This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
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.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Message preceding section "Newsnight item about Jimmy Savile"
I am an unbiased and disinterested editor. A message from 2014 heads up the section "Newsnight item about Jimmy Savile" alleging that the content may tend "to lend undue weight to certain ideas (etc.)". I have informed myself as far as possible about the Newsnight fiasco and can't really see what substantiates that header, as the stated facts seem accurate enough. I therefore propose the message be removed in short order unless someone can justify its continuing. If there is a factual inaccuracy, modify the section. If the tone or content seems to give undue support to Mr Rippon's position (he was, admittedly, publicly criticised in the matter), we should hold to a neutral POV as far as possible, but recall Wikipedia's overriding policy that, in a biographical article about a living person, we must be certain not to traduce the individual in any way, or defame their reputation. Humboles (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)