THE DAME JANET

SMITH REVIEW
REPORT

THE JIMMY SAVILE INVESTIGATION

REPORT

BY DAME JANET SMITH DBE

FOR PUBLICATION ON
25 FEBRUARY 2016
 THIS REPORT CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE WHICH
SOME READERS MAY FIND DISTRESSING

THE JIMMY SAVILE INVESTIGATION REPORT

VOLUME 2

Table of Contents

PART 1
CONCLUSIONS – THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND THE
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED..................................................................... 1

Did Savile commit acts of inappropriate sexual conduct in

connection with his work for the BBC? ............................................... 1
Were any concerns raised within the BBC whether
formally or informally about Savile’s inappropriate
sexual conduct? .................................................................................. 2
To what extent were BBC personnel aware of inappropriate
sexual conduct by Savile in connection with his work for
the BBC? ............................................................................................. 8
To what extent ought BBC personnel to have been aware
of inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile in connection
with his work for the BBC? ................................................................ 16
Did the culture and practices within the BBC during the
years of Savile’s employment enable Savile’s inappropriate
sexual conduct to continue unchecked? ........................................... 20
The Culture of Not Complaining ................................................... 20
The Culture of Not Complaining about the Talent........................ 22
The Lack of Any Suitable Route for the Making of
Complaints .................................................................................... 23
The Culture of Separation and the Lack of
Cross-dissemination about Concerns .......................................... 25
The Macho Culture ....................................................................... 26
Lack of a Coordinated Approach to the Investigation of
Complaints or Concerns ............................................................... 27
Cultural Factors Relating to Underage Victims .................................. 28
My Recommendations ....................................................................... 30
A Final Word ...................................................................................... 37
SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 39

Setting up the Review: The Terms of Reference (Chapter 1) .......... 39

The BBC – History, Ethos and Management Culture (Chapter 2) ... 40
Changing Attitudes and Sexual Mores (Chapter 3) .......................... 43
Savile – His Career and Perceptions of Him at the BBC
(Chapter 4) ........................................................................................ 46
Perceptions of Savile at the BBC (Chapter 4) ............................. 48
Savile the Presenter (Chapter 4) ................................................. 49
Savile’s Private Life and Sexual Activities (Chapter 5) ..................... 51
Summary of Accepted Evidence (Chapter 5) .............................. 52
Summary of Complaints about Savile (Chapter 5) ...................... 55
Material in the Public Domain (Chapter 6) ........................................ 60
Rumours about Savile at the BBC (Chapter 7) ................................. 61
Press Reports Alleging That the BBC Knew of Savile’s
Misconduct but Had Failed to Act (Chapter 8) .................................. 64
Top of the Pops (Chapter 9) ............................................................. 66
How the Programme Operated (Chapter 9) ................................. 66
Awareness of BBC Staff That Young Members of the
Audience at Top of the Pops Were at Risk of ‘Moral Danger’
(Chapter 9) .................................................................................. 68
Conclusions about the BBC’s Response to the Various
Wake-up Calls in Respect of Top of the Pops (Chapter 9) ......... 74
Conclusion about Top of the Pops (Chapter 9) ........................... 76
Knowledge about Savile in Relation to Top of the Pops
(Chapter 9) .................................................................................. 76
Conclusion about the BBC’s Awareness of Savile’s
Misconduct while on Top of the Pops (Chapter 9) ...................... 78
Awareness of Savile’s Sexual Misconduct within the
Jim’ll Fix It Team (Chapter 10) .......................................................... 79
Awareness of Savile’s Sexual Deviancy at Jim’ll Fix It
(Chapter 10) ................................................................................ 81
Awareness of Roger Ordish (Chapter 10) ................................... 82
Awareness of More Senior Staff about Problems
Relating to Savile and Jim’ll Fix It (Chapter 10) .......................... 85
Discussion (Chapter 10) .............................................................. 89
 Awareness within BBC Radio 1 and the BBC Radio
Religious Broadcasting Department (Chapter 11) ............................ 91
Investigations Instigated by Douglas Muggeridge,
Controller of BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 (Chapter 11) ........ 92
What Was Known about Savile in BBC Radio 1 and
What Would Have Been Discovered if Enquiries
Had Been Made within BBC Radio 1? (Chapter 11) ................... 97
What Was Known within the Religious Broadcasting
Department Radio (Chapter 11) ................................................ 101
Canon Colin Semper (Chapter 11) ............................................ 101
Canon David Winter (Chapter 11) ............................................. 103
Responsibility for Reporting Awareness of Savile’s
Character (Chapter 11) ............................................................. 105
Summary – Chapter 11 .............................................................. 108

CHAPTER 1 – SETTING UP THE REVIEW........................................... 111

The Origin of the Review: Savile’s Death and Aftermath ............... 111
Setting up the Review: the Terms of Reference .............................. 116
The Savile Investigation Team ........................................................ 121
The Work of the Review: Early Stages ............................................ 121
The Evidence Gathering Process for the Savile Investigation:
Witness Interviews ........................................................................... 125
The Evidence Gathering Process for the Savile Investigation:
Documentation ................................................................................. 127
BBC Written Archives Centre ..................................................... 127
Other Written Sources ................................................................ 132
Decision-making – The Savile Investigation .................................... 132
The Report ....................................................................................... 135
The Publication by Exaro News Limited on 20 January 2016 ... 140

CHAPTER 2 – THE BBC – HISTORY, ETHOS AND

MANAGEMENT CULTURE .................................................................... 143

Introduction ...................................................................................... 143

Early History ..................................................................................... 143
Management Structure .................................................................... 145
The Governors – 1927 to 2006 .................................................. 145
 BBC Trust and Executive Board – 2007 to the Present ............. 145
Board of Management/Management Board ............................... 146
Management of Television – Light Entertainment...................... 146
Management of Radio ................................................................ 148
BBC Values and Objectives ............................................................. 150
Management Rules, Styles and Culture .......................................... 154
The Hierarchy ............................................................................. 154
Vertical Relationships ................................................................. 155
Lateral Relationships .................................................................. 158
Promotion and Recruitment........................................................ 163
Pride in the BBC .............................................................................. 164
Specific Features of BBC Management........................................... 166
Audience Ratings and Programme Review Boards ................... 166
Press and Publicity ..................................................................... 169
The Reporting of Complaints and Concerns – Whistle-blowing ...... 172
The Universal Problem ............................................................... 172
Whistle-blowing in the BBC ........................................................ 174
Complaining in the 1970s and 1980s ......................................... 174
Complaining about the ‘Talent’ ................................................... 179
Different Management Lines ...................................................... 183
Not Reporting Savile .................................................................. 184
Comment .................................................................................... 185
Respect at Work Review ............................................................ 185
The GoodCorporation Review .................................................... 188
BBC Clubs and Alcohol at the BBC ................................................. 189

CHAPTER 3 – CHANGING ATTITUDES AND SEXUAL MORES ........ 191

Introduction ...................................................................................... 191

Changes in Sexual Mores in British Society .................................... 191
Sexual Mores in Show Business and the Music Industry ................ 196
Reaction to Revelations about Savile .............................................. 197
Sexual Mores in the BBC ................................................................. 200
Sex Discrimination ........................................................................... 207
Sex Discrimination in British Society .......................................... 207
Sex Discrimination in the BBC ................................................... 209
 Sexual Harassment within the BBC ........................................... 216
Child Protection ................................................................................ 219
Child Protection in British Society .............................................. 219
Child Protection in the BBC ........................................................ 223
Discussion .................................................................................. 231

CHAPTER 4 – SAVILE – HIS CAREER – PERCEPTIONS OF HIM

IN THE BBC ............................................................................................ 233

Introduction ...................................................................................... 233

Early Life .......................................................................................... 233
Savile at the BBC ............................................................................. 236
Other Activities ................................................................................. 239
What Was Savile Like? ................................................................... 241
Perceptions of Savile at the BBC ..................................................... 245
Savile the Presenter......................................................................... 253

CHAPTER 5 – SAVILE’S PRIVATE LIFE AND SEXUAL ACTIVITIES 261

Introduction ...................................................................................... 261

The Evidence from Complainants.................................................... 264
The London Team ...................................................................... 264
The Chronological Account ........................................................ 273
Duncroft School ......................................................................... 306
An Account Which Falls Outside My Terms of Reference .............. 368
Savile’s Invitations Which Were Rejected ....................................... 371
What Other People Saw or Heard of Savile’s Misconduct .............. 373
Summary of Accepted Evidence ...................................................... 389
Summary of Complaints about Savile.............................................. 394

CHAPTER 6 – MATERIAL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .......................... 403

Introduction ...................................................................................... 403

Books and Publications Written or Approved by Savile Himself ..... 403
As It Happens ............................................................................. 403
God’ll fix it ................................................................................... 408
Newspaper Articles .......................................................................... 410
The Sunday People .................................................................... 410
The Sun Interviews in 1983 ........................................................ 410
The Independent on Sunday 1990 ............................................. 417
 Television and Radio Broadcasts .................................................... 419
Open to Question 1988 .............................................................. 419
In the Psychiatrist’s Chair – Anthony Clare ................................ 422
Is This Your Life? ....................................................................... 423
When Louis Met Jimmy .............................................................. 427
Have I Got News for You............................................................ 433
Summary .......................................................................................... 433

CHAPTER 7 – RUMOURS, STORIES AND JOKES ............................. 435

Introduction ...................................................................................... 435

Rumours ........................................................................................... 436
Specific Examples of Who Heard What ........................................... 439
Stories and Urban Myths ................................................................. 445
Jokes – Black Humour ..................................................................... 447
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 448

CHAPTER 8 – MEDIA REPORTS ALLEGING THAT THE BBC

KNEW OF SAVILE’S MISCONDUCT BUT HAD FAILED TO ACT ...... 451

Introduction ...................................................................................... 451

The Sun – 12 October 2012 – Source David Nicolson .................... 452
The Daily Mail – 1 October 2012 – Source Anonymous ‘A1’ .......... 461
Daily Telegraph – Source – David Hardwick ................................... 472
The Mirror – Source – Alan Hardwick .............................................. 478
Express – 7 October 2012 – Source – Christopher Biggins ............ 481
Contactmusic.com website – 17 October 2012 – Source –
John Simpson .................................................................................. 482
Reports the Savile Investigation Has Been Unable to Investigate .. 484
Other Reports................................................................................... 487
Conclusions...................................................................................... 488

PART 2

CHAPTER 9 – TOP OF THE POPS ....................................................... 491

Introduction ...................................................................................... 491

A Brief History .................................................................................. 493
How Top of the Pops Operated ....................................................... 493
The Audience ............................................................................. 494
 The Practical Arrangements ....................................................... 502
Dressing Rooms ......................................................................... 503
After the Show ............................................................................ 504
The BBC Club............................................................................. 505
Generally .................................................................................... 506
Awareness of BBC Staff That Young Members of the
Audience at Top of the Pops Were at Risk of ‘Moral Danger’ ......... 506
The BBC’s First Wake-up Call – Harry Goodwin 1969 .................... 509
The BBC’s Second Wake-up Call – Mrs Vera McAlpine’s
1971 Complaint ................................................................................ 512
The BBC’s Third Wake-up Call – Disclosures in the News
of the World in 1971 ......................................................................... 519
Part 1 – The Payola Allegations – 14 February to
14 March 1971............................................................................ 519
Part 2 – News of the World – Harry Goodwin –
21 March 1971............................................................................ 520
Part 3 – News of the World – More Moral Danger –
28 March 1971............................................................................ 524
Part 4 – News of the World – The Death of Claire McAlpine ..... 526
Other Press Coverage of the Death of Claire McAlpine ............ 527
The BBC Response to the Coverage of the Death of
Claire McAlpine .......................................................................... 529
The Inquest into the Death of Claire McAlpine .......................... 531
More Press Coverage and More BBC Reaction ........................ 535
The BBC’s State of Awareness about the Risk of Moral
Danger to Young Girls Attending Top of the Pops .......................... 541
The Investigation by Sir Brian Neill, Formerly Brian Neill QC .... 542
Mr Neill’s Interim Report ............................................................. 548
The Neill Report – on the Subject of Harry Goodwin ................. 549
The Neill Report – Inappropriate Sexual Conduct
Related to Top of the Pops......................................................... 554
The Neill Report – Conclusions about Mrs McAlpine’s
Complaint ................................................................................... 561
The Police Investigation and Report .......................................... 563
Conclusions about the BBC’s Response to the Various
 Wake-up Calls in Respect of Top of the Pops ................................. 566
Top of the Pops in the Later Years .................................................. 571
Conclusion about Top of the Pops................................................... 572
Knowledge about Savile in Relation to Top of the Pops ................. 573
Matters of Concern Which Were Not Reported but
Which Could Have Been Noticed ............................................... 577
Matters Which Were Reported to Staff ...................................... 578
Conclusion about the BBC’s Awareness of Savile’s
Misconduct while on Top of the Pops .............................................. 580

CHAPTER 10 – AWARENESS OF SAVILE’S SEXUAL

MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE JIM’LL FIX IT TEAM ............................... 583

Introduction ...................................................................................... 583

How Jim’ll Fix It Was Made .............................................................. 583
Child Protection on Jim’ll Fix It ......................................................... 589
Awareness of Savile’s Sexual Deviancy .......................................... 594
Overview ..................................................................................... 594
Awareness among Staff of the Need to Take Special Care ...... 596
Evidence of Awareness Emanating from a Member of
the Public .................................................................................... 616
Discussion .................................................................................. 618
Awareness of Roger Ordish ....................................................... 620
Awareness of More Senior Staff about Problems Relating to
Savile and Jim’ll Fix It ...................................................................... 633
Jim Moir ...................................................................................... 633
Former Controllers of BBC One ................................................. 642
Alan Hart ..................................................................................... 642
Lord Michael Grade .................................................................... 643
Jonathan Powell ......................................................................... 645
Alan Yentob ................................................................................ 648
Discussion ........................................................................................ 651

CHAPTER 11 – AWARENESS WITHIN BBC RADIO 1 AND THE

BBC RADIO RELIGIOUS BROADCASTING DEPARTMENT .............. 657

Introduction ...................................................................................... 657

Investigations Instigated by Douglas Muggeridge,
 Controller of BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 .................................. 661
The Enquiries Made by Derek Chinnery .................................... 662
The Account Given by Rodney Collins....................................... 668
Comment .................................................................................... 672
What Should Mr Muggeridge Have Done? ............................... 674
What Was Known about Savile in BBC Radio 1 and What
Would Have Been Discovered if Enquiries Had Been Made
within BBC Radio 1? ....................................................................... 679
BBC Radio 1 Producers – Ted Beston....................................... 679
BBC Radio 1 Producers – Other Producers .............................. 693
More Junior Members of Staff Including Studio Management ... 694
What Was Known within the Religious Broadcasting
Department Radio? ......................................................................... 698
Canon Colin Semper .................................................................. 700
Canon David Winter ................................................................... 705
Responsibility for Reporting Awareness of Savile’s
Character .................................................................................... 719
Further Awareness of Savile’s Proclivities and Reputation
Emerging in the 1980s ..................................................................... 722
Summary .......................................................................................... 724

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Dramatis Personae ...................................................... 729

Appendix 2 Chronology .................................................................. 753
Appendix 3 Table Showing the Relevant Senior Roles in BBC
Television during Savile’s Active Period at the BBC ... 765
Appendix 4 Table Showing the Relevant Senior Roles in
BBC Radio during Savile’s Active Period
at the BBC ................................................................... 767
Appendix 5 BBC Management Structure as at the Mid-point
in Savile’s Career in Respect of BBC Radio,
Television and the World Service................................ 769
Appendix 6 Detailed Information and Charts about Savile’s
Victims ......................................................................... 771
CONCLUSIONS – THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND THE LESSONS
TO BE LEARNED

1. In these Conclusions I answer the questions arising from my terms

of reference and set out the lessons to be learned from the
evidence uncovered by the Review. The questions I will answer
are:

 Did Savile commit acts of inappropriate sexual

conduct in connection with his work for the BBC?

 Were any concerns raised within the BBC whether

formally or informally about Savile’s inappropriate
sexual conduct?

 To what extent were BBC personnel aware of

inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile in connection
with his work for the BBC?

 To what extent ought BBC personnel to have been

aware of inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile in
connection with his work for the BBC?

 Did the culture and practices within the BBC during

the years of Savile’s employment enable inappropriate
sexual conduct to continue unchecked?

As required by my terms of reference, I also take account, as

necessary, of the findings of Dame Linda Dobbs in her investigation
into the activities of Stuart Hall.

Did Savile commit acts of inappropriate sexual conduct in

connection with his work for the BBC?

2. I consider this question in detail in Chapter 5. I conclude that Savile

committed many acts of inappropriate sexual conduct in connection
with his work for the BBC. The Summary describes the varied
nature of this conduct and Savile’s modus operandi. Savile abused

1
 boys, girls and women, usually young women. His preferred target
seems to have been teenage girls.

3. Most, but not all, of the more serious incidents of rape and
attempted rape and some of the more serious sexual assaults I
have described took place on Savile’s own premises and not at the
BBC. They were, however, connected with Savile’s work for the
BBC. Usually, Savile either met the victim at the BBC or else he
groomed the victim by offering the opportunity to attend the BBC
before taking the victim elsewhere, often to his home or camper-
van. In addition to these incidents which occurred on his own
premises, Savile would gratify himself sexually on BBC premises
whenever the opportunity arose and I heard of incidents which took
place in virtually every one of the BBC’s premises at which he
worked. These included the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush (in
connection with Jim’ll Fix It and Clunk Click), Television Centre (in
particular in connection with Top of the Pops), Broadcasting House
or Egton House (where he worked in connection with BBC Radio
1), Lime Grove Studios and various provincial studios, including
Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow.

Were any concerns raised within the BBC whether formally or

informally about Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct?

4. The short answer to this question is that some complaints were

made and some concerns raised, although not many considering
how many incidents of abuse occurred. I need to consider who
made them and to whom.

5. My first conclusion is that no complaints were made about Savile to

the BBC’s Duty Office. A complaint to the Duty Office was the
standard procedure for a complaint from outside the BBC. Such
complaints would have been recorded in a log. However, there
were eight occasions on which complaints about Savile’s sexual
conduct were made in other ways. Five of those were made by or

2
 on behalf of members of BBC staff; the remaining three were made
by people outside the BBC.

6. Chronologically, the first complaint was made by C2, a telephone

operator in Manchester, in the late 1960s (see paragraphs 5.56 and
5.349 of my Report). She asked Savile for his autograph; he said
“give me a kiss” and pointed to his cheek but he kissed her full on
the lips. C2 told her supervisor what had happened although she
did not expect her supervisor to do anything about it. Given what
had happened and the way in which the report was made, I do not
criticise the supervisor for taking no action.

7. The second complaint was made by C13 (see paragraphs 5.61 and
5.350 of my Report). In 1969, Savile sexually assaulted C13 by
grabbing her breasts with both hands; he was then rude to her.
She told her immediate managers (who were both men and
women). The reaction of one of her managers was to show no
surprise and to suggest that it would have been more surprising if
Savile had not tried to touch her. That was an inappropriate
reaction but one which is not surprising given the culture of the
times.

8. The third complaint was made by A6, a sound engineer who, at

some time in the mid-1970s was responsible for a young trainee
(see paragraphs 5.169 and 5.351 of my Report). One day, the
trainee went into Savile’s dressing room to fit his microphone. On
his return, the trainee was upset, saying to A6 that he was “never
going in there again”. The trainee was reluctant to speak about the
incident but A6 gathered that Savile had asked the trainee to fit the
microphone whilst they were both on a bed and had appeared to
want to fondle the trainee. A6 made a report to the sound
supervisor and then to the sound manager (the next level up the
management line). A6 heard nothing more and the reports seemed
to have fizzled out. The reason for this is unclear. The evidence

3
 suggests that, if the trainee was approached, he would probably
have refused to speak about the incident.

9. The fourth complaint was made in the mid-1980s by B13, a studio

manager (see paragraphs 5.231 and 5.352 of my Report). Savile
came into the studio to record a programme and immediately asked
B13 whether she was “the woman that I saw last night with the
snake between her legs”. She reported the incident to her manager
and a colleague of hers reported the incident to his line manager
and to a woman in the personnel department. It appears that the
complaint was listened to but no action was taken. I do not find that
surprising as I think that conduct such as this was not generally
regarded as seriously in the mid-1980s as it is today.

10. The fifth complaint was made by C51 (see paragraphs 5.254-5.255
and 5.353 of my Report) who worked as a junior employee at
Television Centre. She was sexually assaulted by Savile in late
1988/early 1989. He put his hand inside her skirt up her leg. Savile
left when C51’s supervisor (who was also a relatively junior
employee) returned to the table with cups of coffee. C51 told her
supervisor what had happened but was told to “keep your mouth
shut, he is a VIP”. The supervisor did not appear to be shocked by
what Savile had done but simply told C51 to keep quiet, which she
did.

11. Pausing there, in none of those five incidents did the complaint
result in any formal investigation. Nowadays, one would expect
that each of those reported incidents would be treated with a proper
degree of concern. It appears to me that the culture of the times
both within and without the BBC was such that incidents of this kind
were not treated seriously and, as a result, I am not surprised that
none of these reports resulted in a full investigation.

12. There were three occasions when a complaint was made about
Savile by a person from outside the BBC. On the first of these, C16

4
 was assaulted by Savile at the age of 16 in September 1969. She
went to Top of the Pops with a group of school friends (see
paragraphs 5.62-5.65 and 5.355 of my Report). She wore hot
pants and a long coat and was asked by a man with a clipboard to
go onto a podium with Savile during the recording. C16 found
herself very close to Savile. Suddenly, she felt his hand behind her
waist, underneath the long coat. He unzipped the back of her hot
pants and put his hand down inside her knickers underneath her
bottom. She panicked and ran to the man with the clipboard,
crying, and telling him what had happened. Another man came
over to see what was going on. She was told that she must have
been mistaken and, despite her protests and showing that her zip
was undone, a security officer was summoned and told to escort
her off the premises. She was taken out and left on the street. I
have not been able to identify the floor staff involved. This was a
very serious assault on a young innocent girl; it was not dealt with
properly. The BBC employee who received the complaint should
have reported it to his manager or to the producer of the
programme. It appears to me that the BBC floor staff at that time
probably regarded this kind of conduct by Savile as harmless good
fun and regarded a girl who complained about it as a nuisance. I
can see that it might be said that C16 could have followed this up
with a formal complaint to the Duty Office, but I do not criticise her
in any way because she did not.

13. The second complaint by a person from outside the BBC was made
on 24 November 1976 when B8 attended Top of the Pops (see
paragraphs 5.183-5.185 and 5.356 of my Report). She was asked
to sit on some staging on a podium. Savile appeared beside her
and started talking to the camera. She felt Savile’s hand going
underneath her bottom. She was shocked and leapt in the air and,
as she came down, his hand was underneath her, “fiddling” with
her. She was able to move away and went to speak to a BBC
employee (a man with earphones). She told him what had

5
 happened. He told her not to worry; it was “just Jimmy Savile
mucking about”. When she remonstrated, he told her to move out
of the way as they were trying to move the camera. He should
have reported the complaint to his manager or to the producer of
the programme and recorded it in a log. It appears that he did
neither and that the complaint was completely ignored. The attitude
of the member of BBC staff involved suggests that he saw what
Savile was doing as harmless fun and B8 as a nuisance. However,
in addition, there can be little doubt, from his reaction, that the BBC
employee with the earphones was prepared to believe that Savile
had done what B8 had complained about.

14. The third complainant from outside the BBC is C33 (see
paragraphs 5.221-5.227 and 5.357 of my Report). C33 was
working as a waitress. At the time, she was 19. Ted Beston,
Savile’s Radio 1 producer, was a regular customer where C33
worked and got to know her quite well. In late 1978 or early 1979,
he asked C33 if she would like to meet Savile and invited her to an
event which involved a drinks party which took place in a portable
corporate hospitality cabin, at which other BBC personnel were
present. C33 was shown into a curtained-off area in order to meet
Savile. He was on a low sofa. He lunged at her and kissed her
forcibly, grabbing at her breasts and putting his hands down inside
her top. He took hold of her hand and put it inside his tracksuit
bottoms. His penis was erect. She ran out of the curtained area
and went to Mr Beston and told him what had happened. He
treated her as if she was being silly and told her that she should go
back in. She left the event. She saw Mr Beston after this incident,
but did not feel able to refer to what had happened. She made no
further complaint to anyone else at the BBC.

15. There were two further occasions when reports about Savile’s
conduct were made by a person external to the BBC. I do not
consider these to be complaints, rather expressions of concern. In

6
 the mid-1970s, Ian Hampton made two reports about Savile’s
behaviour. He was a musician who played bass guitar for a group
called Sparks and appeared on Top of the Pops about 15 times. Mr
Hampton had heard rumours in the music industry that Savile had
sex with underage teenage girls. On two separate occasions, Mr
Hampton saw Savile leave the Top of the Pops studio with a young
girl. On the first occasion when he saw this, he told that night’s
presenter (who was not Savile) what he had seen. The presenter’s
response was to tell him not to be silly. We have spoken to the
presenter concerned. He has no recollection of the conversation
but our impression is that, at the time, the freelance presenter
(whom I shall not name) genuinely thought the suggestion that
Savile was taking advantage of a young girl was preposterous.

16. On the second occasion, Savile himself was presenting Top of the
Pops. Mr Hampton saw him leave the studio with a young teenage
girl. Savile returned not long afterwards but Mr Hampton did not
see the girl again. Mr Hampton was unaware of any reaction from
the BBC staff to Savile’s disappearance. However, Mr Hampton
told us that the members of his band all noticed what had
happened. On the second occasion, Mr Hampton spoke to Robin
Nash, a producer, asking him what Savile was up to. When Mr
Nash asked him what he meant and he explained what he had
seen, Mr Nash told him not to be ridiculous. We have been unable
to speak to Mr Nash, who died some time ago.

17. My view of both these reports is that they did not entail clearly
inappropriate conduct by Savile. They were reports of unusual
behaviour which might or might not have had a perfectly innocent
explanation. If a person had heard rumours about Savile’s sexual
interest in young girls (as Mr Hampton had), a report such as this
would ring alarm bells; but if the recipient of the report had no prior
reason to suspect Savile of sexual misconduct, the report would
seem meaningless. As the presenter concerned thought the

7
 suggestion that Savile was doing something wrong was
preposterous, I do not think it could be said that he was aware of
any inappropriate behaviour or that he was under a duty to report
the matter upwards. As for Mr Nash, I have been unable to
interview him. I cannot and do not conclude that he was under a
duty to report what Mr Hampton had seen to any higher authority.

To what extent were BBC personnel aware of inappropriate sexual

conduct by Savile in connection with his work for the BBC?

18. It is of great importance to the BBC to discover what its staff knew
about Savile’s sexual activities and to discover at what level of
seniority there was awareness of those activities. Were the
Governors ever aware? Were members of the Board of
Management ever aware? What about the heads of relevant
departments? It is important to establish the level at which there
was awareness because the press and, to a significant degree, the
public have already formed the view that “the BBC” knew what
Savile was doing.

19. As is apparent from the evidence I have received and which is set
out in my Report, some members of BBC staff were aware of
Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct in connection with his work
for the BBC. I will summarise my findings on this topic shortly.
Before that, I have to decide at what level of management
awareness should properly be attributed to the BBC as an
institution. There is no established legal test for determining this
issue.

20. In the context of the criminal law, a body corporate cannot be

convicted of an offence unless an identified senior individual, who
could be said to embody the company (also known as the
‘controlling mind’ of the company) could also be convicted. It
seems to me that for the BBC to be convicted of a criminal offence,
it would be necessary to identify (and convict) a person of the

8
 seniority of at least the Board of Management level. However, it
also seems to me that, in the context of the question I have to
answer, whether the BBC as an entity was aware of Savile’s sexual
deviancy, it would be wrong to assess the BBC’s awareness and
responsibility by reference to so narrow a range of people. I have
to make a judgment about the level of seniority at which I think it is
reasonable to say that the BBC as a corporate body was aware of
his conduct. I think it clearly reasonable to include members of the
Board of Governors, members of the Board of Management and
regular attenders at management meetings held by the Managing
Directors of Radio and Television who would usually have titles
such as ‘Director’ or ‘Controller’ or ‘Head’ of some central
administrative function such as Publicity or Finance or Programme
Services.

21. It does not appear that those responsible for the departments which
made programmes usually attended such meetings. However, it
does appear to me that a member of the public would be surprised
to be told that, even though, say, the Head of Light Entertainment
was aware of Savile’s deviancy, the BBC as a corporate entity was
not aware. Although this dividing line might seem arbitrary, I think it
reasonable to say that if a Head of Department was aware of
Savile’s deviancy, the BBC was aware. I have also considered
whether I should hold that awareness by personnel lower down the
management structure should be attributed to the BBC. For
example, ought awareness of a programme producer to be so
attributable? Although the position of producer might sound senior,
my conclusion is that, in the BBC management hierarchy, it is not.
A producer would make an important contribution to a particular
programme but his or her management responsibilities would be
limited to that programme. Producers would be answerable to
either an executive producer or a Head of Department. They would
certainly be under a duty to report any concerns they had to their

9
 line manager but, if they did not do so, it could not in my view follow
that the BBC as a whole was aware of that concern.

22. Slightly more difficult is the position of an executive producer, who

is senior to a producer (and is usually the line manager of a number
of producers). So also, is the position of an editor, a job title which
seems to be limited to news, current affairs and documentary
programmes. These positions lie between that of producer and that
of Head of Department and seem to me to be on the cusp of
attributability. However, I have decided that I should draw the line
at Head of Department. I do so because it seems to me that a
Head of Department has management responsibility for an
identifiable part of the BBC and also has ready access to people
who would sit on one of the important management committees
such as the Board of Management. I do realise that there is an
element of unreality about this decision because, if a Head of
Department was aware of Savile’s deviancy and deliberately
decided to keep that information to himself, the BBC as a body
would never have had the opportunity to do anything about the
situation. However, arbitrary though it may be, I am saying that, if a
Head of Department knew, the BBC, as a whole, knew.

23. I appreciate that the question of BBC knowledge is a central one for
the Savile investigation (as well as the Hall investigation) and that it
is an issue which attracts controversy. There are those who
decided a long time ago that there was no doubt that the BBC, as a
corporate entity, knew all about Savile and there are those who
readily (and, frequently, publicly) make the jump from awareness
(whether of rumours or more) on the part of any BBC employee or
freelancer to awareness on the part of BBC senior management
and, as a consequence, the BBC itself. But I approach this issue
(as I must) as a judge, applying reasoned principles and reaching
conclusions on the basis of the evidence I have heard and the
inferences which I can properly draw.

10
24. In reaching my conclusions on who was aware of what, I must
distinguish between, on the one hand, awareness in the sense of
actual knowledge (such as would arise from observing a sexual act
by Savile or by hearing an admission from Savile himself, spoken
seriously and not apparently in jest) and, on the other hand,
awareness arising as the result of hearing an account from
someone which appeared credible (as opposed to mere gossip or
rumour) or awareness arising from a realisation or an inference
from circumstances. I discount mere gossip or rumour as being, of
itself, incapable of giving rise to awareness of misconduct. I will
discuss later what the BBC should have done about rumour and
gossip.

25. In earlier sections of the Report, I have set out the incidents in
which Savile did something sexually inappropriate. I do not
propose to repeat that evidence here. Some of those victims were
BBC employees and they certainly had actual knowledge of what
had happened. Each of those victims was a fairly junior employee,
so junior that their actual knowledge could not amount to
awareness by the BBC.

26. Some of Savile’s victims reported what had happened to BBC staff.
For example, C33, whose evidence I summarise in paragraph 14
above, reported what had happened to her to Ted Beston, who was
Savile’s BBC Radio 1 producer. I deal with the evidence relating to
him in some detail at paragraphs 11.61-11.89 of my Report and
paragraphs 165-170 of the Summary. In addition to receiving C33’s
complaint, Mr Beston did, in my view, also know that Savile would
have casual sex with teenage girls (and other slightly older women)
as and when he could get it. It is more difficult, however, to decide
whether Mr Beston actually knew that some of the girls Savile had
sex with were under the age of 16. There is some evidence that he
knew, although he denies it. In the end, I concluded that I could not
say that Mr Beston did know that some of the girls with whom

11
 Savile consorted sexually were underage; he might have known. At
the very least, he must have realised, from their appearance, that
some of the girls might well be underage. Also, if they were in fact
over 16, it would not in some cases be by a very wide margin.

27. I do not think that it ever crossed Mr Beston’s mind that he ought to
discuss what he knew about Savile with his executive producer and
“report” Savile upwards. However, I think he should have done. He
should have been concerned about the age of some of the girls
Savile consorted with and also about Savile’s conduct towards
C33. Had he discussed these matters with his executive producer,
it must at least be possible that steps would have been taken which
would have led to Savile leaving the BBC. Instead, he kept his
awareness to himself and, as a result, it cannot be said that the
BBC as a corporate body was aware of what he knew.

28. Unfortunately I have not been able to identify all of the other
members of BBC staff who received complaints from Savile’s
victims. I have already mentioned the man with the clipboard (see
paragraph 12 above) and the man with the earphones (see
paragraph 13 above). They received credible and immediate
reports from teenage girls who alleged that Savile had touched
them sexually without their consent on the set of Top of the Pops.
Regardless of their age, this was unlawful conduct and should have
been reported. These men were floor staff; they were certainly not
in management. They should have passed the report upwards but
my conclusion is that they did not. The BBC as an institution was
not aware of these matters.

29. C51’s supervisor also received a credible and immediate complaint

about a sexual assault on C51. As a supervisor he should have
passed the report to his manager but he did not; instead he told
C51 to keep her mouth shut. Senior management did not hear of
that incident.

12
30. I have mentioned the sound supervisor and sound manager to
whom A6 spoke about his trainee’s experience (see paragraph 8
above). I do not know whether the trainee himself was prepared to
make a complaint but those members of staff were certainly aware
that A6 had a concern about Savile’s alleged approach to the
trainee. It was clear that, if anything had happened, it was not with
the trainee’s consent and would have been unlawful, even if (which
is not clear) the trainee was old enough to consent. It seems to me
that those members of staff ought to have reported upwards the
fact that A6 had expressed concern about Savile’s actions even if
the trainee had refused to make a formal complaint. It appears that
this did not happen and that senior management did not become
aware of this concern.

31. There are other members of staff who were aware of what was, at
the very least, inappropriate sexual conduct. I have in mind, for
example, C13’s supervisor (see paragraph 5.61 of my Report), who
showed no surprise when told that Savile had touched her breasts
and even suggested that it would have been more surprising if
Savile had not tried to touch her. Of course, by the standards of
today, that supervisor ought to have reported the complaint
upwards and ought to have advised C13 to consider making a
report to the police. Given the culture of the time, within and
outside the BBC, I do not find it surprising that that incident was not
reported upwards. I am quite satisfied that that report did not reach
anyone in senior management.

32. Who else was aware of what Savile did and of what were they
aware? In the 1970s, Canon Colin Semper (Reverend Colin
Semper as he was known at the time) worked as a producer of
Speakeasy. The evidence relating to him is covered in more detail
at paragraphs 11.113 to 11.126 of my Report and paragraphs 174
to 179 of the Summary. In the early 1970s, he helped Savile to
write God’ll fix It which was first published in 1979. Canon Semper

13
 was promoted a number of times within the Religious Broadcasting
Department but was not, at any point, Head of Department. He
became Head of Religious Programmes Radio in 1979. I accept
that Canon Semper did not “know” that Savile had sex with
underage girls in the sense of ever seeing it happen, but he clearly
did “think” that Savile had casual sex with a lot of girls, some of
whom might have been underage. Canon Semper did not make
any report to his managers. I have concluded that he ought to have
discussed his concerns with a manager. I have explained at
paragraph 21 above why I do not consider that awareness on the
part of a producer should be attributed to the BBC as a corporate
body. I conclude therefore that the BBC was not aware of what
Canon Semper was aware. The fact that Canon Semper later
became Head of Religious Programmes does not alter the position.
This is for two reasons. First, Canon Semper never became a
Head of Department. Second, by the time he was promoted to
Head of Religious Programmes, Savile had ceased to work on
Speakeasy and Canon Semper had no responsibility for him. I
think it would be wrong to attribute Canon Semper’s past
awareness of Savile’s conduct, never shared with anyone, to the
BBC as a corporate body.

33. In 2001, Louis Theroux became aware of a credible allegation that,

in the late 1960s or early 1970s, Savile had had intercourse with a
15 year old girl. It is clear that Mr Theroux’s meeting with the
woman in question (who was, by then, in her 40s), had been on a
strictly confidential basis and, it appears, subject to the normal
journalistic convention that her confidentiality should be protected
at all costs. This meant that the information could not be reported
without her express permission, which was not forthcoming. Mr
Theroux spoke to David Mortimer, who was at executive producer
level in the BBC. Neither man thought it right to report this
information either to the police or within the BBC. While the
information was clearly serious, it appears that the woman in

14
 question had approached Mr Theroux because she wanted to
correct the impression given by Savile in the When Louis Met
Jimmy documentary that he had never had a girlfriend; and Mr
Theroux saw the information in that way. In the circumstances, it
does not appear to me that either Mr Theroux or Mr Mortimer
should be criticised in any way for their responses to the
information they received.

34. In 2006, Mark Lawson saw Savile assault C23, who was working on
Front Row. Savile was being interviewed for that programme after
taking part in the very last Top of the Pops programme. Afterwards,
Mr Lawson and C23 mentioned that Savile had behaved in a
lecherous way to John Goudie, the Editor of Front Row, although
not as a formal complaint. In any event, C23 did not wish to make
a complaint; she regarded the incident as unpleasant but thought
that it was really a case of an old man acting in a clumsy, outdated
and inappropriate manner. Savile was almost 80 at the time. In the
circumstances, I think that both Mr Lawson and Mr Goudie acted
entirely reasonably and I do not criticise either of them in any way
for the fact that this incident was not taken any further.

35. There were a number of incidents which I have described at

paragraph 5.366 of my Report where members of staff saw or
became aware of strange or unusual behaviour by Savile. I have in
mind such people as Richard Broke, Bob Langley, Jonathan
Bennett, A9, Ann Mann and David Nicolson. These were not
reported upwards to anyone senior, which I think was
understandable as none of the incidents involved actual sexual
misconduct.

36. Finally, as mentioned above at paragraphs 15-17, Mr Hampton

reported Savile disappearing with a young girl from the Top of the
Pops studio on two separate occasions, respectively to the show’s
presenter and to Mr Nash (the producer of that night’s show).
Neither of those incidents involved actual sexual misconduct. They

15
 were examples of unusual behaviour which might be of concern. I
therefore could not conclude that either the presenter or the
producer was aware of inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile.

37. My conclusion is that a number of BBC staff were aware of specific

complaints about Savile’s conduct and in two cases were aware of
his sexual interest in teenage girls, some of whom might have been
underage. All of these people ought to have reported their
awareness to their line managers or to someone in a more senior
position. None of them did so. The result is that I must conclude
that there is no evidence that any senior member of staff (of Head
of Department status or above) was aware of Savile’s conduct. It
follows that I have found no evidence that the BBC as a corporate
body was aware of Savile’s conduct.

38. I understand that my conclusion on this issue may prompt comment

based, perhaps, on previous media reports that the BBC “knew”
about Savile. I have explained, in Chapter 8, why I conclude that,
for various reasons, some of those media reports were
misleading. In summary, my conclusion is that certain junior and
middle-ranking individuals were aware of Savile’s inappropriate
sexual conduct in connection with his work for the BBC. However, I
have found no evidence that the BBC, as a body corporate, was
aware of Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct in connection with
his work for the BBC.

To what extent ought BBC personnel to have been aware of

inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile in connection with his work
for the BBC?

39. I interpret this question as asking me to what extent awareness of

inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile in connection with his work
for the BBC should have come to the attention of more senior BBC
personnel thus providing an opportunity for that conduct to be
addressed. In short, were there failings in the BBC possibly of a

16
 cultural nature which prevented people with sufficient seniority to
take action ever being alerted to the existence of a problem?

40. I have already enumerated the occasions on which a junior or

middle-ranking member of BBC staff who became aware of a
complaint or concern failed to report it upwards to a level where
action could be taken. So the short answer to the question is that,
yes, there were occasions when senior BBC staff did not find out
about things which they ought to have found out about. No senior
manager ever found out about any specific complaint relating to
Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct in connection with his work
for the BBC. If any or all of those members of staff had reported
what they knew upwards to a more senior level, where action could
have been taken, it is possible that Savile would have been
exposed.

41. Why was it that they did not report what they knew upwards? In
most of those cases I have not been able find out why; I have not
been able to identify or question them. The exceptions are Ted
Beston (I think that he would never have thought of passing on
what he knew) and Canon Semper who was concerned but did not
report his concerns because he did not then regard the conduct of
which he was aware as being as serious as he now knows it is.
Also, he thought (wrongly) that his managers were also aware of
Savile’s conduct and that it was not up to him to report it.

42. In addition, I have the impression that the reason why some of the
people who were aware did not report upwards what they had
learned was that they personally thought that such conduct was not
seriously wrong and that people who complained were making a
fuss. Examples are the two men, one with the clipboard and one
with earphones, on Top of the Pops (see paragraphs 12 and 13
above). Those attitudes were not unknown in British society in the
late 1960s and 1970s. It appears that they were not uncommon in

17
 the BBC, although I am not for a moment saying that they were
universally held there.

43. My conclusion is, however, that in addition to the personal views of

some individuals who thought that sexual conduct (of the kind
complained of say by B8 and C16) was not serious, there were
cultural factors at work within the BBC which militated against the
reporting upwards of sexual complaints or concerns, particularly
when they related to a member of the Talent such as Savile. I will
come to those cultural factors in a moment but I wish first to deal
with the question of rumours and what should be done about them.
I also wish to discuss a specific example of a lost opportunity to
discover things about Savile which could and would have been
discovered if there had been greater concern than there was about
child protection and greater diligence in pursuing worrying rumours.

44. As I recorded in the main body of my Report, quite a number of

people in the BBC (and in the music industry and in Fleet Street)
heard rumours about Savile. In the main, these were rumours
about his interest in teenage girls. Of course they were not heard
by everyone in the BBC. Ought the people who did hear them to
have reported what they had heard to someone in authority? It is
clear that, in general, this did not happen. Perhaps the main
reason for this was that the people who heard a rumour often
assumed that, if they had heard it, so had everyone else. So, it was
not up to them to take any action; it was a matter for someone more
senior. I do not find those attitudes surprising and do not consider
that they warrant criticism. The trouble was that the more senior
people would not necessarily know of the rumours; as one would
expect, more senior people do not seem to have had the same
exposure to gossip and rumour as those in less senior positions.
The BBC is a hierarchical organisation and, as a general rule, I
think people tended to socialise with colleagues at their own level in
the hierarchy. In any event, it is difficult to know what action ought

18
 to be taken in respect of a man about whom one hears rumours of
inappropriate or even unlawful conduct. One cannot report rumours
to the police; nor can one take disciplinary action as an employer.
One might well say that, if a disturbing rumour comes to the ears of
a senior manager, it should be investigated. But one must also
bear in mind that, where the rumour relates to someone with the
reputation of being a great benefactor, tireless fundraiser and a
friend of the great and the good, there will be an understandable
tendency to discount the rumour as being untrue.

45. There was one occasion of which I know when a senior manager
heard disturbing rumours about Savile. In 1973, Douglas
Muggeridge, the Controller of Radio 1 and 2 heard rumours about
Savile’s sexual impropriety. He set in train two lines of inquiry: see
paragraphs 11.14 onwards and 11.34 onwards in the Report. The
first line of enquiry led to a meeting between Savile, Derek
Chinnery, then Head of Programmes for Radio 1, and Doreen
Davies, an executive producer. Savile was asked whether there
was any truth in the rumours; he said there was not and it appears
that Mr Chinnery and Ms Davies believed him. The second line
entailed enquiries with the press through Rodney Collins, a BBC
Radio publicity officer. He learned that the press had heard
rumours too but had no hard evidence. It appears that Mr
Muggeridge was reassured and no further enquiries were made.

46. I have not been able to interview Mr Muggeridge who died many
years ago. However, it appears to me that the main concern which
prompted his enquiries was the risk of damage to the BBC’s
reputation, rather than the welfare of any girls who might be
sexually involved with Savile. It seems likely that, as a result of his
enquiries, he believed the rumours to be untrue. Even so, I am
surprised that he should have closed the book quite as completely
as he appears to have done. I would have expected him to have
some lingering anxiety about the Savile rumours and their potential

19
 for damage to the BBC’s reputation. As a prudent manager, I
would have expected him to retain some concerns, share them with
other senior colleagues within the BBC and keep a watching eye
and a listening ear on Savile within BBC Radio. This could have
been done through members of his staff.

47. In my view, had discreet enquiries of BBC Radio staff been made, a
number would have come forward with information which would at
least have given significant cause for concern about Savile. In
particular, if enquiries had been made of Canon Colin Semper and
Canon David Winter, both of whom worked as co-producers on
Speakeasy in the Religious Broadcasting Department, concerns
about Savile would, I think, have been expressed. Without having
had the opportunity to speak to Mr Muggeridge, I do not criticise
him personally for his approach. But it is unfortunate that he did not
retain his concerns and share them because, had he done so and
particularly if those concerns had been passed to television, it
seems likely that information would have come to light which would
have taken the level of concern to the point where the BBC would
have had to consider dispensing with Savile’s services.

Did the culture and practices within the BBC during the years of
Savile’s employment enable Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct to
continue unchecked?

48. I will deal first with those cultural and practical issues which, in my
view, allowed inappropriate sexual behaviour to continue
unchecked and then will deal separately with those issues which
related specifically to the abuse of young people under the age of
consent.

The Culture of Not Complaining

49. First and most important there was, during the period covered by
the Savile investigation, a culture within the BBC which made it

20
 difficult to complain or to say anything to management which might
‘rock the boat’. There were several facets to this culture.

50. One was that complaining was often seen as being damaging to the
interests of the complainant. While it is important to say that the
sense of insecurity which inhibits staff from whistle-blowing is a
widespread, longstanding and intractable problem, there was clear
evidence specifically relating to the BBC. There was evidence that
people who were contemplating making a complaint decided or
were persuaded not to do so because it would damage their
careers. I was particularly saddened by the fact that a few
witnesses from the BBC who gave evidence to the Review asked
for an assurance that their names would not be published in my
Report before they were willing to say anything even mildly critical
of the BBC. The reason appeared to be that they feared some form
of reprisal.

51. I was told that an atmosphere of fear still exists today in the BBC
possibly because obtaining work in the BBC is highly competitive
and many people no longer have the security of an employment
contract. My concern in this regard was shared by the Report of
the BBC’s Respect At Work Review (published in May 2013) which
examined the culture and practices of the BBC in recent years.
That report mentioned fear of reprisal, fear of losing your job, fear of
being known as a troublemaker and fear of not being promoted as
reasons why complaints might not be made. Some members of
staff tried to report complaints or raise concerns of a sexual nature
through the BBC’s Personnel department, as it was then known.
These reports did not relate to Savile. The evidence was that such
reports were often not properly dealt with during the 1970s, 1980s
and even in the 1990s. Sometimes, the complainant was told that it
was not in her best interests to pursue the complaint. Sometimes it
was implied that the complainant’s own attitude was the problem. I
have not been asked to investigate the Human Resources

21
 Department since the Savile years, but I do note that the BBC’s
Respect at Work Review stated that there was a common
perception that the Human Resources department “worked for
management” and did not provide support for employees who
wanted to make a complaint or raise a concern. Unfortunately, that
finding resonates with my findings in relation to the Savile period.

52. A further aspect to the culture of not complaining was the strong
sense of loyalty that BBC staff felt towards the programme on which
they were working. There was a sense of pride in the programme,
a strong desire that it should succeed, a strong sense of
competitiveness with other programmes and a strong disincentive
to do anything which might compromise that success.

53. The strong sense of loyalty to a programme could hinder the

sharing of information or concerns. For example, as I explain at
paragraph 10.98 of my Report, in the 1980s, there grew up in the
production team on Jim’ll Fix It a general sense of unease about
Savile in relation to sexual matters. It is not clear if that was raised
even with the show’s producer, let alone with anyone more senior.

The Culture of Not Complaining about the Talent

54. As I have said, there was a culture of not complaining about

anything. The culture of not complaining about a member of the
Talent was even stronger. Members of the Talent, such as Savile,
were to a real degree, protected from complaint. The first reason
for this is because of a deference or even adulation which was, and
still can be, accorded to celebrity in our society. The second
reason was because of the attitude within the BBC towards the
Talent. The evidence I heard suggested that the Talent was treated
with kid gloves and rarely challenged. An example of this is the
attitude of C51’s supervisor when he was told that Savile had
sexually assaulted C51 (see paragraphs 5.254-5.255 of my
Report). His immediate reply was “Keep your mouth shut, he is a
VIP”.

22
55. Peter Scott-Morgan (who undertook consultancy work for the BBC
in 2003, some years after Savile had stopped working regularly for
the BBC) used an expression which I think encapsulated the
general attitude towards the Talent. He said that they were “more
valuable than the values”. By this he meant that a member of the
Talent could be so influential at the BBC or so important to the
success of a programme that he or she could get away with
conduct which flew in the face of the values of the BBC. Managers
would not challenge members of the Talent. There was a feeling of
reverence for them and a fear that, if a star were crossed, he or she
might leave the BBC. Alan Hart, who became Controller of BBC
One in 1981, said that he was “quite sure that [the BBC] would be
prepared to overlook certain things for fear of losing talent”.

The Lack of Any Suitable Route for the Making of Complaints

56. The management structure of the BBC did not facilitate the making
of complaints or the raising of concerns. The BBC was and is
hierarchical. Management practice in the BBC entailed an
expectation that managers (and others) who needed advice or a
decision would refer the issue upwards to their immediate line
manager and not by any other route. I do not criticise the BBC for
its pyramidal structure, but it appears that many members of staff
felt that the hierarchy was over-respectful and inhibited the free
exchange of views. This could cause reluctance to take a
complaint or concern to the next level in the hierarchy, usually the
immediate line manager. This reluctance might arise for several
reasons, some of which I have already mentioned.

57. Many members of staff felt that complaining or raising any concern
through a line manager was not a suitable means of complaining,
particularly in relation to sexual harassment. As a result, a number
felt that there was “no clear channel” for reporting inappropriate
behaviour. Also some staff said that they would be reluctant to
raise a concern, say for example about a member of the Talent,

23
 with their line manager because they would assume that those
more senior to them would know about it and they did not want to
be seen to be questioning those above them in the hierarchy.

58. From the findings of the Respect at Work Review, it seemed that
little had changed in the culture of not complaining since the 1970s,
1980s and 1990s. However, the more recent report of
GoodCorporation and information which the BBC has recently
provided to the Review suggests that changes in this culture are
now being made. The GoodCorporation report says that the BBC
has put in place a whistleblowing policy that provides a channel for
anyone inside the Corporation to raise a serious concern, which
ensures that it will be investigated impartially and will be brought to
the attention of senior management. According to
GoodCorporation, there is now a clear message from senior
management encouraging employees to raise their concerns. The
large majority of those interviewed had said that they would feel
confident to do so.

59. GoodCorporation also considered that the complaint investigation

process was carried out in a genuinely impartial way and was
properly independent of day to day management. The identity of
the complainant was properly kept confidential. An audit of
individuals who had raised complaints or concerns through the new
official whistleblowing channel revealed no cases where the
complainant had suffered a detriment. The problem of giving
special treatment to the Talent had been recognised and was being
addressed. However, the report disclosed that there was quite
widespread ignorance among staff about the new arrangements
with the result that some concerns were still being raised with line
managers. Not all had satisfactory outcomes. In addition,
GoodCorporation was not satisfied that the new arrangements had
been properly extended to temporary staff and contractors. In
short, although, according to GoodCorporation, much progress has

24
 been made and there is evidence of genuine commitment by the
BBC, there remains work to be done.

The Culture of Separation and the Lack of Cross-dissemination about

Concerns

60. A further reason why information was not reported upwards as it

should have been was that, at the relevant time, there was a clear
separation between various parts of the BBC, including between
Television and Radio. As one witness told me, BBC Radio and
Television had “two completely separate cultures” and “two
completely separate groups of people” and it was a case of “never
the twain shall meet”. This separation led to what was described as
“the silo mentality”. When Lord Birt arrived at the BBC in 1987, he
found it to be “highly baronial” and that some parts of television
were “anarchical”. Dame Esther Rantzen described the BBC as “a
set of private armies” and added that “they don’t necessarily like
each other.” When Greg Dyke came to the BBC as Director-
General in 2000, he put in place an initiative called “One BBC”
which was an attempt to make the BBC pull together – and, as he
put it to me, “to stop the people in Newsnight thinking the people in
Panorama were the enemy and vice versa”. A number of witnesses
expressed regret that when Mr Dyke left his post in 2004, his
attempts to bring about change were truncated.

61. This sense of separation could mean that a concern which arose in
one part of the BBC would not be transmitted to or discussed with
another part. For example, in 1973, Douglas Muggeridge does not
appear to have shared his concern about Savile with anyone in
Television. I accept that, if an issue was considered by the Board
of Management, it would be known of by senior management
across the BBC. For example, when concerns arose about
possible misconduct at Top of the Pops, there was some discussion
at a meeting of the Board of Management. Soon afterwards, there
was discussion about this kind of issue at the Management Director

25
 Radio’s weekly meetings. But if an issue was not raised at such a
meeting, its chances of going across the BBC were slight.

62. At a lower level, there could be a reluctance to discuss a problem

which arose in one department with personnel in another. This
seems to have been attributable to the sense of competitiveness
which prevailed between programme making departments.

63. Even within the same programme, there could be difficulties of

communication in relation to complaints. Staff working on a
programme would not necessarily have the same line manager.
Staff working on the production team would be part of a line of
management which ran through the producer, maybe to an
executive producer and from there to the head of department.
Other staff would have a different management line – for example,
the floor manager would not report to the programme producer but
to his or her own line manager in the Studio Management
Department. That was because the provision of floor management
was a central service provided to a programme. Cameramen,
sound engineers and audience supervisors had similar separate
management structures. This separation seems to me to have the
potential for preventing anyone in management from seeing the
bigger picture.

The Macho Culture

64. Another reason why complaints or concerns of a sexual nature

might not have been passed up the BBC as they should have been
related to the ‘macho culture’ which some witnesses said was
present in some (but not all) departments of the BBC. Particular
complaint was made about the behaviour and attitudes of technical
staff (who were almost entirely male) and of management in Radio
1 and Television’s Light Entertainment Department, where there
very few women in senior positions. I have the impression that
sexual harassment was more common in the Light Entertainment
Department and BBC Radio 1 (the areas where Savile worked)

26
 than in many other parts of the BBC. Women found it difficult to
report sexual harassment. Generally, the attitude of the male
managers was thought to be unsympathetic and, of course, there
were very few female managers. I was told that management in the
programme-making departments usually had a technical
background. No doubt that background had its advantages when it
came to understanding the business of making programmes. I
doubt, however, that such a pool necessarily provided the best
management material. It does not appear that there was any
management training in respect of such matters as diversity,
dealing with complaints or in respect of sexual harassment
generally. I accept that it was not common in industry generally for
management training to be offered on such topics until the 1990s.

Lack of a Coordinated Approach to the Investigation of Complaints or

Concerns

65. One of the cultural or practical weaknesses which may well have
contributed to a failure to check Savile’s sexual misconduct was the
BBC’s method of investigation. Although the BBC had an
Investigations Department, which may have been capable of
conducting a thorough investigation, not all investigations were
referred to that department. Indeed, I heard of several which were
dealt with within the department in which they arose. Where the
concern was of a sexual nature, the practice appears to have been
merely to ask the person accused whether the allegation was true
and, if it was denied, to accept the denial and say that nothing more
could be done. There was no attempt to collect evidence which
might support the complaint or even to provide general background
to it. I cite as examples of this, the way in which the Light
Entertainment Department investigated a sexual misconduct
allegation against a celebrity in 1971 (see paragraph 9.50 onwards)
and the way in which Derek Chinnery investigated rumours about
Savile which concerned Mr Muggeridge in 1973 (from paragraph
11.14 of my Report). A further example may be found in the way in

27
 which the BBC investigated allegations against Harry Goodwin, the
stills photographer on Top of the Pops (from paragraph 9.45 of my
Report).

Cultural Factors Relating to Underage Victims

66. Before considering cultural and practical issues within the BBC of
specific relevance to the abuse of those under the age of consent, I
should make it clear that I do not criticise the BBC for the fact that,
during the period between the 1960s and the 1990s, child
protection was very low on its radar, no clear policies or procedures
existed and such matters were generally not discussed. The
position in the BBC simply reflected the situation in many if not
most organisations at that time. I accept that there is evidence that
the BBC of today takes child protection very seriously. The report
of GoodCorporation shows how much has changed, although some
work remains to be done.

67. In one respect, the BBC of the 1980s was ahead of the times. It
played an important role in the development of the public
awareness of child abuse in the mid-1980s through the programme
Childwatch which was devised and presented by Dame Esther
Rantzen. At the time, the initial focus was on the recognition of
abuse in the home and it was not until later that consideration was
given to the possibility that there could be child abuse risks even
within the BBC itself. Save for one exceptional factor which I
address below, it is not surprising that senior managers in the BBC
during the relevant period never applied their minds to the
possibility that a disc jockey presenter might use his celebrity and
position at the BBC to attract and groom those under the age of
consent for sex. To modern ears, this might sound uncaring, but I
do not think that it is surprising.

68. The exceptional factor relates to the events of 1969 and 1971 when
the BBC received a number of wake-up calls about the risks to
which teenage girls were exposed when attending Top of the Pops.

28
 In Chapter 9 I have described the circumstances which provided
these wake-up calls. For example, the News of the World made
allegations about the taking of pornographic pictures of young girls
and the picking-up of girls under 16 by male members of staff on
the programme. At the same time, the BBC was facing separate
allegations that various BBC producers and other staff had received
money, gifts and services (including sexual services) in return for
playing particular records, thereby assisting their entry into and
ascent up the charts.

69. The BBC’s investigations into these different allegations showed, in

my view, where its real concern lay; it lay with the allegations of
corruption. The BBC’s investigations into the possibility that young
girls attending Top of the Pops were at risk of moral danger did not
evince any real concern for the welfare of the young audience. The
impression I have is that the BBC regarded these girls as
something of a nuisance. Board of Management minutes for the
relevant time reveal a limited focus on these issues. It appears that
the BBC was content with the decision to raise the admission age
from 15 to 16. That measure did little if anything to tackle the
gravamen of the concerns raised, particularly as the BBC well knew
that it was virtually impossible to police the age limit. In any event,
even if the audience was over 16, it does not seem to me to be
satisfactory for the BBC to permit unsupervised contact between
teenagers and older men in the testosterone laden atmosphere that
prevailed in the Top of the Pops studio.

70. By comparison, the BBC prompted a much more in-depth

investigation into corruption allegations than into the allegations
relating to Top of the Pops. I think that, for the BBC, allegations of
bribery, corruption and rigging of popular music were much more
serious than allegations that they were failing in their duties of child
protection.

29
71. A similar attitude existed in Radio 1. As I explain from paragraph
11.2 onwards of my Report, the issues raised on Top of the Pops
were also considered within Radio 1 and it is clear, in particular
from the minutes of a meeting held in 1971 and chaired by the
Managing Director (Radio), that the management of Radio 1 was
aware of the dangers of bringing together disc jockeys and young
girls in circumstances in which assignations of a sexual nature
might be made. Although the possibility that disc jockeys might
abuse their position is recognised, the minutes I have seen
demonstrate what, to my mind, is a most unfortunate attitude
towards the young girls: they are regarded as “unbalanced” and not
as merely young and in need of protection.

72. In summary, while I do not criticise the BBC for a lack of general
focus in the organisation on the well-being and protection of
children at the relevant time, I do criticise its response and attitude
to such issues when they arose. The BBC appears to have been
much more concerned about its reputation and the possibility of
adverse comment in the media than in actually focussing on the
need to protect vulnerable young audiences.

My Recommendations

73. It is clear from the Reports of the Savile and Hall investigations that,
over a long period of time, both men engaged in inappropriate
sexual conduct in connection with their work for the BBC and took
advantage of their association with the BBC to further their contacts
with young people for sexual purposes. Much has been written
publicly about the BBC and its awareness of what Savile and Hall
were doing. Some of what has been written has been ill-informed
and wrong; some of it has been accurate. I hope that my Report
and Dame Linda Dobbs’s Report will be accepted as authoritative
accounts of the activities of both men in connection with their work
for the BBC. The delivery of these Reports presents an opportunity
for the BBC to take steps to ensure that history cannot repeat itself.

30
74. The events which Dame Linda and I have described took place
many years ago. However, the BBC must resist the temptation to
treat what happened then as being of limited relevance to today. It
clearly is not and I shall seek to explain the ways in which our
findings are important to today’s BBC.

75. Primary responsibility for the commission of acts of inappropriate

sexual conduct in connection with their work for the BBC lies with
Savile and Hall. However, as Dame Linda and I have explained,
there are a number of cultural factors and systems failures which
were the responsibility of the BBC and which, in our view,
contributed to the failure to detect this misconduct and
consequently contributed to its continuance. Had those factors and
failures not existed or had they been addressed and resolved, it is
possible (but not certain) that the misconduct of either or both men
would not have happened or would have been curtailed. In
considering the lessons to be learned by the BBC from Savile and
Hall, I therefore focus on those factors and failures which, if
addressed, might have prevented or curtailed their activities.

76. Before I consider specific points, I wish to make some general

observations. Savile and Hall make very sorry reading for the BBC.
Although the situation relating to Hall in Manchester is in some
important respects different from the situation affecting Savile in
London, there are some common factors. The main difference
between Dame Linda’s and my conclusions is that Dame Linda has
made specific findings that members of management in Manchester
were aware of Hall’s activities whereas I have found no evidence
that senior individuals in London were aware of Savile’s.

77. Dame Linda found that Mr Colley (Regional Television Manager,

North West) was aware (without direct personal knowledge) of
Hall’s past inappropriate sexual conduct on BBC premises and,
indeed, that he expressly warned Hall against similar conduct in the
future. She also found that, because he had a specific reason to

31
 ensure that a watch was kept on Hall, Mr Colley ought to have been
aware of what Hall later did on BBC premises. Dame Linda also
found that Mr German (News Editor, North West) was most
probably aware or should have been aware. There was no precise
equivalent to Mr Colley or Mr German in London; there were no
senior individuals who knew about Savile’s interest in sex in the
way that Mr Colley and Mr German knew about Hall’s. It seems to
me that that is probably because there were no senior individuals in
London who had day-to-day contact with Savile as Mr Colley and
Mr German (who were part of a very much smaller centrally based
Manchester management team) did with Hall. My criticisms of
senior management in London relate to their failure to be more
concerned about Savile’s reputation and to have realised that he
was not suitable for the work he was doing for the BBC.

78. More important for present purposes is that both Dame Linda and I
have identified some serious failings in the BBC’s culture and its
systems of communication, management and investigation. We
have also identified a number of cultural factors which militated
against the discovery of sexual misconduct or inappropriate sexual
conduct which were not specific to the BBC but were general in
society.

79. I will deal first with the factors which were general in society during
the material period. They were, first, a failure to see sexual abuse
of the young as a significant major problem. Regrettably, as a
society, we are still discovering the extent to which the young can
be vulnerable to grooming and sexual exploitation. Consequent
upon the failure to understand the extent of the problem of sexual
abuse of the young was a common sense of disbelief when such
allegations were made. As a result, when complaints were made to
persons in authority, too often the complaints were disbelieved,
disregarded or covered up. Children were not protected as they
should have been.

32
80. Second, in addition to the failure to recognise the abuse of young
children, there was also a failure in society to recognise the need to
protect young people around the age of consent from exploitation
by older men. Society had had to accept that girls of 15 sometimes
would have intercourse and could not effectively be stopped but it
seems that, at least in some sectors of society, that was taken to
mean that the age of consent was not important; if the girl was
willing, the fact that she was under the age at which she could
consent was not of great importance. Moreover, there seems to
have been a sense that, once a girl had reached the age of 16,
anything went. There was a failure to recognise the seriousness of
the harm which could be done to young people who might (albeit
lawfully and willingly) be drawn into casual sexual contact with older
men who were abusing the power given to them by their age or
position. These factors, which were general in society, were not the
responsibility of the BBC. They are important because they form
the background to what happened. The people within the BBC who
had responsibility for dealing with concerns about sexual
misconduct were living within and must have been affected by
those cultural features of our society.

81. Further, there were also a number of employment or business

practices and internal cultural failings in relation to which I am
critical of the BBC. I have to acknowledge the fact that, even in
relation to these failings, the point can legitimately be made that
they were, at the time, probably common throughout business,
industry and the professions. For example, during the relevant
years, the BBC was a place of sexual discrimination and sexual
harassment and there was a failure on the part of management to
take such problems seriously. The BBC was far from the only place
where such problems occurred. However, as I say above, these
are issues on which I do criticise the BBC. Had these failures been
addressed at the time, it is possible that, at best, Savile would not
have behaved as he did or, at least, his activities would have been

33
 curtailed. In this part of my Report, I do not need to do more than
to list these factors, although I will, in each case, identify where the
issue is dealt with in more detail in my Report. The failings are:-

 The lack of an effective complaints process

(paragraphs 2.96 to 2.108 of my Report);

 The need for stronger lateral relationships

across the BBC encouraging the sharing of
information (paragraphs 2.42 to 2.56 of my
Report);

 The lack of an effective investigations process

(for example, paragraphs 9.61 to 9.65 and
9.74-9.75 of my Report);

 The need for stronger audience controls and

protection (for example, paragraphs 9.12-9.14
and 9.23 (in relation to Top of the Pops) and
10.26-10.28 (in relation to Jim’ll Fix It); and

 The need for an effective human resources

department providing proper support to
employees as well as the employer
(paragraphs 2.99 to 2.108 and 2.126 of my
Report).

82. In the ordinary course of events, after Dame Linda and I had
reached our conclusions about the unlawful and inappropriate
conduct which had occurred and about why those things had not
been discovered earlier, I would have expected to make detailed
recommendations about the steps that needed to be taken to
ensure that any repetition could be avoided in future. However, in
this case, it does not seem to me to be sensible or practicable to

34
 attempt to do so. The events and shortcomings I have described
occurred many years ago. They occurred against a particular
social background. Much has changed since then. First, social
attitudes have changed greatly. For example, there is universal
awareness of the duty of any organisation involved with young
people to protect them from harm. Second, based upon my reading
of the report of GoodCorporation and the Respect at Work Review,
the BBC has changed and its attitudes have changed. Its
procedures have developed. An obvious example of change is that
the BBC now has a satisfactory child protection
policy. Employment practices have also changed. For example,
the BBC, like all large employers, has grievance procedures,
whistle-blowing policies and mechanisms by which complaints and
concerns can be raised. It seems reasonable for me to assume
that many things have changed within the BBC since the period
about which I have written.

83. As a result, I propose to make one overarching recommendation. It

seems to me that the BBC needs to demonstrate to the public that it
has taken the current criticisms seriously and has made, or is
making, such changes as are necessary and appropriate to ensure
that these terrible events cannot occur again. By current criticisms I
mean those made in the Savile and Hall Reports and the Report of
the Respect at Work Review. My recommendation is that within,
say six months of this report, the BBC should set out its official
response to all the reports and should explain what its current rules,
policies and procedures are in respect of each of the areas which
have been open to criticism and demonstrate that these apply
current best practice.

84. Having appropriate policies is only part of the answer. In addition to

publishing and explaining its policies, the BBC should, in my view,
commission an independent audit of the operation of those rules,
policies and procedures. It should set out the timeframe in which

35
 each of these areas will be subject to audit, how the audit will be
undertaken and should confirm that the results of each audit will be
made public. Further, it should undertake now to make any
changes to procedures recommended by those audits to ensure
that it maintains best practice in these extremely important areas.

85. For the avoidance of doubt, the issues which should be dealt with in
this way include the protection of children and young people,
complaints and whistle-blowing procedures and the procedures for
investigating complaints whether internal or external. Examining
these issues will also entail close examination of the operation of
the Human Resources function. In addition, a commitment from the
very top of the organisation to the principles of good practice in all
these areas must be demonstrated.

86. In addition to undertaking to audit its practices in respect of these

specific issues, I consider that the BBC ought to undergo a period
of self-examination in respect of a number of other issues. These
are matters to which I have drawn attention which I think have
contributed to the BBC’s failure to detect Savile and Hall but which I
cannot say must be changed in any particular ways. These
matters must be carefully considered at a high level.

87. These issues are, first, the lack of cohesion within the BBC. I have
described the poor lateral communications between parts of the
BBC, the sense of superiority of one part over another and the
existence of competing fiefdoms. I acknowledge that competition
may stimulate artistic excellence but my impression is that, at the
levels I heard of, it is counterproductive. Greg Dyke recognised
these problems and tried to tackle them under his “One BBC”
project. The evidence I heard was that, after he left in 2004, the
project was abandoned. I think that it or something like it should be
reconsidered. My own view is that there should be commitment, at
the highest level, to the principle that, subject to the needs of

36
 journalistic independence, different departments should work
together and share information.

88. Second, the hierarchical nature of management structure should be

re-examined. I think that the aim must be a culture in which
management is respected but not feared. I was particularly
disturbed by the evidence heard by both the Respect at Work
Review and me about the extent to which staff were and still are
afraid to raise complaints or concerns for fear of losing their jobs or
the opportunity for promotion or, for freelancers, the fear of not
being used again. The commitment of managers to these
principles should be tested through appraisal and feedback
processes.

89. Third, I think the BBC should examine its attitudes towards ‘the
Talent’. I have reported that the BBC appeared, at least in the past,
to be tolerant of inappropriate conduct by the stars because they
were more valuable to the BBC than the BBC’s own values. The
BBC should leave members of the Talent in no doubt as to the
standards of behaviour expected of them. I was also concerned
that the attitude of some managers appeared to be that they would
turn a blind eye to inappropriate conduct unless there was adverse
comment in the press or from the public. I think that the BBC ought
always to make its own mind up about what it should do in the light
of its own values.

A Final Word

90. I wish to conclude with three general remarks. The first relates to
the BBC; the other two to our society at large.

91. This Report makes sorry reading for the BBC. Both Dame Linda
and I have found disturbing things and have not hesitated to expose
them. We have also, however, found positive things: the BBC has
always been a place of quality and dedication – a place where
people were proud and happy to work and were even prepared to

37
 accept unpleasantness because it was so important to them to work
for one of the world’s leading and most respected media
organisations. If the BBC can genuinely learn from this desperate
experience, it should be able to face the future with confidence.

92. One of the questions which I have been asked is whether it is

possible that a predatory child abuser could be lurking in the BBC
even today. My answer is that I do not think there is any
organisation that can be completely confident that it does not
harbour a child abuser. It must be recognised that child sex
abusers can be highly intelligent, articulate and charismatic but
manipulative people. Stuart Hall is an example. Savile too was
intelligent, charismatic and extremely manipulative, even if not
always very articulate. Any organisation could be duped by such
an individual. There is an additional factor for an organisation
which employs celebrities, such as the BBC. The power of celebrity
and the trust we accord it, which show no real sign of diminishing in
our society, make detection of a celebrity abuser even more
difficult. Until a complaint is made, such people are likely to enjoy
the confidence and approval of all those around them.

93. As a society we must do everything we can to ensure that young

victims have the confidence to complain at the time (or soon after)
they are abused and the confidence to face the criminal justice
system. It is clear that the revelations about Savile and Hall have
encouraged people, now adult, who have been abused in the past
to come forward to give their accounts. We need now to ensure
that that message is passed to the younger generation. We need
them to complain straightaway if they are abused before the abuser
has the chance to abuse again and again. We need also to ensure
that the criminal justice system treats them appropriately so that the
fear of giving evidence will not deter them.

38
SUMMARY

This is a summary of my Report. Fuller analysis and examples

supporting my views are found in each chapter of the Report.

SETTING UP THE REVIEW: THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

(CHAPTER 1)

1. In early October 2012, the country was deeply shocked about

revelations that Sir James Savile, the well-known and well-loved
television personality and charity fundraiser had in fact been a
prolific sex offender. Some of his offences were said to have taken
place in connection with his work for the BBC. Later that month, I
was invited by the BBC to investigate Savile’s sexual misconduct
and the BBC’s awareness of it. The Review’s Terms of Reference
(as amended) are that I should:

 receive evidence from those people who allege

inappropriate sexual conduct by Jimmy Savile in
connection with his work for the BBC, and from others
who claim to have raised concerns about Jimmy
Savile’s activities (whether formally or informally) within
the BBC; (PART 1)

 investigate the extent to which BBC personnel were or

ought to have been aware of inappropriate sexual
conduct by Jimmy Savile in connection with his work for
the BBC, and consider whether the culture and
practices within the BBC during the years of Jimmy
Savile’s employment enabled inappropriate sexual
abuse to continue unchecked; (PART 2)

 in the light of findings of fact in respect of the above,

identify the lessons to be learned from the evidence
uncovered by the Review; (PART 3)

39
  as necessary, take into account the findings of Dame
Linda Dobbs in her investigation into the activities of
Stuart Hall.

2. Altogether, the Review has been in contact with over 800 people.
In the Savile investigation, it has interviewed over 380 witnesses.
In the Hall investigation, it has interviewed over 100 witnesses. I
think that the volume and content of the evidence is such as to
enable me to draw reliable conclusions.

THE BBC – HISTORY, ETHOS AND MANAGEMENT CULTURE

(CHAPTER 2)

3. I begin this chapter with a brief history of the BBC and a description
of its corporate and management structures. I also discuss BBC
values and objectives – what the BBC stands for.

4. In discussing how the BBC operated, I have concentrated my

attention on the departments in which Savile regularly worked,
namely the Light Entertainment Department in television and Radio
1. I have also focussed my attention on the period in the 1970s and
1980s when Savile frequently worked at the BBC.

5. As I understand it, BBC management structure was and is intended

to work on the basis that Heads of Department are expected to run
their own departments without close supervision from above. When
a manager or producer is in doubt about what to do or feels that a
decision is too important to be taken alone, the issue should be
‘referred upwards’ to the immediately senior line manager.
However, the ‘refer upwards’ by one rung rule would not work well if
a manager decided to keep matters to himself, possibly because
the manager wished to retain, consolidate or even expand his
power base or if he did not get on well with his line manager. Some
witnesses described BBC departments as ‘fiefdoms’ or ‘baronies’
and I have the impression that in the Light Entertainment

40
 Department of the 1970s and 1980s, the managers were strong
personalities, wielding their power with confidence.

6. There was almost universal agreement that, during the period

under review, there was a marked degree of separation between
various parts of the BBC. To begin with, there was complete
separation between radio and television and several witnesses also
recognised a sense of separation between departments, described
to me as ‘the silo mentality’. This sense of separation could extend
to different entities within the same department and, within a
programme-making department, manifested itself as a strong sense
of loyalty to an individual programme. An individual’s professional
reputation and career prospects might well depend upon the
success of a particular programme. This sense of loyalty could
engender competition between programme teams and protection by
a team of its own programme. The programme had to be kept on
an even keel, which militated against the willingness of a member
of staff to complain or raise concerns about anything untoward
which was happening within the programme team.

7. An important feature of the culture of the BBC during the period

under review was the reluctance of staff to complain or raise
concerns. Management culture did not encourage openness in
these respects and did not recognise the sense of insecurity which
inhibited staff from speaking out. This culture was not unique to the
BBC; far from it. In my view, the difficulty experienced by
employees wishing to raise a concern is a widespread,
longstanding and intractable problem. In the 1970s and 1980s, the
BBC had no whistle-blowing policies; I doubt that many
organisations had. Many members of staff felt that complaining to a
line manager (in accordance with the hierarchical structure of the
BBC) was not a suitable means of complaining about a fellow
member of staff, particularly in relation to bullying and sexual
harassment. Some employees felt that they would be regarded as

41
 trouble makers and that their careers would suffer. Until the 1990s,
there was no Human Resources Department in the modern sense
at the BBC and I heard several examples of the failure of the
Personnel Department (as it was then known) to deal adequately
with complaints in the 1970s, the 1980s and even the 1990s.
Examples of such cases are set out from paragraph 2.99 of my
Report onwards.

8. If it was difficult to make a complaint about another member of staff,

it is not hard to imagine how much more difficult it must have been
to make a complaint about a member of what the BBC called the
‘Talent’, such as Savile. The general perception of the witnesses I
heard was that the Talent was accorded privileges, treated with kid
gloves and very rarely challenged. I have the clear impression that
most people in the BBC held the Talent in some awe and treated
them deferentially; they appeared to have the ability to influence
careers and were themselves untouchable. It would be a brave
person indeed who would make a complaint against such a person.

9. I have concluded that, during the Savile years, the culture in the
BBC and the BBC’s management style did not encourage the
reporting of complaints or concerns. Given the hierarchical
structure, the impracticability of complaining to anyone other than a
line manager and the weakness of the Personnel Department, the
only option for a victim of inappropriate behaviour during the Savile
years was to put up with it or leave. By and large, they chose to
stay because, in many respects, the BBC was a wonderful place to
work. Indeed, although many witnesses were critical of BBC
management and culture, the overwhelming impression I gained
from past and current members of staff was one of a deep affection
for and pride in the BBC. Specific examples of relevant comments
are at paragraphs 2.63 to 2.69 of my Report.

10. As I state at paragraph 1.15 of my Report, my Terms of Reference

had originally included a requirement that the Review should

42
 consider whether the BBC’s current child protection policies are fit
for purpose. In due course, however, the BBC decided that my
Report should not encompass an examination of the current child
protection and whistle-blowing policies and practice. The BBC was
anxious to examine how that policy and its whistle-blowing policy
were working and wished that that work should start before I had
completed my report on Parts One and Two of my Terms of
Reference. Accordingly, my Terms of Reference were amended on
27 March 2014 and GoodCorporation was instructed to undertake
an independent review of the BBC’s child protection and whistle-
blowing policies and processes.

11. The report of the GoodCorporation Review dated June 2015,

suggests that the BBC’s efforts to establish good whistleblowing
practices are beginning to bear fruit. The report states that there is
now a clear message from senior management encouraging
employees to raise their concerns. A large majority of those
interviewed by the GoodCorporation said that they would be
confident to raise a concern with a line manager or with someone
else in a position of responsibility. However, awareness of the
whistleblowing policy (which provides for a dedicated line of
reporting and investigation rather than reporting to line managers)
remains extremely low outside the senior management team. This
shows that more work needs to be done. The GoodCorporation
also made a number of other recommendations and a copy of its
report can be downloaded from the BBC’s website1.

CHANGING ATTITUDES AND SEXUAL MORES (CHAPTER 3)

12. In Chapter 3 of my Report, I briefly consider changes in sexual

mores in British Society in the post-war period through to the
1980s. In essence these changes comprised greater tolerance of
some of what would previously have been regarded as

1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/goodcorporation-
review-of-the-bbcs-child-protection-and-whistleblowing-policies

43
 unacceptable. Young people gained increasing autonomy and
greater freedom of sexual behaviour. I discuss the way in which, in
the eyes of some, the importance of the age of consent for a female
to sexual intercourse (16) appeared to diminish. I mention the
development of the cult of celebrity, especially in show business
and the popular music industry. There was a perception in some
quarters that teenage girls were ready and more than willing to
have sex with their pop idols. However, I conclude that, although
standards of sexual conduct did change during the 1960s and
1970s, most people in this country still did not think that underage
sex was acceptable; nor did they think that it was appropriate for a
middle-aged man to have casual sexual relations with a teenage
girl, even if she was slightly over the age of consent.

13. I conclude, however, that there was a marked degree of tolerance

towards a celebrity such as Savile who made no secret of his pride
in a prolific sex life with girls or young women very much younger
than himself. I refer to passages from his autobiography As It
Happens, published in 1974 where Savile made it plain that he liked
to have sex with lots of girls not saying how old they were but
calling them “dolly birds”. In addition, Savile appears to have
cooperated in the production of three articles published in The Sun
in April 1983 and did not deny their essential accuracy, when asked
about them later. In one of these articles, he boasts about how
many girls he has sex with on a casual basis. It appears that Savile
was confident that these revelations would not damage his public
reputation. In general, he seems to have been right, although it
appears that the Honours Committee disapproved of this conduct
and that the articles contributed to several years’ delay in the award
of Savile’s knighthood. This is explained further from paragraph
3.19 of my Report.

14. From paragraph 3.24 onwards, I consider sexual mores in the BBC.
A common attitude was that the private lives of staff and artists

44
 were their own affairs. Sexual misconduct would be of particular
concern if it were likely to cause a scandal and damage the BBC’s
reputation. My overall impression is that, although most staff
disapproved of casual sexual conduct involving teenage girls, some
regarded such conduct as an unavoidable aspect of modern life. I
also have the impression that this attitude was unchallenged
because there were so few women in senior positions; the
dominance of male management created or permitted what has
been called a “macho” culture.

15. From paragraph 3.44 of my Report, I consider the prevalence of

gender discrimination within the BBC. After promising beginnings
in the pre-war and wartime eras, the position of women seems to
have deteriorated so that, by 1969, there were very few women in
senior grades at the BBC. Only 1% of those in the top grades and
only 5% of those in the next most senior grades were women.
These figures give a useful picture of the gender mix in senior
management at the BBC at the start of the Savile era. I provide
more detail on this, as well as specific examples, from paragraph
3.47 of my Report.

16. The impression I have is that sexual harassment of women was

common, during the Savile years, in the Light Entertainment
Department and BBC Radio 1. Women found it difficult to report
sexual harassment and generally the attitude of the male managers
was thought to be unsympathetic. I provide more detail on this from
paragraph 3.64 of my Report.

17. I consider child protection in the BBC from paragraph 3.81

onwards. It was not until 2004 that the BBC introduced a child
protection policy applicable to the whole organisation and, from
what I have seen, child protection does not appear to have been at
the forefront of the minds of BBC managers in the 1970s or
1980s. This may sound uncaring. However, in the context of the
time, when few people were aware of the prevalence of sexual

45
 abuse, these attitudes were common. If it were not for the fact that
the BBC received a number of wake-up calls in the early 1970s
(which I discuss in detail in Chapter 9) it would not be surprising
that individual minds had not been focussed on the risks to young
people arising from contact with celebrities or on the possibility that
a disc jockey presenter such as Savile might use his celebrity and
position at the BBC to attract and groom young girls for sex.

18. I have lost count of the number of witnesses to the Savile

investigation who have told me that ‘things were different in those
days’. What they were telling me is that attitudes towards sexual
behaviour and, in particular, towards some of the sexual behaviour
in which Savile indulged, were more tolerant in the 1960s, 1970s
and 1980s than the attitudes we have today. To some extent, I
accept that this is so. The relevance of this is that, when I consider
what staff at the BBC knew about Savile’s sexual activities and
attitudes towards sex, I must judge their reactions to that
knowledge in the context of the mores of the time.

SAVILE – HIS CAREER AND PERCEPTIONS OF HIM AT THE BBC

(CHAPTER 4)

19. Following some guest appearances in the late 1950s and early
1960s, Savile’s career at the BBC began on 1 January 1964 when
he presented the first Top of the Pops, broadcast on BBC One from
Dickenson Road Studios in Manchester. Savile joined BBC Radio
1 in 1968, the year after the network went on air. His first show was
Savile’s Travels, which ran until 1977. In 1969, he began to
present Speakeasy which ran until about 1977.

20. In 1973, Savile began to present a new Saturday early evening

television talk and entertainment show on BBC One called Clunk
Click. This show enjoyed only limited success and was
discontinued. Jim’ll Fix It was launched in 1975 with Savile as its

46
 presenter. It was hugely successful. It ran until 1994 and brought
Savile enormous fame.

21. Savile’s radio career also developed. From 1973 to 1978, he

presented The Double Top Ten Show on BBC Radio 1 on Sunday
afternoons and from 1978, he presented Jimmy Savile’s Old
Record Club. Savile left BBC Radio 1 in 1987 and moved to the
BBC World Service to present The Vintage Chart Show. He stayed
there for only two years.

22. Although the programmes I have mentioned were Savile’s

mainstays, he appeared on many others, including Juke Box Jury,
Songs of Praise, The Jimmy Savile Show and a series of public
information films promoting the use of seatbelts from which came
the tagline ‘Clunk Click Every Trip’. He also presented two series of
programmes for the BBC in Leeds, Savile’s Yorkshire Travels in the
early 1970s and a discussion programme, Yorkshire Speakeasy, in
the late 1970s and early 1980s.

23. Savile revelled in his celebrity status. He boasted that Top of the
Pops brought him “total recognition”. If it did, it was Jim’ll Fix It
which brought him almost total public adulation. Broadcast early on
Saturday evenings to a family audience, Jim’ll Fix It sometimes
attracted as many as 16.5 million viewers. More than any other
programme, Jim’ll Fix It led to Savile being viewed, as The
Telegraph wrote after his death, as the “favourite uncle to the
nation’s children”.

24. Savile’s role as a regular BBC television presenter ended in 1994

with the demise of Jim’ll Fix it. He co-presented the final Top of the
Pops programme on 30 July 2006. The final show ended with
Savile turning the lights off in an empty studio.

47
Perceptions of Savile at the BBC (Chapter 4)

25. The Savile investigation interviewed a wide variety of people from

the BBC who had worked with or knew Savile. Most of these
witnesses had worked in fairly junior roles, as floor assistants,
researchers or production assistants. A smaller proportion worked
in more senior roles, such as floor managers, directors or
producers. A few worked in senior management.

26. Taken as a whole, the picture which emerges is that Savile was not
well-liked. The words used most often to describe him were “weird”
and “creepy”. It is no exaggeration to say that he was generally
seen as a sleazy, unpleasant, self-important and self-obsessed
loner. Other words used to describe him included “strange”, “cold”,
“peculiar”, “predatory” and “loathsome”. Women were particularly
unsettled by Savile, some feeling sexually threatened by him.

27. There were of course some who admired him and a few who even
liked him. Almost all of these were men. While the men to whom I
spoke did not say that they felt sexually threatened by Savile, many
found him unpleasant. Male witnesses described Savile as
“creepy”, “peculiar”, “weird”, “cold” and “a loner”.

28. Savile was widely seen as boastful and self-aggrandising. I was

told that he frequently mentioned that he had raised £40 million for
charity, boasted about the famous people he knew and never tired
of telling people how members of the Royal Family or a senior
politician would seek his advice. According to him, they saw him as
“an ordinary man of the people”.

29. Despite his celebrity, many witnesses described Savile as a loner

who avoided social contact save in situations over which he had
complete control. He was not interested in getting to know
members of a production team. He rarely went to BBC parties and
seldom went to the BBC Club (most BBC premises had a licensed
bar known as the Club). Even someone who worked with Savile for

48
 years, Roger Ordish, the producer of Clunk Click and Jim’ll Fix It,
found him secretive and defensive.

30. It must not be thought that, just because Savile was generally not
liked at the BBC, that means that he had no friends at all. He
plainly did have a circle of loyal friends and relations who appear to
have been fond of him despite his notorious meanness.

31. The evidence suggests that, at least while at the BBC, Savile had
two personae – one for more senior people to whom he would be
respectful, even deferential and one for less senior people to whom
he could be quite unpleasant. For example, when a production
assistant in Light Entertainment introduced his wife to Savile at an
end of series party, Savile remained in his chair and claimed that he
stood up for no one. But when Bill Cotton, who was Head of Light
Entertainment, walked into the room, Savile leapt from his chair.

32. One feature of Savile’s off-screen personality was that he never

seemed to stop talking. It was often difficult to understand what he
was talking about or to know what was true or false; there was “this
whole miasma of talk”. One witness described him as a performer
who continued performing “as though the act mustn’t stop”.
Another witness said that talking to Savile was rather like being part
of an Edward Lear nonsense rhyme. Savile told this witness that
he had created himself; he had realised early on that he had
nothing going for him, that he was not well educated and that he
needed to create an “outrageous personality”. One can see that
this might explain Savile’s image with his unconventional style of
dress, strange hair colourings, use of ‘bling’ jewellery and stylised
conversation which was frequently punctuated by sayings like “now
then, now then, how’s about that then?”

Savile the Presenter (Chapter 4)

33. Opinion was sharply divided among BBC staff as to Savile’s

abilities as a presenter. Some, mainly women and mainly in fairly

49
 junior positions, could find nothing good to say about him. They
complained of his lack of interest in and genuine commitment to
what he was doing. Others, usually men in more senior positions,
such as producers, were impressed by Savile’s professional skills
and the ratings he attracted.

34. There were those who claimed that Savile had no real interest in
music; he did the minimum necessary for a programme. Several
witnesses noted his lack of interest and involvement in the
preparatory work on Jim’ll Fix It. Again, his approach was to do the
minimum. This was in contrast to the impression given to an often
adoring public, many of whom thought that Savile was personally
involved in making dreams come true. Savile’s lack of interest is to
be contrasted with the interest, enthusiasm, pride and pleasure
shared by members of the Jim’ll Fix It production team in creating a
programme which was not only popular but which gave enormous
pleasure to a great number of people.

35. Yet, in the eyes of the public, Savile was almost a saint; he was
“revered”; a “superstar” who was “beloved” by the public. In the
pop scene, he was “like the High Priest of Mecca”. On his charity
walks people “would flock around him as though he was the
Pope…”.

36. His image combined with his skill as a presenter brought success to
his programmes, in particular in terms of audience ratings. Savile
became important to the BBC. Will Wyatt, former Managing
Director, Network Television and Chief Executive, BBC Broadcast
and Deputy to the Director-General, said that Savile was one of a
small number of people who were, at any one time, “really seriously
important” in the BBC. They were, in effect, the faces of the BBC.2
Another witness, who was well-placed to speak on this, said that
when Jim’ll Fix It was at the height of its popularity, Savile was
viewed as the BBC’s “biggest asset”.
2
Report, paragraph 4.79.

50
SAVILE’S PRIVATE LIFE AND SEXUAL ACTIVITIES (CHAPTER 5)

37. In Chapter 5 of the Report, I set out the accounts of the men and
women who have come forward to us and who have a story to tell
about some sexual contact with Savile in connection with the BBC.
Many of these reports allege a contact which was unlawful either
because the person concerned was under the age of consent or
because the person, although old enough to consent, did not in fact
do so. Some witnesses described a sexual encounter or activity
with Savile which was not unlawful but which was improper,
inappropriate or distasteful, usually because it entailed an abuse of
the power or age imbalance between Savile and the person
concerned. Some witnesses described encounters with Savile
which did not entail any sexual activity but which are included
because they demonstrate some facet of Savile’s sexually
predatory behaviour. We recognised that many of the victims who
gave evidence would be re-living painful experiences. I am very
grateful to those who felt able to assist us and recognise the
courage required to do so.

38. It is important to stress that Chapter 5 is not intended to be a

comprehensive account of Savile’s sexual activities. My Terms of
Reference limit my scope to matters connected to the BBC. The
Metropolitan Police report into Operation Yewtree suggests that
only a small proportion of Savile’s victims came into contact with
him through the BBC.

39. In addition, my Report cannot be comprehensive even as an

account of Savile’s sexual activity in connection with the BBC.
There must be victims who have had some sexual experience with
Savile (in some way related to the BBC) who, for one reason or
another, have not come forward. It follows that I cannot claim that
we have a complete picture of all Savile’s sexual activities
connected with the BBC. Even with the limitations I have
described, however, the evidence reported in Chapter 5 does, I

51
 think, vividly demonstrate Savile’s sexual preferences, activities and
modus operandi.

Summary of Accepted Evidence (Chapter 5)

40. I set out, from paragraph 5.10 onwards of my Report, individual

accounts of Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct. In all, I have
heard evidence from (or about) 75 complainants of inappropriate
sexual conduct by Savile, in some way associated with the BBC. I
have accepted the evidence of 72 of these complainants. As some
of these victims were victims of Savile more than once, the actual
number of sexual incidents to which the complainants whose
evidence I have accepted were subjected will clearly be materially
higher than 72.

41. The number is, however, very much smaller than the number which
the public might have expected to hear about, in the light of press
reports that there were “several hundred, up to 1,000” incidents of
abuse against children. Appendix 6 to my Report sets out my
findings in detail and includes three pages of data, which break the
information down by gender, age, the nature of Savile’s conduct,
programme and year of abuse and also includes various charts
which represent the same information in pictorial form. Appendix 6
shows the following:-

o Of the 72 victims, 57 are female and 15 are male. 21 of

the female victims were under 16 and 36 were 16 and
over; 13 of the male victims were under 16 and two
were sixteen and over;
o Eight victims were raped (six female and two male) and
one female victim was the subject of an attempted rape;
o 47 victims were the subject of indecent/sexual assault
excluding rape (34 female and 13 male);
o Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It were the programmes
relating to which victims were most frequently assaulted

52
 (with 19 victims being assaulted in relation to Top of the
Pops and 17 in relation to Jim’ll Fix It);
o The majority of victims (44) were assaulted in the
1970s, with 10 in the 1960s and 17 in the 1980s.

42. The 72 victims I have included cover a great range of sexual

activity. There are accounts of rape, attempted rape and indecent
or sexual assault. There are also some accounts of what I consider
to have been lawful consensual conduct where it appears to me
that Savile’s conduct was inappropriate because the woman
concerned was decades younger than Savile and almost certainly
under the influence of his celebrity. Some accounts do not entail
physical touching but of the 72 accounts which I have accepted, 64
entail something which can clearly be described as inappropriate
physical sexual conduct. Of these, 15 victims were male and 49
were female. Savile’s main sexual interest was in teenage girls
around the age of consent.

43. All save three of the most serious incidents of rape and attempted
rape took place on Savile’s own premises as opposed to on BBC
premises.3 Some of the more serious sexual assaults also took
place on Savile’s own premises (for example a witness4 suffered a
serious assault at his London flat when she was only 14).
However, Savile would gratify himself whenever the opportunity
arose and I heard of incidents which took place in virtually every
one of the BBC premises at which he worked. These included the
BBC Television Theatre (in connection with Clunk Click and Jim’ll
Fix It), Television Centre (in particular in connection with Top of the
Pops), Broadcasting House and Egton House (where he worked in
connection with BBC Radio 1), Lime Grove studios and various
provincial studios, including Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow.

3
See the accounts of C32, paragraph 5.31, C9, paragraph 5.149 and C40, paragraph
5.181. See also the evidence of Angie in this context at paragraph 5.22.
4
B7, paragraph 5.170.

53
44. Savile would indulge in sexual touching while working on the set of
Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It and, on at least one occasion,
when he was actually on camera. He also used his dressing room
as a haven of privacy where he could indulge in sexual activity,
although not usually sexual intercourse. In general, my view is that
he would only have intercourse in his dressing room with someone
on whose co-operation and discretion he could rely. I think Savile
wanted to avoid getting into trouble at the BBC and would, I think,
have realised that full sexual intercourse would be far more
compromising if he was discovered than touching or even digital
penetration. But he would invite young people whom he hardly
knew to the room and would touch them sexually. He seems never
to have had any fear that any of them would report him.

45. Savile had a voracious sexual appetite. He was obsessively

interested in sex. He talked about it frequently, boasting of his
many encounters, possibly exaggerating his success. So far as I
can tell, he never had and did not want a lasting sexual relationship
and he never had an emotional attachment to anyone with whom
he had a sexual relationship. His sexual contacts were essentially
casual. That is not to say that he would not have sex with the same
girl or woman more than once; he would. But there would be no
commitment on his side. Savile seems to have wanted the girl or
woman to consent; sometimes he would say “I know you want me”
as if encouraging express consent. But, if a woman strongly and
clearly objected to his advances, he would sometimes desist; but
not always.

46. Savile’s modus operandi seems to have been different when

dealing with an adult from his style of approach to young girls. With
adults, he was essentially opportunistic; if, for example, a young
female member of staff had to visit him in his camper-van, he would
‘have a go’. He rarely invited a woman out socially as a precursor
to a sexual advance.

54
47. With young girls, Savile’s usual tactic was to invite them to watch
him perform either on radio or television. This was a form of
grooming. He used his celebrity status, his entrée to the BBC and
his connections with other stars as bait with which to draw young
girls into his sphere. If the invitation was to a building where Savile
had a dressing room, there might well be a sexual approach in that
room with varying forms of indecent touching. But, after the show
was over, if opportunity presented, he would take the girl back to
his flat or camper-van for more serious sexual activity.

48. It is less easy to detect trends of behaviour arising from Savile’s

sexual interest in men and boys. I heard 15 accounts of sexual
assault on boys and young men. In the main, these were
opportunistic incidents although one young boy5 was quite carefully
groomed over a period of a few weeks.

49. Savile is now commonly described as a paedophile. He certainly

was in that he sexually abused young children. Savile’s youngest
victim from whom I heard was just eight years old. Of course,
Savile’s sexual appetite was not limited to the very young. He
would seek gratification from men and women, boys and girls.
Those most at risk from him were teenage girls.

Summary of Complaints about Savile (Chapter 5)

50. I deal with the question of the reporting of Savile’s conduct by, or on
behalf of, his victims in some detail in Conclusions paragraphs 4-
17) in the context of answering the questions posed of me by my
Terms of Reference. This summary will therefore be brief.

51. An important purpose of the Savile investigation is to find out what

the BBC knew or ought to have known about Savile’s conduct. One
of the main conclusions to be drawn from Chapter 5 is that none of
Savile’s victims who were not BBC staff made a formal complaint to

5
C8, paragraph 5.98.

55
 the BBC. Only one of Savile’s victims made a complaint to the
police and, as I explain at paragraph 5.206 of my Report, that was
some years after the events had taken place.

52. There are many ways in which a formal complaint could be made to
the BBC, for example a letter written to the Director-General.
Formal complaints that came to the BBC verbally by telephone or in
a written note (with no specific addressee) were channelled through
the Duty Office and were recorded in a log. I have not been able to
examine the log for all of the period when Savile was working at the
BBC. I think, however, that had a formal complaint been made to
the Duty Office about Savile, it would have been recorded, would
have caused consternation and would probably have been
investigated, at least according to the practices of the time.
Moreover, I think the documents relating to that complaint would
probably have been retained. That is what happened in 1971 when
a complaint was received about another celebrity. The complaint
was investigated, albeit inadequately, as I will describe in Chapter
9. Also the documents relating to it were retained. In the
circumstances, I think it is reasonable for me to conclude that no
formal complaint was made to the BBC either to the Duty Office or
otherwise about Savile.

53. While no formal complaints were made, I do, however, conclude

that there were eight occasions when informal complaints were
made about Savile’s inappropriate sexual conduct. Five of those
were made by or on behalf of members of BBC staff; the remaining
three were made by people from outside the BBC.

54. The five complaints made by or on behalf of staff members were as

follows. First, in the late 1960s, a telephone operator in
Manchester6, was unexpectedly kissed by Savile full on the lips.
She told her supervisor, but did not expect her supervisor to do
anything about it. Second, in 1969, Savile grabbed the breasts of a
6
C2, paragraph 5.56.

56
 studio manager and was then rude to her.7 She told her immediate
supervisors (both men and women). The reaction of one of her
supervisors was to suggest that it would have been more surprising
if Savile had not tried to touch her. The complaint went no further.
Third, in the mid-1970s, a sound engineer8 reported to his
supervisor (and later to a sound manager) that Savile had made a
sexual approach to the sound engineer’s trainee. The report seems
to have fizzled out although the reason for this is unclear. The
evidence suggests that, if the trainee was approached, he would
probably have refused to discuss the incident. Fourth, in the mid-
1980s, a female studio manager9 complained to a manager about
Savile’s use of inappropriate language. A colleague reported the
same incident to his line manager and to a woman in the Personnel
Department. This complaint was listened to but no action was
taken against Savile. The conduct, which amounted to sexual
harassment, was not regarded as seriously in the mid-1980s as it is
today. Fifth, in 1988 or 1989 a junior employee who worked at
Television Centre10 complained to her supervisor about a sexual
assault by Savile. Her supervisor did not appear to be shocked by
what Savile had done but told her to “keep [her] mouth shut, he is a
VIP”. The employee did as she was told.

55. I should also refer, in this context, to C23. Details of what

happened to her are at paragraph 5.262 of my Report. In 2006,
before Savile was interviewed about the last Top of the Pops, he
stood beside C23, grabbed her around the waist with his right hand,
put his legs around her left thigh (so that her leg was between his
two legs) and rubbed his crotch up and down. Neither C23 (nor
Mark Lawson, the presenter of Front Row, who was with her) made
any complaint about this, although Mr Lawson mentioned to John
Goudie, the Editor of Front Row, that Savile had behaved in a

7
C13, paragraph 5.61.
8
A6, paragraph 5.169.
9
B13, paragraph 5.231.
10
C51, paragraph 5.254.

57
 lecherous way. I do not regard this as a ‘complaint’, but only as an
incident when Savile’s inappropriate behaviour was mentioned.

56. On three occasions, a complaint was made about Savile by a

person from outside the BBC. First, in 1969, a 15-year old girl11
was assaulted by Savile at Top of the Pops and complained to a
member of BBC floor staff. A security officer was summoned and
told to escort the girl off the premises. Second, in 1976, another
girl12 was assaulted by Savile while he was talking to the camera on
Top of the Pops. She spoke to a BBC employee who told her not to
worry and it was “just Jimmy Savile mucking about”. She was then
told to move out of the way as they were trying to move the camera.
Third, a waitress13 was invited by Ted Beston (Savile’s Radio 1
producer) to meet Savile at a social event in 1978/1979. Savile
sexually assaulted her and she told Mr Beston what had happened.
He treated her as if she was being silly.

57. In addition, two informal reports (which I do not consider to be

complaints) were made by a musician14, in the mid-1970s. First, he
reported to a presenter that he had seen Savile leaving the Top of
the Pops studio with a young girl. The presenter told him not to be
silly. On a separate occasion, he told Robin Nash, who he thinks
was the producer of Top of the Pops on the relevant night, that he
had seen Savile leaving the studio with a young teenage girl during
a recording of Top of the Pops. Mr Nash’s response was to tell the
musician not to be ridiculous.

