It was about this time in 2012 when, a year following his death, it was revealed that Jimmy Savile, believed to be a beloved children's entertainer, was actually a predatory sex offender and paedophile. The case sparked probably the most talked about police investigation in the whole of the 2010s decade, and resulted in the exposure of other powerful predators, such as entertainer Rolf Harris and politician Cyril Smith.
The case against Savile in particular has always been a matter of intense interest for me ever since I first learned of it. The thing that I find deeply shocking is not so much the grotesque acts of sexual violence that he committed (which are bad enough); but more, the fact that his behaviour was so widely known within the entertainment industry. It was actually known enough that he joked about it himself on television - whilst watching a selection of old clips of him back, he often alludes to his own inappropriate behaviour. He said on television, in relation to volunteering at a hospital, he said, 'I am a voluntary helper. Sometimes, when nobody’s looking, I help the lasses'. He said on repeated occasions that he was 'barred from every girls' school in the country', and once, when asked how he thought he'd be remembered after he died, he openly laughed about it and said that he didn't care - knowing very well that allegations would only come out once he was no longer alive to take responsibility. He was able to do this without any fear of repercussions, because he knew he was untouchable. The Jimmy Savile case is so unsettling not because of the terrible things he did (as horrible as it is, we all know that there are many people out there capable of these acts); it's unsettling because it was deliberately covered up.
I'd like to be able to say that we've learned from the past - but I have not seen any evidence that that is so. In this article, Mark Williams-Thomas, who played a large part in exposing Savile's crimes, says that there are still protected sex offenders who work prominently in the entertainment industry, and one in particular, almost certainly a child molester, who he has worked very hard to get prosecuted. In this film, the broadcaster Louis Theroux interviews comedian Katherine Ryan, who talks about how she called someone out for being a predator on a panel show, and that this was cut from the broadcast version (that part of the conversation is about fifteen minutes in). I have no idea if Williams-Thomas and Ryan are talking about the same person (I think probably not, as I believe Ryan would have said if the person she was talking about had abused children - though perhaps she doesn't know that aspect). But if they're talking about different people, it almost makes it worse. It means that this is continuing to happen regularly. Since 2012, a few historical cases may have been brought to justice, but nothing has really changed systematically.
I have a bit of personal experience with this. A few years ago, a friend of mine confided to me that they had been sexually assaulted by a minor celebrity. There wasn't enough evidence to charge this person, however the story got into the media and the minor celebrity's name was dragged through the mud. The outcome was that the minor celebrity was dropped from their role as a regular on a popular BBC television programme - however, the BBC claimed that it had nothing to do with the allegations and that they were merely refreshing all the regulars on this programme. I do not believe either that this was true, or that anyone truly believed it, for a few reasons: 1) It coincided almost exactly with the celebrity's name coming out in the media; 2) None of the other regulars were dropped; and 3) They have not even repeated any old episodes featuring that person since, which they had done in the past when people had left the show.
I think that if the BBC had made clear that as a result of the allegations they were completely disassociating themselves from this contributor, that would have been reasonable. I think that if they'd said that it had nothing to do with them until the contributor was charged with a crime and that therefore they were taking no action, this would also have been reasonable. There are strong arguments for each of these reactions. However, they did neither of these things. What they did instead was to disassociate themselves from someone whose name carried baggage, but in a way that didn't actually hold them accountable for anything. This seems to me to be the worst of both worlds, as it protects neither the accuser nor the accused - all it does is allow the BBC to not take any position at all. And given that the BBC has historically been so heavily involved in covering up abuses of power by people like Jimmy Savile, I think it's important that they do take a position actually.
This kind of position from the BBC is very consistent. Time and again, we see them covering something up until it's unavoidable, then completely disassociating themselves from it - but only to protect themselves from the bad publicity. To take Savile as an example, they have removed episodes featuring him (or even referencing him) from their public archives. Essentially, the idea is to hide the fact that he was ever so closely involved with them. I find this really harmful - you cannot commit to doing better in the future unless you acknowledge and accept what you've done in the past. I've been writing this blog since I was 17 - I'm now 29 and there are some things I wrote in my early days which I certainly no longer believe. But I still keep them up, because they're a part of my history and it's dishonest to pretend I never wrote them. Likewise - the BBC should be clear not only that what Jimmy Savile did was terrible, but also that they themselves were complicit. They should acknowledge that, consistently, and only then can we have any faith that they will improve in the future.
I strongly suspect that the person who assaulted my friend was known about by those in the know before it got into the media - but no action was taken until it was unavoidable, and even then it was the most watered-down pathetic thing I've ever seen. The reason for this is largely because of our collective obsession with celebrity. Celebrity culture is utterly toxic. It creates a vibe that you should have a strong feeling about someone you don't know purely because they've reached a high place in society. I've come to realise in the last few years that I have no interest in celebrities. If someone is good at their job, fair enough, and if they're not that's as maybe - and neither of those things have any bearing on what I think of them personally as a human being, which I won't have any opinion on unless I happen to cross paths with them in real life.
I think that a lot of problems in our society are to do with the power of celebrity culture. I think about it a lot in relation to people like JK Rowling - who has gone from beloved children's author to transphobic pariah. I'm deeply disappointed in her, just as I'm disappointed in anyone with bigoted views, but the most important question I always ask is, why does she have such a big platform in the first place? She's just a person, who has managed to earn a lot of money through being good at writing stories, and we shouldn't know anything else about her besides that unless we happen to know her personally. But for some reason, being talented at entertainment or literature means that we allow complete strangers to have far greater an influence in our lives than they would otherwise have - and that gives them the ability to abuse that influence. Celebrity culture is such a powerful influence in Western society that it's actually quite hard to snap out of it and remember that - but I think it is important to, because it's the root cause of this protection of the powerful.
There are other Jimmy Saviles out there. If you happen to know about one of them, although I recognise that it may be quite difficult, I urge you to tell someone about it - but only if you know for certain, of course. Whether they're an actor, a TV presenter, a broadcaster, a teacher, a a janitor or a road-sweeper makes not one ounce of difference to their danger to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment