anything we should add to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile, ardent zionist and extensive link to Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamLowenstein (talkcontribs) 10:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A clearly unreliable blog and commentary. What's your point? And please remember to sign your posts using four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Surrey police interview transcripts

"I brush women away like midges". The latest from Surrey police (and possibly the reaction from erstwhile "colleague" Blackburn) [11] may deserve to be added, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, seems quite encyclopedic and extremely pertinent to the "During his lifetime" section.LM2000 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. We could perhaps mention the fact that they have been published - but I've just read them and they really don't add anything significant. He denied the rumours - which we knew anyway - and I certainly don't think there's any point in mentioning what Tony Blackburn thinks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Poor Tony. For once he seemed to be making sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
He had his moments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It is relevant that Savile denied the allegations flat out when confronted, and implied that the accusers were doing it purely for the money. We shall never know whether these allegations would have resulted in a criminal conviction, but as Stuart Hall found, denying allegations outright can be seen by a court as an aggravating feature of a case. The Telegraph article also paints a depressing picture of Savile as a person who thought that he could brag, bluff and bully his way out of any situation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This was added to Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal because it is more on topic there. The release of the 2009 transcripts has picked up a good deal of media coverage, and has also led to criticism of the police for their deferential handling of Savile at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias. Expert Opinions Needed.

Has this article been vetted by a licensed/certified solicitor or barrister in the UK for opinions as to what right a dead person has in the UK with regard to his reputation and protection against potentially defamatory conduct vis a vis Constitutional Common Law in England???

Please reference the following article


6.1 False allegations of child abuse [edit]

In November 2012, McAlpine was mistakenly implicated in the North Wales child abuse scandal, after the BBC Newsnight TV programme accused an unnamed "senior Conservative" of abuse.[41] McAlpine was widely rumoured on Twitter and other social media to be the person in question.[41] After The Guardian reported that the accusations were the result of mistaken identity,[42] McAlpine issued a strong denial that he was in any way involved.[43] The accuser, a former care home resident, unreservedly apologised after seeing a photograph of McAlpine and realising that he had been mistaken.[44] The BBC also apologised.[44] The decision to broadcast theNewsnight report without contacting McAlpine first led to further criticism of the BBC, and to the resignation of its Director-General,George Entwistle.[45] The BBC subsequently paid McAlpine £185,000 in damages plus costs.[46] He also won £125,000 in damages plus costs from ITV following a November 2012 edition of This Morning which linked Conservative politicians to allegations of child sex abuse.[47][48] McAlpine is to pursue twenty "high profile" tweeters who had reported or alluded to the rumours.[49] In February 2013, he dropped the defamation claims against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers in return for a £25 donation to Children in Need.[50] In March 2013, McAlpine's representatives reached an agreement with writer George Monbiot, who had tweeted on the case and had at that time more than 55,000 followers on Twitter, for the latter to carry out work on behalf of three charities of his choice whose value amounts to £25,000 as compensation.[51] for direction.

An Expert, Neutral Legal Opinion is needed on article Jimmy Savile. Thanks.johncheverly 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste large chunks of articles from other websites, or other wikipedia articles, here, as it's almost impossible to read/ understand. And you don't need to make exact copies of threads at two different article Talk pages. It's easier to keep discussion in one place, at least to start with. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna keep doin' it because the witchhunters are not going to bring there unsubstantiated claims to Wikipedia.johncheverly 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't start the same debate on multiple talk pages. There is no direct comparison between Lord McAlpine, who faced a single and obviously wrong allegation of child sexual abuse, and Savile, who faced many allegations of this kind. Also, please don't base accusations of bias on the obvious fact that a dead person cannot be put on trial or sue for libel. What counts is reliable media coverage, of which there is plenty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