58. I was told of another occasion when a complaint might have been
made by the grandfather of a boy, C8, who was sexually assaulted
by Savile at Television Centre. However, the evidence is too
unclear for me to reach a conclusion. I discuss this in more detail
at paragraphs 5.361-5.362 of my Report. If a complaint was made,

11
C16, paragraph 5.62.
12
B8, paragraph 5.183.
13
C33, paragraph 5.221.
14
Ian Hampton, paragraphs 9.219-9.222.

58
 it appears that no action was taken against Savile. This would be
most unfortunate, given the seriousness of Savile’s conduct and
C8’s age.

59. It is clear that the complaint made to Ted Beston should have been
reported by Mr Beston to his executive producer. The other
complaints that were made were not pursued. All were raised with
junior or middle-ranking employees, rather than with members of
senior management. None of those employees was in a position to
investigate or deal with the complaint; their duty was to report it to
someone more senior.

60. In addition, although I do not criticise them for this, none of the
three external complainants followed up their complaints with a
more formal report for example to the Duty Office. Had that been
done, I think the complaints would have been recorded, and would
probably have been investigated, at least according to the practice
of the time. That the complaints were not reported upwards is
obviously extremely unfortunate. However, the fact that they were
not reported meant that awareness of these complaints did not
reach management level in the BBC.

61. Quite a number of members of staff saw or became aware of

strange or unusual or inappropriate sexual behaviour by Savile (see
paragraph 5.366 of my Report). In no case did they report what
they had seen to a senior member of staff. In some cases, they
discussed what they had seen with colleagues (sometimes slightly
senior to them) but in such cases the response was either laughter
or a shrugging of the shoulders because ‘Jimmy was like that’. I do
not in any way criticise any of these people for not making a more
formal report. None of the things they saw entailed clearly unlawful
behaviour and there were cultural inhibitions which would tend to
discourage such people from making a report.

59
62. Most victims, of course, did not report their experiences for reasons
which they explained. Most of the people who were raped,
seduced or indecently assaulted by Savile did not tell anyone what
had happened partly because they were ashamed and
embarrassed, partly because they felt that they were to blame for
what had happened (which, of course, they were not), partly
because they feared that they would not be believed and partly
because they feared that they would be in trouble if their parents
found out. Most of the young members of BBC staff who were
assaulted did not complain; some felt that what had happened was
too trivial to make a fuss about; some felt that, although their
experience was not trivial, reporting it might damage their careers.

63. In summary, there were very few complaints or reports about

specific incidents of misconduct which it would have been possible
to investigate. None of the reports which were made were passed
upwards to a level of management with the authority to order an
investigation or authorise a report to the police. As a result, none of
the complaints was in fact investigated or reported to the police and
none of these complaints came to the attention of senior
management.

MATERIAL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CHAPTER 6)

64. In Chapter 6, I consider material in the public domain about Savile:

books, newspaper articles and television and radio broadcasts. A
great deal was published about Savile over the years; much of it
adulatory. There were frequent references to his good works, his
friendships with establishment figures, including members of the
Royal Family and prominent politicians, particularly Lady Thatcher.
There were frequent references to his religious faith and to his
claim to be a regular churchgoer.

65. As I have said at paragraph 6.1 of my Report, there was, however,

some published material which revealed a different, adverse, side

60
 of Savile. Much of this either emanated from his own pen or was
apparently approved by him. This material showed that he claimed
to have had connections with people who operated on the wrong
side of the law and to have had corrupt relations with the police.
There was also material which demonstrated that his sexual life
was not only prolific but also deeply unattractive. Many people
reading the whole of this collection of material would have
concluded that Savile was amoral. However, the impact of this
material appears to have been slight. It is important to remember
that it formed only a small part of the whole range of material about
Savile in the public domain and also that it did not emerge at one
time but in pieces over the years.

66. Reading this material now, with the benefit of what we now know
about Savile’s true nature, one is struck by the amount of adverse
material in the public domain, by the lack of serious impact it had
and by the man’s extraordinary confidence that it would not damage
him. For example, he was prepared to talk openly about the fact
that he had numerous casual sexual relationships with women who
were decades younger than him, without any apparent fear that
anyone would pop up and say “Yes, and I was only 15 when you
did it to me”.

67. But setting aside the benefit of hindsight, Savile comes over as
deeply unattractive. Just taking the material I cover in Chapter 6 at
face value, I find it surprising that ‘the Great British Public’
continued to love him until his death. Were the values in society
really so different from those of today? Maybe people thought he
was only joking.

RUMOURS ABOUT SAVILE AT THE BBC (CHAPTER 7)

68. The Savile investigation took statements or heard evidence from

117 witnesses who had worked at the BBC and who had heard
rumours and stories about Savile’s sexual conduct. Some of the

61
 people who heard rumours were fairly senior or, if not actually part
of the management structure, were of some standing within the
BBC. These included Dame Esther Rantzen, Louis Theroux, Lord
Grade, Andy Kershaw, Liz Kershaw, Derek Chinnery, Johnny
Beerling, Pete Murray, Mike Read, Ed Stewart, Roger Cook, Nicky
Campbell, Andrew Neil and Mark Lawson. 76 of the 117 had
worked with Savile and 41 of them had not. On the other hand, we
heard from 180 witnesses who worked at the BBC but did not hear
rumours about Savile’s sexual conduct. Of those, 90 worked with
him and 90 did not. Many of these witnesses had worked for the
BBC for a long time, often for decades. I must stress that this
group of witnesses were not selected as representative of a cross-
section of BBC people. They were self-selected.

69. The rumour most generally heard in the BBC was that Savile was
sexually attracted to young girls. Only a few heard that he was
attracted to young boys; that is very young boys under the age of
say 10 or 12. When asked what was understood by the expression
‘young girls’, roughly 17% of the group understood him to be
interested in pre-pubertal girls under the age of 13. About 26%
thought that he was interested in pubertal but underage girls in the
13 to 15 age range, and about 22% thought he was interested in
the 16 to 17 age group. There were some who had not applied
their minds to what was meant by the term ‘young girls’ but when
pressed said that they thought they had been told that Savile liked
teenage girls but not necessarily underage.

70. An interesting point was made by Dr Peter Scott-Morgan, who, as a

consultant, carried out some research for the BBC in 200315. In the
course of his work, Dr Scott-Morgan spoke to a large number of
BBC staff. One idea which he was exploring was that there might
be a group of people, ‘the Talent’, who were so important to the
BBC that their behaviour was outside any real control. Dr Scott-

15
Report, paragraph 7.9.

62
 Morgan picked up rumours about Savile’s sexual conduct when
talking to staff and began to use him as an example of a member of
the Talent who, in the past, had been able to get away with
unacceptable behaviour – in his case sexual misconduct with young
girls. Dr Scott-Morgan found that a significant proportion of the
people to whom he mentioned Savile immediately showed that they
understood the point. In other words, the suggestion that Savile
had got away with inappropriate sexual behaviour was not news to
them.

71. In Chapter 7, I also relate some stories and black humour about
Savile. I have no doubt that rumours, stories and jokes relating to
Savile’s sexual conduct and habits circulated in the BBC over a
long period of time. Of course, by no means everyone heard them
(including some who worked with Savile and might have been
expected to hear them) and they were not limited to the BBC. In
particular, it seems fairly clear that rumours and stories about
Savile also circulated in press circles. I include some examples in
Chapter 6 of my Report. Also, in Chapter 11, I describe how, in
1973, Rodney Collins, a BBC publicity officer, made enquiries of
some journalist friends as to what was known about Savile in Fleet
Street. The answer was that there were rumours about him but no
hard evidence. In addition, Andrew Neil gave similar evidence.

72. It is clear that a number of BBC staff had heard rumours, stories or
jokes about Savile to the effect that, in some way, his sexual
conduct was inappropriate, if not actually unlawful. Most of those
who heard rumours about Savile’s sexual life did not appear to
have been shocked by them. Many seem to have regarded them
as amusing. No one to whom we spoke thought that he or she
ought to report such a rumour to a person in authority. It may well
be that the more serious rumours were not regarded as credible
and the less serious ones did not make anyone feel that ‘something
ought to be done’. Most people who had heard the rumours

63
 assumed that other people had also heard them. Some also
assumed that BBC management must be aware of Savile’s
reputation and did not think it was for them to do anything about it.
However, more senior people would not necessarily know about
rumours; as one would expect, more senior people do not seem to
have had the same exposure to gossip and rumour as those in less
senior positions. The BBC is a hierarchical organisation and, as a
general rule, I think people tended to socialise with colleagues on
their own level in the hierarchy.

73. The number of witnesses we saw and their evidence on the

question of whether they had heard any information about Savile
means that we were not, in fact, able either to draw any statistical
conclusions from the evidence or to come to any clear conclusion
that there existed any general view that Savile’s sexual conduct
was in any way unlawful or inappropriate. All one can say from the
numbers at paragraph 68 above is that, while a lot of people did
hear rumours or stories, a lot did not, including some who were at
the BBC for a long time and might have been expected
to. Members of senior management generally did not hear
rumours. In addition, as I state in Conclusions paragraph 23, there
are those who readily (and, frequently, publicly) make the jump
from awareness of rumours on the part of any BBC employee or
freelancer to awareness on the part of BBC senior management
and, as a consequence, the BBC itself. However, I approach this
issue (as I must) as a judge, applying reasoned principles and
reaching conclusions on the basis of the evidence I have heard and
the inferences which I can properly draw.

PRESS REPORTS ALLEGING THAT THE BBC KNEW OF SAVILE’S

MISCONDUCT BUT HAD FAILED TO ACT (CHAPTER 8)

74. In the weeks following the disclosures about Savile’s sexual

misconduct in October 2012, several reports appeared in the news
media to the effect that various people had reported their

64
 knowledge of some form of sexual misconduct on Savile’s part to
someone in a position of authority at the BBC. As a result of these
articles (contained in various news sources), it has been assumed
by many that the allegations in the news media were true and
statements have appeared in the press asserting that BBC staff
culpably ignored such reports.

75. At an early stage, the Savile investigation wished to contact the

sources underlying the most important of these various articles as it
appeared likely that they would know of people at the BBC who had
been given specific information about Savile. However, on
investigation, I found that most of these sources could provide very
little reliable information about what the BBC knew. I eventually
came to the conclusion that much of the material by which the
public had been persuaded that the BBC knew about Savile’s
crimes was unreliable. In Chapter 8 of my Report, I describe the
results of my investigations into those articles and their sources.

76. It is unfortunate that the public has gathered the impression from
these reports that the BBC had been told time and time again about
Savile’s misconduct. It has become received wisdom that that was
so. Examination of the facts relating to the reports I have discussed
in Chapter 8 demonstrates that this impression is misleading. It
does not follow from my analysis of some of the media reports that I
am saying that nobody in the BBC was aware of Savile’s
misconduct. Some people were. I have investigated the extent of
their awareness in as much depth as has been possible and report
upon it in chapters 9, 10 and 11 of my Report and summarise it in
Conclusions – The Questions Answered and the Lessons to be
Learned. Chapter 8 seeks only to clarify and, where necessary,
correct the misleading impressions which have been given by some
of these reports.

65
TOP OF THE POPS (CHAPTER 9)

How the Programme Operated (Chapter 9)

77. Top of the Pops started in Manchester in 1964. Savile was a

regular presenter from the beginning, although later there were
several others. The show moved to London at the end of 1965 and,
from that time, there were security problems for the BBC. The
popular singers and groups taking part attracted a large teenage
following which was often difficult to control. An important part of
the show was the participating audience. The production team
wanted young people who were good looking, fashionably dressed
and good dancers. Young people who satisfied those criteria were
sometimes invited to return. The show soon became very popular
and tickets became much sought after. The BBC initially imposed
an age limit of 15 but this was difficult to police; in particular it was
difficult to gauge how old a teenager really was. There is evidence
that audience members younger than 15 were allowed in. The
building was not easy to keep secure. Although tickets were
supposed to be required, young people without tickets used to find
their way into the building. Some of them used to frequent the BBC
Club. Presenters, artists and some members of staff were
allocated tickets or allowed to invite guests without tickets and
these guests were not subject to any form of supervision.

78. In 1971, following the allegations in the News of the World about
the risk to which young girls were exposed at Top of the Pops, (to
which I will refer later) the BBC raised the entrance age from 15 to
16. However, it remained just as difficult to police the age limit as
before. Young people under 16 continued to gain admission. I
have the impression that the raising of the age limit to 16 created in
the minds of BBC staff a sense of relief or security. The audience
members were presumed to be 16 and, if there was any sexual
misbehaviour connected with the programme, they were (at least in
theory) old enough to consent.

66
79. The BBC’s usual methods of handling its audiences worked
perfectly well for an obedient, consenting adult audience but I think
that they worked less well for an audience of up to 100 teenagers
who were milling about the studio, some of whom were determined
to get themselves on screen or to meet their pop idols. I accept
that the BBC supervisory staff did their best to keep an eye on the
young people attending the show but, as one audience coordinator
accepted, it was impossible to count the audience in and count
them out.

80. Although the programme was recorded for broadcast the following
day, it was ‘recorded as live’. This, as I understand it, was intended
to create the atmosphere of a live show. One witness said that ‘a
lot of testosterone [was] flowing’. The presenter would make the
introductions from one of the stages or podiums and would be
surrounded by selected members of the audience. Usually, the
floor manager would select the young people to go onto the podium
but Savile would sometimes choose them himself. When preparing
for a shot and while on camera, Savile would usually put his arms
round the girls next to him. No one took exception to this as a
general practice but it is now known that sometimes he used these
opportunities to touch girls inappropriately.

81. Every singer or group and each presenter had a dressing room
and, in practice, performers and presenters invited guests to their
dressing rooms both before and after the show. On Top of the
Pops nights, the corridors of Television Centre were very
busy. Witnesses told me that it would be very easy for a star or a
presenter to take someone back to his dressing room. There would
be so many people milling about that no one would notice.
Although there was a rule that staff were not permitted to have
sexual intercourse on BBC premises (I was told that this was a
dismissible offence although I was not told of anyone who had
actually been dismissed), it seems to have been accepted by the

67
 BBC that a visiting artist could do what he or she wished in the
privacy of a dressing room. Sexual conduct in a dressing room
would be of interest or concern to the BBC only if it appeared to be
unlawful because, for example, one of the people involved was
under the age of consent.

82. In theory, after the show, the participating audience would be

escorted from the building by audience supervisors. I am sure that
that happened to most members of the audience but I am also sure
that it did not happen to all. Most staff members agreed that, if a
presenter or member of a group wanted to take a girl back to his
dressing room, no-one would notice or, if they did, do anything
about it. It would have been regarded as nobody else’s business;
in particular because, from 1971 onwards, every member of the
audience was, at least in theory, over the age of 16.

83. I have the impression that, on Top of the Pops nights, Television
Centre was almost bursting at the seams. The corridors would be
thronged with people, many of them not BBC staff. Most would be
guests of someone or other although I think there would be a few
‘infiltrators’ or ‘stowaways’ who had no business to be there. But no
one was concerned about that; there was such an atmosphere of
bustle and excitement. It was ‘all go’.

Awareness of BBC Staff That Young Members of the Audience at Top

of the Pops Were at Risk of ‘Moral Danger’ (Chapter 9)

84. To modern ears, the expression ‘moral danger’ may have an old-
fashioned ring. It is, however, a useful short hand term for the
concept of risk to which young people (mainly young girls) might be
exposed as the result of finding themselves in the company of older
men and liable to be involved in sexual conduct which might be
unlawful on account of their youth or might be inappropriate and
emotionally damaging to them on account of their lack of maturity. I
shall use the shorthand expression ‘moral danger’ in that sense.

68
85. From the description I have given of what it was like in Television
Centre on the evenings of a Top of the Pops recording, with the
benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that some of the young girls in the
participating audience were at risk of moral danger. The fact that
some girls came back as regular members of the audience would
only increase this risk as there would be an opportunity for men and
the girls to recognise and get to know each other, which would
greatly increase the likelihood that assignations would be made.
Clearly, looking back, the same risk applied to young boys.
However my focus in paragraphs 9.36 to 9.209 of the Report is on
the risks faced by young girls because, in my view, the BBC should
have realised that the way Top of the Pops was run meant that
young girls were at risk of moral danger. I am not saying that the
existence of these risks, obvious as it now seems, of itself meant
that members of staff involved in the programme must have
consciously appreciated that the young girls might be in moral
danger. However, I do think that, if they had applied their minds to
the subject, they must have realised that there was a possibility that
young girls were at risk. In general, however, I do not think that
they did apply their minds to the subject; they were busy running
the programme and their minds and their priorities were on that
rather than on the welfare of the young audience.

86. However, in 1969 and again in 1971, the BBC received a number of
‘wake-up calls’ relating to allegations of sexual misconduct
connected with Top of the Pops. The fact that the allegations had
been made meant that no one in authority on the programme could
claim not to have been aware of the existence of these risks and
the need to investigate them.

87. The three wake-up calls are described from paragraph 9.43 of my
Report. The reader is referred to those paragraphs for full details.
Briefly, the first wake-up call arose from the activities of Harry
Goodwin, the resident stills photographer on Top of the Pops from

69
 1964. In 1969, two girls aged about 16 or 17 were found, after a
recording of Top of the Pops, waiting to visit Mr Goodwin in his
dressing room to be photographed. In addition, in the same year,
an anonymous letter was passed to the BBC’s internal investigation
team in which it was alleged that Mr Goodwin was taking
pornographic photos of girls in his dressing room after Top of the
Pops. When Mr Goodwin was confronted with this allegation and
was told that girls should not be visiting his dressing room, he was
recorded to have said that “he would do the same again next week
when the show was at Lime Grove where he could do as he liked”.
It appears that the then Light Entertainment organiser (Variety),
Ronnie Priest (now deceased) would have liked Mr Goodwin’s
contract not to be renewed but Bill Cotton (then Head of Light
Entertainment) insisted that Mr Goodwin should remain as “he was
a first class photographer with a valuable portfolio of work”.

88. The second wake-up call occurred in early 1971 when Mrs Vera
McAlpine telephoned the Duty Office of the BBC to lodge a
complaint concerning her daughter Claire, aged 15, who had
attended Top of the Pops on a number of occasions as a member
of the participating audience. The complaint was that a celebrity
had invited her daughter back to his flat after a recent recording of
Top of the Pops and had seduced her. This became a matter of
public interest and concern when, shortly afterwards, Claire
McAlpine committed suicide and the News of the World suggested
that her death was connected with her association with Top of the
Pops.

89. There was some internal BBC investigation of Mrs McAlpine’s

complaint but, in my view, this was not conducted in a satisfactory
way. The Investigations Department was not involved. Mrs
McAlpine was not interviewed by the Legal Department or the Light
Entertainment Department of the BBC. No attempt was made to
interview Top of the Pops staff or audience members or to discover

70
 whether and when Claire had attended the show. Light
Entertainment interviewed the celebrity only because they were
advised by the Legal Department that they were “duty bound” to do
so. No note was made of the conversation. The celebrity denied
the allegation and his denial was accepted. I deal with that
investigation in some detail from paragraph 9.50 in my Report.

90. The investigation into Mrs McAlpine’s complaint does not appear to
me to have evinced any sense of concern about the safety and
welfare of Claire or of girls like her. Rather it appears to me to have
been designed to protect and exonerate the BBC and to fob Mrs
McAlpine off. Later, after Claire’s death, Mrs McAlpine was to
complain in the newspapers that the BBC had “shrugged off” her
complaint.

91. For the sake of completeness, I should make it clear that I have not
attempted to make any judgment about the allegation involving the
celebrity and Claire McAlpine. The question does not fall within my
Terms of Reference. My legitimate interest in this matter relates
only to what can be inferred about the BBC’s culture and practices
from the way in which the matter was investigated by the BBC.

92. The third wake-up call arose as a result of disclosures in the News
of the World in February and March 1971. The first disclosure
(which is mentioned by way of context, but was not connected with
Top of the Pops) related to what were known as the “payola
allegations”. It was alleged that various BBC producers and other
staff had received money, gifts and services (including sexual
services) in return for playing particular records, thereby assisting
their entry into and ascent up the charts. The evidence underlying
these allegations had been obtained by covert recordings by
journalists posing as businessmen. These allegations resulted in
criminal proceedings which took place in 1973 and 1974. In
February 1971, soon after the story first broke, the BBC instructed
Brian Neill QC to undertake an independent inquiry into the BBC

71
 aspects of the News of the World allegations. Mr Neill, now the Rt.
Hon. Sir Brian Neill, later became a Lord Justice of Appeal.

93. One of the series of articles in the News of the World alleged that
Mr Goodwin was taking pornographic pictures of young girls at Top
of the Pops and showing pornographic films in secret in his
dressing room at Top of the Pops.

94. This evidence was said to be disclosed on one of the covert tape
recordings. It was said that Mr Goodwin described, with great
pride, “a blue scene” and claimed also to have a wide selection of
photographs of girls who had appeared in Top of the Pops, some of
which were “porny”. The Savile investigation has received the
transcripts of the interviews with Mr Goodwin and I can say that the
News of the World report is a substantially accurate account of
what he said to the undercover journalists. The tapes also
contained further material which shows Mr Goodwin in a very poor
light. At one stage, speaking about young girls attending Top of the
Pops, he tells the journalist that he would not “do it” in his dressing
room but “if you want to do it you can take ‘em into Wood Lane and
fuck ‘em outside there”. He also spoke about taking girls to hotels.
He may have been exaggerating; I do not know.

95. The BBC investigated the allegations in this article. I deal with that
investigation from paragraph 9.72 of my Report. The tape
recordings were not available to them. Mr Goodwin denied the
allegations of showing or making ‘blue’ films and claimed that “to
the best of [his] recollection” he did not make the statements
attributed to him by the newspaper. The BBC concluded that there
were “no admissions which make it necessary for the Corporation
to consider dispensing with Mr Goodwin’s services”. I find it hard to
resist the inference that those involved were aware that Mr Cotton
wished to retain the services of Mr Goodwin. Mr Goodwin’s
contract was renewed.

72
96. In my view, the BBC’s investigation of Mr Goodwin was manifestly
inadequate. No witnesses or potential witnesses were interviewed.
The investigation consisted essentially of asking the person
accused whether the allegation was true and, when its truth was
denied, the denial was accepted. This method of investigation
appears to have been standard procedure at the BBC at this time.

97. Later in March 1971, a further piece appeared in the News of the
World relating to a seduction scandal at Top of the Pops. The
source of this report was a former ‘stand-in’ (one of a group of
casual workers who assisted at Top of the Pops) who alleged that
girls were picked up by male members of staff either during the
programme or in the BBC Club afterwards and were later seduced;
some of them were under 16. So far as I can tell, the BBC did not
investigate these allegations.

98. Finally, the News of the World reported the death of Claire
McAlpine. The article was based largely on an interview with
Claire’s mother and reported how Mrs McAlpine had found and
read her daughter’s diary, where she had seen accounts of
meetings with at least two celebrities. She said that she had
reported her concerns to the BBC but that they had “shrugged it
off”. Claire’s death was also reported by a number of other
newspapers.

99. At the inquest into Claire’s death, the Coroner’s verdict was that
Claire had committed suicide “while balance of mind disturbed”.
The inquest was very short and there was no requirement for any
inquiry by the Coroner into the wider circumstances of the
death. Representatives of the BBC attended the inquest as
observers but there was no need for them to take part in it. Later
press coverage suggested that Claire’s diary, which had been
examined after her death by the police, had proved “quite
worthless” in police enquiries and that Claire was considered to be
a fantasist.

73
100. The attitude of the BBC’s senior management to Claire McAlpine’s
death, the press coverage of it and the outcome of the inquest can
be inferred from a number of contemporaneous BBC documents.
In the period between the death and the inquest, the BBC’s Board
of Management minutes record that “there were legal, publicity and
administrative aspects of this matter, all of which must receive close
and immediate attention”. However, at the meeting following the
inquest, the Board of Management considered that the BBC had no
responsibility for the death, based on the verdict of the inquest and
the assertion that the allegations contained in the diary were
fantasies. It appears that the Board of Management reached its
conclusions without discussing the fact that Mrs McAlpine had
recently made a complaint about what her daughter said had
happened following a visit to Top of the Pops or, indeed, any in-
depth discussion of the underlying issues. In my view, the Board of
Management did not provide the close attention they had envisaged
would be required. Instead, once adverse publicity had been
avoided, it appears that there was a collective sigh of relief.

101. The BBC Governors also discussed Claire McAlpine’s death and
were reassured by the outcome of the inquest. It appears that the
Governors felt no concern arising out of the wider allegations of
immorality in relation to Top of the Pops. This apparent lack of
concern alarms me.

Conclusions about the BBC’s Response to the Various Wake-up

Calls in Respect of Top of the Pops (Chapter 9)

102. Looked at in the round, it appears that the only reaction of the BBC
to the various problems which had been drawn to their attention in
respect of Top of the Pops was to raise the admission age from 15
to 16 and to attempt to tighten up the ticket arrangements for entry
to the show and entry to the BBC Club. These measures would,
even if successful, do very little to tackle the gravamen of the
concerns which had been raised, which was that young girls might

74
 be being picked up for sexual purposes. First, raising the
admission age to 16 would (provided the rule could be enforced)
ensure that whatever sexual contact there might be between the
audience and older men would be lawful sexual contact. But was
that really all that mattered? Was it acceptable that there was the
real possibility of sexual contact between 16-year-olds and much
older men, be they stand-ins, photographers, camera men,
musicians or whoever? In any event, the BBC well knew that it was
extremely difficult to enforce the age limit, whether 15 or 16.
Without requiring proof of age, it would always be easy for some
girls to claim to be 16 when they were not.

103. The real problem was, as Mr Neill pointed out in the Report he
produced for the BBC in May 1972, that the format of Top of the
Pops created problems. In particular, it introduced into the
labyrinthine Television Centre a substantial number of teenage
girls. Once there, those girls were unsupervised. Once there, they
could make contact with visiting groups and their support teams
and all sorts of BBC staff. It seems to me obvious that those girls
were at real risk of moral danger. I cannot think that it was
acceptable for the BBC as a public service broadcaster to run a
programme which effectively provided a ‘picking up’ opportunity.

104. The impression that I have from the Board of Management Minutes
and from the various internal BBC memoranda I have seen was
that no one within the BBC seemed to consider the possibility that
the News of the World articles might have lifted the lid off a true
state of affairs at Top of the Pops. In fairness to the BBC, they did
take the payola allegations seriously (see paragraph 9.125 of my
Report) but I do not think that they treated the Top of the Pops
allegations with the seriousness they deserved. There is no hint of
any concern that some of the young audience would be
impressionable and star-struck and would be vulnerable to the
advances of anyone (including such people as stand-ins,

75
 photographers or roadies) who had acquired a superficial glamour
by virtue of association with the programme. On the contrary, the
concern within the BBC seems to have been to dampen down any
adverse publicity and to ensure, so far as possible, that any sexual
contact taking place in connection with the show would be
consensual because the girls would be over 16.

105. In my view, when these allegations were raised by the News of the
World and when they knew of Claire McAlpine’s death, the BBC
should have undertaken a thorough investigation of what went on
during and after Top of the Pops. The focus of this should have
been to establish what ought to be done to protect the young
people who attended the show. This was not the responsibility of
the police; they were there to investigate possible criminal
behaviour. The BBC’s responsibility was much wider than that. But
the BBC’s reaction was limited in effect to problems of ticketing,
admission and policing the age limit.

Conclusion about Top of the Pops (Chapter 9)

106. My conclusion is that at least during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s
(and possibly after that period) young people attending Top of the
Pops were at risk of moral danger. Even after the entrance age
was raised to 16 in 1971, there remained intrinsic problems relating
to the protection of young people. The BBC made no real attempt
to grapple with these problems. I think it may be that the only
solution to the problem was to change the format of the programme
completely so that there was not a young studio audience. That
was never considered as an option, I think because the priority was
to continue to run a successful show.

Knowledge about Savile in Relation to Top of the Pops (Chapter 9)

107. What about Savile’s conduct on Top of the Pops nights? As I have
explained in Chapter 5, Savile used his association with Top of the
Pops as bait for young girls. In the 1960s and 1970s, when he was

76
 at the height of his fame in the world of pop music, the offer of the
opportunity to attend Top of the Pops must have been thrilling for
many teenagers. Savile exploited this advantage to provide himself
with a supply of girls willing to have sexual intercourse with him. I
am satisfied that Savile frequently invited young girls to Top of the
Pops. Some of these girls became regular attenders; Savile called
them his ‘London Team’. They made his dressing room their base.
Sometimes he would engage in sexual activity there. Also, they
would go back to his flat or camper-van with him for sex and would
attend upon him in other places at his command. I am also
satisfied that, on occasions, he would pick up girls at Top of the
Pops.

108. I collected as much evidence as I could from members of BBC staff

who had had dealings with Savile while he was working on Top of
the Pops. I conclude that quite a number of staff members heard
rumours about Savile having a sexual interest in young girls but I
have not heard from any witness who claims or admits to having
seen anything that was clearly sexual in nature. I did, however,
hear from a musician who played bass guitar for a group which had
several hit singles in the mid-1970s16. On two separate occasions,
he noticed Savile leaving the studio with a young girl and a young
teenage girl. He mentioned the first occasion to the show’s
presenter and the second occasion to a producer. The presenter’s
response was to tell him not to be silly and the producer’s response
was to tell him not to be ridiculous.

109. There were various incidents, which I set out in Chapter 5, which
entailed some form of improper or illegal conduct by Savile while
working on Top of the Pops. However, there is very little evidence
about BBC staff noticing these events many of which involved
young girls coming and going to and from Savile’s dressing room

16
Ian Hampton, paragraph 9.219.

77
 and I can understand why. There were so many people around and
BBC staff were busy doing their own jobs.

110. However, two serious indecent assaults which took place on

Savile’s podium during the recording of the show were reported to
BBC staff.17 I will not repeat the details here. My impression is that
the person to whom the first victim complained regarded her as a
nuisance and may well have thought that the incident was funny. In
relation to the second incident, what is particularly striking is the
reaction of the BBC man to whom the victim complained. He
clearly believed the victim when she described what Savile had
done; indeed, it does not appear to have come as any surprise. In
any event, it appears to me that neither of those two incidents
became the subject of an effective complaint which would have
alerted senior management to the existence of a problem with
Savile.

111. Apart from the two studio incidents which I have just mentioned,
some other incidents occurred in or around the studio. None of
these incidents were reported by the victim concerned and there is
no evidence that they were noticed by anyone else (see paragraphs
9.223-9.225 of my Report).

Conclusion about the BBC’s Awareness of Savile’s Misconduct while

on Top of the Pops (Chapter 9)

112. I do not think that any member of senior management was ever
made aware of Savile’s abuse of young people while working on
Top of the Pops. That was partly because no report was ever
made directly to senior management by a victim and partly because
staff members who did receive reports or complaints did not pass
them on as they should have done. Any other staff members who
might have had the opportunity to observe what was happening
were busy doing their own jobs. It does not appear to have been

17
C16, paragraph 5.62 and B8, paragraph 5.183.

78
 anybody’s responsibility to look after the welfare of the young
members of the audience. Another reason may well have been that
such things as were observed by staff were not regarded as
seriously wrong – indeed they might well have been thought of as
amusing – and were not reported upwards.

113. However, the most important and obvious reason why what Savile
was doing was not recognised was because of the general
environment of the programme, which I have described above. In
the testosterone-laden atmosphere, where everyone was, in theory
at least, over the age of 16, child protection was simply not a live
issue.

114. If, however, there had been a thorough investigation of what went
on at Top of the Pops when concerns arose in 1971, much might
have been discovered about the culture and atmosphere which,
when brought to the attention of senior management, should have
resulted in changes being made. Such changes might have put a
stop to Savile’s activities in relation to the show or at least would
have curtailed them.

AWARENESS OF SAVILE’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE

JIM’LL FIX IT TEAM (CHAPTER 10)

115. In Chapter 10, I examine the way in which Jim’ll Fix it was made
and the evidence which shows to what extent management and
members of the teams working on the programme were aware of
Savile’s sexual habits and conduct.

116. Jim’ll Fix It ran from 1975 until 1994. There was a series of 12 to 14
programmes which would usually run between December/January
and March/April each year. The producer was always Roger
Ordish and Savile was always the eponymous presenter. The
production team operated throughout the year, receiving letters
from the public asking for some kind of dream or ambition to be
fulfilled or ‘fixed’ for them. For the chosen ‘fixes’ a small production

79
 team often made a short film. Savile would only very rarely be
involved with either the ideas for fixes or the filming of them. A
number of fixes would be collected together to make one
programme. The children concerned would attend the recording of
the programme and would receive a badge from Savile. After it
was over, there would usually be a little party in a hospitality room.

117. I was told of 17 occasions of abuse by Savile in connection with

Jim’ll Fix It, of which nine were of children under the age of 16.
While there was no formal child protection policy on the programme
or, indeed, in the BBC as a whole during the period of Jim’ll Fix It,
that does not mean that the staff were not concerned about the
welfare of visiting children. They were. The general impression I
have was that those who worked on the programme put a great
deal of effort into looking after the children who took part in the
show and giving them a safe, happy and memorable day. In my
view, this concern and the approach of the programme staff to the
welfare of the children must have had the effect of reducing the
opportunities Savile had to abuse on Jim’ll Fix It.

118. Several witnesses explained to me how children were looked after

on Jim’ll Fix It. This system was not thought of as a child protection
policy; it was just the way children were looked after. A child was
always accompanied by a parent, chaperone or member of staff.
On a recording day, in addition to the presence of a chaperone,
each child or young person would be the responsibility of a Jim’ll
Fix It researcher. There were also arrangements for children and
young people who attended as part of the audience.

119. On the face of it, those arrangements sound reasonable. But, in

fact, they were not entirely satisfactory. If one recognised the
possibility that Savile might be a sexual predator, one could see
that there were potential loopholes which he could exploit to make
opportunities to abuse a child or young person. Indeed, some of
the BBC witnesses accepted that, with the benefit of hindsight, they

80
 could see that there were potential loopholes in the arrangements.
For example, a child might be left in his dressing room in the care of
his parent. Savile could come in, have a chat, send the parent
away to find a cup of tea and take the opportunity to abuse the
child. That is what happened to a victim18 in 1976. Another
possible loophole could arise during the post-recording party.
Sometimes groups of children came on the show without their own
parents. If Savile decided to take a member of a group away to his
dressing room, the leader of the group might not accompany him or
her. That is what happened to another victim19. There was also
the possibility that one of Savile’s personal guests might be abused
in the dressing room. The staff did not feel that they had any
control over Savile’s personal guests.

Awareness of Savile’s Sexual Deviancy at Jim’ll Fix It (Chapter 10)

120. There were many members of BBC staff (particularly technical staff)
working on Jim’ll Fix It who neither heard nor saw anything of
concern so far as Savile was concerned. Equally, there were quite
a number of Jim’ll Fix It staff who were aware of rumours about
Savile’s sexual misconduct and some who observed inappropriate
conduct themselves. In Chapter 5, I report on a number of
incidents of sexual misconduct which occurred in connection with
the making of Jim’ll Fix It. Where these concerned people who
were not on the staff of the BBC, there was no report to anyone in
the BBC. Also, so far as I can see, there was no reason why any
member of the Jim’ll Fix It staff would have been aware of what had
happened. Where the incidents concerned members of the BBC
staff, the incidents were not reported to Mr Ordish or to anyone in a
senior position on the Jim’ll Fix It team.

121. The evidence I received suggests that members of the production

team working on Jim’ll Fix It in the 1970s were not concerned about

18
C20, paragraph 5.192.
19
Kevin Cook, paragraph 5.195.

81
 Savile being left alone with young people. However, by the 1980s,
there appears to have been a significant degree of concern within
the Jim’ll Fix It team that young people left alone with Savile would
be at risk of some form of inappropriate conduct. Team members
with responsibility for young guests began giving each other advice
about keeping a special eye on Savile. There does not seem to
have been any specific incident which could have triggered this.
Accordingly, I conclude that, among the people who were
responsible for the safety and welfare of the Jim’ll Fix It guests,
there grew up an appreciation that Savile presented a possible risk
to young people and, consequentially, concern about this and a
practice of trying to protect them from him. However, I do not think
that this was recognised by everybody; nor was it ever formally
articulated.

Awareness of Roger Ordish (Chapter 10)

122. Roger Ordish was the producer of Jim’ll Fix It. I consider the
question of his awareness of what Savile was doing in some detail
from paragraph 10.101 onwards of my Report. Mr Ordish is now
retired after a long career with the BBC. I realise that it must be
profoundly distressing for him to face examination and possible
criticism about his conduct while the producer of Jim’ll Fix It.

123. Mr Ordish worked with Savile for over 20 years. Despite the fact
that others may have had the impression that the two were close
friends, Mr Ordish said (and I accept) that they were not. Although
he may have known Savile as well as anybody could, that was not
particularly well.

124. Mr Ordish said that he was aware that people used to talk about
Savile’s sexuality and in particular his sexual interest in teenage
girls. Quite apart from what Mr Ordish heard as rumour, he himself
heard Savile talk or brag about sexual matters, always in the
context of heterosexual activity. Mr Ordish agreed that he was

82
 aware that Savile’s sexual preference was for young women.
Savile never seemed to be with a woman of his own age. However,
he, Mr Ordish, did not see that as a dangerous state of affairs.

125. I have no difficulty in accepting that Mr Ordish was not aware that
Savile ever committed an unlawful or inappropriate sexual act on
BBC premises. In my view, there is no evidence that he was aware
of such conduct. In the light of the evidence I heard, which is set
out in Chapter 10, I find it much more difficult to decide to what
extent Mr Ordish was aware of Savile’s sexual deviancy and, on
account of an awareness of that, to what extent he realised that
there was a potential risk of harm to the young people appearing on
Jim’ll Fix It.

126. Many of the factors, incidents and conversations involving Mr

Ordish identified Chapter 10 have no relevance to his awareness of
Savile’s sexual deviancy. For example, the fact that Mr Ordish was
aware of rumours about Savile and his sexual interest in “young
girls” (though not, I think, of rumours that he had sex with girls
under the age of 16), the fact that Savile made boastful remarks
about sexual matters, the content of the book “As It Happens” and
The Sun articles of 1983 and the fact that Mr Ordish knew that
Savile had no regular sexual partner have no bearing on that
question. Others such as the fact that Mr Ordish heard Savile
shout “Legal! Legal!” when hearing that a young girl was aged 16
might, as Mr Ordish said, “take on a terrible significance” now in
hindsight but, at the time, it was clearly understandable that Mr
Ordish treated this as a “blokey joke”.

127. There are, however, some incidents and conversations which, as I

have said, might suggest that Mr Ordish did have knowledge about
Savile’s deviancy. First, there is the evidence (which I accept) of a
witness who told me that she suggested, in Mr Ordish’s presence,
that Savile should not be left alone with children. I do not know
whether Mr Ordish heard that suggestion; he told me that he does

83
 not remember it. If he did hear it, he appears to have brushed it
aside without giving it serious consideration. He did not ask the
witness in question what she meant. She did not volunteer that she
was talking about a sexual risk and, although nowadays, that
remark would be readily interpreted as relating to a concern of a
sexual nature, at that time, I do not consider it would necessarily
have carried that implication.

128. Second, there is the evidence of a researcher who said that she
was told (either by Mr Ordish or a researcher) that they were to be
careful not to let Savile be alone with children in his dressing room,
or indeed anywhere. However, the witness also said that she did
not know exactly what Mr Ordish knew about Savile and she could
not, in any event, remember who had given her that instruction.

129. I think Mr Ordish was probably involved in the incident in which

someone banged on Savile’s dressing room door and berated him
for having the door shut (or locked) while there was a 16 year old
girl inside (see paragraphs 10.90-10.97 of my Report). I think Mr
Ordish has forgotten about it, possibly because nothing bad actually
happened. I also accept the evidence of a Jim’ll Fix It researcher
and assistant floor manager that he and Mr Ordish saw two
teenage girls come out of Savile’s flat and that this was followed by
a short conversation between them about whether Savile had sex
with girls like that. However, it was the researcher who posed this
question (and not Mr Ordish) and there is no reliable evidence as to
the age of the girls concerned. I also accept the same witness’s
evidence that Mr Ordish seemed surprised that the parents of a
young girl who travelled up the motorway in Savile’s car should
have trusted their daughter with him. Mr Ordish does not
remember the incident. However, it seems to me that it is possible
Mr Ordish was surprised that the parents would let their child go
with anyone who they did not know personally. I also accept that
Mr Ordish expressed concern to this witness that Savile’s exploits

84
 might come out in the press and derail Jim’ll Fix It, although that is
not evidence of concern about Savile and underage children.

130. There are, therefore, a small number of incidents and conversations

which raise a question about Mr Ordish’s awareness. However,
those incidents and conversations did not occur as a cluster; they
occurred over a period of time. It is also very important not to let
hindsight influence how these incidents and conversations are
viewed. Nowadays people might well view these incidents and
conversations as showing the existence of a potentially serious
problem of a sexual nature which required some form of
investigation or action. However, I think it is very important to view
these incidents in their moments and, in so doing, I have come to
the conclusion that Mr Ordish never did recognise the collective
effect of those concerns or pointers and that he never thought that
Savile was having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with girls
under the age of 16, let alone boys or young men.

131. I must make it plain that, if Mr Ordish had received an explicit

complaint about clearly unlawful sexual contact by Savile, I am
quite satisfied that he would not have swept it under the carpet but
would have handled it appropriately, at least according to the BBC
standards of the time. I am sure he would have discussed it with
Mr Moir, his line manager and Head of Light Entertainment, and I
am sure that some form of investigation would have taken place.
Whether that would have comprised anything more than asking
Savile whether the allegation was true, I cannot say. But that is
hypothetical as no such complaint was ever made.

Awareness of More Senior Staff about Problems Relating to Savile

and Jim’ll Fix It (Chapter 10)

132. From paragraph 10.134 onwards of my Report, I consider the

extent of the awareness of problems relating to Savile of a number
of senior staff, including Controllers of BBC One, during the
relevant years. None of these witnesses knew anything at all about

85
 his sexual activities and most knew nothing at all about the material
in the public domain or even his reputation but I took the
opportunity when interviewing them to ask hypothetical questions
about what their attitude would have been if they had known of
these things.

133. Jim Moir, Head of Variety and Head of Light Entertainment

(between 1987 and 1993) never heard any rumours about Savile’s
sexual preference for young girls or young women. He had never
read or even heard of Savile’s autobiography As It Happens. He
could not recollect reading The Sun articles published in 1983
(referred to from paragraph 6.17 onwards of my Report) but agreed
that it is reasonable to assume that they would have been put
before him as part of the BBC press cutting service. He had no
recollection of them causing a stir in the BBC at that time. He did
not discuss the articles with Mr Ordish, who did not bring them to
his attention. For his part, the articles now seemed to him to be
exaggerated and “braggadocio”.

134. The Savile investigation also interviewed four former Controllers of

BBC One, all of whom were in post during Savile’s time on Jim’ll Fix
It. None of them recalls being aware of The Sun articles or indeed
of any of the other material about Savile which was then in the
public domain.

135. Alan Hart, Controller of BBC One at the time of the publication of
The Sun articles in 1983, believes that he did not see the articles at
the time of publication but that, if he had, his reaction would have
been to think that they were largely exaggeration and bragging. If
he had seen them, he thinks he might have spoken to the Head of
Department and told him to tell Savile to stop saying this kind of
thing. He did not think that he would have considered taking Savile
off Jim’ll Fix It.

86
136. Lord Michael Grade, Controller of BBC One from 1 September
1984 until 7 July 1986, who was not even employed within the BBC
when The Sun articles were published in April 1983, had no
knowledge of the articles at all. He considered that people in the
BBC who became aware of them would have thought that this was
just “fantasy” and “self-promotion” on Savile’s part. He explained
that what he called “the default position” was whether or not the
published material was going to damage the BBC’s reputation. The
BBC would only be concerned if there was going to be a major
scandal. His view was that, if the press did not make a big fuss
about these articles by picking them up and running with them,
there would be no pressure on the BBC to stop using Savile. When
asked whether that implied that the BBC would react to public
opinion rather than making its own mind up, he said that the BBC
was “a very reactive organisation”. He also agreed that the kind of
image that the articles projected did not fit well with a programme
like Jim’ll Fix It.

137. Jonathan Powell was Controller of BBC One between 1987 and
1993. He commissioned several series of Jim’ll Fix It. He was
unaware of The Sun articles of April 1983 or indeed any other
reason for concern about Savile. After reading the articles, he told
us that he did not think the BBC should interest itself in the private
behaviour of a celebrity unless it was illegal or might compromise
the BBC’s reputation or the programme on which the celebrity
worked. He accepted that a programme such as Jim’ll Fix It ought
to be presented by someone who was a suitable role model. He
thought that Savile created himself as a role model by creating the
perception that he dedicated a good deal of his life to good works,
raised money for charity and was on friendly terms with the great
and the good. He did not think that he would have jumped to the
conclusion that Savile must be taken off screen. There would have
needed to be a conversation at a high level about what Savile was
saying.

87
138. We also spoke to Alan Yentob, who became Controller of BBC One
in 1993. He was Controller when Jim’ll Fix It was discontinued. I
am quite satisfied that his decision to end Jim’ll Fix It was taken for
artistic and programming reasons and was quite unrelated to any
concerns about Savile. Mr Yentob had not heard any rumours
about Savile’s sexuality; nor was he, at that time, aware of any of
the published materials to which I have referred in Chapter 6 of my
Report (and at paragraphs 64-67 of this Summary).

139. Having read The Sun articles, Mr Yentob said that, if he had been
aware of them at the time, he would have talked to people who
knew Savile to find out whether the material was likely to be true or
just exaggeration. If the latter, he thought he might have advised
that Savile should be warned not to talk like that as it might be
misunderstood. When asked what he thought of someone who
boasted about those kinds of things, he said that such a person
was “pretty foul and unappealing”. When asked whether such a
person was a good role model for young people, he said that he
doubted that but did not want to be “judgmental”. He agreed that
the BBC does have a responsibility as to the role models that it puts
out and added that he did not like what he had just been shown.
He recognised that The Sun articles showed a potential for
reputational damage to the BBC and expressed the view that
perhaps the top end of the BBC had not paid sufficient attention to
what was going on in the entertainment world. However he
speculated that, if there had been more of a public reaction to The
Sun articles, maybe people like him in the BBC would have been
more aware of the problem than they were. Finally, after seeing
other public domain material set out in Chapter 6, he questioned
how Savile could have got away with “all of this” and added that, if I
were to say that there had been a responsibility on the BBC not to
have missed this material, that would be a fair point for me to make.

88
Discussion (Chapter 10)

140. I have accepted that no one above producer level with any
responsibility for deciding whether Jim’ll Fix It should be on the air
was consciously aware of any reason for concern about child
protection in connection with the programme. Yet, there remains
for discussion the question whether (quite apart from child
protection), when The Sun articles were published, the reaction of
the BBC (prompted by Mr Ordish – who did read the articles – or
anyone involved in monitoring press coverage) ought to have been
to consider whether Savile was a suitable person to present this
family programme. Even if it was thought that the content of the
articles was exaggeration, it seems to me that there ought at least
to have been a discussion about whether a person who seemed
proud to boast about his associations with criminal characters
(albeit long ago) and his prolific casual sex life with young women
decades younger than himself was a suitable person to present this
show. There should have been consideration of whether it was
appropriate for the BBC, with its public interest values, to provide a
platform on a ‘family’ programme such as Jim’ll Fix It for a man
whose personal moral standards would be unacceptable to many
people. There was no such discussion.

141. Mr Ordish knew (or would have recognised if he had applied his
mind to it) that there was a falsity in Savile’s position on Jim’ll Fix It.
This clearly extended to the presentation of Savile as a good man,
suitable to be regarded as a favourite uncle to the nation’s children.
He was not and Mr Ordish knew he was not. Even though I have
accepted that Mr Ordish did not consciously realise that Savile was
or might be an abuser of young people, he certainly knew that he
had very questionable morals. He knew that Savile proclaimed his
interest in casual sex without emotional commitment with women
very much younger than himself. While I accept that some people
may see nothing wrong with such sexual conduct between
consenting adults, I do not think that many people would regard this

89
 kind of conduct as that which should be held up as an example to
young people

142. Mr Ordish also knew that Savile had claimed to have associated
with criminal henchmen and to have had a questionable
relationship with the police. It seems to me that whether these
claims were true or not, the fact that Savile was content to put such
material into the public domain shows that he was not a suitable
role model for young people and not therefore a suitable person to
front a programme like Jim’ll Fix It. Mr Ordish now agrees that that
is so, although I do not think that occurred to him at the time.

143. Among the former BBC 1 Controllers interviewed, there is a fair

degree of unanimity that a person who is content to boast about
such matters was not an appropriate person to present a family
show like Jim’ll Fix It which needed a suitable role model. Some
also accepted that the use of Savile on such a show presented a
risk of reputational damage to the BBC. Yet they never considered
these issues at the time because The Sun articles were not
specifically brought to their attention. It seems clear that the main
reason why no one drew their attention to these articles is that the
articles did not cause any public outcry.

144. Had Mr Ordish spoken to Mr Moir or had The Sun articles been
brought to wider attention and had this led to a discussion about
Savile’s suitability, the issues for discussion should have included
the nature of the programme and the extent to which there was a
responsibility to family audiences to put forward a suitable role
model as presenter. It should have been recognised that the
programme gave Savile a platform as a ‘good man’ who made
children’s dreams come true and reinforced his good
reputation. Savile’s suitability for that position should have been
considered in the light of everything that was known about his
character including the fact that he appeared proud to boast about
some very unsavoury aspects of his life. These matters should

90
 have been considered objectively, without regard to the fact that the
public appeared to admire and even adore him. I consider that
such a discussion should have concluded that the BBC ought not to
put Savile forward as this ‘good man’. The result would, I think,
have been the removal of Savile from Jim’ll Fix It which would
probably have meant the end of the programme.

145. One of the factors which troubles me is that, without a public outcry,
there would not have been any thought of initiating that discussion
about Savile’s suitability. First, if the BBC is anxious to maintain a
good reputation (as it very properly was and is) the right way to
safeguard a good reputation is to ensure that the BBC acts
properly, proactively and of its own volition, rather than waiting for
and reacting to a scandal and public outcry. Second, it does not
seem to me that the public interest values, which the BBC claims to
hold dear, had a very high priority when it came to possible
interference with a popular and successful programme.

AWARENESS WITHIN BBC RADIO 1 AND THE BBC RADIO

RELIGIOUS BROADCASTING DEPARTMENT (CHAPTER 11)

146. In Chapter 11, I examine the evidence of the extent to which people
who worked in BBC Radio 1 were aware of Savile’s sexual conduct
and proclivities.

147. Savile joined BBC Radio 1 as a disc jockey and presenter in

1968. He worked for that network until 1987, on several
programmes, including Savile’s Travels, Speakeasy and The
Double Top Ten Show.

148. The first point I consider in Chapter 11 of my Report (at paragraphs

11.2 to 11.6) is the awareness of the management at BBC Radio of
the concerns which had arisen about the moral welfare of young
audiences as a result of the News of the World articles published in
1971 (referred to in Chapter 9 and from paragraph 92 of this
Summary). These issues primarily affected Top of the Pops and

91
 the Light Entertainment Department in television. It was
appreciated that similar problems could arise in connection with
some radio shows. These potential problems were discussed at a
meeting chaired by the Managing Director of Radio on 6 April 1971
and in later meetings and correspondence. In particular, the
Director-General had stressed the concern that the BBC “does not
put itself into the position of appearing to condone permissiveness”.

149. The minutes of these meetings and the correspondence

demonstrate that the management of BBC Radio and Mr
Muggeridge, then the Controller of Radio 1 and 2, were aware of
the dangers of bringing disc jockeys and young girls together. They
demonstrate that radio management was aware of the difficulty of
assessing the age of the young girls who attended Radio 1 shows
and who flocked around disc jockeys. Although the minutes of the
meeting in question recognised the possibility that disc jockeys
working on Radio 1 might abuse their position, they demonstrate
what to my mind is a most unfortunate attitude towards the young
girls; they appear to be regarded as a nuisance and are described
in the minutes as ‘unbalanced’, rather than merely young and in
need of protection. There is a suggestion that the disc jockeys
should be reminded to ‘take care’ and that this would be a sufficient
precaution, implying that it is the girls who are the problem. The
minutes also demonstrate management’s concern about the
reputation of the BBC.

Investigations Instigated by Douglas Muggeridge, Controller of BBC

Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 (Chapter 11)

150. In the early 1970s, Douglas Muggeridge was the Controller of both
BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2. At some stage, probably in 1973,
Mr Muggeridge became concerned about rumours of sexual
impropriety concerning Savile. It is not now clear where those
rumours came from. However, Mr Muggeridge set in train two
separate lines of enquiry, one involving Derek Chinnery (at the

92
 time, Head of Radio 1) and the second involving Rodney Collins (at
the time, a BBC Radio Publicity Officer).

151. Mr Muggeridge apparently instructed Mr Chinnery to interview

Savile. Mr Chinnery asked a colleague, Doreen Davies, to attend
as an observer (although not a note taker). Ms Davies was an
Executive Producer in Radio 1 at the relevant time. When the
Savile investigation interviewed Mr Chinnery (who died in March
2015), he could not remember the interview or the circumstances
and no written record exists. Fortunately, Ms Davies had a good
recollection of events. She thinks that the background to the
interview was that something was “bubbling” in the press about
Savile.

152. Ms Davies recalls that Savile walked into the room and started
making jokes. Mr Chinnery asked him to sit down and said that he
had things to say that were serious. Mr Chinnery said words to the
effect that there was “a bit of a press thing going on and I have
been asked to ask you if you are going to embarrass us with
anything in your private life”. Mr Chinnery made it plain to Savile
that the issue being raised by the press was whether Savile was
sexually involved with young girls.

153. Savile’s response was to say that this kind of thing had been going
on in the press for years and that no one ever got a story because
there was no story. He had worked at the Mecca dance hall in
Leeds and, when the evenings were over and he had seen girls
leaving to go home, he had told the bouncers to give them money
for taxis. He always protected girls and he had a good reputation
as a result. The police knew him and everything about him; there
were no secrets.

154. Savile said that he was absolutely sure and that nothing would ever
come out. Mr Chinnery then told Savile that one thing being said
was that Savile had young girls in his flat in London. Savile’s reply

93
 was that sometimes girls came down from Leeds to London for Top
of the Pops. He did allow them to use sleeping bags on his lounge
floor. He slept in his bedroom. In the morning they would go off to
catch the train. So, he said, to that extent, the story was true.

155. Mr Chinnery then said that, as long as Savile could assure him that
everything was all right, he could go back and say so. Savile
repeated that there was no truth in anything suggested. Mr
Chinnery said that he accepted that. Savile then left the room. Mr
Chinnery said words to the effect of “what can one do?” Ms Davies
herself had believed what Savile had said and she believes that Mr
Chinnery did too. She told us that Savile’s denial had been
categoric but not aggressive. He appeared confident, shocked,
astonished and offended.

156. Ms Davies felt that Mr Chinnery had handled the interview

satisfactorily. He was firm, cold and measured; it was not an
avuncular chat. She thought that it had been sufficient to speak to
Savile in this formal way. At the time, it was not known that there
was anything ‘dodgy’ about Savile. They were dealing with this
without the knowledge we have today. Although there is no
evidence, I think it must be assumed that Mr Chinnery reported his
findings back to Mr Muggeridge.

157. In the early 1970s, Rodney Collins was a publicity officer

answerable directly to Mr Muggeridge. Mr Collins told the Savile
investigation that in June 1973, Mr Muggeridge told him that he had
heard rumours about Savile “maybe not behaving the way he
should”. Mr Collins understood the concern to be about sexual
behaviour and had the impression that the rumours were in some
way connected to Savile’s Travels. Mr Muggeridge suggested that
Mr Collins should make enquiries of three or four people he could
trust among his contacts in Fleet Street. Mr Collins made enquiries
of four journalists. He says that all four gave a similar response. In
summary, Savile was regarded as an odd character and the papers

94
 did not know a great deal about him. The journalists had heard
rumours, which may have been about young girls, parties and such
like, but nothing specific. Mr Collins reported his findings back to
Mr Muggeridge. Mr Collins knew nothing of any further action taken
by Mr Muggeridge. Further detail on this issue is to be found from
paragraph 11.36 of my Report.

158. The significance of this evidence is that Mr Muggeridge was aware,

from some source or other, that it was being said that Savile was
behaving improperly in connection with Savile’s Travels and also
that he had young girls to stay in his flat in London. I think it highly
likely that rumours of that kind were circulating both within and
outside the BBC and it is possible that Mr Muggeridge was aware of
either or both.

159. I think it highly likely that Mr Muggeridge’s main concern was the
risk of reputational damage to the BBC rather than any concern on
moral or ethical grounds that the BBC ought not to employ a man
who might be involved in unattractive and possibly unlawful sexual
conduct. In short, I do not think his primary interest was to
investigate Savile’s conduct; rather it was to find out if anything was
likely to come out in the press. Having been reassured on that
score, it appears that he did nothing further.

160. Viewed from today, it seems reprehensible that Mr Muggeridge’s

main concern, on hearing the rumours, was that the BBC’s
reputation might be damaged and that he was less concerned
about the welfare of any girls who might be sexually involved with
Savile. However, I do not find it so surprising when I approach the
question as the BBC of 1973 would have approached it. At that
time, it appears to me that many people in our society generally
(and therefore probably also within the BBC) did not regard the age
of consent for sexual intercourse as an important matter. I think
there was a generaI perception in some parts of the BBC that many
girls of 14 or 15 were ready and willing to have sex with their pop

95
 idols. I think that many people took the view that if these young
girls wanted to have sex with celebrities and if their parents gave
them the freedom to do it, it was a matter for them and no one
else’s business, even though the activity was unlawful. That would
not mean that they personally approved of such behaviour, just that
they believed that that was how the world was. Although I cannot
ascertain what Mr Muggeridge’s personal attitude was, I do think
that the attitude I have described was common in the BBC in the
early 1970s. Therefore, although I, today, do not approve of his
attitude, it does not seem surprising to me that, at the time, Mr
Muggeridge’s primary concern would have been the danger of
immediate reputational damage to the BBC through its association
with Savile.

161. Given the ethos of the time, to which I have referred, I do not think
that Mr Muggeridge should be criticised on the ground that he did
not make further ‘child protection’ investigations into the rumours
about Savile. Child protection was not at the forefront of peoples’
minds at that time and Mr Muggeridge appears to have been aware
only of general rumours of misconduct with girls who were not
necessarily underage. However, given that his main concern had
been that there was an immediate risk to the BBC’s reputation, I
find it surprising that he should have been satisfied, as he appears
to have been, that there was no risk to the BBC’s reputation from
Savile in the longer term.

162. I think, as a prudent manager, with the interests of the BBC at

heart, he should have retained some concerns about Savile and
should have shared them with senior colleagues in other parts of
the BBC. I think he should also have kept a watching eye and a
listening ear on Savile within BBC Radio. He must have had staff
below him, to whom he could have confided his concerns. They
could have kept their eyes open and could have made discreet
enquiries. If they had kept their eyes and ears open, I think it likely

96
 that information would have come to light which would have
increased the level of concern to the point where the BBC would
have had to consider dispensing with Savile’s services.

163. I have asked myself whether Mr Chinnery should share some

responsibility for the decision to ‘close the book’. It seems to me
that what ought to have happened is that Mr Muggeridge and Mr
Chinnery should have discussed matters and should have agreed
on a way of keeping their eyes and ears open. But I do accept that
the lead on this should have come from Mr Muggeridge and, if he
was not concerned, there was no real reason for Mr Chinnery to be
so. His main job at that time was to get a schedule of programmes
on air.

164. It is true that Mr Chinnery became Controller of BBC Radio 1 in

1978 and could then have instigated an investigation. However, by
that time, Savile’s involvement in Savile’s Travels and Speakeasy
had come to an end; after that, his only involvement with BBC
Radio 1 was as a disc jockey and even that was diminishing.
Although I think that rumours about Savile continued to circulate
and that Mr Chinnery was aware of them, I do not think that it would
be right to criticise Mr Chinnery for not instigating an investigation
when he became Controller.

What Was Known about Savile in BBC Radio 1 and What Would Have
Been Discovered if Enquiries Had Been Made within BBC Radio 1?
(Chapter 11)

165. Ted Beston was Savile’s BBC Radio 1 producer for 11 or 12 years
from 1968 or 1969 until 1980. The Savile investigation has heard a
good deal of evidence about Mr Beston but unfortunately has not
had the benefit of hearing his own account of events. His solicitor
said that he was not in good health and that he had been
traumatised by his recent arrest and police interview. Mr Beston’s
solicitor expressed the view, which I do not agree with, that an

97
 interview was an inappropriate format for me to receive Mr Beston’s
evidence. Mr Beston provided us with a signed statement of his
evidence and some written answers to some specific questions
asked by us.

166. In considering the allegations made about Mr Beston’s awareness

of Savile’s sexual proclivities, I have to make a judgment without
having the benefit of hearing his oral evidence or of being able to
probe his answers and assertions. With that caveat, my
conclusions are first, that Savile and Mr Beston were on very
friendly terms even if they did not socialise together outside work. I
am satisfied that Mr Beston admired Savile, as an entertainer and
as a celebrity and for his reputation ‘as a ladies’ man’. I think that
Mr Beston must have been aware that Savile had a strong sexual
appetite and liked casual sex and that he must have been aware of
Savile’s sexual interest in and preference for teenage girls. I think
that must have been evident to him during the time they spent
together, particularly when travelling together. I am satisfied that
Mr Beston knew that Savile would have casual sex with teenage
girls (and other slightly older women) as and when he could get it.

167. I am also driven to the conclusion that, on one occasion, Mr Beston

was prepared to act as a provider of a young woman to Savile for
sex. The young woman in question is C33, whose story is set out
in my Report from paragraph 5.221 of Chapter 5 and in paragraph
11.81 of Chapter 11. C33 was working as a waitress and Mr
Beston visited her place of work. She described how, in
1978/1979, when she was 19, Mr Beston invited her to an event in
Shepherd’s Bush, ostensibly for the purpose of meeting
Savile. Soon after her arrival at the location, Mr Beston asked her
whether she would like to meet Savile and she said yes. She was
shown into a curtained-off area. Savile was sitting on a low sofa
and she sat down next to him. Savile lunged at her; kissing her
forcibly. He put his hands down inside her top and grabbed at her

98
 breasts. C33 was very frightened. Then he took hold of her hand
and put it inside his tracksuit bottoms. His penis was erect. C33
ran out of the curtained area and went to Mr Beston and told him
what had happened and that she wanted to leave. He treated her
as if she was being silly and told her that she should go back in;
Savile wanted to meet her and talk to her. She would not do so and
she left straightaway. She did not feel able to make any complaint
about what had happened. From what Mr Beston knew of Savile’s
sexual proclivities, I am driven to the conclusion that Mr Beston was
aware that Savile would wish to have sex with C33 when they met
and that Mr Beston was willing on that occasion to act as a provider
to Savile.

168. I find it much more difficult to decide whether Mr Beston knew that
some of the girls Savile had sex with were under the age of 16. He
denies it. There is some evidence that he knew; a witness20, whom
I found credible, said that she heard Mr Beston regaling a group of
record promoters with tales of Savile’s exploits and mentioning that
one of the girls was only 14. It is possible that this witness is
mistaken about the detail that Mr Beston said that one of the girls
was only 14. However, I also bear in mind that many of the girls
who flocked around Savile while travelling were clearly very
young. I am also satisfied that girls whom Savile brought into the
studio (and were seen by Mr Beston) were in the age range 12-15.
Pulling all the evidence together, I cannot say that Mr Beston did
know that some of the girls with whom Savile consorted sexually
were underage; he might have known. But at the very least, he
must have realised, from their appearance, that some of the girls
might well be underage. Also, if they were in fact over 16, it would
not in some cases be by a very wide margin.

169. In short, I am satisfied from the evidence I have received that Mr

Beston was aware that Savile had a powerful sexual appetite in

20
C41, paragraph 11.70.

99
 particular for teenage girls, at or around the age of consent. I do
not think that Mr Beston disapproved of Savile in any way and
therefore cannot have disapproved of him for that. The evidence
that Mr Beston arranged for C33 to meet Savile for sex, which I
accept, demonstrates his approval of Savile’s conduct in relation to
older teenage girls.

170. I do not think that it ever crossed Mr Beston’s mind that he ought to
discuss what he knew about Savile with his executive producer. If
he had been asked what he thought about Savile by someone
making enquiries on behalf of Mr Muggeridge or Mr Chinnery, I
think he would have played down what he knew and would have
said that he knew nothing of concern. I think that Mr Beston ought,
of his own volition, to have told his executive producer what he
knew of Savile’s proclivities. Had he done so, it must at least be
possible that steps would have been taken which would have led to
Savile leaving the BBC.

171. The evidence I have heard suggests that no other BBC Radio 1
producer would have known anything of significance about Savile
other than rumour. However, there were some more junior
members of Radio 1 staff who, in my view, could, if asked, have
given accounts of Savile’s conduct which would have added to
concerns rather than allaying them. Details are at paragraphs
11.93 to 11.106 of my Report. In the main, these were members of
the studio management staff. Studio managers (who provided a
facility when a studio was booked) were managed quite separately
from programme makers. By way of example, one, who worked on
Savile’s Travels and Speakeasy, got the impression that Savile and
the 12 to 15 year-old girls he brought with him to the studio, went to
Savile’s camper-van for sex.

172. I conclude that, if enquiries had been made of these members of

staff (and possibly others who have not come to the Savile
investigation), significant cause for concern would have arisen.

100
What Was Known within the Religious Broadcasting Department
Radio (Chapter 11)

173. For several years, Savile presented a show called Speakeasy. This
was a co-production between BBC Radio 1 and the Religious
Broadcasting Department. The format of the programme was that
Savile chaired a discussion with the young audience about the
moral and ethical issues of the day. Sometimes a distinguished or
star guest would feature in the show and join in the discussion. The
discussion sessions were interspersed with popular music played
live in the studio. There was a producer from both BBC Radio 1
and the Religious Broadcasting Department. Mr Beston was the
Radio 1 producer. The first Religious Broadcasting producer was
Reverend Roy Trevivian (the programme was his brainchild) but
due to ill-health his place was taken by others mainly Canon Colin
Semper (Reverend Colin Semper as he was then known), who
joined the Religious Broadcasting Department in 1969 and David
Winter (who was later ordained), who joined in 1971.

Canon Colin Semper (Chapter 11)

174. Soon after Canon Semper joined the BBC, he was transferred to
the Religious Broadcasting Department. He came to know Savile
quite well through Speakeasy. He liked and admired Savile. In the
early 1970s, he helped Savile to write a short book about his
religious beliefs called God’ll fix it, which was not published until
1979. Canon Semper became Head of Religious Programmes
Radio in 1979 but was not, at any time, a Head of Department.

175. Soon after meeting Savile, Canon Semper became aware that he
had a following of young girls. At the end of a Speakeasy
recording, there would always be a group of young girls, who he
thought looked about 15, waiting for Savile but Canon Semper did
not know whether Savile made assignations with any of them.
Canon Semper and Savile went abroad a number of times together

101
 and talked a good deal. Savile often talked about sex and it was
obvious to Canon Semper that Savile “had an eye for the ladies”. It
was difficult to say what this amounted to, but Canon Semper was
aware that it extended to the young teenage fans who surrounded
Savile.

176. Canon Semper realised, while assisting Savile in writing God’ll fix It,
that Savile had had sexual relations with a lot of young girls and
that, in the book, he was making an excuse for his sexual
behaviour, claiming that he was a victim of the machine of his body
(for further details see paragraph 11.118 of my Report). Canon
Semper agreed in his interview with me that this amounted to a
confession that Savile was having casual sex with young girls.

177. Canon Semper told me that he was used to hearing a “wall of

words” from Savile about what he was doing with whom. Savile
sometimes used words that could have meant that he was having
casual sex with girls, including underage girls. But he said that it
was extraordinarily difficult to discriminate between what was the
truth, half-truth or untruth. Canon Semper admitted that he had
never really tried to do so. When asked whether his understanding
that Savile was having sex with underage girls caused him concern,
he reverted to saying that he had never known for certain that
Savile did that. He said that he would occasionally “think” but did
not “for certain know” what Savile was up to. He said that, if he
had had evidence of actual sexual misconduct with young girls, he
would have taxed Savile with it, suggesting to him that such
conduct was not acceptable. He would not have reported the
problem to the Head of Religious Broadcasting.

178. I accept that Canon Semper did not ‘know’ that Savile had sex with
underage girls in the sense of ever seeing it happen, but he clearly
did ‘think’ that Savile had casual sex with a lot of girls, some of
whom might have been underage. It seems surprising that he
should have felt the need to have actual proof before voicing his

102
 disapproval to Savile of such conduct. I also find it surprising that
he would only have admonished Savile in an anodyne way and that
it did not occur to him to think that Savile’s conduct should be a
matter of concern for the BBC. If an ordained priest was not
sufficiently concerned about such conduct to think that some sort of
action should be taken against Savile, it is hardly surprising that
others did not. This tells us quite a lot about the culture of the
1970s.

179. Having said that, however, I think it likely that, if Canon Semper had
been asked by someone from senior management whether he had
any concerns about Savile, he would have said that he had. I
believe him to be a completely honest man. He did indeed have
concerns, although I think that these were overlain and suppressed
by his admiration of Savile, his enjoyment of his company and his
pride in his own involvement in a successful programme.

Canon David Winter (Chapter 11)

180. On occasions, Canon Winter (then Mr Winter) co-produced

Speakeasy when Reverend Trevivian, the programme’s main co-
producer, was absent. In due course, Canon Winter became Head
of Religious Broadcasting. He was later ordained into the Church
of England.

181. Canon Winter told the Savile investigation that he admired Savile’s
professional talent but realised that women working on the team did
not like him. He heard rumours about Savile’s sexual liking for
young girls. He agreed that Savile was “sleazy” and felt
uncomfortable about Savile’s reputation. He did not like Savile’s
lifestyle.

182. Canon Winter did not remember talking to Reverend Trevivian or

Canon Semper about his sense of discomfort. It was put to him
that he could have suggested to his managers that Savile was
unsuitable for Speakeasy. His response was that it was a

103
 successful programme and he did not make that suggestion
because his concerns were only based on rumour. And, he added,
everyone else right up the social scale regarded Savile as the
“bee’s knees”.

183. When the Savile scandal broke in October 2012, Canon Winter
gave an interview which was broadcast on Channel 4 News on 12
October 2012 and was also reported in the Daily Mirror. The
interviewer was trying to ascertain what Canon Winter had known
about Savile’s activities when working with him. The interviewer put
to Canon Winter certain statements made by a former BBC
employee named Richard Pearson. Mr Pearson claimed to have
been present with Canon Winter on an occasion in the 1970s when
Savile (“doing his comedy presenter routine”) had boasted that he
had just “had three 14-year-old girls” in his trailer that morning –
meaning that he had had sex with them. According to Mr Pearson,
this was followed by a discussion between him and Canon Winter in
which Canon Winter told Mr Pearson that it was common
knowledge around the BBC that Savile had sex with underage
girls. In his television interview, Canon Winter said that he could
not remember any such conversation with Mr Pearson but went on
to say that he did know that there was a danger that Savile was
molesting young girls. He expressed the view that more senior
people at the BBC knew more than he did but, when pressed on
that, said that he assumed that that was so.

184. I interviewed Richard Pearson and Canon Winter. Canon Winter is

adamant that he never heard Savile say that he had ‘had’ three 14-
year-olds in his camper-van. However, I do not doubt that Savile
made a comment of the kind alleged. It seems to me to have been
just the kind of thing he did say as part of his ‘comedy presenter
routine’. I think that Canon Winter may have been so used to
hearing Savile talking about sex that he would hardly listen; it would
make little impression on him and would soon be forgotten. I also

104
 think that Mr Pearson’s account of the conversation he had with
Canon Winter when they returned to the office has the ring of truth
about it.

185. Canon Winter’s position was that although he felt “edgy” about
Savile, he did not feel that he could do anything in the absence of a
specific complaint. When the story broke after Savile’s death, the
uneasiness suddenly fitted into place. He said that, suddenly, he
could see, from the rumours and the lifestyle, the whole pattern of a
paedophile.

186. Although Canon Winter does not appear to have known Savile as
well as Canon Semper did, and although he did not hear quite as
much talk about sex and did not learn of as many of the disturbing
aspects of the Savile theology, I do think that he realised that there
were good reasons to be concerned about Savile. He plainly
thought that it was not up to him to do anything about these
concerns; they were a matter for his managers. However, if there
had been an investigation and he had been asked a straight
question by a senior person, I think he would have shared his
concerns.

Responsibility for Reporting Awareness of Savile’s Character

(Chapter 11)

187. I have said that I think that both Canon Semper and Canon Winter
would have shared their concerns with management if asked
directly. The more difficult question is whether either of them ought
to have raised their concerns of their own volition. From today’s
viewpoint, the answer seems obvious but the position is less clear
when considered against the background of the 1970s.

188. As I have said, Canon Semper, with a degree of honesty for which I
admire him, has accepted that, during the period in which he
worked closely with Savile, he came occasionally to ‘think’ that
Savile had casual sex with young girls, some of whom might be

105
 under the age where they could consent and some of whom would
be over that age but not by very much. He did nothing about those
concerns and I have to consider why.

189. I do not think that, at the time, Canon Semper ever crystallised his
thoughts in the way that he did when he gave evidence to the
Savile investigation. I can understand why he did not. Such
thoughts would have been very unwelcome to him. I think that he
liked and admired Savile and enjoyed working with him. He had a
job at the BBC which he enjoyed and where he hoped his career
would progress. His wagon was, at least to some extent, hitched to
Savile’s star. He knew that other people admired Savile. He
thought that other people were aware of Savile’s bad reputation but
that it did not seem to matter to them. There was, within some
parts of the BBC, a fairly relaxed attitude towards sexual relations
with young girls. There was also a hierarchical culture within the
BBC which made it easy for him to feel that it was not his job to
raise the problem of Savile’s conduct; it was the responsibility of
someone higher up. After all, everyone seemed to know the
rumours.

190. I bear in mind that, in the 1970s, Canon Semper had not been with
the BBC for very long. Even so, given the awareness that he had, I
do think that he ought to have volunteered his concerns to
someone in a more senior position. He told me that he did not have
confidence in his Head of Department. Even accepting that, I think
that he should have found someone in authority with whom to share
his concerns. I think he should have seen how wrong Savile’s
conduct was and that it was wrong for the BBC to give a man of
Savile’s moral character the public platform which he was afforded.
I think he agrees with me; that is why he found his interview so
distressing. After Canon Semper had been promoted, I do not think
it occurred to him to mention his concerns to anyone else. By that
time, he was no longer working with Savile.

106
191. Canon Winter’s position is different. He worked less closely with
Savile and I do not think he came to know Savile so well.
Nonetheless, he saw Savile quite regularly and was aware that
Savile talked a lot about sex. He also heard rumours about his
sexual interest in young girls. I find it surprising that, as a man of
strong Christian beliefs, he was not more concerned about Savile
than he appears to have been.

192. In the 1970s, although a producer, Canon Winter had been with the
BBC for only a relatively short time. I accept that he thought that
such concerns as he had about Savile were well known to those
senior to him. Accordingly, by a narrow margin, I refrain from
criticising him for his failure to volunteer his concerns to someone
senior in his department. I think it is a great pity that he did not do
so and I am sure that he agrees with that.

193. Over the years, Canon Winter was promoted and eventually
became Head of Religious Broadcasting. When working with
Savile in the 1970s, he had said to himself that, if he were ever in a
position to choose who would front his programmes, he would not
choose Savile. But by the time he was in that position, Savile was
no longer working on religious programmes. I do not think it would
have entered Canon Winter’s head that he ought to speak to
someone in another part of the BBC about the concerns he had had
about Savile in the past. For that, in my view, he should not be
criticised. He knew nothing definite; he had heard rumours and did
not like the man’s manner of talking or his lifestyle. That was aIl.

194. It is clear that nobody working on Savile’s Travels or Speakeasy in

the 1970s took the initiative to report to higher management any
concern about Savile’s behaviour. If enquiries had been
undertaken, I think that some material of concern would have been
discovered. Indeed I think enough would have been discovered to
cause BBC Radio to realise that Savile was not a suitable role
model for young people. I consider that, once that had been

107
 realised, it should have led to reconsideration of his continued use,
particularly on Speakeasy, where he was in a position to influence
the thinking of young people. The background to such
reconsideration should then have been passed across to
television. Whether, in fact, that lateral communication between
BBC Radio and television would actually have taken place, I cannot
say.

Summary – Chapter 11

195. I am surprised that, following the enquiries he instigated through Mr

Chinnery and Mr Collins, Mr Muggeridge did not retain some
lingering concerns about the risk that Savile might damage the
BBC. Indeed, if all the information (including that available to
Canon Semper and Canon Winter) had been collected and if that
had been shared with television, I think there would have been
enough material to give rise to real cause for anxiety that Savile
might damage the BBC’s reputation and that there was a child
protection problem as well.

196. Indeed, it seems likely that information would have come to light
which would have taken the level of concern to a point where the
BBC would have had to consider dispensing with Savile’s services.

197. However, none of this investigation or sharing of concerns took

place. I do not know why. Mr Muggeridge was aware that in 1971
there had been concern within television (in respect of Top of the
Pops) about inappropriate sexual behaviour between celebrities
and young girls. I accept, however, that, by 1973, that had long
since died down. When Mr Muggeridge received his report from Mr
Chinnery that Savile had denied any misconduct, he may have
concluded that the rumours had been scurrilous nonsense and
dismissed them. He may have thought, as did Derek Chinnery, that
it was not for the BBC to probe into the private lives of their
celebrities. Given the BBC’s corporate approach to issues of child

108
 protection and the risk of moral danger as discussed in Chapter 9
and in the absence of any opportunity to speak to him, I do not
criticise Mr Muggeridge personally for his approach.

198. Although, in the absence of any evidence from him, I have not
criticised Mr Muggeridge personally for his failure to appreciate that
there was a risk to young people arising from their contact with
Savile, I do repeat my criticism of the BBC for its corporate attitude
towards the risks of moral danger to which young girls might be
exposed, when brought into unsupervised contact with older men,
be they BBC staff, pop stars, or other celebrities. I have discussed
these matters at some length in Chapter 9 of my Report (see
paragraphs 9.36 to 9.209). I do not think that it is an excuse for the
BBC that its attitudes were largely in accordance with attitudes
elsewhere in society. As a public service broadcaster, it should, in
my view, have thought more carefully about the implications of
ignoring the potential consequences to young girls of having casual
sex with older men rather than regarding such girls as being
“unbalanced” and a nuisance. The BBC should also, in my view,
have been more conscious of its responsibility to the general public
and young audiences in particular when it permitted a man who
boasted about his sexual life as Savile did to be put forward as a
good man and a role model for young people.

109
110
CHAPTER 1 – SETTING UP THE REVIEW

The Origin of the Review: Savile’s Death and Aftermath

1.1 On 29 October 2011, Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile died at

his home in Roundhay Park, Leeds, West Yorkshire. It seems
likely that he died peacefully and alone, in his sleep. The
funeral and interment proceedings extended over three days.
The body lay ‘in state’ in the Queen’s Hotel in Leeds on 8
November 2011 and many hundreds of mourners and admirers
filed past the gold-brushed steel coffin to pay their last respects.
The following day, the funeral cortege wound its way slowly
through Leeds, with thousands of mourners lining the streets. It
passed Savile’s childhood home and Leeds General Infirmary,
en route to St Anne’s Cathedral for the two hour requiem mass
which was conducted by the Bishop of Leeds, the Most
Reverend Arthur Roche. The cathedral was filled to capacity
with friends and representatives from the worlds of
entertainment, politics, sport, medicine and the many charities
for which Savile had raised funds. Among the many attendees
were James Moir (known as Jim), Stan Appel and Helen
Gartell, all of whom had worked with Savile in the BBC’s Light
Entertainment Department. At a reception later in the day, one
of the eulogies was given by Roger Ordish, the producer of the
long-running show, Jim’ll Fix It. The interment took place on 10
November 2011 at Woodlands Cemetery in Scarborough. The
gravestone (now removed) was in the form of a triptych
testifying to Savile’s work in entertainment, charity and sport
and bore the epitaph “It was good while it lasted”.

1.2 The death and funeral proceedings were extensively covered in

the media at local, national and even international level. Many
obituaries appeared which, in the main, celebrated Savile’s life
as an entertainer, charity fundraiser and friend of the famous.
His ubiquity, his eccentricity of speech and dress, his penchant

111
 for garish jewellery and the nature and extent of his friendships
with the great and the good all made for colourful copy. In
death as in life, Savile had a seal of approval and, even if the
obituaries were not uniformly reverential, their overall tenor was
that Savile was almost (but not quite) a national treasure.

1.3 Some of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Review

expressed their sense of outrage at the media celebration of
Savile’s life in the days and weeks following his death.
However, having reviewed some of the obituaries for the
purpose of this Review, I have been struck by how many
suggested that Savile may not have been all that he seemed.
The New York Times described Savile as “a Zelig – or maybe a
Walter Mitty – in gold lamé” whose interviews were marked by a
“torrent of claims, some true, some false and others occupying
the vast limbo of credibility in between”. Even in Britain, there
were references to Savile as an enigma who portrayed himself
as the court jester but who was, in reality, an unhappy loner.
There were hints at a dark side to his character. The Daily
Telegraph mentioned the rumours concerning Savile’s sexual
interest in underage girls. The Guardian suggested that he
exploited his powerful instinct for making money and was a
man not to be crossed. I read these obituaries in the light of the
allegations about Savile’s life which were to emerge after his
death but, even at the time of publication, they must have made
uncomfortable reading.

1.4 Media references to Savile’s death over Christmas and the New
Year continued to be approving but, on 8 January 2012, The
People carried the revelation that, in 2007, Savile had been
questioned by Surrey Police over an allegation of historical
indecent assault. (In fact, the Surrey Police investigation began
in 2007 but Savile was not interviewed until 2009). It was
reported that a spokesman had stated that Surrey Police had

112
 received an allegation of indecent assault at a children’s home
in Staines dating back to the 1970s and that the allegation had
been investigated but no further action had been “taken against
any individual”. It was further reported that a Crown
Prosecution Service spokesman had stated that they had
advised the police that “no further action should be taken due to
lack of evidence”. Although, at the time, Surrey Police neither
confirmed nor denied that the allegation related to Savile, it is
now clear that in fact it did.

1.5 Prior to this, in early 2011, Meirion Jones, a journalist working

for BBC Newsnight, apparently found an interesting account on
a publicly accessible website. A woman who had attended
Duncroft School in the 1970s claimed that she had been
sexually assaulted at the school by someone she referred to as
“JS”. Mr Jones realised that this was a reference to Savile.
This account tallied with others which had appeared on another
social media site, Friends Reunited. Mr Jones had a long-
standing interest in the school, as his aunt, Margaret Jones,
had been its head and he had visited the school as a child.
Savile’s death provided him with the impetus to investigate the
accounts of Savile’s abuse of teenage girls at Duncroft School.
He suggested the idea of an investigation to his editor, Peter
Rippon. The investigation proceeded until 9 December 2011
when Mr Rippon decided to abandon it. That decision became
the subject of a review by Nick Pollard.

1.6 The decision to abandon the investigation was first mentioned

in the press on 8/9 January 2012 when the Daily Mail, The Sun
and the Sunday Mirror referred to the BBC’s interest in
allegations made by three women that Savile had behaved
inappropriately to them while at a school in Surrey during the
1970s. During February 2012, there was further press interest,
focusing mainly on the motivation behind the BBC decision to

113
 abandon its investigation. Interest then appeared to wane and
was not revived until August 2012, when several newspapers
revealed that ITV was making a documentary about allegations
that Savile had sexually abused teenage girls in the 1970s.
The research was reported as being undertaken by Mark
Williams-Thomas, a former police detective with the Surrey
Constabulary.

1.7 Mr Williams-Thomas told the Savile investigation that, in the

months that followed the BBC’s aborted investigation, he
recommenced the investigation from scratch and took the story
to ITV, with Mr Jones’s consent. The ensuing investigation
culminated in a programme called The Other Side of Jimmy
Savile, broadcast on ITV on 3 October 2012 as part of the
Exposure series. This featured interviews with a number of
women who alleged that they had been sexually abused by
Savile. Some had been under the age of 16 at the time. The
victims described incidents which had taken place in a variety
of locations, including on BBC premises.

1.8 This programme initiated a flood of complaints from others;

men and women who claimed that they too had been abused
by Savile. Further allegations were made of abuse in a variety
of different contexts including on BBC premises, at Duncroft
School and in hospitals, including Broadmoor, Leeds General
Infirmary and Stoke Mandeville. Complaints were made to
police forces in various parts of the country, to the NHS, to the
BBC and to charities such as the NSPCC which experienced a
significant surge in the number of calls made to its helpline. In
the wake of this torrent of complaints, the Metropolitan Police
set up a special investigation task force, Operation Yewtree,
initially headed by Commander Peter Spindler.

1.9 Some victims waived their anonymity and gave public

interviews either to the newspapers or on television. There was

114
 a veritable media storm. A number of newspaper reports
alleged that the BBC had been aware of Savile’s sexual
misconduct on BBC premises and had turned a blind eye to it.
The BBC was unable to deny these allegations, most of which
went back to the 1970s and 1980s; all it could do was to say
that it was unaware that any wrongdoing had been ignored. On
12 October 2012, the BBC announced that its Executive Board
had decided to commission an independent review of Savile’s
activities, the object of which was to discover whether Savile
had indeed abused young people on BBC premises and, if so,
whether the BBC had known or ought to have known about it.
The BBC also wanted to understand whether its culture and
practices during the relevant period had enabled Savile to
abuse young people without detection.

1.10 On the same day, 12 October 2012, the BBC announced that it
would set up the Pollard Review to which I have already
referred and, on 23 October 2012, the BBC’s Respect at Work
Review was established. Its terms of reference included the
assessment of complaints of sexual harassment in the BBC
over the preceding six year period.

1.11 On 22 October 2012, the BBC broadcast a Panorama

documentary exploring the decision to abandon the Newsnight
investigation and the state of knowledge within the BBC as to
the circumstances of its being shelved. On 23 October 2012
the recently appointed Director-General, George Entwistle,
appeared before the House of Commons Culture, Media and
Sport Select Committee to answer questions concerning the
programme. His appearance attracted unfavourable comment.
On 2 November 2012, BBC Newsnight broadcast allegations
against an unnamed leading Conservative politician from the
Thatcher years in connection with its report into allegations of
sexual abuse at the Bryn Estyn children's home in Wales in the

115
 1970s and 1980s. There was widespread speculation on the
internet that Lord Robert Alistair McAlpine was the subject of
the allegations. However, a week later, it emerged that Lord
McAlpine had been falsely implicated and Newsnight issued an
unreserved apology. Mr Entwistle resigned on 10 November
2012.

Setting up the Review: the Terms of Reference

1.12 In mid-October 2012, I was invited by the BBC to investigate

Savile’s sexual misconduct on BBC premises and the BBC’s
awareness of it. I agreed to do so, subject to an assurance that
my investigation would receive the full support and co-operation
of the BBC and yet be wholly independent of it. I was given this
assurance and accordingly agreed to undertake the Review. I
was of the opinion that it would be in the public interest that
there should be an independent review into Savile and the
BBC. In particular I thought it was important that the public
should know what (if anything) the BBC had known about
Savile’s activities. I also hoped that the Review would be able
to make some contribution of value to the steps which the BBC
will wish to take in its attempt to learn lessons from what Savile
had done and, in particular, how those lessons might influence
the BBC’s approach to the protection of children and young
people, including employees, from sexual assault or
harassment. I remain of the same opinion.

1.13 The Review’s Terms of Reference were proposed by the BBC’s

Executive Board and approved by the BBC Trust. Initially, they
related only to Savile. There have been some changes to the
Terms of Reference as the Review has progressed and they
are set out below in final form as published on the Review’s
website. They require me to:

116
  receive evidence from those people who allege
inappropriate sexual conduct by Jimmy Savile in
connection with his work with the BBC, and from others
who claim to have raised concerns about Jimmy
Savile’s activities (whether formally or informally) within
the BBC; (PART 1)

 investigate the extent to which BBC personnel were or

ought to have been aware of inappropriate sexual
conduct by Jimmy Savile in connection with his work
with the BBC, and consider whether the culture and
practices within the BBC during the years of Jimmy
Savile’s employment enabled inappropriate sexual
conduct to continue unchecked; (PART 2)

 in the light of findings of fact in respect of the above,

identify the lessons to be learned from the evidence
uncovered by the Review; (PART 3)

 as necessary, take account of the findings of Dame

Linda Dobbs in her investigation into the activities of
Stuart Hall.

1.14 The original Terms of Reference were extended on 4 June

2013 following Stuart Hall’s guilty pleas to charges of indecent
assault entered in April 2013, when an investigation into Hall
was added to the Review’s work. Hall is a former presenter
who had worked for many years for the BBC, mainly in
Manchester. Dame Linda Dobbs DBE undertook the Hall
investigation, as part of the Review, as I found myself with a
potential conflict of interest. Following this extension, the
requirement that the Review should take account of Dame
Linda’s findings in the Hall investigation was added to the
Terms of Reference and certain other changes were made. In
particular, the wording was altered at my request so that,

117
 instead of receiving evidence from those people alleging
inappropriate sexual conduct on BBC premises or on location
for the BBC (as had been the case), both the Savile and Hall
investigations were to receive evidence from people alleging
inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile or Hall “in connection
with [their] work with the BBC”. Consequential amendments
were made to Part 2 of my Terms of Reference.

1.15 The Terms of Reference had originally included a requirement

that the Review should consider whether the BBC’s current
child protection policies are fit for purpose. In due course,
however, the BBC decided that my Report should not
encompass an examination of the current child protection and
whistle-blowing policies and practice. The reason for this, as I
understand it, was that the BBC, having examined its child
protection policy during the course of Parts 1 and 2 of my
investigation, had appreciated (without my input) that there was
a need for amendment and improvement to the relevant policy.
A new child protection policy was therefore introduced on 19
September 2013. The BBC was anxious to examine how that
policy and its whistle-blowing policy were working and wished
that that work should start before I had completed my report on
Parts One and Two of my Terms of Reference. Accordingly,
my Terms of Reference were amended on 27 March 2014 to
reflect that decision. GoodCorporation was instructed to
undertake an independent review of the BBC’s child protection
and whistle-blowing policies and processes. All of the witnesses
who had contacted the Review with a view to giving evidence
about the operation of whistle-blowing and child protection were
contacted by GoodCorporation if they had consented to their
contact details being passed on.

1.16 GoodCorporation’s conclusions were published by the BBC

Executive Board in July 2015. GoodCorporation found that the

118
 BBC now has a clear commitment to and recognition of the
importance of child protection and safeguarding. It also found
that much work has been done in recent years to establish
clear policies and strategies to ensure the safety and welfare of
children visiting the premises. Similarly, the BBC has
introduced a clear whistle-blowing policy which provides a
channel for anyone inside the BBC to raise a serious concern,
to ensure that it is investigated impartially and to bring it to the
attention of senior management. GoodCorporation concluded
that there is a clear message from senior management
encouraging employees to raise concerns and to have no fear
that they will suffer a detriment. GoodCorporation had made a
number of recommendations to which I will refer in my
conclusions to this Report.

1.17 It will have been noted that the Terms of Reference of the
Savile investigation are focused entirely on Savile and do not
require me to examine complaints of misconduct made against
any other person. However, as this Report will demonstrate,
there have been occasions when I have had to take evidence
or examine documents relating to matters which are not
connected to Savile. This is because I have had to examine
the culture and practices of the BBC in order to establish
whether that culture or those practices in any way enabled
Savile’s misconduct to continue unchecked.

1.18 I mention two examples of occasions when I have examined

evidence unrelated to Savile. First, I heard evidence from
several witnesses who had reported to someone in authority at
the BBC an incident of sexual harassment or assault involving
someone other than Savile. The importance of their evidence
(which I set out in Chapter 2) was to establish how the BBC
handled such reports; in other words, what was the culture and
practice in relation to such complaints. Second, in Chapter 9, I

119
 examine the way in which the BBC handled a complaint from
the mother of a 15-year old girl who, it was alleged, had been
seduced by a celebrity whom she met at Top of the Pops. The
relevance of this is to discover how the BBC might, at the time,
have handled a complaint made against Savile, if there had
been one. I also examine the way in which the BBC dealt with
allegations in the News of the World in 1971 that young girls
attending Top of the Pops were exposed to moral danger. This
examination was designed to discover what the BBC’s cultural
attitude and practices were in relation to the investigation of a
complaint of a sexual nature.

1.19 In accordance with my Terms of Reference, the period of time

considered by the Savile investigation and covered in this
Report runs from 1959 (the date of the earliest incident of
sexual abuse by Savile of which I learned) to 2006 (the date of
Savile’s appearance on the last episode of Top of the Pops).
This is the period within which Savile had the opportunity to
commit inappropriate sexual conduct in connection with his
work with the BBC. One journalist has suggested, in
correspondence with the Review, that the fact that Savile may
have received royalties from the BBC between 2006 and his
death in 2011 means that the Savile investigation should have
considered the period up to 2011. That is not a view with which
I agree, as the period after 2006 is clearly outside my Terms of
Reference.

1.20 The Review has been conducted and the Report written on the
basis that my Report will in due course be published. My
understanding is that the BBC considers that publication is
necessary in the public interest, a view with which I concur for a
number of reasons, including the fact that my observations on
the culture of the BBC are of interest, the current relevance of
my views on the power of celebrity and the right of the public to

120
 know what happened at the BBC at the relevant time. I am
required to submit my Report to the Executive Board. I
understand that the BBC Trust will be responsible for
publication.

The Savile Investigation Team

1.21 As soon as I had agreed to undertake the Review, I instructed a

firm of solicitors, Reed Smith LLP, to advise me and to provide
a secretariat. The Reed Smith team was led by Richard
Spafford. The size of the solicitor, paralegal and secretarial
team has been adjusted at various times to accommodate
fluctuations in the volume of work. The team has included
Carolyn Pepper, Victoria Spilkin, Hyun Kim, Laura Pennells,
Simon Camilleri, Bartek Rutkowski, Oliver Adams, Nick
Weaser, Annabel Cheng, Caroline Daly, Annabel Bratby,
Melanie Shone, Kirsty Piccoli, Katherine Gledhill, Harjit Gill,
Matthew Fellows, Karen Groom, Olivia Julius, Debbie Munyard,
Alida Horne and Lewis Brooke. I instructed Christina Lambert
QC as leading counsel and Kate Beattie as junior counsel. Ms
Lambert QC was initially instructed on a full-time basis but from
July 2013 provided her assistance only as and when requested.
Towards the end of the Savile investigation’s work, I instructed
two further counsel – Andrew Caldecott QC and Antony White
QC, each of whom advised on specific issues. I appointed
Professor Celia Brackenridge OBE as an adviser on child
protection issues. Professor Brackenridge and Ms Beattie
agreed to provide their services as and when requested. I am
very grateful to all members of the team for their advice, hard
work and dedication.

The Work of the Review: Early Stages

1.22 Work began in late October 2012. In its initial stages, this
entailed such practical matters as the creation of a website so

121
 that the general public could read about our procedures and
learn of our progress and the creation of an email address and
dedicated telephone number (on which voicemail messages
could be left) in order that witnesses or others could make
contact with us directly and in confidence. I was conscious that
members of the team would need to speak to witnesses about
sensitive matters relating to sexual abuse so we immediately
sought the assistance of the National Association for People
Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) to provide suitable training for
Review team members. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation was
engaged to provide support for victims.

1.23 Even before we had issued an invitation to witnesses to come

forward, we began to receive letters, emails and telephone calls
from people wishing to provide information. Unlike an inquiry
set up by a government department under the Inquiries Act
2005, this Review had no statutory powers to order or compel
anyone to attend to give evidence or to produce documents and
I was entirely dependent upon the co-operation of witnesses.
The website for the Review, which went live on 14 November
2012, therefore carried an appeal for witnesses relevant to
Savile to come forward. Our target groups were:

 people who were the subject of inappropriate sexual

conduct by Savile in connection with his work for the
BBC.

 people who knew of or suspected inappropriate sexual

conduct by Savile in connection with his work for the
BBC.

 anyone who had raised concerns about Savile’s sexual

conduct (whether formally or informally) within the BBC.

122
  people who worked for or with the BBC during the time
that Savile worked there (believed to be 1964 to
approximately 2006) whether or not they were aware of
any inappropriate behaviour and:

 who worked with or for Savile or on

programmes he presented or took part in
(whether in junior or senior roles);

 to whom Savile reported (directly or indirectly);

 who were familiar with the culture or practices

of the BBC during that time insofar as they
may have been relevant to preventing or
enabling the sexual abuse of children, young
people or teenagers;

 held senior positions at the BBC and who may

have relevant information which would assist
the Review e.g. people who worked in Human
Resources, former Directors-General,
directors or producers.

1.24 The appeal for witnesses was widely publicised in the media.
The BBC appealed to its current and former staff to assist the
Review if they had relevant information. Tim Davie, then acting
Director-General, sent a letter to all BBC pensioners21 and Lucy
Adams, then Director of Human Resources, sent an email to all
current staff, directing their attention to the Review’s website.
The appeal for witnesses was carried in Prospero, the BBC
magazine provided free of charge to BBC pensioners or to their
spouses and dependents.22

21
Letter from Tim Davie dated 15 November 2012.
22
The Dame Janet Smith Review, Prospero, December 2012, Issue 8, p.3.

123
1.25 The response to the appeal for witnesses was immediate and
substantial. Complainants came forward and former and
current employees responded in large numbers. The Savile
investigation received a vast number of letters, emails and
telephone calls providing information thought to be of potential
assistance to us. Every communication was considered
carefully; the only category of evidence which was not taken
into account was the very limited amount of evidence which
was provided anonymously.

1.26 I was acutely conscious that our method of finding witnesses

might well result in bias. There was a possibility of bias
towards those who had a serious grievance against Savile or
the BBC and against those who had something they wished to
hide. This was quite beyond my control. However, in addition
to those who contacted the Savile investigation of their own
volition, we also approached a large number of witnesses
whom we identified as having relevant information. Altogether,
the Savile investigation has been in contact with over 800
people (over 380 of whom have been interviewed) and I think
that the volume and content of the evidence is such as to
enable me to draw reliable conclusions.

1.27 We spent the first few weeks undertaking a scoping exercise to

assess the range of evidence likely to be received and to adjust
the proposed procedures to facilitate the efficient taking of that
evidence. We liaised closely with the Metropolitan Police
Operation Yewtree team. In order to avoid compromising any
future criminal prosecution, we established a Memorandum of
Understanding with the police investigators. We agreed to seek
the authority of the Metropolitan Police before any witness was
called for interview. We undertook that, should we receive
information pertaining to the commission of a criminal offence
by a living individual, we would consider providing the

124
 information to the Metropolitan Police in accordance with the
public interest. In practice, we have done so.

1.28 As the Savile investigation progressed, we were able to identify

potential witnesses whom we wished to see, besides those who
had come forward voluntarily. Some of these we identified
through the perusal of documents; others were mentioned by
witnesses while giving evidence. We tried to contact a large
number of such people. Often, I am afraid, we found that a
potential witness was dead; this was not surprising as we were
investigating events which might have occurred 40 or even 50
years ago. Sometimes we found that a witness was very old
and in poor health and in such circumstances I did not feel that
it would be appropriate to ask him or her to give evidence.
Sometimes we were unable to locate a witness, even though
we thought he or she was still alive. Of those whom we did
find, a few were unwilling to attend and there was nothing I
could do about that. These limitations must be recognised.
However, we have been able to receive evidence from a large
number of witnesses and I do think that my conclusions are
reliable.

1.29 Where appropriate, the Savile investigation consulted

transcripts of evidence taken by the Pollard Review.

The Evidence Gathering Process for the Savile Investigation:

Witness Interviews

1.30 The witness evidence was collected in a two-stage process.

Initially, witnesses were spoken to over the telephone by a
member of the Savile investigation team. Those whose
evidence appeared likely to be of particular significance or
whose evidence might be controversial or contentious were
then formally interviewed, usually at the Secretariat’s offices at
The Broadgate Tower in London. Only on a handful of

125
 occasions was it necessary to accommodate witnesses who
were unable to travel; their evidence was taken at home, at
work, or, in one case, in prison. Witnesses could choose to be
accompanied by a legal representative or by a relative or friend.
Victims were also offered the services of a ‘supporter’ from the
Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Some witnesses were formally
interviewed over the telephone. Witnesses living abroad were,
where possible, interviewed by videoconference, although there
was one occasion where it was necessary for a member of the
Savile investigation team to travel abroad to interview a
complainant. Before witness interviews commenced, the
witness would be briefed by a lawyer member of the team as to
the format of the interview.

1.31 In view of the sensitivity of the subject matter of the Savile

investigation, evidence sessions were held in private.
Complainants about Savile’s behaviour who wished to remain
anonymous were permitted to do so and were given a code
number (C1 to C57). A few were willing to waive their right to
anonymity. However, in view of the essentially private nature of
their evidence and the extent of the likely publicity when this
Report is published, I have decided that I should protect their
anonymity at this stage and should leave it to them to decide
whether to identify themselves publicly once the Report has
been published. Accordingly, I have given such complainants a
code number (B1 to B14). The only victims of Savile who have
been named in the Report are those whose stories have been
so widely published in the media that it would be artificial to
relate their accounts without naming them. Each of these
witnesses waived his or her right to anonymity. A number of
witnesses who were not victims of Savile but who have
requested anonymity were given a code number (A1 to A26).
Included in this category are a few witnesses who told the
Savile investigation about abuse or harassment perpetrated not

126
 by Savile but by others at the BBC. Their evidence is recorded
in Chapter 2 and is included to demonstrate how the BBC dealt
with complaints and concerns about sexual matters.

