If the hat fits…

Ever since the accusations about Jimmy Savile I’ve been thinking long and hard about the whole thing, particularly in light of what I believe about the Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest case.

I think that I am now at a point, given the mounting evidence against this very clever man, that I've made my mind up and I don't give a shit that he isn't here to defend himself. As I see it - lucky for him, and a shame for his victims.

I'm pretty sure, after watching the documentary, that Uncle Jim did the things that these women claim he did. I'm also pretty sure that some, probably all of them, weren't comfortable with it at all. Whichever way you look at it, it seems that Mr Savile was a manipulative serial rapist and I have to say that it has long been mooted that he liked far too young girls - surely everybody had heard that, it was whispered when I was in my teens.

Or did people really just think that he was just a little eccentric, no harm in him, a bit of a card?

I think another description might be monster; we’ll have to see; after all there hasn’t been an investigation yet. What is coming across the more that I look at it though, is that JS must have been a sad, lonely figure who couldn't form or didn't want real relationships. The sex might have been a way for him to pretend that he was a 'normal' red-blooded male when he probably wasn't, and by all accounts he liked it over with quickly. I don’t know what he was but I do know that he worshipped his mother, liked to wrestle, was outrageously camp in appearance and seemed incapable of growing up - a bit of a National Treasure really.

And a knight of the realm don’t forget.

I hope they ask a profiler just what he or she thinks about Jim.

In his defence, the times were very different back then. Lots of women married at sixteen and were serial mothers by 20. People were out at work in pits and factories at 15. You grew up quicker in the sixties and seventies, and of course a couple of generations earlier and those same teenagers would have been dead in a trench somewhere in France.

Yes, times were very different back then. I think we tend to forget that, in the world we inhabit now, our children are coddled and middle-aged adults live at home until they can save up enough money to buy a one room flat and when they do leave home they spend their time playing video games and eating pizza . Not too unlike Jimmy Savile really – which is worrying.

Context is everything, and I’m sure that all of the above will be used in Jimmy Savile’s defence as context for his actions. Even so, what JS did was very wrong in my mind. It isn’t just about what he did, it's also about the way he used his position to access it along with the serial nature of what he was doing. If he'd made a mistake with just one girl, even maybe if he’d had feelings for them all, I might have to think a little harder. But he didn’t, he just repeatedly abused lots of probably silly, certainly scared, feeling obliged, too-young teenage girls and the times in which it happened makes no difference at all. Nothing makes any difference for what I have no doubt he did.

On the Paedophile scale, with Jeremy Forrest being a one and Ian Huntley a ten, I’d put Jimmy Savile at an eight at least.

No, there's no excuse for him at all; deceased or not. Pass him the paedophile hat; he deserves to wear it.