It is possible for a person to be tried in their absence (Trial in Absentia), but not after their death. In UK law Savile is innocent and incapable of being proved guilty. So, whilst the evidence may be overwhelming, the accusations should remain 'alleged'. With respect to those affected I would suggest it equally inappropriate to try to assert his technical innocence. PeterM88 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are Dick Turpin, Jack The Ripper and Adolf Hitler also "innocent and incapable of being proved guilty"? Do you go to their wikipedia pages, too, insisting that Hitler was only allegedly the architect of the holocaust? Savile's sex offending is a matter of historical fact, about which there is no real doubt, and wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. You will not find a single credible source published since November 2012 that use the word "allegedly" about these crimes - his crimes are treated as fact by all the sources that this article cites. A report published by Metropolitan Police in conjunction with the NSPCC (which runs Childline) states, "Accounts from victims have left police and NSPCC staff with the unambiguous view that Savile’s behaviour was that of a predatory sex offender who opportunely abused people."[1] There are literally hundreds of police reports of his crimes, and he should be described as "a television presenter, media personality and prolific sex offender" in the opening paragraph. --Stroller (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The difference with Adolf Hitler is that historians have had plenty of decades in which to investigate the record and debate the extent of Hitler's personal responsibility for the holocaust. That has not (yet) happened in the case of Savile. Nothing has been proved against him yet that would stand up in a court of law. It is so far a series of unsubstantiated allegations. Many have criticised the NSPCC/Met Police report that you cite for taking mere allegations and calling them facts. Only the Duncroft allegations have been investigated in any detail, and in that case the CPS report found only one, as it happens relatively minor, claim that might have stood a reasonable chance of a conviction. Even that is contested by some who were there at the time. The article should not be amended as you suggest. -- Alarics (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Dick Turpin was executed in 1739 after a trial for horse theft. Leaving that aside, there has been criticism that Savile has been found "guilty" by Giving Victims a Voice of hundreds of offences posthumously, based only on the word of witnesses. In other cases, such as Jonathan King, some of the allegations were deemed unreliable, so the prosecution stuck to claims that were able to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal court cases.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking error needs requires correction from someone with edit rights

The reference to Scotland Yard in the opening section in fact links to London metropolitan police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FizzixNerd (talkcontribs) 22:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is wholly intentional. A building can't instigate a criminal investigation. It's the fact that it's the police headquarters that is significant. The term "Scotland Yard" is used colloquially in UK to mean Metropolitan Police Service, a.k.a. "The Met". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There is actually an article Scotland Yard which begins "Scotland Yard (officially New Scotland Yard, though an Old Scotland Yard has never existed) is a metonym for the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service". So it would seem less confusing to our worldwide readership if it linked through to that article in the first place. DeCausa (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think that's clearer, I'd have no objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"...known professionally as...."

Another editor is insisting on changing the reference in the opening line from plain Jimmy Savile to Sir Jimmy Savile. Can we agree here that the change is wholly unwarranted? He was not knighted until 1990, when he was almost 64 and most of his career was well behind him. The Chelsea/Bradley Manning case is completely irrelevant - the debate on that issue has concerned the article title, not how Manning is described in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Savile also used OBE in his signature, [12] and says in the letter "all the paralyzed lads called me 'Sir James' all week." Savile certainly enjoyed the "Sir" title that Margaret Thatcher gave him, but as mentioned above, "known professionally as" is misleading, because he was 64 when he received it in 1990, so he did not have it during the peak of his career. "Jimmy Savile" was and still is his WP:COMMONNAME, which is why this is used as the article title. And *please* don't drag Bradley Manning into it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Wording such as "known professionally as" is usually only needed when the person was known by a stage name. The opening should just be "Sir James Wilson Vincent "Jimmy" Savile, without the "known professionally" part. January (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tussauds waxwork

The part about the waxwork in Jimmy Savile#Withdrawn seems exaggerated. The wording describes it as Tussauds having "announced" when the source only says "confirmed" (this may just have been a spokesperson responding to a journalist's enquiry). Much of what is stated to be part of this announcement, such as the part about other disgraced people including Gary Glitter, is probably just the Daily Mail's own elaboration – the only direct quote from Tussauds is "The figure hasn’t been in the attraction for many years and won’t be returning", which is stating the obvious as it's unimaginable that they would put it back on display now. Is this even relevant, particularly to a section on withdrawn honours since a waxwork is not a formal honour? January (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this Evening Standard story from October 2012, Savile's waxwork was melted down (how's about that then, guys and gals?) and no longer exists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with January. If Tussauds had still had him on display when the "sexual abuse" story broke, it might be a different matter, but since they had already taken him down many years before that, it is a non-story. I think we should delete that bullet point altogether. -- Alarics (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Questioning Savile Extensive link to Israel