1.32 The witness interviews (including, where appropriate, telephone

interviews) were recorded using Livenote and transcripts were
prepared. Witnesses were informed that, where I wished to rely
upon parts of their evidence in my Report, I would summarise
the relevant sections as opposed to publishing the entire
transcript of their interview.

1.33 We recognised that many of the victims who gave evidence

would be re-living painful experiences. I am very grateful to all
those who felt able to assist us and recognise the courage
required to do so. We offered victims the details of counselling
services provided by NAPAC, as well as the services offered by
the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(NSPCC) and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.

The Evidence Gathering Process for the Savile Investigation:

Documentation

BBC Written Archives Centre

1.34 Although the backbone of my investigation has taken the form

of oral evidence from witnesses, in accordance with the
procedure which I have described above, we have also drawn
on material from the BBC Written Archives Centre at
Caversham (the WAC). As any visitor will be aware, the
documentation which is held at the WAC is extensive. The
WAC holds the written material which has been selected for
permanent retention; this relates to all aspects of the BBC’s
business since 1922 and includes contractual documents, files
of correspondence both internal and external, programme and
policy material, together with a vast collection of scripts and

127
 press cuttings. Programmes and other electronic materials are
stored in other off-site archives, and not at the WAC.

1.35 Members of the Savile investigation team visited the WAC on a

number of occasions and, with the very considerable
assistance of the WAC staff, undertook a series of targeted
searches of the WAC database for material relevant to Savile.
This database includes not only the material held at the WAC
but also that held at the other off-site archives. The written
material on the database includes documents which have
already been appraised and selected for permanent retention
but not yet transferred to Caversham, documents which are
awaiting appraisal and material that, although submitted for
retention, has not been retained. Searches were conducted of
the WAC’s database for permutations of Savile’s name, linked
personnel and the programmes on which Savile worked. The
team also asked the WAC to carry out additional searches as
and when the need arose. I consider that the searches we
instigated were both thorough and proportionate to the task in
hand but, for a number of reasons, I am unable to exclude the
possibility that, in the future, some relevant material which I
have not been able to consider may yet be found. I set out a
little more concerning the background of the WAC and the
BBC’s archives in order to explain this conundrum.

1.36 Until its closure in 2006, the BBC had in place a Registry
system (comprising a Central Registry as well as a number of
sub-registries and local registries) which co-existed with the
WAC. The Registry system was closed down largely as a
result of the advent of electronic documents. Upon its closure,
a number of documents (but by no means all) were fed into the
WAC for appraisal and a decision as to whether or not they
were suitable for long-term retention at the WAC. Material not

128
 sent to the WAC was sent to off-site storage or, if its retention
period had expired, was destroyed.

1.37 The arrangement and indexing of some pre-2006 files within

the WAC derives from the old Registry system. A large
element of discretion was applied by Registry clerks when
deciding on the level of detail which would be included within
the index of each department’s files. Moreover, the archiving
principles at the WAC differ from those employed by the
Registry system. The WAC’s archiving and cataloguing
principles are designed to enable someone (for example, a
historian) to locate documents relevant to a broad subject area
whereas one of the key purposes of the Registry system was to
permit swift and easy access to specific documents in current
use.

1.38 In 2002, the WAC and the Registry Service introduced a new
single database system. We understand that, during the
transfer, some of the indexing information was lost because
different indexing principles were applied by the 50-60 separate
databases which had previously existed.

1.39 Furthermore, most documents have not been converted into a

format whereby they can be searched electronically using
keywords. Instead, it is possible to carry out either a file title
search or a search of the Registry indexing (where a document
has passed through a Registry). Such searches are obviously
limited to the extent of the title given to the file or the indexing
information provided by the Registry. I understand that a
process of cataloguing has begun to provide more detailed
information as to the content of each of the stored files but this
process is in its early stages.

1.40 There were, in particular, two documents which I sought that

could not be located. The first document is the log of telephone

129
 calls maintained by the Duty Office at BBC Television Centre
(the Duty Office log), which would have been relevant to my
investigation into the response of the BBC to a complaint
against a celebrity (by telephone) in the early 1970s (see
Chapter 9). The second document is the Press Log which
would have been maintained by the staff at the BBC premises
at Cavendish Place. While some extracts from the Press Log
have been provided to me, the full Press Log for the period
prior to May 1971 could not be located. The full log might well
have been of value to my investigation into the same issue.

1.41 Even in light of the limitations I have described, the explanation

for the absence of these two particular documents is, I must
confess, hard to fathom. It was explained to me that not every
document generated by the BBC would necessarily have found
its way into the Registry system; indeed, some BBC
departments apparently did not use the Registry system but
were responsible for their own filing. In addition, as with any
manual system of filing, it was only as good (or as
comprehensive) as the commitment or assiduity of the
individuals concerned. The depositing of documents in the
Registry depended upon each individual department retaining
documents and ensuring that they were lodged in the archiving
system, sometimes from their own filing systems. It seems
likely that some departments would be less zealous and
conscientious than others in ensuring that documents were
provided to the Registry.

1.42 I readily recognise this as an explanation for the absence of

single documents or small bundles. However I doubt that the
Duty Office Log would have taken such a form and it does
seem surprising that that log would not have been retained. As
for the Press Logs, I understand that the Log held by the WAC,
which begins in May 1971, is marked as “File 1”, and that no

130
 Press Logs before that date are held in the WAC. That in itself
is puzzling. I was told about the existence and purpose of the
Press Log by Peter Rosier, who worked for the BBC as a
publicity officer from 1968. He eventually went on to become
Head of Corporate Affairs and Media Relations until his
retirement in 1993. He described to me how the Press Logs
were prepared in his early days and he expressed the view that
the logs prior to May 1971 should be available.

1.43 I well understand that, even if a document had been deposited

in accordance with the Registry procedure, it does not follow
that it would have necessarily been kept by those applying the
selection criteria for documents to be permanently preserved at
the WAC. According to the WAC staff, the selection criteria
included documents which it was considered should be retained
for their business, legal and/or historical and heritage value. I
intend no criticism when I say that the selection of documents
applying those criteria might result in the rejection of some
which would have been relevant to the Savile investigation.
However, taking again my requests for the Duty Office Log and
Press Log as examples, it does not seem to me that, however
narrowly the archiving criteria were applied, either of these two
sets of documents should have been destroyed. It was clear
from my interview with Mr Rosier that the Press Log was a key
document within the BBC’s history which would illustrate the
thoughts and motivations of those involved in safeguarding the
BBC’s reputation. As I say above, I found the explanation for
the fact that it and the Duty Office Log were absent difficult to
fathom, although I should say that I am not suggesting that
these documents have been archived and then removed from
the WAC. A much more likely explanation (particularly given
that some extracts from the Press Logs were available) is that
they were either never archived or that they were (in error) not
retained.

131
Other Written Sources

1.44 I have relied upon other documentary sources, not least a

number of interviews which Savile gave during his lifetime and
the books which he wrote himself or were ghost written on his
behalf. Some witnesses have also drawn my attention to books
which they have written concerning their working lives at the
BBC, in particular, Will Wyatt, Johnny Beerling and Canon
David Winter. Where I have relied on those interviews or
books, I have made specific references.

Decision-making – the Savile Investigation

1.45 The conclusions that I reach in this Report are based solely on
the evidence I have received and, in reaching decisions about
the truth and accuracy of evidence received by the Savile
investigation, I have applied the civil standard of proof. That is
to say that I have accepted evidence if I think that, on the
balance of probabilities, it is true and accurate. This standard
of proof is, of course, lower than the standard of proof required
in a criminal case where, before there can be a conviction, the
jury or magistrate must be satisfied so as to be sure of guilt.

1.46 One of the difficulties I have faced in reaching decisions has

been the absence of some important witnesses. The most
obvious example of this has been Savile himself. I have read in
the media expressions of concern that it is quite unfair that
Savile should be accused of sexual crimes and immoral
behaviour at a time when he is no longer able to answer the
allegations. Concern has been expressed that anyone who
comes forward and makes an allegation of abuse against
Savile is believed without there being any real investigation into
the truth of the matter. There are some who believe that the
allegations are driven by a wish to receive compensation. I
acknowledge the views of those who feel that Savile is being

132
 condemned without proper investigation, especially when these
views are expressed by those who knew Savile and who
honestly believe that the allegations are untrue.

1.47 One facet of this problem is that the Metropolitan Police

decided to make public their willingness to receive complaints
about Savile, notwithstanding that those complaints cannot be
fully investigated and Savile cannot be prosecuted. The police
have simply recorded the nature and circumstances of the
various allegations and, as I understand it, have designated
them as crimes for the purposes of their records. I do not for
one moment criticise the police for collecting this information.
However, I do think that it is unfortunate that the impression has
been given that every allegation was in fact true.

1.48 I was acutely aware that I was required to reach decisions as to

the likely truth of the evidence I heard without being able to ask
Savile what he had to say about the allegation. I was very
much aware that most of the accounts given by complainants
(and other witnesses) related to matters which had occurred a
very long time ago and that there was a risk that memories had
failed or recollections contained an element of subconscious
reconstruction.

1.49 I was also conscious that, with sexual allegations, it is often the
case that a prompt complaint is more reliable than a stale one
and I was dealing with complaints made long after the event.
However, having heard the explanations as to why people had
not come forward earlier, I found their reasons generally
convincing. I was conscious of the possibility that some
complainants might be motivated by a dishonest wish to obtain
compensation, either through the scheme which the BBC set up
or by taking action in the courts. I have tried to be on my guard
to detect where that might be the case, especially where the
allegations are at the more serious end of the scale. It does

133
 appear to me that, if someone were to decide to come forward
with a false story for the purpose of obtaining money, it is likely
that he or she would concoct a story of a serious assault so as
to attract heavy compensation.

1.50 For all those reasons I resolved to investigate the allegations

made against Savile as closely as I could, given the material
available to me. Although the Savile investigation followed an
inquisitorial rather than an adversarial procedure, with cross-
examination, we did probe the witnesses’ evidence at length
and in considerable depth. Each complainant was required to
give a very detailed account of his or her experience, with a
great deal of background, the relevance of which might not
have been immediately obvious to him or her. Thus, although
we never had the material which would enable us to put a
positively contradictory case to a witness, as may happen in
cross examination, we did ask questions which were designed
to discover as best we could whether the witness was speaking
about events actually experienced or might be giving an
account derived from some other source, such as newspaper
reports or material available on the internet. The detail of the
account given by the witness was checked against the
information we were able to gather from contemporaneous BBC
documents and from BBC staff. Staff gave evidence about the
way in which programmes were made and the practical ways in
which Savile was involved. Examples of this material will be
found in particular in Chapters 9 and 10, which deal with Top of
the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It. I have also collected a great deal of
evidence about what members of staff observed of Savile’s
habits. I regard the information drawn from those sources as
reliable and as providing a sound basis against which to test
the reliability of the evidence of complainants.

134
1.51 It does not follow, however, that just because a witness’s
recollection of all the details of his or her experience is not
correct, that must mean that the witness is not to be believed.
There are a number of cases in which I have accepted that the
witness’s account is broadly true although a number of
recollected details could not be right. In general, I have been
more inclined to accept that a witness is truthful but inaccurate
in some respects where the witness is a victim trying to
remember distressing events which occurred when he or she
was young. I have been less inclined to accept as truthful
inaccurate accounts given by non-victims about events which
occurred when they were adults.

1.52 There are a few cases where I have not accepted the evidence
of a complainant or have felt unable to reach any conclusion. I
have not included those cases in this Report. I am not saying
that I have rejected their evidence because I have concluded
they are dishonestly seeking compensation; just that their
evidence was, for a variety of reasons, unsatisfactory.

The Report

This Report is in four volumes as follows:-

 Volume 1 contains a summary of the Report of

the Savile investigation, chaired by me as well
as a summary of the Report of the Hall
investigation, chaired by Dame Linda Dobbs. It
also contains my Review’s overall conclusions
in a section called “Conclusions – The
Questions Answered and the Lessons to be
Learned” in which I address the various
questions posed to me by the BBC in my
Terms of Reference and set out the lessons to
be learned from both the Savile and Hall
investigations.

 Volume 2, Part 1 contains the first eight

chapters of the Report of the Savile
Investigation.

135
  Volume 2, Part 2 contains Chapters 9-11 of the
Report of the Savile investigation.

 Volume 3 contains the Report of the Hall

investigation, chaired by Dame Linda Dobbs.

References to ‘the Report’ in this document are generally to the

Report of the Savile investigation. The Report contains 11
Chapters.

1.53 The first chapter deals with setting up the Review and its
methodology. The second provides some history of the BBC
and covers aspects of its culture. The third chapter discusses
changing attitudes and mores in society over the period
covered by the Savile investigation. Dame Linda Dobbs covers
similar issues in Chapters 9 and 10 of the Report of the Hall
investigation. In Chapter 4, I describe Savile’s history and the
perceptions of him within the BBC during his lifetime. In
Chapter 5, which is a lengthy chapter, I report on the accounts
we have received of Savile’s sexual conduct and seek to draw
some conclusions about his habits and modus operandi.

1.54 In Chapter 6, I collect together material relating to Savile which

was in the public domain during his lifetime. In Chapter 7, I
describe the rumours, stories and jokes which circulated about
him, mainly in the BBC but also touching on rumours in wider
circulation. In Chapter 8, I deal with various media reports
appearing after Savile’s death alleging that the BBC had been
aware of his misconduct but had failed to act.

1.55 From Chapter 9 onwards I deal with the main programmes and
parts of the BBC in which Savile was involved and worked; I
cover Top of the Pops in Chapter 9, Jim’ll Fix it in Chapter 10
and Radio 1 in Chapter 11.

1.56 The Report has six appendices. These are in Volumes 1 and 2
(Part 2). Appendix 1 is a dramatis personae and Appendix 2 is

136
 a chronology. Appendix 3 is a table showing the relevant
senior roles in BBC Television during Savile’s active period at
the BBC and Appendix 4 sets out the equivalent information in
respect of BBC Radio. Appendix 5 sets out the BBC
management structure as at the mid-point in Savile’s career in
respect of BBC Radio, Television and the World Service and
Appendix 6 contains detailed information and charts about
Savile’s victims, showing gender, age, nature of inappropriate
sexual conduct, relevant programmes and relevant decades.
Appendices 1-5 have been prepared on the basis of information
provided by the BBC and by witnesses and information
available from public sources. The Savile investigation team
has done what it can to ensure that Appendices 1-5 are precise
and accurate, but some dates in these appendices are
approximate and there is the possibility of some minor errors in
them where information was particularly difficult to find or verify.
Further, in most cases, my Report only refers to BBC
employees’ most relevant positions. No offence is intended by
not making reference to any other roles which witnesses may
have held.

1.57 Once the factual chapters of this Report had been written and
checked and my tentative conclusions had been drafted,
detailed letters of potential criticism were sent in confidence to
34 individuals and a number of organisations including the
BBC. In each case, an opportunity was provided for a
response or further submissions to be made. All responses
received were taken into account when preparing my final
conclusions.

1.58 Dame Linda Dobbs’s investigation into Hall’s activities was

conducted by the same team within the Review. I took no part
in it; indeed I was separated from it by a very solid information
barrier. Dame Linda has described the process of the Hall

137
 investigation in her Report, which is at Volume 3. I was
unaware of any part of the process or of any of her conclusions
until they had been finalised. In ‘Conclusions – The Questions
Answered and the Lessons to be Learned’, which is in Volume
1, I draw together our separate conclusions and the lessons
which may be learned from them.

1.59 While the BBC did not set a deadline for the production of my
Report when the Review was set up, I was asked to produce it
as soon as possible. In the event, the task took two and a half
years, mainly because of the enormous amount of work we
have undertaken and the issues explained below.

1.60 In order to form a reliable view of the culture of the BBC over a
significant period of time, Dame Linda and I have interviewed a
large number of witnesses and read many documents. Writing
the Report has also been a major task. However, some delay
has been caused by specific factors. First, there has been
delay in obtaining access to a number of witnesses relevant to
the Savile investigation. These were witnesses of whom we
were aware at an early stage but could not interview until the
police had released them to us under the Memorandum of
Understanding. A considerable number of witnesses were only
released to us in late 2014 and in 2015; and one was not
released until December 2015. I make no complaint about this.
When this Review was first under consideration, it was
envisaged that we would not be able to begin work at all until
the police had completed their investigations into all Savile-
related matters. In the event, through the Memorandum of
Understanding, we have been able to work at the same time as
the police so the delay has been less than would otherwise
have been the case. In addition quite apart from witnesses for
whom we needed police clearance, there were also some
witnesses who did not come forward until a late stage.

138
1.61 Second, from time to time, we were asked to delay publication
of the Report in the light of on-going criminal trials. Until April
2015, the availability of witnesses late in the day was the
overriding factor. However, in April 2015, when we were
preparing for publication of the Report, the Review was
informed by the Metropolitan Police that it was concerned that
publication of the Report could prejudice its on-going
investigations into sexual abuse. As a result, I reluctantly took
the decision that publication of the Report (and its delivery to
the BBC) should be delayed. We were informed by the police
in late November 2015 that the issues which had led to the
delay in April had ceased to be of concern. We therefore
started final preparations for publication.

1.62 A draft version of the Report was provided, in advance of

publication, to the CPS and the Metropolitan Police. This was
to give them an opportunity to comment in the event that they
had any (and, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, any
further) concerns about the content of the Report adversely
affecting on going investigations or any future prosecution. In
late December 2015, the Metropolitan Police told us that it did
not object to publication. The CPS said the same in early
February 2016.

1.63 A final draft version of the Report was made available to the
BBC on 8 February 2016. This was to give the BBC an
opportunity to read the Report in advance of its formal delivery
and to identify any factual inaccuracy or necessary clarification
in the draft. The Report was formally delivered to the BBC on
15 February 2016. The Report was then printed and made
ready for publication.

139
The Publication by Exaro News Limited on 20 January 2016

1.64 On 20 January 2016, Exaronews Limited decided to publish on

its website certain extracts from a leaked early draft of my
Report. That publication prompted significant publicity.

1.65 I was appalled by the decision taken by Exaro and a copy of my

letter dated 22 January 2016 to Exaro is on the Review’s
website. Exaro’s decision appears to have been taken for its
own commercial gain without any thought for the interests of
the many victims of Savile or the integrity of the reporting
process. Its decision was entirely unjustified. In a self-serving
and inaccurate press release, Exaro argued that, in publishing
an out of date draft of my Report, they were breaking the
“logjam”. However, there was no “logjam” to be broken; at the
time of the publication by Exaro, the Review had announced
publication within six weeks. Exaro also suggested that the
reason why publication had been delayed, namely because of
concerns on the part of the Metropolitan Police that the Report
could prejudice its on-going investigations into sexual abuse
was, for some reason, “bogus”. Exaro were wrong; that is
precisely why publication was delayed.

1.66 Exaro also argued that the publication was justified because the
draft of the Report disclosed by them was the Report on which
the Letter of Criticism sent to the BBC had been based.
However, once again, they were wrong. They obviously did not
understand that it is standard practice when preparing reports
of this nature to include in any draft steps that are still to be
taken – in this case, sending a Letter of Criticism to the BBC.
In fact, the draft of the Report on which the Letter of Criticism
sent to the BBC was based was a draft prepared many months
later.

140
1.67 A number of victims and witnesses were adversely affected by
Exaro’s decision. In particular, we had taken great care to
avoid identification of individuals where that was not necessary
for the purposes of the Report, sometimes in consultation with
those individuals. The draft disclosed by Exaro contained some
early draft wording and descriptions prepared before those
descriptions had been amended to bolster anonymity. Exaro’s
selfish decision to publish led to individuals being identified.

141
142
CHAPT
TER 2 – THE BBC – HISTO
ORY, ETHO
OS AND MANAGE
EMENT
CULTU
URE

Introdu
uction

2.1 This chapter

c ended to provide a compreh
iss not inte hensive
account of the history,
h eth
hics and manageme
m ent culture of the
BBC. It is intended only to
t provide the necesssary backkground
againsst which I will, in due cou
urse, cons
sider wha
at BBC
nnel knew, ought to have kno
person own, realissed and ou
ught to
have done
d in the light of any aware
eness of Savile’s
S acctivities.
The BBC has co
onfirmed th
he accuraccy of the sections be
elow on
Early History
H and
d Managem
ment Struccture.

Early H
History

2.2 The BBC

B is a b
body corpo u by Royyal Charter (from
orate set up
1927).. It began
n as the Brritish Broadcasting Company
C in 1922
under the general manage ohn Reith, later Lord
ement of Jo d Reith,
with a licence to operate a broadcassting servicce until the end of
1926.

2.3 y 1925, the

In July e Governm
ment appoin
nted a com
mmittee under the
chairm
manship off the Earrl of Craw
wford to advise
a on future
manag
gement an
nd control of
o broadca
asting. Mr Reith (as he was
at the time) had, at the inviitation of th
he committtee:

“put forward
d the idea of a publicc corporatioon, run
a arm's length fro
at om the governmen
g nt, but
s
supervised by a bo oard of governors.
g The
c
corporation
n would stiill be run day-to-day
d y by its
m
managers, but insstead of representting a
c
company's investors in the drivve for proffits, the
g
governors w
would put the
t public interest firs st”23.

2.4 In Ma
arch 1926, the committee
c recomme
ended tha
at the
broadccasting se
ervice shou
uld be con
nducted in
n the futurre by a
public corporatio
on “acting as trustee
e for the national
n interest”;
23
www.b
bbc.co.uk/his
storyofthebbc/resources//in-depth/reith_5.shtml.

14
43
 there should be no direct Parliamentary control of the
corporation, licence fee funding should be provided for 10 years
and there should be a higher proportion of educational content.
It also recommended that “every effort should be made to raise
the standard of style and performance ... particularly in music”
and “that a moderate amount of controversial matter should be
broadcast, provided that the material is of high quality and
distributed with scrupulous fairness”24.

2.5 The British Broadcasting Corporation, as it became, was duly

established by Royal Charter for a term of 10 years,
commencing on 1 January 1927. Mr Reith became the
Corporation’s first Director-General. The recitals to the Charter
recorded that the broadcasting service was to be “conducted by
a public corporation acting as Trustees for the national interest”,
noted that the Corporation should be of “great value ... as a
means of education and entertainment” and expressed the
desire that the service “should be developed and exploited to
the best advantage and in the national interest”.

2.6 The BBC’s Royal Charter was renewed for a further 10 years
from 1 January 1937, with the recitals adding the aim of
“information” to that of education and entertainment. Mr Reith
remained Director-General until 1938 and oversaw the start of
the television service in 1936. His real enthusiasm was,
however, limited to radio; indeed, he was deeply sceptical
about television. The BBC historian Professor Asa Briggs
thought that Lord Reith (as he became) saw television as a
threat to society which would “corrupt and ruin the nation”25.

2.7 Despite Lord Reith’s scepticism and a complete cessation of

the television service during the Second World War, television
took off in the early 1950s, aided by a huge expansion in the

24
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1925, Cmnd. 2599, March 1926.
25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/in-depth/reith_6.shtml

144
 number of sets purchased just in time for the coronation of
Queen Elizabeth II. The BBC enjoyed a monopoly until 1955
when ITV began broadcasting in the London region. By 1973,
there were 15 independent television companies. The BBC
had launched its second channel, BBC Two, in 1964 and began
colour broadcasting in 1967.

Management Structure

The Governors – 1927 to 2006

2.8 The first Charter provided that members of the Corporation

would be referred to as Governors, and appointed a chairman
and vice-chairman, as well as a chief executive officer, the
Director-General (initially Mr Reith). This structure was retained
until 1 January 2007, when the BBC Trust was created.

2.9 Throughout this period, the Board of Governors comprised the

chairman, vice-chairman, national governors for Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland, and a number of other governors.
The governors worked through a permanent executive staff,
headed by the Director-General.

BBC Trust and Executive Board – 2007 to the Present

2.10 Under the new Charter and Agreement in 2006, the Board of
Governors was replaced by a new structure which set up the
BBC Trust and new Executive Board. This came into effect in
January 2007.

2.11 The main roles of the BBC Trust are to set the overall strategic
direction of the BBC, including its priorities, and to exercise a
general oversight of the work of the Executive Board. The BBC
Trust must be independent of the Executive Board. It must act
in the public interest and, in particular, it must represent the
interests of licence fee payers, ensure that the independence of

145
 the BBC is maintained, carefully and appropriately assess the
views of licence fee payers, exercise rigorous stewardship of
public money, have regard to the competitive impact of the
BBC’s activities on the wider market and ensure that the BBC
observes high standards of openness and transparency.

2.12 The Executive Board is responsible for the delivery of services

in accordance with defined strategies laid down by the BBC
Trust, the direction of editorial and creative output, operational
management, ensuring compliance with all legal and regulatory
requirements and ensuring compliance with the requirements of
the Trust. It is also responsible for making proposals to the
Trust in respect of matters requiring the Trust’s approval,
appointing and holding the management of the BBC and of its
subsidiaries to account, conducting operational financial affairs
and accounting to the Trust for its own performance and the
performance of the BBC and its subsidiaries.

Board of Management/Management Board

2.13 Below the Board of Governors (replaced in 2006 by the

Executive Board) sat the Board of Management (replaced in
2006 by the Management Board). The Board of Management
had overall responsibility for the management and running of
the BBC.

2.14 The make-up of the Board of Management/the Management

Board has varied over time, with the addition of new posts and
changes to the names of particular roles. In general, it
comprised senior management, certain heads of department
and above.

Management of Television – Light Entertainment

2.15 I shall not burden this Report with a description of the

management structure which includes all the changes of

146
 structure and nomenclature which have occurred over the past
six decades. Suffice it to say that, in the period which is of
particular importance to the Savile investigation, the 1970s and
1980s, the head of the television service was known as the
Managing Director, Television. He (it was always a man during
this period) was a member of the Board of Management.
Below him was the Director of Programmes, Television and
below him were the Controllers of BBC One and BBC Two.
The Channel Controllers commissioned the programmes from
the various programme-making departments. This structure is
reflected in Appendix 5 to the Report.

2.16 Television was divided into a number of programme groups and

departments, covering such areas as planning, presentation,
drama, light entertainment, outside broadcasts, current affairs,
music and arts, documentary, travel and feature, family, school
broadcasting, further education and religious broadcasting.
Given the nature of Savile’s work in television, the Savile
investigation is primarily interested in the Light Entertainment
Department.

2.17 Within the Light Entertainment Department, the Head of

Department (Bill Cotton from 1970 to 1977) reported upwards
to the Managing Director, Television. At that time, Light
Entertainment was divided into Variety and Comedy. So, as
well as the Head of Light Entertainment, there was also a Head
of Variety (a post which, for a period, Mr Cotton occupied in
addition to his role as Head of Light Entertainment) and a Head
of Comedy. Below that, there would be executive producers,
producers, directors, organisers and administrators. Will Wyatt,
who spent 35 years at the BBC from 1965 and held many
senior roles including Managing Director of BBC Network
Television and Chief Executive of BBC Broadcast, told me that
the Head of Light Entertainment would have a meeting with the

147
 Controller of BBC One every week and with the Controller of
BBC Two every two weeks “to discuss developing plans,
current performance and issues”. The Heads of Light
Entertainment, Variety and Comedy would, according to Mr
Wyatt, be “in and out of each other’s offices all the time”. A
table showing the relevant senior roles in BBC Television
during Savile’s active period at the BBC is provided at
Appendix 3.

Management of Radio

2.18 Sound broadcasting, as radio was known in the BBC until 1967,
was headed by a director who was a member of the Board of
Management. The Director of Sound Broadcasting was
renamed the Director of Radio in 1967, and became the
Managing Director, Radio in 1968.

2.19 In 1967, BBC Radio was reorganised with the creation of four
main networks with which we are familiar today, BBC Radios 1,
2, 3 and 4. BBC Radio 1 was to provide popular music, with
BBC Radio 2 effectively replacing the Light Programme (which
had provided light music and entertainment), BBC Radio 3
covering the cultural network and BBC Radio 4 covering
education, news, drama and current affairs. The World Service
(then known as External Broadcasting) continued to operate
separately and a number of regional radio networks were
established. The management structure of BBC Radio has
changed very little since 1967.

2.20 Savile worked regularly for Radio 1 from 1968 until 1987 when
he moved to the World Service. For that reason, I shall focus
on Radio 1. Johnny Beerling, who was Controller of Radio 1 in
the late 1980s, explained that the establishment of Radio 1 was
the BBC’s response to the growing audiences of commercial
radio stations such as Radio Luxembourg and pirate radio

148
 stations with their programmes of almost continuous popular
music. By 1966, the success of the pirate radio stations was
having a detrimental effect on BBC audiences, especially
among the under 30s. Prompted no doubt by a Government
White Paper of 196626, which called on the BBC to recognise
the existence of “an audience for continuous music as popular
entertainment”, the BBC set up Radio 1. Parliament enacted
the Marine & Sea Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 on 14 July
1967. Advertising on or supplying an off-shore radio station
from the UK became unlawful. The result was the death of
pirate radio and the rapid growth of audiences for BBC Radio 1.

2.21 Radio 1 was managed initially by executives who had worked

on the Light Programme. Radios 1 and 2 had a joint controller,
the first of whom was Robin Scott, with Douglas Muggeridge
taking on the role in 1969. Below the joint controller was the
Head of Radio 1 (a position assumed by Derek Chinnery at the
beginning of 1972). Below the Head of Radio 1 sat three
executive producers (in 1970, these were Mr Chinnery, Doreen
Davies and Teddy Warrick). By 1972, the executive producers
were Ms Davies, Mr Warrick and Mr Beerling. The Head of
Radio 1 post was discontinued in late 1978 with the
appointment of a single Controller of Radio 1. The BBC
introduced the post of Head of Radio 1 Programmes in 1982, a
post which was initially assumed by Mr Beerling in 1983.

2.22 After a stint as Director of Programmes, Radio, Douglas

Muggeridge became the Deputy Managing Director of Radio in
the late 1970s before moving on to be Managing Director,
External Broadcasting. Mr Chinnery became the Controller of
Radio 1 in 1978 (when separate controllers were appointed for
Radios 1 and 2) and remained in that position until his
retirement in 1985, when he was succeeded by Mr Beerling,

26
White Paper – Broadcasting, Cmnd. 3169, London: HMSO, December 1966.

149
 who had been Head of Radio 1 Programmes in 1983 and 1984.
He was succeeded in that position by Ms Davies. She retired in
1987. Matthew Bannister became the Controller of Radio 1 in
1993.

BBC Values and Objectives

2.23 The core values of the BBC are often called ‘Reithian’ values.
In fact, although so described, those values would be more
appropriately described as objectives. From 1937, they were
expressed as the duty to “inform, educate and entertain” and
this tripartite aim has been retained in BBC Charters up to the
present day. There has, however, been a restatement of BBC
values. In a Green Paper published in March 2005, entitled
Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter: A strong BBC, independent
of government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
suggested that the BBC’s principles set out by Lord Reith to
inform, educate and entertain were “no longer sufficient” as a
yardstick by which to judge the BBC's performance27. The BBC
needed a “more closely defined set of purposes” by which it
should be judged28.

2.24 The Green Paper led to the inclusion of six “Public Purposes” in
the current Charter, in addition to the fundamental objectives of
“inform, educate and entertain”. The current Charter, which
took effect for most practical purposes from 1 January 2007,
states that the BBC exists to serve the public interest and that
its main object is the promotion of the following “Public
Purposes”:

 Sustaining citizenship and civil society

 Promoting education and learning

27
DCMS, Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter: A strong BBC, independent of
government, March 2005, p. 22.
28
Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter: A strong BBC, independent of government, p. 23.

150
  Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence

 Representing the UK, its nations, regions and

communities

 Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK

 In promoting other purposes, helping to deliver to the

public the benefit of emerging communications
technologies and services and, in addition, taking a
leading role in the switchover to digital television

2.25 In 2003, when Greg Dyke was the Director-General, the BBC
set out a statement of its values, which are printed on the back
of every staff card:

 Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent,

impartial and honest

 Audiences are at the heart of everything we do

 We take pride in delivering quality and value for money

 Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation

 We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so

that everyone can give their best

 We are one BBC: great things happen when we work

together

2.26 In addition to the public statements about BBC values and

objectives, I wanted to hear how, in practice, those values were
interpreted by senior BBC staff past and present.

2.27 Sir Michael Checkland, Director-General from 1987 to 1992,

said that, to him, the values of the BBC included such matters
as integrity in programme making, universal access to

151
 programmes for the audience and impartiality in the reporting of
news.

2.28 Lord John Birt, Deputy Director-General from 1987 and

Director-General from 1992 to 2000, said that the values of the
BBC were “fairness, impartiality, innovation, quality, human
endeavour and people going beyond what they thought they
were capable of”. He added that there was a deep commitment
to creativity.

2.29 Mr Dyke, who was Director-General from 2000 to 2004 and

who introduced the modern iteration of the BBC values which is
printed on the back of the staff card, said that there was nothing
new in that statement of values. They were the old values,
given a new prominence. He wanted people to aspire to these
values and to be motivated by them. He thought people would
be motivated by the idea that the BBC wanted to be the most
creative organisation in the world. He said that one of the
BBC’s strengths was that it had always been able to make
programmes which did not have to be commercially successful.
But its greatest strength was the staff’s belief in its ethos.
When asked what were the most important aspects of that
ethos, he said that they were independence from Government –
that is political and economic independence – and also honesty
and integrity.

2.30 Mark Thompson, Director-General from 2004 to 2012, said that

Lord Reith would have included in his image of the BBC a
regard for high ethical standards and respectability. Mr
Thompson agreed that those values were important and should
be maintained. He added that that did not mean that everything
had to be serious; far from it. Dance music, light comedy and
the stars of the music hall were appearing even in the 1930s.
Also, these values or standards did not mean that the BBC
could not portray such things as sex and violence, so long as

152
 the treatment had underlying integrity. It was also important to
recognise that social mores were changing and that, by the
1960s and 1970s, there were:

“quite deep debates about values and culture in

this country and indeed across the western
world. Sexual behaviour which once would
have been regarded as completely out of order
is regarded as possibly acceptable, possibly
normative, and the BBC is both trying to reflect
this as a broadcaster and also is wrestling with
some of the consequences of it”.

Mr Thompson added that, although it was sometimes difficult to

work out exactly where the line should be drawn as to how to
apply appropriate standards, when something was clearly on
the wrong side of the line, one had to act. He cited, as an
example which occurred during his time as Director-General,
the decision to suspend Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand
following an incident which occurred on the Russell Brand
Show in 2008.

2.31 When asked about Reithian or BBC values, Lord Michael

Grade, Controller of BBC 1 and Director of Programmes,
Television in the mid/late-1980s, spoke first about
programming. He said that the aims were to get high ratings
with quality programmes and also to push the boundaries by
taking risks on more difficult programming. When asked
whether taste and morality came into programming decisions,
he said that they did although it was often difficult to draw the
line when deciding what was and was not acceptable. The
nature of the programme and its audience would be important
factors and so would the risk of damage to the BBC’s
reputation. I should add that, since interviewing Lord Grade, I
have read the minutes of many of the Governors’ meetings in
the early 1970s and have noted how concerned the Governors
were about the use of swear words and sexually explicit scenes

153
 or language. It appears to me that the Governors in those days
were very concerned indeed about taste and morality.

2.32 Lucy Adams, who joined the BBC as Director of BBC People on
1 June 2009 and left the BBC in 2014, could only speak about
the BBC’s values in recent years. Asked whether the BBC
would be concerned about giving a platform to someone who
was not a good role model, she said that this was very
important. The BBC took its responsibilities towards the public
very seriously “in terms of the individuals it is enabling to
achieve a degree of prominence and celebrity”. I do accept that
the BBC wishes and intends to take this kind of issue seriously
although the evidence I have received suggests that it has not
always succeeded.

2.33 It is not surprising that different people see BBC values in

slightly different ways. However, the core values which this
group of senior people seem to have regarded as most
important were independence, impartiality and the making of
high quality innovative programmes which had underlying
integrity. Some mentioned concepts such as good taste and
moral standards but I had the impression that these
considerations were secondary to the core values. Moreover, I
had the impression that any concern about good taste and
‘respectability’ tended to arise in the context of potential
damage to the BBC’s reputation rather than as a matter of
principle.

Management Rules, Styles and Culture

The Hierarchy

2.34 Everyone seems to agree that the BBC was and is

‘hierarchical’. It has a pyramidal structure. That cannot in itself
be a matter for criticism; some sort of hierarchy is necessary in
an organisation as large as the BBC. However, several

154
 witnesses described the BBC as very deferential. There again,
a degree of deference or at least respect for management is
necessary for the smooth and efficient running of the
organisation. If every decision is challenged, the organisation
will run into the ground.

2.35 That said, my general impression is that most staff (other than
those who had been in the higher echelons) felt that the
management culture was too deferential and that some
executives were ‘above the law’. One witness, who for good
reason has asked to remain anonymous, told me that, as a
personal assistant, she became aware some years ago that her
boss (who is dead) was falsifying his expenses and in no small
way. She was told that her boss was too senior to be
challenged.

2.36 That is an extreme example, but Michael Rix, who, between

1959 and 1995, worked as a cameraman and in the Personnel
Department, as well as holding other roles, told me of a rather
less serious but telling example of the same phenomenon. He
considered that a statement made by a senior executive was
not accurate. He raised this with his line manager but was told
that it was not appropriate to question senior management,
even if senior management was wrong. He had the impression
that whoever would have had to raise the matter with the senior
executive might face reprisals in his or her career.

Vertical Relationships

2.37 As I understand it, BBC management structure was and is

intended to work on the basis that Heads of Department are
expected to run their own departments without close
supervision from above. In other words, responsibility is
devolved to them. In addition, each manager, and below that
level, each producer, is expected to exercise his or her own

155
 discretion to deal with any issue falling within his or her remit
unless he or she is in doubt about what to do or feels that the
decision is too important to be taken alone. In such cases, the
rule is that the issue should be ‘referred upwards’ to the
immediately senior line manager. The impression I have is that
most managers found (and I think still find) that, in general, this
works well. Sir Michael Checkland explained that one of the
consequences of this practice is that the Director-General might
be unaware of many things which were happening in the BBC
because there were so many filters to be passed through
before an issue reached his office.

2.38 I was told about one type of circumstance in which the ‘refer
upwards by one rung’ rule did not work. Several witnesses,
including Mr Wyatt, told me that it was not uncommon for a star
performer (a member of what the BBC calls the ‘Talent’, or the
‘creative elite’) to refuse to accept a decision of his or her
producer and to leapfrog that level, going straight to the
relevant Head of Department or even to a Channel Controller.
Clearly such a practice makes the life of the producer very
difficult and undermines his or her position. Chris Lycett, who
joined the BBC in 1966 and became Head of Production in BBC
Radio 1 in 1991, told me that, from his experience in radio,
presenters had direct lines to controllers and would sometimes
leapfrog the intervening rungs of management. He explained
that presenters were often selected by controllers and would
hang on to that relationship. There was then the possibility, in
the event of a disagreement with a producer, for the presenter
to say “I’ll go and tell the head”.

2.39 It seems to me that the ‘refer upwards’ rule of management will

work well only if managers actually do take their problems to
the next level. It will not work well if, for one reason or another,
they decide to keep things to themselves. One reason why a

156
 manager might not take an issue to the next level is that he
wishes to retain, consolidate or even expand his power base.
Some witnesses described departments as ‘fiefdoms’ or
‘baronies’. If a manager enjoys that kind of power, he might be
unwilling to share it. I have the impression that this could have
been a problem in the Light Entertainment Department in the
1970s and 1980s, where managers were strong personalities,
wielding their power with confidence.

2.40 Another reason why a manager might decide not to take a

problem to the next level could be because he did not get on
well with his line manager. The perception of some witnesses
speaking about the 1970s and 1980s was that some managers
could be autocratic, distant, arrogant or even bullying. Two
examples will suffice. Caroline Haydon, who worked as an
editor and on the production of current affairs programmes in
the late 1970s and the 1980s, said that she was aware of “a
couple of people who would wield power by very aggressive
techniques, by shouting and belittling people in public”. Robin
Smith, a researcher and assistant floor manager on Jim’ll Fix It
between 1987 and 1989, described how he was interviewed for
possible promotion by two senior managers, both lying on sofas
with their shoes and socks off, watching the television. He
painted a picture of two powerful people who felt that they could
behave as they liked and did not show any respect to those
more junior. Plainly, if those were the management styles or if
that was how they were perceived, the ‘refer upwards’ option
would not be used as often as it should.

2.41 I do stress that this was not the universal picture. Some
witnesses spoke of having an easy, open relationship with their
line managers and felt that they could take an issue up the line
without hesitation. For example, Roger Ordish, the producer of
Jim’ll Fix It, did not suggest that there would have been any

157
 difficulty for him in referring a decision up to Jim Moir, his head
of department. Also, staff in the Education Departments found
their environment wholly supportive, respectful and not at all
competitive.

Lateral Relationships

2.42 One feature of life in the BBC about which there seemed to be
almost universal agreement was the marked degree of
separation between various parts of the BBC. To begin with,
there was complete separation between television and radio.
That separation was associated, at least in the early days, with
a strong sense of superiority of one part of the BBC (radio) over
another (television).

2.43 Alan Hart joined BBC Television in 1959 and later became
Controller of BBC One. He said that, in the 1960s, radio and
television were “two entirely different things”. He remembers
going as a guest to a radio quiz show and being greeted with
the words “Ah, Mr Hart, welcome to the senior service”. He
said that, at that time, radio saw itself as established and
superior and television as young and as an upstart.

2.44 Several witnesses gave similar accounts. I shall not mention

them all. B5, a studio manager, told me that there was “a huge
difference in the culture” between radio and television. People
in radio felt superior to those in television but “[even within
radio…] there was a huge feeling of superiority about
Broadcasting House [the home of BBC national radio] as
opposed to Bush House and the World Service”. I have the
impression, however, that, in later years, it was people in
television who felt superior to those in radio.

2.45 Ann Rosenberg, who was working in BBC Television’s publicity

department in 1973, stressed the separateness of radio and
television. She had responsibility for the Light Entertainment

158
 Department. At that time, Jack Dabbs, a BBC Radio producer
was on trial at the Old Bailey on charges of accepting favours in
return for playing records (a form of corruption known as
‘payola’). One might have thought that all parts of the BBC
concerned with music and light entertainment would be
interested and concerned about such a trial. However, Ms
Rosenberg explained that, although she was aware that the trial
was going on, that was all. This was because BBC Radio and
Television had “two completely separate cultures” and “two
completely separate groups of people”. It was a case of “never
the twain shall meet”.

2.46 This sense of separation went beyond the division between

radio and television. Several witnesses recognised a sense of
separation between departments. Some people described the
separate parts as ‘silos’ and the attitude of separation, rather
pejoratively, as the ‘silo mentality’. When Lord Birt arrived at
the BBC in 1987, he found it to be ‘highly baronial’ and that
some parts of television were ‘anarchical’. Dame Esther
Rantzen described the BBC as “a set of private armies” and
added that “they don’t necessarily like each other much”.

2.47 Anne Gilchrist, who eventually became Controller of CBBC,

said that one explanation for the sense of separation and
competitiveness was the financial arrangements within the
BBC. She explained that a department was, and is, rewarded
by the amount of successful business it generates. In her view,
this generates competition but it also discourages collaboration.

2.48 Other witnesses recognised the existence of separate identities

and loyalties but regarded them as the necessary consequence
of the need for specialised skills. They compared the BBC with
a large university with its separate faculties.

159
2.49 The sense of separation could extend to different entities within
the same department and, within a programme-making
department, manifested itself as a strong sense of loyalty to an
individual programme. Sir Michael Checkland thought that “the
generality of the BBC, its staff, engineers and accountants”
gave their loyalty to the BBC as an institution. However, on the
programme side, he thought that “loyalty was to the programme
first and only after that did staff feel a sense of loyalty to the
wider BBC”. That was an impression which I had gained from
other witnesses too.

2.50 Dr Peter Scott-Morgan undertook some consultancy work for

the BBC in 2003. When surveying cultural attitudes within the
BBC, he found that not a single consultee agreed with the value
statement “I put the BBC as a whole before personal or
sectional interests and work to achieve our common goals”. He
concluded that, not only was there a lack of lateral
communication between parts of the BBC but there seemed to
be a tacit agreement that one part of the BBC (he called it an
island) would not interfere with another. These different islands
were highly competitive and protected their own interests, i.e.
their programmes. He thought that this degree of internal
competition was unhelpful but recognised that it flowed from a
“deep seated core set of motivations which are wonderful”.
This, he said, was because the people involved wanted to
make the best possible programmes and “live and breathe this
desire for being as closely as possibly associated with great
and wonderful radio and TV”.

2.51 This positive aspect of competition was also mentioned by Mr

Wyatt and Mr Hart, both of whom had held senior
positions. Mr Wyatt thought that the silo mentality was “not all
bad”; rather it was “a positive good thing” because, in his view,
it was born out of a wish “to excel”. It would not be good if the

160
 ambition of journalists and producers (who are “quite often
individualistic”) to produce high quality work were to be lost. It
was important for the competitive spirit to be channelled for the
benefit of the BBC.

2.52 A notable exception to this tendency towards inter-programme

separation and protectionism was the Continuing Education
Department based in Villiers House in Ealing. Julia Drum
worked in that department as an assistant producer in the late
1970s and the 1980s and she described to me the very strong
collegiate attitude amongst those working within the department
and the frequent sharing of information and research. She
thought that these supportive qualities distinguished that
department from the world of programme making in Television
Centre. She cited a number of reasons why she thought the
Continuing Education Department had such a different culture
from other BBC departments. These included enthusiasm for,
or even adoration of, the subject matter of the programme, the
desire to make connection with the audience, including an
emotional connection and a real commitment to education as a
core value of public service broadcasting. These factors
combined, she told me, made people “less egotistical possibly”
given that they felt that they were sharing a common cause.

2.53 I was given the clear impression that, all over the BBC, the
group of people working on a particular programme would be a
very close knit team. That was the view of Gillian Spiller who,
as an audience coordinator, saw the workings of a number of
different programme teams. No doubt one reason would be the
practical arrangements of everyday life. The team would share
the pressures of hectically busy days or weeks when a
programme was going on air and also the comparatively
relaxed periods in between.

161
2.54 There were, however, other reasons for the development of this
strong sense of loyalty towards a programme. An individual’s
professional reputation and career prospects might well depend
upon the success of a particular programme. So, everyone on
the team would pull together to make that programme better
than any competitor. For much the same reasons, there would
be a feeling that the programme must be kept on an even keel
which would militate against the willingness of a member of
staff to complain or raise concerns about anything untoward
which was happening within the programme team. Dame
Esther Rantzen said that, if a problem occurred within a
particular programme, the team would try to prevent news of it
going further because of the damage it might do. She gave, as
an example, the occasion when Frank Bough was dismissed;
the problem had not been contained within the programme and
an individual who worked on the programme was heard to say
“What has he done to us!”

2.55 It seems to have been recognised that the poverty of lateral

communication within the BBC gave rise to management and
cultural problems. When Mr Dyke came to the BBC as
Director-General in 2000, he found that management and staff
did not get on well; there was a perception among the staff that
they did well in spite of management rather than because of it.
One of his first and main initiatives was called “One BBC” which
was an attempt to make the BBC pull together and – as Mr
Dyke put it – “to stop the people in Newsnight thinking the
people in Panorama were the enemy and vice versa”.

2.56 Ms Gilchrist told me of her regret at the departure of Mr Dyke in

2004 after the publication of the Hutton Report29. Ms Gilchrist
felt that Mr Dyke had wanted to address the failings of senior
management, but this attempt at change had ended when Mr
29
Lord Hutton, Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr
David Kelly C.M.G., HC 247, London: The Stationery Office, January 2004.

162
 Dyke left and, as Ms Gilchrist put it, people felt they could “go
back to the old ways”. She was not the only witness to express
regret at what was perceived as the truncation of Mr Dyke’s
attempts to bring about change.

Promotion and Recruitment

2.57 I understand that, at least until the 1990s, almost all vacant
management positions were advertised only within the BBC.
Even for the most senior positions where this rule did not apply,
there would be a very strong feeling that only ‘a BBC lifer’ could
fill the role adequately; only such a person would understand
the BBC ways. It seems not to have been thought that it might
be a good idea to change the BBC ways by bringing in new
ideas and/or by achieving a greater degree of diversity of
gender and/or ethnicity at a senior level.

2.58 I was told that an important criterion for promotion was creative
success; for example winning a BAFTA. Ms Gilchrist thought,
however, that creative success did not necessarily guarantee
managerial success. Mr Thompson felt that:

“people ... certainly historically, were promoted

to quite senior positions because of past
creative success rather than any demonstrated
management aptitude, and, again, historically
often with very little management training”.

2.59 I noticed the absence of any significant reference to

management training. Some witnesses spoke with warm
admiration and gratitude of the technical training they had
received in their early days. In that regard, the BBC seemed to
provide the gold standard. Yet there was little mention of any
management training, not even basic management training or
training in such matters as diversity, grievance resolution or
child protection. That is not to say none existed. There was
some but it does not appear to have been greatly valued.

163
2.60 I was told that management in the programme-making
departments usually had a technical background; they would
often rise from floor manager, to director, to producer, to
executive producer and onwards into more senior roles. No
doubt that background had its advantages when it came to
understanding the business of making programmes. I doubt,
however, that such a pool necessarily provided the best
management material.

2.61 Another consequence of the bias towards internal promotion

was that people who did join from outside found it difficult to
obtain promotion because they were not ‘one of us’. That was
the answer Eben Foggitt, who joined the BBC’s Copyright
Department in 1987, was given when he asked for, but was
refused, the support of a colleague when making an internal job
application.

2.62 Grenville Williams worked for many years in the BBC’s internal
Management Consultancy Department. His view was that the
presence of so many BBC lifers increased internal resistance to
change. He thought that lifers are adept at working within the
organisation and dealing with its peculiarities so, for example,
the skill of a long-serving cost accountant at the BBC becomes
a skill in cost accounting in the BBC way rather than in cost
accounting as a discipline.

Pride in the BBC

2.63 Although many witnesses were critical of BBC management

and culture, the overwhelming impression I gained from past
and current members of staff was one of a deep affection for,
and pride in, the BBC. I think they would defend the BBC from
external criticism with passion. They were willing to criticise the
BBC themselves; they did so, often trenchantly. But, having
done so, many would end by saying, in effect, but for all that,

164
 the BBC was a wonderful place to work and they are so proud
to have been part of it. A few examples will suffice.

2.64 Mr Thompson said:

“I think it [the BBC] remains the world’s best

broadcaster, by dint of the sheer range of
exceptional creativity and programming that it
does. And it’s maintained an astonishing kind
of eye and ear contact with the British public.
There’s no other broadcaster anywhere else in
the world which has achieved all of that.”

2.65 Jim Moir, who was Head of Light Entertainment, thought that
the BBC “was one of the world’s great creations, full of highly
talented people amongst whom it was a privilege to work…. It
was an uplifting and simultaneously a humbling experience for
forty years”.

2.66 Quentin Mann, for many years a floor assistant and a floor
manager, is very proud of having worked for the BBC. He told
me that he “wouldn’t be … where I am today, without working
for the BBC. They taught me everything that I know about
television, for which I will always be very grateful”.

2.67 Sheila Innes, eventually Controller of Educational Broadcasting,

described the BBC as somewhere “you belonged to and loved
and would sweat your guts out for …”. She told me that people
she worked with had “unquestioning loyalty” to the BBC.

2.68 David Nicolson worked as a director and producer at the BBC

in the 1980s. He said that the spirit was “absolutely wonderful”.
Everybody “took a massive pride in what they were doing” and
he felt “part of a good team of utterly reliable people who were
expert in their field”. He thought that everybody he worked with
at the BBC “loved what they were doing”.

2.69 Kevin Howlett was a BBC Radio 1 producer from 1981 to 1995.
He described BBC Radio 1 as “a wonderful nurturing place” and

165
 said that the executive team was “incredibly supportive” and
gave him “wonderful opportunities”.

Specific Features of BBC Management

Audience Ratings and Programme Review Boards

2.70 In due course, I will have to consider the attitude of BBC

management towards the programmes on which Savile was
employed. One feature which will be of some importance is the
BBC’s use of audience ratings as a means of assessing the
success of a programme. At an early stage of the Savile
investigation, I was puzzled as to why the BBC, as a publicly-
funded broadcaster, should be as interested in, and concerned
about, ratings as it seemed to be. Mr Wyatt observed first that,
“once you have got information about [a programme], anybody
in their right mind would want to know how many people
watched it…”. I see that. However, he then explained that the
thinking was that, in order to justify the licence fee, the BBC
had to ensure that every licence fee payer was getting some
benefit.

2.71 Ratings were important in connection with decisions on whether

a programme was to be continued or axed. This was especially
so for light entertainment programmes, such as Jim’ll Fix It and
Top of the Pops on which Savile worked. Mr Wyatt said that
they were important “because, after all, if you are trying to make
an entertainment programme for families at six o’clock or seven
o’clock on Saturday night, if it isn’t actually entertaining many
families, what are you doing it for?” This view was echoed by
Mr Thompson, who said that ratings were quite important for
BBC One, particularly, for example, on a Saturday evening
because “there was a very strong sense that the BBC should
be offering… family entertainment and should be competing
with ITV”.

166
2.72 Ratings were clearly less important for other programmes.
David Simmons, who worked as a presenter and producer for
BBC Radio 1 and Radio London during the 1970s, said that “[In
Radio] ratings are everything, unless it’s Radio 3”. Mr Wyatt
said that ratings were not important for things like putting an
opera on BBC Two or performing a Shakespeare play.
Attracting a big audience was not the purpose of what you were
doing. In Mr Wyatt’s view, the BBC had a dual role, which had
never been put better than by Sir Huw Wheldon, Managing
Director of BBC Television between 1968 and 1975, who said
“the BBC’s job is to make the good popular and the popular
good”.

2.73 Mr Hart said that the BBC was “very ratings conscious” and that
ratings played too big a part in the judgment by which the
success of a programme was measured. He felt that
programme-makers should have the “the freedom to fail” by
which he meant that they should be encouraged to experiment
and push the boundaries without the fear that they would be
penalised if something did not work. He felt that too great an
emphasis on ratings would not lead to the provision of the best
programmes.

2.74 Lest it be thought that I have gathered the impression that

decisions about programmes were taken on the basis of ratings
alone (which I have not), I must mention what seems to have
been an important feature of BBC life, the Programme Review
Board. These were weekly meetings which took place
separately for television and radio.

2.75 The television meeting was chaired by the Managing Director,

Television or the Director of Programmes. It was attended by
the Channel Controllers, the heads of the London programme
departments, possibly some visiting programme heads from the
BBC regions, some schedule and resource planners, heads of

167
 resource units, some executive producers and the heads of
press and publicity – between 35 and 40 people in all.

2.76 According to Mr Wyatt, the meetings generally started with

consideration of the ratings, often comparing the BBC with ITV.
Several witnesses found these meetings quite intimidating,
especially if they were not regular attenders. The perception of
Mr Foggitt was that the meetings were like being summoned to
the headmaster’s study. If a programme had poor ratings,
those responsible for it would be “seriously berated” and would
be less likely to get the funding they hoped for in the coming
year.

2.77 Whatever the perceived importance of ratings, it seems to me

that the main purpose of the meeting was to provide an
opportunity for criticism of the week’s programmes. The
meeting would consider whether particular programmes were
good enough, were going to be successful and whether they
should be continued or axed. There might be a special
discussion about a new BBC programme or occasionally about
an ITV programme. According to Mr Wyatt, debates at the
meetings were “serious and searching” and, if a programme for
which an individual present was responsible was at the centre
of a public row or had gone off the rails, that person would go
along to the meeting with “case prepared, arguments
marshalled, wits sharpened and not without some anxiety”.
While sometimes a meeting could be “quite self-congratulatory”,
bonhomie could disappear, the meetings could be “quite tough”
and there could be clashes and impassioned debates about
ethical and moral aspects of programmes. Some witnesses
told me that they found the discussions stimulating and useful.

2.78 Programme Review Boards operated in much the same way in

radio as in television. They took place weekly, were chaired
either by the Managing Director of Radio or by the Director of

168
 Programmes (Radio) and were attended by the producers of
the programmes which were being discussed, along with heads
of the programme departments and chief assistants. A list of
programmes to be considered at the meeting was circulated in
advance.

2.79 The perception of David Treadway, who attended in the 1980s

when he was Chief Assistant at BBC Radio 2, was that the
meetings could be combative and competitive and “no-one
would hold back”. If people thought a programme was
“rubbish” they would say so. He thought that meetings could
also be “political” in that some people would talk up a
programme which they wanted to support. He also thought that
some people used the meetings to make a name for
themselves. I would observe that such is human nature.

2.80 My interest in Programme Review Boards lies in the contrast

which they reveal between the BBC’s willingness to engage in
vigorous criticism of the content and quality of programmes and
its reluctance to deal with criticism on issues such as personal
behaviour, to which I will come later in this chapter.

Press and Publicity

2.81 When the Review began, I soon became aware of the

importance that the BBC attaches to its good reputation. The
reputation of an organisation like the BBC depends to a large
extent on what is said and written about it in the media. I was
interested, therefore, to learn about the operation of the BBC’s
press and publicity functions.

2.82 It appears that, although the press and publicity teams shared a
department, located at Cavendish Place, the two teams had
different functions. The press team was essentially reactive; it
would respond to press coverage and, as Gay Robertson (a
publicity officer in the Light Entertainment Department in

169
 television between 1970 and 1982) put it, they would play “a
straight bat for anything to do with the BBC”. Continuing the
cricket analogy, Brian Clifford, who was Head of Information
Services from 1988 until the early 1990s, said that the press
officer was “the wicket keeper” waiting for trouble and that the
press team was essentially static and reactive, on the receiving
end of calls and enquiries and was the defensive part of the
BBC’s media relations operation.

2.83 In contrast, according to Mr Clifford, the publicity officers were

“the bowlers in a cricket match” – in other words a more
proactive team, looking for column inches for programmes the
BBC wished to publicise. However, Ms Robertson told me that
a publicity officer would also try to “preserve the good name of
the BBC” and deal with any adverse publicity affecting
particular programmes.

2.84 Good publicity was especially important to the BBC around the
times when the Charter was to be renewed or the licence fee
came up for settlement. At such times, it was important to
encourage public support for the BBC because such support
would be picked up by the politicians who would make the
decisions.

2.85 It was also important for there to be strong links between the
publicity team and newspapers. Rodney Collins (a publicity
officer for radio in the early 1970s) told me that, historically, the
BBC had always had good relations with the broadsheet
newspapers but that relations with the tabloids were very
different; there seemed to be a sense of hostility on both sides.
He saw his job as trying to improve that situation.

2.86 One of the functions of the press office was to prepare and
circulate a collection of the newspaper cuttings which would be
of relevance or concern to BBC management. In addition, the

170
 office produced a daily news summary which comprised a
digest of what had been said in the press over the previous 24
hours or weekend.

2.87 The press office had important links with the BBC’s duty office.
There were separate duty offices for radio and television. The
primary role of the duty offices was to act as the BBC’s public
interface. Any complaint or enquiry from a member of the
public would be received by the relevant duty office. The duty
office kept a log of complaints, the relevant parts of which
would be delivered to heads of department every morning.
Also any complaint which might lead to publicity was referred to
the publicity office.

2.88 The press offices (radio and television) also kept their daily
logs. Until 1994, these were kept in hard copy and were
referred to by press officers as the ‘Bible’. They contained
information about any important story affecting the BBC. An
entry could be initiated by any press or publicity officer and
would be added to as the story progressed, so as to include not
only a summary of the story itself but also the action being
taken or advised and a list of the people who were involved in
or aware of it. The press log was a permanent record of the
way in which any particular issue had been handled. Because
the press log could be seen by a large number of people within
the BBC, especially sensitive issues were handled in a more
confidential way. The issue would be listed without detail and a
note would refer to the person who had the detailed information
on that topic. Peter Rosier, who worked as a publicity officer
from 1968, said that he would have expected that the press
logs would have been kept at the WAC at Caversham. The
Savile investigation established that the press logs from May
1971 onwards have been preserved in the WAC. However, the

171
 duty office logs have not been preserved (see paragraphs 1.40-
1.43).

The Reporting of Complaints and Concerns – Whistle-blowing

The Universal Problem

2.89 An important feature of the culture of the BBC during the period
with which we are concerned was the reluctance of staff to
complain about bad things which happened to them or to raise
concerns about bad things which were happening within the
organisation. This culture is important because there were a
number of staff who could have reported things that Savile said
or did but did not report them for one reason or another.

2.90 My general impression is that the management culture in the

BBC did not encourage openness in these respects and did not
recognise the sense of insecurity which inhibited staff from
speaking out. However, it is important to say, at this stage, that
this culture was not unique to the BBC; far from it. In my view,
the difficulty experienced by employees wishing to raise a
concern is a widespread, longstanding and intractable problem.

2.91 In my view, which is based on the experience gained during a

long career in the law, as a barrister, as a judge and as the
Chairman of the Shipman Inquiry, the problem is that antipathy
to a whistle-blower, unattractive though it is, seems to be a
basic human instinct. First, fellow workers of the whistle-blower
often regard that person as a tell-tale or snitch and close ranks
against him or her, resulting in exclusion and ostracisation.
Second, managers are either embarrassed at the truth of the
allegation or irritated because they do not think it justified; in
either case the whistle-blower may be regarded as a trouble-
maker. All sorts of detriments may follow, all of which are likely
to be extremely unpleasant and damaging to the whistle-
blower’s career.

172
2.92 It seems to me that organisations both large and small find it
almost impossible to inculcate a culture where people feel able
to report a complaint or raise a concern without fear of adverse
consequences for themselves. The National Health Service
has produced some high profile examples. Perhaps the best
known was the fate of the man who tried to draw attention to
the failure of the Paediatric Cardiac Surgery Department at
Bristol Royal Infirmary. He was ostracised and his life made so
miserable that he eventually emigrated. His vindication came
years later in 2001 in the report of Sir Ian Kennedy following the
public Inquiry into children’s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal
Infirmary 1984-1995.30 The recent Inquiry into Stafford Hospital
has provided further examples.31

2.93 The National Health Service may have attracted more adverse
publicity than other organisations but the problem seems to be
universal. The need to protect employees from the adverse
consequences of blowing a whistle was recognised in the UK in
the 1990s and, largely as a result of pressure applied by the
charity Public Concern at Work, protective legislation was
passed in the form of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It
came into force in 1999.

2.94 There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation has helped but
it has not eradicated the problems faced by whistle-blowers,
and, pessimistic though it may sound, I doubt that there ever
will be a complete solution. That is not to say that employers
should not strive to create a culture where responsible whistle-
blowing is rewarded rather than punished.

30
Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into children’s heart surgery at
the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995, CM 5207, The Stationery Office, July 2001.
31
Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry, HC 898 I-III,
London: The Stationery Office, February 2013.

173
Whistle-blowing in the BBC

2.95 In the 1970s and 1980s, the period with which this Review is
mainly concerned, the BBC had no whistle-blowing policies; I
doubt that many organisations had. Nor did it appear to me
from the evidence I heard that the BBC had applied its mind to
the problems of reporting complaints and raising concerns; nor
had most other organisations. The BBC now has such a policy
but my Terms of Reference do not require me to investigate
how satisfactorily it is working. I must, however, mention that I
was saddened that a few witnesses to the Review asked for an
assurance that their names would not be published in my
Report before they were willing to say something critical of the
BBC. The reason, I suspect, was that they feared some form of
reprisal. One person, who no longer works for the BBC, asked
for anonymity because her spouse still works for the BBC and
she was fearful for her spouse’s position. I would have hoped
that this atmosphere of fear would have been much reduced
now that whistle-blowers have legal protection and the BBC has
a whistle-blowing policy. However, I was told in 2013 that the
atmosphere of fear still existed at that time largely because
obtaining work in the BBC is highly competitive and many
people no longer have the security of an employment contract.
There is a feeling of insecurity among freelancers or those on
short term contracts. In effect, people told me that they could
easily be dropped and there would be plenty of others ready to
take their places. This impression was confirmed by the report
of the BBC’s Respect at Work Review dated 2 May 2013.

Complaining in the 1970s and 1980s

2.96 A number of witnesses told me that, because of the hierarchical

structure of the BBC, the right (or only) way to make a
complaint or raise a concern in the BBC was to a line manager.
However, many members of staff felt that that was not a

174
 suitable means of complaining about a fellow member of staff,
particularly in relation to bullying and sexual harassment. One
reason given was that staff feared that making a complaint
would give the impression to their line manager that they could
not handle such problems themselves; they did not wish to be
thought to be ‘namby’. Even quite experienced and successful
people did not feel able to complain. A19, a freelance
presenter who worked regularly for the BBC, has been reported
in the press as saying that she suffered sexual harassment
from a BBC executive in the 1980s but did not report it because
she was advised by colleagues that, if she did, she would
probably not work for the BBC again. She is reported to have
said that she needed the work and therefore kept quiet.

2.97 C13, who worked in studio management, said that there was no
way of dealing with intrusive and unwelcome sexual behaviour
at the BBC; “there was no road to resolving it; quite frankly”.
Nick Wright, who worked as a floor assistant in the 1960s, said
that there was “no clear channel” for reporting inappropriate
behaviour and “there was clearly no culture of complaining or
reporting”. A24, who worked in Radio 1, as well as other parts
of the BBC, said that she did not complain about “wandering
hands [and] comments about [her] body” because “there was
just a culture of grin and bear it, and it just seemed pointless”.
She told me that she felt that no one was really going to listen
to her or do anything about it if she did complain and she was
concerned that, if she did complain, she might be viewed as “a
trouble-maker”. Joanna Buick, who was one of a very few
women working in Technical Operations in the 1980s (she was
a sound engineer) had reason to make a complaint about sexist
behaviour but, as she said, there were no channels available to
her to report such behaviour.

175
2.98 Although it was possible, in theory, to make a complaint
through the Personnel Department, in practice it was very
difficult. Until the 1990s, there was no Human Resources
Department in the modern sense. The Personnel Department
appears to have been a management administration function.
One witness, who also worked in studio management, told me
that she would never have thought of complaining to the
Personnel Department. As she put it “there obviously was a
personnel office but … they tended to deal with … corporate
things and … employment, recruiting, that sort of thing”. In
addition, C13 said that “the personnel people would not have
been interested” in her complaint which was about Savile.
Gillian Spiller, who worked for the BBC in various capacities
between 1960 and 1999, eventually as an audience
coordinator, said that Personnel “weren’t a particularly good
place to go to, because they were on the side of
management…”.

2.99 I heard of several examples of the failure of the Personnel

Department to deal adequately with complaints in the 1970s,
1980s and even into the 1990s.

2.100 While on attachment to the Personnel Department in the late

1970s, Michael Rix received a call from a man he had placed in
the Drama Department who told him that he was about to leave
the BBC because he felt he was not going to make progress.
He had rejected a homosexual advance from a more senior
person. Mr Rix spoke to a senior colleague in Personnel who
said that he was aware of the situation but that nothing would
be done.

2.101 In 1981, A15, who worked as a production assistant at BBC

World Service in the early 1980s, went to the Personnel
Department with a colleague who wished to report an incident
of sexual assault. The female member of the Personnel

176
 Department told the colleague that making a complaint would
be “not making the right decision”. After some meetings
between the colleague and the Personnel Department, the
colleague decided not to pursue the allegation. A15 told me
that she, too, was assaulted later but did not complain because
she felt no one would listen to her.

2.102 A16, who as a member of the Secretarial Reserve since 1989

has worked in many parts of the BBC made a report of bullying
to a personnel officer in the early 1990s, only to be told that
there was no point in taking action if she wanted to stay with the
BBC. She was told she would be branded as difficult if she
took her complaint up. A16 dropped the complaint as she did
not want to lose her job.

2.103 A17, who worked at the BBC for 15 years from the late 1970s,
reported a sexual assault to her personnel officer who asked
her “if she had a chip on her shoulder”. She knew there and
then that the complaint was going nowhere, so she dropped it.

2.104 A18, who worked for the BBC for 30 years from the 1970s, was
assaulted by a male director. She was encouraged by a female
colleague to go to the Personnel Department, only to be told
that there was nothing the BBC could do because the individual
who had assaulted her was freelance.

2.105 I learned of another case, involving misconduct by a senior

member of staff in the 1980s. Female members of staff wished
to complain that this man was harassing them by inviting them
to take part in sexual games which many would regard as
perverted. When they complained to the Personnel
Department, they were told that nothing could be done. It
appears that one of them then took her story to the press who
published a piece about him. After that things moved quite
quickly and the man departed from the BBC, apparently of his

177
 own accord. Later he sued the publication which had published
the piece about him. The publication pleaded justification. In
due course, he abandoned the libel action.

2.106 As with so many aspects of the evidence about BBC culture

and practice, there are exceptions to the general trend of the
evidence. A8 trained as a camera operator in 1980 and, on
completion of the course, was assigned to a particular camera
team to complete her training. A more senior colleague
subjected her to a campaign of sexual harassment which
greatly upset her and shattered her self-confidence. Towards
the end of her first six months, the colleague had to write a
report on her competence which would determine whether she
remained in employment with the BBC. Over a period of time,
he made it plain that, unless she would have sex with him, he
would write a bad report. She felt that she had nowhere to turn,
in particular because the colleague was also a trade union
representative. However, fortunately for A8, she met a new
personnel officer, named Nina Shields, who had recently been
assigned to cover Technical Operations. Ms Shields took up
A8’s case with senior management (described as being on ‘the
seventh floor’ as opposed to the ‘fourth floor’ which connoted
middle management) and the problem was resolved – at least
to a point. A8 was moved to a different team under the tutelage
of a colleague who could be relied on to treat her properly.
From that time onwards, her career progressed normally.
However, no action was taken against the sexist, abusive
colleague.

2.107 I heard from both Ms Shields and A8. They had not seen or
heard of each other for over 30 years but their recollections of
this incident tallied closely. Ms Shields told me that
management had been aware that A8’s colleague had a
reputation for sexual harassment but were not prepared to take

178
 action against him, possibly because of his talent and ability
and possibly because of his position in the trade union. Ms
Shields also told me that she broadly agreed with the
description of the general run of personnel officers which other
witnesses had given me: they were inactive, and rarely made
the effort to get to know the employees for whom they were
responsible. She wished to do the job differently but this did
not meet with official approval. She failed to achieve promotion
on several applications and, after five years with the BBC, she
moved on.

2.108 Reports continue to appear in the press of female BBC

employees who had reason to complain about the sexual
conduct of male colleagues. These reports lend further support
to the evidence received by the Savile investigation that,
sometimes, the attitude of male managers towards such
complaints was to dismiss them as trivial and to suggest that
the woman complaining was making a fuss about nothing.

Complaining about the ‘Talent’

2.109 If it was difficult in the BBC to make a complaint about another

member of staff, it is not hard to imagine how much more
difficult it must have been to make a complaint about a member
of the ‘Talent’ such as Savile.

2.110 The first reason why this would be so was because of the
deference or even adulation which was, and still is, accorded to
celebrity in our society. The second reason was because of the
attitude within the BBC towards the Talent. The general
perception of the witnesses I heard was that the Talent was
accorded privileges, treated with kid gloves and very rarely
challenged.

2.111 Dr Scott-Morgan used an expression which I think

encapsulated the general attitude towards the Talent. He said

179
 that they were “more valuable than the values”. By this he
meant that a member of the Talent could be so influential in the
BBC or so important to the success of a programme that he or
she could get away with conduct which flew in the face of the
values of the BBC. Managers would not challenge them. He
said that there was a feeling of reverence for the Talent and a
fear that, if a star were crossed, he or she might leave the BBC.
Mr Hart made the same point. He said that he was “quite sure
that [the BBC] would be prepared to overlook certain things for
fear of losing Talent”.

2.112 One of the features of life in the BBC which I noticed with some
surprise was that it was commonplace for presenters and
entertainers (the Talent) to bring guests with them to the
studios. These guests might be invited to the star’s dressing
room where there would be drinks and food. They might watch
the show and be entertained afterwards. In effect, the show
was a social occasion for the star. I am not suggesting that all
entertainers did this but I have the impression that quite a lot
did. Savile certainly did. It was common for him to entertain
guests in his dressing room. Some of these seem to have been
people that he wanted to ‘treat’, possibly to thank them for their
support for a charity. But I have also heard that he often had
an entourage of middle-aged men, whom some people
described as his ‘henchmen’. I am also quite sure that he
invited teenage girls to watch his shows and to spend time in
his dressing room. The fact that it was normal practice for
members of the Talent to have guests meant that no one
questioned who Savile had with him. I do find it strange that
what should have been a place of work was treated by some of
the Talent as a place to entertain. So far as I can make out no
attempt was made to stop this. Having drawn attention to this
as a privilege accorded to the Talent, it is only fair to point out
that it seems to have been quite common practice for BBC

180
 employees to bring friends and relatives (sometimes quite
young people) onto the premises. They would be allowed to
watch shows, go to the Green Room and drink in the Club. It
seems that the BBC did not see anything unusual (or potentially
dangerous) in these practices.

2.113 It could be quite difficult to control the conduct of a member of

the Talent if there were a disagreement within a programme-
making team. There were several reasons for this. Helen
Gartell, who worked in the Light Entertainment Department
from 1969 to 1987, said that some producers protected their
stars because the producer’s career depended upon his or her
association with the programme and the star. If a complaint
were made, the Talent would probably not be removed; instead
the complainant would be moved to another position. However,
she also said that, although the BBC was deferential towards
the Talent, they would not be allowed to get away with
something that was clearly wrong.

2.114 There was evidence about how some members of the Talent
used to get their own way. Anne Gilchrist said that, if certain
members of the Talent did not like a member of staff, that
member of staff would be removed. She recounted how, in
1985, she had done a six-month attachment as a researcher on
Jim’ll Fix It. She knew she had done well but, at the end, she
received a letter telling her that she would not be asked back on
to the programme because Savile had not taken to her. She
also thought that another way in which some members of the
Talent were protected was that some producers would not give
them “difficult feedback” so as to avoid the Talent becoming
unhappy with the producer.

2.115 Through the evidence of Patricia Houlihan, who was involved in

setting up Jim’ll Fix It in 1975, I heard a hearsay account of the
view of Mr Cotton of the Talent. Mr Cotton told Ms Houlihan

181
 that the presenter was “fifty per cent of the product” and that
half of the energy invested by the BBC in a programme had to
go to making sure that the presenter was right, happy and
working well. The other half could go into the content of the
programme.

2.116 There were a few witnesses who did not agree that members of
the Talent were privileged or protected; they thought that the
Talent lost their star status as they walked through the studio
door and were simply part of the creative team without any
special privileges or kid glove treatment. Charles Garland, a
floor manager on Top of the Pops, spoke about a “world
famous star” who was being petulant and would not leave his
dressing room. Meanwhile, a full orchestra was waiting in the
studio. Mr Garland said that the head of department sent a
message to tell the star that a car was waiting to take him
home. The BBC did not pander to the star’s whim. He went
and the orchestra was stood down, presumably at some
expense. I am not sure who won that one. Mr Garland did not
name the star concerned and I do not know whether he was a
regular member of the BBC Talent. I have the impression that
it was regular members of the Talent who were protected from
criticism.

2.117 Mr Moir’s view was that a programme was always bigger than
the individual fronting it, however important that person might
be. He said that the fundamental strength of a show lies in the
strength of the “format, the idea, the editorial idea that drives it”.
To back up his view, Mr Moir referred to a number of successful
shows, with strong ideas behind them, which survived a change
of presenter – he mentioned the Generation Game (fronted
successfully by, among others, Sir Bruce Forsyth and Larry
Grayson) and Opportunity Knocks (fronted successfully by
Hughie Green, Bob Monkhouse and Les Dawson). Mr Moir

182
 acknowledged that, to the watching public, the Talent “carry this
carapace of wonderment and celebrity”. However, he said,
“celebrity … stops at the workplace door and, when we are in
rehearsal, we are co-workers. The Talent is still being
respected, but we are co-workers”.

2.118 This view of the Talent was rare. Mr Moir agreed that he might
have reached this view from his position as a senior manager
and that a more junior person might have a different perception,
although he added that, personally, even when he was more
junior, he had viewed the Talent as co-workers. I accept that
this opinion was genuine but I think it was exceptional. I have
the clear impression that most people in the BBC held the
Talent in some awe and treated them deferentially; they
appeared to have the ability to influence careers and were
themselves untouchable. It would be a brave person indeed
who would make a complaint against such a person.

Different Management Lines

2.119 In the absence of an effective Personnel or HR Department, the

only route for a complaint for most employees was through line
management. Staff working directly for a programme-making
department would be part of a line of management which ran
through the producer (or possibly the editor), maybe to an
executive producer and from there to the head of department.
There could, however, be staff also working on a particular
programme who were not in the same management line. For
example, a floor manager or assistant floor manager or a floor
assistant (the terminology is quite confusing) working on Top of
the Pops, would not report to the programme producer but to
his or her own line management in the Studio Management
Department. Similarly in radio, a studio manager who might
work regularly on Savile’s Travels, would report not to the
producer of that programme but to his or her own line manager

183
 or supervisor in the same department. That was because the
provision of floor management or studio management was a
central service provided to a programme. Similarly, cameramen
and sound engineers had their own management structures;
as, so it appears, did audience supervisors. It follows that a
problem occurring on, say, Top of the Pops could be reported
(if at all) up a number of different strands of line management.

2.120 The effect of this seems to me to have resulted in fragmentation

and a lack of communication about complaints or concerns,
particularly those relating to a member of the Talent. For
example, a complaint about a member of the Talent made
through the supervisors of studio management (such as for
example that described in paragraph 5.61) might well be seen
as an isolated matter and, not being serious in itself, could be
treated as having little importance. A complaint against a
member of the Talent by a cameraman or sound engineer
might well be treated as a request not to work with that celebrity
again rather than a complaint which should result in action
being taken against the celebrity; the manager receiving the
complaint would have no jurisdiction over the member of the
Talent.

Not Reporting Savile

2.121 In the context of potential complaints about Savile, I will

describe in Chapter 5 why several people who suffered at
Savile’s hands were not prepared to make any complaint.
Perhaps the most stark example is C5 whose account is to be
found at paragraphs 5.68-5.70. While on a BBC training
course, she was almost raped by Savile in his caravan but,
after discussing the matter with colleagues, decided not to
make any complaint either to the police or to the BBC. She did
not want her parents to know what had happened and she
feared that a complaint might damage her career in the BBC.

184
2.122 Other staff told us that, if they had become aware of a problem
relating to Savile, they would not have reported it. For
example, Robin Smith, who worked on the production team of
Jim’ll Fix It in the late 1980s and had some concerns about
Savile’s apparent promiscuity, said that he would not have
reported his concerns because he was trying to build a career
in the BBC and he feared that, if he made a fuss, he would
have been “eased out of the way”. In contrast, Helen Pennant-
Rea, who worked with Savile on Speakeasy in the 1970s and
who saw nothing to concern her, said that if she had, for
example, learned of Savile’s sexual interest in teenage girls,
she would have reported her concerns upwards, if necessary to
the Head of Religious Broadcasting. I accept her evidence but
many others would not, in my view, have had the confidence to
make such a report.

Comment

2.123 I have concluded that, during the Savile years, the culture in the
BBC and the BBC’s management style did not encourage the
reporting of complaints or concerns. It was particularly difficult
to make a complaint about a member of the Talent. But it was
difficult even to complain about the conduct of a fellow member
of staff. Given the hierarchical structure, the impracticability of
complaining to anyone other than a line manager and the
weakness of the Personnel Department, the only option for a
victim of inappropriate behaviour during the Savile years was to
put up with it or leave. By and large, they chose to stay
because, in many respects, the BBC was a wonderful place to
work.

Respect at Work Review

2.124 I have read the report of the BBC’s Respect at Work Review,
dated 2 May 2013, which has examined the culture and

185
 practices at the BBC in more recent years in respect of such
issues as sexual harassment, the handling of complaints and
concerns, bullying and whistle-blowing. I draw attention to
passages in that report which correlate closely with evidence
which I have received.

2.125 The report mentions pride in the BBC as the first key theme.32
Like me, the Respect at Work Review found that, although
sometimes quite strongly critical of the BBC, employees of all
types and tenure expressed a deep pride in the organisation;
they felt it was a privilege to work for the BBC. They felt pride
in the BBC’s contribution to society and in the quality of
programmes put out. Like me, it found that employees were
deeply defensive when the BBC was criticised from outside.
Like me, the Respect at Work Review was made aware of the
sense of pride and loyalty which employees said they felt to the
immediate team within which they worked. Like me, it heard
strong approval of the attempts which Mr Dyke had made
during his years as Director-General to improve the
management culture. The Respect at Work Review wondered
whether this approval was based on nostalgia for a bygone era.
I did not have that impression.

2.126 Fear was the Respect at Work Review’s second theme: fear of
complaining, fear of reprisal, fear of losing your job, fear of
getting a reputation as a trouble-maker, fear of not being
promoted if an employee or of not being used again if a
freelancer.33 My Report is also littered with examples of all of
these problems emanating from the 1970s and 1980s and one
witness to whom I spoke (who I will not name) said that it was a
“melancholy fact” that nobody who ever criticised the BBC
remained in the BBC. I note in particular the Respect at Work
Review’s finding that there was a common perception that the
32
Respect at Work Review: Report 02/05/2013, BBC, pp. 18-19.
33
Respect at Work Review, pp. 19-22.

186
 Human Resources Department ‘worked for management’ and
did not provide support for employees who wanted to make a
complaint or raise a concern.34 The perception was that, if a
complaint or concern was raised, it would give rise to a ‘black
mark’ against the person’s name. The evidence I received was
to the same effect.

2.127 The Respect at Work Review noted that witnesses were

anxious to secure a promise of anonymity before they were
prepared to speak to it.35 I noted a similar concern. Whilst the
fact that most of the people who came forward voluntarily to
speak to the Savile investigation were former employees was to
be expected (given the period during which Savile worked at
the BBC), it was nonetheless noteworthy that very few current
employees offered their evidence.

2.128 The Respect at Work Review noted that there were very few
complaints of sexual harassment.36 Statistics are not available
for the 1970s and 1980s but, even if they were, I would not
regard them as being reliable as the evidence I heard was that
people did not complain for a variety of reasons which I have
already set out above. I note that the Respect at Work Review
found that, on the rare occasions where sexual harassment did
arise, there was still difficulty in the reporting structures. It
found that there was no safe and confidential route to report the
problem. As I have noted above, that seems to have been a
problem for a long time.

2.129 The Respect at Work Review reported that many employees

felt that the ‘Talent’ were treated differently and did not have to
adhere to the rules which apply to others.37 They appeared to
wield power over the organisation and those who try to manage

34
Respect at Work Review, p. 35.
35
Respect at Work Review, p. 17.
36
Respect at Work Review, pp. 10 and 27.
37
Respect at Work Review, p. 25.

187
 them. I received evidence to the same effect and it would
appear that this is a long-standing problem.

2.130 The Respect at Work Review reported its findings in relation to

bullying and other forms of inappropriate behaviour unrelated to
sexual harassment or sex discrimination. I have received very
little evidence of such conduct because witnesses who wished
to speak about such matters were held back with the intention
that they would be interviewed later during my Review.
However, as I explain at paragraph 1.15, my Terms of
Reference were changed so that I was no longer responsible
for investigating these topics. These were instead considered
by GoodCorporation whose conclusions were published by the
BBC Executive Board in July 2015.

The GoodCorporation Review

2.131 Although the report of the Respect at Work Review, published

in 2013, suggested that very little change had occurred in the
culture of the BBC since the 1980s, the report of the
GoodCorporation Review dated June 2015, suggests that the
BBC’s efforts to establish good whistleblowing practices are
beginning to bear fruit.

2.132 The report states that there is now a clear message from senior
management encouraging employees to raise their concerns.
A large majority of those interviewed by the GoodCorporation
said that they would be confident to raise a concern with a line
manager or with someone else in a position of responsibility.
However, awareness of the whistleblowing policy (which
provides for a dedicated line of reporting and investigation
rather than reporting to line managers) remains extremely low
outside the senior management team. This shows that more
work needs to be done. The GoodCorporation also made a
number of other recommendations.

188
BBC Clubs and Alcohol at the BBC

2.133 One of the features of life at the BBC which many witnesses
were anxious to speak about was the presence of a licensed
bar on all BBC premises, known as the BBC Club. In many
ways, this was seen as an attractive feature of life because
there was always somewhere to go to wind down after a long
day’s work. However, it appears that, because of the
availability of alcohol on the premises, a great deal of drinking
went on. I shall not describe this in any detail because I do not
think that the drinking culture has much, if any, relevance to
issues I have to determine in the Savile investigation.
However, because so many witnesses wanted to speak about
it, I shall summarise the position as it was described to me.

2.134 Until the late 1980s, most BBC managers had drinks cabinets
in their rooms. The cabinets were replenished at public
expense. Many informal meetings would be conducted with the
aid of alcohol. Even early morning coffee might be laced with a
spirit. I heard accounts of executives and managers being the
worse for wear in the afternoons or at evening engagements.
On the whole, senior executives did not drink in the BBC Clubs.

2.135 A lot of alcohol was drunk at Controllers’ lunches which

occurred on Wednesdays. I understand that little work was
done afterwards.

2.136 I heard of managers who would meet in the Club when it

opened at either 11.30am or noon and would remain there,
drinking, until it was almost time for last orders in the ‘waitress
service’ restaurant. Late lunch would also be accompanied by
alcohol. Some staff found that, if they wanted a decision from
their managers, they had to see them before the drinking
began; it would be no good afterwards.

189
2.137 One possibly useful feature of the drinking culture was that, if a
programme team drank together, it helped to foster team spirit
but the disadvantage could be that, if a manager was part of the
drinking group, boundaries could be blurred. Another good
feature (at least for those who liked drinking) was that the Clubs
were seen as providing chances to meet and exchange ideas
with people from other parts of the BBC.

2.138 I must stress that all the witnesses who gave evidence about
the drinking culture agreed that by no means was everyone a
part of it. Some people would hardly visit the Club for weeks on
end, while they were working on a particular series but then,
when the series was over, there would be a period when they
were under less pressure and visits to the Club could be
frequent and long. It seems that, while it lasted, the drinking
culture was part of the BBC’s ‘work hard, play hard’ ethos. The
drinking culture appears gradually to have come to an end in
the early 1990s.

190
CHAPT
TER 3 – CHANGING
C G ATTITUD
DES AND S
SEXUAL MORES
M

Introdu
uction

3.1 I have
e lost countt of the nu
umber of witnesses
w w have told
who t me
that ‘th
hings were
e different in those da
ays’. Whatt they were
e telling
me is that attitud
des toward
ds sexual behaviour
b and,
a in parrticular,
ds some off the sexua
toward al behaviou
ur in which
h Savile ind
dulged,
were more tolerrant in the
e 1960s, 1
1970s and
d 1980s th
han the
attitudes we havve today. To some extent, I accept
a thatt this is
so. Th nce of this is that, wh
he relevan hen I conssider what staff at
BC knew about Savile’s sexu
the BB ual activities and atttitudes
toward
ds sex, I must
m judge
e their reacctions to th
hat knowle
edge in
the context of the
e mores off the time.

3.2 In thiss chapter, I will pro

ovide a very
v brief summary of the
changing attitud
des in soc
ciety and within the
e BBC on
n such
matterrs as sexual mores, the positio
on of wome
en in socie
ety and
in the workplace
e and child protection
n during th
he period covered
c
by thiss Report. These arre broad to
opics on which
w many have
written
n extensivvely. I sh
hall not attempt
a to summarise the
publish
hed and academic
a work on these
t subjjects. Ins
stead, I
shall attempt
a only to provid
de a backg
ground aga
ainst which
h to set
my exxamination
n of the BBC’s aw
wareness of and atttitudes
ds Savile’s conduct and
toward a characcter.

Chang
ges in Sex
xual Mores
s in British
h Society

3.3 As Britain emerg

ged from post-war
p au
usterity and began to
o enjoy
the rising livin
ng standa
ards whicch came with eco
onomic
expansion in the
e late 1950
0s and early 1960s, there
t was a rapid
change in socia
al and sexxual moress, particula
arly among
gst the
younger generattion. Thiss seems to
o have bee
en associa
ated, at
least in part, witth changess in popular culture,, in particu
ular the
arrival of rock and pop music. In the 195
50s, sex outside
o
age was generally disappro
marria oved of and
a those
e who

19
91
 indulged, particularly women, often acquired a bad reputation.
However, by the 1960s, people were becoming more open and
accepting of such relationships. During this period, it became
possible to read about sex in a way which had previously been
impossible. The failure of the obscenity trial of the publishers of
Lady Chatterley’s Lover in 1960 had a liberating effect on what
the public could read. Works such as Room at the Top,
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning and A Taste of Honey
both reflected and also promoted a much more open attitude
towards sex.

3.4 An important factor in the change in sexual practice must have

been the availability of the contraceptive pill from the early
1960s. The Abortion Act 1967 brought a more liberal and open
attitude to a practice which is as old as time and which had
previously operated on the wrong side of the law and often in
dangerous conditions.

3.5 Until the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, homosexual
activity was illegal even between consenting adults (at that
time, those over 21) in private. That Act legalised such activity,
although at the time it did little to change general social
attitudes towards gay men and women.

3.6 Changes were taking place to the fabric of family life. Divorce
had increased in the post-war years but the law was still based
firmly on the proof of a ‘matrimonial offence’, including of
course, adultery. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 changed that; it
became possible to obtain a divorce by consent, once the
breakdown of the marriage could be demonstrated by the fact
of two years separation. It became possible to obtain a divorce
after five years separation, even without consent or proof of a
‘matrimonial offence’.

192
3.7 Young people gained increased autonomy; in 1970, the age of
majority was reduced from 21 to 18. At about this time, there
was much discussion about whether there should be a
reduction in the age at which a woman could consent to sexual
intercourse. This had been 16 since Victorian times. The age
at which a girl could consent to sexual intercourse was the
same age at which she could marry – with, of course, the
consent of her parent or guardian. One argument advanced by
those in favour of a reduction in the age of consent was that so
many young people under the age of 16 were having sex; they
were not only willing to do it but were not going to be stopped.
At least, that was the perception; whether or not it was true, I
am unsure. The police could only prosecute those few cases
where a complaint was made. Thus, the law was being widely
disregarded. It was argued that, because the law had fallen out
of step with social mores, the age of consent should be reduced
to 15 or, some said, 14 or even 13. It may be no surprise that
Savile himself thought that the age of consent was too high.
Lesley Taylor, who worked on Speakeasy for a time, told me
that, over dinner one evening in the BBC cafeteria, Savile
expressed the view that the age should be lowered to about 12
to 14. What were, in my view, wiser counsels prevailed and it
did not happen; the age of consent remains at 16 today. It was,
I think, recognised that, although some young people will have
intercourse under that age and in practice it is difficult to stop
them, the law must be able to protect young people if they call
for protection and should also seek to protect them from
seduction by adults.

3.8 There was, however, still very little understanding or recognition

at that time of the extent to which young people could be the
victims of sexual predators. Sexual abuse was generally
thought to be rare and to occur only in families with poor living
conditions. Very occasionally there might be a media report

193
 about a paedophile ring but there was no significant public
discussion as there is today of the need to protect children and
young people from potentially damaging sexual contact.

3.9 In short, there was, particularly amongst the younger

generation, a change in attitude towards sexual behaviour
between consenting adults. There was less disapproval of sex
outside marriage or indeed outside a relationship. Casual sex
was still generally disapproved of although not universally. I do
not think there was any general change in the long held view
that homosexual conduct was ‘unnatural’; it was widely
disapproved of. More importantly for my purposes, I am
satisfied that there remained strong disapproval of underage
sexual conduct with boys. However, the real question I have to
address in this Report is whether, in the general population,
these more relaxed attitudes towards heterosexual sex outside
marriage included a more relaxed attitude towards underage
sex and, in particular, a more relaxed attitude towards sex
between an older man and a teenage girl.

3.10 Witnesses have told me that, during the 1960s, 1970s and
1980s, attitudes towards the age of consent became very
blurred. I have already mentioned that there was a public
debate about whether, if a young person of 14 or 15 wanted to
have sex, that ought to be unlawful. I entirely accept that an
increasing number of people regarded sex between, say, a 14
or 15-year old girl and her 17 or 18-year old boyfriend as
acceptable and that the important thing was to help her to avoid
pregnancy. But I am not persuaded that there was a general
approbation of the idea of sex (albeit apparently ‘consensual’)
between a girl of 14 or 15 and a man of say, 30 let alone 40 or
50.

3.11 There are those who would seek to persuade me to the

contrary by pointing to an example of a middle-aged celebrity

194
 who had been in a sexual relationship with an underage girl.
The point being made was there was little real sense of public
outrage when the relationship was reported in the press. I think
it may be that the public were content to think that such conduct
was acceptable for celebrities; they lived in a different world. In
an interview broadcast on Channel 4 News on 2 October 2012,
David Hepworth, the journalist and music writer, spoke about
the press attitudes in the 1970s towards older men (in show
business) having sexual relations with teenage girls. He said
that it was not seen as being as sinister then as it would be
nowadays. There were “huge rock names” who would have
girlfriends who were 16 or 17 or “possibly even younger”.
Nobody was particularly bothered; nobody wrote about it.

3.12 I do not accept, however, that those were the standards of the
ordinary British public applicable to their own families and
friends. I make two observations. One is that, when in 1971,
the News of the World ran articles (entitled The Truth about Top
of the Pops and Something more for the Yard to Probe)
suggesting that young girls attending Top of the Pops were in
moral danger as the result of unsupervised contact with older
men, the public reaction does not appear to have been to ask
what all the fuss was about. People seemed to accept that, if
that was true, it was something to make a fuss about.

3.13 The second is that, although I have heard many witnesses tell
me that sexual mores were different in the 1960s, 1970s and
1980s, not one of them has told me that he or she personally
then thought it acceptable for a man of, say 40 or 50, to have
casual sex with a girl of 15. Some witnesses told me that, if the
girl was 16, that would have been different because, if she was
willing, it would have been lawful and therefore nobody else’s
business. But they would add that they personally found it
deeply unattractive. Some witnesses told me that they believed

195
 that others did not disapprove of such conduct, but not a single
witness said to me that he or she would personally have
thought that such conduct was acceptable.

3.14 I conclude that, although sexual mores changed in the 1960s,

1970s and 1980s, from what they had been before then, they
did not change to the extent that there was general approval of
casual sexual intercourse between a young person in his or her
teens and a much older adult.

Sexual Mores in Show Business and the Music Industry

3.15 I am prepared to accept, however, that different standards of

conduct and attitudes towards sex may well have prevailed in
show business and in the music industry. There will have been
many famous actors and musicians who led what would be
considered ‘conventional’ lives but there is probably some basis
for the general public perception that celebrities have more
colourful sex lives than the rest of us.

3.16 What was new in the 1960s and 1970s was the cult of celebrity
of pop singers and groups and the phenomenon, unknown until
about 1960, of the crowds of young people, mainly girls, who
would flock around them, often screaming at the tops of their
voices. When giving evidence to the Savile investigation,
Canon David Winter (who joined the BBC’s Religious
Broadcasting Department, Radio in 1971 and produced
Speakeasy) described this phenomenon as “hormonal
hysteria”. It appears to have become received wisdom over the
years to believe that those girls (or at least some of them) were
intent, not merely on seeing their pop idols or getting an
autograph, but in having sexual contact with them. It is said
that that enthusiasm or determination would extend not merely
to sexual contact with the stars themselves but to anyone
associated with the star or group – even including the ‘roadies’.

196
Reaction to Revelations about Savile

3.17 An interesting insight into public attitudes towards the sexual

behaviour of celebrities can be gathered from considering the
public reaction, or lack of it, towards Savile’s own writings about
his sex life. In Chapter 6 paragraphs 6.3 to 6.7, I describe
some of the things Savile wrote in his autobiography, As It
Happens, published in 197438. He made it plain that he liked to
have sex with lots of girls, not saying, of course, how old they
were, but calling them “dolly birds” all the same. He said a
number of other deeply unattractive things about himself, not
related to sex. The public reaction appears to have done him
no harm. The Guardian published a review on 16 October
1974 describing the book as “very funny” and making no
adverse comment at all. His later book, God’ll fix it39, to which I
refer at paragraphs 6.12 to 6.15, appears to have largely gone
unnoticed, despite the fact that it contains some surprising and
very unattractive admissions about Savile’s sexual conduct.

3.18 At paragraphs 6.17 to 6.30, I describe the content of a series of

three articles about Savile published in The Sun in April 1983.
These articles appear to be based on an interview with Dan
Slater. Savile appears to have cooperated in the production of
these pieces and did not deny their essential accuracy, when
asked about them later. Nor does it appear that he sued for
defamation. In one of these articles, he boasts about how
many girls he has sex with on a casual basis and stresses that
the girls have to do all the running; he gives them his telephone
number and the rest is up to them. It seems to me that Savile
was confident that these revelations would not damage his
public reputation.

38
J. Savile, As It Happens, Barrie & Jenkins, 1974.
39
J. Savile, God’ll fix it, Mowbray, 1979.

197
3.19 In general, he seems to have been right in that respect.
However, these articles did tarnish his reputation in one
important quarter, the Honours Committee. Papers disclosed
on a Freedom of Information Act application made by Pannone
Solicitors (now Slater and Gordon) which were provided to the
Savile investigation show that newspaper coverage, including
The Sun articles, contributed to several years’ delay in the
award of Savile’s knighthood. It appears that the then Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher (later Baroness Thatcher),
proposed Savile for a knighthood in the early 1980s citing his
charitable work and in particular his fund-raising work for Stoke
Mandeville Hospital. The Honours Committee recommended
that his knighthood should be delayed until completion of the
Stoke Mandeville project, expected in 1983. Then, in April
1983, came The Sun articles. When considering the 1984 New
Year’s Honours list, the Honours Committee minutes record
that they:

“did not feel that sufficient time had elapsed

since Mr Savile’s unfortunate revelations in the
popular press in April of this year. He is much
in the public eye and it is unlikely that the lurid
details of his story will have been forgotten.”

I find it surprising that the Committee was apparently willing to

recommend Savile when the ‘lurid details’ would have been
forgotten. If his lifestyle made him unsuitable for a knighthood,
I cannot see how the lapse of public memory would make him
any more acceptable.

3.20 The Prime Minister “regretfully” decided to defer her

recommendation. However, she suggested that Savile be
considered for the Birthday Honours List of June 1984. To that
proposal, the Honours Committee was still resistant, stating that
it feared that Savile “might be tempted to exploit his title and
that such a high award to him would be liable to bring the

198
 Honours system into disrepute”. Sir Robert Armstrong, then
Cabinet Secretary, agreed with this view.

3.21 The Prime Minister did not give up. In October 1984, she once
again raised Savile’s name for consideration. She expressed
the view that the press reports of some time ago had by now
been generally forgotten and that it would now be appropriate
to recognise his work for Stoke Mandeville. Again the
Committee objected and the Prime Minister reluctantly
accepted that advice. In April 1986, the Prime Minister’s
Principal Private Secretary asked Sir Robert Armstrong to
continue to bear Savile’s name in mind for a knighthood. In
November 1986, the Prime Minister was “most disappointed”
that Savile was not recommended for the New Year’s List of
1987 and wondered how many more times his name was to be
“pushed aside, especially in view of all the great work he has
done for Stoke Mandeville”. She asked that the decision be
reconsidered but she was again met with refusal. The gist of
the decision to refuse was that Savile was a strange and
complex man, who deserved praise for his good works. But he
had made no attempt to deny the accounts of his earlier life
published in the press in 1983.

3.22 Savile’s name was reconsidered in April 1988 for the Birthday
List but was rejected by Sir Robin Butler (Sir Robert
Armstrong’s successor) and the Committee. Sir Robin said:

“But my Committee and I still fear that his manner

of life – on his own confession – has been such
that a high award for him would be an unhelpful
signal when we are still having to grapple with an
AIDS problem which threatens to intensify; and that
a knighthood for him would not benefit the honours
system in the eyes of the public.”

The disclosed papers seen by the Savile investigation do not

reveal the thinking that eventually led to Savile’s appointment in
the Birthday List in 1990.

199
3.23 I have included this account because, to my mind, it illuminates
the thinking of the time. Members of the Honours Committee
were plainly of the view that Savile’s self-confessed way of life
ruled him out of consideration for some time, although not
permanently. It is interesting that the Prime Minister,
apparently aware of the nature of Savile’s confessions, thought
that it was appropriate that he should be honoured, regardless
of those revelations. If the Prime Minister and members of the
Honours Committee did not think that Savile’s promiscuous
lifestyle put him beyond the pale, it tells us a great deal about
the indulgent attitudes towards celebrity of that time. I do not
think that it means that people held similarly indulgent attitudes
towards people in other walks of life. I should add that when
Savile received his knighthood in 1990, the news was received
with general approbation.

Sexual Mores in the BBC

3.24 The first thing I must say about the BBC is that it was and still
remains far too large and disparate an organisation to have a
single set of attitudes towards sex and sexual mores. The
evidence that I have heard suggests that the culture within, say,
the Education Department, was very different from that in, say,
the Light Entertainment Department. Because Savile was a
disc jockey, presenter and entertainer, the main focus of the
Savile investigation has been on the Light Entertainment
Department in television and the BBC Radio 1 network.

