This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/oct/05/jimmy-savile-abuse-allegations-esther-rantzen-bbc

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Jimmy Savile; the legacy Jimmy Savile; the legacy
(8 days later)
The ITV documentary on Sir Jimmy Savile was difficult viewing for all concerned. How should we feel about anyone in a position of power who may have colluded or had knowledge, should the allegations be true? What do we take from this?

I have no respect for the social attitudes to child protection of pre-mid-1980s Britain, which are central to this case, but how much better are they now? The documentary threw up some complex questions for society both now and in the past. Until things changed in the mid 1980's, significantly helped by the work of Esther Rantzen and That's Life, this topic was not the issue it should have been and attitudes were different.

In 1983, for example, there was a press ruck when the 47-year-old Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman started seeing a 13-year-old girl, Mandy Smith, regularly. There was much comment but the central issue of the story was not whether Wyman should be prosecuted. Smith had the approval of her mother and got a hand from all the publicity for her hopes of a modelling and music career. The press weren't screaming for charges and I don't remember any serious moral outrage, just tittle-tattle.

Even when Smith later admitted that she slept with Wyman at 14 years of age, I saw no serious discussion as to whether he should be charged. Does the fact that the pair were later married for a brief period make a difference? The relationship was open; the accusations against Savile are serial and involve threats about keeping quiet and later legal action. But was all of it part of an ambivalent attitude at the time?

Esther Rantzen said in the documentary that there were 'many rumours' about Savile and this again shows the shift in perception. Few people have done more for the issue of child protection than Rantzen, but had she seriously investigated the rumours, what would she have done with the information? It was the 1970s; I suspect that few would have been interested in it as anything above gossip.

Am I cross or disappointed about that? No. You cannot retrospectively apply 21st century sensibilities to four decades earlier and, for me, the same goes for the BBC. Opinion has changed for the better towards all sorts of issues around sex: No means No; date-rape; and the weasel words 'she was asking for it'. Hopefully, we are evolving.

In the Times David Sanderson posted a section from Jimmy Savile's autobiography in which the TV star felt safe from prosecution;saying 'Were I to go I would probably take half the [police] station with me.' I imagine there will be celebrities from that era sleeping uneasy in their beds, but is dealing retrospectively with celebrities the best we can do now? Of course, investigate if another celebrity is accused of the abuse of children, but how far do you go?

The police are to lead and assist the BBC enquiry into the circumstances of the case but to what purpose? If one aspect is to look at the child protection policies from the time I doubt they'll find very much that we would recognise today as good and effective and that would be the case almost no matter which organisations they investigated. I think that the culture of the BBC today bears little comparison to that of four decades ago.

Are they to look for people who may have known or suspected? If so, it appears they will be investigating a lot of people. People who due to the prevalent attitudes and cultures of the time are likely to have been ineffective or powerless.

The bravery of the women who came forward to be interviewed for the ITV documentary was immense and the chief reason I can see for further investigations is to comfort and give a voice to victims. But before we get carried away in the moral outrage and self-satisfying, public hand-wringing and judgement over such a high profile case, let us look ourselves in the eye.

The Savile case has got celebrity; the recent revelations in Rochdale have not. My instinct is that Rochdale was not and is not an isolated case. Attitudes may have changed but how much that has turned into effective protection is another question.

In the Lancashire town, whose director of social services has now resigned, child protection working methods played a part in 13-year-old girls being abused for a prolonged period by gangs of men. I suspect that this is systematic, a national failing, and were someone independent to spend the next year researching other cases, I think it likely that the nation would hang its head in shame at their findings, including the effect on child protection of a lack of resources.

Governments make economic decisions and the current cutting of public services make it inevitable that more preventable child abuse will occur undetected or that vulnerable children will not be protected. If you feel angry after the Savile documentary, maybe channel that into something that could make a difference.		The ITV documentary on Sir Jimmy Savile was difficult viewing for all concerned. How should we feel about anyone in a position of power who may have colluded or had knowledge, should the allegations be true? What do we take from this?