Why haven't this article touched on the extensive link of savile and his attachment to Israel. He was called one of Israel's best friend. I asked the question before just to see it erased. Why?SamLowenstein (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "erased" - it was answered here and archived. If you can find reliable sources commenting on this matter - not just blogs - we can reconsider. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
He was "called one of Israel's best friends" by whom? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Savile Scandal as right-wing plot

Savile Scandal as right-wing plot

Some commentators such as John Pilger have seen the Savile paedophile accusations as a right wing plot. Here, for example, Pilger defends Savile as the victim of a 'scandal [that]might have been scripted for the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press' ref <</ref>. Should we incorporate some of Pilger's criticism of those who have exposed Savile and Pilger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No - apart from anything else, the article you link only mentions Savile in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

British national treasure

That Sir Jim was. So acknowledge it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Wikipedia is under no obligation whatsoever to parrot CNN headlines. And please sign your posts properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
We're obliged to not have the hypocrisy of accepting this same article as a reliable source in one part of the article (ref 5, lead), and for part of what it says though not for what it proffers in counterpoint elsewhere.Wholegood (talk)
"National treasure" is a bit of a media cliché, similar to "Phew, what a scorcher!" on a hot day. The main point is that Savile's reputation was high during his lifetime but fell apart rapidly after his death, which the article makes clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't see any "hypocrisy" in choosing not to use a CNN banner headline as a source. In fact, in the only instance where that source is used, there are three other perfectly good sources provided. I'd suggest dispensing with the CNN source altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC) - although interesting to see Jeremy Hunt describe him, in his formal apology, as a "somewhat eccentric national treasure."