3.25 A number of witnesses told me that for members of staff to

engage in sexual intercourse on BBC premises constituted a
dismissible offence. I have the impression that this ‘rule’ was
more honoured in the breach than the observance. No witness
told me of an actual case of dismissal. In the programme Tales
of Television Centre first broadcast on 17 May 2012, there is a
light-hearted conversation between Katy Manning, Louise

200
 Jameson and Janet Fielding about the “naughty” things that
went on dressing rooms. Ms Manning said that “everybody was
doing it on the premises”. Ms Jameson said that they (the
BBC) minded you being drunk or late and Ms Manning agreed
saying: “Yes, drunk or late but not sex”. Ms Fielding said that
nobody could have cared whether you had sex in your dressing
room. “No” agreed Ms Manning, “People were bonking all over
the BBC”. “What do you think those ‘Bs’ stand for?”, asked Ms
Fielding.

3.26 My understanding is that the ‘rule’ against sexual intercourse on

BBC premises did not apply to visiting performers who could
treat their dressing rooms as their private space, rather like a
hotel room.

3.27 I was told that there was an accepted attitude that the things
that went on when a team was out on location ‘stayed on
location’. In other words, casual sexual encounters took place
and were not spoken about afterwards. In addition, Sheila
Innes, who worked in radio in her early days at the BBC and
eventually became Controller of Educational Broadcasting, told
me of a conversation she had had with a man who had worked
as a rigger on the BBC Radio 1 Roadshow. He told her that, at
the end of a day’s work on the Roadshow, there would be a
gathering at somebody’s house at which there would be “plenty
of booze and girls”.

3.28 What about the attitudes of members of BBC staff to the sexual
behaviour of others and, in particular, to the kind of sexual
interest which, as a middle-aged man, Savile had in, for
example, teenage girls? I think that this varied greatly. As
might be expected, senior people have told the Savile
investigation that sexual relations between an older man and a
teenage girl would be a matter of concern. Dr Stella Clarke, a
former governor of the BBC, said that she thought that the

201
 Governors of the BBC would have been very concerned if they
had thought that a middle-aged man employed by or contracted
to the BBC was having sex with a teenage girl, even if the girl
was over the age of 16. Obviously it would be of even greater
concern if the girl was under 16 but she was sure that her fellow
governors would have been deeply disapproving of a
relationship with so large an age disparity.

3.29 Alan Hart, who became Controller of BBC One in 1981, said
that he too would have disapproved of such conduct. He was
asked, on a hypothetical basis, what he thought the reaction
would have been of a junior member of staff who, in the 1970s
or 1980s, had found Savile in his dressing room wearing only
his underwear in the company of a young girl in her mid-teens.
He thought that any member of staff ought to have reported
such an event but that, given the times, a junior member of staff
would have disapproved but would probably “have overlooked it
and not bothered to report it to anybody else”. He said that the
times were “fairly free and easy”. He explained “I mean we
know about pop groups and what they got up to and it was – we
all read about it and heard about it as if it was sort of
entertaining. So that was the climate of the time”. He could see
a junior member of staff being “caught up and star struck
themselves and therefore not doing anything about it”. He said
that he did not approve of that reaction but he could understand
it from a junior member of staff. I recognise that this was his
opinion given in answer to a hypothetical question. I
acknowledge that not all junior members of staff would agree
with that opinion.

3.30 Mr Hart also said that if such conduct had come to the attention
of a producer, he would have expected the producer to report it
to the Head of Department. The Head of Department should
have spoken to Savile, talked to the production staff and to

202
 those people “responsible for getting these youngsters on and
off the premises” and taken steps to ensure that it could not
happen again. If Mr Hart personally had suspected that there
was something going on that should not have been going on,
he would have reported it to the Director of Personnel or the
Director-General.

3.31 Mr Hart was also asked what sort of circumstances of this

nature might justify the attention of the Controller. He thought
that the Controller should have been told if there was a
suspicion of illegal activity or if the circumstances threatened to
damage the reputation of the BBC. He added that such
information might not have come to the attention of the
Controller but could have gone straight to the Managing
Director, Television or the Head of Personnel.

3.32 I spoke earlier about the perception that, in the 1970s, many
teenage girls were ready and more than willing to have sex with
their pop idols. I think there was a feeling among some BBC
staff (particularly those associated with Light Entertainment)
that sexual contact between celebrities and young girls on BBC
premises was almost inevitable. A journalist told me that, while
working at the BBC in the 1980s, he had seen a crowd of young
girls standing in the corridor waiting to get into the Top of the
Pops studio. He said that it was hard to tell their ages as they
were “made up to the nines” but from the conversations he
overheard, he had the impression they were there in the hope
of “bedding the presenter”.

3.33 Quentin Mann, who worked as a floor assistant on Top of the

Pops, thought that anyone working at the BBC would have
been concerned if they had thought that a member of a
participating audience under the age of 16 was having sexual
contact with an older man. He heard rumours that some of the
temporary workers, by which I think he meant the ‘stand-ins’

203
 (men hired on a casual basis to assist on the show and whose
duties included supervision of the participating audience)
‘picked up’ girls they met in the audience. He did not, however,
perceive this to be a problem because all members of the
audience had to be at least 16. If they were not 16, they would
not be allowed in. He did, however, with the benefit of
hindsight, appreciate the difficulty of gauging the age of some
of the girls and, with some reluctance, agreed that some might
‘dress up’ and claim to be 16 so as to be allowed in.

3.34 Ann Rosenberg, who worked as the publicity officer for Light
Entertainment in the 1970s, thought that, if it had been known
in the early 1970s that disc jockeys such as Savile had sex with
underage girls, the Corporation would have disapproved. She
added that, in those days, people were not as aware of the
damage which could be caused to underage girls by having
casual sex. She thought that people were not as aware of the
significance of the age of consent as we are today. There was
a “much more relaxed approach”. She said that there was “an
acceptance that people in the pop world were men behaving
badly or even women behaving badly and it wasn’t seen in
quite the same way that we see things now”. She also said that
it was generally accepted in the 1970s that bands had
‘hangers-on’ who followed them around and were sexually
available. So far as the BBC was concerned, she thought that
their attitude to this kind of conduct would have been that, so
long as it was not habitual, “people were going to turn a blind
eye, because the consequences of dealing with it would have
been enormous”. She made it clear that by ‘consequences’ she
meant reputational damage to the BBC. She added that, the
culture of the time was such that there was not “a moral police
… attitude”.

204
3.35 Gay Robertson, who was a BBC publicity officer in the 1970s
and 1980s, agreed with the suggestion that, if faced with press
speculation about a BBC personality having had sex with
underage girls, the moral welfare of the young girl would not
have been a significant concern to senior Light Entertainment
personnel. Ms Robertson said that she expected that the
producer concerned would have been summoned by
management and told “this is a very poor show, you’d better not
let it happen again” but management’s primary concern would
have been the reputation of the BBC rather than the moral
welfare of the young girls concerned. She said that that would
not have been “on anybody’s radar”. She said that the age of
consent was “not a big deal, I don’t think, in those days”. She
thought that the assumption in Light Entertainment would have
been that, if the parents let them attend Top of the Pops, “it was
how they were brought up”. If there had been press
speculation of this kind, she did not think that management in
Variety would have thought “oh my God, the BBC is conniving
at the downfall of girls who don’t know any better”. They would,
however, have wanted to put a stop to it.

3.36 Johnny Beerling, who was an executive producer in Radio 1 in

1972 and later became Controller of BBC Radio 1, said that he
thought that BBC management would not have been terribly
concerned if rumours had come to their attention that Savile
was having sex with girls who may have been slightly below the
age of consent (although he, personally, being the father of a
teenage daughter, would have been concerned). Mr Beerling
agreed with the suggestion that, had there been a risk of such
rumours becoming public and thereby threatening the BBC’s
reputation, the position might well have been different and the
BBC would most likely have considered it necessary to take
action.

205
3.37 Chris Lycett, who worked as a producer in BBC Radio 1 and
later became Head of BBC Radio 1 thought that Doreen Davies
(a BBC Radio 1 executive producer in the 1970s and the
1980s) would have disapproved if told that Savile was having
sexual relations with teenage girls, even if the girls were over
16. Having met Ms Davies, I am sure he is right. He told me
that, if Derek Chinnery (Head of Radio 1 in the 1970s and later
Controller of BBC Radio 1) had been given to understand that
Savile was having casual sexual relations with girls of 16 or 17,
he would have expected Mr Chinnery to escalate the matter to
Douglas Muggeridge, Controller of BBC Radio 1 and BBC
Radio 2. He was unable to think of any of his BBC Radio 1
colleagues who would have thought it acceptable for Savile to
have sexual relations with girls under the age of 16. They
would not, however, necessarily have raised it within the
organisation unless they had “firm proof”.

3.38 Jeff Simpson, who worked as a press officer for BBC Radio 1 in
the 1980s and 1990s, agreed with the suggestion that, in the
late 1980s, the general attitude in BBC Radio 1 would have
been quite matter of fact about the notion of a man of about 60
having sex with a girl of 17. Mr Simpson said this was because
there was a prevailing macho, masculine culture.

3.39 I have heard a great deal more evidence about attitudes

towards sexual misconduct than can be related in this chapter.
I have attempted to pick out some strands of evidence relating
mainly to Light Entertainment and BBC Radio 1. However, one
strand which runs through the evidence is that sexual
misconduct would be of particular concern if it was likely to
cause a scandal and damage the BBC’s reputation. My overall
impression in respect of both Light Entertainment and BBC
Radio 1 is that, although staff disapproved of casual sexual
conduct involving teenage girls, some regarded such conduct

206
 as an unavoidable aspect of modern life and felt that there was
nothing which could be done about it; the girls were willing and
it was up to them. I also have the impression that this attitude
was fostered or at any rate allowed to remain unchallenged
because there were so few women in senior positions. I think
that the dominance of male management created or permitted
what has been called a ‘macho’ culture. This culture was
manifest in two ways, in attitudes towards sex and what was
acceptable behaviour and also in attitudes towards women in
the workplace, to which I will now turn.

Sex Discrimination

Sex Discrimination in British Society

3.40 Before the 1970s, sexual discrimination was endemic in British

life. In general, women were discriminated against; in at least
one respect (pension age) the discrimination favoured them. It
was the rule in some large organisations, even after the Second
World War, that a female employee would be dismissed on
marriage. Women were completely excluded from many types
of work and were virtually excluded from others by the attitudes
of the male majority. There were some types of work which
were generally regarded as a male preserve. My own
experience was not untypical; in 1957, I was told by a
Government Careers Service adviser to “forget about trying to
become a barrister; the law is a man’s world”.

3.41 However, in the 1960s, attitudes were beginning to change and,

by the early 1970s, the law was starting to reflect those
changing attitudes. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) was enacted in
1970 “to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and
conditions of employment, between men and women”. It
followed the strike in 1968 by sewing machinists at the Ford
Dagenham plant (quite recently depicted in the film and play

207
 Made in Dagenham). The EPA sought to secure that
employers gave equality as regards the terms and conditions of
employment to men and women employed on like work. The
EPA did not come into force until 29 December 1975, to allow
employers time to prepare for compliance.

3.42 In the period between the passing of the EPA and its coming
into force, a series of papers by the Conservative Government,
the Labour Party in opposition and the new Labour Government
proposed further reforms. The 1974 White Paper Equality for
Women expressed the then Labour Government’s desire to
“give a lead to the nation … [to] encourage a major shift in the
attitudes and actions of individual men and women so as to
give reality to the ideals of justice and equality”40. The White
Paper made it clear that it did not seek to address private
relationships, but rather the social questions of the status of
women in society, the disabilities and disadvantages imposed
upon them and their consequences. The ensuing Sex
Discrimination Act 1975 made unlawful certain kinds of sex
discrimination and discrimination on grounds of marriage and
established the Equal Opportunities Commission to work
towards the elimination of such discrimination and promote
equality of opportunity between men and women generally.

3.43 Of course, changes in the law do not change attitudes overnight

and, forty years on, discrimination on the ground of gender has
not been stamped out. It is not necessary for the purposes of
this Review to analyse the development of equality and
discrimination law in any detail. It is, however, worth noting
that, although sexual harassment in the workplace was
extremely common, very little was done to combat it. Nothing
was done during the years with which this Review is mainly
concerned. A woman who wanted to sue in respect of sexual
40
White Paper - Equality for Women, Cmnd. 5724, Stationery Office Books, 1974,
paragraph 124, p.27.

208
 harassment at work (usually alleging insulting conduct or sexual
pestering by a male colleague) had to rely on the direct
discrimination provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
and demonstrate that her treatment was different from the
treatment which would have been accorded to a man in a
similar situation. This was often difficult and rather artificial as
the conduct was not discriminatory in the ordinary sense of the
word. However, in 1997, the Protection against Harassment
Act was enacted with a view to protecting all victims from
harassment whatever the source or circumstances of the
harassment. The 1997 Act introduced both criminal offences
and civil remedies. It became much easier to obtain redress for
harassment at work. It was not until 2005 when the
Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations came
into force that there was a specific remedy for sexual
harassment at work. The following year, a general statutory
duty was imposed on all public authorities to have due regard to
the need to eliminate unlawful gender discrimination and
harassment and to promote equality of opportunity between
men and women. This duty bound the BBC, as a public
authority, and has since been superseded by the single public
sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Given the
timeframe of matters considered by the Savile investigation, I
have not analysed the steps taken by the BBC to comply with
these duties, which are of recent origin.

Sex Discrimination in the BBC

3.44 Legislation is, of course, only one piece of the social context
against which Savile’s behaviour and the BBC’s reaction to it
must be assessed.

3.45 The culture and history of the BBC have been covered
extensively by historians and commentators and it is not the

209
 purpose of the Review to replicate their work.41 Similarly,
attitudes towards women in the BBC have been analysed, not
only by historians and commentators but, perhaps more
significantly, by the BBC itself in a number of ways from the
early 1970s onwards. I wish only to draw attention to a few
factors which seem to me to be of interest.

3.46 According to Women in Top Jobs by Michael Fogarty and

others42, the BBC was unusual in its treatment of women in the
early days. It adopted a policy of equal pay for women. Also,
from the outset, women were not required to leave their posts
on marriage and married women were not barred from applying
for employment. This may sound unremarkable but, as I have
already noted, such rules were common in large organisations.
The same authors note that one of the very first set of
Governors of the BBC was a woman and that, as early as 1931,
there were married women at the head of the Schools and
Adult Education sections and women executives in several
other departments. The Head of the BBC Talks Department
was a woman. It appears that women held a number of
important positions during the war.

3.47 However, these promising beginnings were not sustained and,

by 1969, there were very few women in senior grades. Only
1% of those in the top grades (known as ‘A’ and ‘A Plus’) were
women. In the next most senior grades (MP7 and MP6), only
5% were women and in the next grade down, MP5, only 7%
were women. These figures give a useful picture of the gender
mix in senior management at the start of the Savile era. I
acknowledge that the imbalance of women in senior grades
was a matter of some concern to the BBC. In 1970, in a report

41
See for example Asa Briggs’s five-volume history.
42
M. Fogarty, A.J. Allen, I. Allen & P. Walters, Women in Top Jobs, George Allen and
Unwin, 1971.

210
 on the General Trainee Scheme43, it was noted that, of 93
graduates selected for the scheme between 1954 and 1968,
only 7 had been women. Of those selected, it was reported
that they had not proved particularly successful. Several
reasons were offered for this, including the fact that some
women marry at an early age, that women are not as ambitious
as men, that the anti-intellectual bias in English society affects
the way clever women behave in the presence of men and that
“[women] do not seem to possess the same originality, fertility
in ideas and ability to present the mundane with journalistic flair
as do their male colleagues”. It was also suggested that
women were over-conscientious, worked too hard and took
criticism of their work too personally. It was said that they
allowed their sometimes “extremely complicated” personal lives
to affect their work. The impression I have from this report is
that the authors felt that the imbalance of women in senior
grades was due to inherent characteristics in women (about
which nothing much could be done) rather than a problem
which ought to be tackled.

3.48 Apart from providing that snapshot of the position of women in

the BBC in 1969, I must record some of the evidence I received
from those working at the BBC during the 1970s relating to
attitudes towards women, in particular within Light
Entertainment.

3.49 The first point to make is that some parts of the BBC had an
enlightened attitude towards the appointment and advancement
of women. For example, Julia Drum, who worked for the BBC
from 1978 until 1996, mainly in Education, said that when she
joined the Continuing Education Department in 1978, she found
that the:

43
Controller, Staff Training & Appointments (C.S.T.A.), General Trainee Scheme Paper,
Board of Management, 1970.

211
 “gender mix was much more balanced than I
understand it was in other departments. We had a
woman head of department; we had some very
feisty feminist women producers who were
‘Women’s Lib’ types. … I would say that there was
a huge amount of respect between people”.

I have the clear impression however, that, in other parts of the

BBC, it was much more difficult for a woman to progress.

3.50 Caroline Haydon, who worked as an editor and on the

production of current affairs programmes in the late 1970s and
the 1980s, felt that one of the obstacles to promotion that
women faced at the BBC was “the macho atmosphere” created,
in part, by a tendency to assume that only men could handle
managerial positions and that they were more in their comfort
zone when working with other men.

3.51 Suzanne Davies, who worked at the BBC from 1965 until 1994,
said that it was very difficult for women to get on in the BBC in
the 1960s and 1970s both behind and in front of the camera.
There was gender demarcation on jobs. Very few women were
able to advance. She mentioned exceptions to this position, for
example, the journalist Grace Wyndham Goldie in News and
Current Affairs and the presenter Joan Bakewell (now Baroness
Bakewell DBE).

3.52 A24 worked in the BBC between 1971 and 1977 including in
Radio 1. She told me that she did not think that “women were
terribly highly rated”. She wanted to go into production. There
was an annual assessment (which would be called an appraisal
today). She was asked how she wanted her career to
progress. She told me that:-

“In the first year, I said what I wanted to do and a

year went by and nothing had come of it, and after
three years of being asked what I wanted to do, I
decided that I was going to have to leave and do
something else.”

212
3.53 A25 did not join the BBC until 1986. She worked in both
television and radio. She was told by a colleague about a
rumour that Savile was “a paedo”. She mentioned that to a
female editor. The editor’s response was that it was very tough
to get on at the BBC as a woman and that, as a result, A25
might not want to ‘rock the boat’ by taking this any further.

3.54 Where a woman had succeeded in gaining promotion, however,

she might still be met with a sexist attitude. When Ms Innes
(whom I mention earlier in this chapter) went to her first
Programme Review Board (for further detail on these meetings
see paragraphs 2.74-2.80), in the mid-1970s following her
promotion, she received a note of ‘welcome’ from a Head of
Department, now deceased, who wrote “Very good. If you had
been black and had only one arm, you would have gone
straight to the top”.

3.55 Within Light Entertainment, the evidence was that, in the 1970s,
the roles open to women were generally very limited and were
confined to more junior positions. In general, women worked in
administrative positions and as floor assistants, production
assistants and researchers. They rarely worked in technical
roles. Very rarely did women advance up the programme-
making hierarchy to become producers, let alone occupy more
senior management positions. According to Dame Esther
Rantzen:-

“women weren’t allowed to work in Light

Entertainment...because, being the fragile creatures
we are, we would not have been able to take the
rude words that occasionally emitted from people’s
mouths”.

Beryl Hoda, a production assistant in the Light Entertainment

Department in the 1970s, explained that Bill Cotton would not
allow women to become floor managers because:-

213
 “it wasn’t…the right role for a woman because
cameramen were a rough lot, they might swear and
it wasn’t right for a woman to be on the floor…They
were to be kept in their place in the gallery”.

Ms Innes said that, although Mr Cotton was a delightful man to

work for, his attitude towards equality was “what’s all this
nonsense about equality then?” Ms Innes added that this
remark had not bothered her as much as perhaps it should.

3.56 Anne Gilchrist, for a short time a researcher on Jim’ll Fix It but
later Controller of the CBBC Channel, said that it was very
difficult, as a woman, to make one’s way in the light
entertainment genre.

3.57 This view of Light Entertainment as a male-dominated

environment in the 1960s and 1970s is consistent with historical
analyses of the BBC during this period and contemporaneous
reports within the BBC.44

3.58 Even in Personnel Administration, the roles open to women

were restricted as it was not thought appropriate to have
women administering male engineers.

3.59 I was told that BBC Radio 2 was a ‘male preserve’ and BBC
Radio 1 much more so. David Treadway, who was Chief
Assistant BBC Radio 2 in the 1980s, observed that most of the
decisions in BBC Radio 1 and 2 were taken by men. He
mentioned some notable exceptions to this rule, for example
Ms Davies at BBC Radio 1 and Frances Line, who was Mr
Treadway’s predecessor as the Chief Assistant at BBC Radio 2
before moving to the same position at BBC Radio 4; she later
become Controller of BBC Radio 2. At one stage, it was made

44
See S. Franks, Attitudes to women in the BBC in the 1970s: Not so much a glass
ceiling as one of reinforced concrete, Westminster Papers in Communication and
Culture, Vol 8, Issue 3, December 2011, esp pp. 128-129; H. Sutherland, ‘Trousered’ and
‘Sexless’ at the BBC: Women Light Entertainment Makers in the 1970s and 1980s,
Journal of British Cinema and Television 10.3, 2013, pp. 650-663; D. Moran, Limitations
to the Recruitment and Advancement of Women in the BBC, BBC, 1973.

214
 clear to Mr Treadway that his BBC career might benefit from
him joining the Masons, which he declined to do. He felt that
one needed to be “in the right club”.

3.60 Mr Beerling was adamant that, in his time as Controller, BBC

Radio 1 was not male-dominated. He explained that he tried to
improve the position of women in BBC Radio 1, for example by
changing the role and title of secretaries to Radio Programme
Assistants. Also during his time, he introduced seven or eight
female presenters. However, he had to acknowledge that there
were very few female producers and executive producers
between 1985 and 1993. Later, in correspondence with the
Savile Investigation, he pointed out that, at the most senior
level, which comprised the Controller, the Chief Assistant and
three executive producers, there was one woman (Ms Davies)
so that the gender proportion was 20%, which he thought could
not be described as ‘very few’. However, when the producers
were included, only one of whom was a woman, the proportion
of women must have been very small, as I think Mr Beerling
had accepted when giving evidence.

3.61 Liz Kershaw described arriving at BBC Radio 1 as a disc jockey

as a shock. She said:

“I felt I’d walked into a rugby club locker room.

… There was no notion that any … girls
[secretaries] could … ever get on the air if they
had any ambitions in that department, or that
they could rise … up the ranks of management
and, for myself, it was a real no man’s land,
because you were neither one of the girls or
one of the boys. And in fact the boys, i.e. the
male DJs, very, very overtly in some cases and
very subtly in others made sure you knew
exactly where your place was, that you had
infiltrated their gang, that you really had no
business being a DJ, being a girl … it was their
world and you weren’t really that welcome”.

215
3.62 To some extent these accounts reflect the nature of the times.
It is of interest that the BBC was aware of these problems
during the 1970s.

3.63 In 1971, Women in Top Jobs had commented on the BBC’s

treatment of women.45 The BBC launched its own investigation
into the reasons for inequality, resulting in Douglas Moran’s
report Limitations to the Recruitment and Advancement of
Women in the BBC46. The report included accounts of
discriminatory attitudes towards women coming from senior
members of BBC staff, including some in Light Entertainment
Television and in Radio47. This caused the BBC to start
compiling statistics on women’s progress in the organisation
and a decision was made that, henceforth, all jobs would be
open to women.48 Annual reports were produced each year on
women in the BBC and, in 1984, Monica Sims was asked to
report on the shortage of women applicants for top jobs in the
BBC. Her 1985 report, Women in BBC Management, made 19
recommendations.49 What is apparent is that, although
management were taking greater interest in the representation
of women, Light Entertainment was slow to change. Also, I
have the impression that there was no attempt by senior
management to change the attitudes of middle management,
the level at which most problems would be raised.

Sexual Harassment within the BBC

3.64 In this respect too, the Savile investigation has focused on the
treatment of women within the Light Entertainment Department
and BBC Radio 1, the areas in which Savile worked most

45
Women in Top Jobs, Part Three, Women in the BBC, p. 155.
46
D. Moran, Limitations to the Recruitment and Advancement of Women in the BBC,
BBC, 1973.
47
Limitations to the Recruitment and Advancement of Women in the BBC, pp. 23-24.
48
Attitudes to women in the BBC in the 1970s – not so much a glass ceiling but one of
reinforced concrete, p. 130.
49
M. Sims, Women in BBC Management, BBC, 1985, pp. 9-10.

216
 frequently. The impression I have is that sexual harassment
was common in those departments, more common than in
many other parts of the BBC. Women found it difficult to report
sexual harassment. Generally, the attitude of the male
managers was thought to be unsympathetic and, of course,
there were very few female managers.

3.65 Tina Ritchie, who, in the early 1990s, worked as a newsreader

on BBC Radio 1, described hearing of “a lot of sort of bottom
slapping of women in the office” at Egton House, which
contrasted with her experience in current affairs at
Broadcasting House. She attributed the contrast to:

“these incredibly famous men … surrounded by

people who did exactly what they wanted
because they were incredibly famous. It is sort
of one feeding the other, and everybody
surviving slightly on a culture of fear, because
one word from a presenter and you would be in
trouble, which is why I didn’t say anything”.

3.66 One witness, who worked in BBC Radio 1, said there were lots
of “wandering hands, comments about your body…chaps just
felt it was perfectly fine to put their hand on your bum…and
other places.” Another who also worked in BBC Radio 1
described how a colleague would put his hands up the front of
her jumper while she was working. When she complained to
her manager, the reaction was to ask her if she was a lesbian.
In the witness’s view, “if it didn’t come from the top, [this culture]
was supported and endorsed and allowed to continue from the
top”.

3.67 Mr Beerling accepted that there were “touchy-feely people who

would always go and put their arm around a girl” but said that
challenging such behaviour did not feature high on his list of
priorities. He thought that the young women were “strong
enough to stand up for themselves and [could] give as good as
they got, and probably would have done”. He was anxious to

217
 stress, however, that he himself never received a complaint of
sexual harassment either directly or through any of his
executives. On that basis, he roundly rejected the suggestion
that anyone could have regarded him as ‘unsympathetic’. I
stress that no witness complained that he personally had been
unsympathetic but the fact that, of his own admission,
challenging ‘touchy-feely’ behaviour was not high on his
priorities, may have meant that women did not feel able to bring
a problem of that nature to him. Mr Beerling also wished to say
that, having worked in BBC Radio 1 from 1967 to 1993, he
thought that everyone was pretty content and he would
compare the network to a big happy family. I do not doubt that
that was his perception but it was clearly not the perception of
some of the women working there.

3.68 C41 was a record promoter who frequently visited BBC Radio 1
producers at Egton House. At that time (late 1968 to early
1970) there were very few female record promoters and she
found that some (but by no means all) of the BBC Radio 1
producers treated her with a complete lack of respect. She
believes that that was because she was a woman. She said
that the place was “very male oriented and, looking back, I
believe now that women were looked upon as objects to be
used rather than serious minded persons, if you like. It took me
a long time to get anyone to take me seriously”. She felt that
she had to get it across to the producers that “I am coming in
here, I am promoting a record. I’m not here with a key to some
bedroom somewhere and I’m not here to throw myself over
your desk, I am here to promote this record”. She said that the
atmosphere at Top of the Pops was similar. However, apart
from a single incident when she was assaulted by Savile on the
staircase at Egton House (see paragraph 5.57), she did not
experience any inappropriate physical touching.

218
3.69 In Chapter 2, I described the evidence about reports of sexual
touching and harassment made to the Personnel Department
which were treated inappropriately and came to nothing. Those
reports are also of relevance to this chapter but I do not
propose to repeat them.50

Child Protection

Child Protection in British Society

3.70 Since Victorian times, British society has recognised the need
to protect children from sexual abuse, although it is only fairly
recently that it has appreciated how much protection is needed.
According to the text Child Abuse: Law and Policy Across
Boundaries:51

“The single unifying term ‘child abuse’

encompassing all child maltreatment emerged
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the 19th
century no single term was used to designate
adult-child sexual contact. ‘It could be called
unlawful carnal knowledge, incest, criminal
assault, an outrage, an unnatural act, a slip.’
Similarly the child protectors of the 1880s and
onwards used several terms, predominantly
‘child cruelty’ and ‘child neglect’, to define the
types of evil which they were intent on
preventing and punishing. Even when the term
‘child abuse’ began commonly to be used in the
1970s, it was used primarily to refer to the
physical assault of children. The term became
all-encompassing in the late 1980s when the
problem of child sexual abuse became more
widely recognised. The, now common, use of
the term ‘child abuse’ gives the impression of a
universal consensus about what acts and
omissions are abusive; however this is far from
true.”

3.71 From the 19th Century, the criminal law sought to protect
children from sexual abuse. The Criminal Law Amendment Act
50
Report, paragraph 2.99 onwards.
51
C. Hoyano & C. Keenan, Child Abuse: Law and Policy Across Boundaries, Oxford
University Press, 2007, p. 7.

219
 1885 provided for offences of carnal knowledge of a girl under
13, and from 13 to 16. Later, a range of offences from rape to
unlawful sexual intercourse, gross indecency and indecent
assault, to name but a few, covered sexual acts against
children.52 The Sexual Offences Act 1956, a consolidating
statute, provided for offences in relation to children (girls) under
13 and children (girls) under 16, with heavier penalties for the
former. There were separate offences of buggery and what
was then termed “gross indecency” between men. Further
offences of indecent conduct were provided for in the
Indecency with Children Act 1960, which used an age limit of
14 years. There was (and still is), however, no legal definition
of “paedophile” in English law, although there were various
offences (some of which I have mentioned above) under which
those who sexually abused children could be prosecuted.53

3.72 It has been said that child sexual abuse was rarely reported in
Britain until the late 1970s.54 Critical to the emerging
awareness of the prevalence of child sex abuse was Mrs
Justice Butler-Sloss’s (later Baroness Butler-Sloss) Report of
the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 198755. The inquiry
arose from the unprecedented rise in the medical diagnosis of
child sexual abuse in Cleveland in May and June 1987,
principally at Middlesbrough General Hospital. The inquiry
lasted 74 days from August 1987 to January 1988 and the
report was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State
for Social Services in July 1988. The report noted that:

52
There is a useful list at p.5 of the Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in
Cleveland 1987, E. Butler-Sloss, Cmnd. 412, London: HMSO, 1988.
53
See House of Lords Written Answers: HL Deb 14 Oct 1997: Column WA113; HL Deb
11 Oct 1999: Column WA19.
54
A. Brook, Implications of the Cleveland Inquiry: Child sexual abuse demands
cooperation, BMJ, 16 July 1988, Vol. 297, p.151 citing chapter from P. B. Mrazek & C.H.
Kempe, Sexually abused children and their families, London: Pergamon, 1981, chapter 4.
55
E. Butler-Sloss, Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987,
Cmnd. 412, London: HMSO, 1988.

220
 “child abuse, the non-accidental injury of a child,
received increasing attention in this country in
the 1960s, and followed upon its recognition in
the United States. Public awareness of its
nature and frequency grew in the 1970s…A
parallel can be drawn between the reluctance to
recognise physical abuse in the United Kingdom
in the 1960s and the reluctance by many to
accept the reality of certain aspects of child
sexual abuse in the 1980s”.56

3.73 The report challenged the view that child sexual abuse was a
new phenomenon of the 1980s but noted that, for many, there
remained difficulty in accepting the reality of child abuse. But,
the report recorded:

“Tardieu in Paris in the 1860s wrote at length on

rape, incest and anal interference of young
children. Parliament passed the Incest Act in
1908 as a result of concern expressed about
children during the 19th century and crimes of
incest and sexual assaults upon children within
the family have been a regular feature of the
criminal lists at the Assizes and continue to be
so at the Crown Courts throughout the
Country”.57

3.74 The report urged great caution as to the statistics available of

the prevalence and incidence of sexual abuse.58 It included a
general recommendation that people recognise the extent of
the problem of child sexual abuse and the need to receive more
accurate data of the abuse which is identified.59

3.75 The Cleveland Report was followed, in October 1992, by The

Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney
in February 1991 by the Right Hon Lord Clyde60. This looked at
the removal, by social workers to places of safety, of nine

56
Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987, paragraph 1, p.4.
57
Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987, paragraph 8, p.5.
58
Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987, paragraph 7, p. 5.
59
Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987, Recommendation 1,
p. 245.
60
Right Hon Lord Clyde, Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney
in February 1991, Edinburgh: HMSO, 1992.

221
 children of four families residing in the island of South
Ronaldsay in Orkney. The details of the individual cases are
not relevant to my investigation but the report confirms the
Cleveland Inquiry’s observations that society had been slow to
recognise and accept the reality of child sexual abuse despite it
being no new phenomenon: “What is new is the recognition by
professionals and more slowly by the public of its existence and
its prevalence”61. The report recommended, among other
things, that steps be taken to increase public awareness of the
problem of child sexual abuse and of the difficulties inherent in
the work of investigation of child abuse.62

3.76 The BBC played an important role in the development of public

awareness of child abuse in the mid-1980s, through the
programme Childwatch which was devised and presented by
Esther Rantzen. She told us about her thinking at the time.
She explained that, prior to starting work on Childwatch, she
was unaware of the extent of child abuse:

“Like everyone else, I thought that this was a

rare crime, you know, sensational headlines
every three or four years. The journalist in me
said, ‘That’s the tip of the iceberg… if that
happens, what else happens, that we aren’t
discovering, that we aren’t reporting’?”

3.77 Ms Rantzen arranged for a survey to be conducted through her

programme That’s Life. She invited viewers to write in with
their experiences of abuse and neglect while young and a
helpline was set up for 48 hours. The response was
overwhelming. The Childwatch programmes which followed,
drawing on these responses, had two important effects; first
they opened the eyes of the British public to the prevalence of
sexual abuse of young children and second, they led to the

61
Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991,
paragraph 15. p. 270.
62
Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991,
recommendation 3, p. 353.

222
 provision of “ChildLine” a confidential helpline for young people
which provides an advice and counselling service; it is still in
operation and is run by the NSPCC.

3.78 Dame Esther spoke warmly of the support given by the BBC to
her work on Childwatch. She said “We took [child abuse] out
from under the carpet”. She said that the BBC, through Will
Wyatt, the Head of Department, and others gave steadfast
support to the show. Within some parts of the BBC, however,
there was some caution because of a concern (also expressed
in the press) that, in publicising its very unpleasant message,
the programme might cause children to invent stories.

3.79 In the light of the findings of the That’s Life survey, the main
focus of concern at this time (the late 1980s) was child abuse
within the family, which, as the Cleveland Report noted,63 was
thought to be the most common form. In addition, the survey
led to awareness of abuse in other circumstances, such as
children’s homes, the world of sport and the church. Dame
Esther explained what Childwatch was intended to achieve:

“What the message of Childwatch never was is:

children wherever they go are in danger. That
was never the message. The message was:
give children permission to speak. Take the
subject out from under the carpet. Let’s talk
about it. You can’t solve a problem unless you
talk about it.”

3.80 I do not intend to discuss the more recent developments in child

protection which have occurred well after the period covered by
this Review.

Child Protection in the BBC

3.81 It was not until 2004 that the BBC introduced a child protection
policy applicable to the whole organisation. When it did, the

63
Report of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Cleveland 1987, paragraph 5, p. 4.

223
 policy was brief. It applied to all young people under the age of
18. It did not provide a route for raising concerns. The policy
has since been revised. This formal policy is not relevant to my
consideration of child protection during the years when Savile
was active at the BBC.

3.82 From what I have seen, child protection does not appear to
have been at the forefront of the minds of BBC managers in the
1970s or 1980s. In 2012, when Derek Chinnery was
interviewed by Channel 4 News and was asked whether child
protection was on his radar in the late 1970s when he was
Controller of BBC Radio 1, he said that the question put him in
an awkward position. That was because if he said “no” it would
sound as if he did not care. He explained that there was no
reason why he should have needed to place any special
consideration on protecting young children. He was running a
radio station on which he employed presenters such as Savile.
When presenters came in, he would talk to them about the
programme and then they would do their job.

3.83 To modern ears, this attitude may sound uncaring. However, in

the context of the time, when few people were aware of the
prevalence of sexual abuse, it would not be surprising if a man
in Mr Chinnery’s position had never applied his mind to the
possibility that one of his disc jockey presenters might use his
celebrity and position at the BBC to attract and groom young
girls for sex. In fact, Mr Chinnery’s personal position was not
entirely straightforward. In the early 1970s, he had been made
aware of rumours that Savile misbehaved sexually with young
girls. It had not been rumoured that such misbehaviour took
place on BBC premises. Mr Chinnery had spoken to Savile
about the rumours but Savile had asserted that they were
untrue. I accept that, at the time Mr Chinnery spoke on

224
 Channel 4 News in 2012, he had forgotten about that incident:
see paragraphs 11.14-11.33.

3.84 I have previously mentioned the work done in the late 1980s by
Ms Rantzen (as she then was) and the BBC in raising public
awareness of the problem of child abuse and the provision of
ChildLine. At the time, neither Ms Rantzen nor the BBC
considered the possibility that there could be child abuse risks
within the organisation. Dame Esther told me that she had
gone through the ChildLine files and was satisfied that they had
never received a call relating to abuse by a pop star or disc
jockey. According to an article in The Sun in 2012, Shy Keenan
reportedly mentioned to Ms Rantzen that she had heard
rumours about Savile’s sexual misconduct. It does not appear
from the article that Ms Keenan thought that the misconduct
was in any way related to the BBC. Dame Esther explained to
me that she has no recollection of this conversation. She said,
of the department within which she worked at the BBC:

“Obviously it didn’t occur in any of our minds

that any child could come to harm with us …:
even as a journalist, I don’t think there was ever
a bit in me that said, ‘And the obvious
conclusion from Childwatch is that Light
Entertainment should take more care’.”

3.85 Quite apart from any general child protection policy, in respect
of children employed by the BBC, it had to comply with various
statutory requirements including the Children and Young
Persons Acts 1933 and 1963 and the Children (Performances)
Regulations 1968 which were concerned mainly with licensing,
limiting hours of work for children, providing chaperones and
such like. Later there was the 1994 EC Directive: Protection of
Young People at Work. In 1992, it appears that the BBC
intended to prepare a Code of Practice for Children in
Productions. I have seen a draft of such a document but not a
final version. The draft covered such matters as health and

225
 safety. There was no reference to child protection as we think
of it today.

3.86 The Programme Contracts and Legal Departments encouraged

compliance with the statutory requirements which applied to
any department wishing to employ a child. However,
documents I have seen suggest that, although the BBC took
these administrative requirements seriously, some programme-
makers found them irksome and sometimes failed to comply.

3.87 The Savile investigation heard of only one incident of abuse by

Savile which involved a young person performing on the BBC.
That was C47 who, at the age of 15, was abused by Savile in
his dressing room while they were both working on a show
being recorded in Manchester (see paragraphs 5.187-5.191).
C47 had come to the studios with his parents but, on arrival,
they went to the cafeteria, leaving him to prepare for the show.
He was not supervised by anyone from the BBC. He met
Savile during the rehearsal and was later abused when Savile
invited him into his dressing room. I have been unable to
discover what arrangements the BBC had made for C47’s
welfare while on the premises. The BBC had a statutory duty to
provide a chaperone for child performers but if, as often
happened, a parent accompanied the child, the parent could act
as chaperone. I do not know whether the BBC had arranged
for C47’s parents to act as his chaperone. It seems quite likely
that they had, and that the parents had taken the view that their
15-year old son did not need them to be with him all the time.

3.88 We also spoke to C56. She appeared on Jim’ll Fix It in 1984,

when she was eight years old. Her fix involved a three-day trip
abroad. However, C56 was not accompanied by a family
member or friend during this trip. She travelled with the
director, a man, and a researcher, who was a woman. They all
stayed in a hotel, with C56 in a single room. This was the first

226
 time she had ever stayed in a hotel room by herself and she
had to look after herself. She remembers “being quite sad
[and] lonely” and probably a little frightened. I should stress
that C56 was treated kindly by the director and the researcher
and she made it clear that, even at eight years old, she was not
actually unused to doing things alone. Nonetheless, it appears
to me to have been inadvisable for the BBC not to have
arranged for her to be accompanied by someone she knew well
on a trip such as that.

3.89 In addition to the employment of children, for example as actors

or performers, the BBC used children and young people as
unpaid participants and also as audience members. As one
might expect, children frequently participated in children’s
programmes. I have not examined the arrangements made on
those programmes because they fall outside the scope of this
investigation. Savile did not work regularly on programmes
made by the Children’s Department; he made only guest
appearances; no complaint about Savile’s conduct has been
received by us about anything which occurred on a programme
produced by the Children’s Department.

3.90 The main focus of the Savile investigation’s consideration of

child protection arrangements has been in connection with the
programmes on which Savile worked regularly, Top of the
Pops, Jim’ll Fix It and, to a lesser extent, BBC Radio 1
programmes including Speakeasy. In Chapter 9, I will deal in
some detail with the shortcomings in the arrangements for the
protection of teenagers participating in Top of the Pops. In
Chapter 10, I will deal with the arrangements made for children
and young people taking part in Jim’ll Fix It. The production
team of this programme tried to make sensible arrangements
but, in the event, these were not ‘Savile proof’. I will deal with
BBC Radio 1 in Chapter 11.

227
3.91 Children also came to the BBC to watch other programmes as
members of a non-participating audience. Tickets were
arranged through the Ticket Unit. Child members of an
audience came to the BBC with a parent or other adult and, as
with audience members of any age, were subject to control and
supervision by a dedicated team of BBC employees. We have
received no complaints or concerns about such children.

3.92 As the Savile investigation has progressed, I have become

increasingly aware of an unusual feature of life in the BBC,
which to modern eyes and ears gives rise to real concern. I
have heard of at least three examples of children being brought
to BBC premises by relatives or supposed friends and spending
time there without appropriate supervision and, in some cases,
no supervision at all. One was Leisha Brookes who, at the age
of nine, was brought to Television Centre on a number of
occasions by a friend of her parents named Sillitoe who worked
at the BBC. In her evidence she said that nobody questioned
her presence either at the security barrier or while in the
building. Another was C8, whose grandfather worked at
Television Centre. C8 used to come to work with his
grandfather on occasions, either on Saturday mornings or
during school holidays and did odd jobs. He met Savile, who
took him around the building and introduced him to various
stars. Savile also took him to a room where he was abused. A
third example is C45 who had a relative who worked as a
security officer at Television Centre. From the age of about 12,
she would go to work with him and would be taken to see
various shows such as Dad’s Army, The Generation Game and
Cliff Richard’s show. She says that she met other children of
her own age and a little older who had been brought into the
BBC by their relatives. As she got older, she and these other
young people used to go around the premises on their own.
Sometimes she would go to the Green Room between

228
 rehearsals and recordings of Top of the Pops and sometimes to
the dressing rooms of pop stars to get autographs and have a
drink of orange squash. She would then sometimes meet her
relative later in what she described as the Bar, by which she
meant the BBC Club. When she was about 13 she met Savile,
who abused her in his dressing room on two occasions.

3.93 I can understand that staff would wish to be able to bring their
relatives to see their place of work but there seems to have
been little control over what appears to me to have been a
dangerously lax situation.

3.94 The third category of child involvement – that of work

experience – was not one that I anticipated being relevant to
Savile. But we heard from C1 who at the age of 15 was raped
by Savile at his flat, after he had met her in the BBC canteen
where she was on work experience: see paragraphs 5.3; and
5.232-5.238.

3.95 I also heard evidence from a woman who, in the 1980s at the
age of 15, undertook one week’s work experience at the BBC.
Her account of what happened to her fell outside my terms of
reference and I have not investigated it. However, while her
account is not as serious as what happened to C1, if true, it
suggests that she, like C1, does not appear to have been
closely supervised.

3.96 The incidents I have referred to in this section occurred in the

1980s, at which time it appears that the BBC probably did not
have any formal policy governing work experience. The earliest
work experience policy document disclosed to the Savile
investigation by the BBC is dated March 2009. However, it
seems likely that there were earlier policies which have not
been located. The 2004 Child Protection Policy refers to the
existence of a “central work experience scheme which provides

229
 forwardly planned and structured work experience placements.
There are ‘Work Experience Providers’ Guidelines and ‘Good
Practice’ documents which support the scheme”. The BBC has
been unable to say when this scheme came into existence. It
seems to me unlikely that this scheme existed in the 1980s. If it
did, it would appear that the scheme provided little protection
for young girls such as C1.

3.97 As I have previously explained, I was not required to consider

the suitability and efficacy of the BBC’s current child protection
policies and practice. When the Savile scandal broke, the BBC
decided to review (and alter where necessary) its own policies
and procedures. Those policies and procedures were then
independently evaluated by the GoodCorporation. Its report,
published in July 2015, stated that, overall, there was a clear
commitment to and recognition of child protection and
safeguarding within the BBC. There was also a good
awareness of the processes needed to keep children safe.
Considerable effort had been made to update policies and
procedures. Concerns were generally being managed
correctly. However, the report recommended that further work
should be undertaken to ensure a uniform and consistent
approach; there was a need to ensure more consistent
communication, training, guidance and application of policies.
Chaperoning systems were working well but screening
processes required some improvement. More needed to be
done to ensure that child protection and safeguarding controls
were operated in independent production companies.
Documents disclosed to the Review by the BBC shortly before
publication demonstrate that the BBC has heeded these
recommendations.

230
Discussion

3.98 In this chapter I have looked at the changes in our society to

sexual mores and attitudes towards sex discrimination, sexual
harassment and child protection over the years in which Savile
worked at the BBC. Much has changed for the better. Sex
discrimination and sexual harassment are now recognised as
social evils whereas fifty years ago they were accepted as
normal incidents of life. My investigations suggest that, so far
as these matters are concerned, the BBC has been and
remains a reflection of our wider society.

3.99 Our perceptions of family life and our attitudes towards sexual
behaviour have also changed radically during the past 50
years. In some respects, change has been enlightened. There
has been a gradual acceptance of homosexual relationships
and marriage. Such matters are outside my Terms of
Reference, although it is perhaps worth mentioning that I have
the impression that, within the BBC of the 1970s and 1980s,
homosexuals (or at least male homosexuals) were more readily
accepted as such than they were in society at large.

3.100 Attitudes towards extramarital and casual relationships between

heterosexual adults are also outside my purview, although here
again, I feel that I should say that I have the impression that
extramarital affairs and casual sexual relationships were very
common and accepted as normal in the BBC throughout the
period covered by the Savile investigation.

3.101 Our knowledge and understanding of the need for child

protection has changed radically. Until the late 1980s, the
sexual abuse of children was barely acknowledged to exist; it is
now widely discussed. Our understanding of the circumstances
in which this can occur and the devastating effects it can have
on victims has grown and continues to increase almost daily. I

231
 have not detected anything in the attitudes of the BBC which
differs significantly from what I perceive to have been and
currently to be common in our society as a whole.

3.102 I have focused on our perception of sexual activity between an

older man and a young girl in her mid-teens. This is the kind of
conduct which Savile indulged in for decades, using his
dominant position as an older man and as a celebrity. In the
1950s, I am sure that such conduct would have been regarded
as wholly unacceptable. I do not think that most peoples’
attitudes towards such conduct has changed much over the
years although nowadays we may express our objections in
terms of concern about the emotional and psychological
damage to which the child is exposed.

3.103 However, I do think that, beginning in the 1960s and continuing

over the next two decades, there was a relaxation in our
attitude towards such behaviour insofar as it affected other
peoples’ teenage girls, if not one’s own. (‘I would not let my
daughter do that but…’.) I think the perception was that young
girls were determined to run after pop stars and disc jockeys
and, if their parents let them do that, there was nothing that ‘we’
could do to stop it. If that ‘running after’ resulted in sexual
contact, so be it, even if the girl was still under 16. I think that
this attitude was particularly prevalent in show business and
that would include at least some parts of the BBC. Nowadays,
we are much more conscious of the damage which can be
done to a young person who enters into an unequal relationship
with an older, powerful, charismatic man for whom the
relationship is casual and unimportant. We are now far more
disapproving of such relationships. To that extent I do accept
that ‘things were different in those days’.

232
 TER 4 – SAVILE – HIS CAREER – PE
CHAPT ERCEPTIO
ONS OF HIM
H IN
THE BBC

Introdu
uction

4.1 In thiss chapter I shall ske

etch Savile
e’s life sto
ory and de
escribe
what people
p thought about him before anyone was prepared to
talk op
penly abou
ut his sexua
al miscond
duct.

Early L
Life

4.2 Savile was born

n into a Ro
oman Cath
holic family
y in Leeds
s on 31
er 1926. He was the younge
Octobe est of seve
en children. His
father was, at on
ne stage, an
a insurance agent and,
a at ano
other, a
bookm
maker’s clerk. His mo
other, at tim
mes, was a care worrker. In
later life Savile used to call
c his mother
m ‘The
e Duchess
s’. He
seemss to have been veryy close to her and appeared
a to
t take
great pleasure in being able
a to prrovide for her the material
m
things she had not
n enjoyed
d earlier in
n life. In his autobiog
graphy,
As It Happens,
H published in 1974, he referre
ed to her as
a “my
eal true lovve to date”64
only re 6
.

4.3 Savile left schoo

ol at the age
a f as I know, no
of 14, with, so far
formal qualifications. He had
h variouss jobs, firstt as an officce boy,
then working
w in a dried fru
uits busine
ess and latter moving
g into a
scrap business. At 18, he
e was conscripted as a Bevin Boy to
work in
i the coa
almines. That
T was a hard life
e but Saviile was
plainly
y proud of his
h time ass a miner; he
h often ta
alked aboutt it. He
had a mining accident
a and injured
d his backk, an expe
erience
which I think reiinforced his determination that mining was
w not
going to be his life’s workk. I have the impression also
o that it
he effort he
was th e had to make
m to reccover from
m this injuryy which
was th
he founda
ation of hiss interest in sport and
a fitness. He

64
As It Happens,
H p. 2.

23
33
 became a keen cyclist and worked for a time as a professional
wrestler. Later, he became well known for running marathons.

4.4 In the 1940s, Savile started working as a disc jockey, initially in

a small way, playing for parties. He decided that he would like
to make his living from doing something he enjoyed – such as
working in dance halls and being a disc jockey – rather than
something he did not enjoy. Moreover, for him, this kind of
work brought in good money. In the 1950s, he got a job at the
Mecca Locarno Ballroom, Leeds. He seems to have been good
at running it and developed quite a personal following. Pete
Murray, the disc jockey, told the Savile investigation about a
visit he made to Leeds in the early 1960s when he saw Savile
in action at the Locarno. He was deeply impressed by what
Savile had achieved there. The place was packed with young
people and Savile had them completely under his control, in the
best sense of the word. In effect, he had the crowd in the palm
of his hand. Unsurprisingly, Mecca appreciated Savile’s
success and he was transferred to manage other ballrooms in
Manchester, Bradford and Ilford. He stayed with Mecca until
sometime in the 1960s, by which time he had become a
director of the company.

4.5 There are suggestions that, during this stage of Savile’s life, he
associated with shady and violent characters and was prepared
to use violence or authorise its use to achieve his ends. In an
interview published in The Sun in April 1983, Savile is reported
as saying that he authorised others to use violence on his
behalf during this period. Alison Bellamy, who published a
biography in 2012 called How’s about that then? doubted the
truth of this65. However, apart from suggesting that the
interviewer had “coloured up” some of his reminiscences,
Savile made no attempt to deny the content of The Sun article.

65
A. Bellamy, How’s about that then?, Great Northern Books, 2012, pp. 43-44.

234
 Andy Kershaw, a BBC Radio 1 disc jockey from 1985, told us
that, when he was the entertainment secretary of Leeds
University Student Union between 1980 and 1982, he heard
that, in the 1950s, Savile was known as a “gangland enforcer”
on the Leeds nightclub scene. If the people running nightlife in
Leeds in those days wanted something ‘put right’ “it was Savile
they sent round with a baseball bat”. Mr Kershaw stressed to
me that he could not vouch for this but this information is not
much out of line with what Savile said about himself.

4.6 From time to time, Savile would attempt to justify his violent
past by claiming that he used violence when it was necessary
to protect young girls from the unwanted attentions of men. He
often presented himself as a protector or saviour of young girls.
For example, he would claim that, if there was a young girl
alone outside the dance hall, he would authorise one of his
bouncers to get her a taxi and pay for it so that she got home
safely. With the benefit of hindsight, one does wonder whether
that could have been true.

4.7 It was at some time during the 1950s that Savile started to have
his hair dyed blonde and later a whole series of strange colours
and patterns. He started to dress in what was, for then, an
eccentric fashion. He was later to explain that he had decided
to create a personality for himself. It worked. In 1958, his
success in the dancehalls brought him to the attention of Radio
Luxembourg, the commercial radio station, whose pop music
shows had big audiences. He presented a show on that station
called The Teen and Twenty Disc Club, which went out at 10pm
on Wednesdays. Savile’s time on Radio Luxembourg gave him
exposure and a significant audience; he stayed there until
1967.

4.8 In 1960, Savile had his first chance in television with Tyne Tees
Television, presenting a programme called Young at Heart.

235
Savile at the BBC

4.9 Following some guest appearances in the late 1950s and early
1960s, Savile’s career at the BBC began on 1 January 1964
when he presented the first Top of the Pops, broadcast on BBC
One from Dickenson Road Studios in Manchester. Some
sources say that Alan Freeman co-presented but perhaps it
matters not. Savile was chosen for that job by the show’s
producer, Johnnie Stewart, with the approval of Bill Cotton, then
Assistant Head of the Light Entertainment Group, Television
(Variety). Savile was to continue as a presenter of Top of the
Pops until 1984.

4.10 Savile joined BBC Radio 1 in 1968, the year after the network
went on air. His first show was Savile’s Travels, a programme
which mixed pop music with short recorded interviews with
people whom Savile had met on his travels. It ran until 1977. In
1969, he began to present Speakeasy. This discussion
programme for young people was a joint production between
BBC Radio 1 and the BBC’s Religious Broadcasting
Department. It seems to have run until about 1977. The format
was that Savile chaired a discussion with the young audience.
Sometimes a distinguished or star guest would feature on the
show and join in the discussion. The topics were the moral and
ethical questions of the time.

4.11 In 1973, Savile began to present a new Saturday early evening

television talk and entertainment show on BBC One called
Clunk Click of which two series were made in 1973 and 1974.
This show enjoyed only limited success and was discontinued.
However, Mr Cotton, who was then Head of Light
Entertainment, had had an idea for a ‘wish fulfilment
programme’. Jim’ll Fix It, was launched in 1975 with Savile as
its presenter. It was hugely successful. It ran until 1994 and
brought Savile enormous fame.

236
4.12 Savile’s radio career also developed during this time. From
1973, he presented The Double Top Ten Show on BBC Radio
1 on Sunday afternoons – a programme in which two top 10
charts from earlier years were played. In 1978, The Double
Top Ten Show was discontinued and Savile then presented
Jimmy Savile’s Old Record Club. Savile left BBC Radio 1 in
1987 and moved to the BBC World Service to present The
Vintage Chart Show. This change was in fact a demotion; we
have been told that, by this time, Savile was thought to be too
old to appeal to the BBC Radio 1 audience. However, when
speaking to Nicky Campbell, who was about to succeed him on
BBC Radio 1, Savile presented this move as a promotion.
Instead of the 10 million listeners he said his successor would
attract on BBC Radio 1 (in fact his own show had only attracted
two or three million listeners), he would now have 200 million all
over the world! Savile stayed at the World Service for only two
years.

4.13 Lord Grade, who was Controller of BBC One in the mid-1980s,
told the Savile investigation that Savile “liked to work”.
Although the programmes I have mentioned were Savile’s
mainstays, he worked on many others. He made a series of
public information films on road safety, from which came the
tagline ‘Clunk Click Every Trip’, promoting the use of seatbelts.
He appeared occasionally on Juke Box Jury; he was a
contributor to Songs of Praise, and presented The Jimmy
Savile Show (which was transmitted on Boxing Day in 1970 and
1971). He also presented two series of programmes for the
BBC in Leeds, Savile’s Yorkshire Travels in the early 1970s
and a discussion programme, Yorkshire Speakeasy, in the late
1970s and early 1980s.

4.14 Savile revelled in his celebrity status. In the first edition of his
autobiography, As It Happens, when writing about his invitation

237
 to become the first disc jockey presenter of Top of the Pops in
1964, he said:

“And so ended the springtime of my pop career.

Here then started the 100 degree summer with
no clouds to cover the burning brilliance of total
recognition by, eventually, nearly all this
country’s 53 million people.”66

4.15 If Top of the Pops brought Savile “total recognition” it was Jim’ll
Fix It which brought him almost total public adulation.
Broadcast early on Saturday evenings to a family audience,
Jim’ll Fix It sometimes attracted as many as 16.5 million
viewers. In 1977, the National Viewers and Listeners
Association, run by campaigner Mary Whitehouse, presented
Savile with an award for ‘wholesome family entertainment’.
More than any other programme, Jim’ll Fix It led to Savile being
viewed, as The Telegraph wrote after his death, as the
“favourite uncle to the nation’s children”.

4.16 In addition to his core work on BBC Television and Radio,

Savile made countless guest appearances on a wide variety of
programmes such as The Generation Game, Swap Shop,
Breakfast time, Children in Need, The Time of your Life, and
Daytime Live. In 1976, he appeared on Read All About It, with
Melvyn Bragg to discuss the second edition of his
autobiography. He also featured on news or current affairs
programmes, usually in connection with fundraising events
such as marathon running or long distance walks. He was
featured with members of the Royal Family at the opening of
the new wing of Stoke Mandeville Hospital for which he had
raised money and was pictured outside Buckingham Palace
after receiving his OBE. In short, he was rarely out of the public
eye.

66
As It Happens, p. 74.

238
4.17 Savile’s role as a regular BBC television presenter ended in
1994 with the demise of Jim’ll Fix It. He co-presented the final
Top of the Pops programme on 30 July 2006. This ended with
Savile turning the lights off in an empty studio.

Other Activities

4.18 Savile was an energetic man. In addition to his career as an

entertainer, he was a very successful fundraiser. His high
public profile enabled him to open doors; few seem to have
refused his requests. In particular, he raised large sums of
money for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was also well known
for his personal good works. He worked pro bono as a porter at
Leeds General Infirmary. He worked in connection with
Broadmoor Hospital although the extent of his involvement
there only became publicly known after his death. His activities
as a fundraiser and charity worker are outside my Terms of
Reference and I say no more about them.

4.19 However, there are some features of his life outside the BBC
which are relevant to my enquiries and I will deal with them,
albeit briefly.

4.20 Savile never had a professional agent. He was his own

business manager. One of the unusual features of dealing with
him was that, in the days before mobile phones, it was often
difficult to contact him. For many years, he had several homes,
one each in London, Leeds, Scarborough, Peterborough and
Bournemouth and at least one mobile home at any one time.
He also had pieds-à-terre at Stoke Mandeville, Broadmoor and
Leeds General Hospital. He might be anywhere. People who
needed to find him apparently used to telephone either Charles
Hullighan, the Head Porter at Leeds General Infirmary, or Janet
Cope at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, both of whom seem to have
acted as points of contact and sometimes as unofficial

239
 administrators. Ms Cope called herself Savile’s ‘gofer’ and I
have the impression that she was not the only one. I
understand that he had another unofficial administrative
assistant at Leeds General Infirmary. Don Bennett, the
Transport Manager of Broadmoor, would, according to some
witnesses the Savile investigation has spoken to, sometimes
drive Savile about.

4.21 Savile also acted as his own press and publicity officer. He
made his own arrangements as to the newspapers to which he
would agree to give interviews. For many years, he wrote a
weekly column for The Sunday People. I was told that he had
said that he wrote that weekly column because he thought that
the papers would not write damaging material about ‘one of
their own’.

4.22 Savile was very protective of his reputation and seems often to
have used the threat of litigation for that purpose. If he ever did
sue in defamation, such cases seem to have been settled out of
court as I have not come across any report of court action.
Looking back, now that it is known that rumours about Savile’s
sexual proclivities did circulate in Fleet Street, it seems to me
likely that the newspapers were wary of him and took care not
to publish anything they could not fully justify.

4.23 Whatever his public relations strategy, his reputation remained

high all his life. Bob Langley, a former reporter on Nationwide,
said that he thought Savile was revered by the British public
mainly because of his charity work. On his charity walks,
people “would flock around him as though he was the Pope
almost”.

4.24 Savile was honoured for his charity work. In 1972, he was
awarded the OBE and was knighted in 1990, the same year in
which he received a papal honour. By then, he had apparently

240
 become friendly with members of the Royal Family and the then
Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. It is said that he was a
regular visitor to Chequers. She appears to have admired him
for his charity work and was instrumental in securing his
knighthood.

4.25 Alan Hart, Controller of BBC One in the 1980s, summed

Savile’s reputation up well when he described Savile as “a good
chap, doing good television, involved in charity and mixing with
all the top people”.

4.26 Savile’s death, on 29 October 2011, was followed by numerous

tributes from politicians, royalty and the BBC. Mark Thompson,
then Director-General of the BBC, reportedly said:

“I am very sad to hear of Sir Jimmy Savile’s

death. From Top of the Pops to Jim’ll Fix It,
Jimmy’s unique style entertained generations of
BBC audiences. Like millions of viewers and
listeners, we shall miss him greatly”.

Savile was reported to have left over £4 million at his death.

What Was Savile Like?

4.27 Many of the people we spoke to about Savile worked for the
BBC and therefore came across him in a professional capacity.
We also approached a number of Savile’s relatives and
personal friends to give them the opportunity to give evidence if
they wished to do so. Three accepted this invitation.

4.28 One was A5, who is a relative of Savile’s and has known him all
her life. As is well known, Savile had a large extended family.
Savile was very kind to A5 who was very fond of him (“I loved
him to bits”) and is “heartbroken” about the allegations which
have been made since his death. She finds them impossible to
believe and, although she has many times gone back through
her memories, she cannot recall any signs that anything might
have been amiss. She now believes that there are many

241
 people who are making false allegations against Savile for
financial reasons. She also believes that many of Savile’s
friends would like to speak out on his behalf but dare not do so
because they fear that they would be hounded by the press.

4.29 She says that Savile had a strong sense of family loyalty and
would pay for a big family get-together every year, around the
time of his birthday. Although he was not a generous man, he
would give every family member a present of money which
would represent their birthday and Christmas presents for the
year. He would also give financial support to any family
member who was in difficulty. However, some members of the
family considered Savile to be “tight” with money. By way of
example, A5 recalled that, after a family funeral, he gave a
member of the family money to buy everyone some fried
chicken and asked for the small amount of change, which was
no more than a few pence, to be returned to him. He was also
very frugal. He never had any of his homes decorated; he
regarded that as a waste of money. Also he insisted on re-
using teabags, several times. Yet on occasions he could be
very generous towards her.

4.30 A5 explained that Savile’s philanthropy was deep-rooted. His

mother brought her children up to give a little to charity even
when they were quite poor. His mother used to run fundraising
whist drives for the people of Malta during the war. A5 said
that, although Savile was well known for his major charitable
works, she was aware that he gave a great deal anonymously.
She did not accept the suggestion that his charitable work was
designed only to draw publicity. She believed that the reverse
was the case; that Savile only sought publicity when he needed
it to assist with his charitable projects.

4.31 A5 said that Savile’s philosophy of life was that he regarded

himself as very lucky. He felt that he did not have any special

242
 talent and attributed his success to being in the right place at
the right time. She said that he had many friends although very
few in the world of show business. He believed that he was not
well-liked in that world. He would not tolerate self-pity and, if
any one ‘moaned’ to him, he would tell them to pull their socks
up. He would, however, be genuinely sympathetic to someone
in real distress.

4.32 As for Savile’s sexuality, A5 believes that he was virtually

asexual – “all talk and no trousers”. She believes that his
professed interest in sex was a cover for his true lack of
interest. She said that he often had girls flocking around him
but he was not interested. He talked and wrote about sex as he
did (for example in his autobiography As It Happens, in God’ll
fix it (a book by Savile published in 1979) and in an article
published in The Sun in April 1983 as to which see Chapter 6),
for public relations reasons. This kind of writing was not
intended to be taken seriously. He did sometimes have
girlfriends and A5’s mother used to hope that he would marry.
She thinks that he did not do so partly because he felt he could
not provide proper support for a wife on account of his roving
lifestyle.

4.33 I accept that A5 has recounted her experience of Savile

accurately and that she is completely sincere in her
assessment of his character. I accept that she never had any
reason to think that Savile would be guilty of any sexual
misbehaviour. It seems to me, however, (and I think she
accepted this) that the fact that she had seen no sign or
evidence of misconduct did not prove that such misconduct had
not occurred.

4.34 Another witness who knew Savile well was Janet Cope, who
worked for the NHS at Stoke Mandeville and, having met Savile
in that capacity, became a close friend. The friendship lasted

243
 for decades but ended in acrimony. She worked tirelessly for
him and only part of her time went in supporting his charitable
efforts. She also supported him personally. She would take
him breakfast when he was at Stoke Mandeville. She would do
his personal laundry; she would drive to London to clean his flat
in Park Crescent; she would cook him suppers, his favourite
dish being mince. She handled a lot of correspondence. She
now says that she did not like him but I think that must be in
retrospect. I think she must have liked and admired him greatly
at the time. She also understandably enjoyed the opportunities
that her association with Savile brought her.

4.35 Ms Cope recognised a number of unpleasant traits in Savile’s

character. He was controlling; she always had to do as he
asked, no matter how inconvenient to herself. She found him
threatening although she is sure he would not have used
physical violence. She only ever once criticised him to his face;
that was for being unkind to a nursing sister who had put up
some decorations which Savile did not like. She said he was
inconsiderate; he would come round for supper and she would
ask him not to light a cigar. His attitude was that if he was good
enough to come round, he was good enough to be able to light
his cigar. The logic of that escapes me but that is what he
would apparently say. Ms Cope is one of several people
(others include Ann Mann and Mr Murray) who said that Savile
rarely paid for anything: clothes, holidays, meals in restaurants,
even his jewellery. Ms Cope described Savile as “a user”. She
meant that he used people for his own ends. For all his
success, Ms Cope thinks that Savile was sometimes lonely. He
had a few friends, mainly men, and, when he went on a cruise
round the world, she thinks he really missed them.

4.36 I had a long discussion with another woman who knew Savile
well over many years and counted him as a personal friend.

244
 What she told me about Savile’s character chimed quite closely
with what other witnesses have said about him. She found
Savile to be funny, interesting and clever. He was a supportive
friend; on an occasion when someone close to her was ill, he
used his influence at Leeds General Infirmary. On the other
hand, she found him very controlling: he expected her to fall in
with his plans. He enjoyed giving advice to people but had a
tendency to lecture. He had a huge ego and loved power and
celebrity; as she put it, “the whole package made him tick”. He
never wanted to mix with other celebrities; he always wanted to
be the centre of attention. He used to boast that he had more
column inches than the Queen. This woman thought that
money was a big driver for Savile, but it was the accumulation
of money which he liked, not the spending of it. She felt that
emotionally, there was “something missing” from Savile; he
seemed incapable of commitment or ties. Instead, everything
about Savile was for himself.

Perceptions of Savile at the BBC

4.37 The Savile investigation interviewed a wide variety of people

from the BBC who had worked with or knew Savile. Most of
these witnesses had worked in fairly junior roles, as floor
assistants, researchers or production assistants. A smaller
proportion worked in more senior roles, such as floor
managers, directors or producers. A few worked in senior
management.

4.38 Taken as a whole, the picture which emerges is that Savile was
not well liked. However, witnesses were being asked to
remember him shortly after his exposure as a prolific sex
offender. That is almost bound to have influenced their
recollections and perceptions of him. Very few people were
willing to admit that they had liked him. Some were prepared to
speak warmly of his abilities as a presenter; some accepted

245
 that he had charisma. A few were prepared to say that they
had enjoyed his company and found him amusing. There were,
of course, quite a few who admired him for his charitable work.

4.39 Before recounting the views of specific witnesses, I wish to

record what might be described as an official BBC perception of
Savile. I have taken this from a report entitled “Children as
Viewers and Listeners”, dated 13 September 1973, prepared by
the Director of Public Affairs for submission to the General
Advisory Council. The draft I have seen had already been
approved by the Board of Management and was to be
submitted to the Governors for approval. In a section headed
“The appeal of disc jockeys”, Savile’s role as presenter of
Speakeasy was described as follows:

“Radio 1 is seeking constantly to develop and

programmes are introduced to vary and,
sometimes supersede, the diet of non-stop pop.
Speak-EASY (sic), broadcast at 3.00 p.m, on
Sunday afternoons, is a good example of a
programme which has set out to stimulate
interest in current topics of the day among
young people with considerable success.
Chaired by Jimmy Savile, a popular disc jockey
whose somewhat bizarre appearance conceals
an acute mind and a deep sincerity, Speak-
Easy (sic) has dealt with every kind of subject,
from Northern Ireland to cancer, from inflation to
football.”

I infer from that that Savile was highly thought of by the BBC at
that time.

4.40 Most of the laudatory comments came from men. Derek

Chinnery, who became Controller of BBC Radio 1 in 1978,
described Savile as an “amusing fellow” and “a unique
character”. Stanley Dorfman, a producer on Top of the Pops,
found him to be a funny, jokey and likeable man. Canon Colin
Semper, who produced Speakeasy for a time, came to know
Savile well and ghost wrote God’ll fix it, which was published in

246
 1979, for him. He thought that Savile could be quite funny and
that the words that came flooding out of him could be quite
attractive. He described Savile as a clown in the sense, as he
wrote in God’ll fix it, that “a clown is a highly-skilled performer
who wears a mask”67. Canon Semper did not know what lay
behind that mask but he knew that it concealed a “clutter of
stuff”.

4.41 However the words used most often to describe Savile were
“weird” and “creepy”. It is no exaggeration to say that he was
generally seen as a sleazy, unpleasant, self-important and self-
obsessed loner. Other words used to describe him included
“strange”, “cold”, “peculiar”, “predatory” and “loathsome”.

4.42 A24 was a production assistant on Radio 1 and knew Savile.

She described him as “a scary man”, whom she “really
disliked”. She said that she “did not feel comfortable with him”.
She also described the effect Savile had on people. Some
seemed to be “hypnotised” by him; he was “like a snake
charmer”. She said that people would go into the studio to see
him and they would be “normal people up until the door and
then they would walk in and...they’d be…gormless”.

4.43 Women were particularly unsettled by Savile, some feeling

sexually threatened by him. One witness told me that Savile
gave her “the creeps”. B5, who also worked on Savile’s
Travels, found Savile “absolutely creepy”. Sue Davies, who
worked for six months as a researcher on Speakeasy in 1977,
found Savile “a loathsome and odd character”.

4.44 I heard similar comments from two researchers who worked on

Jim’ll Fix It in the 1980s. Jenny Ricotti’s ‘internal radar’ told her
that she should keep away from him and Jeanette Pease

67
God’ll fix it, preface p. xv.

247
 thought Savile was odd and not someone with whom it was a
pleasure to spend any time.

4.45 Several women mentioned Savile’s inappropriate and sexual

manner. Anne Gilchrist, another researcher on Jim’ll Fix It in
1985, was one of a number of women who told me that, when
she first met Savile, he kissed her right up her arm. She, like
most of the women I spoke to who felt they had to put up with
this, found it deeply unpleasant. Ms Gilchrist had felt unable to
complain about it because of Savile’s position and his celebrity
status. Patricia Houlihan, who was involved in setting up Jim’ll
Fix It in 1975, saw Savile as a sleazy, strange man and did not
want to be in the same room as him.

4.46 C3, an assistant floor manager who worked with Savile, found
him “as cold as ice” and a predatory and controlling individual.
She found he would always turn a conversation over to himself
“and how attractive he was”. Even as an older man, Savile was
constantly asking C3 “how can you resist me?” and asking “why
don’t you come over here and make an old man very happy?”.

4.47 While the men to whom I spoke did not say that they felt
sexually threatened by Savile, many found him unpleasant. For
example, Pieter Morpurgo, who worked as a floor manager on
Top of the Pops in the early 1970s, did not like Savile and
found him “creepy”. David Tate, a producer, who worked with
Savile on The Double Top Ten and The Vintage Chart Show,
found him “peculiar” and Robin Carr, a director on Top of the
Pops, described Savile as “weird”, “cold” and “a loner”. Kevin
Howlett, who worked in BBC Radio as a studio manager and
later as a producer, found Savile, on the two occasions he met
him, to be “eccentric”, “unusual” and “creepy”. Jeff Simpson,
who worked as a press officer for BBC Radio 1 between 1986
and 1993, saw Savile as “a deeply strange man”.

248
4.48 Mr Morpurgo told me that he had the impression that Savile
was not “a particularly liked person” among the BBC disc
jockeys. This impression was supported by several to whom I
spoke. David Simmons, who worked as a presenter and
producer for BBC Radio 1 during the 1970s, had no time for
Savile, regarding him as a self-publicist who felt that he was
doing BBC Radio 1 a favour by being a disc jockey on the
station. Noel Edmonds, who presented Top of the Pops
between 1970 and 1978 and worked on Radio 1, described
Savile as “odd…an outsider [and]…a terrible broadcaster”.
Nicky Campbell, who joined BBC Radio 1 in 1987 just as Savile
was leaving, acknowledged that he found Savile “fascinating
and enigmatic”, but did not like him. Andy Kershaw was
scathing about Savile. He told me that Savile lacked social
skills and did not have social contact with his BBC Radio 1
colleagues. He described Savile as a “very, very unpleasant,
self-obsessed bloke”, who, through his charitable work, had
reinvented himself from a “gangland enforcer”, which was his
reputation while working in the entertainment industry in Leeds
in the 1950s, to “Saint Jimmy of Stoke Mandeville”.

4.49 Mr Kershaw described meeting Savile, when, as a new disc

jockey on BBC Radio 1, he found himself sharing a lift with
Savile in Broadcasting House. He put out his hand to greet
Savile and said something like, “Hello, my name’s Andy”.
Savile did not respond: it seemed to Mr Kershaw from the
expression on Savile’s face that he was angry that Mr Kershaw
had had the audacity to approach him.

4.50 Savile was widely seen as boastful and self-aggrandising.

Canon Semper said that Savile frequently mentioned that he
had raised £40 million for charity. A10, a former Studio
Manager, agreed that Savile boasted about the famous people
he knew and Helen Gartell, who worked as a freelance director

249
 on Jim’ll Fix It in 1994, told me that Savile never tired of telling
people how members of the Royal Family or a senior politician
would call him for advice because they apparently saw him as
“an ordinary man of the people”. Ms Pease seemed amazed at
the ease with which Savile arranged for Princess Diana to
come to BBC Television Centre to sign a ‘Say No’ board when
the BBC was running an anti-drugs campaign.

4.51 Roger Ordish, the producer of Clunk Click and Jim’ll Fix It,
agreed that Savile had a strong sense of his own star status;
his attitude was “I am the mountain” – in other words, it was for
others to come and see him: he would not go to them. Savile
used to exaggerate his importance. Mr Ordish gave as an
example an occasion when he and Savile went to Israel (in
connection with a fix on Jim’ll Fix It) at which there was a
reception with the Israeli President. Later, Mr Ordish heard
Savile falsely boasting that he had been called upon to give
advice to the Israeli Government.

4.52 Mr Simpson gave another example of Savile’s self-importance.

At a photo call for several disc jockeys in support of Children in
Need in the mid-1980s, Savile arrived late and immediately
began to talk about how much he had done for charity. He
boasted that clothing he had donated had been auctioned for
£1million. He also said he had built a hospital. It seemed to Mr
Simpson that Savile was making it clear that, while he was
prepared to take part in the Children in Need photo call, he was
actually bigger than that event.

4.53 Mr Simpson also described an occasion when he was in a taxi

with Savile driving along Pall Mall past the Athenaeum Club.
Savile declared that he was a member of the club and had
been nominated for membership by two former Prime Ministers
and a Papal Legate. Mr Simpson doubted the truth of this but it

250
 seems to me it may well have been true. The Athenaeum Club
has declined to confirm or deny the position.

4.54 Despite his celebrity, many witnesses described Savile as a

loner who avoided social contact save in situations over which
he had complete control. He was not interested in getting to
know the members of a production team. He rarely went to
BBC parties and seldom went to the BBC Club. Ronald
Howard, who worked on the development and printing of
pictures taken on Top of the Pops, said Savile “didn’t have
pals”. In fact, I think he did, but they were not pals at the BBC;
they were from elsewhere.

4.55 Mr Ordish found Savile secretive and defensive. He was

always reluctant to provide any personal details to journalists.
One might say that that was wise but it was certainly unusual
for a show business celebrity. Rodney Collins, BBC Radio 1
and BBC Radio 2’s publicity officer in the early 1970s, said that
Savile was remote, difficult and uncooperative. He found Savile
was willing to have his photograph taken and happy to speak to
admiring members of the public (who posed no threat to him)
but unwilling to expose himself to potentially difficult questions
from journalists. Mr Collins described a photo call of BBC
Radio 1 disc jockeys in 1972, following which there were to be
questions from journalists. Savile attended the photo call but
disappeared before the journalists had an opportunity to speak
to him.

4.56 Johnny Beerling, a producer on BBC Radio 1 in the 1960s and

1970s and its Controller from 1985, saw Savile as being
motivated by self-interest. He was “all ready to come in and
cash in”. For example, if BBC Radio 1 raised some money, for
instance, at a charity football match which it was going to spend
on Sunshine coaches, Savile would be on hand to be pictured
presenting the coaches even though he had not helped with the

251
 fundraising. This, of course, is in marked contrast to Savile’s
reputation as a tireless and selfless fundraiser.

4.57 Money was clearly important to Savile, although he seems to

have been quite proud of not spending much. C3, an assistant
floor manager, said that Savile often boasted about money. He
referred to “Joan the Wad”, meaning his cash and pension
assets. He would say that he had “this much money” and that
he never needed to buy anything.

4.58 Phil Bishop, a floor manager and later director and producer,
who worked on Top of the Pops between 1976 and 1979 and
on Jim’ll Fix It between 1975 and 1979, said that Savile had told
him about an occasion when he settled some copyright
litigation for £100,000. Savile insisted that the money was to be
paid in equal shares to local charities in 10 different towns. He
explained to Mr Bishop that he had done this so that there
would be 10 more towns in the UK where he could stay for a
week and not have to put his hand in his pocket.

4.59 It seems to me that Savile had two personae – one for more
senior people to whom he would be respectful, even deferential
and one for less senior people to whom he could be quite
unpleasant. Doreen Davies, who was eventually Head of BBC
Radio 1 Programmes, said that Savile used to do a mock
genuflection when he saw her and would murmur something
about ‘a boss’. When Alan Bell, a production assistant and
later a producer and director in Light Entertainment, introduced
his wife to Savile, at an end of series party, Savile remained in
his chair and claimed that he stood up for no one. But when Bill
Cotton, Head of Light Entertainment, walked into the room,
Savile leapt from his chair.

4.60 One feature that several people mentioned was that Savile
never seemed to stop talking. It was often difficult to

252
 understand what he was talking about. Canon Semper said
that, with Savile, there was “this whole miasma of talk” which
made it difficult to pin him down. Canon David Winter, who also
produced Speakeasy for a time, said that Savile was a
performer who continued performing “as though the act mustn’t
stop”.

4.61 Bob Langley spent 24 hours with Savile during his charity walk
from John O’Groats to Land’s End in March 1971. They talked
for many hours while walking. Mr Langley said that talking to
Savile was rather like being part of an Edward Lear nonsense
rhyme. He was constantly performing and talked in an endless
“surrealistic stream”, making many outrageous statements. It
was difficult to know what was true or false. They did, however,
have some conversations about Savile’s past, which seemed
more sensible. Savile told Mr Langley that he had created
himself; he had realised early on that he had nothing going for
him, that he was not well educated and that he needed to
create an “outrageous personality”. One can see that this might
explain Savile’s image with his unconventional style of dress,
strange hair colourings, use of ‘bling’ jewellery and stylised
conversation which was frequently punctuated by sayings like
“now then, now then, how’s about that then?”

Savile the Presenter

4.62 Opinion was sharply divided among BBC staff as to Savile’s

abilities as a presenter. Some, mainly women and mainly in
fairly junior positions, could find nothing good to say about him.
They complained of his lack of interest in, and genuine
commitment to, what he was doing. Others, usually men in
more senior positions, such as producers, were impressed by
Savile’s professional skills and the ratings he attracted.

253
4.63 Savile’s method of work on BBC Radio 1 record programmes
was different from that of most other disc jockeys and a few
were critical of him for this. Most disc jockeys would play the
records themselves and would talk about the music in the
intervals between the records, creating a real time programme.
By contrast, Savile would come into the studio and record the
links for his turntable programmes, leaving the producer and
technical staff to link the words and music together later, in his
absence. Mr Simpson said that, when recording The Old
Record Club, Savile would come into the studio perhaps once a
month and would record the links for a number of shows in one
visit. Mr Tate noticed this too in respect of the Double Top Ten
Show and The Vintage Chart Show. He said that Savile came
into Bush House only once a month to record enough links for
four or five half-hour programmes of The Vintage Chart Show.

4.64 These habits created the impression in the minds of some that
Savile was interested only in the money and publicity to be
gained from his work. However, Mr Howlett thought that the
reason why Savile did not play the records himself may have
been because he was “from the old school”. He was used to
having the services of a studio manager who handled the
records under the direction of a producer. The disc jockeys
who had previously worked on pirate radio were not used to
that luxury; they played the records themselves and they
continued in that way when they came to the BBC. Mr Beerling
told me something similar. Mr Howlett also made the point that
Savile’s approach made for a “very stilted way of putting
together a radio programme”.

4.65 There were those who claimed that Savile had no real interest
in music; he did the minimum necessary for a programme. Mr
Kershaw was firm in his view that Savile had no real interest in
music and that his claim to be “the godfather of British pop

254
 music” was nothing more than a “great myth or public relations
swindle”. A10, a studio manager who worked on Speakeasy
and Savile’s Travels between 1973 and 1975, agreed with this.
She said that, whilst the lives of many of the disc jockeys she
knew revolved around music, Savile appeared to her not to
have even the slightest interest.

4.66 Sue Davies, who worked as a researcher on Speakeasy for six

months in 1977, was scathing about Savile. She thought that
“everything was a platform for his own ego”. She said that
Savile “would rip the piss out of [the audience]” and would ask
questions but rarely wait long enough for anybody to reply.
A24, who worked as a production assistant on Speakeasy
between 1973 and 1977 struck a similar note; she felt that
Savile did not take the programme seriously. I hasten to say
that these were not views shared by either Canon Semper or
Canon Winter, both of whom produced Speakeasy at different
times and both of whom regarded Savile as a talented and
skilled presenter.

4.67 Several witnesses noted Savile’s lack of involvement in the

preparatory work on Jim’ll Fix It. This was in contrast to the
impression given to an often adoring public, many of whom
thought that Savile was personally involved in making dreams
come true. The coveted badge itself suggested that Savile had
personally ‘fixed it’.

4.68 A23, a fixee, told me that, when she appeared on the

programme, she was surprised by how little Savile was
involved. She said: “…on the show it looked like he was there
all the time.... sitting in [his] chair for the whole of the
programme. But he just – he wasn’t there”. Anne Gilchrist,
Jenny Ricotti, Helen Gartell, who all worked on the programme,
as well as the producer, Roger Ordish, confirmed that, save on
very rare occasions, Savile was not involved in selecting the

255
 letters that would feature on the show. Nor, save on very rare
occasions, was he involved in filming the ‘fixes’. His
involvement was generally limited to the day on which the
programme was to be recorded and linked together. He would
arrive in the early afternoon when Mr Ordish would tell him, for
the first time, about the people and fixes to be featured that
day. I also heard some evidence of so-called “dubious fixes”,
including some where the idea for the fix was established first
and a young fixee to request the fix was found later. What is
not clear to me, however, is the extent of that practice and the
extent to which Savile was involved in it. I deal with this in
more detail at paragraphs 10.6 to 10.14.

4.69 Robin Smith, a researcher and assistant floor manager on Jim’ll

Fix It between 1987 and 1989 said that, on the day of a
recording, Savile would “waltz in, make his presence known
and then he would probably disappear off until we would want
him for rehearsal”. He quite often had no idea what was in the
programme until his arrival. He would not watch the films of the
fixes in advance. Instead he would learn a little about what was
coming up from other members of the team who had been
present for the filming so that he had enough information to get
a smile from those taking part. His approach was to do the
minimum.

4.70 Jeanette Pease, a researcher for three series in 1986, 1987

and 1988, got the impression that Savile didn’t “particularly
want to be [there]” and had no interest in the programme.

4.71 Savile’s lack of interest is to be contrasted with the interest,

enthusiasm, pride and pleasure shared by members of the
production team in creating a programme which was not only
popular but which gave enormous pleasure to a great number
of people. I have the impression that some members of the
team resented Savile’s lack of commitment, compared with

256
 their own. Some of them appeared to me to have resented
Savile’s use of the ‘per diems’ system. It was the BBC’s
practice to provide the daily requirements of people taking part
in a show. Savile, who would be at the studios for about six
hours on the day of recording, would request a box of five or six
Romeo and Juliet cigars – many more than he would smoke in
a day. This seems to have been Savile’s way of ensuring a
permanent supply of free cigars. Indeed I was told that, in his
flat in Bournemouth, there was a large humidor full of these
cigars.

4.72 Jill Henderson, an assistant floor manager, was one of several

members of the team who felt uncomfortable about the public
impression that Savile was ‘a good guy’ who was personally
involved in making dreams come true. Some, however,
recognised that an element of ‘make-believe’ is inherent in
radio and television. C3 said that the impression to the world at
large and to the young fixees that everything had been
arranged by Savile was “a bit of a con” but added that there
were a lot of things in television that are not as they seem. As
Ms Houlihan said, the giving of the impression that Savile had
arranged all the fixes himself was “the magic of television”.

4.73 I do accept that some element of make-believe is inevitable in

television. However, when one considers the enormous
popularity of Jim’ll Fix It, its prominent position in the BBC’s
Saturday evening schedule and the way in which Savile was
able to promote his image as a favourite uncle to the nation’s
children, the degree of make-believe (particularly when one
adds to this the fact that there is evidence of “dubious fixes”)
seems to verge on the distasteful. It is also clear that Savile
used the programme to promote his own image. For example,
David Nicolson, who directed the programme, described how
Savile insisted that a fix be filmed at Stoke Mandeville Hospital

257
 in 1988. He gave instructions that there should be a lingering
camera shot of a plaque on the wall at Stoke Mandeville
commemorating his contribution to the building of the hospital.

4.74 There were, however, some within the BBC who acknowledged
that Savile was both charismatic and professionally able. Bill
Cotton, Head of Light Entertainment, apparently admired Savile
as a performer and selected him for Jim’ll Fix It. Pete Murray,
who worked for the BBC for many years, said that, as a disc
jockey, Savile did not really say anything but, nonetheless,
“they loved him”. He told me that Savile had a certain “magic”
as well as “charisma” and “unbelievable charm”.

4.75 Helen Pennant-Rea, who worked as a researcher on

Speakeasy between 1971 and 1972, found Savile professional
and committed. Robin Carr saw Savile as a unique performer
on television. Roger Ordish thought that he was bright and
intelligent and David Tate admired his skills as a communicator.
A12, who also observed Savile’s work in Speakeasy, was
impressed with his technical skills and, in particular, his ability
to receive comments from the producer in his ear piece and
immediately to use those comments in his presentation. Peter
Riding, who worked in the BBC’s Further Education department
(later renamed Continuing Education) and worked with Savile
on the health education programmes Play it Safe and Mind
How You Go, thought that, from a production point of view,
Savile was “absolutely terrific” and “absolutely professional”; he
handled people well, re-wrote (and improved) the links he was
asked to deliver and was a very good presenter. Wilfred
De’Ath, who was a young radio producer in the mid-1960s, did
not like Savile and found him to be “intimidating and self-
absorbed”. However, he acknowledged that Savile was “a
brilliant performer” but added that “he was good at being Jimmy
Savile”.

258
4.76 Canon Winter, of the Religious Broadcasting department,
worked with Savile on Speakeasy and spoke highly of him as a
presenter, describing him as “very produceable” meaning that
he was always prepared to be guided by what the producer
suggested. Canon Winter thought that Savile was “quite sharp”
and “witty” and that, even in his mid-forties, Savile retained a
“teenage enthusiasm”. Canon Semper thought that Savile was
a strong presenter. He was good at translating topics and
issues “into his lingo”, communicating well with the young
audience.

4.77 Canon Semper recalled an occasion which he thought showed

Savile’s skill as a presenter. Speakeasy focused each week on
a current topic usually of a moral or ethical nature. One
programme was about travellers (who were very much in the
news at the time). A group of travellers was approached and
agreed to provide an audience of about 100. In the event,
however, only three turned up. Canon Semper was concerned
by this but Savile rose to the occasion. He promised that there
would be no “dead air”. He pretended that there was a large
audience in the studio. While the questions always came from
the same three people, Savile described each questioner in a
different way so as to suggest that there were a lot of them.
Canon Semper thought that, on this occasion, a little make-
believe was put to good effect.

4.78 In the eyes of the public, Savile was almost a saint; as Mr

Langley said, he was “revered”. Ms Houlihan described his
public image as that of a “superstar” who was “beloved” by the
public. Canon Winter thought that Savile was, in the pop
scene, “like the High Priest of the Mecca”. This image
combined with his skill as a presenter brought success to his
programmes, in particular in terms of audience ratings.

259
4.79 Will Wyatt, former Managing Director, Network Television and
Chief Executive, BBC Broadcast and Deputy to the Director-
General, said that Savile was one of a small number of people
who were, at any one time, “really seriously important” in the
BBC. They were, in effect, the faces of the BBC. One witness,
who for understandable reasons wishes to remain anonymous,
was well placed to describe Savile’s importance to the BBC.
She said that Savile was viewed as an enormous asset. She
thought that, when Jim’ll Fix It was at the height of its
popularity, he was viewed as the BBC’s “biggest asset”.

4.80 It is clear that Savile was not personally well-liked within the
BBC but his abilities as a star presenter and his standing as a
celebrity, as a fundraiser and as a friend of the rich and
powerful, gave him a position of some importance to the BBC,
its ratings and its brand.

260
 TER 5 – SAVILE’S PRIVATE
CHAPT P L
LIFE AND SEXUAL ACTIVITIE
ES

NOTE:: This ch
hapter contains grraphic ev
vidence off sexual abuse
which some rea
aders may find distrressing.

Introdu
uction

5.1 In thiss chapter, I shall se

et out the accounts of the me
en and
women who havve come fo
orward to us
u and who have a story
s to
bout some sexual co
tell ab ontact with
h Savile in
n connectio
on with
the BB
BC. Manyy of these reports a
allege a co
ontact whicch was
unlawfful either because
b th
he person concerned was und
der the
age off consent or e the person, althoug
o because gh old eno
ough to
consent, did not in fact do so. Some
e witnesses have desscribed
a sexxual encou
unter or activity
a with Savile which was not
unlawfful but which was im
mproper, in
nappropria
ate or dista
asteful,
usuallyy because
e it entaile
ed an abuse of the power or age
imbala
ance betwe e and the person co
een Savile oncerned. Some
witnes
sses have described encounterrs with Sav
vile which did not
entail any sexua b which are included becausse they
al activity but
nstrate
demon so
ome face
et of Sa
avile’s sexxually pre
edatory
behavviour.

5.2 It is im
mportant to
o stress tha
at this chapter is not intended to be a
comprrehensive account
a off Savile’s sexual
s activ
vities. My Terms
of Refference lim
mit my scop
pe to mattters conne
ected to the
e BBC.
This iss somethin
ng that hass occasion
nally had to
o be expla
ained to
people
e who have
e approach
hed us butt whose evvidence co
ould not
as not connected to the BBC. Where
be acccepted beccause it wa
that ha
as been necessary, the Savile
e investiga
ation has, when
w it
could, redirecte
ed such people to
o other inquiries. The
politan Police report into Opera
Metrop ation Yewtrree sugges
sts that
only a small pro
oportion of
o Savile’s victims ca
ame into contact
c
with hiim through
h the BBC.

26
61
5.3 Although my initial Terms of Reference required me to
investigate Savile’s sexual activities on BBC premises or on
location for the BBC, when I began to hear evidence, I soon
realised that I would have to widen their scope. The very first
victim witness, C1, described how, in 1985/1986 when she was
15, she was doing work experience in the canteen at
Broadcasting House. She met Savile when he came in one
afternoon. He asked her if she would have a cup of tea with
him when she had finished work. She agreed. He came back
to collect her at 4pm. In brief, and I will return to her account in
greater detail later in this chapter, he took her to his flat in Park
Crescent and raped her. In her case, there was no sexual
activity on BBC premises. Yet, we could not ignore such a
piece of evidence. The BBC immediately accepted that I
should interpret my Terms of Reference widely; later the Terms
of Reference were amended to cover any of Savile’s sexual
activities connected with the BBC.

5.4 This Report cannot be comprehensive even as an account of

Savile’s sexual activity in connection with the BBC. There must
be victims who have had some sexual experience with Savile
(in some way related to the BBC) who, for one reason or
another, have not come forward. I am grateful to those who
have come forward but do not in any way criticise those who
have chosen not to.

5.5 In particular, we are aware of at least two potential witnesses

who reportedly had sexual contact with Savile and who, for one
reason or another, have not come forward. They gave their
stories to newspapers but did not disclose their names. We
have asked the newspapers to find out whether those women
would be prepared to give evidence to the Savile investigation.
No response was received from those women and there is
nothing further we can do to identify them.

262
5.6 It follows that I cannot claim that we have a complete picture of
all Savile’s sexual activities connected with the BBC. Even with
the limitations I have described, however, the evidence
reported in this chapter will, I think, vividly demonstrate Savile’s
sexual preferences, activities and modus operandi.

5.7 The narratives which I shall recount (all of which constitute

sexual encounters) vary widely in gravity. I have told the
victims’ accounts in the way they were described to me out of
respect to the victims concerned. Some were very serious
indeed, such as the rape of C1 which I have already mentioned.
Some witnesses prefaced their accounts with an apology; they
thought that what they were going to say would sound trivial but
wanted to tell their story so that I would have a complete
picture. These witnesses then went on to describe incidents
such as how Savile had licked their hand or arm when greeting
them or had kissed them on the lips when they had expected to
give him a peck on the cheek. Minor though those incidents
may seem in comparison to some others, they would
nonetheless have been very unpleasant and I am grateful that
those witnesses came to tell the Savile investigation about their
experiences.

5.8 Most of the individuals who gave evidence of their sexual

encounters with Savile did not wish their names to be published
in my Report. Such requests were clearly reasonable and they
were given a coded identity beginning with the letter ‘C.’ Other
victim witnesses said, at the time of giving their evidence, that
they were willing to have their names included in the Report.
However, I decided that it would be preferable if I were to give
them a coded identity too, so that they can make their own
minds up, when they have seen the Report, whether or not they
wish to identify themselves. I have given those witnesses an
identity beginning with the letter ‘B’. The only victims of Savile

263
 who are named in this Report are those who have already
given their account to the media under their own names and
whose accounts have received wide or regular publicity.

5.9 I will also refer in this chapter to some witnesses who are not
victims of any inappropriate sexual activity but who have
requested anonymity. I have given those witnesses a coded
identity beginning with the letter ‘A’.

The Evidence from Complainants

The London Team

5.10 I begin with accounts of the experiences of two women who,

when teenage girls, regularly had sexual intercourse with
Savile. Both appeared on the ITV programme Exposure, where
they were given the pseudonyms Angie and Val. They gave
evidence to the Savile investigation in 2013. In addition, each
woman submitted additional written evidence on 4 and 5
February 2016 just before a final draft version of the Report
was made available to the BBC. Parts of this additional
evidence provided by one of the women, Angie, differed from
the evidence provided in 2013. At such a late stage, it was not
possible for me to resolve these differences and I therefore
decided that I should record all of the evidence provided by
Angie, both in 2013 and 2016, in the Report.

5.11 In 2013, the women told me that they were part of what Savile
described as his ‘London Team’. I accepted their accounts as
truthful and as accurate as could be expected given the lapse
of time.

5.12 Angie (C27 before the Savile investigation) told me that she first
met Savile in 1968 when she was 15. Savile would have been
42. A family member had met Savile through his work and had
Savile’s telephone number. At the family member’s suggestion,

264
 Angie asked Savile to arrange for her to meet the members of a
pop group. Savile invited her to meet him at the Radio
Luxembourg studios. Before she left, Savile invited her to the
Lime Grove Studios to see Top of the Pops. She did not have
a ticket; she just told the commissionaire that Savile was
expecting her and in she went. She met another slightly older
girl who was also Savile’s guest and they congregated in his
dressing room. All sorts of people were calling in while they
were there. It was great fun. Nothing untoward happened at all
and she was thrilled when, at the end of the evening, Savile told
her she could come again the next time he was presenting Top
of the Pops.

5.13 From then onwards, Angie thinks that she went to Top of the
Pops almost every time Savile was the presenter. A few weeks
after she had first met him, before she was 16, he gave her
instructions to meet him at the Adrian Hotel, Hunter Street, near
Brunswick Square. She went alone. She was taken to a small
room, very sparsely furnished. Savile told her to sit on the bed.
He came over to her, pushed her backwards and got on top of
her. He did not kiss her or undress her. He did not undress
himself. Angie tried to push him off but could not as he was too
strong. Savile simply pulled out his penis, pushed her knickers
to one side and raped her. He did not use a condom. The act
of sex was very quick and wholly unemotional. Angie was a
virgin and it was painful. Afterwards, Savile remarked that she
was not a virgin any more. Then he told her to go and said that
he would see her the following week at the studios. When she
saw him the next time, he behaved as if nothing had happened.

5.14 Angie told me that her connection with Savile and the group of
girls she met at the studios became the focal point of her social
life. She fell into a routine of going to Top of the Pops. She
would not usually have a ticket; the commissionaire or

265
 receptionist would wave her through and she would make her
own way to Savile’s dressing room. There the group would
assemble. This continued when Top of the Pops moved to
Television Centre. Sometimes, Savile would tell her to come to
the studios in the early afternoon in time for the rehearsal; then
she would miss afternoon school. Sometimes she would arrive
in time for the recording of the show. She did whatever Savile
told her. She and other members of the group would take part
in the show. Savile would arrange for them to be on the
podium with him while he was on camera and they would
appear on television. The only disadvantage of the
arrangement for her was that, every time, Savile would select a
girl who was to go back with him for sex. Sometimes it was
she. In the early days, Savile would take her to the Adrian
Hotel or his camper-van and later he would take her to his flat
in Park Crescent. She regarded being selected as an honour
but she did not really like what she had to do. However, she
continued to go because she enjoyed being involved in the pop
music and celebrity scene. The other girls became her friends.
I have seen a number of photographs of Angie and other girls
with Savile. These appear to show that they were happy to be
with him.

5.15 There were, at any time, about six to eight girls in the group.
Occasionally there would be a new recruit; sometimes a girl
would drop out. Savile called the girls his ‘Team’ or his ‘London
Team’. Although this seems bizarre, I am satisfied that Savile
did call this group his Team. When Savile published his
autobiography As It Happens in 1974, he gave Angie a signed
copy. The inscription on the front page, clearly written in his
hand, said:

“[Angie’s name] of the Team

No escape

266
 Belongs to Jimmy Savile her keeper”

5.16 Sometimes, in the break between the rehearsal and the

recording or during the period when he was not required for the
rehearsal, Savile would have sex with Angie on the couch in his
dressing room. There were never any other people present
when that occurred. In her experience, Savile did not like group
sex; they were always alone. When asked about descriptions
in his book of there being several girls on a bed with him, Angie
agreed that she thought that would be only for “slap and tickle”.
Savile would touch Angie sexually in the presence of other
people. He would sometimes push her up against the wall of
the dressing room and put his hands up her skirt, even when
there were other people in the room.

5.17 In addition to inviting her to Top of the Pops, Savile would tell
Angie to come to watch him recording other programmes. She
and other members of the group went to Broadcasting House to
watch him record radio programmes and she also watched the
recording of Speakeasy at the Paris Theatre on Lower Regent
Street. She did not suggest that anything of a sexual nature
ever happened to her on those premises. The accuracy of her
recollections of the times at which these shows were recorded,
the premises she visited and the names she remembered of the
production teams involved satisfies me of the reliability of this
evidence.

5.18 Each year during this period, Savile would take part in a charity
event in Brighton. He would tell some of the girls to come down
to Brighton. They took part in the walk and had sex with him at
a hotel whenever he wanted. I have seen photographs of him
surrounded by girls. He made no arrangements for their
welfare while they were there; they had to fix up
accommodation for themselves.

267
 5.19 When asked in 2013 to describe the nature of her relationship
with Savile, Angie said that she never regarded herself as his
girlfriend and felt that she did not have a relationship with him.
Savile never took her out or gave her a present, beyond a cup
of tea and a doughnut at a transport café near King’s Cross.
She thinks he did not like paying for anything. He never
needed to pay for hotels or restaurant meals. His attitude was
that he was doing the restaurant a favour because he was
famous and attracted business. He made no emotional
demands on her and he himself seemed devoid of emotion. He
talked about himself and what he was doing.

5.20 Looking back on this period of her life, Angie told me that she
felt that she must have found Savile very charismatic. She told
me that he was very controlling. She felt trapped into
continuing to see him. She cited the inscription in his book as
an example of this. She felt there was indeed “no escape”.
Sometimes she would tell him that she was leaving him but he
would just smirk and say “No escape”. Sometimes, when other
people were there, he would mouth those words at her. She
did not tell her other friends and family about her association
with him. She was afraid of him. She believed that he had
contacts in the underworld and feared what might happen if she
crossed him.

5.21 The association ended when Angie was in her mid-twenties. A

while earlier, Savile had introduced her to a man with whom
she started a relationship; this became important to her. Savile
was aware of this and appeared content that it should happen.
Then, one day, Savile told Angie that the man had mental
problems and was “no good for her”. She believes that he told
the man that Angie was two-timing him, which was not true.
The result was that the relationship ended. Later, she came to
believe that Savile had broken up the relationship on purpose.

268
 Angie says that she was so angry about that that it gave her the
strength to break away from Savile. She had been in his
clutches for almost 10 years. By 1977/1978, the London Team
had almost broken up. Most of the girls had drifted away.

