The forthcoming television documentary that alleges Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused schoolgirls during the height of his fame is also set to show the late television personality defending paedophile pop star Gary Glitter.
Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile is set to show a interview in which Savile comes to the defence of Gary Glitter, who was convicted of downloading pornographic images of children as young as two in 1999. Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was later jailed for three years in 2006 for molesting two girls aged 11 and 12 in Vietnam and forced to sign the sex offenders register.
In the interview, conducted with a journalist in 2009, Savile appears to suggest that Glitter was the real victim in the child porn scandal as he had only used the images for his own ‘gratification’ and had not tried to sell them on.
In the interview Savile says: “Now Gary, all he did was take his computer into PC World to get it repaired…They went into his hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then, 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'.
“But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised.”
“And of course, 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. He was like that but he wasn’t public and he didn’t do anything.”
Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, which is due to be screened on Wednesday night, will detail claims from women that the late television personality sexually abused school girls in his Rolls-Royce and at BBC Television Centre. The allegations date back to the 1970s.
ITV said the programme, presented by former detective Mark Williams-Thomas, features contributions from several women who claim that Sir Jimmy was a sexual predator who sexually assaulted them while they were under-age.
One woman alleges that she was raped by the DJ and another says she was asked to perform a sex act on him.
ITV said one of the contributors explained how she was too frightened to speak out while Sir Jimmy was alive. They said the programme will allege that the broadcaster preyed on teenagers whom he invited to appear on his TV shows.
One 14-year-old girl tells the programme how she met Sir Jimmy at a school in Surrey in 1974 and he assaulted her in his caravan which was parked in the school grounds.
Speaking to ITV’s Daybreak programme this morning, broadcaster Paul Gambaccini added to the allegations, claiming the star used his charity work and ‘imperial personality’ within show business to prevent his private life being exposed.
Gambaccini said his former Radio 1 colleague played tabloid newspapers “like a Stradivarius” in order to keep the abuse secret.
ChildLine founder Esther Rantzen, who worked for the BBC during the 1970s, told the programme that she now believes Sir Jimmy sexually abused under-age girls, after seeing the fresh evidence from their interviews.
”We all blocked our ears to the gossip…We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable, who nobody could criticise. Jim'll Fix It was for children. He was a sort of God-like figure. Everybody knew of the good that Jimmy did and what he did for children. And these children were powerless“, she said.
The BBC responded to reports that inappropriate behaviour by Sir Jimmy was an “open secret” at the corporation by saying it found no evidence of any misconduct by the broadcaster.
Roger Foster, Savile’s nephew, said his family were “disgusted and disappointed” that the allegations are being made when he is no longer around to defend himself, adding that he is concerned at the potential damage to his uncle’s charities, as well as Savile’s reputation and legacy.
”I just get so disgusted and disappointed by it. The guy hasn't been dead for a year yet and they're bringing these stories out. It could affect his legacy, his charity work, everything. I'm very sad and disgusted”, he said.
”I just don't understand the motives behind this. I just think it's very, very sad you can say these things after someone's died and the law says you can't defend yourself when you're dead.“Reuse content