as the necrophile category has been removed for being just an accusation, surely the category of "English sex offenders" should be removed for the same reason? '''tAD''' (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And "Criminals from Yorkshire" '''tAD''' (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion they are unproven allegations. The evidence for his criminal activity has been described by the police as overwhelming - but none of the allegations were ever tested in a court, he was not a convicted criminal, and the necrophilia allegations have been described as unverifiable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, good to know. Sorry for what was therefore a disruptive edit. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The media has concentrated on the necrophilia allegations because they are the most entertainingly lurid part of the Department of Health investigation. However, they rely largely on hearsay evidence and would have difficulty standing up in court in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, certain narrow parts of the media, anyway. Although Gambaccini was making such lurid claims, in very controversial fashion, two years ago: [13]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We do not categorise people on the basis of unverified allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
In which case, the inclusion of Savile in Category:English sex offenders is dubious. Cyril Smith is also dubious in this category for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that, as Ghm says, the body of evidence for Savile was already described by police as "overwhelming", before these latest NHS reports. There is a huge difference in scale between Savile and Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If Harold Shipman had hanged himself before the trial, The Shipman Inquiry could have found him "guilty" of around 250 murders. Ultimately, though, matters of guilt and innocence are for a jury to decide, not the police or a judge-led inquiry. Savile's reputation is undoubtedly ruined, but he managed to avoid any convictions during his lifetime, as did Cyril Smith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) In principle I think Ian is right, but I think the real issue here is one of scale and probability. No reliable sources - or the police - now seem to be in any doubt that Savile, had he been caught at the time, would have been guilty of multiple sex offences against living people - indeed, against people who are still alive and can now state that the offences occurred. I can understand that as justification for his inclusion in the sex offender category. But, from what I've seen so far, the evidence for necrophiliac activity is far less certain, and unverifiable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There's less evidence for Savile having had sex with corpses, but there is ample evidence that he was a habitual sexual predator who committed many sexual assaults and rapes. Therefore the other cats are valid. Fred West, Dean Corll and Andrew Cunanan were never convicted of killing anyone, but it is not disputed that they were all multiple murderers, and are categorised as such. Jim Michael (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't "ample evidence" at all. Every single allegation so far is just that -- an uncorroborated allegation. The press has, irresponsibly in my view, reported all this stuff as though it were established fact. Wikipedia can say that the press reported it thus, but not that the facts claimed are indeed facts. It is quite instructive to read the full report that has just come about about his alleged abuse in the NHS and compare the detail with the headlines the press has given it. A few dogged seekers after the truth are questioning all this. See this for instance: -- Alarics (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the Met might disagree with you. Have you read yourself Operation Yewtree and Giving Victims a Voice? That enquiry cost about £2m. "According to the report, sex offences were committed by Savile on 450 people (328 being minors at the time) across England and Scotland, and also in Jersey." Not "may have been committed". Not "were probably committed". Just "were committed". And you are promoting "dogged seekers after truth", as if inconsistencies in these separate NHS reports have "wiped the slate clean" in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
But Giving Victims a Voice (yes, I have read it) actually admits in the small print that the events described as "committed" were not investigated at all by the police but merely passively recorded as allegations. In other words the people described as "victims" should more properly be described as "complainants". Nobody knows whether they are really victims of anything or not. Not a single one of the complaints has been corroborated. It was a POV report driven by the NSPCC (very much not a neutral observer in all this). We can certainly report that these claims were made but we should not give the impression that they are necessarily true. -- Alarics (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
And if you had been a victim of Savile, how exactly would you get your claim "corroborated"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Very likely you can't, especially when the claims relate to decades ago. It is in the nature of such allegations that they are easy to make but mostly impossible to either prove or disprove. -- Alarics (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Some above seem to utterly misunderstand how this works. Not every case is laden with physical evidence that David Caruso and his buddies can use to prove that X person had sex with Y. When you have a preponderance of allegations, as well as eyewitness testimony corroborating many of the allegations, Savile (or any other such accused person who died before trial) loses the presumption of innocence from Wikipedia's perspective. It would seem quite foolhardy to claim that there is some vast conspiracy against Jimmy Savile, amongst children from multiple generations, as well as multiple geographical locations. That just seems rather daft. Lithistman (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Eyewitness testimony corroborating many of the allegations"? I don't think so. I also don't think anyone is claiming "some vast conspiracy against Jimmy Savile"; rather, that a number of individuals have come forward with completely unverifiable claims of events that are supposed to have happened decades previously and whose reasons for suddenly coming forward now might, possibly, have something to do with seeking monetary compensation. -- Alarics (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You are VERY clearly implying that it's some kind of conspiracy, which is nonsense. Hundreds of people have related what happened to them, and there are non-victim eyewitnesses that have corroborated some of what you derisively refer to as "allegations." The man was a pedophile, and there is simply no doubt about that fact. Lithistman (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Giving Victims a Voice was criticised for assuming that all of the allegations against Savile would automatically have stood up in court. Given what happened at the trials of William Roache and Dave Lee Travis, this is unlikely. It would be a sad day if a guilty verdict could be obtained solely by accusation, or on the word of the police or commission of inquiry.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
From the WP article Giving Victims a Voice:
Former editor of The Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore noted that the report does not reveal the "extent of abuse" and that it "contains [no actual evidence], in a sense which a court would recognise."[31] He commented that it "undermines justice" by "treat[ing] allegations as facts", noting the report's admission that "the information has not been corroborated" and viewing its contents as "not a contribution to the truth". He did not feel it right to overcompensate for previously dismissive attitudes to such an extent "that every accusation must be considered true".[31] Referring to the 2000 BBC Two documentary When Louis Met... Jimmy, Moore noted Savile's response to claims of paedophilia: "How does anyone know whether I am or not?" He concluded that this specific question (and also concerning "future Saviles") is "not [made] easier to answer" by the "uninformative and self-righteous" report.[31] -- Alarics (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Savile and twin turntables

Re this edit: this is basically a claim that Savile made himself and was fond of telling other people. It has classic WP:AUTO issues, because other sources have pointed out that similar ideas were available before Savile used them in the late 1940s.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But that's not quite true. The Telegraph says (my emphasis):

"He even claimed to have been the world’s first DJ, after persuading a local welder to join two turntables together in 1947 so that he could play music continuously. The truth is that twin turntables had been available for some time, but the 21-year-old was certainly doing something new by running his own parties at which people danced to the music played on vinyl. He merged the tunes into each other, talking over a microphone all the time."