5.22 In her written evidence in February 2016, Angie told me that

she had been raped multiple times by Savile. She told me that
if you were picked by Savile, you had to have sex with him and
that every time she was chosen by him, there was a physical
fight and his brute strength always won. She told me that she
tried hard every time for sex not to happen but he would put his
whole body weight on her and pin her against something like a
wall. She said that she was not willing, but was trapped and
controlled by Savile and she had no choice. She said that she
was scared, despite Savile being very charismatic.

*****

5.23 Val (C28 before the Savile investigation) is the pseudonym of

the other member of the London Team who gave evidence to
us. Her story has many similarities to that of Angie. She first
met Savile in 1969 when she was 15. She was introduced by
Angie, who took her to the Paris Theatre to watch a recording
of Speakeasy and also took her to Savile’s dressing room
before and after the show. When she met Savile, he asked her
how old she was and chatted to her. After watching the
recording of a number of Speakeasy programmes, she began
to go to Top of the Pops as a member of the participating
audience and also to go to Savile’s dressing room with other
girls. Savile first touched her sexually in his dressing room at
the Paris Theatre. He pushed her into an alcove, pinned her
forcefully (she says he was very strong) against the wall and
put his hand up her skirt and rubbed her genitals. She knew
that what had happened was wrong but she did not find it
offensive and she did not tell anyone about it.

269
5.24 This kind of thing happened a few times but it was not until she
had turned 16 that he first took her to his camper-van for
intercourse. When they got inside he told her to “come and
have a cuddle”. She went and sat next to him and he pushed
her back onto the bed, got on top of her, pinned her down
(again with considerable force) so she could not move and
pulled down her tights and knickers. She struggled and said
“You’re not going to go all the way, are you” and he said “No, of
course not”. But he penetrated her completely. She was a
virgin and this was painful. There was no kissing or foreplay;
the whole thing was very quick. Then she left and made her
way home. It appears to me that this was an act of rape.

5.25 She continued to go to various BBC studios. Mainly she went

to Top of the Pops and Speakeasy but occasionally she went to
Broadcasting House. There was rarely any difficulty in gaining
entry; she would just say that Savile was expecting her and
would be waved through. Occasionally, she would have a
ticket for Top of the Pops. She brought one to show me. She
recalls one occasion when she had difficulty getting in to
Television Centre. Security had been tightened and, having no
tickets, she and some other girls were refused entry. However,
they climbed over a fence and got in. There were usually other
girls there, members of the Team. She and the other girls were
picked out (on Savile’s instructions) to go on the podium with
him while he was introducing the acts. She found this exciting.
She also met or saw a lot of other celebrities. She recalls that
Savile often picked her out at the end of the evening and took
her home, usually to his camper-van but sometimes to his flat.
They would have intercourse. She did not mind this at all;
indeed she felt flattered when he chose her. Savile never took
her out, never gave her any food or drink save that he gave her
a cup of tea once at a café near King’s Cross and once in the
BBC canteen. He never bought her a present, although

270
 occasionally he would give her something that he had been
given but did not want. For example, while showing me the
photographs of one of the visits to Brighton, she noticed that
she was holding a pineapple and she remembered that Savile
had given it to her. It had been given to him during the charity
walk and he did not want it. He never gave her money for a taxi
or for the train home after she had been with him at the
camper-van.

5.26 On one occasion she went out with him on Savile’s Travels.
She was with a friend. An individual described by Val as ‘a
radio producer’ was there. At one stage when the four of them
were in the camper-van, Savile selected Val by saying “Eaney,
Meany, Miny, Mo” and then told her to go into the back of the
camper-van, where the bed was. She went with Savile and
they had intercourse. She was 16 at the time.

5.27 When Val was 18, she moved away from London. For a time,
she continued to travel to London to see Savile but gradually
this became less frequent. However, she remained fond of
him, kept in touch and saw him occasionally. When she was in
her late twenties, she went up to London to see Jim’ll Fix It.
Savile invited her to his flat beforehand and she went. He tried
to persuade her to have intercourse but she refused. By then,
she was older and more assertive.

5.28 It appears that several girls in the Team stayed in touch with
each other after their regular contact with Savile had ceased.
On one occasion, when most of them were in their late
twenties, there was a “get-together” at Savile’s flat. Savile was
there as well, of course, but Val’s recollection is that he spent
much of the time on the telephone. She still felt some fondness
for him and she told me that it was not until much later that the
gravity of what had gone on really came home to her.

271
5.29 Val is still in touch with a few past members of the London
Team. One is in poor health and I was told that it would not be
appropriate to contact her. I asked Val whether it would be
possible for her or Angie to contact the other women to see if
they were prepared to assist us. Unfortunately, we have not
heard from any. I have, however, heard evidence about
another girl who, I infer, was probably a member of the Team,
at least for a short time. I will not name this girl but I relate what
I heard about her in the next paragraph. Although I have not
interviewed her, the evidence about her is that she was a victim
of Savile.

*****

5.30 A10, who worked as a studio manager on Savile’s Travels for

two to three years in the 1970s, told me that Savile usually had
one or two young girls in the studio with him during recordings.
They appeared to be aged between 12 and 14/15. They were
“part of his entourage”. A10 noticed that sometimes the same
girls would appear more than once. She saw some of the same
girls attending Speakeasy, on which she also worked. From
the snatches of conversation that she overheard, the girls
seemed to have a sexual relationship with Savile. A10 got to
know one of the girls because, after the show, they would take
the same tube train home. This girl, she thinks, was about 14
or 15; certainly she was still at school. Although the girl did not
spell this out, A10 got the impression that the girl had met
Savile on Top of the Pops or possibly some other programme
and had had some form of sexual relationship with him. He had
invited her to come to Savile’s Travels. A10 got the impression
that he would take her to his camper-van, which she thought
was parked in Regent’s Park. After a while, Savile had dropped
the girl and she was very unhappy. A10 formed the view that
the girl was infatuated with Savile, who was, of course, a big

272
 celebrity. Even after he had dropped her, she continued to go
to recordings of Savile’s Travels. This evidence, coming from a
source completely independent of Angie and Val, is consistent
with their accounts.

The Chronological Account

5.31 The earliest incident of sexual abuse of which I learned came

from C32. She gave me an account of being raped at the age
of 13 by two men, one of whom she believes was Savile. This
incident took place in 1959 at BBC Lime Grove Studios. At the
time, C32 was attending a school in Lime Grove. She was
passing Shepherd’s Bush underground station, on her way
back to school after lunch, when a man, coming out of the
station, asked her the way to Lime Grove Studios. As she was
going that way herself, they walked together and chatted.

5.32 The man appeared to be in his late twenties and had brownish
hair just above the collar. He told her that he worked for Radio
Luxembourg and that he was meeting a friend who worked at
Lime Grove Studios. They talked about pop stars and such
things and, when they arrived at the studios, he asked if she
would like to see round the studios after school. She said she
would.

5.33 When she came out of school, he was standing on the

pavement outside the studios and they went inside together.
She said that there was no security at the entrance. They went
up in a lift and walked along what she described as a maze of
corridors. It appeared that the man knew where he was going.
She now thinks that he was familiar with the studios and had
only pretended that he did not know the way to the studios in
order to get into conversation with her.

5.34 He took her into an office and did not close the door. He told
her to sit down and they chatted; he was friendly and told her to

273
 call him “Jimbo”. Then he started touching her hair, lifting it
from her neck and telling her what a pretty girl she was. Then
he led her into another room, off the first. This was a long
room, lined with shelves. There was a table at the far end. He
closed the door. He took her to the table at the far end and
started touching her all over and lifting her hair and kissing her
neck. Then he laid her on the table, lifted her skirt up (that was
the skirt of her school uniform), put his hands inside her
knickers and started “twiddling his fingers about”. She was very
frightened as, unsurprisingly at her age, she had absolutely no
sexual experience.

5.35 The man then undid his trousers and let them fall to the floor.
His penis was erect. He then penetrated C32. While he was
still inside her, the door opened and a second man came in.
He said “what are you two up to then?” The first man just
carried on while the second man watched. Then the first man
withdrew from her and started masturbating. He ejaculated
onto C32’s blouse and skirt. Then the second man undid his
trousers and penetrated her, with the first man watching. He
ejaculated inside her; she says that she could feel it. All this,
she said, was very painful. She said that when he withdrew he
also masturbated but did not ejaculate again. At no stage were
any of her clothes removed. Her knickers had just been
pushed aside. She described the second man as having
“fairish, curly” hair. He was of a similar age, in his late twenties,
she thought. She had the impression that the two men were
friends.

5.36 When the second man had finished, she got off the table. She
was “a bit of a mess” and she tried to wipe herself down, using
a handkerchief, she thinks. Then the first man gave her a £5
note and the other man gave her two £1 notes. The first man
told her that she must not tell anyone and he took her back

274
 along the corridors down in the lift and outside. Then she
walked home.

5.37 When she got home, her mother was there. She went upstairs
and changed out of the uniform. That was her normal practice.
She washed the skirt and her knickers in the bathroom and put
the skirt through the mangle in the kitchen. She said nothing to
her mother and her mother did not ask any questions either
about her being late home (at least half an hour) or about the
need to wash her skirt. After that, it was just a normal evening
at home. She felt very sore but she did her homework in the
usual way. She never had to account for the fact that she had
£7 in her possession.

5.38 She gave two reasons why she did not say anything to her
mother. First, she felt very ashamed and embarrassed about
what had happened. But also, she thought that her mother
would have been “very, very cross” with her for going into the
studios with a man.

5.39 She came to believe that the first man was Savile. She said
that, a while after these events, she was listening to Radio
Luxembourg and she heard the voice of the first man. And, she
discovered, the voice belonged to Savile. She said that there
was “no danger” but that it was he. And then some time after
that, she saw Savile on television and recognised him
immediately. She cannot remember how long after or what the
television programme was. She said that she had never seen
the second man again.

5.40 She did not tell anyone of these events until after the media
exposure of Savile’s abuse in 2012. Then she told her husband
and she made a statement to the police. The police were
interested in the second man but she has not been able to
identify him.

275
5.41 This is a very shocking story. I accept that C32 is a truthful
witness. My only question about her evidence was whether the
first man to rape her was in fact Savile. C32 is clear that it was.
Evidentially, this is not the clearest case of identification.
Although I do accept what C32 says, for completeness, I will
briefly address the evidential issues.

5.42 First, recognition by a voice which has been heard on only two
occasions (one of which was very stressful) does not seem to
me to be a particularly reliable mode of identification. I
appreciate that Savile had a Northern accent which would have
sounded unusual to C32 but she did not have much opportunity
to become familiar with the man’s voice so as to recognise it
again.

5.43 Second, it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that a

visual identification could have taken place until about 1964
when Savile began to appear on national television on a regular
basis on Top of the Pops. Until then, his only regular
appearances had been on Tyne Tees Television on
programmes which I do not think were shown on national
networks. However, he made two guest appearances on Juke
Box Jury. One was in 1959; but the date of the other
appearance is unclear, it may not have been until late 1963.
The first was made at Lime Grove Studios and the programme
appears to have been transmitted on Saturday 17 October
1959. From correspondence I have seen between Savile and
the BBC, I think it likely that this would have been the first
occasion on which Savile worked at Lime Grove Studios. From
what C32 says, it appears that the first man was familiar with
the layout of the studio building. If that man was Savile, the
rapes probably took place after 17 October 1959. That is quite
possible but it does mean that C32 cannot have recognised
Savile by seeing that programme. It remains possible that she

276
 saw and recognised him from his second appearance on Juke
Box Jury, although this was probably not until 1963.

5.44 Third, it appears likely (although not certain) that, by 1959,

Savile had already had his hair dyed blonde. Evidence
received by the Savile investigation suggests that Savile might
have begun to dye his hair blonde before 1957 and never
allowed it to return to its natural dark colour. We have
searched for photographs of Savile, of which many are
available on the internet. We have found an early photograph
which shows him with dark hair (although not collar length) but
unfortunately there is no indication of the date it was taken.

5.45 Finally, the giving of money after a sexual encounter would be

quite untypical of Savile. No other victim whose evidence I
have accepted describes him giving money. The evidence
suggests that he was very ‘tight’. £5 in 1959 is the equivalent
of about £100 today.

5.46 Therefore, there are several pointers which suggest that C32
might be mistaken when she identified the first man as Savile.
However, none of these pointers is of itself conclusive. Apart
from the giving of money, the conduct which C32 has described
is consistent with what is now known of Savile. Could there
have been another man standing on the tube station who had
access to Lime Grove Studios who was prepared to pick up a
13-year old school girl and rape her? It seems improbable,
although it is clear that there was another man who was at least
prepared to join in the rape. In the end, I have concluded that
the way in which the first man approached C32 is sufficiently
typical of how Savile might have acted that I ought, on balance,
to accept the identification as valid.

*****

277
5.47 C39 lived in Liverpool and was a regular attender at the Cavern
Club. She and some friends got to know the Hollies who
regularly played there. Early in 1964, shortly after Top of the
Pops had started, tickets were available at the Cavern Club for
young people to be part of the audience for that show. C39
was 16 at this time. She went to Manchester, to the Dickenson
Road studios, on two occasions. Each time, she went with
friends from Liverpool; they travelled by train to Manchester.
On the first occasion, she had a thoroughly enjoyable time.
Savile was the disc jockey presenter but she did not meet him.

5.48 On the second occasion, she was with three friends and was
intending to stay the night at the home of one of them when
they returned to Liverpool. The Hollies were to appear.
Everything went well at the studios until the last act when C39
became separated from her friends. As everyone was leaving
the building, she stayed behind and searched for them. She
went back into the recording studio, where only the BBC staff
and Savile remained. Savile asked her if she was lost and she
explained that she could not find her friends. He went to look in
the dressing rooms but reported that they were not there. She
told him that they were all friendly with the Hollies and he said
that he knew where the Hollies would be going for a drink and
suggested that her friends might have gone there too. He
offered to take her there in his car. He took her to a club called
The Twisted Wheel. At the door, she was refused entry on the
ground of her young age and she went back to sit in Savile’s
car while he went inside to look. He was quite a long time; she
thinks between 30 and 45 minutes. When he came out he said
that her friends were not there and he had been signing
autographs. He said he would take her to another club to see if
they could be found. In the end he took her to four clubs and
on each occasion she stayed in the car and he went in alone.

278
 Her impression of him at this time was that he was a concerned
and helpful adult, doing his best to help her.

5.49 By the time he came out of the last club, it was getting quite
late. Savile said that he would take her to the station. When
they got there, he went in alone and when he came out he said
that the last train had gone. C39 was worried about how she
would get home. Savile said something like “Well, I can’t leave
you roaming the streets of Manchester at this time of night. I’d
better take you to my home. Would you be OK about that?”.
C39 told me that she thought that Savile would have a wife and
children and it would be all right. She certainly did not want to
be left alone in Manchester at that time of night. So she
agreed. Savile was very friendly and sympathetic. He
remarked that she had been sitting in the car a long time and
must be cold. He would make her a “nice hot drink” when they
got back.

5.50 Savile drove her to a large Victorian property in Salford. When

they got inside, she was in a wide hallway and was shown
through a door which she later realised was part of his flat. The
room had a gas fire and was full of boxes and other clutter.
There were a few “rough old chairs”. Savile left her saying he
would make a cup of tea. When he returned he brought a mug
of tea and some blankets and a pillow. He helped her to make
a bed up on the floor. He said he would take her to the station
in the morning. He said good night and left her. She drank her
tea then, without undressing, she lay down and eventually went
to sleep.

5.51 The next thing she knew was that there was something heavy
on her. The room was dark although there was a light coming
from another room. She realised it was Savile and he was
pulling at her pants. She struggled to fight him off but he was
lying on top of her and she could do nothing. The only thing he

279
 said was “You will like this”. He penetrated her, which was
painful, and then told her to close her legs. She had no
previous sexual experience. She told me that he withdrew
before ejaculating. When he had finished, he got up and left
without another word. She was shaking and crying and needed
a lavatory. She found that she could not get out into the main
hallway as the door was locked. However, there was another
door from the room leading into a passageway and there she
found a lavatory, in a very bad state. She went back to her
makeshift bed and lay down again. She could not sleep and
was terrified that she was going to be kept prisoner.

5.52 Quite early the next morning, probably about 7.30am, Savile
returned to the room and said he would make her a cup of tea
and take her to the train. That is what he did. He said nothing
about what had happened during the night; indeed he barely
spoke. He just took her to the station, let her out of the car and
drove away.

5.53 Afterwards, C39 felt that she had been stupid to go to Savile’s
house. She also felt ashamed of what had happened but
relieved to have got out of the place, after being afraid that she
was locked in. She went home, washed and changed and then
went to find the friend with whom she should have spent the
night. She told her friend what had happened to her. She
discovered that the group of friends had in fact been in The
Twisted Wheel with the Hollies. They had seen Savile in there
but he had not spoken to them. C39 concluded that Savile had
lied to her. Her friend said that there was nothing to be done
about the situation and that, if C39 were to tell anyone, they
would not get any more tickets for Top of the Pops. C39 did not
tell anyone else what had happened. She never went back to
Top of the Pops and even stopped going to the Cavern Club.
When the Savile scandal broke in 2012, she told her husband

280
 what had happened and he encouraged her to tell her story.
She spoke to NAPAC and then to the police on Operation
Yewtree.

*****

5.54 C38 lived in Newcastle upon Tyne. He was very keen on pop
music and regularly watched Top of the Pops on television.
During the winter of 1964/1965, when he was 15, C38 had the
opportunity to go to Manchester with his elder brother and a
friend to attend the making of a programme. They arrived in
the late afternoon. He recalls that the studio, which was in an
old dilapidated building with an arch, looked a bit like a church.
The three went in. C38 does not know whether they had any
tickets. His brother and the friend spoke to a doorman and the
upshot was that C38 was told that he was too young to go into
the studio. Not wishing to return to the car, C38 decided to wait
in the foyer where it was warm. The others went into the studio
to take part in the programme. C38 could hear the music which
was very loud.

5.55 At some stage, C38 went into the men’s lavatories. A few
moments later, the door opened and two men came in. One of
them, C38 recognised as Savile. These two went to the urinal
a little way from C38. While C38 was urinating, the two men
shuffled up so that Savile was alongside him. Suddenly,
without speaking to him, Savile put his hand on C38’s penis
and began to masturbate him. Then Savile put his other hand
down the back of C38’s jeans, inside his pants and put his
finger up C38’s anus. C38 was “in total shock” and “froze”.
Then, due to the pain, he shouted “Get off!” and ran out of the
door, holding up his jeans. He ran out of the building and down
a road. There he crouched behind a parked car from where he
could watch the entrance to the studio building. He feared that
he might be followed. However, no one came out after him. He

281
 was too afraid to return to the foyer and stayed in the street
until he saw his brother and his friend come out and they began
the return journey to Newcastle. He did not tell his brother what
had occurred.

*****

5.56 In the late 1960s, C2 was working as a telephonist at BBC

Manchester and, one day, saw Savile in the canteen. He was
alone and C2 asked him for his autograph. He wrote
something on a piece of paper and she thanked him. He said
“Give me a kiss” and pointed to his cheek. She bent down to
give him a peck on the cheek when he suddenly turned his face
and kissed her full on the lips. She thought it was horrible and
told her colleagues and, she believes, her supervisor what he
had done.

*****

5.57 C41 worked as a record promoter for about 18 months between

late 1968 and early 1970. She frequently visited Egton House
to promote new releases with BBC Radio 1 producers. She
had an encounter with Savile in either late 1968 or early 1969,
when she would have been 17. She was walking down the
stairs from the third floor (where the BBC Radio 1 presenters
had their offices) and was intending to leave the building. As
she approached the landing half-way between the third and
second floors, she saw Savile coming up the next flight towards
her. He looked at her and said something like “What’s a pretty
girl like you doing in a place like this?” Then, without more ado,
he pushed her against the wall with his body. She was pinned
there by the weight of his body. Then he felt her right breast
over the top of her blouse and put his right hand up her skirt.
While doing this he was talking, although she cannot remember
what he said. She could feel his hand moving around and she

282
 had the impression he was trying to get it inside her knickers.
She thinks that he did not manage to do so because she was
wearing tights. She wriggled and squirmed in an attempt to get
away from him but could not because he was leaning against
her. She does not know how long this lasted but it could not
have been long. Two men came through the door on the third
floor onto the staircase and Savile immediately stopped and
continued his journey up the stairs. C41 told the two men,
whom she recognised as record promoters. She did not tell
anyone else what had happened.

*****

5.58 C12 met Savile in 1969 when she was 14 or 15. She had
become a fairly regular attender at Top of the Pops. She went
with friends; she does not think that she ever had a ticket but
was nonetheless let in. Often, Savile was the presenter. Savile
began to recognise her and talk to her. On one occasion, he
told her to wait for him at the studio door. She did so and a
security man took her to Savile’s dressing room where she
waited until Savile came in. Then, with scarcely a word, he
pushed her down onto the couch and lay on top of her, feeling
her breasts and putting his hand up her skirt. He told her not to
tell her friends because, if she did, “they might want [him] to do
this to them”. He did not remove any clothing, either his or
hers. He put his hand inside her knickers. He told her to touch
his penis; she rubbed it and it was hard. He told her to put her
hand down inside the back of his trousers. She thinks he was
not wearing underpants. She did not object to any of this
although he was doing things which had never happened to her
before. She thought he must think she was special as he had
picked her out of a crowd. She thought he must really like her
because he was doing these things to her. Very little was said;
he did not even ask her name or her age. She cannot now

283
 remember how things came to an end. They did not have
sexual intercourse. She remembers only walking out of the
studios to meet her friends who were annoyed because they
had had to wait for her and it was raining. She did not tell them
what had happened although she felt important.

5.59 In some respects, C12’s account does not fit with the evidence
of Angie and Val (see paragraphs 5.10 to 5.29 above). Angie
and Val said that there were always some girls hanging around
Savile in the dressing room before and after Top of the Pops.
According to C12, there were no other girls there on the
occasion she was assaulted. However, I found all three
witnesses to be impressive. I thought that what they were
saying was as accurate as one could expect, given that so long
has passed since these events. There might just have been
occasions when members of the Team were not present in the
dressing room.

5.60 For the sake of completeness, I shall describe another meeting

C12 had with Savile, even though it is not directly connected
with the BBC. C12 met Savile a few months later, probably in
the summer holiday of 1969, by which time she would have
been 15. A convoy of London taxis carrying underprivileged
children drove from London to Southend for a day out.
Members of her family drove taxis; she was helping to look after
the children. Savile drove his camper-van in the convoy. The
party assembled at a funfair. She went (willingly) with Savile to
his camper-van. The curtains round the van were closed and
there was a large bed. When they got inside, Savile quickly got
her onto the bed and took some of her clothes off. He pulled
his trousers down and he was exposed. He wanted to
penetrate her and there was then some argument between
them. She told him that she was a virgin and it would hurt. He
said it would not hurt and he would not “go all the way”. In any

284
 event, she said that he did penetrate her but not completely;
she thought with only the tip of his penis. She kept telling him
that she did not like it and eventually he gave up. He said he
was not “going to do this anymore” and said “Let’s go”. He
appeared to be angry with her and told her to get “on her way”.
They left the van together and he did not speak to her for the
rest of the day although she said that she tried to catch his
attention a couple of times. She wanted to see if he still liked
her even though she did not want him “to go all the way”. She
does not think she told anyone about this at the time, although
she thinks that she might have told her brother some time later.

*****

5.61 In 1969, C13, aged 22, was working as a studio manager for
BBC Radio at Broadcasting House and Egton House. One day,
she was assigned to work with Savile who was to record a
charity appeal. He came into the studio with several middle-
aged men. As soon as he saw C13, who was in the control
room behind a glass screen, Savile seemed to become excited
and invited her to a party that afternoon “at my place”. She
declined, explaining that she was working. She then asked him
to do a voice test. This was a procedure with which he was
very familiar, having worked in broadcasting for many years.
Nonetheless, he refused to cooperate, by deliberately sitting too
far back in his chair. C13 had to come through into the studio
to move the microphone nearer to him. To do this, she had to
lean over the table in front of him. As she did so, he grabbed
her breasts with both hands, saying that she was lovely. She
moved away as quickly as she could and returned to the control
room. When the recording was done, one of Savile’s men
came into the control room to repeat the invitation to the party.
Again C13 declined but this time added that she was not
interested. She could tell that Savile was displeased by her

285
 refusal as he made a remark to the effect that he would “leave
the bloody woman where she wants”. C13 then went back to
her office rather than going through to the studio to thank
Savile, as she would normally have done. In the office, she told
her immediate managers (who were both men and women)
what had happened but she cannot now recall which of her
several managers were on duty that day. However, she does
recall that the reaction of one of her managers (she cannot
remember whom) was to show no surprise at all and to suggest
that it would have been more surprising if Savile had not tried to
touch her. Indeed, she said that such conduct was not at all
uncommon among the disc jockeys, and not only Savile.

*****

5.62 C16 went to Top of the Pops in September 1969 with a group of
school friends. They all had tickets. They were all about 15 or
16 (C16 was 15 years old). C16 wore hot pants which were de
rigueur at the time. Her parents were quite strict and made her
wear a full-length sleeveless coat over the top but she undid the
front as soon as she left home.

5.63 Savile was the presenter that night. At some stage, a man with
a clipboard, who was plainly part of the BBC team, told C16
and one of her friends to go onto a podium with Savile. They
were thrilled. They stood one on either side of him and he put
an arm round C16’s friend. Savile told the other boys and girls
on the podium to move in closer. The others pushed forwards
and C16 found herself very close to Savile. Then suddenly she
felt his hand behind her waist, underneath her long coat,
touching her skin at the waist. The next thing was that he was
unzipping the back of her hot pants and putting his hand down
inside her knickers and underneath her bottom. She was very
shocked. She looked at him and he just smiled and said “Come
on guys and girls closer to me, closer to me”. C16 panicked

286
 and jumped forwards off the podium, from a height of about
three feet. She ran to the man with the clipboard and told him
what had happened. She was crying. Another man came over
to see what was going on and the first man said that C16 must
have been mistaken and that she was probably too young to be
on the show. She protested that she was not mistaken. She
showed them that her zip was undone. One of the men
summoned a security officer and told him to escort her off the
premises. She was taken out and left on the street. She was
alone as all her friends were still inside.

5.64 She went home. She did not tell her mother what had
happened. Her parents had been uncertain about allowing her
to go to Top of the Pops in the first place and C16 feared that, if
they found out what had happened, they would forbid her to
associate with the friends she had been with. Her friends
asked what had happened to her and she said she had had a
stomach upset.

5.65 Although this was not a penetrative assault, I regard it as very

serious. C16 was a young and innocent girl. She had had no
sexual experience at all. It was obvious from her account of
this incident that it had a profoundly traumatic effect on her.
The trauma was not only the sexual assault but was
compounded by the attitude of the BBC floor staff. I have been
unable to identify who the staff were who decided to ignore
C16’s complaint (and the fact that she was crying) and to eject
her from the building. I have been told that an incident such as
this should have been recorded in the studio log and should
have been fully investigated. I have been unable to find anyone
who knew anything about it. Of course, that might mean that it
did not happen. But I am quite satisfied that it did. It appears
to me that the BBC floor staff at that time probably regarded

287
 this kind of conduct as harmless good fun and regarded a girl
who complained about it as a nuisance.

*****

5.66 In June 1970, C42, who was 15 years old, was offered the
opportunity to go to Top of the Pops in London. She lived in
Manchester. Her father worked as a photographer and was
friendly with Harry Goodwin, the Top of the Pops stills
photographer. Mr Goodwin told C42’s father that she and a
friend could go on the show. He would meet them outside the
studio and take them in. The two girls travelled to London. Mr
Goodwin was there to take them into the studios. He left them
in a cafeteria area where they were joined by other members of
the audience. All were ushered into the studio and the
recording took place. Savile was that night’s disc jockey
presenter. He was wearing an orange crushed velvet toga.
Neither girl met Savile during the show. But, at the end, Mr
Goodwin appeared and asked them if they would like to meet
Savile. They were delighted. They were introduced and Mr
Goodwin took some photographs of the two girls with Savile.
Then Mr Goodwin asked C42 if she would like some
photographs of Savile which he would sign. She said she
would and Savile told her to come with him to his dressing room
to get them. Leaving her friend with Mr Goodwin, she went with
Savile.

5.67 As soon as they arrived in the dressing room, Savile came

close to her, touched her hair, said he liked it and asked her if it
was real red hair. Then he put his hand down the front of her
blouse and pulled her close to him. He did not kiss her but she
could smell stale cigar on his breath. He put his hand under
her skirt, which was quite short and got it inside her knickers.
She was not wearing tights as it was a warm June day. At one
stage he said “You’ll enjoy this”. He rubbed himself against

288
 her. He also put his fingers inside her vagina. She had no
previous sexual experience. She found what he did to be quite
horrible. For a time she was unable to move but after a while
she pulled herself away from him and ran out of the room. The
door had not been locked. Savile did not follow her. After
asking for help, she found her friend and Mr Goodwin in the
bar. Mr Goodwin suggested that they should go out for a meal
but C42 said that she wanted to go and that she was not very
happy. Mr Goodwin did not ask what the problem was and did
not appear to be concerned. The two girls left and made their
way to Euston to catch their train. C42 did not tell anyone what
had happened until 2012 when the Savile scandal broke. She
then told her husband. She had decided not to make any
official report but her husband suggested that she should do so
and she decided to tell her story to the Savile investigation.

*****

5.68 C5 was employed by the BBC in Leeds and was about to be

moved to BBC Teesside on promotion. In 1970, when she was
19, she was sent to London on a course. Two of her
colleagues were also on the course. One evening, C5 and one
of the two colleagues went to the Paris Theatre to watch a
recording of Speakeasy presented by Savile. Afterwards, C5
was introduced to Savile. The three of them went out for a
drink. C5 felt overwhelmed; Savile was a very big star. He
appeared to take a great interest in her career at the BBC. He
was giving her advice about her future. He invited her to see
Top of the Pops. She thought he was going to help her career
and she was thrilled. He mentioned a number of people who
might be in a position to help her. He said he had their
telephone numbers back at his place.

5.69 On leaving the public house, C5 and Savile got into a taxi. The
taxi took them to a car park near King’s Cross station where

289
 Savile had parked his camper-van. They went inside. As soon
as Savile had closed the door, he lunged at C5, pushing her
back onto a bench. He lay on top of her. He pulled out his
penis which was erect. He put his hand up her skirt and started
ripping her knickers down. She was struggling but he seemed
to find this amusing and he suggested to her that it would be
good if he interviewed her for Savile’s Travels, while he was
inside her. She continued to struggle; he was quite determined
and, in the fight, her blouse was torn. She managed to get from
under him, stand up and get out. She was in a very dishevelled
state. She returned to her hotel.

5.70 The following day, she told the other of her two colleagues (who
has now died) what had happened. He was sympathetic but
advised her not to make any formal report. He thought that if
she did so she “would come out the loser”. It would be
embarrassing for her and her parents might have to know. She
did not want that. In the end, she agreed with his advice. She
feared that she might not be believed; she feared that a
complaint might affect her career. She felt that she had been
foolish to go with Savile on her own at night and that it was her
fault for letting herself get into that situation. Of course, she was
not in any way to blame.

*****

5.71 In about 1970, B2 was working for BBC Radio and was
assigned to work on Speakeasy. She said that Savile always
behaved quite properly towards her except on one occasion.
They were in Manchester for the recording of a Speakeasy
programme. In the evening, Savile offered to show her around.
He took her to a night club and they stayed very late. As they
were leaving, Savile said that it would probably be too late for
her to get into her hotel and that she could sleep in the spare
room at his flat. She accepted. Soon after she had got into

290
 bed in the spare room, Savile appeared and got into bed with
her. She objected but he refused to leave and eventually she
got out of bed and slept on a couch.

*****

5.72 For some years, C26 was employed as a receptionist at Lime

Grove studios. One evening, on an occasion sometime in the
early 1970s, Savile came into the building to make a
programme. It was C26’s job to greet him and to give him the
key to his dressing room. They exchanged a few words. He
was very friendly and C26, whose husband was at that time in
hospital, asked Savile if he would play a record for her husband
on Savile’s Travels. He said that he would and would come
back later.

5.73 It was Savile’s practice, when preparing material for Savile’s

Travels, to record a brief conversation with the person making
the request and, for this purpose, he kept a tape recorder in his
camper-van. Savile returned later and told C26 to come with
him to record the request. She went with him to his camper-
van which was parked in the BBC car park. Savile told her to
sit down (the bed was the only place she could sit) and they
had a brief conversation about her husband, which Savile
recorded.

5.74 When that was over, C26 thanked him. He asked her if he
deserved a kiss. She thought he meant a peck on the cheek.
Instead of proffering his cheek, he pushed her backwards so
that she was lying on the bed. He came down on top of her
and, as she described it, was “licking” or “slobbering” on her.
Fortunately at that moment, there was a knock at the door.
Savile leaped up and called out to ask who was there. It was
the House Foreman who said that he had someone to see
Savile. Savile said that he would be out in a minute. While this

291
 was happening, C26 was able to get up; she was determined to
leave. She said to Savile that she had not thought he was “like
that” and that she thought he was married. He replied “Why get
married when you can get it for nothing?” Then he asked her
where she lived and what time she finished work. He said he
wanted to take her home and spend the night with her. She
refused. He then said that, if he could take her home, he would
not do anything “naughty”. There was another knock at the
door and this time Savile answered it. The House Foreman
was there with a young teenage girl. Savile said goodbye to
C26 and assured her that her request would be played in two
weeks’ time. And indeed it was. C26 heard no more from
Savile and did not come across him again. At the time, she did
not tell anyone what had happened. She had not been upset
by it, more surprised that Savile should have behaved as he
had.

*****

5.75 In 1970/71, B3 was working in Egton House. One day, when

she was walking through the reception area on her way out of
the building, Savile came into the building with Ted Beston, his
Radio 1 producer. Savile moved into her path, stopped about
two to three feet in front of her and made a sexual movement
with his lower body. Mr Beston grinned. B3 stepped to one
side to move round Savile but he moved so as to block her path
and made a similar movement. She stepped around him and
went out. She did not make any complaint. Mr Beston told us
that he does not recall this incident but I accept that it
happened as B3 describes. I also address this incident at
paragraph 11.69.

*****

292
5.76 Also in the early 1970s, B4 was sitting in the BBC Club at The
Langham, when Savile walked past her. Without breaking his
stride, he put his hand under her armpit and said “Tickle you
under there”. Although this was not an overtly sexual action,
B4 found it intrusive and disrespectful, coming from someone
whom she had never met or spoken to before. She told her
boss about what had happened. His response was “that’s how
life is”.

*****

5.77 During the same period, B5 was working as a studio manager

on BBC Radios 1 and 2 and came across Savile quite a few
times. When she started working there, other staff warned her
always to wear trousers when working with him and promised
to make sure she was not left alone with him. On two or three
occasions, Savile came up behind her while she was in the
control room and stroked her bottom. This did not shock her
and she did not report it.

*****

5.78 The next incident, involving C35, occurred in 1971. As the

evidence I received about it is hearsay (from a friend of C35’s,
whom I shall call A3), I cannot be certain that it happened.
Nonetheless, as A3 appeared to me to be a completely reliable
witness, I can conclude that it may well have happened.

5.79 A3 and C35 were school friends. C35’s parents worked at the
BBC and one of them was able to obtain tickets for Top of the
Pops or otherwise arrange for C35 and her friend to be
admitted. The two girls went together about three times. A3
did not remember meeting Savile. After a while, A3 stopped
going to Top of the Pops but C35 continued to go, usually
inviting another school friend to accompany her. Not long after
A3 had stopped going, C35 told her that, on a recent visit, she

293
 had met Savile. At his invitation, she had gone to his camper-
van. It seems that C35 had realised that some form of sexual
activity was going to take place but Savile had said that he
would not “go all the way”. However, once there, they had had
intercourse. A3 thinks that this was the first time this had
happened to C35. C35 had said that she thought that this was
going to lead to a relationship with Savile but in fact it did not.

*****

5.80 C45 was abused by Savile on two occasions in the early 1970s.
A relative worked as a security officer at Television Centre and
knew Savile well. Over quite a long period of time, from the
age of about 12, C45 was able to visit the BBC to see various
shows including Top of the Pops. Sometimes she met stars in
the Green Room. Often C45’s relative would leave her on her
own while he was working. She would meet him afterwards,
sometimes in the BBC Club. She would meet stars there as
well.

5.81 In advance of C45’s interview with the Savile investigation, we

were provided with a copy of a statement she had given to the
police approximately two years earlier. A number of details in
the account given by C45 to us differed from the account given
in her police statement. However, in the circumstances, this
was understandable; C45 was very unwell when she met us
and was taking strong medication. Notwithstanding the
differences, I accept the gist of her account.

5.82 When she was about 12, C45 started going to Top of the Pops.
She told us of a relaxed environment where she was able freely
to stay unaccompanied in the studio or go to dressing rooms for
autographs. These were the dressing rooms both of disc
jockeys and of pop stars. Savile apart (who I deal with below),

294
 C45 told us that she was treated extremely kindly by the stars
she met.

5.83 C45 used to see the same group of girls at Top of the Pops.
She became friendly with some of them. C45 remembers being
introduced to Savile by her relative during a rehearsal. He said
words to the effect of “Nice to meet you. If you ever want
looking after, I will look after you”. C45 felt that he was, in
saying that, speaking to her relative and telling him that “she is
safe in my hands. No worries”. C45 says that she found Savile
attractive, although she cannot now understand why. Also, her
relative was friendly with Savile and used to do him small
favours, like letting him in at an unofficial entrance.

5.84 C45 next remembers being dropped off during a later visit to
Top of the Pops by her relative at Savile’s dressing room. It
was at about the time when he had been invested with the
OBE. (He was appointed OBE in 1971 but I think that the
investiture was in 1972). Savile was in his dressing room
because he was not required as there were band rehearsals
going on. He chatted to her, offered her some fruit and asked
her to come and sit on his lap. He said “Come and sit on Uncle
Jimmy’s lap”. To begin with she did not but, when he asked her
the second or third time, she did. She was wearing hot pants
with a bib top and was not wearing any tights. He put his arm
around her waist and was saying “Everything will be all right.
No need to worry. Uncle Jimmy’s here to look after you”. He
then tried to kiss her (which she found “very horrible”) and tried
to put his hand down the waistband of her hot pants. He put his
hands underneath her underwear and touched her vagina. She
grabbed his wrist and pulled his hand out.

5.85 C45 explained that she was very angry with herself because
she had let him do it. She had let him because she liked him.
She wanted to believe that he liked her. She had no idea that

295
 he did this to other girls. She thought he just did it to her and
that she was special.

5.86 After she had pulled his hand out, she managed to get off his
knee. This was not easy as his arm was round her “cuddling
[her]”. She sat on a chair. She knew she had to wait until her
relative arrived as that was the arrangement they had made.
Luckily, he came quite soon. She did not tell her relative what
had happened as she was too scared; she did not think he
would believe her and did not want to “betray the
thoughts…and the respect [her relative] had for Jimmy Savile”.
She did, however, tell her cousin.

5.87 A second incident occurred a couple of weeks later as a

consequence of a photograph taken of Savile and C4’s relative
at the time Savile received his OBE. The Savile investigation
saw the photograph, which had been dedicated by Savile to her
relative. He asked C45 to take copies of the photograph to
Savile, both to give Savile a copy and to enable Savile to sign a
copy for him. Because of what had happened earlier, C45 was
nervous when she went to Savile’s dressing room with the
photographs.

5.88 Savile welcomed her into the room and closed the door. C45
sat on a chair, showed him the photographs and asked him to
sign them. He signed them, thanked her for letting him have a
copy and then asked her to sit on his knee again, which she
did. On this occasion, while C45 was wearing the same hot
pants and bib, she was wearing tights which she thought made
her feel safe. Savile gave her a hug, kissed her and “tried to
put his tongue down [her] throat”. He then put his hand down
the top of her hot pants; one of the buttons popped off and her
bib came down. He put his hand inside her hot pants and
inside her tights, which he laddered badly. She grumbled about
that but he promised to buy her some new ones. Then he

296
 stretched out her tights, pushed her underwear to one side, and
put two fingers in her vagina. In doing so he scratched her. All
this was painful; she bled and began to cry. Savile stopped
what he was doing. He said he was sorry and did not mean to
hurt her. She asked him why he had done it and he said it was
because he liked her. She put her clothing to rights and left.
She said something to the effect that she would not be coming
again, although she would probably see him around the
studios. She went to find her relative. He could tell that she
had been crying and asked her what was wrong; she said that
she had fallen over in the corridor and could not find a
commissionaire.

5.89 Although C45 saw Savile on a few occasions after that, she
never went to his room again. She sometimes saw Savile give
her relative some money. Her relative told her that it was for
“letting people through for [Savile]”. She thinks that these were
people who should not have been coming into Top of the Pops
but does not think that her relative realised that Savile abused
young girls.

*****

5.90 In 1972, C25 was working at Television Centre. She was in her
twenties, slim and had long hair. One day, she was asked to
take some papers to Savile, who was in his camper-van, which
was parked in the Broadcasting House car park. On arrival,
Savile invited her in and they sat opposite each other at a small
table. They discussed the papers. Then, the conversation
became rather more general and friendly. Her hands were
resting on the table, by the papers. Savile began to stroke her
hands. She looked up at him and he was looking at her intently
with what she described as “a reptilian” stare. She pulled her
hands back but he leaned over, grabbed her and whisked her
round the table onto the bed just behind him. She was

297
 shocked. However, he did not pin her down and she was able
to stand up almost immediately. There was then a bit of a
tussle but she said that Savile was not aggressive. She dusted
herself down and said that she must be going. He did not stop
her. She was not upset by this event and did not think of
reporting it, although she did tell one of her friends.

5.91 A few days later Savile telephoned her and asked her out for
dinner. She refused but he was persistent; he promised that he
would behave himself and pointed out that they would be in a
public restaurant. Eventually she agreed but warned him that
she was not going to go to bed with him. She said in evidence
that she could not afford to eat out much at that time, and found
the prospect of a good dinner in the company of an intriguing
character with an interesting life story very attractive. She met
Savile in the car park of one the BBC premises; she cannot
remember which. She got into his car and he put on a
balaclava. He explained that, if he did not, he would be
recognised and constantly stopped.

5.92 Savile took her to a Chinese restaurant on Edgware Road. He

told her that they always kept a table for him and he ate free.
He was regarded as a publicity asset. He was greeted and
shown to a table. After a short while, people began sending
copy menus to him asking him for his autograph. One man
sent a message across asking why Savile never stayed at his
hotels. Savile wrote back saying “Because I would have to
pay”. The reply came back “You can stay here free anytime
you like”. Savile also told C25 that, once, his camper-van had
broken down and he mentioned this on the radio. Half an hour
later, he had received a telephone call from a motor
manufacturer saying that there was a new camper-van parked
outside, ready for him. C25 was not vouching for the truth of
this story, only that that is what Savile told her.

298
5.93 C25 found the evening quite good fun until Savile began to
badger her about going to bed with him. Fixing her again with
the “reptilian” stare, he asked what was wrong with her. Was
she frigid? He implied that most women agreed to his
advances. He added something which has stuck in her
memory. He said something like “Mothers bring me their
daughters and they can be Queen for a Day”. Looking back on
this, she wonders why she did not ask him what he meant. She
did not then ask herself whether he was talking about underage
girls. She thinks that, at the time, she regarded the remark as
innocuous in that he meant only that the girls would enjoy being
with a famous man. Now she is not so sure.

5.94 The evening ended without further difficulty. Savile gave her a
lift home and she jumped out quickly before he could make
another attempt at persuasion.

*****

5.95 C57 attended Top of the Pops, with friends, in 1972, when he
was 12 years old. He told the Savile investigation that he
looked a lot older than his age. He thinks that the tickets were
obtained for them by a friend’s mother, who may have been a
secretary at the BBC. C57 and his friends were in a group of
young people standing close to Savile while a shot of him
introducing a band was being set up.

5.96 C57 remembers that Savile joked about the breasts of girls in
the group, saying that there was not much to get hold of and
that he would have to rub them to get them to grow. Savile
then grabbed C57’s bottom and, C57 thinks, his crotch as well.
Savile said to C57 “you’re a pretty one” and “I bet you are not
16”.

5.97 C57 pushed Savile’s hand away. He was shocked and could
not understand why Savile was doing this. He told the Savile

299
 investigation that he discussed what had happened with the
friends who accompanied him to Top of the Pops and later with
other school friends. He did not tell anyone at the BBC as there
was no one around to tell. He did not tell his parents as they
would have been horrified.

*****

5.98 C8 was abused by Savile in, he thinks, the summer of 1972.

C8’s grandfather worked at Television Centre and, sometimes,
either on a Saturday morning or in the school holidays, he
would take C8 to work with him. C8, who was about 10 at the
time, would make himself useful doing small jobs. He says that
his grandfather’s colleagues used to spoil him a bit and
sometimes gave him cans of cola. He thinks now that this may
have been because he had been quite seriously ill some years
previously. Some considerable time after I interviewed C8, I
became aware of a newspaper article which appears to set out
C8’s story, albeit including additional information which was not
part of the account he gave me. We spoke to C8 about this
article. He appeared to have no knowledge of the article (which
we sent to him). He did not respond to our request to discuss
the article further. In the circumstances, I set out below the
account he gave to the Savile Investigation and reach my
conclusions about his story based solely on that account.

5.99 C8 told me that he first met Savile when he came into the area
where his grandfather worked. He thinks that Savile had heard
about his illness and was looking for him. He said that Savile
offered to show him round and his grandfather agreed. Savile
took him around the building and, on that and subsequent
occasions, he met and chatted with many celebrities. He
collected a large number of autographs of which he was very
proud. Unfortunately he no longer has these.

300
5.100 C8 enjoyed being with Savile and he was quite disappointed on
the occasions when Savile did not show up. On one occasion,
when the two were together, Savile put his hand onto C8’s
crotch, over his clothes; he said that that was how men greeted
each other. On another occasion, Savile did the same thing
again and also said that C8 could do that to him. C8 did so,
over Savile’s trousers. Then, on another occasion, Savile
showed C8 his penis and asked if he had ever seen “one of
these” before. It was not erect and C8 did not touch it. On a
fourth and last occasion, Savile showed C8 his penis and, this
time, it was erect and Savile said “Go on touch it, you can touch
it”. C8 did not want to touch it but felt that he had to. Savile did
not ask him to do anything more.

5.101 That day, on the way home, C8 told his grandfather that he did
not want to go to Television Centre again. His grandfather
asked why and C8 said that Savile had touched him. The
grandfather went very quiet and said nothing more. C8 says
that, much later, his grandfather told him that he had reported
what had happened to his line manager and the production
manager but C8 does not know any more than that. He did not
tell us that his grandfather had suffered any detriment as a
consequence of his reports at work, as is suggested in the
newspaper article to which I refer at paragraph 5.98.

5.102 There are some unusual and puzzling features in this account.
First, Savile did not usually take as much trouble to groom his
victims in the gradual way described by C8. Second, the idea
of Savile spending time taking someone round Television
Centre does not fit with the evidence I have heard about his
usual habits. I have been told by many witnesses that he would
usually turn up at the studios just in time to do whatever was
required of him and would leave as soon as that was over.
However, the fact that his usual practice (known to BBC staff)

301
 was to spend as little time on the premises as possible does not
mean that, on occasions, he did not spend more time there.
Certainly no one would have questioned his presence at
Television Centre at any time. I have considered these
puzzling features carefully and have concluded that, on
balance, I should accept C8’s account. One of the reasons I do
so is that C8 has given a very precise account of the actual
abuse. It does not seem to me to be a florid or exaggerated
account; indeed quite the reverse and for that reason I am
inclined to believe it. The issue about which I am, however,
uncertain is the reporting by C8’s grandfather. For obvious
reasons, I have not been able to speak to C8’s grandfather and,
if a report was made, I do not know what was said. I therefore
conclude that I cannot be sure that a report was made,
although I accept that it may have been.

*****

5.103 C52 was abused by Savile on BBC premises between about

1972 and 1975. C52 was a promising singer who first met
Savile in 1971 when she was singing at a charity event
attended by Savile. He was encouraging and told her that he
could arrange further performances for her, which he did. She
was first abused by Savile at Broadmoor Hospital in 1972, after
an event there at which she sang, when she was almost 15
years old. He asked her to sit on his lap, which she did; he
then touched one of her breasts and tried to kiss her. She was
confused by what he had done, as she had no previous sexual
experience of any kind, but she remained willing to see him
partly because he was finding work for her and also because he
promised her tickets to Top of the Pops which she thought was
“amazing”.

5.104 She first attended Top of the Pops, as Savile’s guest, in 1972.
A ticket was left for her at Reception at Television Centre. She

302
 was not asked how old she was when she picked up her ticket.
She was met by a friend of hers, aged about 16, who also knew
Savile and was taken straight to Savile’s dressing room. The
dressing room was “full of people and other young girls” and
there was quite a lot of excitement. She was in the audience
during the recording and afterwards went back to Savile’s
dressing room. There was “a party atmosphere” in the dressing
room with stars coming in and out. She told Savile that she had
to leave but he asked her to stay so that he could talk to her
about her career, even suggesting that he might be able to help
her to arrange a record deal (which did not happen). After
everyone had left and they were alone, Savile locked the door.
He told her “what a great singer” she was and that she “should
be up on that stage singing the next hit single”. He touched her
on the breast and kissed her with his tongue in her mouth. She
was shocked by this but did not know if what he did was “right
or wrong”.

5.105 C52 went back to Top of the Pops more than 10 times and the
pattern was always the same. She would go to Savile’s
dressing room before and after the show and he would always
find some reason to keep her there, talking about new
opportunities for her. Each time, Savile’s abuse of her
increased. He touched her breasts, her bottom and between
her legs. At the same time, he constantly talked about how he
loved her and how he was going to help her. C52 felt that his
promises gave her hope for her future career and she was
afraid to make any complaint about what he was doing in case
he did not do as he had promised.

5.106 The final straw came for C52 not long before her 18th birthday,
in 1975, when Savile pinned her against a wall, put his fingers
inside her vagina and pushed his erect penis against her. She
pushed him off and said “If you don’t leave me now I’m gonna

303
 scream and I am gonna tell everybody what you’ve just done” .
Savile undid the door and let her out. C52 did not tell her
mother what had happened and, although Savile telephoned
her at home after that, she avoided his calls. She had been so
scared by what had happened that she was prepared to forego
the professional opportunities that Savile could provide. Much
later, she told her husband what had happened to her and
reported her experiences to the police in September 2013.

*****

5.107 In 1973, C44 attended a recording of Speakeasy at the Paris

Theatre, Regent Street. She was 17 at the time. The topic of
the programme was blindness and there were many visually
impaired people in the audience, of whom C44 was one.
During the recording, C44 was chosen to respond to a question
raised and it seems that Savile noticed her, for, when the
programme was over, he called out to her saying that he
wanted to speak to her. He called her “Mrs Yellow Shirt” as she
was wearing a yellow blouse. He wanted to record a short
interview with C44 and three other young people to use on
Savile’s Travels. She waited in her seat for a while and Savile
came over and said “Hello Mrs Yellow Shirt, Give us a kiss”.
He pulled her to him and kissed her full on the lips thrusting his
tongue into her mouth. The kiss lasted at least five seconds.
She found it “horrible and invasive” although in one way she felt
quite pleased to have been kissed by a celebrity. This incident
was witnessed by several people, including the teacher who
had brought a group of pupils from their college. Several BBC
employees were also in the area. Nobody seemed to react to
what had happened. She thinks that this kind of conduct was
not uncommon in 1973.

*****

304
5.108 In 2003, a woman approached the Metropolitan Police and
made a complaint that Savile had indecently assaulted her
during the making of a Top of the Pops programme in 1973
when she was aged 15. However, her complaint did not
proceed further and Savile was not interviewed. Unfortunately
this woman has not contacted the Savile investigation and I
know about her only because she is mentioned in the report
entitled “Mistakes were made.” published by Her Majesty’s
Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC)68.

5.109 I shall quote her account in the words of the HMIC report:

“In 2003, a woman came forward to allege that

she had been sexually assaulted by Savile in
1973 when she was 15 years of age at a
recording of the BBC television programme:
Top of the Pops. She said that Savile put his
hand over her bottom. She told him to stop and
moved away. He followed her and repeated the
act. When she told him to stop again, Savile
said: ‘I thought that’s what you came here for’.
She was content to provide a witness statement
but said that she did not wish to support a
prosecution. However, the victim crucially
added that she would reconsider her position if
other victims were subsequently identified.”69

5.110 This woman’s account is of considerable interest to us as she

appears to be one of only three people who made a complaint
to the police about Savile’s conduct at the BBC before the
scandal broke in October 2012. Her account is strikingly similar
to several accounts we have heard which are recorded in this
chapter. That similarity is important because this woman could
not possibly have known what others would later say and the
others did not know what she had alleged in 2003. In short, her
account provides some support for those who came later and
vice versa.

68
“Mistakes were made.” HMIC’s review into allegations and intelligence material
concerning Jimmy Savile between 1964 and 2012, HMIC, March 2013.
69
“Mistakes were made.”, p. 23.

305
5.111 We would have liked to speak directly to this woman. We
asked the Metropolitan Police to assist. The police were
eventually able to trace the woman and wrote to her in March
2014, asking her to contact Operation Yewtree. Unfortunately
they have not received a reply. I am grateful to the police for
their attempts.

*****

Duncroft School

5.112 Duncroft School, an approved school near Staines, in

Middlesex has featured prominently in the story of Savile’s
exposure as a sex offender. It is beyond doubt that he was a
regular visitor to the school in the early 1970s. From 2007,
following up a complaint from a member of the public, Surrey
Police investigated three reports of historical sexual abuse at
Duncroft. Savile was interviewed by Surrey Police in 2009,
after which a decision was taken not to prosecute him. Some
former pupils of Duncroft appeared on the ITV Exposure
programme in October 2012. Later, one former pupil, Karin
Ward, appeared on a Panorama programme called What the
BBC Knew and also gave an interview on ITV News. She
described abuse by Savile at Duncroft.

5.113 Other former pupils of Duncroft have come to our attention as

potential witnesses. Some allege abuse by Savile not only at
Duncroft but also on BBC premises, putting their evidence
squarely within my Terms of Reference (which, of course, do
not cover any abuse by Savile at Duncroft). I have heard from
five former Duncroft pupils – C30, C37, C55, A22 and Karin
Ward – but have also taken into account what has been said
publicly by Karin Ward. Ms Ward was one of the former pupils
of Duncroft who, in November 2011, spoke to the BBC
Newsnight team about her experiences of Savile while she was

306
 at Duncroft School. The team was collecting information about
Savile with a view to making a programme about him. In
circumstances which became the subject of the Pollard Review,
that proposed programme was abandoned. However, some of
the material which had been recorded in November 2011 was
subsequently used in a Panorama programme What the BBC
Knew, which was broadcast on 22 October 2012. Ms Ward
was interviewed again for the Panorama programme. She had
also by then given an interview to Mark Williams-Thomas which
was broadcast on ITV News on 3 October 2012. In these
broadcasts, Ms Ward described sexual abuse by Savile. Later,
Ms Ward was interviewed by the Review.

5.114 The first Duncroft pupil from whom I heard was C30, who was
resident there in the early 1970s. As I feel unable, from the
information available to me, to reach any conclusion about
whether Savile abused C30, I shall keep my comments on her
very brief. She described being touched sexually by Savile at
Duncroft School (which is outside my Terms of Reference) and
also described abuse when she was part of a group of Duncroft
girls invited to take part in Clunk Click.

5.115 Clunk Click was a magazine programme recorded on

Thursdays (usually at the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush)
and broadcast on Saturday evenings. Savile would have
celebrity guests on the show. There would also be a studio
audience who would sit on beanbags. BBC records show that
there were two series of Clunk Click, the first of which ran from
5 May to 23 June 1973 and the second from 2 February to 20
April 1974. I think the Duncroft visits took place during the
second series.

5.116 C30 described an incident of serious sexual abuse by Savile in

his dressing room in the period between the rehearsal and the
recording of the show. However, there are a number of

307
 elements of her evidence which are open to question and I do
not feel able to make a decision about her claim of abuse,
beyond saying that it might have happened and it might not.
C30 has said, through her solicitors, that she does not accept
my conclusion about her evidence. While I acknowledge what
C30 has said, I stand by my conclusion on her evidence.

5.117 C37 (who also gave evidence to the Savile investigation) was
resident at Duncroft between late November 1973 (when she
was just 15) and late May 1974. She remembers Savile
coming to visit and how excited the girls were. She remembers
competition to be close to him and to sit on his knee. The girls
used to boast about who he had touched the most. She says
that she was once in the “naughty room” when he came in to
see her alone. He put his fingers on her vagina and then
stopped and went away and she was disappointed that he had
not gone further. She says that she went to Clunk Click at the
BBC about three times and saw a number of different stars.
She says that the girls who went to the BBC would be chosen
in the Duncroft office. She thinks that three or four would be
chosen each time. She told me that they were taken in the
school minibus driven by a female member of staff, Janet
Figgins. They would go on a weekday and would watch the
programme when it was broadcast on the Saturday.

5.118 I have mentioned that Clunk Click was usually recorded at the
BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush. C37 described having gone
to a building which sounds like Television Centre rather than
the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush. However, she
mentioned that she had visited the BBC when she was much
older and she thought that her recollections of the building
might be confused. She said that her later visit was not to the
same place that she went to the first time (for Clunk Click).

308
5.119 C37’s memories of the programme are extremely hazy. She
says that she remembers that she felt jealous when Savile put
his arm round one of the celebrity guests. She does not
remember any breaks in the programme but says that at the
end they were all taken to Savile’s dressing room. It seemed a
long way to get to the dressing room. They went through swing
doors. She says that the member of Duncroft staff who went to
the BBC with them did not go into the dressing room with them.

5.120 On one occasion, the dressing room had people in it when they
got there and there was food and drink available. C37 claims to
remember “a round curtain” but she does not know what, if
anything, happened behind the curtain. She said that there
was “cuddling and touching” in the dressing room, in the
presence of other people. She was not suggesting that the
other people were in any way involved in sexual activity; they
were merely guests of Savile’s. She says that she sat on
Savile’s knee and he had an erection (but that also happened
at Duncroft). He put his arms round the girls and she always
used to think that that was all right “until all this has come out”.
She knows now that it is sexual if a man puts his arms right
round you and touches your breast. She does not know
whether these things happened on the same occasion or
different occasions. She does not know if she went to the
dressing room every time she went to the show.

5.121 C37 said that when they got back to Duncroft they would tell the
other girls what had happened but only tell some of them the
sexual things. In her police statement, which is consistent with
her account to the Savile investigation, C37 describes an
incident of touching by Savile at Duncroft and says that at the
BBC he “touched” the Duncroft girls. I accept C37’s evidence
that, in Savile’s dressing room at the BBC, Savile had an

309
 erection while she was sitting on his knee and that he put his
arm round her and touched her breast.

5.122 I also interviewed C55. She was a Duncroft resident between

August 1973 (when she was nearly 15) and 1974. She told me
that she was abused, by digital penetration, by Savile at
Duncroft. She also told me that she went to the BBC to see
Clunk Click on one occasion. I think this must have been in
early 1974. She thinks that a group of about six Duncroft pupils
travelled up to London in a minibus, driven by Ms Figgins.
They went to the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush. On arrival,
she says they were met by Savile and taken to his dressing
room; another celebrity was present. They spent about half an
hour in the dressing room and then went to the stage where
C55 sat on the beanbags with a friend from Duncroft. Everyone
was expected to wear a sticker with “Clunk Click” on it. C55’s
sticker was stuck on her clothing over her breast and Savile,
apparently in the guise of making sure it was stuck on firmly,
pressed it very hard and rubbed it – in so doing, he was rubbing
her breast. She thinks that, after the show, the group went
back to his dressing room briefly. After the show was over,
Savile took them to a burger bar across Shepherd’s Bush
Green, where he told a particularly crude joke. They then
returned to Duncroft.

5.123 Karin Ward told Mr Williams-Thomas in the interview broadcast

on ITV News on 3 October 2012 that Savile used to visit
Duncroft and bring cigarettes, sweets and other presents for the
girls. He took girls out in his car alone. He took her out and
persuaded her to give him oral sex on the promise that he
would arrange for her and a group of other girls to go to the
BBC to watch the making of his programme. She said that she
was 14 at the time. She believes that he made similar
promises to other girls in return for sexual favours, including full

310
 sex. She said that she did not make any report or complaint
about what Savile had done because the girls liked him coming
to the school as he brought cigarettes and sweets. Also, they
wanted to go to the BBC.

5.124 She said that groups of girls went to London to watch the
making of Clunk Click. Ms Ward’s account of what happened
when the girls went to the BBC was as follows:

“Oh yes, we went to London several times. We

were in an approved school for intelligent but
emotionally disturbed girls and there we were in
London on a regular basis mixing with rich and
famous people, rubbing shoulders with
celebrities and it was fantastic a lot of the time.
But some of the celebrities were actually not
very nice. Some of them were wonderful.”

5.125 Asked whether anything had happened at the London studios,

she said:

“We went to Jimmy Savile’s dressing room.

Every week we would go there … and we would
meet the guests that were going to be on his
show in advance. It was quite a big room and
he had tables and chairs and a big couch and
he had a little alcove with… I think there was a
couch or something in there as well I think there
was a curtain that used to go across that but I
can’t really remember. But all the people that
were going to be on his show would be in and
out of the dressing room and there was a lot of
drinking alcohol and a lot of camaraderie.”

5.126 In the Panorama programme, some extracts from the 2011

Newsnight interview were broadcast. These covered abuse of
Ms Ward by Savile, very much as she had told Mr Williams-
Thomas. When asked about abuse which had taken place on
BBC premises, she said that she had seen one of the Duncroft
girls having intercourse with someone other than Savile. Savile
had been present and had been laughing; he thought it was
funny.

311
5.127 Later in the Panorama programme, a further extract from the
Newsnight material was used in which Ms Ward was asked
what sort of things happened in Savile’s dressing room. She
said:

“Ah, that’s when the other guests on the show

would come in, generally after the show had
finished, they would come in and they clearly
saw girls, well kids, male and female as being
there to be used.”

Later, she said:

“..all of us, of course, totally over-awed by the

fact that we were meeting all these famous
people and obviously that particular famous
person wanted to have sex with one of the girls
and I suppose we would have seen it as some
kind of honour, conquest, I dunno.”

5.128 In her oral evidence to the Review, Ms Ward’s account was

almost entirely consistent with what she had said on television.
She described her early life, which had been very unhappy; she
had been subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
She developed behavioural problems and was taken into care;
she believes that she first met Savile while in Jersey where she
was taken for a holiday. At the age of 14, she was sent to
Duncroft.

5.129 She met Savile again when he began to visit the school. She
remembers that he was “larger than life – very much the
persona that he put across on the television…. He was
exceptionally generous and he would turn up with hundreds
and hundreds of cigarettes because all the girls at Duncroft
smoked. …Cigarettes were a kind of currency and we were
limited as to how many cigarettes we were allowed each week,
so anywhere you could obtain more was a good thing. He
would turn up with probably eight or ten boxes of duty-frees and

312
 hand them out willy-nilly and of course the girls clamoured
round him.” She said that he also brought records and makeup
and perfume, all the sorts of things that teenage girls wanted.

5.130 She said that Savile used to take girls out in his car; sometimes
just one and sometimes two or three. He would stop the car in
a layby or car park and one of the girls would have to stay in
the car with him for some sort of sexual contact. One day, she
had to go out with him alone and he wanted her to fellate him.
She objected but he persuaded her by saying that, if she would
do that, she could come to London and appear on his show.
And she could bring a friend as well. So she agreed. Later she
discovered that he had promised other girls a trip to London in
return for favours.

5.131 And so began the visits to the BBC to take part in Clunk Click.
One day, several girls were called into the Headmistress’s
study. Savile was there and he chose those who were to be
invited; Ms Ward thought that six of them were chosen. Ms
Ward believes that she went to Clunk Click about five times.
The routine was always similar. They were driven to London in
the school minivan. Mrs Janet Figgins (nee Theobald, whom
the girls called Theo) drove and Ms Jones, the Headmistress,
also came. The girls and Ms Jones were dropped off at the
theatre and went inside while Mrs Figgins parked the van.
They all left their coats in a small room and were shown into
quite a large room which Savile called his dressing room but
which I think from her description must have been a hospitality
room. There were always quite a lot of people in there,
everyone who was to be involved in the show that evening,
usually including a celebrity. Savile would be there for part of
the time. Ms Jones and Mrs Figgins would be there to begin
with but would be taken off to sit in the audience seats. The
girls would be taken to the studio to sit on the beanbags.

313
5.132 After the show was over, the girls would go back to the big
room. By that time, some refreshments and cigarettes would
have been left in the room. There would be a lot of people
there, everyone who had been on the show. In effect, there
was a ‘party’. There might be other groups of young people
besides the Duncroft girls. There would be some children who
would have a parent or chaperone with them. Savile usually
had a child sitting on his knee and would bounce him or her up
and down. No one thought anything of this. Sometimes one of
the Duncroft girls would sit on his knee. Ms Ward had done so
on one occasion and had become aware of him having an
erection; he had put his hand inside the back of the waistband
of her skirt. She was not aware of Savile doing anything else of
a sexual nature to the Duncroft girls while at the BBC although
she does recall that another celebrity took one of the Duncroft
girls into a curtained off alcove and she believes that they had
sexual intercourse. She described this incident on television.

5.133 Ms Ward says that neither Ms Jones nor Mrs Figgins came
back to the dressing room. She recalled an occasion when the
girls were invited out to a coffee bar with a celebrity who had
appeared on the show; Ms Jones allowed them to go and said
that they could stay for an hour but that there was to be “no
hanky panky”.

5.134 I asked Ms Ward whether she saw BBC staff during her visits to
Clunk Click. She said that she saw people wandering about
with clipboards and several young women but took little notice
of them. They would be in and out of the room before the show
and Savile would sometimes ask them to do things for him.
She does not recall meeting or knowing who the producer was.
I have the impression from her evidence that, after the show,
once the refreshments had been delivered, the BBC staff were
not at the ‘party’.

314
5.135 Additional evidence relating to the Duncroft era comes from
Savile himself in his interview with Surrey Police in 2009. The
police had received a number of complaints of sexual abuse by
Savile from former pupils of Duncroft. None of the allegations
related to incidents occurring on BBC premises. In interview,
Savile agreed that he used to visit Duncroft in the 1970s. He
denied that he ever touched any girls sexually. He said that he
was never alone with any girl; there were always between 30
and 40 people present. He denied that he had ever been
sexually attracted to girls under 16. When asked if he had ever
asked a Duncroft girl to perform oral sex on him, he said “Why
would anyone do that?” He said that all the allegations had
been made up, probably because people were looking for
money.

5.136 I also interviewed A22 who was a resident at Duncroft. A22

told me that Savile was introduced to Duncroft through her after
she met him at a social event. Her evidence is that he always
behaved impeccably and her account contradicts much of what
the other Duncroft witnesses say about Savile. A22 was clearly
very close to Savile and thought very highly of him. She had a
relationship with him after she left Duncroft. I have no reason
to doubt her evidence that, while she was at Duncroft, Savile
behaved impeccably in her presence.

5.137 I also interviewed Janet Figgins. She worked part-time at

Duncroft between 1968 and 1980. She remembers Savile
visiting the school on, she thinks, about four occasions but was
“totally unaware” of any inappropriate conduct by him.

5.138 She also remembers driving pupils in the school minibus to the
BBC to see Clunk Click. She did not know how the pupils were
chosen for these outings. She thinks they went about four
times and she was always accompanied by another member of
staff. She would drive to the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush

315
 and drop off the girls and the other member of staff. Then she
would find somewhere to park the minibus. By the time she
reached the BBC Theatre, the girls were always in the studio on
the beanbags. After the show was over, she would retrieve the
minibus, leaving the girls with the other member of staff. She
does not remember the group ever going to a burger bar; nor
did she hear of any complaints about Savile’s conduct.

5.139 I found Mrs Figgins an impressive witness. However, I think

that her position at Duncroft was relatively junior. I do not think
she was aware of any improper conduct by Savile.

5.140 With such a conflicting mixture of evidence, television interview

material and some blog reportage, it is difficult for me to
construct a coherent account of Savile’s activities in the
Duncroft context. In addition, there was another very elderly
witness (a member of staff) whom we were unable to interview.

5.141 As a result, my conclusions in relation to Duncroft are limited. I

have concluded that, while at the BBC, Savile did touch C55 on
the breast and did touch C37 on the breast and that he had an
erection while she was sitting on his knee. Although she did
not mention this incident in her television interviews, I do accept
that Savile had an erection while Ms Ward was sitting on his
knee and that he put his hand down the waistband of her skirt.
But apart from that, I feel that the fact that I was not able to see
some potentially important witnesses makes it impossible for
me to reach any further conclusions.

*****

5.142 In December 1973, C10’s father, who had a friend in the BBC,
arranged for his daughter and a friend to go to a recording of
Top of the Pops. It seems that they did not have tickets but that
an arrangement was made for them to go in the early afternoon

316
 so that they were able to watch both the rehearsal and the
recording. Both girls were 15.

5.143 When they arrived, they were taken into the studio and told to
sit at the side. After a while, a person dressed in a Womble suit
(Orinoco) came in and started talking to them. They did not
know who was inside. The Womble was friendly and tactile; he
kept putting his arms round them. Then the Womble took the
head off his suit and they could see that it was Savile. The
rehearsal began. C10 remembers that Rod Stewart and the
Faces were there; also Slade. While the performers were
miming their acts, Savile would come and sit with the two girls.

5.144 There was a break and Savile took the two girls to his dressing
room. He had taken his Womble suit off and was wearing a
track suit. They sat on the couch and he sat between them,
with an arm round each of them. He was chatting to them. He
was very flattering to them and C10 felt special. He promised
to get them autographs of Rod Stewart and Slade. But while he
was saying all this, he put his hand on C10’s left breast and
was squeezing it. Then he jumped up and sat on the chair in
front of the dressing table. He asked C10 if she wanted to
come and get a drink which was on the table in front of him.
She got up to take a drink and he pulled her down on to his
knee. His left arm was holding her down quite firmly and he put
his right hand up her skirt and inside her knickers. His hand
started moving about over her genitals; she described it as
mixture of grabbing and fondling. She thought it was horrible.
He kept up a general conversation all the time this was
happening. After a minute or two, C10 prised herself away and
returned to the couch. Savile just laughed and came and sat in
between them again. He took hold of her hand and rubbed it
up and down his penis over the top of his track suit.

317
5.145 While he was doing that, there was a knock at the door and a
man came into the room. Savile was very irritated and, using
bad language, asked the man to leave, which he quickly did.
C10 believes that the man would have realised that C10 and
her friend were “terrified” and that what he saw must have
looked “odd”, although he may not have witnessed the sexual
assault and might have thought that their apparent distress was
caused by the bad language that Savile was using. Shortly
afterwards, there was another knock on the door and another
man, whom C10 thinks was a radio presenter, came into the
room and told Savile that he was due to give an interview.
Savile seemed annoyed but accepted that he had to do it and
the other man came in with some recording equipment. The
two girls stayed on the couch while Savile gave the interview.
Savile made them say “hello” into the microphone. C10 does
not think that this man would have either seen the sexual
assault or have thought that C10 and her friend were
distressed, although he would have seen that they were quiet
and subdued. After the interview, the radio presenter left and it
was time to go back into the studio. It is not possible to identify
the men who came into the dressing room.

5.146 C10 and her friend joined the participating audience which had
by then arrived. As best they could, they kept well away from
Savile during the show but C10 noticed that he “latched onto” a
girl wearing a pink top, who can be seen on the video film of
this show, next to Savile on the podium. However, as promised
by Savile, during the show a bundle of autographs was handed
to the two girls. They did not see him again.

5.147 C10 thinks that the same thing may have happened to her
friend but C10 has lost touch with the woman in question and
therefore it was not possible for the Savile investigation to
contact her. C10 did not tell anyone what had happened.

318
 *****

5.148 I shall consider the evidence of C9 and C46 together as they

were sexually assaulted by Savile in his dressing room at
Television Centre on the same occasion.

5.149 C9 gave evidence via video link as he now lives abroad. He

told us that he was abused very gravely by Savile during an
evening when the pre-Christmas Top of the Pops was being
recorded. This, he says, occurred in December 1973, when he
was 10 years old. Examination of documents shows that this
must have been a recording made on 18 December 1973.

5.150 C9 said that his grandfather took him to Television Centre one
afternoon just before Christmas 1973, to see if he could get him
into Top of the Pops. They did not have a ticket; they just went
‘on spec’. They stood outside. There was no crowd of fans or
queue of people waiting to get in, just people passing to and
fro. There was a girl waiting there, also hoping to get in. He
discovered her first name, which was a very unusual name.
She was interviewed by the Savile investigation 18 months after
I interviewed C9; she is referred to in the Report as C46. C9
thought that C46 was about 13 or 14 (in fact she was 12) and
was there with a woman whom he presumed was her mother.
The four of them fell into conversation. Suddenly, Savile came
walking along the pavement, on his way into the building. C9’s
grandfather asked Savile whether he could get the two children
into Top of the Pops and Savile said “yes”. I must mention at
this stage that there was a lower age limit of 16 for Top of the
Pops at this time. This was enforced but not to the extent that
proof of age was required.

5.151 Both children were taken in, leaving the adults outside. Savile
handed the children over to a man who took them to a studio.
They were left there with the other audience members. They

319
 hung around until the programme started. Savile came on
wearing a Womble (Orinoco) suit, which he wore throughout the
show. C9 and C46 were never on camera and had no contact
with Savile during the show. C9 could not remember whether
he could see Savile during the acts. He said that there were a
number of other children of about his age in the audience. He
said he could remember the names of most of the groups who
performed that night.

5.152 After the show was over, the same man as had brought them to
the studio came to fetch them and took them to Savile’s
dressing room. C9 said that, when he and C46 went into the
dressing room, Savile was laughing and joking and told them to
sit on the sofa. They did so and he sat between them. He said
that Savile was still wearing his Womble suit. Savile then put
his hand on their legs; for C9 it was over his trousers but for
C46 it was on her skin as she was wearing a knee length skirt.

5.153 They were all still laughing and joking. Then Savile told C9 to
take off his trousers and to bend over the arm of the sofa. He
said that Savile took his Womble suit off while he (C9) was
taking off his trousers. Savile was then in his underpants. C9
bent over the arm of the sofa and Savile penetrated him anally.
It was very painful at the time but he did not cry. He said that
there was blood in his underpants afterwards. He said that
Savile thrust around a bit and then withdrew. Then Savile told
C46 to do the same thing and she bent over the arm of the sofa
and he penetrated her from behind; C9 does not know whether
anally or vaginally. C46 said nothing and let it happen. She
just looked shocked. Savile told them not to tell anyone as it
was their secret. Then Savile left the room.

5.154 The same man that they had seen before came to collect them
and took them down to the gate where C9’s grandfather and
C46’s ‘mother’ were waiting. C9 was not in pain by then, more

320
 of an ache. His grandfather took him home in the car. He had
no recollection of what happened to his underpants but thought
they must have been washed somewhere. He never told
anyone about this incident, not even his wife. He told me that
he had bottled up his memories of this event and it had given
rise to a number of problems in his life. In particular, he
attributed to this his failure to pass the Eleven Plus
examination.

5.155 C46 lives abroad in an area where video meeting facilities are
not available. She was interviewed 18 months after C9’s
interview by a senior member of the Review team who travelled
out to meet her. She gave an account which is similar in a
number of respects to C9’s. In December 1973, she was 12
years old and lived in Scotland. She came to London to visit
her aunt. She persuaded her aunt to take her to Top of the
Pops; they had no ticket. When they arrived at the studio
building, which C46 described as square, there were a lot of
people outside in a long queue. It was about 4.30pm and
getting dark. They hung around outside the studio building.
Suddenly there was a commotion at the side of the building and
someone said that Savile had just gone in. There was a side
entrance with a red door. At this stage, C46’s aunt fell into
conversation with a man who had a boy with him. The boy
turned out to be C9. This man was trying to get C9 into Top of
the Pops. A man came out of the red door and the man with
C9 apparently asked him if he could get C9 and C46 into the
show. The man who had come out had shoulder-length hair
with a ‘feather’ cut and was wearing an earring. At about this
time, Savile himself came out of the red door and was waving
to a group of people who were standing about. The man with
C9 then came over to C46 and said that the two children would
be allowed in. They were very excited.

321
5.156 The man with the earring took them through the red door, down
a corridor and into a studio. C46 was told to stand at the back
and became separated from C9. She said that the studio
contained a stage with a curtain. There was only one stage. A
man on the stage told the audience what they had to do, to clap
and to ignore the cameras. She thought that a few members of
the audience were about 16 or 17 but most of them were about
12.

5.157 When the show began it was like a concert, with bands on the
stage; when each band finished the curtain came down. Savile
was the compere; he was on the stage wearing a Womble suit.
C46 remembers that Slade sang “Merry Christmas”. She thinks
that she saw Suzi Quattro and possibly Wizzard. She thinks
that she saw Golden Earring.

5.158 When the show had finished, she went to the door where she
had come in and found C9. The man with the earring arrived
and asked them if they would like to see Savile. They were
very pleased. They were taken to his dressing room. This was
small and brightly lit. There was a sofa, a chair, a coffee table
and a worktop. They were offered fizzy drinks and biscuits by
the man with the earring and they sat on the sofa. Savile came
in, still wearing his Womble suit, but without the head; he sat in
the armchair and asked them if they had enjoyed the show.
The man with the earring left the room. Savile and the two
children then chatted for about 10 to 15 minutes.

5.159 C46 says that the next thing she can remember is that C9 was
leaning over the side of the sofa. Savile was behind him and
C9 was saying something like “Don’t, don’t”. Savile was putting
something into C9, who was crying. C46 thinks that she could
see Savile’s penis and saw him moving backwards and
forwards. She herself did not move while this was happening.
She recalls that C9 was wearing fashionable trousers with a

322
 tank top but has no recollection of him removing or adjusting
any part of his clothing. Nor could she remember what
happened to the Womble suit during this encounter. C46 knew
what sex was although she had no sexual experience. She
says that she was confused by what she saw and later asked a
friend whether it was possible for a man to have sex with a
man.

5.160 When Savile had finished doing what he did to C9, he came to
sit on the sofa next to her. C9 sat on the arm of the sofa at the
other end. Savile put his arms round both of them and said
something like “It’s OK. It’s our special secret”. He then took
his right arm away from C9 and started to stroke C46’s leg.
She was wearing jeans and, she thinks, a cheesecloth top.
She says that she could see his penis and it was erect. He
pulled her head down towards his penis and tried to put it in her
mouth but did not succeed. He then pushed her back and used
his right hand to unzip her jeans. He put his finger inside the
zip, pulled her pants across and put his finger into her vagina.
She says that it felt terrible and she thinks she said “No, No”.
She believes that she did not cry then (although she did later
that night). Savile then sat back and ejaculated. She says that
by this time the Womble suit was down to his hips. At this time
C9 was sitting still, “like a statue”. Savile put an arm round
each of them and repeated what he had said about it being a
secret.

5.161 C46 has no recollection of what happened next and how she
came to be reunited with her aunt. She remembers walking to
the tube station and telling her aunt that they had seen Slade
and had had pop and biscuits with Savile himself. She did not
tell anyone what had happened. She thought it was her fault
and that she might go to hell for what she had done. Of course,

323
 C46 was a child in a vulnerable situation and what happened to
her was not in any way her fault.

5.162 In April 2014, C46 saw an advertisement in a UK paper, placed

by a firm of solicitors, inviting victims of Savile to come forward
for advice. She contacted them and it transpired that C9 had
instructed the same firm. Their cases were linked together.
She was interviewed by the Savile investigation in July 2014.

5.163 The accounts of C9 and C46 are, in some respects, different,

but, forty years on from the sexual assaults, that is not
surprising. In addition, the account of C46 has clarified certain
details provided by C9, which has helped me to address some
initial concerns I had about C9’s evidence.

5.164 In particular, C9 was 10 years old in December 1973 and,

although the age restrictions at Top of the Pops were never
enforced as well as they should have been, I found it initially
improbable that a 10 year old boy would have been admitted.
However, C46’s description of the man who agreed to let her
and C9 into Top of the Pops assisted me. It appears that C9
and C46 were under the wing of a member of Savile’s
entourage, the man wearing the earring. I have heard evidence
that sometimes Savile brought an entourage of middle-aged
men with him to the studios. If the man with the earring was
one of the entourage, it would explain first why a boy of 10 and
a girl of 12 were let into the studio; it appears they came in
under the wing of one of Savile’s friends, as opposed to a BBC
employee. One of Savile’s friends would not care about the
rules and I think the floor staff on duty would probably not have
noticed the presence of C9 and C46. Second, if the man with
the earring was keeping guard outside the dressing room, the
risk which Savile took by behaving as he did with these two
children would be much reduced.

324
5.165 There were some further differences between the accounts of
C9 and C46 and, in addition, some parts of the accounts of
each which I think were incorrect. For one thing, C9 must be
mistaken in his recollection that Savile penetrated C46. Also,
C9 said that he had seen Wizzard performing their hit “I wish it
could be Christmas every day” and that he remembered the
young children wearing woolly hats who took part in that
number milling about in the audience during the show. But in
fact they were not. A clip of that number was recorded two
weeks earlier, when it was first featured on Top of the Pops.
The group did not appear in person on 18 December 1973.
This has been ascertained from the contemporaneous records
(known as Programmes as Broadcast or P as Bs) kept by the
BBC largely for copyright purposes. I can think of no reason
why those records should not be accurate. C46 was also, in
my view, mistaken when she told the Review that, when the
show began, it was like a concert, with bands on the stage and
when each band finished the curtain came down.

5.166 The Review’s interviews with C9 and C46 took place 18 months
apart. I met C9 in person but, as I explain at paragraph 5.155
was unable to interview C46 in person; she was interviewed by
a senior member of the team, who travelled out to meet and
interview her. He found her evidence credible. In the
circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of some obvious
mistakes in their evidence, I think they, in effect, corroborate
each other and I accept their accounts as true.

*****

5.167 In about 1974/1975, B6 worked with Savile on Speakeasy.

During this period, he would often telephone her at work to ask
her to come round to his flat. She always refused. Whenever
she met him at work, he would kiss her hand and continue up

325
 her arm. She did not like this but did not feel she could do
anything about it.

*****

5.168 In 1974, C29 was working for the BBC as a secretary and,
during her free time, used to go down to the studios to watch
rehearsals of Top of the Pops. On one occasion when she was
standing at the side of the studio, Savile walked past her. She
asked him how he found or chose the people he interviewed for
Savile’s Travels. He turned to her, pressed his hand very hard
into her groin and said, “If you come to my dressing room I’ll tell
you”. She did not accept the invitation but she believes,
reasonably in my view, that if she had done so, Savile would
have made a further sexual advance.

*****

5.169 A television sound engineer whom I will call A6 told me of an

incident which occurred in the mid-1970s which did not involve
him directly but happened to a trainee working under him. The
trainee went in to Savile’s dressing room to fit his personal
microphone in preparation for a recording of Jim’ll Fix It. The
microphone had to be fitted to the back of Savile’s trousers and
it was necessary for Savile to lower them slightly to achieve
this. The trainee was a long time with Savile and when he
returned from the dressing room, he was visibly upset and said
that he “was never going back in there again”. Later A6 asked
his trainee what had happened but he almost burst into tears
and A6 never got a clear story of what had happened. So far
as he could make out, Savile had wanted to fondle the trainee
sexually. A6 reported this matter to his supervisor but heard
nothing more from him. He does not know whether the trainee
ever made a complaint.

*****

326
5.170 In 1975, B7 was aged 14 but looked young for her age. Her
mother was friendly with Don Bennett, who was the Transport
Manager of Broadmoor Hospital. Her mother introduced her to
Savile. After that, B7 (who was at stage school) met Savile two
or three times at events. He invited her to come for a tour of
the BBC studios and to watch a programme being made. She
thought he meant Top of the Pops but, in the event, she went to
Broadcasting House and watched him record the links for a
radio programme. The arrangements were apparently made
with the approval of B7’s mother.

5.171 Savile gave her instructions to come to his flat, which she
thought was in Belgravia but she must be mistaken about that.
So far as I am aware, the only flat Savile had in London was in
Park Crescent. She said that, when she arrived, a doorman
telephoned Savile and he came down to the lobby; they then
walked to the studios in Portland Place and it only took a few
minutes. As they approached the BBC buildings, Savile put on
a balaclava, explaining that, if he did not, he would be mobbed.

5.172 On arrival, Savile was greeted by a commissionaire and they

made their way to a studio. En route, they met various people
and she was introduced to them by Savile as “my young friend
[B7]”. She was not given any general tour, about which she
was disappointed. They went only to the studio where Savile
was to work. He told her to sit at the side of the studio and she
sat there alone while he recorded links. She found it very
boring. No music was played. He did not speak to her at all
during the whole recording. She began to feel uncomfortable
as she did not know why she was there.

5.173 When he had finished, Savile said that he would take B7 back
to the flat for a cup of tea and would then call a taxi to take her
to the station. They walked back and went up to the flat. He
told her to sit down. She was not worried about being there

327
 alone with him; she just wished the day was over. Savile went
into the kitchen, saying he would make tea and call a taxi. He
soon came back carrying a tea tray. He sat down on the sofa;
she was sitting to the right of the sofa on a chair. He asked her
if she had had a good day. Out of politeness, she said “yes”
and thanked him. He then held out his arms and said “Well
come and give us a hug then”. She felt a little uncomfortable
but was not shocked or worried by this as her parents’ friends
used to give her a hug sometimes. She regarded Savile in a
similar light.

5.174 She got up, went across and perched on the end of the sofa.
Savile immediately turned to face her, pushed her backwards
and put his hand up her skirt and inside her knickers; at the
same time, he leaned over her and kissed her, forcing his
tongue into her mouth. She believes that he put two fingers
inside her vagina. He also rubbed her clitoris. He was
alternating between doing these two things. He was rough and
it was painful for her. She did not do anything to stop him. She
froze as she had had no sexual experience at all. Also she felt
that it would be rude if she tried to stop him. Then he paused
and asked her if she was enjoying it. She said “no” but her
voice came out as a squeak. She thinks that he stopped then.
However, she has no memory of leaving the flat or of her
journey home.

5.175 B7 now believes (from what her mother has told her) that, a few
days later, Mr Bennett had sent a message from Savile to say
that he was sorry. Her mother had asked her if Savile had tried
to kiss her and B7 had replied “And the rest”. B7 now has no
recollection of that conversation with her mother but her mother
has told her that it took place.

5.176 B7 told me that she did not think that she went to any more
Broadmoor events after that experience.

328
5.177 About 10 years ago, B7 says that she became sick and tired of
hearing what a saint Savile was and she decided to expose
him. She contacted a newspaper and told her story. The
journalist she spoke to told her that there had been rumours
about Savile for years. The journalist said that nothing could be
done unless B7 would make an official complaint to the police.
She went away to think about it but decided that she could not.
As soon as the media storm broke in October 2012, she told
her story to the police and the media.

*****

5.178 In the mid-1970s, C6 was working for a record company and,

as part of her duties, she had to visit Egton House to show new
releases to producers. In the trade, her job was known as that
of ‘plugger’. She was in her late twenties at this time although
she believes that she looked younger. She was slim and pretty
with long blonde hair. On one occasion, the date of which she
cannot pinpoint, she had arranged to see Ted Beston, Savile’s
Radio 1 producer. There were other pluggers outside Mr
Beston’s office. Then someone told her that she could go in
and in she went. Mr Beston was not there. Initially she thought
there was no one in the room. Then she saw Savile who asked
her “Who are you?” She explained why she was there. She
was handing Savile the new record and was about to tell him
about the artist when suddenly he grabbed her between the
legs. She does not now think that he lifted her skirt up but that
he grabbed her over her clothing. He also grabbed her arms
and then touched her breasts. He was strong but she was
determined to escape his grasp. She fought him off, freed
herself and left the room. She did not tell anyone in authority
about this incident, either at the BBC or at the record company.
She thought that she would not be believed and also that

329
 making a report might affect her career. She told her husband
that night.

*****

5.179 C54 was an altar boy when Savile visited his local church after
a Radio 1 Roadshow one summer afternoon between 1974 and
1976. C54 was aged between 10 and 12 at the time and was
one of half a dozen altar boys invited by the church to meet ‘a
celebrity’ who would be in town. Savile arrived with his driver,
smoking a cigar. He was promptly asked by one of the two
priests not to smoke in church. After introducing himself and
his driver, Savile asked “where are these cuties?” and put his
arm around C54. In view of the priests and the other altar boys,
C54 says that Savile kissed him on the lips, forcing his tongue
down his throat. Savile put his hand down C54’s trousers and
into his underpants, touching his genitals. C54 pushed Savile
away and ran towards the door. C54 recalls that Savile’s driver
attempted to block his exit but C54 explained to me that he
head-butted the driver in the crotch, ran out of the church and
went straight home. C54 told his parents but they assumed
that he was exaggerating and would, in any case, have been
afraid of stirring trouble in the community.

*****

5.180 In late 1975, when he was aged 13, C49 was invited to attend a
recording of Jim’ll Fix It. He attended with a small group from a
youth club. The group was accompanied by two adults. They
went to the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush and were shown
into the audience seats. At some stage, one of the adults with
them told the group that it might be possible for some of them
to meet Savile after the show and C49 was one of those to be
chosen. They watched the show being recorded but C49
cannot remember much about it. When it was over, C49 and

330
 another boy were taken backstage to Savile’s dressing room.
When they arrived, the door was closed. The adult with them
knocked and C49 was shown into the room alone. There he
met Savile, in the company of a photographer and a young boy,
who appeared to be with the photographer. Savile introduced
himself and chatted. C49 was nervous as he found Savile
rather overpowering. Savile asked if he would like some
photographs taken. Then suddenly Savile got hold of C49 and
pulled and lifted him quite forcibly him so that he was sitting on
Savile’s knee. Some photographs were taken although C49
never received any. While he was on Savile’s knee, Savile
started touching C49’s thigh and groin area, over his clothing
and squeezing his genitals. He also pinched his back. All this
made C49 feel uncomfortable, nervous and scared. He said
“No” and “What’s happening?” and tried to get off Savile’s knee.
Savile held him there a little longer and tried to calm him down,
saying it would be “okay”. But C49 wanted to go and Savile
released him so that he was able to stand up. A few moments
later Savile let him out of the room. The other boy went in.
C49 did not say anything about what had occurred; he did not
tell his parents. He felt uncomfortable about trying to explain to
anyone as he had found it shocking.

*****

5.181 I wish to include in this chapter an account from a witness who

has not attended an interview with the Savile investigation but
who has given an account of his experience to the Metropolitan
Police. At some time in 1976, when he was aged 10 or 11, C40
was one of a group of boys and girls from a children’s home
who visited the BBC to watch the making of Jim’ll Fix It. In fact,
due to traffic difficulties, the group missed the show but,
because they had been expected, they were invited to meet
Savile backstage and he chatted to them. Then the group was

331
 offered some refreshments but, instead of going with the
others, C40 went with Savile to his dressing room. There,
Savile pulled C40 close to him, exposed himself and
masturbated. He forced C40 down onto his knees and told him
to suck his penis, which C40 did. Then Savile pulled C40 to his
feet, pulled down his trousers and turned him round so that his
back was towards Savile. Savile then fondled C40’s penis until,
he (Savile) ejaculated. He cleaned himself on a towel and then
led C40 out into the corridor; soon afterwards he was reunited
with his group. Savile did not tell C40 not to say anything but,
in any event, C40 did not tell anyone until he gave a statement
to the police in December 2012, soon after the publicity about
Savile.

5.182 The Savile investigation invited C40 to attend an interview and,

at one stage, he agreed to do so and a date was arranged. He
also gave permission for us to receive a copy of his police
statement. Then later, he failed to attend for interview as
arranged. The account I have given is based on the police
statement. I am not in a position to evaluate the accuracy and
reliability of C40’s account. However, I have included it
because the account is similar to others I have heard and fits in
with the information I have from the BBC about the way in
which hospitality was offered on Jim’ll Fix It. While I cannot
conclude that it is true because I have not been able to speak
to C40, the account has the hallmarks of Savile’s modus
operandi.

*****

5.183 On 24 November 1976, B8 was offered two tickets for Top of

the Pops by a customer at the shop where she worked. She
went with a friend from work. Savile was the presenter that
night. When the show began, they were dancing to the music.
Later, a man, clearly a BBC employee, approached her, gave

332
 her a small bunch of flowers and asked her to go onto a
podium. Immediately beforehand, the man had been talking to
Savile. B8 went up on the podium and was told to sit on a
wooden staging. Then Savile appeared beside her and started
talking to camera; he was about to introduce the last act on the
show, the group ‘Chicago’. B8 realised that she too was on
camera. Suddenly she felt Savile’s hand going underneath her
bottom. She was shocked and leapt in the air. As she came
down, his hand was there underneath her, “fiddling” with her.
He was talking all the while to camera.

5.184 This incident can be seen on video. We can see B8 jumping

about in a most uncomfortable way, although she kept a smile
on her face. We can see Savile laughing in what appears to
me to be a leery way and hear him saying “A fella could get
used to all this”. Looking at it now, it is apparent that Savile
was doing something of a sexual nature. Then the camera
moved off Savile. B8 told the Review that, when the music
started she was able to move away from Savile and she went to
speak to a BBC employee (a man with earphones) and told him
what had happened. He told her not to worry as it was “just
Jimmy Savile mucking about”. When she remonstrated, he told
her to move out of the way as they were trying to move the
camera.

5.185 The Savile investigation has been able to establish that the
producer of that programme was Johnnie Stewart (now
deceased) and the director was Phil Bishop. Mr Bishop has
viewed the video and says that, at the time, he did not realise
that anything improper was happening and does not remember
the incident being brought to his attention.

*****

333
 5.186 C15 was subjected to a brief but unpleasant assault in the mid-
1970s. He believes that he was 15 at the time. He went to Top
of the Pops and danced as a member of the participating
audience. While one of the acts was performing, Savile came
very close to C15 and stroked his buttocks. While doing this,
Savile said something like “I know what you need” and “I know
what you want, lad” and leered at him. Then Savile moved
away and that was it.

*****

5.187 In July 1976, C47 was invited to take part in a programme

which was to be recorded in Manchester. This programme
featured a number of performers. C47 had been chosen to
take part and although he was only 15, he recollects that he
was treated by the BBC in exactly the same way as all the other
adult performers. Savile was also appearing on the show as a
celebrity guest. C47 had a dressing room about two doors
away from Savile’s. It was to be C47’s first appearance on
television.

5.188 C47 first met Savile on the set during the rehearsal. They were
introduced by the producer. Savile was pleasant and friendly.
C47 knew of Savile as a famous man from his appearances on
television, in particular on Top of the Pops. The rehearsal went
well and there was then a meal break before the recording
began.

5.189 C47 left the studio to return to his dressing room. He walked
past Savile’s room. The door was open and Savile called out to
him to ask if he felt the rehearsal had gone well. C47 replied
that he thought it had. Savile asked him to come into the room.
C47 sat down opposite Savile and they chatted. Savile noticed
that C47 was wearing a bracelet of a similar design to his own.
Savile took off his bracelet and came over to C47 offering to let

334
 him feel how much heavier Savile’s bracelet was than C47’s.
C47 stood up and took Savile’s bracelet in his left hand to feel
its weight. Suddenly Savile began to touch C47’s crotch
outside his trousers. Then he took C47’s right hand and put it
on his (Savile’s) crotch over his track suit bottoms. C47 was
very shocked. He had had no previous sexual experience. He
said and did nothing. Savile then undid C47’s trousers and
began to masturbate his penis. He then pulled his own penis
out, put C47’s hand round it and moved it up and down so that
C47 was masturbating him. This mutual masturbation
continued for a short time (C47 cannot say how long but
thought it might have been as much as four or five minutes)
until Savile suddenly said something like “That’s it then” and
stopped. He had not ejaculated. C47 fastened his trousers
and left the room quickly.

5.190 Fortunately C47 had some time in which to recover his

composure before having to begin his performance. He
managed to pull himself together and get through the show
although he found it difficult having to work with Savile.

5.191 C47 did not tell anyone what had happened. His parents had
driven him to Manchester and had been watching the show but
he did not tell them. He feared they might not believe him. Nor
did he report Savile to the BBC or to the police. He wondered
what the reaction would be and he felt guilty about what had
occurred. Asked whether there was anyone from the BBC who
was looking after him, he said that there was not and, even if
there had been, he did not know whether he would have been
able to tell them. I have been unable to discover what
arrangements the BBC made for C47. They were under a
statutory duty to ensure that a child performer was chaperoned
but a parent could act as chaperone. It seems to me that, if the
BBC expects a parent to act as chaperone, that should be

335
 made clear in advance. I have been unable to find out whether
that was done in the present case. However, it is quite likely
that it was and that the parents took the view that, at the age of
15, their son did not require supervision. I have the impression
that C47 would have found it intrusive to have someone
watching over him all the time while preparing for the show. It
may have been a good idea for someone to keep an eye on
C47 but I cannot say whether intermittent supervision would
necessarily have prevented the abuse; it might have done.

*****

5.192 In late 1976, C20 was invited to appear on Jim’ll Fix It. About a
year earlier, he had met Savile at a café which was frequented
by young people in the neighbourhood where he lived. C20
chatted to Savile about his interests and asked to appear on
Jim’ll Fix It. Savile took C20’s address and telephone number.
About a year later, the BBC contacted C20 and invited him to
come to London to record an item for Jim’ll Fix It. C20 does not
want me to describe what his idea was as this could lead to him
being identified. I can, however, say that the idea involved
another person who was quite famous and that the event was
to take place at the BBC studios and was not to be filmed out
on location. C20 and his father went up to London to the
studio. C20 was 15 years old at the time.

5.193 On arrival, they were shown to a dressing room. After a while,

he met the other guest (the famous person) and then he went
back to his room to get changed. His father was with him.
While C20 was changing, Savile walked in. Savile suggested
that the father should go and get refreshments while he, Savile,
discussed the programme with C20. As his father went out,
C20 was sitting on a bench, putting on the clothes he was going
to wear on the set. Savile came and bent over him, admiring
his clothing. Then, with his right hand, he touched and rubbed

336
 the inside of C20’s thigh. C20 stood up to pull on his clothing.
He then turned to face Savile who put his arms round C20.
C20 could smell cigar smoke on Savile’s breath. Then with one
hand, Savile rubbed C20’s buttock and, with the other hand,
tried to guide C20’s hand towards his genitals. At that moment,
the door opened and a man with a clipboard came in. He
stopped, said “wrong door” and left. Savile then put his arm
around C20 again but C20 stiffened his arm in resistance and
stepped back. Savile turned and went to the door, wished C20
a nice day and left.

5.194 The whole episode had lasted less than a minute. However, it
upset C20 and spoiled his day. He did not tell his father what
had happened. Indeed, he did not tell anyone until after he was
married when he told his wife. Apart from that, he told no one
until the reports of Savile’s activities started to come out in
2012. Then he consulted a solicitor.

*****

5.195 Kevin Cook, who has waived his right to anonymity and whose
account has been widely reported by the media, was abused by
Savile in a dressing room after a recording of Jim’ll Fix It in
January 1977. He was a member of a cub scout group which
took part in an event filmed at Brands Hatch in the summer of
1976 when several milk floats raced around the track. He
would have been nine at the time. In January 1977, he went to
London with a group of cubs for the recording. There is some
uncertainty in his mind about whether he was taken to
Television Centre or to the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush.
On arrival at the studios, he was one of the boys picked out to
sit on the beanbags on the stage, whereas most of the group
were in the audience seats. As the show progressed, the group
was given a shared Jim’ll Fix It badge. At some stage during

337
 the visit, Savile asked Mr Cook if he would like a badge of his
own not just a shared one. He said he would.

5.196 After the show was over, there was a party when the children
were given squash. Savile came to him and asked whether he
would like his badge now. He said “yes” and Savile took him
through some double doors, along a corridor and into what
sounds like a dressing room. The room was small, dingy and
dimly lit; it was furnished with a vanity table, a mirror and a
chair. Savile asked Mr Cook whether he wanted to earn his
badge. Mr Cook said he wanted to. Savile told Mr Cook to sit
down on the chair. Savile stood in front of him and started to
touch his leg. Then his hand moved upwards under the leg of
Mr Cook’s shorts. Then Savile unbuttoned the waistband,
unzipped the shorts and pulled them and Mr Cook’s underpants
down a bit. He started feeling Mr Cook’s penis and testicles.
He made Mr Cook put his hand on Savile’s crotch, over the top
of his clothes. All this lasted only a very short time; no more
than half a minute. Nothing was said between them. Then
another man came into the room.

5.197 Mr Cook did not tell anyone of this experience until October
2012, when the media was full of disclosures about Savile. He
then told his wife who contacted the police and he made a
police statement. In that statement he said that, when the
second man came into the room, he said “oops” and left
immediately. Savile then stopped abusing him, warned him not
to tell anyone and took him back to join his friends. Mr Cook
gave the same account to The Sun and when he appeared on
the television programme This Morning.

5.198 When Mr Cook came to give evidence to us, he informed us

that his first account had been incomplete and he wished to say
something additional to, and different from, what he had
previously said. The second man had not backed out but had

338
 stayed in the room. In accordance with the Review’s
Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Police,
we contacted the Police to seek their permission to conduct the
interview with Mr Cook. In the event, the police agreed that we
could conduct the interview with Mr Cook but must not ask him
any questions about what happened when the second man
came into the room. We did as requested. The procedure was
rather artificial but was the best we could do. All Mr Cook was
able to say to us was that, when Savile and he prepared to
leave the dressing room, Savile said to him “Don’t you dare tell
anyone because I’m King Jimmy. And no one will believe you.
We know where you live”.

