It’s almost as if this lot knew back in the 80s, no?

The joke was that no one wanted to watch the show, it was awful. Now his dark past has come to light it changes the joke. Hindsight.

Actually my estimation of Louis has gone down; anyone who considers themself to be a documentary maker / journalist should at least have some separation between them and their subject, especially one so clearly creepy and sociopathic so to carry on this weird friendship is poor. Also the point when Louis’ aunt has told him about a journo from the mail who investigated him and he didn’t pursue that angle until after Jimmy’s death? Either he’s naive or there are still bits of the story withheld

Except the way LT works is to get rid of that separation, and as a consequence he gets people to talk to him who won’t talk to other journos. It’s hardly his fault that he didn’t pick up something lots of other people didn’t, and got conned by someone who conned lots of other people.

Interesting to note that on repeats of To The Manor Born, this advert is blurred out;

Though it’ll make your skin crawl, it’s worth watching the original again:

[video]http://vimeo.com/76002148[/video]

Many sections make so much more sense in hindsight… though there are still many questions…

The clip at 2:54 makes for interesting viewing (copy and paste if link not working in post:

http://vimeo.com/76002148#t=2m54s

Given what’s come to light since the scandal 1st broke in 2012, could there be more to this 2nd clip (from 4:25) and way it’s the edited into the scene after? (watch through to 6:15)

http://vimeo.com/76002148#t=4m25s

Louis: ‘What do you chat about with the Queen?’

Sir Jimmy Savile OBE: ‘What we chat about is a no go area’…

‘I’m not a grass’

Are Planet X still displaying his bikes? That must seem like a poor investment, in retrospect.

Clunk

Watched both documentaries back to back last night. The first is uncomfortable viewing with hindsight, I wonder if I’d have had the same reaction at the time. I’d like to think so, it was pretty wrong in places. His candid remarks about his “zero tolerance” policy when he thought he was off-camera was incredibly telling.

Having watched the new one, one thing that struck me was the final sequence, where he said something like “anything you want, you just let me know.” The whole thing was about power, wasn’t it. He’d set himself up as a sort of Godfather figure, the whole “Jim’ll Fix It” schtick wasn’t a puff piece TV show, that’s how he was in real life. Mr Fixit, the head honcho, the grand fromage, building his empire of people who variously admired him, befriended him, were terrified of him, were victimised by him. Your best friend and your worst enemy.

The other thing I took away with it was, he was so very, very clever with it. Cold and masterly manipulative, and the perfect self-publicist. (I’ve broken my leg, quick, call a journalist!) For all JHJ’s one-handed typing insistence that they were all in it together, I can’t help but wonder whether they were all duped together. He’d turn on the charm and people would fall under his thrall, even Queenie.

Couple of replies:

Watching his old assistant defend him was very odd too.

That felt an awful lot to me like Stockholm Syndrome. She’d served him faithfully for 28 years and then one day he’d binned her off for no discernible reason (I can only speculate that she was no longer pretty enough). She’d every right to be really bloody angry; but after 28 years? Maybe she was (is?) in love with him.

Interesting really how people like Savile make such a huge deal over their charity work, which kind of suggests he was doing it all for the wrong reasons.

I thought the same. How can anyone be a bad man when they do such wonderful work? It was pretty clear to me from the report that he wasn’t buying hospital wings for the benefit of the hospital, but rather because it was a massive PR stunt for him (and a show of power). And of course, the small matter of him wanting to pop round to offer his own brand of one-on-one private counselling.

This charity worker disguise also allowed him free reign to pick and chose his victims from hospitals and care homes. He could ask the patients history from the staff pretending to be concerned so he could pick the ones that had already suffered sexual or emtional abuse knowing they would be the least likely to report him or deny his advances.

Yeah, I spotted that too; it was a common theme in the interviewed victims (though that could just be statistical chance). I did wonder whether it was no accident that they were all people likely to just go “oh well, here we go again.”

I remember Esther Rantzen being interviewed about the beginnings of Children in Need, she said something along the lines of “We were told: Don’t let Jimmy Savile become involved”.

When does “odd” or “eccentric” or any other similar description become “creepy”, “illegal”, “immoral”? I saw the original documentary when it was broadcast. Odd? From the sixties? Could have been drugs but of course we now know it wasn’t that.

Never met him nor do I know anyone who met him, just had a feeling he wasn’t “right”, got told he did a lot for charity.

Not the best advert for Oakleys.