In his distinctive Yorkshire tones, the words "Now then, now then" meant Sir Jimmy Savile was getting down to business.[...]
He was on BBC television for nearly two decades from 1974 in his guise as a perennial Santa Claus, granting viewers' wishes from his magic chair on Jim'll Fix It.[...]
He personally helped the nursing staff at Leeds Infirmary and ran the entertainments section of Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital.[...]
For more than three decades, Savile was most actively involved with the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire. He stayed there so often he had his own suite.[...]
Some questioned the motivation of the man behind such a singular public persona, but his energy and ability were beyond doubt.[...]
A self-professed loner, he nevertheless made an indelible impression on his audiences and, by virtue of his charity work, touched many lives.There is also a respectful video of the star, with the observation that he was an "enigma."
The article also mentions his papal knighthood which brings me to the reason for posting about this serial sexual predator. In February I wrote about the Double standards that were being applied despite credible allegations being raised about Savile's behaviour towards children. Had these been allegations against a priest, the Church would have been rightly attacked for failing to do anything to prevent the abuse continuing. As I put it then:
The celebrity in question took part in Church events involving children, notably at Lourdes. Perhaps the Bishops might ask the BBC why they were not informed about the possibility of his being a risk to minors. Imagine the furore if the Church had supplied a priest for a children's programme on the BBC and failed to communicate a reasonable safeguarding concern.It has taken a media furore and dozens of allegations to drag the BBC reluctantly to admit that there might have been something wrong, that people knew about it at the time. Some Catholic bloggers have said that we must not gloat, and that is quite right. What I think we can do is to observe that the BBC has made, and is continuing to make a carbon copy of all the mistakes which Catholic Bishops made, and worse. At least some of the Bishops sent men for therapy, albeit in the mistaken belief that this would stop them from offending further. In the case of the BBC it seems that Savile's behaviour was dismissed as part of the "fun" culture and excused because he was such a jolly chap.
So gloating, no. But a reasonable highlighting of breathtaking hypocrisy, yes, I think so. And the Bishops have a right to raise the question of why information relevant to the protection of children was not shared.
11 comments:
What a very sane comment on this dreadful situation.
Thank you Fr Tim. Now I was a teenager in the 60`s and 70`s and what disgusted many catholics at that time was the emergence of `groupies` as they were called. Pop groups and single stars had them, though thank God thee were some who ignored them. What happened was that after a show some girls were admitted into the presence of their idols and the lucky ones chosen for sexual purposes. They were not sexually `assaulted` they were starry eyed and willing, and there wereno age checks Am I revealing something dark here, some hidden secret? No, it was just one of the perks of stardom and everybody knew of it and nobody gave a fig. What has happened is that the `groupies` now grown up have found out about `sex abuse and compensation`. And yes, many of these happenings occured within the BBC and now they are desperate to set themselves up as champions of the oppressed. You can take the stories of happenings in childrens homes and hospitals with a pinch of salt. I think the staff in both places took care of their charges and did not offer any to Jimmy.
Not the only one if today's allegations in the Telegraph are to be believed.
John - I agree that the Groupie phenomenon was a significant part of the picture. The problem is that when people are allowed to break the law with impunity, they will not stick with one law. Even though they had a supply of consenting groupies (though we should bear in mind the possibility of lack of real consent from some who were too young) they will also have forced themselves on others.
Sadly, children's homes and hospitals did not always care for their charges. Telling girls to "pretend to be asleep when he comes round" is not adequate care.
Frankly, I would be fairly sure that the stories to date are only the tip of the iceberg.
Can he - and will he - be deprived posthumously of his Papal knighthood?
No gloating? OK. But holding the BBC to account in the same way that the Church was?
"Well Controller of Children's TV (Bishop). Of course nobody is saying that you committed these acts but weren't you responsible for ensuring that no entertainer (priest) could do these things?"
The righteous anger we felt when our priests betrayed us was different from the synthetic anger peddled by a media which just wanted to bash the Church. Let's test the quality of their anger this time.
When the activities of errant vicars, schoolmasters and scoutmasters were revealed in the press in the sixties and earlier, they were treated in a rather 'Nudge, nudge' jokey sort of way (even though the individual would feel the full force of the criminal law if caught). The fabric of society and the family was stronger then and generally better able to deal with the emotional fall-out of interference and 'least said, soonest mended' might well have been the best policy as far as the young person was concerned. With the dilution of moral restraints in the precise period in which Saville became popular and famous, this security was taken away and the young far too often left responsible for their own moral welfare. The rather hysterical reaction today towards this kind of abuse (rather than neglect or cruelty)is a symptom of society's inability to deal effectively with the dark side of the liberalization that has been so highly vaunted for the past forty years.
I would agree with you Father. However when you mention the `tip of the iceberg` my thoughts are `Who is next?`
Life was so much simpler when everyone was attacking the Catholic Church.
I am watching (not listening to) Andrew Marr on his Sunday morning show before I set off to Mass. He is interviewing Peter Townshend who presumably has something to plug. They are all smiles (I have the sound turned down).
Remember, this is within a week of the Saville story so where's Esther Rantzen?
If the BBC rides out this storm, they will be back attacking the Catholic Church within a month. Believe me.
Um... has he been tried fairly and found guilty? Or is this the witch-hunt re-focused?
I think we should be very careful not to believe the narratives of psychology too much (or at all?).
Because if all things are as they usually are, this will come back to attack those things we hold dear. He was a Catholic after all; don't bet on there not being found some link.
Post a Comment