The Reckoning - Savile

I bet Prince Andrew was a friend,too.

Always disliked him, creepy and weird, how anyone would trust a child with him I don't know. There's a couple of others on TV that I would not trust as far as I could throw them either but they seem popular, I can't watch them or this series. The victims must be scarred for life and I think it's too soon to be shown in respect to them.

‘Light Entertainment’. - always had a very dark side

I’ve never really seen Steve Coogan in anything but have to say he is creepily excellent in this role. From what I have read he didn’t do it for the pleasure or the money. I know many people feel that this has been done before but I think that it’s totally worthwhile if it helps to protect anyone from being abused. This still goes on and anything that raises awareness is good in my book.

Very uncomfortable to watch, Steve Coogan really inhabited the Savile persona, his performance was quite brilliant in how he conveyed the true horror of his warped character.

nanna8

I bet Prince Andrew was a friend,too.

That is a rather unkind and defamatory remark with absolutely no basis of fact. It's highly unlikely as they were not the same type of people at all. I have seen Savile with Glitter though. I would imagine they had much in common.

Savile was good friends with Price Charles and Diana, so there is a good chance that he knew Prince Andrew too.

There is footage of him with Glitter (I think in the Netflix documentary) making inappropriate comments when surrounded by young fans. It's horrible to watch, and should have been uncomfortable at the time, but the general attitudes to women, and the 'it's only banter' meant it was swept under the carpet.

A good chance Andrew knew Savile because Savile was a good friend of Charles and Diana, it must follow that Charles and
Diana knew Epstein because Andrew was a friend of Epstein’s

I recall the Netflix documentary revealed that Savile was requested by the then Prince Charles to work with Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson on their public image after a series of public gaffes.

I doubt it

Anniebach

A good chance Andrew knew Savile because Savile was a good friend of Charles and Diana, it must follow that Charles and
Diana knew Epstein because Andrew was a friend of Epstein’s

I'm not sure of your point.

Notes from the the Prince of Wales to Savile uncovered by the producers [of the Netflix documentary] show that over the course of about 20 years Savile became an unofficial adviser to Charles. They shed light on the extent to which the disgraced former television presenter was able to influence the highest offices of the British state before his death in 2011.

More here:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/06/prince-charles-repeatedly-sought-jimmy-savile-advice-documentary-claims

The producers had access to Savile’s papers ?

Probably all knew each other and were ‘friends’. That’s the problem, people turn a blind eye and if they hadn’t things might not have progressed the way they did. Not suggesting these people were part of his disgusting life, just that they knowingly suppressed feelings of things being ‘not quite right’. If you feel those instincts they should be investigated, not suppressed because the person is famous, a do- gooder
or high profile. I think lessons should have been learnt by this but because of the worship of celebrities by so many it won’t be and it will most likely happen again.

Did these friends say they had ‘suppressed feelings’ ?

Anniebach

The producers had access to Savile’s papers ?

Did you read Caravansera's link, Annie. It's all in there.

Yes I read it, I do not believe the claims of the producers

nanna8

Probably all knew each other and were ‘friends’. That’s the problem, people turn a blind eye and if they hadn’t things might not have progressed the way they did. Not suggesting these people were part of his disgusting life, just that they knowingly suppressed feelings of things being ‘not quite right’. If you feel those instincts they should be investigated, not suppressed because the person is famous, a do- gooder
or high profile. I think lessons should have been learnt by this but because of the worship of celebrities by so many it won’t be and it will most likely happen again.

I think you're right, nanna8. There is a knee-jerk reaction when someone famous is accused of anything - and yes they deserve protection against malicious allegations - but when numerous people come forward and say the same things have happened, they should be listened to.

The police, the Church, the hospitals, the BBC, the remand school all had people at the top who heard rumours. Why didn't they talk to their opposite numbers in the other places and compare notes? These questions really need to be asked. We need to remember that the culture then was different, but not excuse it to the extent that we prevent it from being different today.

Have all the people at the top said they heard rumours?

It took a long time to come out, the same way the abuse of children sent to Australia or the abuse in the Magdalen laundries, and the abuse by priests took a long time to be revealed and it was always those at the top who either ignored it or disbelieved it when it started to be mentioned.
Revelations and actions about them are speeding up a bit, but it’s still happening.

Why have those at the top not been named ?

It is well documented that Savile had Royal connections because he infiltrated himself at all levels through his charity work. So yes probably did know Andrew but that doesn't make them 'friends'. Savile was seen talking and smiling with the Royals (including the Queen) as lots of charity workers do, but what they said about him behind his back we'll never know.

You cannot convict someone on rumours. There has to be proper evidence and there doesn't seem to be a willingness to gather evidence due to his huge celebrity status.

I certainly do not believe Charles asked Savile to advise Andrew and Sarah how to behave in public.

Chestnut

You cannot convict someone on rumours. There has to be proper evidence and there doesn't seem to be a willingness to gather evidence due to his huge celebrity status.

that's the thing. I agree that people can't (and shouldn't) be convicted on the basis of rumour, but evidence should be gathered regardless of his celebrity status. By its very nature most sexual assault is carried out in private so most of the evidence will be circumstantial, but where there are enough people saying the same thing, it should definitely be taken into account.

As for the people at the top, Annie - have you seen the drama, or the documentary, or read the numerous newspaper articles on the subject? These things are covered in all of those representations and reports, so you could answer your own questions by looking at them.