Alex Hern

Dispatches from the front line of the internet

When Louis asked Jimmy about being a paedophile

A scene from the 2000 interview shows the allegations were a long time coming.

By Alex Hern Published 03 October 2012 12:12

Louis and Jimmy. Photograph: BBC

The culture of silence around the apparently widely known allegations that Jimmy Savile abused children who appeared on Jim'll Fix It in the 1970s was strong, but not impermeable. One of the few people to break it - even slightly - was broadcaster Louis Theroux, who had the following conversation with Savile in When Louis Met Jimmy, which aired in April 2000:

Voiceover: We were nearing the end of our time together, and as we headed back to Leeds, it was clear that Jimmy was pleased about the press coverage of his broken ankle.

But it struck me that his relationship with the press hasn't always been a happy one.

Louis: So, why do you say in interviews that you hate children when I've seen you with kids and you clearly enjoy their company and you have a good rapport with them?

Jimmy: Right, obviously I don't hate 'em. That's number one.

Louis: Yeah. So why would you say that then?

Jimmy: Because we live in a very funny world. And it's easier for me, as a single man, to say "I don't like children" because that puts a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt.

Louis: Are you basically saying that so tabloids don't, you know, pursue this whole 'Is he/isn't he a paedophile?' line, basically?

Jimmy: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, aye. How do they know whether I am or not? How does anybody know whether I am? Nobody knows whether I am or not. I know I'm not, so I can tell you from experience that the easy way of doing it when they're saying "Oh, you have all them children on Jim'll Fix It", say "Yeah, I hate 'em."

Louis: Yeah. To me that sounds more, sort of, suspicious in a way though, because it seems so implausible.

Jimmy: Well, that's my policy, that's the way it goes. That's what I do. And it's worked a dream.

Pause

Louis: Has it worked?

Jimmy: A dream.

Pause

Louis: Why have you said in interviews that you don't have emotions?

Jimmy: Because it's easier. It's easier. You say you've emotions then you've got to explain 'em for two hours.

Jimmy: The truth is I'm very good at masking them.

The scene is not online, but the chat begins at 44:40 in this episode.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Jimmy Savile

More from Alex Hern

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Mon, 2012-11-19 21:51 — The Dao (not verified)

Victims are about to sue the BBC which means the TV license payers will pay for it. They should be suing the Catholic Church which indoctrinated Jimmy Savile, his friend Peter Sutcliffe, and many other psychopaths, with their perverse ideas.

Tue, 2012-10-16 21:20 — Gail Stephens (not verified)

I can see why "victims" would invent allegations (attention seeking/hope of compensation etc), but I can't for the life of me see why former nurses etc should: they'd only risk putting themselves into the firing line; & then there is the disturbing passage in his autobiography . I remember going on family holidays to the same place every year & the only celebrity appearing there we ever saw on the beach was Jimmy Savile. He wasn't swimming or sunbathing...he just spent all his time hanging around the cafe where the children fetched their ice creams from. Reluctantly, I think he was making fools of us all. Maybe he saw this as his payment for charity fund raising, in the same way that some fundraisers have committed financial fraud. I feel very sad about the whole thing, as I can remember him as a young & eccentric DJ bringing in a breath of fresh air

Tue, 2012-10-16 21:20 — Gail Stephens (not verified)

Thu, 2012-10-04 15:05 — Rik (not verified)

That question seems to be in the context more of 'Man over the age of 30 spending too much time around children' than stemming from any serious allegation of child abuse.

Wed, 2012-10-03 15:49 — Olu Ojedokun (not verified)

So why were all these not brought up when the man was alive? We seem to be dancing on his grave now that its too late. I really consider this unfair and unseeingly since he cannot defend himself.

Sun, 2012-10-07 05:19 — susan galea (not verified)

Surely, if he is investigated and incontrovertible proof is established that he was a paedophile and raped little girls then those girls deserve justice? Just because someone is dead does not mean that they have a right to evade justice. He has a massive estate that could provide some recompense for his alleged victims if the investigation proves evidence to support their claims. And then there is the issue of the charities and hospitals who have gained from his charitable largesse.... Do they want to reconsider the charitable status named after him and perhaps distance themselves from a paedophile and child rapist, if proved?

Would you not have put Hitler on trial and examined his crimes to ensure they were avoided in any future emulation by anyone? Does it ever pay to brush things under the carpet rather than learn from and hopefully diminish the chance of another victim?

Sun, 2012-10-07 05:24 — susan galea (not verified)

Sorry, I would like to add a more direct answer to your question. When children are victims of child rape it is very common for them to feel guilty and somehow it was their fault. Added to this, especially in the case of Saint Jimmy, was the knowledge that to convince others they were telling the truth was considered an insurmountable obstacle. Shameful, but true. Some did tell their parents and were punished. Some told the supervisers of the home they were resident in, but were rebuffed and told they were lying: St Jimmy was considered such a good man and they must have misinterpreted his groping etc... Savile was virtually untouchable because he built up this mythical character of charity and bonhomie that people bought into. And yet, there were his colleagues in the BBC and his nephew who he took along to the paedophile parties who knew exactly what he was doing. Stunningly, they did not speak out.

Fri, 2012-10-05 01:10 — Sayso (not verified)

There were allegations in 2007 and 2008, one of which involved being interviewed under caution. Also recorded as defending Gary Glitter, saying: Now Gary, all he did was take his computer into PC World to get it repaired. They went in the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then said, 'Oh we've got a famous person, yeah we'll have them'. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is of course up to him as a person. And if you ever said to that copper, 'What's Gary Glitter done wrong?' Well, nothing really. He's just sat at home watching these dodgy, dodgy films. But Gary hasn't sold 'em, hasn't tried to sell 'em, not tried to show the public or anything like that.

Also seems to be unsurprising to most of the people who worked in the entertainment industry at this time. The individuals making the accusations were also children at the time, so its not unlikely that they wouldnt speak out about it - especially considering the much loved media/entertainment king he was.

Not saying he did it. Just saying it isnt implausible.