I have no respect for the social attitudes to child protection of pre-mid-1980s Britain, which are central to this case, but how much better are they now? The documentary threw up some complex questions for society both now and in the past. Until things changed in the mid 1980's, significantly helped by the work of Esther Rantzen and That's Life, this topic was not the issue it should have been and attitudes were different.

In 1983, for example, there was a press ruck when the 47-year-old Rolling Stones bass player Bill Wyman started seeing a 13-year-old girl, Mandy Smith, regularly. There was much comment but the central issue of the story was not whether Wyman should be prosecuted. Smith had the approval of her mother and got a hand from all the publicity for her hopes of a modelling and music career. The press weren't screaming for charges and I don't remember any serious moral outrage, just tittle-tattle.

Even when Smith later admitted that she slept with Wyman at 14 years of age, I saw no serious discussion as to whether he should be charged. Does the fact that the pair were later married for a brief period make a difference? The relationship was open; the accusations against Savile are serial and involve threats about keeping quiet and later legal action. But was all of it part of an ambivalent attitude at the time?

Esther Rantzen said in the documentary that there were 'many rumours' about Savile and this again shows the shift in perception. Few people have done more for the issue of child protection than Rantzen, but had she seriously investigated the rumours, what would she have done with the information? It was the 1970s; I suspect that few would have been interested in it as anything above gossip.

Am I cross or disappointed about that? No. You cannot retrospectively apply 21st century sensibilities to four decades earlier and, for me, the same goes for the BBC. Opinion has changed for the better towards all sorts of issues around sex: No means No; date-rape; and the weasel words 'she was asking for it'. Hopefully, we are evolving.

In the Times David Sanderson posted a section from Jimmy Savile's autobiography in which the TV star felt safe from prosecution;saying 'Were I to go I would probably take half the [police] station with me.' I imagine there will be celebrities from that era sleeping uneasy in their beds, but is dealing retrospectively with celebrities the best we can do now? Of course, investigate if another celebrity is accused of the abuse of children, but how far do you go?

The police are to lead and assist the BBC enquiry into the circumstances of the case but to what purpose? If one aspect is to look at the child protection policies from the time I doubt they'll find very much that we would recognise today as good and effective and that would be the case almost no matter which organisations they investigated. I think that the culture of the BBC today bears little comparison to that of four decades ago.

Are they to look for people who may have known or suspected? If so, it appears they will be investigating a lot of people. People who due to the prevalent attitudes and cultures of the time are likely to have been ineffective or powerless.

The bravery of the women who came forward to be interviewed for the ITV documentary was immense and the chief reason I can see for further investigations is to comfort and give a voice to victims. But before we get carried away in the moral outrage and self-satisfying, public hand-wringing and judgement over such a high profile case, let us look ourselves in the eye.

The Savile case has got celebrity; the recent revelations in Rochdale have not. My instinct is that Rochdale was not and is not an isolated case. Attitudes may have changed but how much that has turned into effective protection is another question.

In the Lancashire town, whose director of social services has now resigned, child protection working methods played a part in 13-year-old girls being abused for a prolonged period by gangs of men. I suspect that this is systematic, a national failing, and were someone independent to spend the next year researching other cases, I think it likely that the nation would hang its head in shame at their findings, including the effect on child protection of a lack of resources.

Governments make economic decisions and the current cutting of public services make it inevitable that more preventable child abuse will occur undetected or that vulnerable children will not be protected. If you feel angry after the Savile documentary, maybe channel that into something that could make a difference.
What better legacy could past victims of abuse bring about? Part of the press coverage and investigations could be concentrated on protecting vulnerable children here and now. That may lack some of the dramatic intensity of the Savile case but it would prevent more children from being abused. Which would we prefer: drama or protection?What better legacy could past victims of abuse bring about? Part of the press coverage and investigations could be concentrated on protecting vulnerable children here and now. That may lack some of the dramatic intensity of the Savile case but it would prevent more children from being abused. Which would we prefer: drama or protection?
Mick McCann is a writer based in Leeds whose books include the local encyclopaedia How Leeds Changed the World.Mick McCann is a writer based in Leeds whose books include the local encyclopaedia How Leeds Changed the World.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.