Another source is this book (which should probably be added as a source). We also have this and this, for example. So, I don't think it's necessarily only Savile that made the claim - it's mentioned in other sources. There is certainly seems to be evidence that Savile used twin turntables in the 1940s in an innovative way. The article should acknowledge that, and in my view it's significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
PS: I wouldn't necessarily object to changing "is credited as being..." to "claimed to be...", or some such wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Savile was probably one of the first people in the UK to be using twin turntables regularly at live events. This is not quite the same as inventing the basic idea, which had been around before him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My wording didn't claim that he invented the idea... but I'm OK with Martin's adjustment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, vinyl records were introduced in 1948 and 45 rpm singles did not become common until well into the 1950s. Savile's early live events were probably based on 78 rpm records.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Offensive POV in opening sentence

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the name under which the person is most widely known. To most of the world, this guy is exclusively known as a notorious pedophile named Jimmy Savile, not as "Sir" anything, which is in itself a grossly POV term that makes the opening sentence look like a eulogy. (not even the pope's biography starts with "His Holiness"). I see no evidence that he is widely regarded as or referred to as "Sir", except by his supporters. It may be the case that the British government still insists on considering him a "sir," but that is a minority POV to put it mildly.

The WP:NPOV way to do it, is to have a sentence somewhere below in the introduction stating that "his supporters refer to him as Sir Jimmy." Tataral (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and the decision was that although a knighthood expires on death if we take the Sir off Jimmy Savile we would also have to remove it from a long list of deceased knights including, as examples, Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Francis Drake. The decision was made to retain the knighthoods and not make Savile a special case. If you don't think he is a knight or is referred to as Sir Jimmy Savile I suggest you read up on the subject. Britmax (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Britmax. It's nothing to do with "his supporters" (if any). The fact that he is what you call "a notorious paedophile" (though none of the complaints against him has been proven, and they mostly don't concern pre-pubertal children anyway, so paedophile is the wrong word) is not relevant to what he is called. He was made a sir, and that remains part of his name. This is not a POV, it is the standard practice. We can't alter our policy in this one case just because we don't like him. -- Alarics (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite. It was discussed here. Britmax (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup. And in any case, WP:COMMONNAME refers to the name of the article. WP:HONORIFIC states that the full name, including title if any, should be given at first mention in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be POV to remove the title. As all knights, good and bad, have retained their titles, removing the title of this particular one could be seen as a defence of the honours system and also a reflection of the man from the viewpoint of contemporary revulsion (not that I expect his reputation to improve much). As for his being most famous for his acts of sexual predation, well these were enabled by and made more prominent by his renown as a DJ and supporter of charities; expunging either of these would also be POV. Cole Davis writer (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
But with most previous people who were knighted they are still refered to as such after their deaths by articles. News articles about Churchill will identify him as Sir in the leading paragraph whereas those about Savile certainly won't. Please stop referring people to old discussions (it's as annoying as the other Wikipedia thing of quoting policies) - if people want to restart a discussion then that is fine and should be so. Discuss the issue rather than quoting endless policies like COMMONNAME, HONORIFIC, NPOV and FRINGE - and those 4 were all used in these past few lines. It makes Wikipedia look ridiculous!--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
He was a British citizen still in legal possession of his British knighthood at the time of his death. On that consideration use of the Sir should stay on the intro. Had he been stripped of his knighthood before death he could be referred to as "known as Sir A B from [date honour awarded] until [date honour removed]". Look, for example at how Wikipedia has treated Roger Casement (an alleged sexual offender by the legal standards of his time as well as convicted traitor) in the intro to his article. Cloptonson (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"News articles about Churchill will identify him as Sir in the leading paragraph whereas those about Savile certainly won't." How do you know this? Did you buy a new crystal ball? Britmax (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The situation remains unchanged since my comment above of six months ago. Britmax is still correct. -- Alarics (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Two minor fictional characters..."