5.199 This change in Mr Cook’s account made it difficult for me to

make up my mind whether his account was true.
Subsequently, Mr Cook stated publicly that the second man
(whom he has never been able to identify) had also abused
him. Fortunately, before I had completed my Report, the police
agreed that I could interview Mr Cook again to discuss with him
the reasons why he had changed his account. He then
explained that he had found talking about the second stage of
the abuse even more embarrassing than the first and had not
felt able to speak about it until sometime after his first
disclosure. After discussing this with him, I was quite satisfied
that his account was true and that both men had abused him.

*****

5.200 Leisha Brookes’s story, which I am about to relate, has already

received some publicity as a result of her refusal to pay her
television licence. Accordingly, she has waived her right to
anonymity. Ms Brookes was born in London in 1967. Her
parents separated when she was very young (probably about
three) and her mother started a relationship with a man named
Phillips. From the age of about five or six, Ms Brookes lived

339
 with her mother and stepfather and, in due course, there were
adoption proceedings. She says that, from the age of about
six, she was sexually abused by her adoptive father. That
continued until she was about 16. She made no complaint
about his conduct to anyone in authority; nor did she say
anything to her mother. Ms Brookes has provided a full
account of this abuse to the police but I do not think it
necessary or appropriate to record the details in this Report.

5.201 When she was about eight or nine (that would be in about 1975
or 1976), her stepfather, Phillips, brought home a man named
Douglas Sillitoe with whom he had become friendly. Sillitoe
worked at the BBC as a scene painter. He was a keen
photographer and an arrangement was made between the two
men that Sillitoe would take photographs of Ms Brookes. Ms
Brookes was told that the BBC wanted to use photographs of
her and she was flattered and excited. Sillitoe took her to his
home, gave her a bath and provided a new dress and shoes.
Then he took her to a park and photographed her playing on
the swings and in the sandpit. On the face of it, the
photographs were quite innocent but they were in fact part of
the grooming process.

5.202 About four weeks later, Sillitoe took her to his home again and
more photographs were taken. A while later he came to the
house and said that the BBC had liked the photographs and
that he wanted to take some more. After that, she went to his
home quite frequently; she now thinks that on average it was
about every two weeks. After the first couple of visits, the
photographs were different; Sillitoe took pictures of her dressing
and undressing and getting in and out of the bath.

5.203 Sillitoe also took Ms Brookes to Television Centre. They would

go on his motorcycle. He had a pass and he was allowed in
when they arrived. People obviously knew him. He took her to

340
 various different parts of the building, sometimes to the canteen
where she often saw or met celebrities. No one ever
questioned why she was there walking around the building with
Sillitoe. Asked how many times she went there, she said that
her visits to Sillitoe’s house took place roughly once a fortnight
over a period of about two years and, on more than half of
those occasions, he would take her to the BBC. Her visits
usually occurred at weekends but she would sometimes go
there on weekdays during the school holidays. Sillitoe used to
take her to see various men. He would take her to different
rooms where she would meet a man and Sillitoe would tell her
to “sit on Uncle So and So’s knee”; or he would say that he had
to go and do something and “Uncle So and So” would look after
her. Some of these men were people whom she had seen on
television but most of them she did not recognise. She said
that most of these men (although not all) touched her (or hurt
her as she put it). In all, she estimates that she was abused by
about 30 different men. Sillitoe did not abuse her while at the
BBC but he did when she was at his house.

5.204 One of the men who abused her was Savile. She recognised
him because she used to watch Jim’ll Fix It. He promised to
show her his big chair although he never did.

5.205 When she was about 11, the police came to her school wanting
to speak to her. She now understands that Sillitoe had been
found in bed with another young girl and a complaint had been
made. Ms Brookes believes that the police had found indecent
photographs of her at Sillitoe’s house. However, Ms Brookes’s
parents told her that she must not say anything to the police.
Her adoptive father told her that if she did she would be taken
away and her sisters would have to “take [her] place”. So when
she was questioned by the police, she said that nothing had
happened to her; it had all been quite innocent. She now

341
 knows that Sillitoe was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to a large
number of offences, some of which she believes related to
pornographic photographs of her. Sillitoe was imprisoned and
Ms Brookes’s visits to the BBC came to an end.

5.206 When she was about 19, she left home and went to live in
Liverpool. She began to attend therapy sessions and, after a
while, her counsellor persuaded her to go to the police. She
cannot now remember the name of her counsellor. She made
a long statement to Merseyside Police in which, she says, she
recounted everything that had happened to her, naming her
adoptive father, Sillitoe and describing what had occurred at the
BBC. She says that she named Savile. The police did not take
any action on the ground, she said they told her, that there was
not enough evidence. When the Savile scandal broke in 2012,
Ms Brookes went to Operation Yewtree and told her story
again.

5.207 The Savile investigation wished to seek confirmation of Ms

Brookes’s account, particularly as the allegations are of a very
serious nature, involving as they do, the suggestion that there
was what might be described as a paedophile ring operating
within the BBC.

5.208 First, we noted that in the HMIC report, Mistakes were Made, it
is recorded, at page 13, that a complaint about Savile had been
made to Merseyside Police. We have tried to follow this up and
asked Merseyside Police to confirm that the complainant was
Ms Brookes and also to disclose her statement to us (with her
consent). Merseyside Police have confirmed that Ms Brookes
did provide a witness statement to them in 1986 but were
unable to provide a copy of it. They suggested that the
statement, although taken by them, would, in accordance with
standard practice at the time, have been sent to the
Metropolitan Police because the offences complained of

342
 occurred in London. This appears to tie in with an article in the
Wirral Globe dated 13 March 2013 in which it is said that a
Merseyside Police spokeswoman had confirmed that a 19-year
old woman had made a complaint in 1986. Officers took details
of the complaint which contained allegations of historical sex
abuse which had not taken place in Merseyside. The
spokeswoman said that the Merseyside Police were satisfied
that they had dealt with the complaint appropriately.

5.209 Enquiries of the Metropolitan Police have also proved fruitless.

No trace of the complaint or any statement has been found.
That explains why the Metropolitan Police would not have been
able to include this complaint in its disclosure of Savile-related
matters to the HMIC investigation. When Ms Brookes reported
her complaints to Operation Yewtree, the allegations against
Sillitoe and Phillips were investigated but it was discovered that
both men are now dead. Sillitoe had been prosecuted in the
late 1970s and sent to prison. The details of his convictions are
no longer available.

5.210 The BBC has provided Sillitoe’s ‘Cessation of Employment’

form. This records that he resigned from the BBC in October
1978 giving ‘personal reasons’ as his explanation. The form
records that he was not recommended for re-employment but
no reason was given for that recommendation (which was
underlined as above).

5.211 A further piece of supportive evidence has also come to light. A

former woman police officer contacted Operation Yewtree to
say that, in the 1970s, she had been involved in an
investigation relating to Sillitoe. She has told the Savile
investigation that she interviewed Ms Brookes in 1977 or 1978
in connection with a suspected indecent assault. The interview
had taken place in the presence of the girl’s mother and the girl
had made no allegations against Sillitoe. However, the former

343
 officer remembered that Sillitoe was a friend of the girl’s family.
She did not know at that time what had happened in respect of
Sillitoe and had only recently learned that he had been
convicted.

5.212 These additional pieces of evidence do, in my view, provide a

considerable degree of support for Ms Brookes’s account.
They provide support for her claim of contact with Sillitoe and
also of the claim that she was abused by Savile. Unfortunately,
due to the inability of the police to produce Ms Brookes’s
statement, I cannot say whether there is any support for her
claim that she was also abused on BBC premises by other
men. On balance, I accept that she was taken to Television
Centre by Sillitoe on different occasions and was there abused
by Savile. She may also have been abused there by other
men.

*****

5.213 In February 1978, C19 went to the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s

Bush to watch Jim’ll Fix It. She was 18 and was chaperone to
her younger sister and a friend who were going to take part in
the show. C19 was asked to sit on the beanbags on the stage.
Before the recording began, everyone was very pleasant and
she was enjoying herself. Savile was chatting to people. There
were some gaps in the recording process and in one such gap
Savile came to the beanbags. He told C19 to stand up which
she did, of course. Then he sat in her place and told her to sit
on his knee. She sat on the edge of his knee feeling a little
uncomfortable. Savile was chatting but he began to fondle
C19’s back at the same time. First, his hand was round the
back of her jeans; then it moved up and went underneath her
top and underneath the back of her bra. He was stroking her
back, up and down. All the while he was talking about who she
was and, where she lived. She did not feel able to say anything

344
 to him about what he was doing with his hand. She told her
mother and sister but did not make any complaint.

*****

5.214 In about March 1978, C14 met Savile at a charity event. She
was about 22 and was there with a group of friends. Savile was
very friendly and invited them to see him record a show in
London. He gave C14 a telephone number. C14 called the
number and was given instructions to come to Broadcasting
House.

5.215 When she arrived, C14 was shown up to a studio. Savile was
friendly and “bouncy” when he met her. A girl in a wheelchair
together with her carer and two or three middle-aged men were
also there. They did not appear to be BBC employees but were
with Savile; C14 described them as “followers”. C14 was in the
studio for about an hour and a half. When the recording was
finished, Savile said goodbye to the girl and her carer. The
followers were still there. Then Savile said to the followers “We
need food”. He invited C14 to join them and she accepted.
They all left together and walked in a northerly direction from
Broadcasting House. C14 was expecting to be taken to a
restaurant but instead they arrived at a block of flats in Park
Crescent. They all went into the building but the followers
disappeared and C14 found herself alone with Savile in his flat.

5.216 The flat was a single room with a bathroom and kitchen. She
sat on a sofa. Savile sat on the bed, which was a modern
reproduction four-poster. The flat smelt strongly of cigar
smoke. Savile chatted pleasantly. After a while, there was a
knock and Savile went to the door. Someone – C14 did not
know who – handed in some packages of food. She and Savile
then ate a Chinese meal from their knees.

345
5.217 When they had finished eating, C14 said that it was time to go.
Savile suddenly pushed her backwards on to the bed. He
started to pull at her clothes, trying to pull her trousers down.
She was saying “I don’t want this” and he was saying that she
needed to tell him that she wanted him to “fuck” her. She would
not say it. He said “Go on, go on”. He was very strong and he
got her trousers down. He pulled his track suit down and raped
her. It was over very quickly. He used no protection and he
ejaculated inside her. The whole thing was very quick and
clinical.

5.218 When Savile had finished, C14 pulled herself together and
started to put her trousers back on. Savile said something like
“Don’t even think about going to the papers”. He told her that
she would not be believed. He added that he had “friends”.
She was very frightened and just sat there and nodded meekly.
When he saw that, he seemed to change from threatening
mode back into his usual, confident mood and started talking
about what he was going to do, going to Broadmoor and so on.
He even gave her a number to call if she wanted to see him
again.

5.219 She left the flat and made her way to King’s Cross. She felt
completely shattered. She did not tell anyone what had
happened. But as soon as she heard about the Exposure
programme in October 2012, she contacted the police.

*****

5.220 In the autumn of 1978, C17 had just started working in the bar
of the BBC Club at Television Centre. She had not yet become
completely familiar with the geography of the building and got
lost on her way back to the club. She was walking along a
corridor when she heard a voice behind her saying something
like “What have we here then?” She turned and saw Savile

346
 standing outside the doorway of an office. She recognised him,
as he was very famous. He walked towards her and said
“What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?” Despite
the banality of the question, she laughed. He noticed that she
was wearing long boots, with spurs attached, which were
fashionable at the time. He said “Are those spurs on your
boots?” She said “yes”. He said “I bet you’ve got a whip to go
with those”. Then he asked her if she had a boyfriend and
when she said she had not, he asked “Why has a lovely girl like
you not got a boyfriend?” She said that she did not have time.
Savile then asked her if she had ever been to Top of the Pops.
She said she had tried. He asked if she would like to come as
his special guest. She said she would love to. Then she said
she must go as she was late for work. He said “I’ll look you up
darling” and winked at her. Then he put his arm right round her
back so that his hand came round to the front and squeezed
her breast. She felt flustered, said she had to go and left. She
did not hear from him again.

*****

5.221 In 1978/1979, C33 was working as a waitress. At that time, she

was 19. Ted Beston, Savile’s radio producer was a regular
customer where C33 worked and got to know her quite well. Mr
Beston often talked about Savile and it appeared to C33 that he
idolised him. He told C33 about Savile’s fundraising work and
would often say how funny he was. One day, he asked C33 if
she would like to meet Savile and she said she would.

5.222 Mr Beston invited her to an event which would entail watching a

programme being made but would be preceded by a drinks
party. Following the instructions he gave her, C33 went
somewhere near White City or Shepherds Bush (she is not sure
exactly where) to what appeared to be a portable corporate
hospitality cabin. When she arrived, there were quite a lot of

347
 men there, having drinks. She met Mr Beston and another
BBC producer who often worked with Mr Beston. As both of
them were there, she felt quite comfortable. There was no sign
of Savile. Then Mr Beston asked her whether she would like to
meet Savile and she said yes.

5.223 She was shown into a curtained-off area, which was low, dark
and very smoky. Savile was sitting on a low sofa, smoking a
cigar. She sat down next to him. Almost immediately, he
lunged at her and kissed her forcibly. He stank of smoke and
she found him revolting. Then he grabbed at her breasts and
put his hands down inside her top. His actions were quite
aggressive and C33 was very frightened. Then he took hold of
her hand and put it inside his track suit bottoms. His penis was
erect. C33 told us that, at this stage she “went mad” and ran
out of the curtained area.

5.224 She went to Mr Beston. She told him what had happened and
that she wanted to leave. He must have been able to see that
she was shaken and upset. He treated her as if she was being
silly and told her that she should go back in; Savile wanted to
meet her and talk to her. She would not do so and she left
straightaway. She did not go to the recording.

5.225 On the next working day, C33 saw Mr Beston but this incident
was never mentioned between them. She did not feel able to
make any complaint about what had happened. Mr Beston was
a very good customer and it appears that she thought that it
would have been bad for business if she had made a fuss.
Also, she was worried about what her then boyfriend might
have done if he had found out. He ran a West End club and
C33 feared that there would be violence if he knew what had
happened.

348
5.226 C33 did not tell anyone about this until the day of Savile’s
funeral. She told her husband what Savile had done to her and
said that she was glad that he was dead. About a year later,
when she heard the account of a woman who had had a similar
experience to hers, she spoke to the Daily Mail and also to the
police. I have seen her story on the Mail Online website and it
is consistent with the account she gave to me.

5.227 C33 told me that, looking back on it, she believes that Mr
Beston took her to meet Savile for a purpose, well knowing
what Savile would do. First, Mr Beston encouraged her to want
to meet Savile by building him up as a fantastic person. Then,
when she had gone in to meet him and had come out shaky
and upset, Mr Beston had not been sympathetic. Instead he
had treated her as if she was being silly and told her to go back
in. C33 believes that Mr Beston must have known what Savile
was like. She draws the inference that Mr Beston took her
there for Savile to have sex with her. I consider C33’s account
in further detail in Chapter 11.

*****

5.228 In 1981 or 1982, C18 was invited by a friend to meet Savile

and, she said, to go to Top of the Pops. They went to his flat in
Park Crescent. When he greeted her, Savile took her hand and
licked it with the flat of his tongue all the way from the fingertip
to her wrist. She had to wipe her hand dry afterwards. She
thought it was disgusting. They chatted and he asked them
whether they would like to strip off and go on the sunbed. They
both declined. C18’s recollection is that they all walked to the
studios but that would have been impossible (or at least
extremely unlikely) if they were going to Television Centre. I
think it is more likely that they walked to Broadcasting House.

*****

349
5.229 In the early 1980s, B9 worked with Savile on Jim’ll Fix It.
Whenever they met he would give her hand a wet “licking” kiss
and once continued this up her arm to the elbow. On one
occasion, she had to take a document to his dressing room. As
she handed it to him, he grabbed her hand and pulled it
downwards, so as to bring her closer to him, then kissed her full
on the lips and put his tongue in her mouth. She did not make
any report as she enjoyed her job and did not want to make a
fuss. She managed to give Savile a wide berth afterwards.

*****

5.230 C56 appeared on Jim’ll Fix it, aged eight, in 1984. Her story is
of particular relevance in two respects. First, as I explain at
paragraph 3.88, she travelled abroad to film the fix, without a
family member or friend, with a BBC director and a researcher.
Second, on the day when the show was filmed, she was
touched indecently by Savile. She was sitting at the side of
Savile’s chair, awaiting the filming of the presentation of her
Jim’ll Fix it badge, when Savile, who was on her right hand
side, leaned across in front of her and rubbed his left arm
across her chest a few times. He then put his left hand on the
top of her left thigh and patted and rubbed her thigh and then
reached round with his right arm and put it on her right knee.

*****

5.231 B13, who worked as a studio manager, described an occasion

in the mid-1980s when Savile came in to record a programme.
He arrived with three or four middle-aged men. As soon as she
greeted him, he walked up to her and asked her whether she
was “the woman that I saw last night with the snake between
her legs?” She had never met him before. She was shocked
by this and felt humiliated. She felt that he was showing off to
his friends. Her recollection is that she carried on with her

350
 duties and, when Savile and his friends had gone, reported the
incident to a manager. She gave her story and it was taken
seriously but she did not hear any feedback afterwards. She
did not expect to.

*****

5.232 In 1985 or 1986, C1 was on work experience for two weeks at

the canteen in Broadcasting House. In the afternoon of the first
Friday, Savile came in and ordered a cup of tea. The place
was very quiet. C1 was going about her duties and was aware
that Savile was watching her. He spoke to her and asked her
how old she was. She told him she was 15. He remarked that
she was “a very pretty young thing”. He asked what time she
finished work. He asked her whether, if he came back for her
at finishing time, he could take her for a cup of tea. She felt
flattered, as he was very well-known. He left and came back
for her, as promised.

5.233 They went down in the lift together and out on to the street. His
car was parked at the roadside, facing south towards Oxford
Circus and they got in. She recalls that he kept calling her “little
lady”. They set off; he was driving and smoking a cigar. He
told her that he was taking her to his flat for a cup of tea and
that she could tell him all about her work experience. She was
not worried. He did a U-turn and drove for about two to three
minutes until they came to a crescent. I am sure that he had
taken her to Park Crescent.

5.234 They left the car and went into a block of flats, then up in the lift
and Savile let them into his flat. He apologised that his
housekeeper was not there; he said that she only came once a
week. The flat was small and in an untidy state. There was a
sparse kitchen and C1 remembers a sofa, a chair and a coffee
table in the main room. There were dirty cups lying about and

351
 clothes left on the backs of chairs. There was a strong and
disgusting smell of cigar smoke. Savile said he would put the
kettle on. He disappeared and then returned, telling her to sit
down. He disappeared again and came back wearing only a
pair of underpants. Savile was tanned but, to C1, he looked old
and “wrinkly”. In fact, he was almost 60 years old.

5.235 When Savile came back into the room, C1 stood up. She was
so shocked that she was speechless. He said something like “I
know you want me”. In no time, he had pinned her against the
wall with her arms above her head and he was kissing her with
his tongue “down [her] throat”. She described how he then
manoeuvred her onto the bed. She was small. Her recollection
is that the bed was close by but not actually in the same room
as the sofa and chairs. I think she is probably mistaken about
that as all the other witnesses who have described the flat say
that there was only one room. However, I entirely accept that
Savile very quickly got her onto the bed.

5.236 At this time she was saying “I don’t want this. I don’t want this”.
He kept saying “I know you want me”. He said it several times.
He lifted her skirt and pulled down her tights and knickers.
Then he was on top of her with his whole weight and again his
tongue was in her mouth. He pulled her legs apart very roughly
and penetrated her. She said that she just lay there, to use her
own description, “like a frozen block of fish”. She described a
sense of being dissociated from what was happening and
looking at the surroundings. Savile had soon finished. He
ejaculated inside her and withdrew. He left the room. She
pulled herself together. She was in some discomfort as she
had never had intercourse before. She cannot remember
seeing Savile again. She got dressed, let herself out of the flat
and went down the stairs as fast as she could.

352
5.237 C1 cannot remember the detail of the rest of the day but she
must have returned to the flat where she was staying while in
London. She then returned to her parents’ home in East
Anglia. She did not go back to the BBC the following week.
She made the excuse that the work experience had come to an
end sooner than expected. She did not want to tell her parents
what had happened because she felt that it had been her own
fault that she had got into that situation. She told me that she
was sure that she had done absolutely nothing to encourage
Savile in any way. Of course, especially given her age and
vulnerability, she was not in any way to blame.

5.238 C1 did not tell anyone of her experience until very shortly
before she was to get married. She then felt that she must tell
her husband that she had been raped but she did not tell him
who had done it. When she heard the report of Savile’s death
in October 2011, she blurted out that she was glad that he was
dead and then she told her husband who had raped her. A
year later, in October 2012, when Savile’s conduct was
exposed, she went to the police to give her account.

*****

5.239 C31 was interviewed in a prison establishment where he was

serving a sentence of four years imprisonment for domestic
burglary. I was told that he has a substantial criminal record. I
mention that fact at the outset because I have to assess C31’s
credibility and reliability. His criminal record for offences of
dishonesty is plainly relevant to that assessment.

5.240 C31 had a troubled upbringing as his parents were both

alcoholics. There were five children in the family but, despite
the difficulties, the children were not taken into care. Through
an organisation which provided the family with supervision and
support, C31 enjoyed a number of treats and outings which

353
 would not otherwise have been available. One such occurred
in 1986, when a trip to Florida was arranged for a group of
underprivileged children. The trip, which was a great treat for
the children, was filmed by the BBC as part of a series of Jim’ll
Fix It. C31 and one of his brothers, aged 13 and 11
respectively, went on the holiday.

5.241 The group spent the night before their flight at a hotel near
Heathrow Airport. Savile turned up to wish them a good holiday
and a number of photographs were taken, although I do not
think there was any filming. C31 told me that, as soon as
Savile came into the room, he made a beeline for C31 and was
“all over us”. He felt uncomfortable about this as he felt that
Savile was too close to him and was invading his personal
space. I have seen a still photograph of C31 sitting at a table
with Savile standing behind him. C31 was a very good-looking
and attractive young boy; in the photograph he looks very
relaxed.

5.242 The following day the group flew to Florida. C31 was able to
remember very little about the holiday itself; he remembers that
it was very hot when they arrived. He recalls that they went to
Disney World. He thinks that the trip lasted five days. They
flew back into Heathrow and were taken home.

5.243 Some weeks or months later, C31 and his brother were invited
to the BBC for the recording of the Jim’ll Fix It programme on
which their trip was to be featured. He recalls being taken to
Television Centre. He said that, when they were taken into the
studio, he and his brother were put on the audience seating
area. They did not sit on beanbags; he was on a “normal seat”.
He could not remember whether or not they were on the stage.
C31 said that, when Savile came into the studio, he
immediately came over and sat between C31 and his brother.
It was as if Savile had deliberately targeted him. He said that

354
 Savile was an animal. He and his brother had to move up so
that Savile could sit between them. He said that they were
sitting only about 10 feet from Savile’s big chair. He could not
remember anything about the show.

5.244 In respect of what happened after the show, C31 said that he
had a very clear recollection. He said that, when the filming
had finished, Savile wanted to show him and his brother
backstage. The brother refused but C31 went with Savile.
Savile led him out of the studio and he remembered seeing lots
of corridors. They ended up in a room not far from the stage.
There was a table and chair in the room but it was bare and
clinical. There were no clothes or personal possessions to be
seen. The room did not have a window. Savile told him to sit
on a chair and asked him about the holiday in Florida. C31
interjected at this stage to say that when he was young, Savile
was “like a God”. He “fixed it for kids”. C31 said that he
thanked Savile for the trip and got up to leave. Savile pushed
him back into the chair and started rubbing his private parts
over the top of his clothing. C31 said that he was in shock
although he did not realise it at the time. Savile then started to
put his hand down the waistband of C31’s trousers; the hand
went inside his underpants and touched his penis. Then Savile
pulled his own penis out; it was erect. When asked whether
Savile had to unzip his flies in order to bring out his penis, C31
said that he did not, as he was wearing a track suit; it was
white, blue and red. C31 said that, at this point, an electric volt
went through him and he was “like no, no, no”. Savile asked
him to touch his penis but he refused and told Savile to take
him back to the studio. Savile looked a bit “pissed off” but took
him straight back to the studio. When he arrived back in the
studio, there were still people around. Savile behaved as if
nothing had happened. He said that the whole incident had

355
 been over in a matter of minutes; he estimated between 10 to
20 minutes. He said that Savile was “so cunning”.

5.245 C31 said that he did not tell his brother straight away but told
him a few days later. His brother wanted to tell their parents
but C31 stopped him from doing so. Apart from his brother, his
solicitor (Mr Alan Collins) was the first person he had ever told.
That was in February 2013. He had seen Mr Collins on
television and thought that, if he could get this solicitor to
represent him, he could “rebirth” himself. He went on to say
that, until he met Savile, he had no criminal convictions. He
believed that he had suffered from self-worth issues all his life
because of “this animal” (Savile). He added that he was now
getting flashbacks and was seeing a clinical psychologist for
post-traumatic stress. He was so frightened that he could not
eat or sleep. Mr Collins asked what had made C31 write to him
to seek representation. He replied that he had been
“galvanised” by the people he had seen on television and
wanted to get all this off his chest to enable him to move
forward.

5.246 Asked about what he had seen on television about Savile, C31
said he had seen items relating to the arrest of other celebrities.
Looking back, he said, he realised that Savile was friends with
all of them. He also remembered seeing one of Savile’s female
victims on television; the woman was blonde. He said that he
had heard about other male victims and had spoken to one
other in prison. He said that he did not remember seeing any of
Savile’s male victims on television.

5.247 I have received a psychiatric report which has been of great

assistance to me. It describes some of the effects which the
psychiatrist attributes to what appears to be C31’s only
experience of sexual abuse. Although at the time of the
interview I had some doubts about the truthfulness of C31’s

356
 account, I have come to the conclusion that his evidence is
probably true and as accurate as one could expect given the
passage of time.

*****

5.248 C7 was aged about ten when he went to watch Jim’ll Fix It in
1986. He was with a group of children and went as a treat for
his cousin’s seventh birthday. A few of the party, including C7,
were selected to sit on the beanbags. C7 was on the front row
and, when Savile first came onto the set, he came up to C7.
During the warm-up period, Savile teased C7 a little, asking
whether he wanted to be famous. C7 said “yes” and the
audience laughed. Savile then sat next to C7 and filming
began. This introductory piece for the show had to be filmed
about four times before the director was satisfied with it.
Between these several ‘takes’, Savile put his hand down the
back of C7’s trousers and inside his underpants. C7 did not
complain; he just thought what Savile did was strange.

*****

5.249 B10 was aged about 19 when he met Savile in 1987. He was
employed as a barman in the BBC Club at Television Centre.
During his breaks, he used to go down to the canteen. He liked
to go there because he could meet celebrities. He met Savile
on a few occasions and Savile sometimes paid for his cup of
tea and bought him a bun. He says that Savile was always
rather physical; he used to push up against him, stroking him
(over his clothes) and sometimes pinching his bottom. B10 did
not like these things; he thought Savile was making an
approach to him. He stopped going down but he did not make
any complaint about what had occurred.

*****

357
5.250 C48, who worked as a presenter, had a very unpleasant ‘close
encounter’ with Savile in either 1987 or 1988. She was in her
early thirties at the time. She found herself alone with Savile in
the lift in Television Centre. She had met him briefly two or
three years earlier in Leeds. He remembered her and ‘chatted
her up’. Then he said, “How about a kiss for Uncle Jimmy?”
Somewhat reluctantly, she proffered her cheek. He then
grabbed her face and stuck his tongue in her mouth. He also
ran his hand up her body and fumbled for her breast. She was
very angry indeed and told him to take his hands off her. She
believes she used some strong language. His reaction was to
grumble that it was only a bit of fun, that she clearly could not
take a joke and was probably frigid. She told her friend who
worked at the BBC what had happened and her response was
that there was a good deal of such behaviour at the BBC. C48
did not make a complaint, she said, for the sake of her career.
Savile was at that time one of the biggest names in show
business. She was a serious presenter and did not want
people to think she could not stand up for herself. However,
she found the whole episode quite disgusting.

*****

5.251 C11’s account is unusual in that she was 45 years old when
Savile assaulted her in 1988. She had gone to Television
Centre to watch a recording of Jim’ll Fix It. Her brother was
taking part. After the show was over, all the guests were taken
to a room for refreshments. Savile came round thanking
everyone who had taken part. He posed for a photograph with
C11’s family group. In the line-up, he stepped in between C11
and her niece. He put an arm round each of them and then, on
C11’s side, he dropped his arm so that his hand rested on her
right breast and squeezed it. She was very upset. She felt that

358
 it had ruined what would otherwise have been a most enjoyable
day. She considers that it showed a complete lack of respect.

*****

5.252 In 1988, C21 was to appear on Jim’ll Fix It with a friend. They
were 14 and 15 and their fix required them to perform on the
show. C21’s mother (C22) went with them as a chaperone.
While the two girls were in the make-up room, Savile came in to
greet them. They were sitting in front of the mirrors. He stood
between them and put his right arm round C21’s back and ran
his hand down her back. She was fully clothed. C21 considers
that this was inappropriate touching, although it does not
appear to have been overtly sexual. Later, when the show had
been recorded, she sat on his knee while they had their
photograph taken and she says he squeezed her very tightly.
C22 recalled that, while the rehearsal was on, she was sitting in
the (mainly empty) audience seats. Savile was brought along
to be introduced. Instead of walking along the row in front of
her, he came alongside her and, when he had shaken hands
and greeted her, he squeezed past her. She says that he
rubbed against her and she could tell that his penis was erect.

*****

5.253 In 1988 or 1989, B11 (who was aged 14 or 15) attended Jim’ll
Fix It with a group of classmates. She was in a wheelchair and,
in the studio, was placed close to Savile. Although she was
never left alone with Savile, she had an unpleasant experience
because he had “wandering hands”. He was very tactile and
would put his hand on her thigh or shoulder and leave it there a
few seconds too long. She assumes that he had touched some
of the other girls as well because, afterwards, she and her
classmates had joked about Savile being a “dirty old man”. She
did not make any complaint.

359
 *****

5.254 C51’s account is also unusual in that she was 39 years old
when Savile assaulted her in either late 1988 or early 1989.
C51 worked at the BBC. She was a junior employee and had
just finished a shift and she and her supervisor went for a
coffee break in a small canteen (not the main canteen) at
Television Centre. She believes that this was in the afternoon.
She had just sat down at a table when Savile came over
towards her commenting on a large souvenir key ring which she
had placed on the table in front of her. Her supervisor (who
was also a relatively junior employee) left the table to get cups
of coffee. Savile came and sat next to her on her right hand
side and promptly put his hand inside her skirt up her leg. She
froze. Just as he was about to put his hand on the top of her
knickers underneath her skirt (she was wearing stockings), her
supervisor returned. Savile whipped his hand away, got up and
said “Right, I’m going”.

5.255 C51 immediately told her supervisor what had happened. He

did not appear to be shocked and immediately said to C51 “If
you open your mouth and say anything, he is a VIP, well
respected, you’re sacked, no one will believe you…your life
won’t be worth living if you bring something out like that…Keep
your mouth shut, he’s a VIP”. C51 decided to do what she was
told and said nothing and did not even tell her husband. She
left the BBC shortly after this, not even staying to work her
notice. After what had happened to her, she could not relax
and was frightened in case she met Savile again. In April/May
2014 she told a relative what had happened to her. Her relative
prompted her to go and see a solicitor.

*****

360
5.256 C3 worked as an assistant floor manager on Jim’ll Fix It from
1990 to 1994. She found Savile quite predatory; he used to
suggest that she should come over and “make an old man very
happy”. This was not said in a light-hearted flirtatious way and
she did not like it. He used to put his arm round her and would
touch her breast if he could. On one occasion, at an end of a
series dinner, he unexpectedly kissed her full on the lips. She
did not report this.

*****

5.257 In the early 1990s, when she was 19, C36 was befriended by
Savile. She is now in poor health and has been unable to give
her account to the Savile investigation in person. She has
authorised her mother to tell her story and I accept this account
as reliable, although it is hearsay.

5.258 Savile met C36 in Stoke Mandeville Hospital when she was
receiving medical treatment for a very serious illness. She was
obviously striking and highly intelligent and Savile seems to
have been drawn to her. He visited her frequently and spent
time talking to her, which she was later to say had helped her to
maintain the will to live. Later, Savile helped in the
arrangements for further specialist medical treatment in London
and visited her in hospital there. While C36 was in Stoke
Mandeville Hospital, Savile persuaded her to allow him to touch
her sexually, although she never allowed him to have
intercourse with her. This continued while she was in hospital
in London. When C36’s health improved and she left hospital,
Savile continued to see her and, on a few occasions, invited her
to watch the making of Jim’ll Fix It. During those visits, which
occurred in 1990, they would be alone in his dressing room.
Savile would lean C36 against the wall and put his hand inside
her knickers. In due course, C36 married and her contact with
Savile ended.

361
 *****

5.259 In 1997/1998, C24 was working as a technical runner at the

BBC in Manchester on a programme called The Sunday Show.
By this time, Savile was not working regularly at the BBC; Jim’ll
Fix It had finished in 1994. However, one week he appeared as
a special guest on The Sunday Show. C24 was instructed to
look after him and to ensure that he was ready to go on when
his cue came. She was warned of the possibility that he might
behave badly. Everyone seemed to know that he had a
reputation as a lecher and she was warned that he might “try it
on”. She realised that she might have to humour him as it was
essential that a star guest should not be antagonised. He was
by this time about 70 years old. She was in her late twenties
although she believes that she looked younger than her age, no
more than 20.

5.260 Savile greeted her by kissing her hand while looking up at her.
She did not like it. A while later, when she had taken him to the
Green Room, he took her hand and tickled the palm. She felt
instinctively that this was some form of sexual communication.
She ignored it. He said “Don’t you know what you’re supposed
to say to a man when he does that to you?” She said that she
did not. He said that she was supposed to say “Ask me like a
man, don’t scratch me like a dog”. My understanding is that, for
a man of Savile’s generation, the tickling of her palm was an
invitation to have sexual intercourse. Savile then asked her if
she had a boyfriend. She said she did and Savile said that he
would have him killed. From then onwards, while they were
waiting to go onto the set, Savile was constantly flirting with her,
making silly suggestive remarks. For example, when she said
to him that she would soon have to take him through to the set,
he replied “I will go anywhere with you” and “after the show I’ll

362
 take you to Paris on my private jet”. No doubt all this was
intended to be funny but C24 found it very tiresome.

5.261 When it was nearly time for him to go on, C24 took Savile
through to wait near the back of the set. They had to stand in a
passageway at the back. It was essential to be completely
quiet as the show was going out live. As they arrived, Savile
suddenly grabbed her, pushed her against the back of the set
and tried to kiss her. She pushed him away as strongly as she
dared. The set was not very robust and, even as it was, it
wobbled a bit. She could not cry out. Fortunately Savile’s cue
came up and he had to go on. When he came off the set, C24
kept her distance and Savile behaved as if nothing had
happened. She did not make any report. She told a few
friends but they thought it was quite funny. As C24 said, it was,
after all, what she had been warned to expect.

*****

5.262 The final incident I shall describe is almost incredible, given

Savile’s advanced age (almost 80) at the time it occurred on 27
July 2006. I am, however, quite satisfied that it happened. The
Savile investigation received evidence about this incident from
the complainant, C23, and from two other individuals, Mark
Lawson and John Goudie, to whom I refer below.

5.263 The BBC had decided to bring Top of the Pops to an end.
There was to be a final, celebratory programme, entitled Top of
the Pops – The Final Countdown, involving several of the stars
and disc jockeys who had been involved over the years. Savile
was one of them. The BBC Radio 4 arts magazine programme,
Front Row, presented at the time by Mark Lawson, decided to
do a piece about the last Top of the Pops and a small team
went over to Television Centre to record interviews. C23
worked on the programme. Three disc jockeys were
interviewed, including Savile.

363
5.264 The interviews were to take place just outside the studio. C23
was present. The other two disc jockeys came out first. Then
Savile appeared. He said “hello” to everyone except C23.
Then he stood beside her, grabbed her round the waist with his
right hand, put his legs round her left thigh (so that her leg was
between his two legs) and rubbed his crotch up and down. So
far as C23 can remember, he did not say anything. She felt
that he was giving a performance. Fortunately Mr Lawson saw
what was happening, came over and distracted Savile, then
positioned himself between Savile and C23. The interview took
place.

5.265 In the taxi on the way back to Broadcasting House, C23

thanked Mr Lawson for coming to her rescue and they
discussed Savile’s unacceptable conduct. C23 and Mr Lawson
then mentioned that Savile had behaved in a lecherous way at
the regular pre-programme planning meeting that day, at which
John Goudie, the Editor, was present. This was not a
’complaint’ about the incident. Mr Lawson told the Savile
investigation that, in mentioning Savile’s behaviour to Mr
Goudie, he was not making a formal complaint. He was simply
applying his personal policy that such a thing should always be
mentioned. Mr Goudie agreed that this was not presented as a
complaint. C23 did not want the incident to be reported; she
thought, and still thinks, that it was not so much an indecent
sexual assault as a clumsy, outdated, inappropriate thing to do.
She thinks that Savile probably thought it was funny. Also, she
did not wish it to be reported as she would not have wished to
compromise her position at the BBC.

5.266 C23, Mr Lawson and Mr Goudie appear all to have viewed this
incident as inappropriate lecherous behaviour on the part of
Savile. No complaint was made and Mr Goudie told the Savile
investigation that he has no recollection of giving the incident

364
 further thought or discussing it with anybody else. Mr Lawson
said that, when the Savile allegations broke in 2012, he
mentioned the incident again to Mr Goudie. Mr Goudie did not
doubt this, but had no recollection of it being mentioned to him
again Mr Lawson then raised what had happened internally
and the incident was brought to the attention of the BBC
Investigations Unit and C23 made a police statement.

*****

5.267 I must mention another allegation regarding Savile while he

was at the BBC for Top of the Pops – The Final Countdown. In
January 2013, at a press conference held in conjunction with
the release of the report entitled Giving Victims a Voice
published jointly by the NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police
working on Operation Yewtree, it was stated that Savile had
sexually touched a young female member of the audience at
Top of the Pops on the last show, in July 2006. The girl was
said to have been in the age range 13 to 16. The statement
was quite widely reported at the time.

5.268 The Savile investigation was not contacted by any complainant

who alleged that she had been abused on that occasion but the
BBC specifically requested that we should investigate this
allegation. We asked the police for their assistance but they
were unable to give us any lead as to how to contact the
alleged victim.

5.269 In the light of those difficulties, I took the view that it would be
almost impossible to undertake a satisfactory investigation of
this matter and the BBC was so advised. The BBC agreed that
it would not be proportionate to undertake a full investigation
unless further information came to light. However, it was
suggested that we should interview Mark Cooper, the executive
producer of Top of the Pops – The Final Countdown. That

365
 interview led to the suggestion that we should also interview
Sally Wood, the producer of the show, and Sophie Waite, the
assistant producer, as these were the staff who would have had
the most contact with Savile on the day of the recording. The
BBC also provided documents relating to the production.

5.270 From these sources, I summarise the position as follows. The

final programme was to be a celebration of the 42 years of Top
of the Pops and was to comprise mainly archive material.
There were to be 10 presenters, including Savile. The
presenters’ role was to provide links between the musical items.

5.271 The BBC documents show that the presenters’ links were to be
filmed on 26 July 2006 with a studio audience in Studio Three
at Television Centre. The links were to be filmed in the usual
way, with the presenters surrounded by members of the
audience. There was to be a rehearsal from 3.45pm until
5.45pm; there would then be a break until 6.30pm. The
recording, at which the audience was to be present, was due to
begin at 6.45pm and was due to finish at about 8.15pm.
However, there was a note on the schedule that Savile had to
be “clear” by 7.45pm to accommodate other commitments.

5.272 The witnesses’ recollection is that Savile arrived slightly late for
the pre-rehearsal briefing, that he greeted the producer in his
usual way by licking her hand, that he was in a slightly bad
mood at one stage because he needed some braces and that
staff had the feeling that they had to take special care of him
because he had been the very first disc jockey presenter of Top
of the Pops and was something of “a national icon”. That said,
the recording passed off without problems. Those who were
interviewed found it hard to believe that Savile could have had
any opportunity to touch anyone inappropriately.

366
5.273 We do not know whether the alleged assault was supposed to
have taken place in Savile’s dressing room or in the studio.
Those who were interviewed said that there was someone with
Savile virtually the whole time when he was in his dressing
room. They were also of the view that it would have been
difficult for Savile to take a member of the audience to his
dressing room. He did not bring any of his own guests with him
(as he had done in earlier times). In my view, it is unlikely
(although not impossible) that Savile would have had the
opportunity to take a member of the audience to his dressing
room on this occasion, given the brevity of the time available
and the fact that there were nine other presenters all in
adjacent dressing rooms.

5.274 The interviewees were also puzzled by the suggestion that the
young girl in question was aged between 13 and 16. They said
that the age limit of 16 was enforced. I do accept that BBC staff
tried to enforce the age limit but this was not, as I understand it,
to the extent of asking for documentary proof of age. It does
not seem to me impossible that a few members of the audience
were under the age of 16.

5.275 It seems to me that, if any assault took place, it was most likely
to have occurred while Savile was in the studio, where at times,
he would have been surrounded by members of the audience.
I would not find it surprising if he touched a member of the
audience while preparing for a ‘take’ or even while being filmed.
However, the film of Savile’s part of the show does not suggest
any inappropriate activity. It seems to me that, if any assault
took place, it would probably have been surreptitious and,
unless the victim reacted openly at the time, it is unlikely that
anyone apart from her would have been aware of what had
happened.

367
5.276 I say that it would not surprise me if Savile had touched
someone during this show, even though he was nearly 80 years
old, because there is other evidence that he could still behave
in a lewd way at that age. In paragraph 5.264 above, I have
described his conduct towards a young freelance producer who
had been sent to interview him during this visit. I accept her
evidence. So I do not find it hard to believe that he might also
have touched a young girl in the studio. It is just the sort of
thing he used to do.

5.277 The conclusion is that I do not know whether there was an

indecent assault on this occasion, 26 July 2006, as suggested
by the police. Without any information from or about a
complainant, I cannot say. All I can say is that it would not
surprise me. But, even if it did happen, I do not think that the
BBC staff involved in this show could be criticised in any way.
There is no evidence of any overt misbehaviour and the
evidence is that staff were not keeping a special watch as they
did not know that Savile was a sexual predator.

An Account Which Falls Outside My Terms of Reference

5.278 I wish to recount the evidence of a witness which I heard by

mistake as it has no connection with the BBC. The Savile
investigation interviewed C4 because she was referred to us by
the Metropolitan Police as a case of sexual assault associated
with the BBC. However, on hearing her evidence, which began
with a description of a meeting with Savile at a radio recording
studio, I realised that the police had mistakenly assumed that
the studio belonged to the BBC. It did not; it belonged to Radio
Luxembourg. It was not until the witness was part way through
her evidence that I realised the error. However, she had a story
to tell which was of relevance to the Savile investigation
because it is a very early example of a pattern of behaviour

368
 typical of Savile’s modus operandi. As lawyers would say, it is
similar fact evidence.

5.279 In 1964, C4 was just 17. Her employer used to advertise on

Radio Luxembourg and Savile was the disc jockey on one of
their programmes. C4 asked her manager if he could arrange
for her to attend a recording. She wanted to see a programme
being made. This was arranged and C4 and a friend went to
the Radio Luxembourg studios on Piccadilly in London. On
arrival, Savile appears to have been expecting them; he was
friendly and congratulated them on how they looked. He was
rather tactile and put his arms round them both but that did not
concern them. Then he said he must do some work and they
were shown into the studio. There was no studio audience and
they sat on stools. Savile went into the recording booth and
started work. He smiled and waved at them from time to time.
At one stage, C4’s friend went off to find the ladies’ room and
C4 was left alone. Savile came out of the booth to chat to her.
He asked her where she lived. When the recording had
finished and they were saying goodbye, C4 asked Savile if it
would be possible for her to see Top of the Pops. She
particularly wanted to see the Beatles. Savile said that it would
be no problem and she should give him a ring. He gave her his
telephone number (a Manchester number) either then or
possibly earlier. C4 did not realise that Top of the Pops was
made in Manchester at that time. Savile then gave each of
them a little box of liqueur chocolates and they left, feeling they
had had a great time.

5.280 When she got home, C4 wrote to Savile to thank him. She put
her address at the top of the letter. She received a reply,
written from Savile’s flat in Salford, telling her that if she wanted
to come to the studios again, that would be fine. She wrote
back and said she would like to. A second visit was arranged.

369
 Savile told her that he would take her out for lunch afterwards.
She was very pleased. She told her mother.

5.281 This time, C4 went to the studios alone. Savile greeted her with
a hug and said he was pleased to see her. The procedure was
just as before; she sat on a stool while he did the recording in
the booth. When the recording was finished, Savile said that
they would go for lunch but he must go home to change first.
They took a taxi. During the journey, C4 thinks that Savile
asked her whether she had a boyfriend and she said she did.
They stopped at what she described as a mansion block of flats
probably three or four stories high. She did not know where
they were but she recalls seeing a sign to the Thomas Coram
Foundation. That Foundation has premises in Brunswick
Square, near Hunter Street. From other evidence I heard, I
think it likely that the building to which C4 was taken was in fact
the Adrian Hotel in Hunter Street, Bloomsbury.

5.282 The room to which they went was small and sparsely furnished.
C4 sat down while he went to change. He disappeared into the
bathroom. She sat on the bed; she still did not feel anxious.
He was talking to her while he was changing. Then he
emerged, wearing only a small towel round his waist. She was
a bit stunned and suddenly scared. He came and sat beside
her. He asked her whether she had had sex with her boyfriend.
She said she had not. Then Savile started touching her, feeling
her and kissing her. She moved away from him but he said “It’s
all right”. He put one hand inside her dress onto her breast and
the other up her skirt, inside her knickers. She said “No” very
firmly. He then tried to persuade her and she said “No I don’t
want this”. He then pushed her back on to the bed. He had an
erection and she could feel his penis against her leg. He was
kissing her and she remembers the smell and taste of smoke
which she found horrible. She managed to push him to one

370
 side. She was saying “I don’t want this”. He then took her
hand and tried to make her touch his penis. Again she said
“No” and then he stopped and gave up. She managed to sit up
and he stood up and said he was sorry. He said he would get
dressed and they would go out for lunch.

5.283 On the way to the restaurant in a taxi, he again said he was

sorry. They had a meal in an Italian restaurant; he ate and
talked; she did little of either. Then she went home. She did
not tell her parents what had happened. She did not contact
Savile again, although he wrote to say that if she wanted to see
the Beatles, she should get in touch with him. She did not tell
anyone about this encounter at the time.

Savile’s Invitations Which Were Rejected

5.284 B12 came to London to work as a secretary for the BBC in

1978, when she was 19. She lived in a BBC hostel while she
found somewhere of her own. One day, she went to assist at
the recording of a charity programme hosted by Savile. She
was chatting to a friend about her search for a flat. Savile must
have been listening in. A few minutes later he came over to her
and gave her a piece of paper with a telephone number on. He
told her that if she telephoned the number that night, somebody
would be able to help her find somewhere else to live. She
took the paper, thinking how kind Savile was.

5.285 She telephoned the number and was surprised when Savile
himself answered the telephone. She said she had not
expected it to be him. He said that he was in a position to help
her with accommodation. She thanked him and asked how.
He told her to come over to his place. She asked why he could
not tell her over the telephone. He said “How’s about you
coming over here to talk about it?” He must have told her
where he lived as she remembered he was near Regent’s Park.

371
 She said “no” and added (as an excuse) that she did not think
she could get there. He said he would send his driver for her.
She then said that she really did not want to come. At that
Savile got quite annoyed. Eventually she said, “I’m sorry but
I’m just not coming”. Savile slammed the telephone down. She
told a few friends at work and their reaction was to suggest that
she should have gone. She now feels that she had a lucky
escape.

5.286 In the late 1980s, C43 worked as a production assistant on a

programme called Open to Question. On one occasion, Savile
was the guest. He persistently tried to get her on her own and
she had great difficulty in avoiding him. He never actually
managed to touch her but her account sounds very much like
harassment.

5.287 In the early 1980s, B14 was working at BBC Radio 1. She was
quite young and very attractive, with long blonde hair. One day
she took a script to Savile in a room at The Langham Hotel. On
arrival, he was hospitable and offered her a drink. She gave
him the script and he seemed to expect her to talk about it.
Suddenly he put his cigar between his legs and asked her to
taste it. She told him to “fuck off” and left. She did not make an
official complaint at the time although she contacted the BBC
Investigations Unit when the scandal broke.

5.288 B1 worked for the BBC in television but sometimes had to visit
Broadcasting House. One day in 1974, she was walking along
a corridor when Savile beckoned her into a studio. He was in
the middle of recording a programme and he made her chat on
air. Either then, or later, he asked her to go back with him to
his flat. When she refused, he was quite shirty. She was
married and did not want anything to do with him. She had the
impression that he could not believe that he was being refused.

372
What Other People Saw or Heard of Savile’s Misconduct

5.289 Sue Thompson worked at BBC Leeds from about 1976 to 1978.
She worked mainly in the newsroom and, in that capacity, did
not meet Savile. However, on one occasion, she was asked to
help with the recording of Yorkshire Speakeasy. There was a
studio audience and Savile was the presenter/coordinator of the
studio discussion.

5.290 On this occasion, the audience included a group of young

people, including some from a school for the blind. Ms
Thompson said that her job was to help people when they
arrived and to show them to their places in the studio. She said
that it was also her duty to ensure that Savile’s dressing room
was ready for him and that he had all he needed. She went in
to check on him before the session began; he was there alone
but she cannot remember any conversation. She did not watch
the programme or have any duties while it was on so she went
into the bar. When she heard that the programme was
finishing, she went to see that the audience was leaving. Then
she remembers that she walked along the corridor, saw that the
door of Savile’s dressing room was closed and thought he must
have gone; so she just walked in, without knocking. She saw
him sitting on a chair, sideways on to the door with a girl on his
knee. She had her arm round his shoulder and he had his
hand up her skirt. He was kissing her and, as he pulled away
from her, she could see that he had had his tongue in her
mouth. She was wearing school uniform. Ms Thompson felt
she had intruded and backed out straight away. She thought
the girl would have been about 13 or 14. She thinks the girl
was blind but is not sure.

5.291 She said that, later that evening, a group of people from the
BBC went to the cinema together for the premiere of Star Wars
and Savile came and sat next to her briefly; she believes that

373
 he was “checking her out” in some way. He did not stay long
but left, saying that he was off to work at the Leeds General
Infirmary.

5.292 After Savile’s death, she read an article in The Daily Telegraph
about how Newsnight had shelved a programme about Savile.
She emailed the programme describing briefly what she had
seen in Savile’s dressing room. In due course, she was
interviewed by Mr Williams-Thomas and her account was
featured on the ITV Exposure programme.

*****

5.293 In October 2012, Wilfred De’Ath appeared on the ITV Exposure

programme and described an encounter with Savile in about
1964/5. The gist of this account was that, in the course of his
work as a producer for the BBC, he had met Savile at a
restaurant in London. Savile had been in the company of a
young girl of about 12 to 14. Mr De’Ath had asked Savile
where he had “picked her up” and he replied that he had met
her on Top of the Pops. The following morning, Mr De’Ath had
telephoned Savile at the hotel at which he was staying. Savile
told him that he was in bed with the girl he had been with the
previous night. He had not reported this incident to anyone
because he had felt intimidated by Savile.

5.294 Mr De’Ath was also interviewed by John Humphrys on 26

March 2013 on the BBC Radio 4 programme Today. He was
asked first about his own arrest as part of Operation Yewtree
and the decision not to charge him. Then Mr De’Ath expressed
the opinion that, having failed to prosecute Savile when they
could have done, the police were now, in effect, overreacting by
arresting people on “rather spurious allegations”. Mr Humphrys
suggested to him that the reason the police had failed was
partly because people like him (Mr De’Ath) had not reported

374
 what they knew of Savile at the time. Mr De’Ath acknowledged
that that was so and explained that there was a different culture
in those days and sexual matters were “taken much more
lightly”.

5.295 Mr Humphrys put it to Mr De’Ath that he had previously said “I

know for a fact that he spent a night in a rather squalid hotel
with a girl who was at the most 12 or probably 10 and I said to
him, Jimmy you are living dangerously”. Mr De’Ath agreed and
said that he had confronted Savile on the day they were
working together and said that Savile was living dangerously
but Savile had brushed him off saying “Oh no, no, no”. But, he
added, the culture was different 50 years ago and it would
never have occurred to him to go to the head of department.
He said that he had been pretty shocked and disgusted but he
had not gone to the police. He repeated what he had said on
television that he had been physically frightened and
intimidated by Savile. For that reason, he would not have
“dreamed of grassing him up”. He admitted that he slightly
regretted that he had not done so but said that it was common
talk in the corridors of Broadcasting House that Savile liked
young girls.

5.296 When interviewed by the Savile investigation, Mr De’Ath (who,

at the time of his interview, was 76) said that he began working
for the BBC soon after graduating from Oxford. He worked in
the Current Affairs Department and made interview
programmes. In about 1964, he devised a programme called
Teen Scene where well-known people who would be of interest
to a young audience were interviewed by a presenter. The
format was of interviews interspersed with pop records. Mr
De’Ath was the producer and Gordon Watts was the presenter.
During the first series, it was decided to interview some disc
jockeys and Savile was one of those chosen. At the time, he

375
 was a rising star and was the main disc jockey presenter on
Top of the Pops.

5.297 When Mr De‘Ath contacted Savile, he agreed to do the

programme but absolutely refused to come to Broadcasting
House, London (where Mr De’Ath was based and where the
programme was to be made) for a briefing and discussion.
Savile told Mr De’Ath that he could come to the Lotus House
Restaurant on Edgware Road and they could talk there. Mr
De’Ath was rather annoyed about this but he went; he expected
that they would have supper together and discuss the interview.
This was only two days before the programme was to be made.

5.298 On arrival at the restaurant, he found Savile in the company of

a young girl, whom Mr De’Ath described as “very small” and
“waif-like”. In age, she could have been anything between 10
and 14 although his best estimate was 12. Savile introduced
her “in a courtly way” as if he was presenting a very important
person. Savile made it plain that he expected Mr De’Ath to
include the girl in the conversation. Mr De’Ath felt that this was
demeaning as he was there on professional business. He
thought in his own mind that Savile must have a sexual interest
in the girl but he was not morally shocked by this. He said that
he asked Savile where he had “picked her up” to which Savile
replied “Top of the Pops, Top of the Pops”. Mr De’Ath asked if
that was Savile’s happy hunting ground and Savile said “yes”.
Mr De’Ath thought that Top of the Pops had been made the
previous evening in London. On being told that, in 1964 and
1965, Top of the Pops was usually made in Manchester, Mr
De’Ath said that Savile must have brought the girl down to
London with him. Asked if there was anything about the girl
which made him think that she came from Manchester, he said
that he did not remember a northern accent, “more of a

376
 cockney accent – a rather common voice, common urban
cockney”.

5.299 Mr De’Ath said he was not altogether surprised to find Savile

with a young girl as he had already heard rumours that Savile
liked young girls and enjoyed their company. He said that
“Broadcasting House was awash with rumours about Jimmy
Savile”. These were to the effect that Savile liked young girls,
meaning young girls under the age of consent. However, these
rumours were not thought to show Savile in a seriously bad
light; they did not give rise to any sense of moral outrage.

5.300 They then discussed the forthcoming interview. Mr De’Ath

found Savile rather intimidating. Savile appeared to be more
interested in the girl than the interview. Mr De’Ath told Savile
what the interview would entail and what the line of questions
would be but this did not elicit any spark of interest. Mr De’Ath
decided not to eat at the restaurant and left. Savile gave him a
contact telephone number; he was staying in the Mascot Hotel,
in York Street, near Baker Street.

5.301 The following morning, a Saturday, Mr De’Ath telephoned

Savile to confirm the arrangements for the interview the
following evening. When he was put through, Savile said he
was in bed. Then he asked “Remember that lovely looking girl
you met last night?” Savile then insisted that Mr De’Ath should
speak to the girl, as she was there with him. The girl said “Hi
Mr Producer!” and Mr De’Ath asked her to put him back to
Savile. The two men then confirmed the arrangements and the
telephone call came to an end.

5.302 Savile attended at Broadcasting House for the interview. Mr

De’Ath told me that at some stage he said to Savile “Aren’t you
living dangerously?”. Savile replied “Oh, no, no, no. I am too
invaluable to the BBC for them to do anything to me”.

377
5.303 Mr De’Ath said that he had not reported these events to anyone
at the BBC. He said that it had not occurred to him to do so.
His main concern would have been to explain to his presenter
that he did not think that Savile was going to be very good in
the interview and that it should be cut down in time. He said it
was cut down from the 8 to 10 minutes which had originally
been intended. He thinks he may have mentioned what he had
seen and heard occasionally over the years when Savile’s
name came up. But he had not made any formal report. For
one thing, he had found Savile physically intimidating. He had
also heard rumours that Savile had some very “rough” friends
and he feared that, if Savile found out that Mr De’Ath had
reported him, he might receive an unwelcome visit. He said
that he now regretted that he had not reported what he had
learned about Savile. However, he said, attitudes were very
sexist at the time and the age of consent was not taken
seriously.

5.304 When asked, he asserted that, apart from that one occasion, he
had not come across Savile in a professional capacity.

5.305 At the end of that interview, I was minded to accept the

essential core of this account, although I thought that some of
the details may have been embellished. For example, I did
wonder whether, at the first meeting at the restaurant, Mr
De’Ath would have had the temerity to ask Savile where he had
picked the girl up. I also wondered whether, two days later, he
would have had the courage to suggest that Savile was living
dangerously. As Mr De’Ath had said more than once, he had
found Savile intimidating.

5.306 That was my view until the Savile investigation reviewed a

bundle of BBC documents which included some
contemporaneous records of Mr De’Ath’s professional

378
 engagement with Savile. There were five documents of
relevance to Mr De’Ath’s evidence to us.

5.307 The first in time, dated 6 October 1964, was a booking

requisition completed by Mr De’Ath in relation to Savile’s
proposed appearance on Teen Scene, to be broadcast on 15
November 1964. Savile was to be interviewed for about four
minutes. The place of performance was to be at Belle Vue,
Manchester and was to take place by ‘line’ to Studio B9 (which
was in Broadcasting House, London).

5.308 The other four documents all related to a second appearance

made by Savile on Teen Scene. The first in time was a letter
dated 23 July 1965 in which Mr De’Ath wrote to Savile to make
arrangements for a programme to take place the following
Monday. He explained that a line had been booked to Studio
Five Piccadilly, Manchester (then Broadcasting House,
Manchester). Savile was asked to arrive at about 10pm to
allow time for rehearsal before transmission at 10.35pm. Savile
was to ‘co-compere’ the show with Mike Hurst. There would be
some guests. Mr De’Ath promised to get Savile the best fee he
could. The second document was a booking requisition dated
26 July 1965; it had been completed and signed by Mr De’Ath.
Savile was to co-compere Teen Scene at Broadcasting House,
Manchester and his contribution was expected to last about 40
minutes. The third document was a letter dated 28 July 1965,
written by Mr De’Ath thanking Savile for taking part in Teen
Scene “last Monday”. He apologised for the lack of “hospitality”
in Manchester. The last letter in this bundle is dated 30 July
1965 and is an invoice or fee note by which Savile was to be
paid 25 guineas for taking part in Teen Scene on 26 July 1965.
The document implies that the appearance was at Broadcasting
House, Manchester. It bears a stamp to show that Savile’s fee
was paid on 9 August 1965.

379
5.309 These documents cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr
De’Ath’s evidence to the Savile investigation. First, it appeared
that Savile had worked for Mr De’Ath on Teen Scene twice and
not once as Mr De’Ath had said. Second, it appeared that
neither of those appearances had taken place at Broadcasting
House, London as Mr De’Ath recalled; both had taken place in
Manchester and appeared to have involved conversation over a
telephone line. It seemed doubtful that there could have been
any occasion on which the two men chatted at Broadcasting
House (whether in London or Manchester) at which Mr De’Ath
could have suggested to Savile that he was living dangerously.
In addition, it did not appear from any document that there had
ever been any reason for the two men to meet in advance to
discuss the content of the programme at a restaurant in
London.

5.310 Mr De’Ath was shown the documents and kindly agreed to be

interviewed for a second time. He said that the programme
about which he had spoken earlier had been the one which
took place in November 1964. He accepted that there must
have been a second programme about which he had
completely forgotten until he saw the documents. He accepted
that that second programme appeared to have been made on a
line from Manchester. He still thought that the first programme
had been made in a studio in London. However, he accepted
that the document suggested that he could be mistaken about
that and that Savile could have been at Belle Vue. Mr De’Ath
said that he had never made a whole programme of Teen
Scene from Manchester. They were always made in London,
except for one occasion when they went to Glasgow.

5.311 When asked whether the occasion on which he had told Savile
that he was living dangerously had been on the first or second
programme, Mr De’Ath asked if this was important for the

380
 Savile investigation. I explained that it was important because
the inconsistencies between his original evidence and the BBC
documents cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence
generally. He said that he understood that and he thought that
he must have been mistaken about some details of his
evidence. He agreed that it was unlikely that he would have
suggested to Savile over a telephone line that he was ‘living
dangerously’. He thought perhaps there might have been some
other occasion on which he had met Savile and said that to
him.

5.312 Mr De’Ath was then asked about the meeting with Savile in the
restaurant when he had been with a young girl. Mr De’Ath then
apologised and said that he had been doing his best to help the
Savile investigation but his mind must have been playing tricks
on him. He suggested that all I could do would be to discount
his evidence. I thanked him for being so realistic about the
reliability of his evidence. I pointed out that I would have to
refer in my Report to the inconsistencies in his evidence and Mr
De’Ath said that he understood that.

5.313 My conclusion is that the account which Mr De’Ath gave to the

Savile investigation contained so many inaccuracies that no
reliance can be placed upon his claim made on the Exposure
programme or on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Savile
had spent a night with an underage girl at a hotel in London.

*****

5.314 Richard Broke, who has died since giving evidence, gave an
account of an incident that occurred in the mid-1960s when he
was working as a floor assistant at Television Centre. In that
capacity, he was assigned to a great variety of different
programmes. He recalled an occasion when he was instructed
by his floor manager to accompany Savile to Lime Grove

381
 studios where he was to film an insert for a programme in the
course of production. After checking that the taxi had arrived,
Mr Broke went to collect Savile from his dressing room. On
entering, he found Savile with two very young girls. Mr Broke
estimated their age at about 12. Savile was in good humour
and introduced the girls to Mr Broke. They went out to the taxi.
To Mr Broke’s surprise, the girls came too. It was a black cab;
Savile sat between the two girls on the back seat and Mr Broke
sat on the flap down seat. The girls came into the studio with
Savile and watched him do whatever had to be done. Then
they accompanied him back to Television Centre, went with him
into his dressing room and closed the door. Mr Broke reported
back to his floor manager who asked if everything had gone
smoothly. Mr Broke told him about the girls and that they had
gone back into his dressing room. The floor manager said
“Yeah, well… you know about Jim don’t you? That’s his taste,
isn’t it, young girls?” Then he gave Mr Broke his next job and
the conversation was over.

5.315 Mr Broke told the Savile investigation that he thought that he

told a number of his friends about this incident; these would
have been floor assistants like him, in other words, very junior
staff. The general response, as he remembered it, was
laughter.

*****

5.316 Bob Langley worked for the BBC in the 1970s and was a
reporter on Nationwide. Savile was walking from John
O’Groats to Land’s End to raise funds for charity and, on 16
March 1971, Mr Langley was instructed to walk with him for 24
hours, accompanied by a film crew. Mr Langley can pinpoint
the day because it was the night of a boxing match between
Henry Cooper and Joe Bugner for the British Heavyweight title.

382
5.317 Mr Langley picked up Savile and his retinue near Ironbridge
and they walked a long way together, not stopping until about
4am. Savile talked a great deal during the walk. One thing
which Mr Langley remembers about the conversation was that
Savile seemed keen to make him realise that he was very
successful with women and had an active and vigorous sex life.

5.318 During the walk, Mr Langley was able to see for himself the
extent to which Savile was beloved by the British public or at
least parts of it. When Savile went through a town or village,
the people would flock round him, “as though he was the Pope
almost”. People would stop their cars to speak to him.

5.319 When they stopped at 4am, Savile went to spend what was left
of the night in his camper-van which had followed them all day.
Mr Langley and the crew went to a hotel. So far as Mr Langley
recalls, it was Savile’s practice to take things easily during the
day and then to start walking in the late afternoon. The thinking
was that there would be more people on the roadside and in the
villages in the late afternoon and evening than during the
middle of the day. So, the following morning, there was some
free time. Mr Langley went to see Savile in his camper-van.
Savile came out with two young girls. Mr Langley thought they
were about 14, apparently of school age although not in school
uniform. The girls were smiling and not distressed in any way.
Savile seemed to be pulling their legs about something. They
walked away. As they did so, Savile looked at Mr Langley and
made a crude gesture which Mr Langley understood to mean
that Savile had had sex with them or possibly just that he
fancied them. Mr Langley thought this was part of Savile’s
fantasy world. Savile was completely relaxed and they went
into the van to talk.

5.320 A little later, Mr Langley wanted to speak to Savile again and

went back to the camper-van. He knocked on the door but

383
 there was no answer. He waited a few minutes and knocked
again. Eventually, Savile appeared and stepped out of the van.
He seemed subdued and did not invite Mr Langley in. Savile
walked a little way from the van and Mr Langley followed. They
began to talk but Savile was not responding in his usual way.
Then, the door of the camper-van opened and a young girl
stepped out and, without speaking to Savile or even looking at
him, closed the door and walked away. When she had gone,
Savile made the same crude gesture as before and then
resumed his usual ebullient style of conversation. The girl was
about the same age as the others; Mr Langley’s best estimate
is that she was about 14.

5.321 Mr Langley did not mention these events to anyone. He

thought that Savile was “boasting” when he gave the
impression he had had sex with the girls. He put the things he
had seen to the back of his mind and did not think about them
again until the Savile scandal broke in 2012. Then Panorama
got in touch with him and he told his story for their programme.

*****

5.322 Jonathan Bennett worked at Radio Leeds in 1981. On one

occasion he was to interview Savile shortly before the start of a
marathon, known as the Duchess Marathon, after Savile’s
mother. The programme secretary used a wheelchair. He and
the programme secretary went to Reception to greet Savile.
When Savile saw the programme secretary he made a remark
to the effect that he had never “done it with a cripple” before
and would she like to “do it” in his Rolls Royce? Mr Bennett
was shocked and tried to remonstrate with Savile but he was
accompanied by three ‘minders’ who made it plain that it was
none of Mr Bennett’s business. Mr Bennett did not make any
formal complaint. He told a number of colleagues but the
general response was that Savile was “like that all the time”.

384
 *****

5.323 Dave Cash worked as a disc jockey for BBC Radios 1 and 2
between 1967 and 1970. He heard rumours about Savile’s
interest in young girls, although he thought nothing of them.
One day in 1968 or 1969, whilst working with Savile at
Battersea Fun Park, he was invited to Savile’s camper-van.
When they went in there were two young girls, aged about 15
(“awfully young”) sitting at the table. They were introduced.
Savile invited him to stay but Mr Cash said he had to go.

*****

5.324 A9 worked for the BBC in Leeds in the 1970s. He worked with
Savile on two programmes, Savile’s Yorkshire Travels and
Yorkshire Speakeasy (not to be confused with the London-
based programme Speakeasy which ran at the same time). He
heard many rumours about Savile’s sexual interest in young
girls (around 17 or 18) and there was some sniggering among
staff about Savile being a “dirty old man”. He sometimes had to
go to Savile’s flat where he used to see young girls who looked
about 17 or 18. Savile was in his forties at the time. He said
that if he had seen any girls who looked underage he would
have reported it, as the BBC managers at Leeds were very
approachable. He noticed that when Savile came out of the
studio building, there would often be a crowd of girls waiting for
him and, when they were out filming, girls seemed to be
“throwing themselves” at Savile. He recalled one woman
throwing her knickers at him. Everyone seemed to be happy to
be with him.

*****

5.325 In Chapters 8 and 10, I refer to the evidence of David Nicolson,

who, while working on Jim’ll Fix It in about 1988, saw Savile in
his dressing room with a young girl aged about 16 in

385
 circumstances which suggested that they had just engaged in
some sexual activity. For the reasons which I will explain in
detail in Chapter 8, I have concluded that Mr Nicolson did not
report that incident to his producer Roger Ordish or indeed to
anyone in authority at the BBC.

*****

5.326 Ann Mann worked as a production assistant on Top of the Pops

in the 1970s. She recalls an occasion when she went to
Savile’s dressing room. She knocked on the door and he
answered it, wearing only a track suit top and underpants. A
young girl who appeared to be between 14 and 16 was with
him. She did not make any report about this.

******

5.327 Nick Vaughan-Barratt left the BBC in 1980 and worked for a
time for ITV. Following his return to the BBC, he was
responsible (among other things) for some of the BBC’s
obituary programmes. In 2010, Mr Vaughan-Barratt was asked
to consider whether the BBC should prepare an advance
obituary for Savile who was then in poor health. Mr Vaughan-
Barratt advised against that course, giving as his reason his
knowledge of Savile from many years before and his view that
Savile was “ironic, flawed and fascinating”. Later he said that
he would feel “queasy” about preparing an obituary, as he had
“seen the real truth”. No advance obituary was prepared.

5.328 Immediately following Savile’s death in 2011, Mr Vaughan-

Barratt explained in an email to colleagues the decision not to
prepare an advance obituary:

“We decided that the dark side to Jim (I worked

with him for 10 years) would make it impossible
to make an honest film that could be shown
close to death.”

386
 In October 2012, he sent a further email to colleagues in which
he explained:

“because of unanswered questions and

rumours regarding [Savile’s] personal life, it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a
film in advance of his death that would be
appropriate to run on the night of his death. I
also said that if it was decided to make such a
film that I would prefer not to make it because I
had known Savile some time ago and did not
feel I could make an impartial film”.

5.329 Mr Vaughan-Barratt approached the Savile investigation about

his experiences with Savile. We then interviewed him as I
wanted to understand what he had heard or known about
Savile which had underlain the comments referred to above. I
summarise his evidence. Between 1971 and 1980, Mr
Vaughan-Barratt worked with Savile on Savile’s Yorkshire
Travels and on two series of Yorkshire Speakeasy and came to
know him quite well. Mr Vaughan-Barratt is adamant that,
during this period, he neither heard nor saw anything which
suggested sexual impropriety. He regarded Savile as a “loner”
who had no real friends. He seemed to have no social life
outside work. He said that whenever he met Savile, it was as if
he “came out of the shadows”. Savile had many places to live
and one never knew where he came from. Mr Vaughan-Barratt
got the impression that Savile was a “misogynist”. He used to
say that women were only after his money. Mr Vaughan-
Barratt never talked to Savile about his private life but says he
got the impression that he might be gay. He never had any
impression that he liked to have sex with underage girls. While
working with Savile in the 1970s, he had not been aware that
Savile had published his autobiography: see paragraphs 6.3 to
6.11.

5.330 Mr Vaughan-Barratt recalled an occasion when he had to

collect Savile from his flat in Leeds. Savile came out with a

387
 teenage girl and asked Mr Vaughan-Barratt to drop her off at a
local Catholic school. Mr Vaughan-Barratt said that he was not
in any way surprised by the episode. It was only later, when he
went to work in London (after 1980) and heard rumours about
Savile’s sexual behaviour that this incident concerned him.

5.331 In the 1980s and early 1990s, while working for ITV,
Mr Vaughan-Barratt heard rumours about Savile having sex
with patients at Stoke Mandeville hospital. These rumours did
not concern children. Plainly those rumours could not have
been the foundation of his claim in 2010 that he had “seen the
real truth”.

5.332 When asked what it was that had made him describe Savile as
“flawed”, Mr Vaughan-Barratt said first that he had written the
relevant email in a hurry on his Blackberry on a Saturday
afternoon and “had been trying to sound erudite to his boss”.
He now wished he had not written the phrase “ironic, flawed
and fascinating” as he did not now know what it meant. But
when pressed as to what had made him use the word “flawed”,
he said that Savile was “pretty strange” and “weird” and that the
women in the office thought he was “creepy”. Asked for
examples of Savile’s strangeness, Mr Vaughan-Barratt
mentioned Savile’s obsession with his late mother, his strange
appearance and the facts that he would eat six fried eggs for
lunch, did not drink alcohol, ran marathons, chain-smoked
cigars and had a flat that was a bit like a hotel room –
impersonal. It does not seem to me that such factors would
warrant the description “flawed”. Mr Vaughan-Barratt was not
able to offer any satisfactory explanation of what he had meant
when he had said in 2010 that he had “seen the real truth” while
working with Savile in the 1970s.

5.333 I entirely accept that Mr Vaughan-Barratt gave sound advice to

the BBC in 2010 when he counselled against making a

388
 celebratory obituary about Savile. What I still do not
understand is what lay behind that advice. I think that Mr
Vaughan-Barratt must have seen something in the early days
which had caused him some concern which, when added to
later information, such as the rumours he heard while at ITV
and the content of Louis Theroux’s documentary in 2000, had
brought him to the view that it would not be sensible to make an
obituary about Savile. I do not think I have got to the bottom of
what that ‘something’ was. I think there must have been
something to make Mr Vaughan-Barratt use the expression
“flawed” about Savile and I mean something more than his
obsession with his mother and a propensity to wear strange
clothes, run marathons and smoke cigars. I take account of the
fact that Mr Vaughan-Barratt says that he used that expression
when he was in a hurry and was trying to impress his boss. I
can see how that might have happened but that would not
explain his consistent reservations about Savile, repeated the
following year. It is possible that the incident Mr Vaughan-
Barratt described (when he collected Savile from his flat and
saw that he was accompanied by a school girl) may have
played some part in the formation of his concerns but I do not
think that, of itself, it would be sufficient to explain his claim that
he had seen ‘the real truth’.

5.334 I do not know what it was that Mr Vaughan-Barratt became

aware of in the 1970s and he is plainly not going to tell me.

*****

Summary of Accepted Evidence

5.335 In all, I have heard evidence from (or about) 75 complainants of

inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile, in some way
associated with the BBC. I have accepted the evidence of 72
of these complainants.

389
5.336 As some of these victims were victims of Savile more than
once, the actual number of sexual incidents to which the
complainants whose evidence I have accepted were subjected
will clearly be materially higher than 72. However, even taking
this and the fact that I will not have heard from all of Savile’s
BBC victims into account, the number of victims will be very
much smaller than the number which the public might have
expected to hear about, in the light of press reports that there
were ‘several hundred, up to 1000’ incidents at the BBC of
abuse against children. Appendix 6 sets out my findings in
detail and includes three pages of data, which break the
information down by gender, age, the nature of Savile’s
conduct, programme and year of abuse and includes various
charts which represent the same information in pictorial form.
Appendix 6 shows the following:

 Of the 72 victims, 57 are female and 15 are

male. 21 of the female victims were under 16
and 36 were 16 and over; 13 of the male
victims were under 16 and two were 16 and
over;
 Eight victims were raped (six female and two
male) and one female victim was the subject of
an attempted rape;
 47 victims were the subject of indecent/sexual
assault excluding rape (34 female and 13
male);
 Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It were the
programmes relating to which victims were
most frequently assaulted (with 19 victims
being assaulted in relation to Top of the Pops
and 17 in relation to Jim’ll Fix It);
 The majority of victims (44) were assaulted in
the 1970s, 10 in the 1960s and 17 in the
1980s.

5.337 The 72 victims I have included cover a great range of sexual

activity. There are accounts of rape, attempted rape and
indecent or sexual assault. There are also some accounts of
what I consider to have been lawful consensual conduct where

390
 it appears to me that Savile’s conduct was inappropriate
because the woman concerned was decades younger than
Savile and almost certainly under the influence of his celebrity.
I have included two accounts of things seen by a witness even
though I have not heard from the victim and am therefore not
sure precisely what happened or exactly how old the victim
was. I have also included three hearsay accounts; they
seemed to me to be plausible. Six of the incidents I have
described (the victims of which are also included in the 72) did
not entail any physical touching by Savile. Those witnesses
complained that Savile pestered them or used lewd or insulting
words or gestures. In summary, of the 72 victims whose
accounts I have accepted, it seems to me that 64 entail
inappropriate physical sexual conduct. Of these 64, 15 were
male and 49 were female. Savile’s main sexual interest was in
teenage girls around the age of consent.

5.338 All save three of the most serious incidents of rape and
attempted rape took place on Savile’s own premises, as
opposed to on BBC premises. (The exceptions are C32 who
was raped in what sounds like a disused storeroom at Lime
Grove studios, C9 who was anally raped in Savile’s dressing
room at Television Centre and C40 who, according to his police
statement, was orally raped at the BBC). I should also mention
the evidence of Angie in this context (see paragraph 5.22).
Although her evidence in 2013 was not that she was raped on
BBC premises, her later evidence in 2016 was to this effect. As
I explain at paragraph 5.10, I am unable to resolve the
differences in her evidence. Some of the more serious sexual
assaults also took place on Savile’s own premises (for example
B7 who suffered a serious assault at Savile’s London flat when
she was only 14). However, Savile would gratify himself
whenever the opportunity arose and I heard of incidents which
took place in virtually every one of the BBC premises at which

391
 he worked. These included the BBC Television Theatre (in
connection with Clunk Click and Jim’ll Fix It), Television Centre
(in particular in connection with Top of the Pops), Broadcasting
House and Egton House (where he worked in connection with
BBC Radio 1), Lime Grove studios (see above) and various
provincial studios, including Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow.
He would indulge in sexual touching while working on the set of
Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It and, on at least one occasion
(that involving B8), when he was actually on camera. He also
used his dressing room as a haven of privacy where he could
indulge in sexual activity, although not usually sexual
intercourse. In general, my view is that Savile would only have
intercourse in his dressing room with someone on whose co-
operation and discretion he could rely. I think Savile wanted to
avoid getting into trouble at the BBC and would, I think, have
realised that full sexual intercourse would be far more
compromising if he was discovered than touching or even
digital penetration. But he would invite young people whom he
hardly knew to the room and would touch them sexually (for
example C10, C12 and C42). He seems never to have had any
fear that any of them would report him.

5.339 Savile had a voracious sexual appetite. He was obsessively

interested in sex. He talked about it frequently, boasting of his
many encounters, possibly exaggerating his success. So far as
I can tell, he never had and did not want a lasting sexual
relationship and he never had an emotional attachment to
anyone with whom he had a sexual relationship. His sexual
contacts were essentially casual. That is not to say that he
would not have sex with the same girl or woman more than
once; he would. But there would be no commitment on his
side.

392
5.340 As mentioned above, there is some evidence of occasions
when young women and girls over the age of 16 were involved
in sexual activity with him, conduct which was, at least on the
face of it, lawful as the women appeared to consent. Whether
consent was given voluntarily or as the result of pressure in
each case, I cannot say with certainty. Savile certainly had a
powerful personality and I think it likely that some of these girls
or young women would have felt overwhelmed or overborne by
that force. I think others were dazzled by his celebrity, which,
like power or money, is generally recognised as a potential
aphrodisiac. There may well have been more women who had
consensual sexual contact with Savile either on BBC premises
or on account of some connection with the BBC but they may,
quite understandably, have chosen not to contact the Savile
investigation.

5.341 Savile seems to have wanted the girl or woman to consent;

sometimes he would say “I know you want me” as if
encouraging express consent. But, if a woman strongly and
clearly objected to his advances, he would sometimes desist,
but not always.

5.342 Savile’s modus operandi seems to have been different when

dealing with an adult from his style of approach to young girls.
With adults, he was essentially opportunistic; if an opportunity
arose, for example, because a young female member of staff
had to visit him in his camper-van, he would ‘have a go’. He
rarely invited a woman out socially as a precursor to a sexual
advance.

5.343 With young girls, his usual tactic was to invite them to watch
him perform either on radio or television. This was a form of
grooming. He used his celebrity status, his entrée to the BBC
and his connections with other stars as bait with which to draw
young girls into his sphere. If the invitation was to a building

393
 where Savile had a dressing room, there might well be a sexual
approach in that room with varying forms of indecent touching.
But, after the show was over, if opportunity presented he would
then take the girl back to his flat or camper-van for more
serious sexual activity.

5.344 Savile seems to have assumed that any girl or young woman
whom he came across would be not only willing to have sexual
contact with him but would actually want it. He would show
surprise and irritation when a woman rejected his advances.
He might imply that there was something wrong with the
woman if she rejected him. For example, when C25 made it
plain that she would not have sex with him, he asked her
whether she was frigid.

5.345 It is less easy to detect trends of behaviour arising from Savile’s

sexual interest in men and boys. I heard 15 accounts of sexual
assault on boys and young men. In the main, these were
opportunistic incidents although one young boy, C8, was quite
carefully groomed over a period of a few weeks. I set out how
these varied in gravity at paragraph 5.336 above.

5.346 Savile is now commonly described as a paedophile. He

certainly was in that he sexually abused young children.
Savile’s youngest victim from who I heard was just eight years
old. Of course, Savile’s sexual appetite was not limited to the
very young. He would seek gratification from men and women,
boys and girls. Those most at risk from him were teenage girls.

Summary of Complaints about Savile

5.347 An important purpose of the Savile investigation is to find out

what the BBC knew or ought to have known about Savile’s
conduct. The starting point for that analysis is to consider how
many complaints were made about Savile’s conduct. One of
the main conclusions to be drawn from this current chapter is

394
 that none of Savile’s victims who were not BBC staff made a
formal complaint to the BBC. Only one of Savile’s victims,
Leisha Brookes, made a complaint to the police and, as I
explain at paragraph 5.206, that was some years after the
events had taken place when, at the age of about 19, she was
persuaded by her counsellor to go to the police.

5.348 There are plainly many ways in which a formal complaint could
be made to the BBC, for example a letter written to the Director-
General. Formal complaints that came to the BBC verbally by
telephone or in a written note (with no specific addressee) were
channelled through the Duty Office and were recorded in a log.
I have not been able to examine the log for all of the period
when Savile was working at the BBC. I think, however, that
had a formal complaint been made to the Duty Office about
Savile, it would have been recorded, would have caused
consternation and would probably have been investigated, at
least according to the practices of the time. Moreover, I think
the documents relating to that complaint would probably have
been retained. That is what happened in 1971 when a
complaint was received about another celebrity. The complaint
was investigated, albeit inadequately, as I will describe in
Chapter 9. Also the documents relating to it were retained. In
the circumstances, I think it is reasonable for me to conclude
that no formal complaint was made to the BBC either to the
Duty Office or otherwise about Savile.

5.349 While no formal complaints were made, I do, however,

conclude that there were eight occasions when informal
complaints were made about Savile’s inappropriate sexual
conduct. Five of those were made by or on behalf of members
of BBC staff; the remaining three were made by people from
outside the BBC. I will set out the five complaints made by or
on behalf of BBC staff in chronological order. The first

395
 complaint was made by C2, a telephone operator in
Manchester, in the late 1960s (see paragraph 5.56). She
asked Savile for his autograph and, when he gave it, she
thanked him. He said “give me a kiss” and pointed to his cheek
and, when she bent down, he kissed her full on the lips. She
told her supervisor what he had done. I think this amounts to a
complaint, although C2 did not expect her supervisor to do
anything about it. I think that is wholly understandable as,
although thoroughly unpleasant, this would not, at that time,
have been considered sufficiently serious to justify being taken
further.

5.350 The second complaint was made by C13 (see paragraph 5.61).
In 1969, Savile sexually assaulted her by grabbing her breasts
with both hands and was then rude to her. She told her
immediate managers (who were both men and women). The
reaction of one of her managers (C13 cannot remember whom)
was to show no surprise at all and to suggest that it would have
been more surprising if Savile had not tried to touch her. The
complaint went no further.

5.351 The third complaint was made by A6, whose story I recount at
paragraph 5.169. He was a sound engineer and, in the mid-
1970s, his trainee went to fit Savile’s microphone in his
dressing room. When the trainee returned, he was upset,
saying he was “never going in there again”. The trainee was
reluctant to speak about the incident but A6 gathered that
Savile had asked his trainee to fit the microphone whilst they
were both on a bed and had appeared to want to fondle the
trainee. A6 reported this to the sound supervisor and, when he
heard nothing, spoke to the sound manager (the next level up
the management line). The sound manager said that he would
find out what was happening but A6 heard nothing more. The
report seems to have fizzled out. The reason for this is unclear.

396
 The evidence suggests that, if the trainee was approached, he
would probably have refused to discuss the incident.

5.352 The fourth complaint was made in the mid-1980s by B13, a

studio manager, whose story I explain at paragraph 5.231. She
was shocked and humiliated when Savile, who was in the
studio recording a radio programme, asked her whether she
was “the woman that I saw last night with the snake between
her legs”. She reported the incident to a manager and, in
addition, a colleague of B13’s reported the incident to his line
manager and to a woman in the Personnel Department. It
appears that this complaint was listened to but that no action
was taken against Savile. Unfortunately, conduct such as this,
which amounted to sexual harassment, was not regarded as
seriously in the mid-1980s as it is today.

5.353 The fifth complaint was made by C51, whose story I describe at
paragraphs 5.254 and 5.255. She was a junior employee who
worked at Television Centre and was sexually assaulted by
Savile in late 1988/early 1989. Savile sat next to her in a
canteen and put his hand inside her skirt up her leg. He was
disturbed when her supervisor returned from getting cups of
coffee and left. C51 promptly told her supervisor what had
happened but she was told by the supervisor to “Keep your
mouth shut, he’s a VIP”. The supervisor (who was also a
relatively junior employee) did not appear to be shocked by
what Savile had done but simply told C51 to keep quiet, which
she did.

5.354 I should also refer, in this context, to C23. Details of what

happened to her are at paragraph 5.262. In 2006, before
Savile was interviewed about the last Top of the Pops, he stood
beside C23, grabbed her around the waist with his right hand,
put his legs around her left thigh (so that her leg was between
his two legs) and rubbed his crotch up and down. Neither C23

397
 (nor Mark Lawson, the presenter of Front Row, who was with
her) made any complaint about this, although John Goudie, the
Editor of Front Row was told about it. I do not regard this as a
complaint, but only as an incident when Savile’s lecherous
behaviour was mentioned.

5.355 There were three occasions when a complaint was made about
Savile by a person from outside the BBC. The first of these
was C16, whose story I relate at paragraphs 5.62 to 5.65. After
being assaulted at Top of the Pops by Savile in 1969, she ran
to a man with a clipboard (who had earlier asked her to stand
on a podium with Savile) crying and telling him what had
happened. Another man came over and, despite her
protestations and showing evidence of the assault (namely that
the zip on her hot pants was undone), a security officer was
summoned and was told to escort her off the premises. She
was taken out and left on the street.

5.356 The second complaint by a person from outside the BBC is that
made in 1976 by B8, whose story is explained in more detail at
paragraphs 5.183 to 5.185. Her story is similar to that of C16.
Savile assaulted her while he was talking to the camera on Top
of the Pops. She moved away from Savile and spoke to a BBC
employee (a man with earphones). He told her not to worry
and it was “just Jimmy Savile mucking about”. When she
remonstrated, he told her to move out of the way as they were
trying to move the camera. The BBC employee with the
earphones was clearly prepared to believe that Savile had done
what B8 had complained about.

5.357 The third example is C33, whose story I explain at paragraphs

5.221 to 5.227. She was assaulted in 1978/1979 at an event
which does not appear to have been on BBC premises, but was
connected with the BBC. She complained to Ted Beston,
Savile’s Radio 1 producer. He treated her as if she was being

398
 silly and told her that she should go back in to the curtained-off
area in which Savile was sitting.

5.358 In addition, two informal reports about Savile’s behaviour on

Top of the Pops were made in the mid-1970s by Ian Hampton,
a musician who played bass guitar for Sparks (see paragraphs
9.219-9.222). I do not consider these to be complaints.

5.359 On the first occasion, Mr Hampton noticed that Savile (who was
in the Top of the Pops studio but was not presenting Top of the
Pops that night) left the studio with a young girl. Mr Hampton
was surprised to see this and a little concerned. He had heard
rumours (in the music industry generally) that Savile had sex
with underage teenage girls. As a result, Mr Hampton told that
night’s Top of the Pops presenter what he had seen. Mr
Hampton recalls that the presenter’s response was to tell him
not to be silly. Having spoken to the presenter, my impression
is that the presenter, who has no recollection of the incident,
would have thought that the suggestion that Savile was taking
advantage of a young girl was preposterous.

5.360 The second informal report by Mr Hampton arose on another

occasion when Savile was presenting Top of the Pops. He left
the studio with a young teenage girl. A few minutes later,
Savile returned as his usual flamboyant self, went straight onto
the podium and carried on with the programme. Mr Hampton
said that the members of his band all noticed what had
happened, but Mr Hampton was unaware of any reaction from
BBC staff to Savile’s disappearance. Mr Hampton told the
Savile investigation that he spoke to Robin Nash, who he thinks
was the producer of the show that night. He asked Mr Nash
what Savile was up to. When Mr Nash asked him what he
meant and he had explained what he had seen, Mr Nash told
him not to be ridiculous. Mr Hampton had the impression that
what he had said had put Mr Nash’s hackles up. Mr Hampton

399
 thought that Savile had been up to “no good” with the girl. He
said that he discussed this incident with the other members of
his band but they felt they were not in a position to do anything
more. They were glad to be on the show, without ‘rocking the
boat’. The show was important to them. We have been unable
to speak with Mr Nash, who died some time ago.

5.361 I was told of another occasion when a complaint might have

been made, but the evidence is too unclear for me to reach a
conclusion. This relates to C8, whose story is at paragraphs
5.98-5.102. C8’s grandfather worked at Television Centre and
would take C8, who was aged about 10 years old in 1972, to
work with him. Savile took C8 around Television Centre and
sexually assaulted him, touching him and showing C8 his erect
penis and persuading him to touch it. C8 told his grandfather
that Savile had touched him. C8 told me that, much later, his
grandfather had told him that he had reported what had
happened to his manager and the production manager. C8
knew no more than that.

5.362 Some considerable time after I interviewed C8, I became aware

of a newspaper article which appears to set out C8’s story,
albeit including additional information which was not part of the
account he gave me. We spoke to C8 about this article. He
appeared to have no knowledge of it. During our meetings and
conversations with us, C8 did not tell us that his grandfather
had suffered any detriment as a consequence of his reports at
work, as is suggested in the newspaper article. Having not
been able to speak to C8’s grandfather and not knowing what
any report said, I conclude that this is an occasion where a
complaint might have been made. If it was made, it appears
that no action was taken against Savile. This would be most
unfortunate, given the seriousness of Savile’s conduct and C8’s
age.

400
5.363 It is clear that the complaint made by C33 to Ted Beston should
have been reported by Mr Beston to his executive producer.
However, as I explain further in Chapter 11, Mr Beston would
never have thought of reporting this incident because he had
himself made the arrangement for C33 to meet Savile and was
aware that Savile would wish to have sex with C33.

5.364 The other complaints that were made were not pursued. Some
of them may well have been seen as being relatively minor in
nature. All were raised with junior or middle-ranking
employees, rather than with members of senior management.
None of those employees was in a position to investigate or
deal with the complaint; their duty was to report it to someone
more senior.

5.365 In addition, although I do not criticise them for this, none of the
three external complainants followed up their complaints with a
more formal report for example to the Duty Office. Had that
been done, I think the complaints would have been recorded,
and would probably have been investigated, at least according
to the practice of the time. That the complaints were not
reported upwards is obviously extremely unfortunate. However,
the fact that they were not reported meant that awareness of
these complaints did not reach management level in the BBC. I
deal with this issue further in Conclusions paragraph 40.

5.366 Quite a number of members of staff saw or became aware of

strange or unusual or inappropriate sexual behaviour by Savile.
I have in mind such people as Richard Broke, Bob Langley,
Jonathan Bennett, A9, Ann Mann and David Nicolson. In no
case did they report what they had seen to a senior member of
staff. In some cases, they discussed what they had seen with
colleagues (sometimes slightly senior to them) but in such
cases the response was either laughter or a shrugging of the
shoulders because ‘Jimmy was like that’. I do not in any way

401
 criticise any of these people for not making a more formal
report. None of the things they saw entailed clearly unlawful
behaviour. And in any event, as I have already explained, there
were cultural inhibitions which would tend to discourage such
people from making a report.

5.367 Most victims, of course, did not report their experiences. As I

have gone along, I have explained why. I find these reasons
wholly understandable. Most of the people who were raped,
seduced or indecently assaulted by Savile did not tell anyone
what had happened partly because they were ashamed and
embarrassed, partly because they felt that they were to blame
for what had happened (which, of course, they were not), partly
because they feared that they would not be believed and partly
because they feared that they would be in trouble if their
parents found out. Most of the young members of BBC staff
who were assaulted did not complain; some felt that what had
happened was too trivial to make a fuss about; some felt that,
although their experience was not trivial, reporting it might
damage their careers.

5.368 In summary, there were very few complaints or reports about

specific incidents of misconduct which it would have been
possible to investigate. None of the reports which were made
were passed upwards to a level of management with the
authority to order an investigation or authorise a report to the
police. As a result, none of the complaints was in fact
investigated or reported to the police and none of these
complaints came to the attention of senior management.

402
CHAPT
TER 6 – MATERIAL
M IN THE PUBLIC DO
OMAIN

Introdu
uction

6.1 A grea
at deal wa
as written and publisshed about Savile ovver the
years. Much of it wass adulatorry. There
e were frrequent
referen
nces to his good works and
a his friendships with
establishment fig
gures, inclluding mem
mbers of the
t Royal Family
and prominent politicians,, particularly Lady Thatcher.
T There
were frequent
f eferences to his relig
re gious faith and to hiss claim
er. Some of this amounted alm
to be a regular churchgoe
c most to
hagiog
graphy. There
T was, howeverr, some pu
ublished material
m
which revealed a differe
ent, adversse, side of
o Savile, which
showe
ed that he claimed to
o have ha
ad connecttions with people
who operated
o on the wrong side off the law and
a to hav
ve had
corrup
pt relations with the police.
p The
ere was als
so materia
al which
demon
nstrated th
hat his sex
xual life wa
as not onlyy prolific but
b also
deeplyy unattracttive. Man
ny people reading this
t collec
ction of
se material would have conclud
advers ded that Sa
avile was amoral.
a

6.2 In this chapter, I shall set out this ad aterial. Its impact
dverse ma
appea
ars to havve been slight.
s It is, howevver, imporrtant to
mber that itt formed only a small part of th
remem he whole ra
ange of
material about Savile
S in th
he public domain
d an
nd also tha
at it did
not em
merge at one time but in pie
eces over the yearss. The
importtance of much
m of what
w follow
ws is that it was wriitten or
approvved by Savvile himself.

Books
s and Publlications Written
W orr Approved
d by Saville Himselff

As It H
Happens

6.3 In 197
74, when Savile
S wou
uld have been
b 47, his
h autobio
ography
entitled
d As It Hap
ppens wass published as intended to be
d. This wa
amusing. It is fu
ull of anecd
dotes whicch many pe
eople woulld have
found very funny. It is le
ess easy to
o laugh no
ow that we
e know

40
03
 more about the man. The book made no secret of Savile’s
interest in sex. He described his sexual experiences, not in the
kind of graphic detail which one might read nowadays, but in
detail which I find surprising for that time.70 He made it clear
that he had a powerful heterosexual drive and that he was not
interested in forming long-term relationships. He said (or
claimed, as the reader might think he was exaggerating) that he
had had sexual intercourse or sexual contact with a very large
number of young girls, some of them apparently young enough
to be under the direct supervision of their parents. He did not
give dates but it was clear that this kind of conduct was
continuing at a time when he was a famous celebrity and was
recognised wherever he went; so this was not conduct limited
to his youth.

6.4 He implied that he liked group sex, referring to “team-handed

times”.71 He presented himself as the victim (albeit a willing
victim) of shrewd and determined young girls, determined, that
is, to have sex with him; in other words girls who were ‘throwing
themselves at him’. Sex, if it were to happen, would follow
almost immediately upon meeting. He recounted a number of
stories, obviously designed to amuse, where things went
wrong; parents turned up at the wrong moment to collect their
daughters or the young woman whom he was about to take
home turned out to be with her husband. He claimed that he
learned a lesson from these scrapes; he said “I never, ever,
operate outside my own four walls”. But, as he pointed out, he
had a considerable number of “four walls” dotted about the
country so “life is not too restricted”.72

6.5 He wrote about an invitation by Otley Council to attend their

annual mayoral ball which had not been raising much money in

70
As It Happens, see from p. 136.
71
As It Happens, see the last line of p. 136.
72
As It Happens, pp. 147 and 148.

404
 recent years.73 The Council obviously hoped that Savile’s
presence would attract a large crowd. He attended on
condition that the Council would provide him with six girls and
two tents in which they would spend the night after the ball was
over. The Council apparently agreed to this and six girls were
selected from the many who applied. According to Savile,
when they arrived, the girls “looked good enough to eat”. The
father of one of the girls immediately “hauled her off home”.
Savile had brought with him “a millionaire pal”. “When he saw
the crumpet his eyes shot out a mile and his total conversation
for the evening was an incredulous ‘Are we kipping with them?’
Technically no, as we were in the tent next door. Or were
supposed to be.” Savile then described what happened when
the dance was over. The local dignitaries ferried the campers
(five girls and two men) to the rural site and departed. He
continued “It was all too much and we all fell about and over
each other, making enough noise to wake the dead. Needless
to say the girls’ tent fell over and we all had to finish up
together.”

6.6 Savile made a rough statistical count of the number of girls he

could attract per day.74 This was based on his recognition that
celebrity is, of itself, a sexual attraction. He calculated (on, he
said, a conservative basis) that about 20% of any female
audience would “fancy” him. He accepted that some would be
too shy to get involved and that he himself might fancy only
about 50% of those available. He concluded that, on a
personal appearance, about 25 “super dolly birds” would be
“putting the pressure on me” each night. And that, he pointed
out, was only for personal appearances; multiply the numbers
by the millions who watch television and “life gets interesting or
complicated according to your state of health”.

73
As It Happens, pp. 121 and 122.
74
As It Happens, pp. 143 and 144.

405
6.7 In an earlier section of the book, Savile described his
experiences as the manager of a dance hall in Leeds.75 He told
the story of a “high-ranking lady police officer” (that does not
have a ring of truth about it as in those days there were very
few woman officers one could describe as high-ranking) who
came to see him at the dance hall to show him the picture of a
young girl who had absconded from a remand home; it was
thought that she might come into the dance hall later that night.
Savile promised that, if she did, he would turn her in the next
day but would “keep her all night first as my reward”. He then
asserted that it was “God’s truth” that she did indeed come into
the dance hall, that he told her that she could run away if she
wanted to but that, if she stayed, she could come home with
him and that he would promise to see her when they “let her
out”. She agreed to stay and, the following morning, he
presented her at the police station. He wrote “The officeress
was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her
colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would
probably take half the station with me”.

6.8 Whether there is any truth in this tale, I have no idea. Its
relevance lies in the fact that Savile appears to have been
proud to claim that he spent the night with a young girl whom
he had never met before, who was not only young but in a very
vulnerable situation. Added to that, he seems to have been
proud of the notion that he and the police in Leeds were in a
corrupt relationship with each other.

6.9 At the time of publication of this book, Savile had been a

regular presenter of Top of the Pops for 10 years, a programme
where he was surrounded by teenage girls. He had also
started presenting Clunk Click, which was soon to be replaced
by Jim’ll Fix It, another programme which would entail contact

75
As It Happens, p. 51.

406
 with children and young people and which became a
centrepiece of BBC Saturday early evening family
entertainment. It seems to me that members of BBC staff
reading this book should have wondered whether Savile was a
suitable person to host programmes of that nature and whether
it was appropriate for the BBC to present him, in effect, as a
role model for young people. I have not spoken to any senior
member of the BBC staff who was aware of the existence of
this book. Roger Ordish, the producer of Jim’ll Fix It, read the
book soon after it came out and I will describe his reaction to it
in Chapter 10.

6.10 It is surprising that so few BBC people read this book as it

attracted some publicity at the time of publication. The
Guardian reviewed it at some length on 16 October 1974,
describing it as “very funny”. The review included a quotation
about all the places Savile had had sex: “trains and boats and
planes and bushes and fields, corridors, doorways, floors,
chairs, slag heaps, desks and probably everything except the
celebrated chandelier and ironing board.” The Sunday People
featured it, with long quotations, including the passage I have
mentioned above where Savile discusses the statistics of his
opportunities to have sex. A large headline says “I can have
my pick of 25 dollies any night”.

6.11 The book was republished in paperback two years later under a
new title, Love is an Uphill Thing.76. The book is essentially the
same; the passages to which I have referred are still there.
There is a new final chapter in which Savile explains why the
title has been changed; he says that he had always wanted to
call the book Love is an Uphill Thing, for reasons which he
purports to explain but which I am quite unable to understand77.

76
J. Savile, Love is an Uphill Thing, Hodder & Stoughton, 1976.
77
Love is an Uphill Thing, p. 176.

407
 He adds a few anecdotes, one of which is sleazy78 and another
describes attending a party at Buckingham Palace79. This
republication was discussed in a BBC book review programme
called Read All About It presented by Melvyn Bragg.

God’ll fix it

6.12 Another book was published in 1979 called God’ll fix it. It deals
with Savile’s religious beliefs. Savile was a Roman Catholic
who claimed that religion was important to him. The book was
published as Savile’s but, in fact, it was ‘ghosted’ for him by
Canon Colin Semper, a producer in the BBC’s Religious
Broadcasting department who had worked with Savile on
Speakeasy. Canon Semper told me that Savile had recorded
the material on tape but that he, Canon Semper, had written the
book. I must assume that Savile approved the way in which his
material has been presented. Although the style in which the
book is written is ‘jokey’ (very much as Savile would have
spoken), one is given the impression that Savile takes the
underlying subject matter seriously. At page one, he said “I
have a relationship with this God who is everything to me”.

6.13 There is a chapter in which Savile imagines what will happen

when he dies and meets Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.80 The
gist of it is that he does not expect to be let into heaven without
an argument. He expects that Saint Peter will accuse him of
various sins, to which Savile’s response will be that he has
done a lot of good works and Saint Peter must put those on the
credit side. He seems to be optimistic that this approach will
eventually prevail and that he will have “pulled another
stroke”.81

78
Love is an Uphill Thing, p. 180.
79
Love is an Uphill Thing, pp. 183 – 184.
80
God’ll fix it, “What shall I say at the Pearly Gates and at the Judgement Table?”, p. 41.
81
God’ll fix it, p. 41.

408
6.14 Savile then imagines himself in the role of Saint Peter and says
that he would be “very considerate and understanding in [his]
judgements”. He would tend to say:

“You shouldn’t have lived like that, but you were

driven by that machine of your body that caused
you to do these things. I can understand that.
But it’s not a very good way to live, is it?” And
the majority of those whom I was judging would
say, ‘Well, no, not really’. I wouldn’t put the
boot in, go in too strong, because the person I
am judging has been saddled with a body which
does certain things and is part of fallen
humanity. It could be that the person arriving at
the judgement seat has been given a body
prone to excesses because the glands dictated
that he should be more than was really normal.
The temptation could also be towards sexual
excess in a girl – and I have known many – who
has been born as a nymphomaniac. She can’t
resist a man who runs his finger down her arm;
that would ignite her more than something. She
might not really want to be possessed by that
man, but her body – and this is a medical fact –
finds great difficulty in resisting. I would have a
great sympathy for all these sorts of people,
because they are more unlucky than bad. But I
wouldn’t have much time for any human being
who, knowingly, brought distress to another. I
would find that very difficult to forgive because
in this world, human beings should not cause
unhappiness to others. I hate to see, for
instance, a case of a boss who is particularly
bitchy towards an underling and who will plot for
his downfall from a purely evil point of view and
will send the worker home to his wife and
children saddened and unhappy. That boss is
in a position of power and he has used that
power to cause distress. I would say, ‘Look,
you have cause [sic] unhappiness to that
human being’. I would then dole out plenty of
purgatory, as I do not like people causing other
people to suffer.”82

6.15 This material was in the public domain but does not appear to
have aroused much, if any, general interest.

82
God’ll fix it, pp. 41-42.

409
Newspaper Articles

The Sunday People

6.16 Savile had a regular newspaper column in The Sunday People

from about 1962. Most of this material is no longer available.
The Savile investigation has located one article dated 16
January 1972. In it, Savile says that he had often thought he
would write his life story but that there would be two problems:
he would have to tell the truth and then he would “get nicked”.
He says that his world is packed with “girls galore”.

The Sun Interviews in 1983

6.17 In 1983, Savile was interviewed by the journalist Dan Slater and
this resulted in a series of articles in The Sun newspaper. The
first article, dated 11 April 1983, was described as:

“Sun exclusive on the dark side of Britain’s top DJ”.

The main headline was:

“MY VIOLENT WORLD, BY JIM THE

GODFATHER”.

A smaller headline said:

“How I fixed it the night I wanted someone beaten

up.”

Beneath a photograph of Savile, the caption was:

“Some of the things I’ve done would get me 10

years inside”.

6.18 The article began by acknowledging that Savile was known for
his fundraising and his tireless work for hospitals. Many
regarded him as a “wayward saint”. “But”, it said, “there is
another side to the 55-year-old disc jockey. A dark side never
revealed before. It is of a ruthless, calculating Jimmy Savile. A
man who engineered his own rise to the top with cold precision.
A man who is not scared of violence.”

410
6.19 The article then moved to what is presented as direct speech
from Savile himself:

“The people who work for me call me The

Godfather. And nobody messes with The
Godfather. He is the boss. The big man. I
know how to take care of myself and I know
how to take care of anyone who gets a bit
cocky, a bit above himself. Some of the hairy
things I’ve done would get me ten years inside.
I never get physical personally. Let’s just say
that while I’m in Edinburgh, very dodgy things
happen in London. I’m quite innocent - I’m out
of the way.

“It boils down to money. Very effective stuff,

money. I learnt that in the dance hall business.
And when I ran a dance hall I ruled it with a rod
of iron. So much so that the local police told me
I was cuffing trouble-makers around too much
and getting a bit too heavy handed. I told them
I couldn’t compromise. Right is right and wrong
is wrong in my book. If anyone misbehaved in
my place they got a thick ear. The copper told
me any more thick ears and I’d be nicked. I
said I didn’t care – hooligans and idiots were not
going to get away with anything in my place. A
couple of nights later one of my guys came to
me and said there was a geezer lying on the
pavement outside looking up the girls’ skirts as
they came in and shouting out what colour
knickers they were wearing. My guys looked to
me to give them the judgment of Solomon.
Which I did. I said “By all means let him lie
there. Just make sure his eyes are closed”.
They went outside and kicked his head in. They
left him lying there concussed. Round came a
police inspector. I said: “Before you open your
book, let me tell you something. Your daughter
is 16. She comes here. You let her because
you know that she’ll be looked after here – like
all the parents in this town know I’ll take care of
their daughters. If some dirty bastard is going
to lie on the pavement looking up their kilts, I’m
going to stop him.” He shut his book and
walked out. A few minutes later his sergeant
came in and said “Inspector’s compliments –
you didn’t give the bastard half enough”.

411
6.20 A little later in the article, Savile is quoted as saying:

“When you are The Godfather you can’t have

your troops getting a cut of the action. They
only like it because you are strong and ruthless
and they know you’re as tricky as a box of
monkeys. I have rules and one of the most
important ones is that if someone fancies
another bloke’s girl he’s got to ask the other
bloke if he has finished with her. You must
always do the fella the honour of asking. If she
is still in favour, then it’s hands off. So when
one DJ tried to pull my bird, I fixed him. Now
here was this guy who thought he was going to
pull one of my ladies while my back was turned.
If he’d done the decent thing and asked, it
would have been different. I came back after
three days away and the girl told me she’d been
invited out by this guy. I said: “This is what you
do. Go out with him, get him to take you for a
very expensive meal and try to get him to stomp
[sic] up for a bottle of champagne. Then, at a
quarter past eleven, you get a terrible headache
and leave”. She thought it was an evil thing to
do, but I said: “That is the way it has got to be”.
I waited outside the restaurant, and at 11.15 out
she came, leaving him to finish the champagne
alone. Then it was round to my place. She’d
been fed and watered and everything was
marvellous”.

6.21 The story ends with Savile humiliating the disc jockey the next
day at the dance hall by telling the tale to the rest of the staff
and giving the disc jockey the nick name “Meals on Wheels”.
Savile says that the disc jockey thought he was going to have
his legs broken (“it wouldn’t be anything unusual”) but he
decided not to as then the disc jockey would have received
sympathy.

6.22 Savile explains that he does not have personal feelings:

“It’s the same with my ladies. I cannot ever

afford to get involved. I like all the girls I’ve
known enormously. I can afford to like them
because I don’t want anything from them. If you
make love to a girl it’s a non-emotional thing. …

412
 They aren’t trying to get me into a corner – and
I’m not trying to do the same to them. I’m
logical and mechanical in my dealings with
women – and a lot of girls don’t like that. They
want a man they can get to – a man they can
ring up, say: “I’m going to kill myself” and get a
reaction. If they rang me up and said that, I’d
probably say “Do you want the address of
EXIT?”

6.23 The following day, 12 April 1983, the Daily Mail published an
article in which it said that there was speculation that the
revelations in The Sun the previous day might have damaged
Savile’s future career and wondered whether he would keep his
favoured status with the Prime Minister and members of the
Government. Bunny Lewis, described as Savile’s agent, was
reported to have explained that things were “a bit of a rough
and tumble” when Savile was working in the dance halls so
there was “a grain of truth” in The Sun article. Mr Lewis said
that he found it “incredible that he [Savile] agreed to do the
interview” and said that he was “very naïve about some things”.
Savile himself was reported as saying that the interviewer had
“coloured up” some of his reminiscences but that the gist of it
was true. He explained that he had been tough when working
the dance halls but he had to be to protect the innocent
majority. He said that he did not think that the majority of the
people in Britain would necessarily disagree with him. He left
himself to the judgment of the British people. He certainly did
not deny the content of the interview; nor am I aware of any
evidence that he sued in defamation.

6.24 The second article in The Sun, appearing on 12 April 1983, was
headed:

“HOW I PICK UP GIRLS ON THE

MARATHON. They have to make all the
running for me, says JIMMY SAVILE”

The text begins as follows:

413
 “I like girls. Plenty of them. Before I go out, I
write my telephone number half a dozen times
on bits of paper and put them in my pocket. If I
see a beautiful girl I like I hand her one and say,
‘If you’re not going to get married in the next ten
years, give us a ring’. I do it in marathons, too.
When I’m running along and I pass a fantastic
girl, I give her one of my bits of paper and say,
‘If you want to come training with me, here’s the
number’. I might get a couple of phone calls…
It doesn’t mean I expect girls who ring me to
jump into bed with me. But I don’t live like a
monk. I have a busy sex life – as long as the
circumstances are right and it’s not hurting
anyone. … If it’s a matter of enjoying the ladies
and the ladies are prepared to be enjoyed, then
by all means. But I wouldn’t dream of using
anyone. It’s got to be a 50:50 thing.”

6.25 He says that, if each of them is willing "there's no reason why

we can't both have a terrific time”. He continues:

“I live my life my way, and the girls come into it

for the fun part. But I never have a regular
girlfriend.”

He says that he has never been anywhere near marriage and

has never told a girl he loves her. So because he does not
intend to marry, it would be selfish to let a relationship develop
too far:

“Most girls want a more permanent relationship,

so they tend to disappear. I haven’t got an
assortment to take to bed. I have to find new
ones at least every month”.

He never takes a girl out to a “flash restaurant”; fish and chips

and a video are his idea of a great evening. He can’t take girls
to night spots as it would be “murder” (he means he would be
mobbed):

“I never ever ring a girl up. Girls have to ring

me. That, to me, is the fairest way of going on.
…Going out with Jimmy Savile, who is famous
and on telly, might be a big thing for some 20-
year-old bird. If I ring her up she might be torn

414
 between her boyfriend - who could be Mr Right -
and going out with me. …I know that I could
get a 19-year-old girl into a real spin, whizzing
her here there and everywhere with me.
Enough to make her pack her bags and leave
home. ….If a girl rings up and says she’s going
to be in London and can she stay the night, I
say Yes. She can sleep on the floor, or in the
bath if she wants. Or she can share the kip.
The sky’s the limit in my one-room pad. I’m not
bothered. It’s more of a pals’ act than a sex act.
Making love isn’t the way you read about it in
magazines.”

6.26 Later, he says that he would never ever take advantage of a

fan. If a girl asks for his autograph, he does not say “You’re
nice, come home with me for three days”. He says that if a fan
has come 100 miles and turns up on his doorstep he never
invites her in and makes love to her. It might “freak her
brain…and it wouldn’t be fair”. He says that he does not care
about his own good name but he does care about upsetting
someone’s life:

“Parents can trust their 17-year-old daughters

with me. They could come and spend the night
at my flat … and I’d never take advantage.
…My girls are career girls, usually over 20”.

He says he really cannot accept that it is all right for 16-year old
girls to go away with a boyfriend even though their parents
might permit it. He concludes:

“I’m very careful to stick to the rules with my

girls. I might have five or six in tow at any time,
but they all know about the others. And there
are no favourites”.

6.27 On the 13 April 1983, the third and final article appeared. It
was mainly about Savile’s charity work in hospitals. It was
headed:

“I TOLD A SUICIDE 29 WAYS TO TOP

HIMSELF”.

415
 Savile described how he seemed to have the knack of cheering
people up and helping them to want to live. The remainder of
the article was a rag bag of quotes about such things as how
much he charged for a personal appearance (£10,000), his
attitude towards owning a Rolls Royce (“people like me are
expected to have one”) and the secret of his success (“I am a
success still after all these years… because I don’t manufacture
myself. What you see is the real me”).

6.28 It seems to me that the first of these articles disclosed that

Savile either was a violent and lawless man or falsely boasted
that he was. Further, it showed that his attitude towards
women was that he had rights over them and yet did not care
about them. He was prepared to humiliate a disc jockey for a
transgression which Savile did not in fact care about. He
seems to have wanted to assert his power over that man, to
show who was the boss.

6.29 In the second article he showed either that he was a man

without emotion in personal relationships or falsely boasted that
he was. Although he admitted to or falsely claimed that he had
contravened all conventional views of sexual morality, he
denied any breach of the law and claimed to be particularly
careful of the welfare of girls in their teens. From what we now
know of him, his hypocrisy is staggering. But the point of this
chapter is not to demonstrate that but to show how much
information was in the public domain which, if read, would have
warned people of his true nature.

6.30 As I shall later explain, this material was scarcely noticed in the
BBC. The Press Log, a daily record of all media items which
were of concern to the BBC, does not mention these articles.
They were, however, noticed by the Honours Committee and,
as I have already mentioned, caused a delay of several years in

416
 the granting of the honour which Savile greatly coveted, his
knighthood.

The Independent on Sunday 1990

6.31 Shortly after he received his knighthood in 1990, Savile was

interviewed by Lynn Barber and she wrote about him in The
Independent on Sunday of 22 July 1990. Ms Barber gave
evidence to the Savile investigation. In the article, she reported
how thrilled and relieved Savile had been to receive his
knighthood. They talked about whether and why there had
been some delay in his appointment. She observed that, for
the past several years, tabloid journalists had been saying that
he must have a serious skeleton in his cupboard; otherwise he
would have got a knighthood by then. Savile agreed that he
had had:

“a lively couple of years, with the tabloids

sniffing about, asking round the corner shops –
everything – thinking there must be something
the authorities knew that they didn’t. Whereas
in actual fact I’ve got to be the most boring
geezer in the world because I ain’t got no past,
no nothing. And so, if nothing else, it was a gi-
normous relief when I got the knighthood,
because it got me off the hook.”

Ms Barber agreed that there had been a persistent rumour

about him for years and journalists had often told her, as a fact,
that Savile was ‘into’ little girls. But, asked Ms Barber
rhetorically, if they know it, why haven’t they published it? She
wrote:

“The Sun or The News of the World would

hardly refuse the chance of featuring a Jimmy
Savile sex scandal. It is very, very hard to
prove a negative, but the fact that the tabloids
have never come up with a scintilla of evidence
against Jimmy Savile is as near proof as you
can ever get.”

417
6.32 Ms Barber then describes how she plucked up the courage to
put it to Savile that people said that he liked ‘little girls’. She
noted that he reacted with “a flurry of funny-voice Jimmy Savile
patter, which is what he does when he’s getting his bearings”.
He batted away the suggestion, explaining that the pop
business was “teenagers…So when I go anywhere it’s the
young ones that come round me” – and those teenagers were
interested in the pop stars Savile knew, not Savile himself.
Savile understood the difference:

“But if I’d said, ‘Come round, so that I can tell

you stories about me’ or ‘Come round so that
you can fall into my arms’ they’d have said
‘What! On yer bike!’ But because reporters don’t
understand the nuances of all that, they say, ‘A-
ha’.”

6.33 Ms Barber accepted this as a “perfectly credible explanation of

why rumour links him to young girls” but thought it still did not
explain “the great mystery of his non-existent love life”. He was
devoted to his mother but, pressed on his love life – and
specifically that he must have had some sex at some time –
Savile looked pained:

“Well. I would have thought so. But it’s rather

like going to the bathroom. I’ve never been
one to explain to people what I do when I go to
the bathroom and I’m not a kiss-and-tell
punter. All I can say is that I’ve never ever got
anybody into trouble; I’ve never knowingly
upset anybody; and I’ve always been aware
that in my game there is a clear line between
infatuation and actual, genuine liking. Other
than that, you must draw your own
conclusions.”

6.34 His comments are strangely defensive. Ms Barber concluded

that he did not like sex very much and that his views on sex and
love were “altogether cynical”, with Savile making passing
comments that “sex was like what they say about policemen –
never there when you want one” and “it so happens that it is

418
 illegal to have sex on tap – unless you happen to be married, in
which case you end up with a wife having a headache”.

6.35 The article goes on to describe his avoidance of marriage and

relationships, his peripatetic lifestyle and his hectic schedule.
Ms Barber observes that:

“It is a life of self-punishing austerity which

seems like a long expiation for some lasting
sense of guilt… It is a constant theme of his
conversation – his need to go to bed with a
clean conscience, to feel that he has done his
best.”

6.36 It is easy, with hindsight, to read something sinister into these

observations and there is certainly a thread of unease running
through the article. With uncanny insight, Ms Barber describes
the “disconcerting experience” of touring the Stoke Mandeville
wards with Savile: “when he coos over a young woman
paraplegic ‘A-ha, now I can have my way with you, my dear!’
one can only pray that she appreciates the joke”. But these
‘clues’, if they were such, remained disparate. The strap-line
for the article referred to “the tireless Jimmy Savile [who]
occupies a unique place in the nation’s life” and, despite her
evident reservations about him, Ms Barber ended the piece by
telling Savile that he seemed to be “almost saintly”.

Television and Radio Broadcasts

Open to Question 1988

6.37 On 29 September 1988, Savile took part in a BBC programme

called Open to Question in which he was questioned by an
audience of young people. The presenter/chairman was
Krishnan Guru-Murthy. One questioner asked whether Savile
saw an intellectual contradiction between his “tabloid claim of
having sex in a passion wagon” and his profession of the
Roman Catholic faith. Savile’s initial response was to suggest

419
 that the questioner must be the only person in the world who
believed newspapers. Mr Guru-Murthy reminded him that he
had made a similar claim on a television programme called
Pillow Talk and asked him to deal with the question. Savile
said that the Pillow Talk programme was just a bit of fun where
he was expected to say outrageous things. It was all just fun
and he asked “can’t anyone have any fun in their life anymore?”
He had evaded the question.

6.38 Another questioner then asked Savile if he had an ideal woman

and if so what she was like? Savile said that he had never met
her and the ones he met could not stand him for longer than
five years or ten years or maybe five minutes or five seconds.
He said he had no paternal feelings so did not want offspring.
He could not be serious for long and would be a pain in the
neck for that reason. A third questioner then suggested to him
that he did not seem to have a high regard for women and
asked if he felt that women were inferior to him or if he was
frightened of them. Savile said that women came from a
different planet from men but claimed that there was nothing in
his writings which suggested that he did not respect women.
He respected “ladies like he hoped they respected fellas” and
then added “I can’t be serious. I can’t be serious”.

6.39 A little later he was asked how he would react as a Roman

Catholic if one of his partners became pregnant. He said that
he would ask “Who was it” as he boarded the train for Hong
Kong. He said it had never happened and it never would. He
would not have it on his conscience.

6.40 Another questioner returned to the first theme, asking whether

Savile’s claim to have had hundreds of girls on planes and
trains etc. was in contradiction to his religious beliefs. The
following exchange then took place:

420
 JS: Well, it all depends, you see. I happen to be in
the pop business. You cannot go through the pop
business without knowing lots of young ladies. But
the newspapers will juice it up no end, you see.
And if they juice it up no end, that’s the way that
they work. And, of course, in the pop business
you’ll have a lot of girlfriends. But I ain’t never
married them. But I’m still friendly with girls that I
knew years and years and years and years ago.
Even those that got married. You can actually
have a friendship with somebody without cleaving
to them forever. You see, yeah.

Q: Assuming the stories we read about you are

true, don’t you think you are a bad influence on the
youth of today? With ...

JS: You tell me. Am I a bad influence on you?

Q: I don’t know, but … with the claims that you’ve

had hundreds of girls, especially with the fear of
AIDS going about today …

JS: Yeah …

Q: … don’t you think you’re a bad influence on

young people?

JS: If I would have had claims…I’ve never claimed

to have had hundreds of ladies but if the
newspapers have claimed I have … then obviously
they must be talking about the times when I was on
Top of the Pops and that was years and years and
years ago. And AIDS wasn’t around then for
starters, number one. Number two, I must admit
that in terms of romance and etc., I have got to be
a bit boring because I don’t drink, I smoke cigars …
this is a terrible thing, girls don’t like it when you
smoke cigars ‘cause you stink all their clothes out
… and they actually find me a little bit boring. So,
all that claim about hundreds is just not true. Sorry
about that…very boring.

6.41 It seems that, in this passage, the questioner was referring to

passages in Savile’s own book As It Happens and he was
denying what he had written there. Then, a little later, Savile
was asked what would happen on judgment day and his

421
 response was very similar to the passage on that topic in God’ll
fix it: see paragraphs 6.13-6.14 above.

6.42 To my mind, the significance of this part of Open to Question

was the suggestion that Savile’s moral stance showed a bad
example to young people and that he was a bad influence on
them. He did not answer that question. I think that any
sensible person watching that programme and hearing the way
in which Savile avoided giving any sensible answer to what
were clearly intended to be serious questions about his moral
code would have thought that Savile might well be a bad
influence on young people.

In the Psychiatrist’s Chair – Anthony Clare

6.43 In 1991, Dr Anthony Clare interviewed Savile as part of his

series, In the Psychiatrist’s Chair. Savile’s interview revealed,
as Dr Clare observed in his commentary in the 1992 collection
of selected interviews from the series83, both an emphasis on
money and a denial of feelings. Savile insisted that he had no
emotions, had not found his feelings yet and did not know what
love was. He sparred with Dr Clare about whether there was a
good reason to get married.

6.44 Savile said he did not like children (“hate them”) and “that’s why
I get on well with them”. Savile was aware of the risk of
scandal for celebrities generally, but the possibility of a libel suit
meant that “… if anybody tells lies about us today that means
we finish up with even more money and that’ll do for me, so
we’ve got even less to worry about”. As for scandal about
Savile himself:

“if you turned my stone over there ain’t nothing

underneath it. It’s probably a boring stone for
somebody like you who wants to find things out

83
A. Clare, In the Psychiatrist’s Chair, William Heinemann, 1992.

422
 about people. What you’re seeing is actually
what there is, full stop”.

6.45 Savile prized “ultimate freedom” above all else, but thought that
it brought challenge and even danger. He said:

“The tough thing in life is ultimate freedom,

that’s when the battle starts. Ultimate freedom
is what it’s all about, because you’ve got to be
very strong to stand for ultimate freedom…
Ultimate freedom is the big challenge. Now,
I’ve got it, and I can tell you there’s not many of
us that have got ultimate freedom. With doing
the things that I do, wearing the caps that I
wear, I’ve got some considerable clout as well,
all over, that is where the battle, the personal
battle starts now. I would like to think that I’ve
beaten that because I don’t use my clout or coin
or whatever for bad purposes… When you get it
you’ve got to be very strong to handle it…It’s
marvellous but it’s dangerous.”

6.46 While Savile felt he had managed to handle ultimate freedom,

he said “it would be easy to be corrupted by many things, when
you’ve got ultimate freedom, especially when you’ve got clout”.

6.47 There is, in my view, lurking in these comments, a hint – but I

can put it no higher than that – that Savile had been tempted to
use his ultimate freedom inappropriately. Looking back, and in
the knowledge of the Lynn Barber revelations, Dr Clare himself
thought there was “something chilling about this twentieth-
century ‘saint’ which still intrigues me to this day. No, not an
easy interview but, for me at any rate, not a forgettable one
either”.

Is This Your Life?

6.48 In 1995, as one of the Channel 4 series of Is This your Life?

Savile was interviewed by Andrew Neil. These were
programmes not unlike the better-known series This is your Life
but, as Mr Neil explained to the Savile investigation, were
intended to be less saccharine, a little harder-edged and

423
 “maybe a little bit more honest”. However, Mr Neil had a
difficult task. He wanted to ask Savile some serious questions
about his life, his relationships and his moral code; Savile was
determined to treat everything as a joke, a tactic which we can
now recognise as his favourite means of evading the issue.

6.49 After an introduction in which Savile was shown meeting

members of the Royal Family, running for charity and meeting a
child with disabilities and where he was described as a great
British institution whom few actually knew, Savile swaggered
onto the stage; if he knew that what was coming was to be
challenging, he did not appear to be worried. He dealt quite
sensibly with questions about his relationship with his mother.
When the questions turned to asking him about relationships
with girls, he started to get up, pretending that he was about to
leave. A film clip of Charles Hulligan (an old friend and former
head porter at Leeds General Infirmary) was played, in which
he spoke of Savile’s interest in young ladies (adding quickly “of
a proper age – 16 onwards”). Savile said that he was “all for
girls that do not know too much”. When it was suggested to
him that he had had so many women that he could not
remember them all, he just joked that maybe he had and that
no one “need be ashamed of his working clothes”. He agreed
that he did not like long relationships. Charles Hulligan then
suggested in the film clip that Savile used to say that he could
not stick with a person for more than three days. Savile agreed
but said that the girls would get bored with him. When asked
why he was not married he said he did not know but Jesus did
not find any problem with being single, and neither did he.
When asked whether he had had lots of lovers in the 1960s and
1970s, he said he could not remember; it was a long time ago,
he would hope so but Mr Neil would have to look to see if there
were any marks on his neck.

424
6.50 Savile was then pressed on this issue and replied that he was a
gentleman and gentlemen never grassed on a lady. When Mr
Neil said he did not want names, only confirmation of Savile’s
general lifestyle, Savile’s response was to start eating a banana
and to talk with his mouth full. When asked why he had shied
away from close relationships, he laughed and offered a close
relationship to any lady in the audience who was not spoken
for.

6.51 He was then asked why he had, in the past, avoided close
relationships. He said it was not his fault; he had never been in
the same town for more than 48 hours. He said that he fell in
love several times a day and wanted to get married
straightaway but then the lights changed or the train pulled out
and he had to move on. When asked if he had casual sexual
relationships, Savile jumped with mock alarm at the use of the
“S-word” and said he was “Mr No-Grass here”. Then he
pretended to catch on to what Mr Neil was asking about and
said that, if any lady had told him that she wanted that sort of
relationship, he would sacrifice himself and would tell her to
“feel free to use me”. When Mr Neil asked whether
relationships were matters for Savile to joke about and whether
Savile had ever been seriously in love, he said that he had not
and he did not know why. He thought that love was not all it
was “puffed up to be”. He was asked why the public never saw
him with a woman. Savile said this was because ‘these
women’ did not really exist and that his playboy image was just
a façade. Asked whether it was on account of his special
relationship with his mother that he had not formed other long-
term relationships with women he said that it was not; that
would be an easy explanation but it was not so.

6.52 Savile then changed tack and said that he had had plenty of
close relationships and that he told lies when it suited him, but

425
 he was not going to grass. If he talked about his relationships,
the tabloid press would start asking for names. At this stage,
he was bouncing up and down in his chair, laughing at his own
humour. Returning to his mother, he said that if he had taken a
girl home his mother would have slung the girl out when he
(Savile) was out of the room, because she did not want to lose
the luxuries which he provided. So he used to give his mother
“a few quid” to go away on holiday so that he could take his
girls in to the house. Asked about his relationships with men,
he spoke emotionally about the death of a friend in the Royal
Marines. When asked if it was easier for him to have
relationships with men than women he joked again: “No, no, no,
no, no, I’m very weak. I can resist everything except
temptation”. The conversation then turned to other matters not
related to his sexual life.

6.53 Mr Neil told me that he felt that the conversation about sexual
matters showed Savile to be on the defensive: “I felt that there
was definitely something shifty about him, and that we were not
being given the full story”. But he added that the interview was
made easier for Savile because the audience was wholly on
Savile’s side. Mr Neil could feel the hostility from the audience
as the questions got tougher. It was as if he had no right to grill
a national treasure. Also, when the programme was over, the
television audience reaction, shown in telephone calls to the
duty office, was overwhelmingly critical of him (Mr Neil) and
sympathetic towards Savile. The gist of the complaints was
that Mr Neil had been impertinent and should not have spoken
in that way to a man who had done so much good for charity.
Mr Neil felt that this attitude spoke volumes for the cult of
celebrity and also explained why Savile was able to proceed in
the way he did, with the protection of public opinion.

426
6.54 I agree with Mr Neil’s view on these points. It seems to me that
it was quite legitimate for Mr Neil to question Savile about his
sexual life, given that Savile had written about it and had
allowed others to write about it. I also agree with him that
Savile came over as evasive and shifty but it was clear that the
audience loved him.

When Louis Met Jimmy

6.55 In April 2000, the BBC broadcast When Louis Met Jimmy, a
documentary made by Louis Theroux. By this time, Savile’s
television career was essentially over and he presented (to my
eyes at least) as a rather sad, lonely old man. The filming was
spread over several days and, for a man who had kept his
private life to himself for so long, it seems strange that he would
permit a film crew into his home as he did. Mr Theroux told me
that he thought that Savile had been missing the public
attention he was used to.

6.56 In conversation, Savile repeated his denial of feelings and

discomfort with the idea of marriage. This was something he
left “to other people”, as the girls he knew “specialise in brain
damage”. Indeed, “anything more than two hours” would result
in brain damage, he thought. He clearly meant that such
contact would drive him mad. He denied having emotions “cos
it’s easier. It’s easier. Say you’ve got emotions and then you
got to explain them for two hours. The truth is I’m very good at
masking them”.

6.57 As well as reinforcing Savile’s strangely solitary life, the film

contained some startling revelations about his ‘zero tolerance’
policy in dance halls in Leeds. In what appears to have been
an unguarded moment late at night while talking to the film crew
in Mr Theroux’s absence, Savile explained that he would not
tolerate “any nonsense whatsoever” and was “always in trouble

427
 with the law for being heavy-handed”. Savile described how he
would tie people up and put them down in the boiler room until
two o’clock in the morning, by which time they would “plead to
get out”. Savile was the “judge, jury and executioner” in these
instances and, if the police told Savile he was too heavy-
handed, he would retort that the police would presumably want
him to look after their 16-year old daughter if she had come into
town. This worked, he said, with him never getting “nicked”.
Later in the programme, Savile dismissed this anecdote as
simply a “figure of speech”, but that is not how the story comes
across.

6.58 The programme is littered with other unattractive comments by

Savile. For example: that if the film were negative about him,
he would “see you in court, take a few quid off you, same as
take a few quid off anybody, money has no conscience”. He
made one of his regular jokes saying that he was “feared in
every girls’ school in Britain”. Early in the programme, he said “I
can get anything, me. There’s nothing I can’t get, and there’s
nothing I can’t do”. The film showed his habit of kissing,
uninvited, female members of the public who came his way.

6.59 Savile described his caravan as his “love nest”, where he had
been able to see women away from his mother – to do so in the
flat they then shared in Scarborough would have shown a lack
of respect. Savile also described how he used to sleep outside
Broadcasting House in his caravan. As for having girlfriends,
Savile said that he had “friends that are girls, eight million”. But
“girlfriend in the sense of today, in sense of, i.e. you are
together, don’t bother with anyone else etcetera, no, never …
not even for a week”.

6.60 Towards the end of the film, Savile is drawn into speaking
about the rumour and suspicion that surrounded him. Asked
why he had said in interviews that he hated children when he

428
 appeared to enjoy their company and have a good rapport with
them, Savile explained “obviously I don’t hate ‘em”, but he said
it was 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”.

Pressed as to whether this concerned suggestions of

paedophilia, Savile continued:

“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 say ‘oh you have all them children on Jim’ll
Fix It’, is say yeah I hate ‘em.”

Mr Theroux suggested this might raise more suspicion, but

Savile replied:

“That’s my policy, that’s the way it goes. That’s

what I do, and it’s worked a dream … A dream.”

6.61 As a postscript I should mention that it has been suggested in

the press that the BBC must have taken legal advice before
Mr Theroux raised suggestions of paedophilia with Savile.
However, Mr Theroux told the Savile investigation that he was
not aware of any legal advice being taken. Indeed, he had not
planned to ask Savile about paedophilia in advance (and had
not discussed this with his editorial team); it was simply
something he raised in response to the comment about children
made by Savile as referred to above.

6.62 At a late stage of the Savile investigation, I became aware of

some evidence relating to When Louis Met Jimmy which raised
a question of BBC personnel’s awareness of Savile’s sexual
misconduct.

429
6.63 When I interviewed Mr Theroux in 2013, he told me that, a
week or two after When Louis Met Jimmy was broadcast in
2000, he received a letter from two women who told him that,
contrary to what Savile had said in the documentary, Savile had
had many girlfriends and they were two of them. I interpose to
say that, now that I have seen a transcript of the letter, the two
women wrote that they had been friends with Savile for well
over thirty years and that several of Savile’s ex-girlfriends were
friendly with each other, had stayed in touch with each other
and had had a reunion with him three or four years earlier.

6.64 Mr Theroux told the Savile investigation in 2013 that, about a

year later (which would be 2001) he and his director had met
the two women who had said that one of them had started a
sexual relationship with Savile when she was only 15. Mr
Theroux said that he therefore realised that Savile had
committed a criminal offence by having sex with a girl of 15.
However, because it had happened over 30 years previously
and because the woman in question was then in her 40s and
capable of making a complaint to the police if she wanted to
and was very concerned (like the other woman he met) that
Savile did not know that they were meeting Mr Theroux, he did
not consider that he should do anything about what he had
been told. Accordingly, when he met Savile on two or three
subsequent occasions, he did not mention the fact that he had
spoken to these two women or that he knew that Savile had
had sex with one of them when she was only 15. In any event,
he said that he did not think that what he had learned
demonstrated that Savile was a paedophile; he felt that he had
discovered that Savile’s real sexual interest was in teenage
girls, which he thought was unsavoury, but he did not think that,
at the time, that there was any obligation on him to do anything
about what he had learned.

430
6.65 At a late stage of the Savile investigation, we learned that Mr
Theroux had spoken to a more senior colleague at the BBC
about what he had been told about Savile’s relationship with the
15 year old girl. I spoke to Mr Theroux again, who told me that
that he had not only discussed this matter with the director who
had accompanied him to the meeting, but also with David
Mortimer, his Executive Producer. Mr Mortimer was abroad
when we wanted to speak to him, but provided some written
answers to questions put to him.

6.66 Mr Mortimer confirmed that Mr Theroux and his director came

to see him after they had met the two women in question. He
was told that one of the women had said that a sexual
relationship with Savile had begun when she was 15 and that
the tone of the meeting had been relaxed and that the women
in question had wanted to correct Savile’s assertion in When
Louis Met Jimmy that he had never had a girlfriend. Mr
Mortimer was told that neither of the women was concerned
about the issue and that they did not have any desire to go
public with the information they had provided. He remembered
being told that neither woman alluded to any abuse having
taken place and that they made it clear that the relationships
with Savile had been consensual.

6.67 Mr Theroux told me that his interest in this information was of a

professional and journalistic nature, in that he had discovered
something about Savile which had not been discovered when
the documentary had been made. Mr Theroux repeated what
he had said to the Savile investigation in 2013, namely that the
women were very concerned that Savile did not know that they
were meeting him and that the woman in question was then in
her 40s and could make a complaint to the police if she wanted
to.

431
6.68 Mr Mortimer’s recollection was slightly different in that he
remembered becoming aware of the serious nature of the
information and discussing how the information should be dealt
with. He also remembered being told that the two women had
said that their relationships were consensual and had continued
beyond their 20s and that the meeting with the women had
taken place in confidence and on the basis of an explicit
understanding that the conversation was one where the normal
journalistic convention demanded that the confidentiality of the
two women should be protected at all costs. Therefore, what
they had said could not be reported to a third party without their
express permission to do so. That permission had clearly not
been forthcoming.

6.69 It does not appear to me that either Mr Theroux or Mr Mortimer

should be criticised in any way for their responses to the
information they received. I think it would have been an
unacceptable intrusion into this adult woman’s life either to tell
her that she was a victim of Savile or that she should tell the
police about what he had done or for Mr Theroux or Mr
Mortimer to take any action themselves to raise this issue
independently. This conversation appears to have taken place
in confidence and on the basis that the confidentiality imposed
by the two women should be respected. In any event, even if
Mr Mortimer had reported the information he received upwards,
it appears that nothing could possibly have been done, given
that the women concerned did not wish to make a complaint to
the police. By that time, Savile was not working for the BBC;
Jim’ll Fix It had been discontinued in 1994 and Savile had long
since stopped working on Top of the Pops. Mr Mortimer could
not have been expected to foresee that the BBC would bring
Savile back to appear on the final Top of the Pops show in
2006.

432
Have I Got News for You

6.70 Savile appeared on Have I Got News for You on 28 May 1999.
The show was hosted by Angus Deayton and the other
panellists were Ian Hislop, Paul Merton and Diane Abbott MP.
Savile was on Mr Hislop’s team.

6.71 Savile repeated some of his familiar lines about wrestling and
avoiding domestic relationships. He said that he was still a
wrestler and was “feared in every girls’ school in this country”
(this comment attracting raised eyebrows from Ms Abbott).

6.72 Of his caravan lifestyle, Savile said:

“12 years I lived in a motor caravan, yes.

Marvellous life, you’ve heard of new age
travellers, haven’t you? ... I’m an old age
traveller.”

6.73 Asked by Mr Hislop what he did in the caravan, Savile quipped

“Anybody I can lay me hands on”. This prompted laughter and
applause, but also raised eyebrows from Mr Hislop.

6.74 Mr Deayton asked if it were true that none of the places in

which Savile had lived had kitchens. Savile said:

“They don’t have stoves … because anybody

who is intent on staying single, the biggest off-
putting thing in the world to a lady is the fact
there’s no stove, so she can’t cook anything. ...
It’s something of the domestic-cleaning in them
and they come in the kitchen and say, ‘What, no
stove?’ and they immediately go.”

Summary

6.75 Reading this material now, with the benefit of what we know
about Savile’s true nature, one is struck by the amount of
adverse material in the public domain, by the lack of serious
impact it had and by the man’s extraordinary confidence that it
would not damage him. For example, he was prepared to talk
openly about the fact that he had numerous casual sexual

433
 relationships with women who were decades younger than him,
without any apparent fear that anyone would pop up and say
“Yes and I was only 15 when you did it to me”.

6.76 But setting aside the benefit of hindsight, Savile comes over as
deeply unattractive. Just taking this material at face value, I
find it surprising that ‘the Great British Public’ continued to love
him until his death. Were the values in society really so
different from those of today? Maybe people thought he was
only joking.

6.77 Having said that, I must explain that my purpose in collecting

this material together is to provide context for my examination
of the BBC’s awareness of Savile’s sexual misconduct.

434
CHAPT
TER 7 – RUMOURS
R , STORIES
S AND JO
OKES

Introdu
uction

7.1 The Savile

S invesstigation in
nvited information fro
om a wide
e range
of peo
ople who ha
ad worked at the BBC. We encouraged current
and fo ployees to contact uss with anyy informatio
ormer emp on they
had about
a Savvile, includ
ding rumou
urs and stories
s the
ey had
heard.. This kin
nd of material was important, not in order to
uth of what Savile did or to establish actual
establish the tru
knowle
edge of tha p of the BBC (for which
at on the part w purp
poses it
would be uselesss), but in
n order to get some idea of whether
w
there may have
e been an
ny general view thatt Savile’s sexual
conduct was in any
a way unlawful
u or inapproprriate and, if so, in
what respects.
r W were also
We a anxiou
us to estab
blish at wha
at level
or leve
els in the BBC
B such rumours
r an
nd stories circulated.
c

7.2 The number of witnesses we saw and their evidence on this

on means that we were
questio w not, in fact, ab
ble either to draw
any statistical co
onclusions from the evidence
e or
o to come to any
clear conclusion
c n that any general be
elief existe
ed. In sum
mmary,
we too
ok stateme
ents or hea
ard evidencce from 11
17 witnesse
es who
had wo
orked at th
he BBC and who had mours and stories
d heard rum
about Savile’s se
exual cond
duct. 76 off them had
d worked with
w him
and 41
1 of them had
h not. On
O the othe
er hand, we heard fro
om 180
witnes
sses who worked
w att the BBC but did not
n hear ru
umours
about Savile’s sexual
s conduct. Of those, 90 worked with
w him
and 90
0 did not. Many of the
t witnessses worked
d for the BBC
B for
a long time, often
n for decad
des.

7.3 I mustt stress tha

at this group of witnesses wass not seleccted as
repres
sentative of a cross-section of BBC
C people. The
witnes
sses were self-seleccted. We
e invited people
p wh
ho had
anything they wished
w o contact us.
to say aboutt Savile to In
on of coursse, there were
additio w a larrge numbe
er of peop
ple who

43
35
 were invited to give evidence on specific issues. They were
asked whether they had heard rumours about Savile’s sexual
conduct. All one can say from these numbers is that, while a lot
of people did hear rumours or stories, a lot did not, including
some who were at the BBC for a long time and might have
been expected to.

7.4 Nor is it possible to draw any conclusions as to why some

people heard rumours and stories and others did not. I had
thought at one stage that those who heard rumours might have
been frequent visitors to the various BBC Clubs, but that does
not seem to have been the case.

Rumours

7.5 The rumour most generally heard in the BBC was that Savile
was sexually attracted to young girls. Only a few heard that he
was attracted to young boys; that is very young boys under the
age of say 10 or 12. When asked what was understood by the
expression ‘young girls’, roughly 17% of the group understood
him to be interested in pre-pubertal girls under the age of 13.
About 26% thought that he was interested in pubertal but
underage girls in the 13 – 15 age range, and about 22%
thought he was interested in the 16-17 age group. There were
some who had not applied their minds to what was meant by
the term ‘young girls’ but when pressed said that they thought
they had been told that Savile liked teenage girls but not
necessarily underage. Some witnesses told me that they
assumed that he was gay because he was a bachelor who
never appeared to have a regular girlfriend. Some had the
impression that he was asexual. Only one witness who gave
evidence to the Savile investigation heard a rumour that he was
bisexual, which in fact he was. Also one witness to the Hall
investigation had heard rumours that Savile might be bisexual.

436
7.6 Most of those who heard rumours about Savile’s sexual life did
not appear to have been shocked by them. Many seem to have
regarded them as amusing. No one to whom we spoke ever
thought that he or she ought to report such a rumour to a
person in authority. Most people who had heard the rumours
assumed that other people had also heard them. Some also
assumed that the BBC management must be aware of Savile’s
reputation and did not think it was for them to do anything about
it.

7.7 There were a number of specific rumours. Perhaps the most

surprising was that several people (about five or six) heard that
Savile was a necrophiliac. Some heard that he was a
paedophile; for example, A25 heard a rumour that he was a
“paedo”. She told a female editor who appeared to be aware of
the rumour but advised A25 not to “rock the boat”. Others
heard that he liked to have sex with people with disabilities.
Some heard that he took girls to his camper-van for sex.
Others heard that he took girls to his flat near Regent’s Park.
One thought that the police were interested in him as a
paedophile.

7.8 One very strange rumour was heard by Elizabeth McDowell,

who worked for the BBC for many years, mainly in the
Continuing Education Department. While on attachment, she
worked for a time in Television Centre. She recalled an
occasion when having a drink with colleagues who worked in
Light Entertainment, being told that “Mothers take their
daughters to Jimmy Savile… for him to sort them out”. It was
clear that the others present had heard this before and that they
were talking about something sexual. They spoke about this in
a matter of fact way, not jokingly but not apparently concerned
either. Ms McDowell did not report this conversation, as it was
only rumour. This rumour struck me as so odd that I would

437
 have been tempted to think that Ms McDowell had either
misheard or mis-remembered the occasion, were it not for the
fact that there is evidence that Savile himself said something
similar to C25 when he took her out for supper: See paragraph
5.93.

7.9 An interesting point was made by Dr Peter Scott-Morgan, who,

as a consultant, carried out some research for the BBC in 2003
as part of the initiative known as Making it Happen instigated by
Greg Dyke, then the Director-General. In the course of his
work, Dr Scott-Morgan spoke to a large number of BBC staff.
He was trying to establish what were the unwritten rules which
governed behaviour within the BBC. One idea which he was
exploring was that there might be a group of people, ‘the
Talent’, who were so important to the BBC that their behaviour
was outside any real control. They were too important to the
BBC for them to be required to observe the rules and values
which applied to everyone else. When asking members of staff
about this concept, Dr Scott-Morgan would use Savile as an
example of a member of the Talent who, in the past, had been
able to get away with unacceptable behaviour – in his case
sexual misconduct with young girls. He had been previously
unaware of the rumours about Savile but picked them up during
the course of his interviews with BBC staff. Dr Scott-Morgan
found that a significant proportion of the people to whom he
mentioned Savile immediately showed that they understood the
point. In other words, the suggestion that Savile had got away
with inappropriate sexual behaviour was not news to them.
Some would respond by mentioning their own awareness of the
rumours about Savile, such as that he was thought to be a
necrophiliac.

438
Specific Examples of Who Heard What

7.10 It would not be appropriate for me to set out all the evidence of
who heard what about Savile’s sexual habits. However, I think
it important to mention a few particular names, if only to
demonstrate that these rumours were heard by some people
who were fairly senior in the BBC or, if not actually part of
management structure, were of some standing within the BBC.
I also include the evidence of some senior people who told me
that they did not hear any rumours about Savile.

7.11 Lord Birt, former Director-General, told us that he never heard

any rumours at all about Savile. He added that he was not
aware that any of the other former senior BBC staff members to
whom he had spoken since the Savile scandal had broken had
heard such rumours either. None of the former Directors-
General whom we interviewed had heard rumours about
Savile’s sexual life.

7.12 Dame Esther Rantzen heard that Savile was sexually interested
in young girls. She first heard a rumour about him in the early
1970s from a researcher who had come into the BBC from a
job in Fleet Street. She heard that the people making a
programme about Savile in the ITV series This is Your Life had
wished to include the parents of a young girl with heart
problems for whom Savile had provided financial help. The
parents refused to allow that and she said that “the implication
was that there was another side to it which was a darker side”.
But, she said, this rumour was one of many which “swirled
around” at that time in respect of all sorts of famous people.
Dame Esther said that she was told by a sound editor of
Savile’s Travels that Savile had recorded himself having sex
with nurses at Stoke Mandeville; there was no suggestion that
the nurses were unwilling. Her personal experience of him was
that he was repulsive in the way he kissed or, rather, licked her

439
 hand and up her arm when they met. On the ITV Exposure
programme broadcast in October 2012, Ms Rantzen (as she
then was) said “We all blocked our ears to the gossip… I feel
that we, in television – in his world, in some way colluded with
him as a child abuser, because I now believe that’s what he
was”.

7.13 Louis Theroux, the documentary film-maker, heard rumours,

well before he joined the BBC in 1998, that Savile was a
paedophile and a child molester. Later, he also heard rumours
that Savile was a necrophiliac and had a sexual interest in
people with disabilities.

7.14 Lord Grade, who was Controller of BBC One in the mid-1980s,
told Channel 4 News that he had “fleetingly” heard rumours
about Savile but never heard anything that he thought required
investigation.

7.15 John Helm, who was eventually the Head of Outside

Broadcasts, said that there were rumours about whether Savile
was bisexual or perhaps even asexual.

7.16 Sir Terry Wogan (who died in January 2016) is reported to have
described a conversation about Savile with the well-known
columnist Jean Rook, in which she asked “When are they going
to expose him?” And he replied “That’s your job”. I assume
that he meant that it was the job of the press, not of Ms Rook
personally. Sir Terry is reported to have commented to the
press “And nobody ever did (expose him), even though
everyone had heard the rumours”. We attempted to speak to
Sir Terry in 2014 but unfortunately he said that he was too busy
working on Children In Need. We then asked him via email
whether he could confirm the accuracy of the press report, to
which he replied that Ms Rook had said “when is somebody
going to tell the truth about him?" (or something along those

440
 lines) but that his recollection was that he had not replied to her
directly but had only thought to himself “Surely that’s your job”.
He added that he knew nothing about Savile other than vague
rumour, which, he said tended to be about Savile’s sharp
commercial practices and shameless use of his charity work for
his own greater glory, rather than his sexual behaviour.

7.17 Andy Kershaw, who became a BBC Radio 1 disc jockey and
presenter, first heard rumours and stories about Savile while at
Leeds University in the early 1980s. As Entertainment
Secretary, he came to know people involved in the
entertainment business in the city. He heard from many
sources that, in the 1950s and 1960s, Savile had a reputation
as a gangland enforcer and would personally use physical
violence against anyone who upset those who ran the
nightclubs or dancehalls in Leeds. When Mr Kershaw arrived
at the BBC, he was advised by John Walters, who had in the
past produced programmes with Savile, to steer clear of Savile
because he was “a bad lot” and “a nasty piece of work”. Mr
Kershaw found that that was so. He heard stories relating to
Savile’s sexual interest in underage girls; for example it was
said that he had sex with young teenage girls in his camper-
van. He never heard any rumours that Savile was interested in
young children, either boys or girls, only teenage girls. Mr
Kershaw added that these rumours had been rife throughout
the entertainment industry and were not limited to the BBC. He
believed that the press were also aware of them.

7.18 Liz Kershaw, the BBC Radio 1 disc jockey and presenter (and
sister of Andy Kershaw) heard stories that Savile had sex with
teenage girls. She heard a story about Savile having sex in his
caravan while his production staff were outside.

441
7.19 David Treadway, while Chief Assistant BBC Radio 2 in the early
1980s, heard rumours that Savile liked sex with young girls (he
thought that meant girls in their mid to late teens).

7.20 Derek Chinnery, who was Head of BBC Radio 1 in the 1970s
and became Controller of Radio 1 in late 1978, accepted when
he spoke to the Savile investigation that he must have been
aware in the early 1970s that there were rumours about
Savile’s interest in girls, although he has no personal
recollection of this. Mr Chinnery died in March 2015. I was told
by Doreen Davies, an executive producer in BBC Radio 1, who
attended a meeting between Mr Chinnery and Savile probably
in 1973, that Mr Chinnery asked Savile about rumours that he
had young girls staying in his London flat. Ms Davies said that
Savile had agreed that that was so but had said that he invited
the girls to come and stay in sleeping bags on his lounge floor.
They would be offered tea in the morning and would then leave.
Ms Davies said that Mr Chinnery had accepted this explanation.

7.21 Johnny Beerling, eventually Controller of BBC Radio 1, heard

that Savile liked young girls but did not hear that these were
underage. He said that Savile used to say that the reason he
wrote a column for The People (which he did for many years)
was because “These people - they don’t shit on their own,
John, so if I write for The People, they will never write anything
nasty about me”.

7.22 Richard Wilson joined the BBC in 1991 and left in 1996 as a
senior producer. He heard rumours that “Jimmy Savile fucks
kids”.

7.23 Jeff Simpson, a press officer in the 1980s and 1990s, heard
that Savile had sex with young girls and also girls who were in
hospital. He thought that the girls were “young” but did not
know how young. He heard a story that Savile had been

442
 having sex with a young girl in the camper-van while the
producer of Savile’s Travels was driving it. The producer, Ted
Beston, denies the truth of that rumour. Mr Simpson also heard
that Savile would invite girls back to his flat.

7.24 Pete Murray, the disc jockey and presenter, said that there
were general rumours in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that
Savile had a sexual predilection for pubescent girls.

7.25 Alan Monahan, who eventually became Chief Publicity Officer

for Radio, recalled that the disc jockeys of BBC Radio 1 had
told him that Savile had a predilection for young girls.

7.26 Roger Cook, the investigative journalist, heard rumours about

Savile being sexually interested in “young and old, able-bodied
and otherwise”. In the spring of 1980, he received two
anonymous communications at Broadcasting House, one a
letter, the other a telephone call alleging that Savile abused
patients at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He also heard a version
of the story about a lady bringing a cake she had baked as a
present for Savile to thank him “for all [he’d] done for the youth
of this country”: see the ‘Stories’ section below.

7.27 Brian Clifford, who was Head of Information Services from 1988
until the early 1990s, said that there were rumours that Savile
invited guests to his camper-van after Top of the Pops but did
not hear that these guests were underage girls.

7.28 Derek Wiseman, who became a project manager in the Studio

Planning Department and worked at the BBC from 1969 until
1994, heard rumours about Savile being a womaniser and that
maybe he took advantage of the ‘groupies’ who followed him
around. But Mr Wiseman said that no one would have thought
that the young people might have been underage. He said that
there was a perception at that time that the young girls were

443
 chasing the men – the pop stars and their associates – and that
they were sexually available.

7.29 Nicky Campbell, the radio disc jockey and television presenter,
heard rumours that Savile was a necrophiliac but thought it was
utterly incredible and regarded it as an urban myth. His
personal impression was that Savile was sexless.

7.30 Mike Read, the radio disc jockey and presenter, heard talk
about “Jimmy and his young ladies” whilst working for BBC
Radio 1 but he never gave any thought to what age the
expression “young ladies” implied.

7.31 Ed Stewart, who died recently, was a radio disc jockey and
presenter. He was not interviewed by the Savile investigation
but was reported as having told The Sun that the Top of the
Pops hosts used to warn each other not to go to Savile’s parties
because “there were girls of all ages there and you couldn’t be
sure how young they were”.

7.32 Mark Lawson, the journalist, broadcaster and author heard

rumours about Savile before he joined the BBC and afterwards.
Before joining the BBC, Mr Lawson worked for various
newspapers. He told the Savile investigation that it was
common knowledge in that world in the 1980s that Savile was
interested in underage girls and that he was a ‘groper’. While
at the BBC, he heard it said that that Savile was difficult to work
with, was a ‘groper’ of females (over the age of consent) and
that he was a paedophile.

7.33 Andrew Neil, who made a Channel 4 programme (Is this your
Life?) with Savile in 1995, said that, long before then, he had
heard talk in Fleet Street that Savile was sexually interested in
young girls, although the age of the girls was never exactly
specified. The gossip was that the girls were underage; they
were the kind of girls you might see on Top of the Pops. There

444
 was a minority view that it was much worse than that; his
interest was in children. But no one was ever able to produce
any evidence to take the story forward.

7.34 It is only fair to mention that some people who one might have
expected would hear rumours did not. One such example is
Peter Rosier, who was for some years the Head of the
Information Division and later the Head of Corporate Affairs and
Media Relations.

Stories and Urban Myths

7.35 I have received evidence from several witnesses who had

heard two similar stories about Savile. I have come to regard
these two stories as urban myths, mainly because, although the
background facts are slightly different, the punch line is the
same. The first is called the ‘marmalade story’. The tale is that
Savile was living in his camper-van whilst recording one of his
shows on location. One afternoon, an elderly lady approached
the van and found a member of the production team sitting
outside. She asked to speak to Savile but was informed that he
was not there (or, depending on the version of the story, was
busy). In fact, Savile was inside the van with a young girl and it
was apparent, from the movement of the van, that the two were
having sexual intercourse. The old lady did not realise that.
She handed the producer a jar of jam or marmalade, saying
that she had brought it for Savile to thank him for all the good
work he did for young people.

7.36 There was a variant on this story. Roger Cook was told a
similar story by a freelance cameraman who claimed to have
seen this incident for himself. In this version, the lady knocked
on the door of the caravan and, after a while, Savile appeared
in person, looking dishevelled. The lady handed over not a jar

445
 of marmalade but a cake she had made. The punchline was
the same.

7.37 Another story, which has a similar punchline, was told to me by

Mr Simpson. He said that he had heard a story that the
producer of Savile’s Travels had been driving Savile’s camper-
van while Savile was having sex with a girl in the back. They
were driving to a civic reception. On the outskirts of the town,
the van stopped and the girl got out. The van drove on a short
distance and Savile stepped out of the van to be greeted by the
Mayoress who welcomed him and thanked him for all the good
work he did for children. As I have already said, the producer in
question, Mr Beston, denies the truth of that variant of the story.

7.38 Mr Simpson also told me that Mr Read had told him that
whenever he came out of Broadcasting House during the
school holidays there would be a gaggle of young girls on the
pavement. Sometimes, they would ask him when he was
“coming up to Jimmy’s”. Mr Read understood that Savile had
invited them to his flat, giving them the impression that he (Mr
Read) was also going to be there. Mr Read had no intention of
going and told them so. This suggests that Savile was using Mr
Read as bait. Mr Read has confirmed that this story is true. He
said that he would not even have known where Savile lived and
he believed he had said as much in his response to the girls.

7.39 Another story was recounted to me by David Simmons who

worked at the BBC between 1970 and 1979. An acquaintance
of his had told him that he had been to a ‘gig’ and a young girl
had said that she was going to marry Savile. When she was
asked how that could possibly be, she had said “well, after what
happened last night, he’s got to marry me”. Mr Simmons
stressed that this was gossip and he did not know if it was true.

446
7.40 As I have said, the story which came from Mr Read is true. The
marmalade or jam or cake stories seem to have their origin in
an incident which was described to me by Mr Beston, who for
many years was Savile’s BBC Radio 1 producer. I set out his
account at paragraph 11.73. It appears that the story which
went the rounds has been embellished to some extent. The
interesting thing is that the people hearing these stories seem
to have been amused and were neither surprised nor outraged.
That does not mean that they approved of the behaviour
described.

Jokes – Black Humour

7.41 As I have just observed, the fact that a story is greeted with
laughter does not mean that the laughing listener approves of
the conduct described. The same is true of the jokes which I
am about to relate. They might properly be described as black
humour.

7.42 As well as telling me that a well-known joke about what Savile

and Margaret Thatcher had in common, which did the rounds in
late 2012, soon after the Savile scandal broke, had actually
been around 20 years earlier, Mark Lawson told me that, when
his children were young, he and his wife sometimes had
difficulty finding a baby sitter. When they had had a few
refusals, it was a family joke that they would say “Looks like
we’re down to Jimmy Savile or Michael Jackson”.

7.43 I was told that people called Savile’s camper-van his ‘fuck truck’
or his ‘shaggin’ wagon’. Paul Hughes-Smith said that while he
was working on Top of the Pops, people would say that Savile
wore track suits because they were quick to get off. One
witness said that Top of the Pops was known as “Jimmy
Savile’s fodder night”.

447
7.44 Ian McGuinness, who was a staff relations officer at Thames
Television in the 1970s, said that every Christmas some
amusing tapes were made at Television Centre. These
consisted mainly of film clips where something had gone wrong
(a ‘howler’) and there had to be a retake. The material was
circulated among the staff for amusement. However, Mr
McGuinness remembers that one year, either 1975 or 1976,
there was a film of a short sketch in which a man representing
Savile was sitting on the Jim’ll Fix It chair with another man,
dressed up as a little girl, sitting on his knee. The man acting
the part of Savile was making salacious comments about the
girl. The announcement made on the film was “Jimmy So Vile”.

Conclusion

7.45 I have no doubt that rumours, stories and jokes relating to

Savile’s sexual conduct and habits circulated in the BBC over a
long period of time. However, they were not limited to the BBC.
In particular, it seems fairly clear that rumours and stories about
Savile also circulated in press circles. In Chapter 6, I have
mentioned the ways in which Lynn Barber and Louis Theroux
questioned Savile (in 1990 and 2000 respectively). It is clear
that they were aware of rumours about Savile’s sexual interest
in young girls. Mr Theroux was aware of rumours that Savile
was a paedophile. I have mentioned a conversation which
reportedly took place between Jean Rook and Sir Terry Wogan,
the basis of which seems to be that Ms Rook had heard
rumours about Savile. In Chapter 11 I describe how, in 1973,
Rodney Collins, a BBC publicity officer, made enquiries of
some journalist friends as to what was known about Savile in
Fleet Street. The answer was that there were rumours about
him but no hard evidence. In addition, Andrew Neil gave similar
evidence.

448
7.46 I accept that there were many people in the BBC who did not
hear any rumours, stories or jokes, including some who worked
with Savile and might have been expected to hear them. One
of the things I have noticed is that people who had heard the
rumours assumed that everyone else had heard them. That is
a perfectly understandable attitude but it is not correct. They
also thought that, if they had heard the rumours (and everyone
else had too) it could not be up to them to do anything about
the situation. Some also assumed that BBC management must
be aware of Savile’s reputation. However, more senior people
would not necessarily know about rumours; as one would
expect, more senior people do not seem to have had the same
exposure to gossip and rumour as those in less senior
positions. The BBC is a hierarchical organisation and, as a
general rule, I think people tended to socialise with colleagues
at their own level of the hierarchy.

7.47 It is clear that a number of BBC staff had heard rumours,

stories or jokes about Savile to the effect that, in some way, his
sexual conduct was inappropriate if not actually unlawful. The
most common rumour seems to have been that Savile was
sexually attracted to young girls in their teenage years.

7.48 In general, it seems to me that the people who heard these

rumours, stories and jokes were not particularly shocked by
them. It may well be that the more serious rumours were not
regarded as credible and the less serious ones did not make
any one feel that ‘something ought to be done’.

7.49 It is important to end this chapter on a note of caution. As I

explain at paragraph 7.3 all one can say from the evidence is
that, while a lot of people did hear rumours or stories about
Savile, a lot did not. Members of senior management generally
did not hear rumours. In addition, as I state in paragraph 23 of
my Conclusions, there are those who readily (and, frequently,

449
publicly) make the jump from awareness of rumours on the part
of any BBC employee or freelancer to awareness on the part of
BBC senior management and, as a consequence, the BBC
itself. However, I approach this issue (as I must) as a judge,
applying reasoned principles and reaching conclusions on the
basis of the evidence I have heard and the inferences which I
can properly draw.

450
CHAPT
TER 8 – MEDIA
M REPORTS ALLEGING
A G THAT THE BBC KNEW
OF SA
AVILE’S MIISCONDUCT BUT HAD
H FAILE
ED TO ACT
T

Introdu
uction

8.1 ollowing th
In the weeks fo ures about Savile’s sexual
he disclosu
miscon
nduct in October
O 012, severral reports appeared in the
20
news media to the effect that variouss people had
h reporte
ed their
edge of so
knowle ome form of
o sexual misconduc
m ct on Savile
e’s part
to som
meone in a position of authorrity at the BBC. In
n some
cases,, the report included
d the alleg
gation that the respo
onse of
the BB
BC manag erned had been to brush the report
ger conce
aside with wordss such as ‘That’s Jim
mmy’. At th
he time, th
he BBC
was unable to re
efute these
e allegatio
ons; it could say onlyy that it
o far found
had so d nothing to
t suggest any know
wn wrongdo
oing by
manag
gement.

8.2 ese articles, it has be

As a result of the een assum
med by ma
any that
the allegations were
w true and
a statem
ments have
e appeared
d in the
press asserting that BBC staff culp
pably ignorred such reports.
r
e articles have he
These elped to create an
n impress
sion of
knowle ut Savile’s sexual misconduct at high le
edge abou evels in
the BBC, making it partticularly im
mportant that
t the sources
s
d be looked at with care.
should c For example, in a piece
e taken
from Richard
R Litttlejohn’s column
c published byy the Mail Online
on 12
2 Septem
mber 2013
3, it was stated that
t the Crown
Proseccution Servvice seemed to be concerned only to pro
osecute
“celebrity collarss”. This piece dealt partly with
h a docum
mentary
disclossing an alleged cove
er-up of co
omplaints about
a the late Sir
Cyril Smith
S (unrrelated to the
t BBC). Mr Little
ejohn comm
mented
that th
he police had not pro
osecuted any NHS em
mployee “n
nor has
any se
enior BBC employee,, past or prresent, bee
en arrested
d, even
though
h many stand
s accu
used of being
b com
mplicit in Savile’s
S
crimess on Corpo
oration pre
emises”. After
A two and a half years
o this Revview, I have found no evidence that
spent working on

45
51
 any BBC employee above producer level could stand accused
of complicity in Savile’s crimes in connection with his work for
the BBC. That is not to say that BBC employees are without
fault but I found no evidence that a senior BBC employee was
complicit in Savile’s crimes.

8.3 At an early stage, the Savile investigation wished to contact the

sources underlying the most important of these various articles
as it appeared likely that they would know of people at the BBC
who had been given specific information about Savile.
However, on investigation, I found that most of these sources
could provide very little reliable information about what the BBC
knew. I eventually came to the conclusion that much of the
material by which the public had been persuaded that the BBC
knew about Savile’s crimes was unreliable. In my view, the
fault for this lies primarily with the individuals providing
embellished accounts to the press, although on occasions, the
press must bear some culpability for failing properly to
investigate the information provided to it. In this chapter I
describe the results of my investigations into those articles and
their sources.

The Sun – 12 October 2012 – Source David Nicolson

8.4 On 12 October 2012, The Sun carried an article headed:

“Top Beeb director: I blew whistle on Jimmy

Savile but BBC ignored me”

“A TOP TV director has revealed he blew the

whistle on Jimmy Savile having sex with a
young girl at the Beeb – but was IGNORED.

David Nicolson, now 67, caught the perv in his

Jim’ll Fix It dressing room with a girl aged “16
maybe 15”. He said bosses told him: “That’s
the way it goes.”

452
The BBC knew full well Savile had a sick lust for
young girls but left victims at his mercy, David
revealed to The Sun last night.

He said of the girl, who was in her mid-teens

and may even have been at school: “She had
long brown hair and looked very, very young.”

Horrified David, who worked as a director on

Jim’ll Fix It, claims he kept trying to blow the
whistle – but the mantra from everybody he told
at the Corporation was: “That’s Jimmy.”

He said: “I was revolted by his behaviour. They

just shrugged it off, saying, ‘Yeah, yeah – that’s
the way it goes’.”

Telly veteran David – who also worked on Top

of the Pops during a decade at the BBC –
blasted the Corporation’s claim it knew nothing
about its star DJ preying on girls for decades.

He raged: “Everyone knew what was going on.

That includes senior BBC people – chiefs at the
highest levels.

“There were always girls in Jimmy’s dressing

room. Everyone would have known about it –
all the hair and makeup people, the wardrobe,
show directors, producers.”

Married David, recalling his reaction when he

walked in on Savile and the young girl, said: “I
was shocked. I’d gone in to talk business — and
quickly got out.”

He went on: “It was a bog-standard changing

room in the basement. They both quickly pulled
up their pants. “The girl could have been 16,
maybe 15. But she was just one of many – he
always had one in the room. He said: “What do
you want young man?” and shouted at me to
get out of the room.

They both looked embarrassed – but she was

not distressed.”

Despite describing the Beeb as having a

permissive “sex, drugs and rock and roll” culture
at the time he did not hesitate to tell people

453
 what he had seen in the hope action would be
taken. But none was.

David said: “Savile always used to bring scruffy

girls into the studios – all teenagers. But no
questions were ever asked.

“In rehearsals for Jim’ll Fix It they would be

hanging around – and during breaks they would
go with Jimmy back to his dressing room.
Everyone knew what he was doing. It was talk
of the town and talk of the BBC that Jimmy
loved young girls.””

8.5 The BBC was asked to comment on this report and said:

“We have found nothing at this stage to suggest

any known wrongdoing was ignored by
management.”

8.6 This article may well be responsible in some measure for the
impression which many members of the public seem to have
accepted as true that senior BBC managers had been
specifically told that Savile had had intercourse with a young
girl in his dressing room at BBC Television Centre.

8.7 We interviewed Mr Nicolson. He said that he had contacted

The Sun in October 2012 and had spoken to a journalist. He
had then given an interview to a reporter who had come up to
Scotland to see him.

8.8 He told us that he had described to The Sun reporter an

incident he had witnessed which had taken place in 1988 or
1989, when he had seen Savile with a young girl in
circumstances which gave rise to an inference that some kind
of sexual activity had taken place between them. At the time,
he had been working as a production manager on Jim’ll Fix It,
of which Roger Ordish was the producer.

8.9 He said that he had been angry at the way in which The Sun
had reported his account. First, he said, he had not seen the
couple having intercourse; nor had he told The Sun that he had.

454
 He had seen them standing up, within a metre or two of each
other, both clothed. He said that the girl, who he thought would
have been about 16 or 17, was brushing down her clothing.
She looked a little confused and embarrassed but not in any
way distressed. He had not reported the incident to anyone in
authority at the BBC; although he found Savile’s conduct
“offensive and grubby”, there was nothing to report. The girl did
not appear to be underage and was not in any distress. He
believes that he may have mentioned the incident to one or two
colleagues in a low-key way, saying something like “I’ve just
seen Jimmy in the dressing room with another girl”. He was
under the impression that Savile was in his mid-forties at the
time; in fact in 1988 he would have been 62 or 63. He said that
he did not express the outrage attributed to him in The Sun
article.

8.10 Mr Nicolson said that he had made it plain to the reporter of

The Sun that he had not reported the incident to Mr Ordish or to
anyone in authority at the BBC. He showed us an email
addressed to the reporter which, taken in isolation, appeared to
confirm that. Later, on further examination of his email account,
Mr Nicolson found the email from the reporter which had
prompted his reply. I will set out the content of both emails.
The reporter’s email to Mr Nicolson is timed at 17.56 on 11
October 2012 and reads:

“Hi David,

I need to speak to you, in what capacity did you

work for the bbc [sic], were you staff?

Also did you ever mention to Ordish anything

about Savile?”

8.11 Mr Nicolson’s reply, timed at 19.22 on 11 October 2012 reads:

“I was on a series of one year contracts, paying

PAYE at source. Therefore, I was on the staff.

455
 My contractual designation was Production
Manager but all my credits show I was actually
a film director. No, I did not mention the
dressing room incident to Ordish or anyone
senior. I did not witness a girl under stress,
pressure, coercion or anything like that. She
looked to be 16 or so. I had no cause to
mention it to anyone except in passing “Oh, I
see Jimmy’s got a new girl”, that sort of thing. I
did, however, find the incident offensive and
grubby and resolved never to attend the studio
again, always ensuring that I was off recceing,
researching or filming. Is this okay? Do you
actually need to speak to me? If so, reply now
telling me and I will go out in the rain to get a
signal. I can’y [sic] discuss it on the phone
here”.

It appears that the reporter replied at 20.37 that evening saying:

“No thats great thanks davia [sic]”

8.12 The Savile investigation wrote to The Sun to tell them that the
evidence it had received from Mr Nicolson did not tally with their
report of 12 October 2012 and giving details of the
discrepancies alleged by Mr Nicolson. On 4 October 2013,
solicitors instructed by News Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN),
publishers of The Sun, replied that The Sun stood by the
accuracy of its report, asserting that Mr Nicolson’s words had
either been taken from recorded conversations with him, notes
written and given to The Sun by Mr Nicolson, notes prepared by
The Sun’s journalists during interviews and conversations with
Mr Nicolson or set down from the reporter's “clear recollection”
of statements made by Mr Nicolson to him during the face to
face interview. Several extracts from this material were
provided as part of NGN’s solicitors’ letter. One such extract,
said to have been taken from a summary prepared by one of
the journalists using his own notes taken during an interview
with Mr Nicolson, stated that, after witnessing Savile having sex
with the young girl, he had reported it to a senior member of
staff who laughed it off, saying “yeah yeah, that’s the way it

456
 goes”. The letter stated that the phrase “reported it” reflected
Mr Nicolson’s statements to The Sun that he had spoken to
senior members of BBC staff about what he had witnessed.
The letter added that Mr Nicolson had told The Sun during his
face-to-face interview that, when he told people about the
incident, BBC employees and executives would say “That’s
Jimmy”. Further extracts provided by The Sun suggested that
Mr Nicolson had told the reporter that, whilst it was very difficult
to tell how old the girl was and he could not say for certain that
she was underage, she could have been 14, 15 or 16.

8.13 In the same letter, it was said that Mr Nicolson had told The
Sun that “It is ridiculous for the BBC to claim that very senior
execs were unaware of JS’s activities with young girls”. The
letter also quoted a passage which, as it seems to me, did not
relate to Savile. This was “it was absolutely common
knowledge at the BBC that [name redacted] was taking these
sorts of [pornographic] photographs of members of the
audience”. It appears to me that that passage probably relates
to the activities of Harry Goodwin, a stills photographer on Top
of the Pops in the mid and late 1960s and early 1970s about
whom I have written in Chapter 9. His practice of
photographing young members of the audience was not
connected with Savile. Immediately after that quotation, there
was a quotation as follows “… the highest level possible…Not
quite sure about Director-General but certainly ….the controller
of BBC One would have known it, yeah”. It is not clear whether
it is being said that the Controller of BBC One would have
known about the activities of Mr Goodwin taking pornographic
pictures or whether it is supposed to refer back to what the BBC
knew about Savile’s activities. I accept that the then Controller
of BBC One did know about Mr Goodwin’s activities or at least
about the allegations made against him.

457
8.14 On 10 October 2013, we provided a copy of Mr Nicolson’s
email to the reporter dated 11 October 2012 to NGN’s solicitors
and, with the consent of Mr Nicolson, asked to see the
journalist’s contemporaneous notes and listen to the recordings
of the conversations between Mr Nicolson and the reporter. By
letter dated 18 October 2013, NGN’s solicitors conveyed their
client’s refusal to disclose any notes or recordings on the
grounds that the request fell outside the Review’s Terms of
Reference. Neither that letter, nor any subsequent
correspondence received from NGN’s solicitors, has offered
any comment on the email exchange of 11 October 2012. By
letter dated 25 October 2013, we explained how the verification
of Mr Nicolson’s evidence fell within the Terms of Reference
and again invited The Sun to assist us in resolving the issue by
disclosing the journalist’s notes and recordings. On 8
November 2013, NGN’s solicitors declined the request on
behalf of their client. The solicitors asked to be notified in
advance of any proposed criticism of The Sun, a request with
which we have, of course, complied.

8.15 I have two main concerns arising from this matter. First, I want
to form as reliable a view as I can about what Mr Nicolson saw
in Savile’s dressing room and whether he reported what he had
seen to anyone in authority at the BBC. Second, I am
concerned to discover whether the report in The Sun may have
misled the public when it claims that the BBC knew about
Savile’s sexual misconduct and turned a blind eye.

8.16 In respect of my first concern, The Sun says that Mr Nicolson

told them on one occasion that he had seen Savile having
intercourse in his dressing room with a girl whose age was
difficult to determine but could have been 14, 15 or 16. The
Sun emphasised that Mr Nicolson claimed that he had informed
senior members of BBC staff about the incident who had

458
 laughed it off. However, Mr Nicolson told the Savile
investigation that he did not see the couple having intercourse
or make a report to senior BBC personnel; nor did he tell The
Sun that he had done so. In his email of 11 October 2012 Mr
Nicolson described the girl as “16 or so” whereas in evidence to
me he said he thought she would have been about 16 or 17.

8.17 Clearly, it would have been helpful to me to be able to see the

notes and transcripts in The Sun’s possession and, given that
Mr Nicolson had given his permission for their disclosure, I find
it hard to understand why I have not been allowed to see them.
Another newspaper to which a request for information was
submitted volunteered its original notes without even being
asked. However, whilst The Sun did not provide copies of the
journalist’s notes and recordings, it has provided extracts from
this material as described at paragraphs 8.12-8.13 above.
Although these are only extracts, they have been of some
assistance and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity.

8.18 I am minded to accept, in part on the basis of the extracts

provided from the journalist’s notes and recordings, that Mr
Nicolson probably did initially inform The Sun that he had
reported the dressing room incident to a senior person at the
BBC. I think it may well be that, when Mr Nicolson spoke to
The Sun initially, he gave an exaggerated account of the
incident and his reaction to it. The extracts from The Sun’s
notes and recordings suggest that Mr Nicolson said that, whilst
it was difficult to tell, the girl could have been under 16. I think
it is also likely that he said that he had seen the couple actually
having intercourse, as opposed to seeing them in
circumstances from which he had inferred that that is what they
had been doing. In reaching this conclusion, I have placed
some reliance on the evidence set out at paragraphs 10.69-
10.71 which suggests that Mr Nicolson provided a similar

459
 (although not identical) version of the dressing room incident to
Robin Smith. There is also a further example of Mr Nicolson
seemingly rehearsing an exaggerated account of a different
story at (see paragraph 10.76). I have the impression that, in
his bid to tell a good story, Mr Nicolson is prone to some
exaggeration.

8.19 However, it seems to me that, whatever Mr Nicolson had said

to The Sun initially, in his email exchange with the reporter on
11 October 2012, the day before publication, he was quite
clearly setting the record straight in at least one key respect by
stating that he had not told Mr Ordish or anyone senior at the
BBC about the dressing room incident. The Sun has never
suggested that the email exchange did not take place. Yet that
clarification is not reflected in the article published by The Sun
the following day which states that Mr Nicolson told BBC
“bosses” about the incident who replied “that’s the way it goes”.
Accepting, as I am prepared to do, that Mr Nicolson probably
had on one occasion told The Sun that he had told senior
people at the BBC about the dressing room incident and then
that he subsequently (by email) told them that he had not told
anyone senior about it, it seems surprising to me that The Sun
would publish the article as it did without at least checking with
Mr Nicolson which version was correct.

8.20 On the information available to me, my conclusion on the

balance of probabilities is that Mr Nicolson did not report what
he had seen in the dressing room to anyone in authority at the
BBC and that he did not do so for the reasons he gave both in
evidence to me and in his email to The Sun reporter. It follows
that the public should not rely on this article as evidence that
the BBC was told about the dressing room incident and turned
a blind eye.

460
8.21 I must mention for completeness that there are other aspects of
this article which Mr Nicolson claims do not reflect what he told
The Sun. The Sun says that they have reported him accurately
but, without the notes and tapes of Mr Nicolson’s original
interviews with The Sun, I cannot form a view as to who is right
about these other aspects. These matters are, in any case,
less important for my purposes than the central issue of
determining what happened in the dressing room and whether
Mr Nicolson reported it to anyone in authority at the BBC.

The Daily Mail – 1 October 2012 – Source Anonymous ‘A1’

8.22 On 1 October 2012, the Mail Online carried an article headed

“We were victims of Jimmy Savile”. Within it was an account
given to the Mail by a man described as “a former BBC
chauffeur”. His story, as reported, was that staff members had
previously been fired for talking about Savile’s reputation and
that he had said that the BBC even employed chaperones to
prevent girls from being lured into Savile’s dressing room. A
specific incident was recounted. It was said that he had once
driven home a hysterical 12-year old girl who claimed that she
had been sexually assaulted by Savile after appearing on Jim’ll
Fix It. The report continued:

“The girl ‘sobbed her heart out all the way

home’ after she was allegedly abused by the
presenter after the show during the mid-1970s.
When she reached her front door, she collapsed
into her mother’s arms in tears, telling her: ‘I’m
sorry. It wasn’t my fault. Jimmy grabbed me.
He attacked me’.

The driver, who worked as a chauffeur for the

BBC for 16 years, said staff members had
previously been fired for talking about Savile’s
reputation, and he feared he would lose his job
if he reported it.

He said the show’s chiefs ‘knew very well’ that

he [Savile] had a reputation for sexually

461
 assaulting young contestants, and had even
begun to employ chaperones to make sure girls
could not be lured into his dressing room.”

8.23 With the assistance of the Mail, we were able to locate the
source of this article and the source gave evidence. He wished
to remain anonymous and I shall refer to him as A1. When we
spoke to A1 he was 84 years old and repeatedly said that he
regretted that his recollection of events in the 1970s is now
imperfect in some respects.

8.24 When initially interviewed in March 2013, A1 said that he had

worked for many years as a driver for a private hire company
which contracted to provide chauffeur-driven cars for the BBC.
He was not directly employed by the BBC. As he was regularly
sent on jobs for the BBC, he had a pass and could enter
various BBC buildings as and when he needed. He often had
to wait for the person he was going to drive; he would
sometimes sit in a canteen or wait in the corridor outside a
dressing room. He often chatted to other chauffeurs and also
to members of BBC staff; receptionists, waitresses, make-up
girls, dressers, dancers and young actresses. I interpose to
say that the actresses may not have been members of staff.
He said that, among many of those people, Savile’s reputation
was that of being a “dirty old man” who “was perverted where
young girls were concerned”. That, he said, was Savile’s
reputation throughout the many years he worked in connection
with the BBC. A1 also said that a friend of his, who worked in
the Art Department of the BBC, had told him that Savile
interfered with young girls. A1 did not suggest that he had
heard such rumours in the presence of any member of
management or among staff of producer or director level.

8.25 A1 recounted one particular episode which occurred, he

believed, in about 1975 or 1976. He was summoned to
Television Centre and, when he had pulled up in the car park, a

462
 young man, who he thought was an assistant director on Jim’ll
Fix It, brought a young girl to the car with instructions to take
her straight home.

8.26 When the girl got into the car, she was very quiet and tearful.
She hardly spoke during the journey. A1 asked her what was
the matter but she just choked up; she was “monosyllabic”. He
asked her if she had been performing and she said “A little bit”.
He asked her if she had been in any programmes and she said
“I’m only 14”. He got the impression she had been one of the
‘fixees’ on Jim’ll Fix It but agreed in his interview with the Savile
investigation that that was only an impression or assumption. I
interpose that it seems to me to be most unlikely that the girl
had been a fixee on Jim’ll Fix It because the families of fixees
were usually invited to be in the audience during the recording
of the programme and this girl was plainly alone. Also, in the
1970s, Jim’ll Fix It was generally recorded at the BBC Theatre
at Shepherd’s Bush and not at Television Centre. When I
suggested to A1 that it sounded more likely that she had been a
member of the audience on Top of the Pops, he agreed that
that might well have been the case. However, it matters not
what programme she had been involved in.

8.27 A1 told us that he drove the girl to her home in Esher, a semi-
detached house in a quiet residential road. They arrived there
between 10pm and 11pm. He drew up with the offside of the
car against the pavement in front of the driveway of the
house. He tooted his horn and immediately a woman
(presumed to be the girl’s mother) came out to the car. A1
reached over and opened the offside rear door. The girl
scrambled out straight into her mother’s arms; she was
sobbing. A1 could hear what was said between the two
although he cannot now be sure of the detail. The mother
asked the girl “What’s the matter, darling?” The girl said

463
 something like, “It was Jimmy Savile” and was sobbing. She
seemed to be saying something about him having done
something which had made her cry. A1 thought he had told the
girl’s mother that he did not know what had happened but that,
whatever it was, it had happened at the BBC before she got
into his car. He said he was anxious that the mother should not
think that whatever had happened had anything to do with him.
He remembers asking the mother if it was all right for him to
leave and she said it was. He left.

8.28 He told us that the only report he made about this incident was
to his manager at the private hire company by which he was
employed. He did not report it to anyone at the BBC.

8.29 He was asked about how he came to speak to journalists at the

Mail. He said that initially a man had telephoned him; then later
he had had a longer telephone interview with a woman. When
he read the article which included material about him, he had
felt that it was inaccurate in some respects and he had not had
the opportunity to challenge it. First, he said that he had never
said that the girl he took home was 12. He believed that she
was 14. His present recollection was that she had told him she
was 14 but, if he was wrong about that, he certainly had the
impression she was about 14. He felt he could tell the
difference between a girl of 12 and one of 14 and this one did
not look 12.

8.30 Second, A1 told us that he had not told the Mail that he had
heard the girl in the car tell her mother that Savile had grabbed
her or attacked her. The conversation had not been so clear;
all he could say was that he had the impression that Savile had
done something which had made her cry. He was quite sure
that he had not told the Mail that the girl had said that Savile
had attacked her.

464
8.31 A1 accepted that he had told the Mail that he believed that the
girl had been appearing on Jim’ll Fix It. He is now doubtful
about whether he was right about that. It was only ever an
assumption and he has now accepted from me that, in the
1970s, that programme was generally made at the BBC
Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush and not at Television Centre. He
now thinks the girl may well have been in the audience of Top
of the Pops. Here again, the difference does not matter in
itself, although to my mind it suggests that A1 has been
prepared to assert as fact that which he has assumed to be so.

8.32 There were two aspects of A1’s evidence which the Savile
investigation was particularly anxious to investigate. These
were, first, his assertions that senior BBC staff were aware that
Savile was a danger to young girls and second, that BBC
drivers had been dismissed for talking about Savile’s sexual
misconduct.

8.33 A1 denied that he told the Mail that some of the drivers at the
BBC had previously been fired for talking about Savile’s
reputation. He explained to us that chauffeurs were not
supposed to gossip about their passengers. I have the
impression that he thought that the BBC took this very
seriously, although, from his evidence, it seems that many of
the chauffeurs did gossip about their passengers, many of
whom were celebrities.

8.34 A1 accepted that he might well have told the Mail that there
was a great deal of talk in the canteen and that some people
would say “Don’t mention anything about Jimmy Savile”. He
agreed that he might well have said that he feared that he might
lose his job if he said anything about Savile. However, he did
not, on this occasion, tell the Savile investigation of any specific
example of anyone losing his job. He had, of course, reported
to his boss at the private hire company what had happened so

465
 far as the young girl was concerned and had not suffered any ill
consequence. He told the Savile investigation that he would
have been concerned that, if anyone had reported this to the
BBC, he might not have worked for the BBC again. The BBC
would not tolerate any gossip or scandal concerning anybody in
the BBC. They would sack a chauffeur for gossiping. This was
not specifically in connection with Savile; it was general.

8.35 A1 agreed that he might well have said to the Mail that the BBC
‘chiefs’ in charge of the show (which he thought was Jim’ll Fix
It) knew very well that Savile had a reputation for assaulting
young contestants. In fact, he said that “producers” knew “all
about it”. Indeed at one stage he asserted that he himself had
told an “independent producer working on the programme”
about “it”. When asked why he believed that BBC producers
knew about Savile’s misconduct, he said that it was because
the man who had brought the young girl out to his car (who he
thought was an assistant director) had told him not to let the
young girl out of his sight. It appears to me that A1 must have
assumed that this man knew that Savile had assaulted the girl
and therefore the show’s producer must also have
known. Such an assumption does not seem unreasonable in
the circumstances although it is not necessarily right. From
what I have learned of the operation of the programmes on
which Savile worked, it seems to me that, if the girl had been on
Jim’ll Fix It, the producer would probably have known about any
incident affecting Savile; the team was very small and close-
knit. If, however, the girl had been in the audience of Top of the
Pops, it is less likely that the producer would have known. The
producer would almost certainly have been up in the gallery
and any decision about sending a girl home in a taxi might well
have been taken by a floor manager, an assistant director or
another member of the studio staff.

466
8.36 Moreover, I regret to say that I think it quite likely that studio
staff would not have reported the incident as it should have
been. I have heard of two other incidents on Top of the Pops
where a complaint was made to studio staff about Savile but
the complaint was not logged or reported as it should have
been. My conclusion on this issue is that A1 had no direct
knowledge that the chiefs on any show knew about the event
involving the girl or indeed about any misconduct by Savile. His
statement on that topic was based on assumption which,
although not unreasonable, may well have been wrong.

8.37 A1 also accepted that he probably told the Mail that the young
people on the show had to be escorted and chaperoned.
However, on questioning by the Savile investigation, it was
clear that he had no personal knowledge of this and what he
had told the Mail was based on rumour and gossip. I entirely
accept that A1 believed this to be true because of Savile’s bad
reputation. However, the assertion that the BBC had started
using chaperones to protect young girls from Savile and to
prevent him from luring them to his dressing room is without
evidential foundation.

8.38 When I discussed with him what I understand (from other

evidence) to have been the BBC’s practice in respect of
chaperones, he agreed that the BBC would obviously have to
ensure that young people taking part in shows were
accompanied while on the premises; they could not be let loose
to roam around the building. But he said that that did not apply
on Top of the Pops; young people in that audience came
without their parents and would make their own way home after
the show. He said that after Top of the Pops there would be a
“sort of a free-for-all”. I can understand why he said that. From
other evidence I have heard, it appears that the young people
who came to Top of the Pops were not individually

467
 accompanied or chaperoned; they were supposed to be shown
off the premises as a group but the evidence suggests that that
did not always happen as it should. But I have heard no
evidence that any special rules of chaperoning were laid down
by the BBC in connection with Savile and A1 did not provide
any such evidence.

8.39 In due course, we informed the Mail that A1 had told us that
some aspects of their article were inaccurate. The Mail
immediately provided the shorthand notes of the conversation
one of their journalists had had with A1. The Mail provided a
transcript of the notes. We commissioned another transcript
which showed that the Mail’s transcript was accurate. The Mail
also provided a brief attendance note which recorded how A1
had contacted the Mail to volunteer his story.

8.40 First, it appears from the notes that A1 did indeed tell the Mail
that the girl was 12. It also appears that he did say that he
heard the girl tell her mother that Savile had attacked her. The
notes also suggest that A1 did say that he knew of a driver who
had been dismissed for gossiping. Whether that was gossiping
about Savile is not clear. It is clear from the notes that A1 did
say something about drivers talking amongst themselves,
suggesting that, if you mentioned anything about Savile, you
would get the sack. It also appears from the notes that A1 had
told the Mail something to the effect that the BBC chiefs on the
show knew that Savile had a reputation for assaulting young
contestants.

8.41 In the light of the conflicts between what A1 had told the Savile
investigation and what he appeared to have told the Mail, we
have interviewed A1 on two further occasions. On these
occasions, A1 was adamant that he had not contacted the Mail
to offer his story. He asserted that they had contacted him first
and had telephoned him several times, putting various things to

468
 him. Later he suggested that, because, many years ago, he
had provided a Mail journalist with information, the newspaper
had his telephone number somewhere. I am sorry to say that I
think A1’s memory is playing tricks with him. The Mail’s
transcribed notes have every appearance of authenticity. So
does the attendance note of A1’s first telephone contact. I am
sure that it was A1 who first got in touch. A1’s suggestions as
to why the Mail contacted him tend to confirm the view that I
had earlier formed that A1 is prone to make assumptions and
reconstructions and then to assert them as facts.

8.42 As for saying that the girl was 12, A1 again asserted that he
had not said that. He was adamant that he told the Mail that
the girl was 14. He proffered by way of justification of his view
that he would not have had a 12-year old girl in his car because
a 12-year old would have had a mother or a guardian with her.
I think he is wrong and that he did say that the girl was 12. The
notes are clear. I have no reason to doubt them.

8.43 In the most recent conversation with A1, he asserted again that
he had never told the Mail that he had heard the girl say that
Savile had grabbed her or attacked her. The note of what he
had been recorded as saying by the Mail was read out to him
and he was asked to think back very carefully. After a few
moments, he said that he thought that was what he might have
said. After a few more moments thought, he said that he was
sure he had heard the girl use the word ‘attacked’, adding that
she was very hysterical. So, within a few minutes, A1 had
changed his evidence from asserting one thing to being sure
that the contrary was true.

8.44 A1 was then asked about the statement in the Mail that one of
the drivers had been sacked for talking about Savile. He said
that he had never said that. What he had said was that there
was an attitude that if you quoted anything to the media you

469
 would be in serious trouble. He then said that a driver in the
canteen had told him that he had been suspended for
gossiping, not about Savile but about another artist. Then
when the notes were read to him, he asserted that it was
correct that someone had been fired and escorted off the
premises for talking about Savile and he had said so to the
Mail. Asked how he knew this, he confirmed that one of the
drivers in the canteen had told him that someone he knew had
been dismissed for talking about Savile being over-fond of
young girls.

8.45 Finally, A1 was asked again about his assertion to the Mail that
Savile was an out and out pervert and everyone knew about it;
all the producers knew what was happening. He said that that
was right. They definitely knew. Asked if he meant producers
or assistant producers he said that, if the assistant knew, the
producer also knew because they were close. Anyone
connected with the production would have known of Savile’s
habit. Asked how he knew this, he said that the people he had
spoken to in the canteen all knew of Savile’s reputation. When
reminded that he appeared to have said that all the producers
knew what was happening, he said that he would never have
said that because producers were “the higher ups”. It was the
assistant producers who were bound to know. When reminded
that he appeared to have told the Mail that he had spoken to an
independent producer about Savile, and the reply had been that
“we know all about that”, A1 said that that was correct. Asked
who the producer was, he said he could not remember names.
Then he said that he had told this producer about the incident
with the young girl. But he could not remember who it was he
had told.

8.46 I am satisfied that A1 is an honest man who has tried his best
to remember events going back to the 1970s. But he has great

470
 difficulty in distinguishing between true memory and
reconstruction and assumption. I think his memory has played
tricks with him, not only as to what happened in the 1970s but
also as to what happened in 2012 when he spoke to a journalist
from the Mail. I can only conclude that his evidence is
unreliable in many respects. I do appreciate the difficulty he
has been in. When he spoke to us he was 84 years old. I think
that A1 probably did take a young girl home from Television
Centre in a state of distress caused by something done by
Savile. It is unfortunate that this victim has not come forward.

8.47 It seems to me that the Mail’s article, although firmly based on

what A1 said to their journalist, is nonetheless unreliable. No
doubt the story sounded plausible and I do not criticise the Mail
for running it. However, close questioning of A1 as to why he
has made his various assertions, shows that they are based on
rumour, gossip and assumption. Such information as A1 had
about Savile’s reputation within the BBC came from gossip in
the canteen and corridors with people such as other drivers,
receptionists, waitresses, make-up girls, dressers, dancers and
young actresses. There is no reliable evidence that he had
contact with any member of BBC staff who was in any position
of authority.

8.48 It is no part of my function to criticise an elderly man whose

account turns out to be unreliable. But my overall conclusion in
respect of this article is that the public should not rely on it as
amounting to evidence that the BBC chiefs knew of Savile’s
reputation for sexually assaulting ‘young contestants’, that the
BBC had ever dismissed anyone for talking about Savile’s
reputation or that the BBC employed chaperones to ensure that
girls could not be lured into Savile’s dressing room.

471
Daily Telegraph – Source – David Hardwick

8.49 The Savile investigation is aware of three articles of which

David Hardwick is the source. On 8 November 2012, The Daily
Telegraph published a piece headed “Pundit claims sex
allegation hushed up; BBC.”

8.50 The text reported:

“A radio show pundit lost his spot on the BBC

after reporting Jimmy Savile’s abuse of young
girls to his bosses, he claimed yesterday. David
Hardwick was becoming a regular guest on
Savile’s Speakeasy radio show in the early
1970s but he said that came to an abrupt end
after he told the BBC he witnessed girls,
possibly as young as 13, leaving Savile’s motor
home in an isolated area of a service station in
Leicester more than 40 years ago. Mr Hardwick
claims he was told by BBC executives never to
mention the allegation again through fear that
“we could all lose our jobs”. Mr Hardwick, 67,
from Alfreton, Notts, and now an author, said:
“The Beeb certainly can’t say they didn’t know
about his abuse because I told them. When it
all came out last month I just thought ‘told you
so’. “I was always suspicious of him after that. I
could see those characteristics when he was
around kids on shows like Jim’ll Fix It”.

8.51 On the same day, The Sun carried a similar story, headed
“What does Ripper know about Savile?” The text of the piece
reported:

“A radio guest of Savile has told how BBC

bosses ignored his warning about the vile DJ 40
years ago. David Hardwick, 67, was a Radio 1
regular with Savile’s Speakeasy in the early
1970s. He recalled getting a lift from the
pervert, who parked his motorhome in a remote
part of an M1 service station. David went for a
meal – and returned to find Savile with three
girls. “They were only 13-15 and I don’t know
where they came from,” he said. “I can only
think it was pre-arranged. I asked him who they
were and he just replied, ‘It happens

472
 everywhere I go, I have fans after me’. “I
reported my suspicions but the BBC never
asked me back again.”

8.52 The Daily Mirror carried a similar piece at about the same time.
I will not set it all out as in many respects it is the same as the
other two pieces, but it gave a little more detail about the report
to the BBC. It was said that Mr Hardwick had told a BBC boss
he had witnessed young teenage girls leaving the motorhome.
It continued:

“He told them how shocked he was to see the

youngsters appear looking “dishevelled” after
the murky service station rendezvous in the
early 1970s. Talking about his attempt to alert
Savile’s bosses, he explained: “I told my friend
and producer Roy Trevivian who passed it up. I
was called by Roy, who has since died, a few
days after the allegation. I was told ‘we will not
be looking into this because they are only
suspicions and because it is Jimmy Savile, it
would be dangerous to do so, as we could all
lose our jobs’. That to me says Savile could do
what he wanted while at the Beeb but they
certainly can’t say they did not know about his
abuse because I told them.”

The article also includes more detail about his journey with
Savile.

8.53 The Savile investigation has interviewed Mr Hardwick. He gave

an account which, on first hearing, I found entirely plausible and
which tallied very closely indeed with what he had reportedly
told the press.

8.54 Mr Hardwick told me that, in 1971, he was working as a

freelance journalist and was interested in breaking into radio
journalism. He was a born-again Christian and thought his
story might be of interest to the BBC. He wrote to the BBC and
his letter was channelled to the Religious Broadcasting
department and in particular to a producer named Reverend
Roy Trevivian. In due course, Reverend Trevivian and Mr

473
 Hardwick recorded a programme together. According to Mr
Hardwick, the two men got on well and, on completion of the
recording, agreed to stay in touch. Mr Hardwick says that,
about two weeks later, he was invited to go to London to take
part in Speakeasy, which was produced by Reverend Trevivian.
It was a discussion programme aimed at a teenage audience
and was hosted by Savile. According to Mr Hardwick, the
programme went out live on a Sunday afternoon from the
basement studio at Broadcasting House. Mr Hardwick had to
travel from Mansfield to London and back by train.

8.55 Mr Hardwick said that he was invited back to take part in two
more Speakeasy programmes in London and also met Savile at
a recording of Savile’s Travels in Nottingham. On the third visit
to London, which Mr Hardwick said would have been in March
1971, Savile asked how he was travelling back to the North and
offered him a lift home after the show. The show finished at
about 3pm but Savile had to attend a meeting and offered to
collect Mr Hardwick from the canteen when he was ready to
leave. They left London at about 4:15 - 4.30pm. As they were
driving past Watford Gap Services, Savile said that he was
feeling a bit tired and asked Mr Hardwick if he would mind if
they took a break at the next service station, which was
Leicester Forest East. Mr Hardwick readily agreed. When they
reached there, Savile drove onto the service area and stopped
at the end of the commercial vehicle park, furthest from the
cafeteria. He explained that if he were parked any nearer,
there would be pandemonium. Savile told Mr Hardwick that he
wanted a short rest and was going to put his head down.

8.56 Mr Hardwick went off to find something to eat. He returned

about one hour and 15 minutes later. He knocked on the door
of the camper-van but there was no response. Eventually,
Savile appeared from within and opened the passenger door.

474
 At that moment, the side door opened and two young girls
stepped out. (It should be noted that The Sun had reported that
Mr Hardwick had said that three girls came out.) Both
appeared rather dishevelled. Savile appeared to blush and
made a remark to the effect that they were fans and he often
got them coming to see him. The two girls walked to the
service road – away from the service area. Savile and Mr
Hardwick then resumed their journey. Savile barely spoke, in
sharp contrast to the earlier part of the journey when he had
been very talkative.

8.57 Mr Hardwick claimed that he was disturbed by what he had

seen; it appeared to him that Savile had had some form of
sexual encounter with the girls. The following day, he
telephoned Reverend Trevivian and told him what he had seen.
Reverend Trevivian was astounded and said he would discuss
the issue with Mr Penry Jones, Head of Religious Broadcasting.
Mr Hardwick claimed that, on the Wednesday (that is two days
later), Reverend Trevivian called him back and told him that he
had discussed the matter with Mr Jones. Mr Jones had found
the story incredible and had added that the BBC would not be
able to take it further because it was only suspicion and also
because the BBC would have a lot to lose by upsetting Savile.
Mr Hardwick said that, although he contacted Reverend
Trevivian again on a couple of occasions, he was never again
invited to take part in a BBC programme. He summed up his
attitude by saying that it appeared to him that celebrity was
more important to the BBC than reality. When the Savile story
broke in 2012, Mr Hardwick was contacted by various
newspapers who had been alerted to the fact that he had a
story to tell by friends to whom he had disclosed these events.
Although reluctant, he eventually agreed to tell his story to the
Mansfield Chad.

475
8.58 If this story is true, it demonstrates that a BBC Head of
Department had been made aware of conduct which appeared
to be highly improper and which most certainly called for some
investigation. It would mean that the Head of Religious
Broadcasting, Radio, at the time, decided to turn a blind eye to
apparently improper (although not necessarily unlawful)
conduct for commercial reasons. As I have said, I began by
thinking that Mr Hardwick was a reliable witness and that the
story was true. However, on further investigation, I have come
to the conclusion, for several reasons, that I cannot accept the
story as true or accurate. In short, there is no part of it on
which I can rely.

8.59 First, our further investigations into contemporaneous BBC

records revealed that Speakeasy did not go out live at 2pm on
a Sunday afternoon. It was always recorded. The
contemporaneous records show that, in 1971, the programme
was always recorded on a weekday, usually on a Thursday or
Friday evening. The recording generally ended at about
7.30pm or 8pm. Witness after witness who had been involved
in the production of Speakeasy confirmed that that was so.
One or two were prepared to concede that there might have
been an odd occasion when a programme had gone out live,
possibly if an important guest were only able to attend on the
Sunday. The written records do not support even that. The
evidence points overwhelmingly to a recording on a weekday
evening. When this was put to Mr Hardwick by telephone some
weeks after the first interview, he asserted that the suggestion
was nonsense. There was no way in practical terms that he
could have attended anything in London at that time; he would
not have been able to get back home afterwards. He would not
have been prepared even to contemplate such a journey. He
then suggested that the other witnesses were not being truthful.

476
 He was adamant that the programme went out live on a Sunday
and that he had attended as he had previously stated.

8.60 A further difficulty was that the contemporaneous records

showed (and the other witnesses recalled) that, when made in
London, the programme was almost always recorded at the
Paris Theatre in Lower Regent Street and not at Broadcasting
House. Mr Hardwick asserted that he had never been to the
Paris Theatre. In fact, records show that in March 1971, when
Mr Hardwick claims to have been driven back from London by
Savile, all four programmes were recorded in the provinces,
namely at Broadmoor, Glasgow, Bristol and Birmingham.
However, I do not regard that discrepancy as very significant as
Mr Hardwick could easily be mistaken as to the date of the
event.