I've twice reverted the inclusion of this text:

Two minor fictional characters have been supposed to be renamed allegations against Savile:

  • A 1985 song 'I Left My Heart In Papworth General' by Merseyside band Half-Man Half-Biscuit contains lyrics that many people believe refers to Savile. The protagonist of the song meets a TV presenter called Mr.IQ at a hospital, he tells him to "Stub out your King Edward and get that small boy off your knee / and melt down your rings and things and get yourself off my TV."[14]
  • Scottish novelist Irvine Welsh's 1996 novel Ecstasy contains a necrophiliac and paedophile TV presenter character called Freddy Royle who is sometimes believed to have been based on Savile.[15]

In my view it adds nothing of value to the article, and is poorly sourced hypothetical trivia of no encyclopedic importance. Views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Many people believe" and "sometimes believed" = WP:WEASEL. Also, neither of these examples is noteworthy per WP:POPCULTURE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Leave them out. -- Alarics (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The Giant Lizard Kiss of Death I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Sadowitz

Re this edit and this thread. How notable is the stand up comedy routine in 1987 in which Jerry Sadowitz accused Savile of being a paedophile? it is on Vimeo here. As the Mail article says, "Obviously, Sadowitz wasn’t making jokes on the back of painstaking research into Savile’s private life. One presumes he had heard the rumours and was bold enough to put them out there." Every man and his dog had heard rumours about Savile, but Sadowitz and John Lydon did attempt to air them in public.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable at all, but then I have never heard of Jerry Sadowitz. Also, there is nothing very significant about people hearing rumours. There are all sorts of rumours out there about all sorts of people. Most of them are probably nonsense. -- Alarics (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"I based psycho on Jimmy Savile, says writer Val McDermid"

Is this really notable, or a tangential piece of WP:POPCULTURE? I tend to think the latter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Infamy has its price? etc etc Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
10 Rillington Place is notable because it is based directly on the life story of John Christie (murderer). This is much more loosely based and if memory serves, it was removed before as non-notable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Ed Gein also springs to mind, but yes I think it's borderline because although Val McDermid is notable, Jacko Vance is not (although Savile does get a mention over at her article, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It might be more appropriate if someone added the claim to the article on Val McDermid. It says more about McDermid than it does about Savile. While that person (whoever..) does that, they could have a go at rewriting that whole article, which is abysmal..(Don't look at me.. I know nothing about her... )Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's already there, with same ref to Uncle Bob's chip wrapper. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's non-notable and I have removed it. -- Alarics (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Please remove OBE and any Knighthoods mentioned on Jimmy Saviles page. Firstly, it is a living honorary title and secondly he doesn't deserve it. Ash.patel1588 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done as explained above:-
This has been discussed before, and the decision was that although a knighthood expires on death if we take the Sir off Jimmy Savile we would also have to remove it from a long list of deceased knights including, as examples, Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Francis Drake. The decision was made to retain the knighthoods and not make Savile a special case.
What he "deserves" is your PoV (albeit many agree with you) - if the title and honour are removed, we will note it, but I see no reference that they been removed so far. Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As probably mentioned elsewhere, such titles can't be revoked after death. But that shouldn't mean that Wikipedia can't remove the title from the article. Doing so wouldn't mean having to do the same for all other deceased knights. Rules are meant to be broken and this is Wikipedia not the High Court of the World. Just remove the titles from this article. -- (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Why? What's changed? Britmax (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter prank

Is this just mindless and sensational twitter-sphere gossip, or a real story: [16], [17], [18]? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A very minor story, not at all worth mentioning, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a rehash of what happened with Donald Trump and the photo of Fred and Rosemary West. It does not pass WP:10YT. Here is a screenshot of the tweet, which is about as notable as the average local radio station prank.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Should have waited for Christmas and photo-shopped a beard onto him? They didn't even get his birthday right. Typical, no research. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Though arguably the whole "recentism" thing - WP:10YT - is a bit silly. It says, "Nevertheless, in ten or twenty years, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles." That depends why they're accessing either article. Encyclopaedias are often used as the first stage of research into somebody or something, and I can't imagine anybody accessing an entry and thinking,
"Oh, no! They've written too much about this! There's too much detail here! Abandon research! I'll research something else with a shorter encyclopaedia entry, so I've got less to go on when I head to the library."
I would think that the main problem on Wikipedia isn't the articles where there is too much detail, but those articles which are still stubs. The important thing is that everything is true. That doesn't mean that everything which is true is worthy of inclusion - of course not. It probably wouldn't assist anybody to know what breakfast cereal Savile preferred on a Saturday. That there was at one time a social media craze which involved catching out prominent people who didn't know who Savile was, just might be of interest to a social historian in the future, perhaps not in ten years but certainly in a hundred years. WP:10YT is short-sighted. How about the hundred year test? WP might still be around then if the world is still around. Detail is what makes social history interesting. Alrewas (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(I might have guessed at "Breakfast cereal for people with syphilis"). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Goodness. That's quite a long article for just one episode of the Simpsons. But then that's my POV. An in-depth description of each episode of the Simpsons might be of considerable value to somebody else. And that I think is at the core of my point about WP:10YT. It could be argued that WP:10YT is rather subjective, and therefore might not be entirely compatible with WP:NPOV.
Similarly, there are the arguments about whether or not a certain person is sufficiently notable for a separate article. Those arguments seem to have arisen quite a bit regarding characters on the left and right political extremes in Britain. There are a lot of people on the far left and the far right who certainly appeared in the newspapers a lot in the '70s and '80s, but of course were never elected to any local council, let alone parliament, so sometimes it was decided on WP that individuals weren't notable and should appear only within the article about whichever party they represented. That's problematic, because some people shifted party many times, from one fringe party to another, and if you're writing about political party x, it wouldn't be deemed notable in that article to list all of the previous and subsequent party affiliations of every prominent member of party x. To find an in-depth account of each prominent member's career, each of those members would need their own article.
If somebody forty years from now is researching the far right or far left scene in the 1970s, for whatever reason and it could be as part of a course of study, it would be very useful to them to have in one place articles on all of the people who used to get a mention in the papers now and again (because they'd been arrested again, or had been elected leader of their little faction, or whatever). WP would be an ideal place to have all of that in one encyclopaedia. If WP was too strict about not including people who aren't notable enough, then WP would be merely a duplication of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Thankfully WP is already much broader than that, but I think that there may be a good case for casting the net still further.
I know I've now totally contravened WP:NOTAFORUM, for which I apologise. My thoughts did seem relevant to previous commemts, in my POV. Anybody is welcome to delete, archive, or do whatever they wish with my idle thoughts on this. Alrewas (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Revealed secret plan to exhume Savile's body"

This is in the Express today. On close inspection, it is a bit of a non-story, as all it says is that the plan exists but has not gone ahead because of the £20,000 cost, which would have to be borne by the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust. The headstone was removed in 2012, but Savile is still buried in Scarborough Cemetery.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a very new or "secret" story anyway - Maybe a single sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well spotted. What the Express seems to be claiming as new is the £20,000 cost as the sticking point. I was wary of adding this as the Express is not an ideal source. Unlike most exhumations which could be done with a spade, Savile's grave is apparently filled with two and half tons of concrete and steel bars to deter grave robbers.[19]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a garbled version of the same story in the Daily Star today.[20] What both of these stories fail to make clear is that all of this happened back in 2012, and there is no likelihood of Savile being exhumed in the immediate future.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Irish descent

I removed Category:English people of Irish descent with the edit summary "not supported in article body." It has been re-added with the edit summary "It is, his mother's surname was Kelly." I do not believe that having a mother with the surname Kelly is sufficient to support a claim of "Irish descent". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. "The name has numerous origins. In some cases it is derived from toponyms located in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, in other cases it is derived from patronyms in the Irish language." In any case, it's irrelevant to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Also agree. The name Kelly in no way proves that a person has Irish ancestry, and would need to be sourced separately.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Savile made a big deal of his Irish heritage whenever he came over to Ireland. His great-grandfather on the Duchess's side was Patrick Kelly, born 1830 in Roscommon, and he boasted of his IRA connections. "Savile had access to the Irish political, church and cultural elite because of his celebrity. His Irish family origins were frequently mentioned. He had the ability to raise money for Irish causes and to raise their media profile." How Jim fixed it in Ireland, Village (November 2, 2012). Lachrie (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources attesting to his influence within Ireland - and the linked source may be one - in my view some material on his Irish connections should be added into the main article, for instance in the "Fundraising" and/or "Public image" sections. Those sections deal exclusively, I think, with his activities in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)