8.61 It was put to Mr Hardwick that the nub of his original story (that
he had seen two girls get out of Savile’s camper-van) appeared
unreliable. If the recording had not finished until 7.30pm or
8pm and had been followed by a meeting lasting over an hour
(as Mr Hardwick had claimed), the two men could not have left
London until about 9pm. Mr Hardwick agreed that that was so
and asserted that he would never have agreed to go to London
at all if it had meant returning home so late in the evening. He
was adamant that the programme had gone out live and he had
left London in the late afternoon.

8.62 There seems to be no room for mistake or misunderstanding in

the evidence. Either Mr Hardwick is wrong or all the BBC
records and the recollections of other witnesses are wrong. I
have not until now mentioned that it has transpired that Mr
Hardwick has a long record of offences of dishonesty. I was
not aware of that when he was first interviewed. After that had
been discovered, he was asked about his criminal record and
agreed that, as an adult, he had served several terms of

477
 imprisonment for offences of deception. Now that I am aware
of that, I feel bound to take it into account when making my
assessment of Mr Hardwick’s credibility. I have come to the
conclusion that his account cannot be accepted. Whether he
ever attended Speakeasy I do not know but I am quite satisfied
that his account relating to the journey north, his sighting of the
young girls and his reporting of these matters to the BBC
cannot be relied upon.

8.63 Mr Hardwick is aware of my conclusion about his evidence.

Given this, I was surprised that he was prepared to let Channel
5 include an interview with him in its programme Crimes That
Shook Britain: Jimmy Savile, which was broadcast on 12 March
2015.

8.64 I do not for a moment criticise Channel 5 or the producers of its

programme or the newspapers who printed this story.
Mr Hardwick is a most plausible raconteur and they broadcast
or printed the story as he told it to them. But I do not believe it
to be accurate.

The Mirror – Source – Alan Hardwick

8.65 Alan Hardwick (who has no connection with David Hardwick

mentioned above) was a newsreader for ITV for some years.
He also worked for other companies including the BBC.

8.66 On 26 October 2012, the Mirror’s website carried an article

headed:

“I told BBC Jimmy Savile groped a girl …. and

they laughed it off”: Former newsreader still
‘haunted’ by scene 20 years on.”

The article continued:

“He said other staff told him: “Don’t you know

Savile likes them young?” A former newsreader
claims he was “laughed at” when he told BBC

478
 staff Jimmy Savile groped a girl in a ITV studio.
Journalist Alan Hardwick, 63, said he saw
Savile put his arm around a girl of about 13
before pinching her bottom. Alan complained to
a manager at Yorkshire Television, who told him
Savile “was just being friendly” and she was
probably a relative. He said other staff told him:
“Don’t you know Savile likes them young?”
Alan, who worked on the local news show
Calendar from 1973 to 2002, said: “The thing
that’s always stayed with me was the look on
the girl’s face. “It wasn’t quite horror but it was
hard to describe. “He turned towards her and
gave her a huge grin. It was haunting, it has
haunted me for 20 years. “It did not occur to me
at the time to take the matter further.”

Calendar was filmed at studios in Leeds, where

Savile was a regular guest as a local celebrity and
fundraiser.

An ITV spokesman said the network took such

allegations “very seriously” and pledged to
investigate”.

8.67 On reading this article, I was puzzled as to why an incident

which appeared to have taken place at the studios of Yorkshire
Television, which was part of ITV, had been reported to people
at the BBC. On contacting Mr Hardwick, he confirmed that he
had indeed witnessed an incident involving Savile but said that
any reference to the BBC in the article must be a mistake by
the newspaper. However, with the assistance of the Mirror, the
Savile investigation was able to trace the source of their article
back to an article published in the Lincolnshire Echo, whose
journalist had interviewed Mr Hardwick. It then became clear
that Mr Hardwick had told the journalist: “I mentioned it to other
people in the industry and at the BBC and I was laughed at
because they all said, ‘Don’t you know that Savile likes them
young?’ I felt a bit of a fool.”

8.68 When reminded about the article in the Lincolnshire Echo, Mr

Hardwick told us “I think a misunderstanding may have crept in.
Possibly my fault”. He added:

479
 “For clarity, the only people at the beeb who
may have talked to me about anything that
concerned Savile would be news crews. As you
can imagine, over the years I met many of
them. The specific incident would have been
mentioned”.

8.69 I am grateful to the Mirror for telling us the source of the

information on which it relied for its article. The substance of
the article follows closely what had been published in the
Lincolnshire Echo, namely that Mr Hardwick had told staff at the
BBC about the incident he had witnessed to which the
response had been “Don’t you know that Savile likes them
young?”

8.70 As I have said, the content of this article is entirely in

accordance with what Mr Hardwick had told the journalist
concerned. Anyone reading the whole article would not be in
any way misled by it. However, in my experience, many people
do not read articles carefully and thoroughly. They often only
look at the headline. This headline gives the impression that a
report had been made to “the BBC” which, to my mind, implies
that it was made to someone senior and that the response of
“laughing it off” was the response of someone in authority at the
BBC. All I wish to point out is that it should not be inferred from
this headline that Mr Hardwick told anyone senior in the BBC
what he had seen or that the response came from an
authoritative BBC voice.

8.71 For the sake of completeness, I mention that The Express also
ran a short piece about Mr Hardwick with a photograph of him
said to have been taken while he was giving evidence at ‘the
inquiry’. This report makes it plain that what he had seen took
place at ITV studios and was reported to an ITV ‘boss’. Then
there is a quote from Mr Hardwick as follows, “I mentioned it to
others in the industry and at the BBC. They all said, ‘Don’t you
know that Savile likes them young?’” This article does not carry

480
 any implication that anyone senior in the BBC had been told of
this incident.

Express – 7 October 2012 – Source – Christopher Biggins

8.72 The Express published a piece on 7 October 2012 of which the

headline stated that BBC managers knew that Savile was
abusing children in its studios. Below that it said “Christopher
Biggins believes the BBC should be “held to account” over the
Jimmy Savile scandal, calling it the “worst kept secret” in
showbusiness”. Mr Biggins was quoted as saying:

“The trouble with the Jimmy Savile thing is that

we’ve known about it for years.

The BBC are the real culprits because they

covered it up because of the two big [TV] series
they had with him and they were very, very out
of order. That’s absolutely true.

There were heads of department [at the BBC]

who should be held to account and I think it will
come out who they were. The other thing is that
they didn’t want Stoke Mandeville [Hospital] to
suffer, but I think they were wrong. Stoke
Mandeville wouldn’t have suffered.”

The quotation then continued with reference to the press and

why they had had such a soft approach to Savile; Mr Biggins
gave his opinion about Savile as being “strange” and “dirty”.
Then, finally, he returned to the BBC, and is reported to have
said:

“The BBC should care for the people that are on

their premises. There must have been heads of
department who were trying to protect their
programmes. He [Savile] believed he was
above it all, he believed he could do anything,
that is the terrifying thing.”

8.73 The Savile investigation has contacted Mr Biggins as I wished

to know whether he would be able to contribute any factual
evidence about what the BBC knew about Savile. However, he

481
 said that he did not know anything of his own knowledge; all he
had said was based on the gossip that was going round at the
time. He agreed that he probably had said words very like
those he was reported to have said. Mr Biggins also said that
he could not remember where the interview had taken place.
He thought that it might have taken place on a social occasion,
in which case he might have been caught off guard and have
said things that he would not have said in a more formal
environment.

8.74 While I do not criticise the Express for publishing its piece, it is
unfortunate that the article and in particular the headline gives
the impression that Mr Biggins had actual knowledge of the
matters of which he was speaking. He has assured us that he
did not.

Contactmusic.com website – 17 October 2012 – Source – John

Simpson

8.75 On 17 October 2012, a post appeared on this website under the

heading “Jimmy Savile – More Claims That The BBC Knew of
Jimmy Savile’s Sexual Acts”. It included the (inaccurate)
allegation that The Guardian had reported that “veteran Beeb
journalist John Simpson had claimed that top executives at the
broadcaster were fully aware of Savile’s actions throughout the
1950s and 1960s, saying that even the Director-General knew
of what the apparent paedophile was up to”. Then, quoting a
passage from John Simpson’s book Strange Places,
Questionable People84, the article continued:

“Week after week, children from all over the

country could win competitions to visit the BBC
and meet Uncle Dick. … He would welcome
them, show them around, give them lunch, then
take them to the gents and interfere with them.

84
J. Simpson, Strange Places, Questionable People, Pan, 2008. The passage appears
at p. 80.

482
 If parents complained, the director general’s
office would write saying the nation wouldn’t
understand such an accusation against a much-
loved figure.”

8.76 Two things must be noted about this. The first is that this post
appears to have been based on a misreading or
misunderstanding of an article which appeared in The Guardian
on 17 October 2012. That article was headed “Jimmy Savile
row deepens after claims of abuse by another BBC presenter”.
The subheading stated “Journalist John Simpson wrote in
autobiography that top executives knew of allegations against
star in 50s and 60s”. The article was accompanied by a
photograph of Savile. The real gist of The Guardian article was
that Mr Simpson had claimed in his autobiography that BBC
executives had been aware of sexual abuse by “another star
presenter” in the 1950s and 1960s. This other star presenter
who was referred to as “Uncle Dick”, had been a household
name in the 1920s and until his death in 1967. Clearly Mr
Simpson was not referring to Savile and had said nothing in his
book about Savile or the BBC’s knowledge of anything that he
did. Yet the post on the contactmusic.com website claimed that
Mr Simpson had asserted that executives were aware of
Savile’s sexual misconduct. This was wholly inaccurate and
misleading.

8.77 Without in any way criticising The Guardian, I must say,

however, that I can see how the website’s error came to be
made. On a cursory reading of the headlines of The Guardian
article and with a glance at the photograph of Savile, one might
pick up the impression that Mr Simpson was writing about
allegations against Savile (viz ‘the star’). On a more careful
reading, it was clear that he was not.

8.78 Second, in the passage from Mr Simpson’s book quoted in The

Guardian article, Mr Simpson was not speaking of matters

483
 which he himself knew about; he was quoting the words spoken
to him by an elderly, allegedly “gin–sodden” former BBC
presenter who had worked with a man known on air as Uncle
Dick, who was involved with children’s programmes prior to
1950. Mr Simpson was not in any way vouching for the truth or
accuracy of the account he had been given. In any event, it
was obvious that Mr Simpson’s elderly informant was not
talking about Savile; she was talking about “Uncle Dick”. From
the quotation itself it is obvious that this could not have been
Savile. Savile was not involved in children’s programmes in the
relevant period.

8.79 This article or post is inaccurate and misleading; it is just plain

wrong. When we pointed this out to the Director of
contactmusic.com, he immediately acknowledged the mistake.
He offered to take it down and has done so. It had been
available on the site for several months and I have no idea how
many people might, as a result, have been misled into thinking
that the BBC (up to and including the Director–General) had
‘known’ about Savile’s misconduct even in the 1950s and
1960s.

Reports the Savile Investigation Has Been Unable to Investigate

8.80 An article appeared on the Mail Online on 3 October 2012,

headed “BBC Radio 1 boss ‘knew about Jimmy Savile sex
abuse allegations in the 1970s but was only worried that they
would emerge in the Press’”. The article makes reference to an
actress and model who appeared as a dancer on Top of the
Pops between 1964 and 1966. The article states that the
woman complained to the show’s producer about Savile’s
inappropriate conduct but that no action was taken. We wished
to investigate this allegation but have been unable to do so.
We asked the Daily Mail to see whether this woman would be
prepared to be interviewed, on the basis that we would not

484
 reveal her identity. We have been told that she has declined to
speak to us. We know who was the producer of Top of the
Pops in the 1960s but cannot interview him as he is dead.

8.81 On 6 November 2013, the Mirror published a piece headed:

“Pervert Jimmy Savile manipulated BBC security staff so they
would allow girls into his dressing room”. It continued:

“Handwritten message reveals how the twisted

celebrity deliberately cultivated a phony
friendship with doormen at the corporation.

Serial pervert Jimmy Savile frequently

manipulated BBC security staff so they would
allow girls into his dressing room.

A handwritten message, published by the Mirror

today, reveals how the twisted celebrity
deliberately cultivated a phony friendship with
doormen at the corporation so they would never
question his requests.

The sickeningly chummy note, addressed to

“BBC security friends” …was scrawled on
notepaper from Stoke Mandeville hospital
where he was a fundraiser.

[A facsimile of the note was shown.] It said

“Please admit these three ladies to my room.
Tickets inside. Ta. Jimmy Savile”

A BBC insider said:

“It perfectly illustrates the position of power

Savile had.

He flattered and made friends with security staff

and this enabled him to carry out his
horrendous attacks.”

Savile used BBC studios to abuse dozens of

girls and young women.

….

Ironically the note printed here was not one

intended to lure young victims to his lair at the

485
 BBC. It is instead believed to apply to three
women members of his staff.”

8.82 The Mail Online picked up this story and also published a copy
of the note.

8.83 The Savile investigation very much wished to interview the

Mirror’s source, who is described only as a “BBC insider”. We
asked the Mirror to ask the source whether he or she would be
willing to speak to us but we have now been told that the
source is not willing to do so.

8.84 Prior to receiving the Mirror’s response, purely by chance, the

Savile investigation has been able to establish how the note
came to the attention of the Press. Janet Cope, who was for
many years a member of staff at Stoke Mandeville Hospital and
was also a longstanding friend and personal assistant to Savile,
told us that she had given the note to a man from a news
agency in Reading and she thinks he must have passed it on to
other members of the press. She said that, following an article
in a newspaper (she cannot remember which one) about
security at BBC premises, a reporter had asked her how she
used to get into the BBC. She told him that it was easy; she
would have a piece of paper. My understanding is that Savile
used to give her a note asking for admission. She said that she
went to the BBC quite often and did not always have a piece of
paper and just walked in. Sometimes the commissionaires
would know that Savile was in the building and would let her
through. But, the piece of paper she had given to the press
was one she had used when she and two colleagues from
Stoke Mandeville had gone in to see a show.

8.85 This note tells one absolutely nothing about unlawful or

inappropriate conduct on BBC premises. Given the BBC’s
policy of permitting members of the Talent to invite guests to
come in to watch shows and to entertain them in their dressing

486
 rooms, I do not see anything improper about Savile arranging
for tickets for Stoke Mandeville staff to see a show in which he
was performing and to ask security officers to admit the women
to his room where their tickets would await them. The article
implies a great deal more, which may be true and justified but
which I cannot investigate as the ‘BBC insider’ source is
unwilling to speak to me.

Other Reports

8.86 The reader may have noticed that there have been some
particular media stories alleging that the BBC was aware of
Savile’s misconduct many years ago to which I have not yet
referred in this chapter. That is because I have been able to
look into them in detail, have found them to be of substance
and have reported on them elsewhere.

8.87 One concerns Derek Chinnery who, in an interview with BBC

reporter Sima Kotecha for the BBC Radio 4 Broadcasting
House show said that, in the 1970s he had asked Savile
“what's all this, these rumours we hear about you, Jimmy?”
Savile had denied any wrongdoing and Mr Chinnery had not
taken matters further. A full account of that incident will be
found in Chapter 11. Related to this and also in Chapter 11, is
to be found the result of my investigation into the evidence of
Rodney Collins, a BBC publicity officer, whose interview with
the BBC provided the source material for a piece which
appeared in the Daily Mail on 3 October 2012.

8.88 Another story arises from information given to Channel 4 News

by Mr Richard Pearson, a former BBC employee, who stated
that, in the late 1970s, he had heard Savile say that he had
‘had’ three 14-year old girls in his caravan that morning. He
said that that had been said in the hearing of Canon David

487
 Winter, the producer of a BBC Radio 1 programme Speakeasy.
A full account of that incident is also to be found in Chapter 11.

8.89 On 6 June 2013, The Daily Telegraph published an article

headlined “BBC was told 40 years ago of risk to young girls on
Top of the Pops”. The article appears to be accurate and I
discuss the issues it raises in Chapter 9.

Conclusions

8.90 It is unfortunate that the public has gathered the impression that
the BBC had been told time and time again about Savile’s
misconduct. It has become received wisdom that that was so.
Examination of the facts relating to the reports I have discussed
in this chapter demonstrates that this impression is misleading.
In some cases, it is easy to see how the misleading
impressions have come about. In one case, David Hardwick’s
account is so riddled with inaccuracy that I have concluded that
it is untrue and that he has misled the newspaper. In another,
the misquoted extract from Mr Simpson’s book appears to me
to arise from carelessness on the part of the website.

8.91 The report based on information from Mr Nicolson has been the
most difficult to resolve. Mr Nicolson is adamant that he did not
tell anyone in authority that he had seen Savile in a dressing
room with a young girl. The Sun is adamant that he told them
that he did. For the reasons explained above, my conclusion is
that this piece should not be relied upon to support a belief that
senior managers at the BBC had been told about Savile’s
activities.

8.92 It does not follow from this analysis of some of the media
reports that I am saying that nobody in the BBC was aware of
Savile’s misconduct. Some people were. I have investigated
the extent of their awareness in as much depth as has been
possible and will report upon it in the following chapters. This

488
chapter seeks only to clarify and where necessary correct the
misleading impressions which have been given as a result of
some of these reports.

489
490
 TER 9 – TO
CHAPT OP OF TH
HE POPS

Introdu
uction

9.1 Top of
o the Pop
ps was brroadcast on
o BBC One
O weekly from
January 1964 until July 20
006. Savile appeare
ed regularrly from
1964 until
u 1984. He was the presen e first programme
nter on the
which went out live on 1 Ja
anuary 196
64 from a converted
c church
ng in Dicke
buildin enson Road
d, Manche
ester. He was
w brough
ht back
to take
e part in th
he very last programm
me in July 2006, at the
t end
of which there was
w a shot of him sw
witching off the studio
o lights.
His pa
articipation
n in this programme
p e, which was
w very popular
p
with yo
oung audie
ences, musst have contributed in
n no small part to
his cellebrity status in the eyes
e of many young people.
p

9.2 An intteresting in
nsight into umstances in which Savile
o the circu
was chosen to be the firsst disc jockkey presen
nter came to our
attention among ed rushes filmed in preparatio
g the unuse on for a
amme calle
progra ed Top of the
t Pops – The True
e Story, bro
oadcast
on 1 January 2001. B Cotton
Bill n, former Head off Light
ainment, e
Enterta explained how
h one of
o the team
m had sug
ggested
Savile as the prresenter an
nd he, Mr Cotton, th
hought this
s was a
good idea
i as he
e regarded
d Savile ass “a remarkkable perfo
ormer”.
Howevver, Anna Instone, who
w was Head of the
t Gramo
ophone
Deparrtment, in effect
e in charge of all the record
d programm
mes on
BBC Radio in the days before BBC
B Radio 1, was much
opposed to this idea and told Mr Cotton that she thoug
ght that
errible man
Savile was “a te n, terrible”. Mr Cotton does no
ot seem
ve asked he
to hav er why she
e was of th
hat opinion
n or to have
e taken
any no
otice of her. Savile was
w appoin
nted and, when
w Ms Instone
I
found out, she ra
ang Mr Cotton and, according
a t Mr Cotto
to on, told
him he
e was a “sshit”. On the film cllip, Mr Cottton laughe
ed and
said th
hat he had
d often wo
ondered wh
hat Ms Ins
stone would have
though
ht if she ha
ad known that
t Savile
e was going to kneel before
the Qu
ueen to be
e knighted. That wass, of course
e, at a time
e when

49
91
 Savile’s reputation ran high. With the benefit of hindsight, how
wise Ms Instone was.

9.3 As I have explained in Chapter 5, Savile used his association

with Top of the Pops as bait for young girls. In the 1960s and
1970s, when he was at the height of his fame in the world of
pop music, the offer of the opportunity to attend Top of the
Pops must have been thrilling for many teenagers. It opened
the prospect not only of appearing on what was then an iconic
television programme but also of meeting singers and pop
groups. Given that Savile could also be charming when he
chose to be, he must have seemed enormously attractive to
some of those with whom he came in contact. Savile exploited
this advantage to provide himself with a supply of girls willing to
have sexual intercourse with him. I am satisfied from the
evidence of Val (C28) and Angie (C27) (see paragraphs 5.10 to
5.29) that Savile frequently invited young girls to Top of the
Pops. They made his dressing room their base. They went
back to his flat or camper-van with him for sex and attended
upon him in other places at his command. I am also satisfied
that, on occasion, he would pick up girls at Top of the Pops;
C12 and C39 are examples of that, see paragraphs 5.58-5.60
and 5.47-5.53 above. Yet, nobody in the BBC appeared to
notice what was happening or, if they did, they did not think that
it was necessary to take steps to put a stop to it.

9.4 Later in this chapter, I will set out the results of my investigation
into what BBC staff on Top of the Pops did or did not notice
about Savile’s conduct in relation to young girls and boys, what
they did or did not do about it and why. Before that I must
describe how and where Top of the Pops operated, the
problems which arose in relation to the protection of young
people and the BBC’s attitude towards these problems.

492
A Brief History

9.5 As I have said, Top of the Pops began in Manchester in 1964

from where it was broadcast live. In 1965, it moved to London
for a few months then back to Manchester. The show was
successful from the start. From about February 1966, it was
made in London, sometimes at Lime Grove Studios, sometimes
at Television Centre, until 1969 when it transferred definitively
to Television Centre and was, after that, broadcast in colour
rather than black and white. Also, instead of live transmission,
it was recorded on a Wednesday evening and broadcast on a
Thursday. In about 1990, the show moved to Riverside
Studios, Elstree, until 2002 when it came back for its final four
years at Television Centre. Practically all the evidence the
Savile investigation has heard relating to Top of the Pops
concerns its long span at Television Centre.

How Top of the Pops Operated

9.6 The format of the programme remained essentially the same

over many years. It featured several musical numbers which
were on their way up, or at the top of, the charts; the week’s
number one was always played. So far as possible, the singers
or groups would be present in the studio, performing their
routine but generally ‘lip-syncing’ to their own recorded music.
Sometimes, if it was not possible to have a group or singer in
the studio, the performance would be filmed in advance and
slotted into the programme. Sometimes, if a group or singer
had taken part in one programme and then climbed further in
the charts (for example, if the song went to number one and
had to be included) the film clip of the first appearance would
be used again. Later, groups or singers would prepare videos
of new numbers as part of their publicity material and these
would be made available to the BBC if a singer or group could
not appear on the show.

493
9.7 The whole programme was linked together by one or two disc
jockey presenters who would introduce each act. Savile
appeared very frequently while the show ran in Manchester; the
only other regular presenter there was David Jacobs. When
the show moved to London, several other disc jockeys were
used. Savile would appear at least once a month, sometimes
more often. By the 1980s, he appeared infrequently and many
other disc jockeys took part.

9.8 Because the show was produced throughout the whole year, it
was necessary to involve a number of producers and directors.
Initially, the main producer was Johnnie Stewart but others
were soon added to the team. In the 1960s and early 1970s,
these included Stanley Dorfman, Colin Charman, Mel Cornish
and Brian Whitehouse. Robin Nash was a producer during the
1970s. Michael Hurll became the main producer in about 1981.

9.9 There was a small production team. As well as a producer and

director, there would be a producer’s assistant (later called a
production assistant, which is how I refer to the role in the
Report) and a secretary. On recording nights, the production
staff would be in the gallery, directing events. On the studio
floor, there would be a floor manager and assistant floor
manager, several cameramen and sound engineers, several
floor assistants or ‘runners’ and, in the early days, about six
‘stand-ins’, whose function I will explain later.

The Audience

9.10 An important part of the show was the participating audience.

They were filmed dancing, the intention apparently being to
create the atmosphere of a discotheque. I am uncertain how
many there were in the audience. Stan Appel, one of the
show’s directors and later a producer, thought there were about
100; some witnesses thought perhaps 60 to 80. One witness

494
 said that in the early days there were only about 20; another
thought there were about 50.

9.11 The production team wanted the audience to be good-looking,

fashionably dressed and also to be good dancers. Mr Dorfman,
who worked on the show from its inception in 1964 until about
1971, said that, in the early days in Manchester, Cecil Korer,
the floor manager, used to go around the nightclubs inviting
young people to attend. I have heard that tickets were made
available through the Cavern Club in Liverpool and I have also
been told that a model agency in Manchester used to receive
tickets with a note inviting any girls who would like to attend. In
short, in the early days it seems that the BBC had to seek out a
suitable audience. However, by the time the show moved to
London, it appears that at least some tickets were available to
the public on application. These became much sought-after.
Applications were not handled by the BBC Ticket Unit, as was
the case for most programmes, but by the Top of the Pops
production office itself. Some audience members were still
scouted in night clubs. According to Mr Whitehouse, who made
a statement for the purpose of a police investigation in 1972
and also spoke on Top of the Pops – The True Story broadcast
in 2001, staff used to go around the London clubs and
discotheques in the evening, handing out tickets to suitable
dancers. The programme also had what Mr Whitehouse
described as a nucleus of regular dancers chosen for their
dancing expertise and because they became used to dancing
near television equipment, an important safety factor.

9.12 In addition to the regular ‘nucleus’ and those found in clubs and
discotheques, disc jockeys, artists and members of the
production team could have an allocation of tickets if they
wanted. I have seen a memorandum dated 1976 from the
Studio Audiences department which confirms that it was

495
 common for producers to take quite large allocations of tickets
for popular television shows. Some members of the production
team of Top of the Pops would invite friends and family; others
would invite young people from stage or dance schools. It
seems, however, that at least until 1972, some audience
members never had tickets at all. Savile himself would invite
whoever he wanted (for example the members of his London
Team) and, certainly in the early days, they did not have tickets.
Some senior members of the production team would invite
guests without obtaining tickets. BBC management outside the
Top of the Pops production team was aware of these practices.
A BBC memorandum dated 8 April 1971 stated that “problems
had occurred at the studio entrance by visitors claiming that
they had been invited by Stanley Dorfman, Jimmy Saville [sic]
or by one of the members of a Group”. These people were
“vetted” and admitted. Other non-ticket holders might be young
people who had attended on one occasion with a ticket and had
been “spotted” as being good dancers and asked to come back,
possibly by a director or floor manager or presenter. On their
return, they might not need tickets.

9.13 The BBC attempted to tighten the ticket arrangements in the

wake of the publicity surrounding the death of Claire McAlpine,
a 15-year old girl who killed herself on 30 March 1971. She
had attended Top of the Pops on several occasions and she left
a diary in which she wrote that she had been seduced by a
celebrity. I will discuss the circumstances surrounding her
death in greater detail later in this chapter. For the moment,
suffice it to say that the News of the World published articles in
1971 about the dangers to which young girls were exposed at
Top of the Pops. From a BBC memorandum dated 6 April
1971, it is clear that, as a reaction to this publicity, a ticket
inspection had been carried out a few days earlier. The House

496
 Services Manager, L.E. De Souza, wrote to Arthur Birks, the
Central Services Manager (CSM) telling him that:

“At last Wednesday’s Top of the Pops, four

young ladies (approximately age 15 years) were
refused admission into the studio because they
did not have tickets. They said they wished to
collect their coats before being escorted off the
premises and then went straight to the lifts with
one of them brandishing a BBC club card. She
eventually signed her three friends into the
club”.

9.14 It is clear from this that more than one BBC rule was being
broken. First, the girls had gained access to the premises
without tickets; they were only intercepted on trying to enter the
studio. Second, they evaded ejection and managed to get into
the club. They obviously knew their way around. Mr Birks’s
response to this memorandum referred to the News of the
World articles (paragraphs 9.66-9.85) and said that he had
promised to feed through to Controller, Television
Administration (C. Tel. A.) any reports of incidents “which could
be used to damage t/v reputation”. He wished to discuss
security implications and the acceptability of the club card.

9.15 This tends to confirm the evidence of several witnesses who

told the Savile investigation that, in the 1970s, security at BBC
premises was not good. Some witnesses said that it was only
the threat of IRA bombs in the 1980s that led to stricter
measures. Documents I have seen tend to suggest that, at
some stage, the BBC had decided to relax security
arrangements. A memorandum dated 10 October 1967 from
the Assistant Head of Gramophone Programmes to the
Controller of Radios 1 and 2 discussed concerns about security
at Broadcasting House. The writer expressed the view that he
was “reluctant to return to the days of commissionaires and
passes, but we feel that some check is necessary”.

497
9.16 It appears that, until 1971, the lower age limit for admission to
Top of the Pops was 15. I think that this was stated on the
tickets. However, I do not think that at this time it was enforced
with any determination. Several members of staff did not recall
any age limit; others thought it was always 16; one thought it
was 14, another thought it was 18. Of course, we were asking
them to remember back a long way. Some of those members
of staff agreed that there were often young people in the
audience who looked under 15. There is evidence that girls
younger than 15 were allowed in, without being asked their age
or having to lie about it. A2 is a case in point. She went on the
show about three times in late 1970 and early 1971. She had a
ticket the first time but not thereafter. She says that she was
not asked her age. She was in fact 13. There is also evidence
that, if asked, young people would lie about their ages. I have
the impression that it was almost a badge of honour to get in
underage.

9.17 The BBC was certainly aware that the age limit could not be
effectively enforced. A memorandum from the Chief Assistant,
General, Television Administration (C.A. Gen. Tel. A.) to the
Controller, Television Administration (C. Tel. A.) and his
assistant, dated 8 April 1971, stated, among other things, that,
although the tickets carried a warning that under-15s were not
admitted:

“several very doubtful youngsters were among

the ticketholders; when challenged, by being
asked the year of their birth, very promptly gave
a figure which indicated that they were over 15.
The doubt remained.”

9.18 Several witnesses told us that the age restriction was

impossible to enforce. It was impossible, by looking at young
people, to tell how old they were. This applied particularly to
girls who could wear make-up and dress in a sophisticated way.

498
 They might well look 17 or 18 and be only 14. It was not
possible to ask young people to prove their age. There was no
document in general use which could prove age and identity. I
see the force of that and accept that there was no easy answer,
given that the programme, as designed, required the
participation of a young audience.

9.19 What is clear is that the production team on Top of the Pops
wanted young people on the show. The attitude they seemed
to adopt to this problem was that, if a person looked 15, s/he
would be let in. Mr Dorfman, who for a time was a producer
and then executive producer of Top of the Pops, is reported to
have said as much to the Evening News in April 1971, when he
was asked to explain the BBC’s approach to the age limit in the
wake of the article about Claire McAlpine. He is quoted as
saying “Our concern is that the girls must look at least 15. But
from time to time I suppose we are fooled by younger girls.
Unless they bring their birth certificates with them, it is very
difficult to sort them out”.

9.20 In April 1971, following the allegations in the News of the World
about the risk to which young girls were exposed at Top of the
Pops, the age limit was raised to 16. It remained just as difficult
to police. However, I have the impression that it created in the
minds of BBC staff a sense of relief or security. The audience
members were presumed to be 16 and, if there was any sexual
misbehaviour connected with the programme, they were (at
least in theory) old enough to consent.

9.21 Quite apart from the problems of tickets and the enforcement of
a lower age limit, Top of the Pops gave rise to quite serious
security problems for the BBC. These arose on days when a
particularly well-known group was due to appear. If a group
such as The Osmonds or the Bay City Rollers was due to
appear, there could be literally hundreds of young people

499
 thronging Wood Lane, outside Television Centre, all hoping to
see their idols, some intending to get into the premises by fair
means or foul.

9.22 The premises at Television Centre were not easy to secure. As

well as the main entrance on Wood Lane, there were other
entrances which were not so well-manned with
commissionaires. Also, parts of the perimeter wall could be
scaled by an agile and determined young person. Several
witnesses described scenes which sound quite amusing. From
the upper windows of Television Centre, one could sometimes
see quite elderly uniformed commissionaires trying to catch
young girls who had managed to get under the barrier without
permission. Of course, the girls were much nimbler and quicker
on their feet than the commissionaires. On occasions, it was
not at all amusing and, sometimes, vehicles were damaged
(Noel Edmonds told us that his car was damaged on a number
of occasions when leaving Television Centre after Top of the
Pops) and people were even injured. The BBC had to pay for a
lot of extra security on Top of the Pops days. We spoke to a
security guard who worked at the BBC, albeit in the late 1980s.
Even at that time, Top of the Pops nights were challenging for
the security team; the witness said that “girls used to try and
creep in in vans”.

9.23 These security problems had been appreciated as early as

1966 soon after Top of the Pops first moved to Television
Centre. An internal memorandum from the House Services
Manager to the Central Services Manager (Television) (CSM
Tel.), dated 28 February 1966, spoke of the difficulty the
security staff were having in controlling “the invited audience
who use every means in their power to gain access to areas
other than the studio i.e. dressing rooms, club, restaurant etc.”
but also of an increasing problem with teenagers who were

500
 trying to gain access even though they had no tickets. He
suggested that the programme ought to be transferred to more
secure premises such as the Riverside Studios at Elstree. His
suggestion was not adopted.

9.24 Trevor Neilsen worked as a studio supervisor from 1970 to

1979 and Gillian Spiller worked as an audience coordinator
from 1986/1987 until 1999. They gave evidence about the
BBC’s systems of audience control and supervision. Officially,
ticket-holders would queue up outside the building and would
be let in shortly before a recording was due to begin. Their
tickets would be checked again as they were let into the studio
and, once inside, they would be supervised. For most
programmes, the audience would be shown to seats from which
they would watch the show. At the end, the audience would be
conducted off the premises. I accept that these systems
worked perfectly well for an obedient, consenting adult
audience but I think that they worked less well for an audience
of up to 100 teenagers who were milling about the studio, some
of whom were determined to get themselves on screen or to
meet their pop idols. This made them much more difficult to
supervise. Apart from anything else, the set was fairly dark,
save for that part of it where the action was taking place at any
one time.

9.25 I accept that audience coordinators did their best to keep an

eye on the young people and in particular tried to watch them if
they came out of the studio to go to the lavatory. But Ms Spiller
agreed that it was impossible to count the Top of the Pops
audience in and count them out. She could not guarantee that
every member of the audience left the premises under
supervision at the end. If a member of staff wanted to take a
young person from the audience to the BBC Club or a star or

501
 disc jockey such as Savile wanted to invite someone to his
dressing room, no one would be able to stop them.

The Practical Arrangements

9.26 Top of the Pops needed a large studio. In addition to an

audience of young people, there would be four separate stages
or podiums, each of which would be on camera at different
times. Each stage would be used for a different performer or
group and, for each act, members of the audience would be
selected to dance on or near the stage so as to be on camera.
The stages were raised about three feet above the studio floor.
The action would move quite quickly from stage to stage. Also
there was a band in the studio (The Johnny Pearson Band)
although never on camera. Several large mobile cameras were
required and sound equipment, all of which had attendant
cables. The production entailed significant health and safety
problems.

9.27 In addition to the studio management staff and technical crews

required to record the programme, there was, until the mid-
1970s, another group of personnel, known as ‘stand-ins’ who
were not BBC employees. On any one occasion, there would
be about six of them. They were casual workers, who seem to
have been hired from an extras agency. Although casual, the
same men often came regularly. As their name implies, their
main function was to deputise at the planning rehearsals for
artists who would attend later. They stood in during the
planning of movements and camera shots. That was generally
done in the morning. In the afternoon, there would be one or
sometimes two rehearsals followed by a break before recording
began in the early evening.

9.28 The stand-ins also had a role during the actual recording. Their
function was to shepherd the participating audience about the

502
 studio, to ensure that they did not get in the way of the cameras
and cables (partly for their own safety and partly for the smooth
operation of the cameras) and also to ensure that the right
number of suitable audience members were placed on or near
each stage as required by the director.

9.29 The disc jockey presenter who would introduce the acts would
stand on one of the stages or podiums, surrounded by selected
members of the audience. I heard evidence that, although it
was usual for the floor manager to select those members of the
audience, sometimes Savile would make the choices himself.
When preparing for a shot and when on camera, Savile would
usually put his arms round the girls next to him. No one took
exception to this as a general practice but it is now known that
sometimes he used these opportunities to touch girls
inappropriately: see C16 at paragraphs 5.62 to 5.65 and B8 at
paragraphs 5.183 to 5.185.

9.30 Although the programme was recorded for broadcast the

following day, it was ‘recorded as live’ which meant that it was
recorded as closely as possible to the conditions of a live
broadcast. This, as I understand it, was intended to create the
atmosphere of a live show. Noel Edmonds, who presented Top
of the Pops between 1970 and 1978, said there was an
“enormous buzz” during the show. This clearly did not change
as time went on. Nicky Campbell, who was a Top of the Pops
presenter from about 1988 to 1994, said that the atmosphere
was “very heady, very exciting, music and lights and stuff like
that, there was a lot of adrenalin…a lot of testosterone is
flowing”.

Dressing Rooms

9.31 Some witnesses said that it would be very easy for a star or a
presenter to take someone back to his dressing room. There

503
 would be so many people milling about that no one would
notice. Stars, including disc jockey presenters such as Savile,
had single dressing rooms on the ground floor of Television
Centre. Bands had bigger dressing rooms in the
basement. Even for stars, the dressing rooms were fairly
Spartan in those days. They had a dressing table with lights
and mirrors, a shower cubicle and WC, a hanging space, two or
three chairs and a day bed or couch. The standard issue day
bed or couch seems to have been a simple affair with no back,
just a flat cushioned surface with an arm at one end which
could be lowered if the occupant wanted to lie down. Dressing
rooms could be locked and were regarded as the private space
of the performer concerned. In practice, performers and
presenters invited guests to their dressing room, both before
and after the show. Although there was a rule that staff were
not permitted to have sexual intercourse on BBC premises (I
was told that this was a dismissible offence although I was not
told of anyone who had actually been dismissed), it seems to
have been accepted by the BBC that a visiting artist could do
what he or she wished in the privacy of a dressing room. Such
conduct would be of interest or concern to the BBC only if it
appeared to be unlawful, because, for example, in the case of
sexual conduct, one of the people involved was under the age
of consent.

After the Show

9.32 In theory, after the show, the participating audience would be

escorted from the building by audience supervisors. I am sure
that that happened to most members of the audience but I am
also sure that it did not happen to all. I have heard clear
evidence that, at Lime Grove, girls would go or be taken to the
dressing room of Harry Goodwin, the resident stills
photographer, for him to take photographs. I have also heard

504
 evidence that girls would be entertained in the Green Room or
possibly in Green Assembly at Television Centre where they
would have drinks with staff and stand-ins. One witness told
me that, when she told her father that this happened, he
stopped her going to Top of the Pops. She was 15 at the time.

9.33 Most staff members agreed that, if a presenter or member of a

group wanted to take someone back to his dressing room, no
one would either notice or, if they did, do anything about it. It
would have been regarded as nobody else’s business; from
1971 onwards, every member of the audience was, at least in
theory, over 16. Members of the audience could be taken back
to a dressing room either at the end of the show or during the
break between rehearsal and recording. At that time, staff
would have their own affairs to attend to and visiting artists
including presenters would go to their dressing rooms. Val
(C28) and Angie (C27) (see paragraphs 5.10 to 5.29), C10 (see
paragraph 5.142) and C12 (see paragraph 5.58) provide
examples of occasions when Savile arranged for girls to go or
be taken to his dressing room.

The BBC Club

9.34 The Savile investigation heard a great deal of evidence that the
BBC Club in Television Centre would be extremely busy on Top
of the Pops nights. Some members of staff would not go on
Wednesdays because it was so crowded. The rule was that, to
gain admission, one had to be either a member of staff or be
signed in as the guest of a member of staff. There was an age
restriction too. Young people of 16 were allowed in but only
those over 18 were allowed to buy drinks. I am sure these
rules were observed most of the time, but the evidence
suggests that they were not observed on Top of the Pops
nights when the bar was very full and there were a lot of
visitors, some of them quite young. These visitors would

505
 include pop groups and their teams and hangers-on; also
record promoters (pluggers), music journalists, agents and so
on. Documents disclosed by the BBC confirm that there was
concern about unauthorised people gaining entry to the Club on
Top of the Pops nights and additional security officers were
provided. However, the BBC Club is of limited interest to the
Savile investigation because it is clear that Savile rarely went
there and there is no evidence that he used the Club for picking
anyone up.

Generally

9.35 I have the impression that, on Top of the Pops nights,

Television Centre was almost bursting at the seams. The
corridors would be thronged with people, many of them not
BBC staff. Most would be guests of someone or other although
I think there would be a few ‘infiltrators’ or ‘stowaways’ who had
no business to be there. But no one was concerned about that;
there was such an atmosphere of bustle and excitement. It was
‘all go’.

Awareness of BBC Staff That Young Members of the Audience at Top

of the Pops Were at Risk of ‘Moral Danger’

9.36 To modern ears, the expression ‘moral danger’ may have an

old-fashioned ring. It is, however, a useful shorthand term for
the concept of risk to which young people (mainly young girls)
might be exposed as the result of finding themselves in the
company of older men and liable to be involved in sexual
conduct which might be unlawful on account of their youth or
might be inappropriate and emotionally damaging to them on
account of their lack of maturity. I shall use the expression
‘moral danger’ in that sense.

9.37 Some idea of the vulnerability of the young Top of the Pops
audience can be gathered from a newspaper article published

506
 in early February 1971. The piece was entitled the Secrets of
the Top Pop Dollies and was, in many ways, a trivial space-
filler. It was based on interviews with four teenage girls who
were said to be regular members of the Top of the Pops
participating audience. Each interview concerned such matters
as the cost of their outfits and their motivation for attending the
show. The article also gave details of how long each girl was
“on camera” during the previous week’s show.

9.38 The first girl interviewed was Claire McAlpine (who was referred
to by her ‘stage name’, Samantha Claire) who will feature again
in this chapter. She had, so the article said, just left a convent
school (in fact she left school in July 1970) but, when at school,
she had had to take two hours off every Wednesday to get to
the show and was therefore always in trouble with the nuns.
She described how she spent her £5 per week pocket money
on a new outfit for each show. One of the other girls
interviewed was said to be aged 15 but was in fact 13. She
was reported in the article as having said that the appeal of
appearing on the show was “instant stardom, that’s what this is”
and that the money which she spent on outfits was worth it
because “everyone I know watches, so you don’t mind
spending all your money to look good”. The third girl said “if
you don’t look spectacular, the cameramen don’t notice you”.
The article also noted that the camera had focused on the
fourth girl’s legs for a full unbroken eight seconds.

9.39 As I have said, at many levels the article was a trivial piece and,
but for the subsequent death of Claire McAlpine, it would not
have justified a second glance or a moment’s reflection.
However, what can be drawn from the article is that Claire and
her group of young friends craved the celebrity within their
social circle of appearing on camera on Top of the Pops
because it conferred “instant stardom” and because it might

507
 lead to work on television if they were spotted. It is easy to see
how such impressionable and star-struck young people would
be vulnerable to the advances of older men (including such
people as stand-ins, photographers or roadies) who had
acquired a superficial glamour by virtue of association with the
programme.

9.40 From the description I have given of what it was like in

Television Centre on the evenings of a Top of the Pops
recording, with the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that some
of the young girls in the participating audience were at risk of
moral danger. In addition, the fact that some girls came back
as regular members of the audience would only increase this
risk as there would be an opportunity for men and the girls to
recognise and get to know each other, which would greatly
increase the likelihood that assignations would be made.
Clearly, looking back, the same risk applied to young boys.
However, my focus in the paragraphs that follow will be of the
risks faced by young girls because, in my view, the BBC should
have realised that the way Top of the Pops was run meant that
young girls were at risk of moral danger.

9.41 I am not saying that the existence of these risks, obvious as it

now seems, of itself meant that members of staff involved in the
programme must have consciously appreciated that the young
girls might be in moral danger. However, I do think that, if they
had applied their minds to the subject, they must have realised
that there was a possibility that young girls were at risk. In
general, however, I do not think that they did apply their minds
to the subject; they were busy running the programme and their
minds and their priorities were on that rather than on the
welfare of the young audience.

9.42 However, in 1969 and again in 1971, the BBC received a

number of ‘wake-up calls’ relating to allegations of sexual

508
 misconduct connected with Top of the Pops. The fact that
allegations had been made meant that no one in authority on
the programme could claim not to have been aware of the
existence of these risks and the need to investigate them. I
propose to describe these matters at this stage because they
are revealing both about the culture of the programme and the
BBC’s approach to investigating such allegations. These
matters and the extent to which they alerted the BBC to
potential problems in connection with Top of the Pops also form
the background to any consideration of its awareness of
Savile’s activities.

The BBC’s First Wake-up Call – Harry Goodwin 1969

9.43 Harry Goodwin worked as the resident stills photographer on

Top of the Pops from its early days in Manchester in 1964.
When the show transferred to London, Mr Goodwin travelled
down from his home in the North West each week to
photograph the stars who appeared on the show. Mr Goodwin
continued in his role as resident stills photographer until 1973
when the emergence of video recording rendered stills
photography obsolete to the production. During his time on Top
of the Pops, Mr Goodwin’s status within the production was
reflected by his inclusion in the final credits.

9.44 Mr Goodwin was a photographer of undisputable calibre. He

had an uncanny knack of being able to capture often revealing,
sometimes iconic, images of the stars. His work on Top of the
Pops was celebrated in an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert
Museum in 2010 and in a host of shows and exhibitions in the
North West of England. His death in 2013 at the age of 89 and
his funeral were reported extensively by BBC Manchester. The
Savile investigation tried to speak to Mr Goodwin before his
death; he was in poor health and declined to speak to us.

509
9.45 It appears that activities in Mr Goodwin’s dressing room
became a matter of concern and complaint in 1969. In a
confidential memorandum from Arthur Hughes, the Head of the
BBC Internal Investigation Team, to the Assistant Solicitor
dated 26 March 1971, (prepared in response to a request for
information from Brian Neill QC who was conducting an
investigation into some aspects of the operation of Top of the
Pops), it was recorded that Mr Goodwin had first come to the
attention of the Investigations Team in March 1969 when, after
the audience had left the studio following a recording of Top of
the Pops at Television Centre, two girls aged about 16 or 17
were found waiting to visit him in his dressing room to be
photographed. When Mr Goodwin was confronted with this and
was told that girls should not be visiting his dressing room, he
was recorded to have said that “he would do the same again
next week when the show was at Lime Grove where he could
do as he liked”.

9.46 The same memorandum records that, later that year, in May
1969, an anonymous letter had been passed to Mr Hughes.
The letter was typed on BBC Lime Grove headed notepaper
and asserted that:

“every Thursday evening, after the completion

of the TOTP programme, Dressing Room 57 at
these Studios is used by Mr Goodwin to take
pornographic material from a variety of girls that
arrive at the Studios, obviously by arrangement
with Mr Goodwin, as it happens regularly.”

The anonymous letter continued by saying that:

“even the commissionaires on duty in the

entrances to the Dressing Room passage have
been paid by Mr Goodwin to see that he is not
disturbed during the filming in the Dressing
Room, this I have witnessed myself.”

510
9.47 It appears from the 1971 memorandum that the contents of the
anonymous letter were reported to the then Light Entertainment
organiser (Variety), Ronnie Priest (now deceased), who
observed that Mr Goodwin was a nuisance and would be
“around the rehearsal room all hours of the night refusing to
leave when requested”. It also appears that Mr Priest said that
he would have liked Mr Goodwin’s contract not to be renewed
and had “even taken this up with Bill Cotton” (then Head of
Light Entertainment) but Mr Cotton had insisted that Mr
Goodwin should remain, as “he was a first class photographer
with a valuable portfolio of work”.

9.48 Following this, Mr Hughes and his assistant attempted an

undercover visit to Lime Grove during a recording of Top of the
Pops in the hope of catching Mr Goodwin red-handed.
However this plan was thwarted as Mr Goodwin had been
tipped off “so no misuse of the dressing room was observed”.
Mr Hughes recorded that, although Mr Goodwin had been
alerted, some of Mr Goodwin’s intelligence was flawed, as Mr
Goodwin wrongly thought that the investigators were members
of the CID (rather than internal BBC investigators).

9.49 The internal BBC documentation does not state in terms

whether any further investigation took place, apart from the
undercover visit to Lime Grove. I infer from Mr Hughes’s
comprehensive memorandum of 26 March 1971 that the
incident was closed following the Lime Grove visit and that no
further action was taken either by him or by Mr Priest or Mr
Cotton. I shall refer again to Mr Hughes’s memorandum of
March 1971 at paragraph 9.74 below. I observe that, in 1969,
awareness of this problem appears to have been limited to the
Investigations Department and the Light Entertainment
Department.

511
The BBC’s Second Wake-up Call – Mrs Vera McAlpine’s 1971
Complaint

9.50 The next wake-up call occurred in early 1971, when Mrs Vera
McAlpine telephoned the Duty Office of the BBC to lodge a
complaint concerning her daughter Claire, aged 15, who had
attended Top of the Pops on a number of occasions as a
member of the participating audience. In essence, her
complaint, as recorded in a memorandum written by Tony
Preston, Assistant Head of Variety, Light Entertainment,
Television, to whom the complaint had been reported, was that
a celebrity had invited her daughter back to his flat after a
recent recording of Top of the Pops and had seduced her. The
original note of the complaint as made by Mrs McAlpine to the
Duty Office is not available.

9.51 Although this complaint started life as an internal BBC matter, it

was soon to become a matter of public interest and concern.
Shortly afterwards, Claire McAlpine committed suicide and, on
the Sunday following her death, the News of the World carried
a front page piece suggesting, in effect, that her death was
directly connected with her association with Top of the Pops.

9.52 Mr Preston (who is dead) seems to have been sufficiently

concerned about Mrs McAlpine’s complaint to pass it on to the
BBC Legal Department. In a memorandum composed by Mr
Preston and addressed to The Solicitor (copied to the Head of
Light Entertainment Group, Television who was, at the time, Mr
Cotton) he stated:

“We spoke Preston/Marshall earlier today. May

I confirm that Duty Office received a telephone
call from a Mrs McAlpine who sought leave to
speak with the Chairman. After being given the
usual assurances, she stated that the purport of
her complaint was that on the [date redacted]
her 15 year old daughter attended a recording
of Top of the Pops at the Television Centre and

512
 that following the recording, she was invited by
[a man whom she identified by name but whom
I will identify by the code given to him by the
Savile investigation, A7] back to his flat where, it
is claimed, she was seduced by [A7].

As I explained, I have given the basic details of

the complaint by telephone to [A7’s] agent. It is
worth recording that, from our knowledge of
[A7], the alleged behaviour would appear to be
completely out of character. Furthermore, his
agent, speaking from memory, recalls that [A7]
went out to dinner immediately after the show…
and then returned home in time to watch [a
television programme, name redacted].

I do not propose to take any further action,

pending any direction you may wish to make”.

9.53 The response to the memorandum came a few days later from
George Derrick, the Assistant Solicitor. It was directed to Mr
Preston and, again, Mr Cotton was copied in to the
correspondence. I set out the text of his response in full:

“I have been asked to deal with your memo ….

addressed to The Solicitor. Although there is
probably no substance in the complaint,
nevertheless, as it has been lodged by a
member of the public, I think that the
Corporation is “duty bound” to investigate the
matter. I therefore suggest that you see [A7]
and ask him for his comments on Mrs
McAlpine’s allegation. Assuming that the
comments comprise a flat denial, Mrs McAlpine
could be so told by the Duty Officer and also
that the Corporation did not propose to take any
further action on the complaint. It would follow
that if Mrs McAlpine still wanted to pursue the
matter she could be told to do this with either
[A7] or his Agent”.

9.54 Mrs McAlpine has died. Her account of the reception of her
complaint to the BBC must therefore be gathered from the
article which appeared in the News of the World after her
daughter’s death. In this article it was explained that she had
found and read her daughter’s diary, where Claire had written

513
 about her encounters with A7 and another celebrity. As to her
telephone call to the BBC, Mrs McAlpine is reported to have
said:

“I told them what I had found in the diary...and I

gave them the man’s name. I asked if they
realised Samantha was a child of 15 and I said
something had to be done about it to save other
girls from the same sort of thing. I demanded to
speak to ‘the man right at the top’ but they said
quite abruptly that this was impossible”.

9.55 Approximately 10 days after Mrs McAlpine’s complaint,

Mr Preston confirmed to Mr Derrick that, a few days earlier, A7
had been interviewed by the Head of Light Entertainment
Group, Television (Mr Cotton) and had flatly denied what had
been alleged. Mr Preston, however, recorded a note of
concern, “For my part, I must accept the situation, although I
would be less than fair if I were not to record that his [A7’s]
recollection of [date redacted] does not agree with the first
thoughts of his agent”. Mr Preston did not specify in what
respects A7’s account had differed from the agent’s first
thoughts, given over the telephone. Further, the BBC papers
do not contain a note of A7’s interview by Mr Cotton and
Mr Preston and, as the rest of the file appears to be intact, I
infer that no note was taken.

9.56 The Savile investigation interviewed A7 in 2013. He told us that

all he remembered was being called by his agent just before
the News of the World article came out to be told that the article
was going to be printed and that his name was in Claire
McAlpine’s diary. He remembers being told by his agent that,
in addition to his name, there were other showbusiness names
in the diary, including the name of Frank Sinatra, and
remembers the diary being described by his agent as
“ridiculous”. In our interview, A7 denied that he was ever made
aware that a complaint had been made against him and also

514
 denied that he was ever interviewed by Mr Cotton and/or Mr
Preston. He said that this was not a lapse of memory on his
part; the interview had not taken place. It was pointed out to
him that, if indeed there had been no interview, it was strange
that Mr Preston should have written this memorandum and
should have recorded his concern about the disparity between
the account given by A7 at the interview and that given earlier
by his agent. A7 could offer no explanation for this and said
that he was “mystified”. Later, through his solicitor, A7
accepted that I might well prefer the documentary evidence to
his recollection on these issues. I do prefer that evidence and
think that A7 was interviewed and denied the allegation. There
was no other investigation.

9.57 For the sake of completeness, I should make it clear at this

stage that I have not attempted to make any judgment about
the allegation involving A7 and Claire McAlpine. The question
does not fall within my Terms of Reference. My legitimate
interest in this matter relates only to what can be inferred about
the BBC’s culture and practices from the way in which the
matter was investigated by the BBC.

9.58 I return to 1971. Mr Rex Moorfoot, the Head of Presentation for

Television (and, as such, in charge of the day to day operation
of the Duty Office) became involved and he telephoned Mrs
McAlpine approximately two weeks after her complaint. His
note of the conversation records that Mrs McAlpine confirmed
that she had made the complaint about her daughter. I infer
that Mr Moorfoot (who is dead) told her that A7 had denied the
allegation and that, if she wished to take the matter further, she
must do so directly with A7 or his agent. I infer that because
that is what Mr Derrick (who is also dead) had suggested
should be said in the event that A7 denied the allegation. Mrs
McAlpine is noted to have said that she did not wish to take the

515
 matter further. Apparently, she said that she was pleased that,
as she perceived it, A7 had been given “some kind of warning”
and that her daughter “after making the allegation, withdrew it”
and that she thought it was “six of one, half a dozen of the
other”. Apparently, Mr Moorfoot ensured that his secretary
listened in to the conversation for verification purposes – the
note of the conversation appears to have been signed by Mr
Moorfoot and his secretary.

9.59 Mrs McAlpine’s version of the telephone conversation with

Mr Moorfoot as reported in the News of the World shows how
her conversation with Mr Moorfoot came over to her. The
article quotes Mrs McAlpine as saying:

“Some time later they rang me back and said

they had asked the [celebrity] about it and as
he had denied it, there was nothing more to be
done. They said that if I wanted to take the
matter further, I had better ring the man or his
agent”.

She then said that she realised that she was getting nowhere
and that “all I could do was to ban Samantha from going to Top
of the Pops ever again”.

9.60 Although this account of the conversation in the News of the

World is not identical to the BBC record, there is a marked
similarity between the two. That is one reason why I am
prepared to rely on the accuracy of the News of the World
reports of this matter. It is unfortunate that I have been unable
to ascertain exactly what Mrs McAlpine said to the Duty Office
when she first made her complaint. I would have liked to
compare that with what she told the News of the World.
However, as I have said, the original record from the Duty
Office log is not available.

9.61 As I say at paragraph 9.57, my interest in this matter relates

only to the way in which it was investigated by the BBC. I have

516
 accepted that there was some internal BBC investigation of Mrs
McAlpine’s complaint. However, in my view, this investigation
was not conducted in a satisfactory way. I note that the
Investigations Department was not involved at this stage; the
matter was kept within the Light Entertainment Department, the
Duty Office and the Legal Department. Mr Preston also
appears to have prejudged the issue. His first reaction was to
take no further action despite the fact that the allegation was
serious and entailed an allegation of criminal conduct. Light
Entertainment interviewed A7 only because they were advised
by the Legal Department that they were “duty bound” to do so.
Even the Legal Department envisaged that A7’s response
would be a flat denial and that it would not then be necessary to
do anything further. Neither the Legal Department nor Light
Entertainment attempted to interview Mrs McAlpine or Claire,
although, in fairness to the BBC, it seems to me unlikely that
Claire would have agreed to be interviewed. I think it likely that
Mrs McAlpine would have been prepared to be interviewed and
would have provided additional relevant information. They did
not ask to see Claire’s diary although, again, to be fair to the
BBC, Claire might well have refused to let them see it. They
did not attempt to find out whether and when Claire had
attended Top of the Pops although this information could have
been discovered.

9.62 A handwritten note (unsigned and undated but apparently

written after her death) suggests that Claire had attended the
show on four occasions and that, on the fourth occasion, she
had been given a ticket by A7. The note states:

“Samantha Claire

No record 1st Time: Not Known

in office BBC Tickets (2)

517
 4th Time given by [A7]”

9.63 This note is one of a number of notes in the same handwriting

found in the BBC’s records. Its provenance is not clear but it is
informal and takes the form of an aide-mémoire for the writer,
as opposed to a note intended for circulation. It is not clear
how the note came to be prepared and, like all the handwritten
notes, there is no typed up version. Accordingly, I am not
saying that it is true that A7 had provided Claire with a ticket -
A7 denies that he did so and Claire may have obtained a ticket
from another source. However, it seems to me that A7 should
at least have been asked about whether he had given Claire a
ticket. It does not appear that A7 was asked about this by Mr
Cotton or Mr Preston or by anyone else. Nor is there any
evidence that this note was provided to Mr Neill for the
purposes of his report to which I will come in due course.
Again, my concern here does not relate to whether A7 gave
Claire a ticket. It relates to the adequacy of the BBC’s
investigation.

9.64 The investigation preceding Claire’s death did not include any
interviews with Top of the Pops staff or any other members of
the audience, although internal documents coming into
existence after Claire’s death suggest that some members of
staff would have remembered her. Finally, although Mr
Moorfoot ensured that a second person listened in to his
conversation with Mrs McAlpine, it does not appear that any
record of the interview with A7 was made.

9.65 In short, the BBC’s internal investigation into Mrs McAlpine’s

complaint does not appear to me to evince any sense of
concern about the safety and welfare of Claire or of girls like
her. Rather it appears to me to have been designed to protect
and exonerate the BBC and to fob Mrs McAlpine off.

518
The BBC’s Third Wake-up Call – Disclosures in the News of the
World in 1971

Part 1 – The Payola Allegations – 14 February to 14 March 1971

9.66 Starting on 14 February 1971, the News of the World published

a series of articles alleging corruption in the BBC in both radio
and television. The articles were based on a ‘sting’ operation
set up in 1970 by two freelance journalists. They set up a flat in
Mayfair and, posing as businessmen, invited BBC staff to
meetings, ostensibly to discuss the possibility of setting up a
record company. The BBC was given advance notice of the
pending publication of this material. In the first four articles, it
was alleged that various BBC producers and other staff had
received money, gifts and services (including sexual services)
in return for playing particular records, thereby assisting their
entry into and ascent up the charts. These were known as the
“payola allegations” and resulted in criminal proceedings which
took place in 1973 and 1974. Two BBC staff were dismissed
on the basis of an admission made even before publication took
place, one of whom was prosecuted and convicted. Another
BBC employee was prosecuted but was eventually acquitted.

9.67 The BBC instructed Brian Neill QC to undertake an

independent inquiry into the News of the World allegations. Mr
Neill, now the Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Neill, later became a High
Court Judge and a Lord Justice of Appeal. I will refer to the
outcome of his investigations later in this chapter.

9.68 I have mentioned the payola allegations by way of context. I do

not suggest that they constituted a wake-up call in respect of
the risk of moral danger to girls on Top of the Pops. But what
followed certainly did.

519
Part 2 – News of the World – Harry Goodwin – 21 March 1971

9.69 As part of the same series, on 21 March 1971, the News of the
World carried an article headed “The Truth about TOP of the
POPS”. The article was based on a covert tape recording of Mr
Goodwin made in November 1970. After describing the show,
the article stated that “this apparently innocent fun has its sour
side”.

“Nowhere in our inquiries did we discover such

appalling disregard for the well-being of pop-
crazy youngsters. And the blame for this
situation can be laid squarely on the shoulders
of one man - Harry Goodwin, who travels down
from Manchester to work on the show each
week... Without any hesitation we suggest the
BBC dispense with his services forthwith.

Reason: He boasts of having taken

pornographic pictures of young girls delighted to
be on the show.

Reason: He has shown blue films behind

locked dressing room doors before
programmes.”

9.70 Mr Goodwin was reported to have boasted about how he

“wangles girlfriends into camera range during programmes to
the exclusion of ordinary ticket-holding girls” and how he had
shown pornographic films in secret in his dressing room at the
Top of the Pops studios. He had told of an unsuccessful
attempt to disrupt his dressing room activities at Lime Grove.
The article reports that “with great pride” Mr Goodwin had
described how:

“we had a blue scene going on down there

because some cameramen got a bit fed up…
they went static so I got a bit ruthless and I
thought what I would do is give them a ten -
minute show when they break for tea. I had this
going every week…”.

520
 Mr Goodwin described those weekly shows as “a fantastic
scene”.

9.71 The reporters asked if Mr Goodwin had a wide selection of

photographs of girls who had appeared in Top of the Pops, to
which he is said to have replied “Yes but not for public use…
not for public use, you know. Some porny”. When asked
whether the girls had posed for the photographs, he replied
“They will do anything… they love it ... well. I found they do”. I
interpose to say that, now that the Savile investigation has
received the transcripts of the interviews with Mr Goodwin, I
can say that this report is a substantially accurate account of
what he said to the undercover journalists. Indeed there was
further material which shows Mr Goodwin in a very poor light.
At one stage, he tells the journalists that he would not “do it” in
his dressing room but “if you want to do it you can take ’em into
Wood Lane and fuck ’em outside there”. He also spoke about
taking girls to hotels. He may have been exaggerating; I do not
know.

9.72 The BBC did investigate the allegations in this article. In an

extract from the minutes of the Board of Management Meeting
of 22 March 1971, it was reported by the Managing Director,
Television that:

“the photographer concerned had been closely

questioned and had denied these allegations.
He had believed at one time that he was being
blackmailed by the News of the World and that
he had reported the matter to the police, but he
was not apparently prepared to institute legal
proceedings. M.D.Tel said that the allegations in
the article would be considered by the Neill
enquiry but that in the meantime the man’s
innocence must be presumed and he would
continue to be employed on “Top of the Pops”
at least for the remaining period of his existing
contract.”

521
 Also, Mr Goodwin was asked to answer (in writing) a series of
written questions apparently prepared by the Assistant Solicitor,
Mr Derrick. On 25 March 1971, Mr Goodwin made a statement
in response to the questions. He denied the allegations of
showing or making blue films but, “having thought hard” about
the newspaper sting which occurred nearly six months earlier,
he was only able to say “to the best of [his] recollection” that he
did not make the statements attributed to him. On the same
day, 25 March, Mr Derrick sent a copy of Mr Goodwin’s
statement to the Controller, Television Administration with a
covering memorandum expressing the view that there were “no
admissions in it which make it necessary for the Corporation to
consider dispensing with Mr Goodwin’s services”. I had been
slightly puzzled that Mr Derrick should have volunteered this
opinion as he appeared to have done, until I noticed that Mr
Preston had made an appointment to speak to Mr Derrick for 10
minutes immediately before Mr Derrick was to speak to Mr
Goodwin. I find it hard to resist the inference that Mr Preston,
who was aware that Mr Cotton wished to retain the services of
Mr Goodwin, put a word to that effect into the ear of Mr Derrick.

9.73 The following day, 26 March 1971, the Controller, Television

Administration, sent a memorandum to the Managing Director,
Television expressing his agreement with Mr Derrick’s opinion
and recommending that Mr Goodwin’s contract should be
renewed. The Managing Director, Television gave his
agreement on the same day and the contract was renewed. It
does not appear, from the minutes, that this decision was
reported to the Board of Management at its next meeting on 29
March 1971 or indeed at any subsequent meeting.

9.74 I have already referred (at paragraphs 9.45-9.49 above) to a

memorandum written by Mr Hughes, the Head of Internal
Investigations, dated 26 March 1971 in which he informed Mr

522
 Derrick, the Assistant Solicitor, about the concerns which had
arisen in 1969 in respect of Mr Goodwin’s conduct. It seems
most unlikely that Mr Derrick received that memorandum until
after he had already sent on to the Controller, Television
Administration Mr Goodwin’s statement and his own opinion
that there was no reason to dispense with Mr Goodwin’s
services. It does not appear that Mr Derrick reviewed his own
opinion in respect of Mr Goodwin’s continued employment in
the light of the information in Mr Hughes’s memorandum. Nor
does it appear that he communicated the content of Mr
Hughes’s memorandum to the Controller, Television
Administration, who had made the final recommendation to the
Managing Director, Television. Nor indeed does it appear that
Mr Derrick spoke again to Mr Goodwin after learning of the
detail of the 1969 concerns. I can only infer that the Controller,
Television Administration, the Managing Director, Television
and the Board of Management remained in ignorance of the
concerns which had arisen about Mr Goodwin in 1969.

9.75 In my view, although the BBC did undertake an internal

investigation of Mr Goodwin’s activities in 1971, this was
manifestly inadequate. No attempt was made to tie up the
allegations, as published in the News of the World, with the
1969 investigation. No witnesses or potential witnesses were
interviewed. The investigation consisted essentially of asking
the person accused whether the allegation was true and, when
its truth was denied, the denial was accepted. This method of
investigation appears to have been standard procedure at the
BBC at this time. I have already recorded how Mrs McAlpine’s
complaint was investigated. A7 was asked if the allegation was
true and his denial was accepted (although I should note, as I
say at paragraph 9.57, that I have not attempted to make any
judgment about the allegation involving A7 and Claire
McAlpine). I will recount a further example of this process in

523
 Chapter 11. In 1973, Derek Chinnery, Head of Radio 1, was to
ask Savile whether certain rumours of sexual misconduct were
true; his denial was accepted. This is addressed further at
paragraphs 11.14 to 11.33.

9.76 I should add that examination of the minutes and papers

relating to Governors’ meetings for 1971 shows that, at the
meeting on 25 March, the Governors discussed the News of the
World series. However, the allegations relating to Mr Goodwin
were not recorded as having been mentioned.

Part 3 – News of the World – More Moral Danger – 28 March 1971

9.77 On Sunday, 28 March 1971, a further piece appeared in the

News of the World, headed:

“Something MORE for the Yard to probe

Top of the Pops man tells of seduction scandal.”

9.78 The source of this report was a man who worked under the
name of Mike Briton and had worked on Top of the Pops as a
stand-in for some time until September 1970 when he had been
dismissed because he had taken part in a blue film from which
stills had appeared in a pornographic magazine called Impact
70. We have been unable to locate Mr Briton. The substance
of Mr Briton’s allegations in the News of the World article on 28
March 1971 was that girls were ‘picked up’ by male members of
staff either during the programme or in the BBC Club
afterwards and that the men openly boasted about their
success in seducing them, some of them being under 16. He
alleged that tickets for the show, which were highly prized, were
handed to stand-ins as ‘perks’ and were “nearly always
available under the counter”. He claimed that, when the
programme had been made at Lime Grove, there was a back
door through which girls who were known to be promiscuous

524
 were brought in, even though they had no tickets. The article
continued:

“Girls were officially banned from the dressing

rooms but on many occasions I saw ones who
were ‘camp followers’ of groups allowed in”.

9.79 So far as I can tell, the BBC did not investigate Mr Briton’s
allegations at all. This may have been because it regarded him
as discredited or as having a grievance against the BBC. The
Board of Management minutes for 29 March 1971 do not reveal
the attitude of the Board to the news that the latest instalment
of the News of the World “saga” claimed to have found
“something more for Scotland Yard to investigate”, namely the
“story of a man who had worked for “Top of the Pops” on
contract for a short time before being sacked from it for
misdemeanour”. The minutes do not even record the nature of
the allegations made by this man. Instead, they deal in some
detail with a further aspect of the payola allegations and with a
dispute which had arisen with Scotland Yard about the wording
of its press release which stated that it was investigating the
BBC. The BBC did not like the suggestion that it was under
investigation. It believed that it was the News of the World
which was under investigation. Scotland Yard refused to retract
its initial statement. This issue was also considered at the
M.D.R.’s Direction Meeting held on 30 March 1971. This was a
regular meeting involving radio management, and was attended
by, among others, the Managing Director of Radio (who at the
time would have been Ian Trethowan) the Controller of BBC
Radio 1 and 2 (who would, at the time, have been Douglas
Muggeridge) and the Controllers of BBC Radios 3 and 4. Its
minutes were widely distributed, including to the Chairman, the
Director-General and the Managing Director of Television. Its
minutes include the following:

“ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN THE PRESS

525
 It was noted that the “News of the World” series
was continuing for at least one more episode.
M.D.R. [Ian Trethowan] said he was more
concerned at the recent report in the “Evening
News” that the Director of Public Prosecutions
had been asked to investigate allegations
concerning the BBC. The report emanated from
Scotland Yard. It was untrue; this inquiry would
be into allegations concerning the “News of the
World”. Representations at a high level were
being made to Scotland Yard.”

9.80 I mention these two meetings as they appear to me to

demonstrate where the BBC’s priorities lay, namely in
safeguarding its reputation rather than investigating allegations
of sexual impropriety on Top of the Pops.

Part 4 – News of the World – The Death of Claire McAlpine

9.81 During the morning of 30 March 1971, Mrs McAlpine found

Claire’s dead body on the floor of her bedroom. At her side
were two empty pill bottles. The police were called and the
death was reported to the Hertfordshire Coroner.

9.82 The death was reported in the News of the World. The report
was headed “THIS GIRL WAS A VICTIM: NOW SHE IS
DEAD”. The article was based largely on an interview with
Claire’s mother, who often referred to her daughter as
‘Samantha’. Her stage name was Samantha Claire. The article
reported how Mrs McAlpine had found and read her daughter’s
diary, where she had seen accounts of meetings with at least
two celebrities. Mrs McAlpine had been shocked at what she
had read and had reported her concern to the BBC. She said
that the police knew what was in the diary.

9.83 She is quoted as saying: “These pop people filled my

daughter’s head with dreams until she didn’t know what was
real and what wasn’t”. The article also said:

526
 “We have shown how girls can be seduced by
men who trade on the ‘glamour’ of working on
the programme, and how its stills photographer
Harry Goodwin boasts of taking pornographic
pictures of some of the impressionable
teenagers who flock to the BBC TV Centre in
West London each week. FROM THE BBC
HAS COME – NOT A WORD. Now comes the
story of an almost unbelievable attitude by the
Corporation over the grave allegations
disclosed by the diary”.

9.84 The authors noted that the BBC had not interviewed Mrs
McAlpine or her daughter; nor had it informed the police of what
was alleged to have occurred. They reported that Mrs
McAlpine had said “They (meaning the BBC) simply shrugged it
off as though nothing had happened”.

9.85 By the time this article appeared, the BBC had already
investigated Mrs McAlpine’s complaint in early 1971 and had
apparently ‘closed the file’. After her death, it does not appear
that the BBC attempted to investigate Claire’s association with
the programme. It did carry out some enquiries into the way in
which Top of the Pops was operating and, as I mention at
paragraph 9.62, some further information was uncovered which
suggested that Claire had attended Top of the Pops four times.
Mr Neill’s investigation (which I discuss at paragraphs 9.122 to
9.185) covered, to a limited degree, some aspects of the
allegations relating to Claire. Also a police investigation, that I
shall later describe (at paragraphs 9.186 to 9.193), covered
concerns relating to Top of the Pops generally and possibly into
the background to Claire’s death.

Other Press Coverage of the Death of Claire McAlpine

9.86 The Daily Mail picked up the story of Claire’s death and
reported an interview with two of Claire’s friends. In her
interview, one of those friends said that, although the age limit

527
 for attending the show was supposed to be 15, most of the girls
were much younger and lied in order to get in. The friend said:

“[Claire] went round telling everybody she was

23, and she certainly looked a lot older than 15.
Lots of the girls go there just to get on
television.”

The interview continued with the friend explaining that Claire

had said she had met a celebrity after the show and the next
night she had gone out with him. She said that she had been
picked up and taken out on another occasion by another
celebrity whom she had met after attending another show.
Afterwards, Claire had been asked about the evening and had
said that she had been to bed with him. The friend referred to
two other girls both aged 15 who had ‘slept’ with the same man.
The other friend had also been interviewed and said that Claire
had gone out with a celebrity. She said “I know a group of 15-
year old girls who slept with him after his shows”.

9.87 I spoke to one of the friends during the course of my

investigation. She had little recollection of these events. She
told me that she had done her best to block from her memory
what had been a distressing episode in her life. She said that
her mother would have sat with her during that interview with
the Daily Mail and she would have told the truth to the reporters
about what she knew about Claire.

9.88 On the eve of the inquest into Claire’s death, Detective Chief
Superintendent Richard Booker, the officer already
investigating the payola allegations, was reported (in the
Evening News) to have been to Watford that day to read
Claire’s diary and to confer with local CID officers. He was said
to be “interviewing the young friends who danced with Claire at
Top of the Pops shows”. (I interpose to say that the witness
referred to in 9.87 above had no recollection of being
interviewed by a police officer, only journalists.) He was

528
 reported as having the intention to attend the inquest as an
observer and as wanting to hear the pathologist’s report. “One
vital fact which would prove whether the girl’s diary was true
would be whether she was still a virgin”. In the same article,
Mrs McAlpine is reported to have said she would make sure the
names in the diary would come out at the inquest. However,
the Daily Mirror reported that the police had decided not to call
the celebrities named in the diary to give evidence at the
inquest.

The BBC Response to the Coverage of the Death of Claire McAlpine

9.89 As one would have expected, the BBC was concerned about
the press coverage of the death of Claire McAlpine. The
relevant Board of Management minutes record that

“H.P [Head of Publicity] said the “News of the

World” had given the greater part of its front
page to the story of a death of a 15-year old girl
who had appeared several times in the “Top of
the Pops” dancing audience. The girl’s mother
had discovered a diary which was alleged to
have revealed details of an improper
relationship between the girl and [celebrities].
The “News of the World” had carried a long
interview with the mother. On account of this,
the case had also appeared in the “Guardian”
on that day. An inquest was due to be held
later in the week…

M.D.Tel. [the Managing Director Television] said

that the BBC must obviously be concerned
about the situation even if it were established
that no liability attached to the Corporation.
D.G. [the Director-General] said that the
question of the admission of audiences to pop
shows on both radio and television should be
re-examined as a matter of urgency. The
question of BBC representation at the inquest
was also considered. It was agreed that a
member of the Solicitor’s Department should
attend. M.D. Tel said that he would also
consider whether a senior member of
Television’s administrative staff, perhaps
C.Tel.A [Controller, Television Administration]

529
 himself, should also be there as an observer.
D.G. said that there were legal, publicity and
administrative aspects of this matter, all of
which must receive close and immediate
attention.”

9.90 Unfortunately, the publicity aspects of the matter do not appear

to have received the attention they deserved. While I have not
seen the full Press Log for this period (see paragraph 1.40), I
have seen certain extracts from it. These extracts show that
press officers were advised as to how to respond to enquiries.
Notwithstanding this advice, the BBC’s press response was
inaccurate, confused and inconsistent. Although the official
spokesman initially said that the death was a matter for the
police and the Coroner’s court and the BBC had no comment to
make, rather more colourful copy was soon to appear.

9.91 Mr Dorfman, then either a producer or executive producer of

Top of the Pops, appears to have acted as spokesman.
Unfortunately, the comments attributed to him were not
consistent. He was reported in the Evening News as describing
the allegations as “absolute nonsense”. He was reported in
The Sun as saying that Top of the Pops was “a perfectly
straight–forward, above-board jolly-jolly show”. However, he
was also reported by the Evening News as saying that the
BBC’s ban on girls under 15 was not strictly followed. In The
Sun, he was reported as having said that, as far as he was
aware, the requirement was that girls and boys attending Top of
the Pops had to be over 12.

9.92 Savile was quoted in the Evening News. He said that he

thought that the age limit for girls attending Top of the Pops
was 16 “But it’s not surprising if anybody gets in who is
younger. Who knows these days if a girl is 14 or 17?” He was
not apparently speaking on the BBC’s behalf although his

530
 contribution was noted with appreciation in Board of
Management minutes.

9.93 Between the death and the inquest, the BBC indicated to the
press via an unnamed “BBC executive” that a review of
arrangements concerning young people attending Top of the
Pops was under way. The Daily Express reported that strict
new rules were to be introduced by the BBC and that the age of
young girls admitted to the studio was likely to be raised from
15 to 18. The executive was quoted as saying:

“We shall look into how they are found, how

they arrive at the studio, what happens while
they are here and what happens when the
programme ends. We are taking this review
very seriously.”

The article went on to say:

“BBC officials have admitted to me that they

have been lax on enforcing the age limit. One
of them told me “Many 15 year olds look much
older these days”.”

The Inquest into the Death of Claire McAlpine

9.94 The inquest took place just a week after Claire’s death. The
Savile investigation has obtained the file of papers created by
the Coroner, which includes witness statements from Claire’s
mother and stepfather and the post mortem report. The
investigation undertaken on behalf of the Coroner was
conducted by officers of the Hertfordshire Constabulary. The
Coroner has died.

9.95 Mrs McAlpine’s statement records Claire’s short life, covering

the fact that she was adopted, her child modelling career, the
divorce of her parents in 1967 and her seeking work, after
leaving school, as a singer, dancer and actress. However, it
said nothing about Mrs McAlpine’s discovery of Claire’s diary or
about any concerns she had had in respect of Claire’s visits to

531
 Top of the Pops. Nor did it mention that Mrs McAlpine had
apparently (as had been reported in the press) banned Claire
from attending the show in future (see paragraph 9.59 above).
These omissions are strange given that Mrs McAlpine had
publicly stated her intention to mention them. Instead, the
statement described some apparently trivial domestic
disagreements which had occurred on the last day of Claire’s
life. I give as an example of the trivial nature of these
disagreements (which were later to be relied on by the police as
an explanation for Claire’s suicide) the evidence that Mrs
McAlpine had asked Claire to go to the shops for her and Claire
had grumbled, saying that she was watching a favourite
television show and asking why her mother could not get the
car out and go herself. Notwithstanding these apparently minor
disagreements, Mrs McAlpine’s statement said that Claire had
done the washing-up after supper and had brought her mother
and stepfather coffee in the lounge before retiring to her room
as was her wont. Her mother had not seen her again alive but
had found her body on the floor by her bed the following
morning.

9.96 Claire’s stepfather, David McAlpine, described Claire as “gay”

and “considerate” and said that she had “an overwhelming
desire to succeed as a singer and dancer on the theatrical
stage”.

9.97 The Hertfordshire Constabulary police officers who attended at

the home gave evidence of their finding of the body and of
Claire’s diary which was nearby. In it, Claire had written a note
of explanation for taking some of “Mummy’s old pills”. The gist
of this was that she could not take any more of being told that
she was a problem. She felt she was a dreamer and wished
someone would really love her. People thought she was so

532
 confident but really she was not. She could not “get realistic,
ordinary everyday life”.

9.98 The post-mortem report recorded that laboratory analysis of a

blood sample showed the presence of barbiturates. This was
given as the cause of death. The post-mortem report did not
say anything about whether Claire was a virgin. The Coroner’s
verdict was that Claire had committed suicide “while balance of
mind disturbed”.

9.99 The inquest was very short and was concerned only with the
immediate circumstances of the death itself. There was no
requirement for any inquiry by the Coroner into the wider
circumstances of the death. I do not know whether the Coroner
saw the diary other than the final page. Nor do I know whether
he had been informed of the earlier contents of the diary or of
the BBC’s interest in the case.

9.100 It seems likely, however, that the Coroner would have been
aware of the wider interest in this inquest, as the memorandum
prepared by R.J. Marshall, the BBC Solicitor who attended the
inquest, recorded the presence of a considerable number of
reporters, which he said was because the News of the World
had accused the BBC of “exposing to moral danger the
youngsters who attend Top of the Pops”.

9.101 Although it is not directly within my Terms of Reference to

examine the inquest, its conduct and outcome are of indirect
concern to us because the BBC appears to have felt that the
verdict (that Claire had committed suicide “while balance of
mind disturbed”) had removed any need for further concern in
relation to her death. Although I am looking back many years
and I acknowledge that coronial practice has changed
significantly since 1971, the exclusion of evidence relating to
Claire’s visits to the BBC and her mother’s apparent decision to

533
 bar her from future attendance seems to me to have been
unfortunate. Given that it was known that Claire had ambitions
as a singer and dancer, it seems to me likely that she would
have been more distressed by her mother banning her from
going to the BBC than she would have been by the kind of
domestic arguments about which the Coroner heard evidence.
The note she wrote on the evening of her death does not point
clearly to the cause of her distress except that she felt unloved
and was tired of being told she was a problem.

9.102 One can see the BBC’s reaction to the inquest from the
contemporaneous documents. Mr Marshall attended with Mr
Moorfoot and the Controller of Television Administration. Mr
Marshall’s memorandum (addressed to the legal adviser and
copied to C.Tel. A. (Controller, Television Administration, S.G.
Williams), CR1 & 2 (Controller, Radio 1 and 2, Douglas
Muggeridge); H Pres.Tel. (Head of Presentation, Television,
Rex Moorfoot) and, A.H.V.L.E. Tel (Assistant Head of Variety,
Light Entertainment, Television, Tony Preston) records that
there had been no reference to the BBC.

9.103 Mr Marshall said that it appeared from the inquest that Claire’s
life had been affected adversely by her having been adopted,
her adoptive family having broken up and having worked as a
child model. He described how part of the diary had been read
out and from this it was apparent that “she lived in a fantasy,
felt that she was unloved and took poison deliberately”. He
noted that “there was no need for us to straighten the record …
and in fact no one on behalf of the Corporation took any formal
part in the inquest”.

9.104 For the sake of completeness, I must mention that, while

recording the details of a visit by “Scotland Yard” police officers
to Television Centre in 1971, to observe the recording of Top of

534
 the Pops, Mr Preston (Assistant Head of Variety, Light
Entertainment) wrote:

“There was no doubt that the Coroner was

‘advised’ to take the line he did within the limits
of both the law and his conscience.”

9.105 I do not know what this means and do not know who gave the
Coroner this ‘advice’. However, it appears from the
memorandum that this was information given to Mr Preston by
one of the police officers who visited the BBC. It is a strange
comment.

9.106 Whatever the explanation for the decision to limit the scope of
the inquest, the consequence was in my view unfortunate. The
Coroner appears to have excluded evidence relating to one
obvious potential cause of Claire’s distress although he
admitted and apparently relied on others, which were rather
less obvious. Had there been evidence that Claire had been
upset by being banned from going to Top of the Pops, the BBC
would, I think, have been bound to have taken the general
allegations about that programme more seriously. It knew that
there were allegations about Harry Goodwin’s activities; it knew
of the allegations made by Mike Briton; it knew that Mrs
McAlpine had made a complaint, which it had rejected as
untrue. Regardless of the truth or falsity of that complaint, the
suicide of a 15-year old girl who was so devoted to Top of the
Pops should have contributed to the BBC’s level of concern
about what was alleged to be going on at that programme.
Unfortunately, the fact that the Coroner excluded the evidence
allowed the BBC to write this element of the story off as none of
its business.

More Press Coverage and More BBC Reaction

9.107 The Metropolitan Police’s interest in Claire’s death seemed to

continue for a short while in that Detective Chief Superintendent

535
 Booker was reported in the News of the World to have indicated
that there was to be questioning of “the dolly dancers about
their friends in the television world”. (I interpose to say that one
of Claire’s friends told the Savile investigation that she did not
think she had been interviewed by a police officer and there is
no record in police files of any interview with any of Claire’s
friends). However, on the same day, the Sunday Mirror
reported that Claire’s diary, which had been examined after her
death by “Scotland Yard men investigating alleged BBC pop
scandals” had proved “quite worthless” in police enquiries. She
(Claire) was considered a fantasist and the police had gone on
to say that “to suggest that she died because of her
involvement with any person mentioned in the diary, or was a
victim in any way is ludicrous and irresponsible… Police are
completely satisfied that the girl … killed herself with an
overdose of barbiturates after rows at home”.

9.108 In the same Sunday Mirror article, it was said that Claire had
been found by the pathologist to have been a virgin, thereby
implicitly proving that the claims in her diary that she had been
seduced were untrue. However, there is no reference to any
such finding in either the post mortem report or anywhere in the
Coroner’s papers.

9.109 It is not clear from the Sunday Mirror article who is said to have
been the source of the information about the worthlessness of
the diary or about Claire’s virginity. One would have expected
the source to have been the man in charge of the investigation,
Detective Chief Superintendent Booker or someone close to
him. However, I have not been able to interview him as he died
some time ago. Whoever the source was, it appears to have
become generally accepted from that time on that Claire’s diary
was a work of fiction.

536
9.110 The attitude of the BBC’s senior management to Claire
McAlpine’s death, the press coverage of it and the outcome of
the inquest can be inferred from a number of contemporaneous
documents.

9.111 The BBC’s Board of Management minutes encapsulate that

body’s reaction to the news of the inquest. Under the heading
“Payola and other allegations by “News of the World”, it was
reported:

“HP [Head of Publicity] said that the “News of

the World” had carried a brief report of the
inquest of the girl referred to in Minute 139(b).
The verdict had been that she had taken her
life while the balance of her mind was
disturbed. A comment by a senior police
officer, reported in the “Sunday Mirror”, had
established that the police were satisfied that
the allegations in the girl’s diary were
fantasies.”

9.112 The remainder of the minute refers to “helpful” press comment

and also contains an assurance from the Managing Directors of
Television and Radio that admission of audiences to pop shows
had been most carefully re-examined. It is clear that the Board
of Management considered that the BBC had no responsibility
for the death of Claire McAlpine. Its view was based on the
verdict at the inquest and on the assertion that the allegations
contained in Claire’s diary were fantasies. It is, however,
possible that the Board also received some information from Mr
Marshall who had attended the inquest. The minutes of the
meeting suggest that the Board of Management reached its
conclusions without discussing the fact that Mrs McAlpine had
recently made a complaint about what her daughter said had
happened following a visit to Top of the Pops or, indeed, any in-
depth discussion of the underlying issues. This is particularly
surprising given the comment made at an earlier Board of
Management meeting (referred to at paragraph 9.89) that “there

537
 were legal, publicity and administrative aspects of this matter all
of which must receive close and immediate attention”. In my
view, the Board of Management did not provide this close
attention; instead, once adverse publicity had been avoided, it
appears that there was a collective sigh of relief.

9.113 The only concern evinced (by the Board of Management)

related to the arrangements for the admission of audiences.
Quite how audience admission per se was going to solve the
kind of problems which had been alleged in the News of the
World is not clear to me, unless it was thought that ensuring
that the girls were all over 16 would be sufficient.

9.114 The allegations in the News of the World relating to Claire’s

death were also to be considered by the Governors. A
Director-General’s report, prepared for submission to the
Governors’ meeting, gave the following account:

“The “News of the World” articles on corruption

in the ‘pop’ world came to an end....
Publication of the final article was somewhat
overshadowed in the paper by reports on the
death of a 15-year old Watford girl who had
sometimes appeared among the dancers in
“Top of the Pops” and who was alleged to
have left a diary in which accusations of
immorality were made”.

The Report went on to say:

“The circumstances of the girl’s death enabled

other newspapers to exploit the situation
created by the “News of the World” articles
and several of them devoted much space to
“Top of the Pops”, its participants and its
organisation. However, the inquest on the
dead girl did much to put the story into
perspective. Although medical evidence was
not given on this point, there is reason to
believe that it would have shown the contents
of the girl’s diary to have been the product of
fantasies. This belief was re-inforced by a
statement in the “Sunday Mirror”… when a

538
 senior Scotland Yard officer was quoted as
saying that it would be ridiculous to connect
anyone or anything mentioned in her diary with
reality. It went on “And to suggest that she
died because of her involvement with any
person mentioned in the diary or was a victim
in any way is ludicrous and irresponsible”. On
the same day, the “News of the World”
reported that the adoptive parents of the dead
girl had moved out of their home to start ‘a
new life’ elsewhere.”

9.115 The minutes of the Governors’ meeting show that the Director-
General’s report was received and that he added that, in a
newspaper article, Savile had been “most useful in giving a
sense of proportion to the wild stories which were current about
“Top of the Pops”, following the suicide of a teenage girl in
Watford”. I must make two observations here. First, it seems
to me that the general tenor of the Director-General’s report
and the minute of the meeting is that the whole problem had
been created by florid newspaper reporting. The Governors
were reassured by the inquest and by Savile’s article which
they seemed to accept had put matters properly into
perspective.

9.116 Second, it appears that the Governors felt no concern arising

out of the wider allegations of immorality in relation to Top of
the Pops. There is no discussion of them at all. That seems to
me both surprising and worrying. It is not, however, surprising
that they were satisfied that the BBC had no responsibility for
the death of Claire McAlpine, given that the police had said that
she had committed suicide after rows at home and that the
content of her diary was fiction. It does concern me that there
is no suggestion from the minutes that any of the Governors
were aware of Mrs McAlpine’s complaint. If any were aware of
it, they do not appear to have raised the point for discussion or
further enquiry.

539
9.117 What alarms me, in this context, was the BBC’s apparent lack
of concern about the wider allegations of immorality in relation
to Top of the Pops. The information received by the Governors
clearly suggested that Claire McAlpine was a fantasist, but
nonetheless, in my view, the Governors should have been
concerned about the wider issues and should have ensured
that there was a full and proper investigation of them.

9.118 It is outside my Terms of Reference to consider what happened

to Claire McAlpine. The only page of her diary I have seen is
the final page which was photocopied and retained with the
coronial papers. I have discovered that the diary still exists but
members of Claire’s family have declined to allow me to see it.
The police have a copy of the diary but cannot disclose it to me
without the permission of Claire’s family, which has not been
forthcoming.

9.119 I would have liked to see the diary because (as explained at
paragraph 9.82) it seems that Claire mentioned at least two
celebrities in her diary and I would like to have established
whether Savile was one of them. A member of Claire’s family
has been reported in the press quite recently as saying that
Savile was named in the diary. Unfortunately, that person has
declined to give evidence to the Savile investigation. There is
nothing I can do to compel Claire’s family to permit us to
examine the diary.

9.120 There are only two pieces of evidence which bear on the
question of whether Savile was involved with Claire. One of
Claire’s friends, who attended Top of the Pops during the same
period as Claire, told me that she was not aware of Claire
having met or having had any association with Savile. A12, a
studio manager in Radio, told me that, after a recording of
Speakeasy in April 1971, she had heard Savile boasting that
the press had been hounding him about Claire and that he had

540
 fobbed them off. She had the impression that he was proud of
this. I do not feel that I can attach much weight to this
evidence. Savile frequently exaggerated and I do not think one
could rely on what he said. I recognise that it would have been
entirely typical of Savile to have picked up a young girl at Top of
the Pops, to have promised to advance her career and to have
had sexual intercourse with her. However, there is no clear
evidence that he ever was sexually involved with Claire
McAlpine.

The BBC’s State of Awareness about the Risk of Moral Danger to

Young Girls Attending Top of the Pops

9.121 I have described three wake-up calls which took place in 1969
and 1971 which ought, in my view, to have alerted the BBC to
the real possibility that young girls attending Top of the Pops
were at risk of moral danger. I have recounted the steps which
the BBC took internally to investigate these incidents but it does
not appear to me that those internal investigations evinced any
real concern for the welfare of the young audience. My
impression is that they were designed to dampen the problem
down rather than get to the bottom of it. I also have the
impression that the BBC regarded the teenage girls attending
Top of the Pops as something of a nuisance; necessary to the
production of the show but a nuisance nonetheless. However,
in addition to its own internal investigations, the BBC instructed
Mr Neill to carry out an independent investigation into the News
of the World allegations. Although this investigation was mainly
focused on the payola allegations, it also covered, to a limited
extent, concerns about Mr Goodwin and Top of the Pops. In
addition, the Metropolitan Police undertook an investigation into
the News of the World material. This too was primarily
concerned with the payola allegations but also looked into

541
 some concerns about Top of the Pops. I will now describe the
outcome of both these investigations.

The Investigation by Sir Brian Neill, Formerly Brian Neill QC

9.122 I mean no disrespect to Sir Brian Neill when I refer to him as Mr

Neill, as he was at the time of his investigation in 1971 and
1972.

9.123 I have met Sir Brian in the course of finalising my Report. I am

very grateful to him for assisting me. Sir Brian is in his nineties
and he does not have any significant independent recollection
of relevant events, other than that he carried out an
investigation into payola at the BBC and a very limited
investigation into Top of the Pops. He has, however, been able
to help me to reconstruct from the documents I have seen the
likely course of his investigation in 1971 - 1972.

9.124 As I have already explained, in February 1971, the News of the

World published an article alleging corruption in the BBC in
both radio and television. A brief explanation of the payola
allegation is set out at paragraph 9.66.

9.125 On 19 February 1971, Mr Neill was invited to:

“conduct a Private Inquiry into the specific

charges of bribery and corruption – and also
into the other instances of partiality – which
have been alleged in the News of the World
issue dated Sunday, 14th February 1971 and
which may be alleged in any subsequent
issues of this newspaper during the coming
weeks.”

9.126 There then followed a number of further articles relating to

payola to which it is unnecessary for me to refer in detail.
Some of these articles also referred to the rigging of record
charts, but as these allegations did not involve the BBC, I need
say no more about them.

542
9.127 On 21 March 1971, however, (as I have already mentioned in
paragraph 9.69) the News of the World published an article
headed “The Truth about Top of the Pops”. The article was
said to be based on a covert tape recording of an interview with
Mr Goodwin in November 1970. I have already cited passages
from this article in paragraphs 9.69 to 9.71.

9.128 In issues of the News of the World on the two subsequent

Sundays (28 March 1971 and 4 April 1971), further articles
relating to Top of the Pops were published. I have given details
of these articles at paragraphs 9.77-9.78 and 9.82-9.84 and
considered the BBC’s reaction to them.

9.129 A memorandum dated 26 April 1971 suggests that a visit had

been made to Television Centre by Metropolitan Police officers
on 21 April 1971. It seems that the purpose of the visit was to
enable the officers to see how Top of the Pops operated as
background to their investigation into Top of the Pops. The
officers were shown the studio layout at rehearsal, together with
the security arrangements, the dressing rooms and the
entrances.

9.130 It appears from subsequent events that, at some stage, Mr Neill

was invited to investigate some aspects of the allegations
concerning Top of the Pops in addition to the payola
allegations, but the extent of this extra investigation by him is
not clear. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr Neill’s
original written instructions (set out at paragraph 9.125) were
changed by the BBC or that he received any separate formal
instructions to conduct any general investigation of Top of the
Pops.

9.131 At the time of Mr Neill’s appointment to investigate the payola

allegations, it was decided that an independent firm of solicitors
should assist him. James Crocker of the firm William Charles

543
 Crocker was appointed for this purpose. Unfortunately,
however, the firm of William Charles Crocker no longer exists in
its own right and Mr Crocker has died. The Savile investigation
has contacted the law firm into which William Charles Crocker
was subsumed and it has confirmed that no documents
relevant to Mr Neill’s investigation have been retained. As a
result, there is an almost complete absence of any
contemporary documents from which one can trace the precise
path of Mr Neill’s investigation.

9.132 However, from the documents that I have obtained from the
BBC, it seems that his investigation had three principal phases.

9.133 It seems probable that, in the first phase, there was a

considerable amount of communication between Mr Crocker,
the BBC and the News of the World about the tapes of
conversations involving BBC staff and other information in the
hands of the News of the World. Clearly Mr Neill needed
access to this material if he were to conduct a proper
investigation. It also seems probable that, as time went by, and
possibly because some civil proceedings had been initiated
against the News of the World, the newspaper became
increasingly reluctant to supply this material. It seems that
eventually Mr Neill approached Andrew Bateson QC, counsel
for the News of the World, to seek his help in obtaining the
material, but for reasons that will become clear, nothing was
forthcoming.

9.134 It appears from the documents that, in August 1971, Mr Neill

embarked on a series of interviews which can be conveniently
described as the second phase of his investigation. There is no
information available, however, as to the dates of these
interviews or as to the order in which witnesses were seen.

544
9.135 It seems probable, however, that the earlier witnesses that Mr
Neill saw were those concerned with the payola allegations.
These allegations were first in point of time and there was a
very significant difference between the interviews relating to the
payola allegations and the interviews relating to the allegations
concerning Top of the Pops, which he probably conducted after
the payola witness interviews. Sir Brian has told me that both
sets of interviews were very unsatisfactory because he had no
material on which he could base any proper cross-examination.
However, the payola articles had contained detailed allegations
against named individuals and, even in the absence of the
News of the World material, some headway could be made.

9.136 The Top of the Pops articles, on the other hand, were quite
different and contained mainly general allegations, apart from
the specific references to Mr Goodwin, Mr Briton and the death
of Claire McAlpine.

9.137 The interviews conducted by Mr Neill continued into September

1971 and, at the end of September, the BBC made enquiries as
to progress. In reply, the BBC was told that the interviews were
not completed and would not finish until the middle of October.

9.138 At the beginning of October, however, Mr Neill received a letter

from Mr Bateson, counsel for the News of the World, which
stated:

“Since shortly before we were in touch in

August, a considerable change in the situation
has taken place. The whole of the N.O.W.
evidence, on tape and documentary, has been
taken over by the police, and is no longer in
the custody or control of the N.O.W. The two
reporters most concerned have been
seconded to the police for 9 hours a day six
days a week. The N.O.W understands from
them that the police have a team of some 30
men of whom a proportion are transcribing the
tapes on a round the clock basis and have

545
 been for some seven weeks. This task is not
yet complete and may take another two
months. They are cross-referencing everything
as they go along, and the N.O.W. simply
cannot ask for tapes back or documents back
in those circumstances. They say, and I think
with justice, that you would have to go to the
Yard for anything you want. If therefore you
can arrange with them to get what you want,
the N.O.W would have no objection provided
you checked first to see whether it impinged
on the civil actions to which they are parties.”

9.139 It seems that this was a cut-off point for Mr Neill and, after
receipt of this letter, there were no more interviews. The police
investigation (which had commenced around April 1971) was in
full flow and it seems that about 30 police officers were
involved. Some of these officers were employed in transcribing
tapes. I shall say something further about the police
investigation at paragraphs 9.186 to 9.193.

9.140 Although after receipt of this letter, Mr Neill conducted no

further interviews, he remained anxious to obtain the police
material so that he could compare what he had been told with
earlier statements.

9.141 However, Mr Neill was not able to obtain any material from the
police and, in November 1971, he went to see the then Director
of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) to ask for his help. It
appears that the DPP felt unable to release any material while
the police investigation was continuing.

9.142 Mr Neill confirmed the DPP’s position to the BBC in a letter to

the BBC’s solicitor dated 14 December 1971. Mr Neill set out
the possible options that were open to him:

(a) To submit a report on the basis of the

information and evidence which he had
already received. This had the advantage of
making the Director-General aware of what
had been discovered so that it might be

546
 possible to clear some individuals of the
general aura of suspicion…

(b) Not to submit any report (except possibly

an informal progress report) until the police
had completed their inquiries and a decision
had been reached by the authorities as to
whether any individuals were to be
prosecuted, and he had an opportunity of
seeing the transcripts that might be made
available.

9.143 Mr Neill told the BBC that he thought he ought to follow the
second course. He concluded his letter to the BBC as follows:

“lt does not seem to me that any Report made

at this stage while the Police inquiries are still
continuing would serve its intended purpose of
giving the Director-General a considered view
of whether the published allegations or any of
them have any substance and of providing a
basis for the Corporation to take action. I
would welcome an opportunity of discussing
this matter with you at your convenience.”

9.144 Two months passed. On 8 March 1972 Mr Neill wrote to the

DPP to ask whether he was in a position to provide any more
information about the police investigation. On 9 March 1972, a
BBC internal memorandum stated:

“In connection with another case which we

discussed last week, it emerged that it was
unlikely that the police would have finished
transcribing the News of the World material
before about August, and were not
enthusiastic about letting Neill have it. It also
seems unlikely that D.P.P. would press the
police against their inclinations”.

9.145 On 13 March 1972, Mr Marshall wrote to Mr Neill to confirm that

he understood that it was unlikely that the police would have
finished transcribing the News of the World material before
August and that, in any event, the police were not enthusiastic
about letting Mr Neill see it. As it therefore appeared that Mr
Neill might never see the transcripts, he was asked by the BBC

547
 to adopt the first course set out in his letter of 14 December
1971 and to submit a report based upon the information and
evidence which he had, by then, received.

9.146 This was an unsatisfactory outcome. His own investigations

had been cut short and he had had no access whatsoever to
any of the material on which the articles in the News of the
World had been based. Nevertheless, as the third phase of his
work, he then began writing his report.

9.147 On 5 May 1972, a meeting took place between Mr Neill and one
of the BBC's Legal Advisers to discuss progress. I have seen a
copy of a note of that meeting. Mr Neill reiterated the
unsatisfactory aspect of the report he was writing - namely, its
‘onesidedness’- and stressed that anyone who read it would
have to appreciate that he had been unable to see any of the
material on which the News of the World articles had been
based. Mr Neill asked for some guidance on “how far he
should go in his conclusions as to making suggestions about
[BBC] procedures, etc”. The BBC Legal Adviser told him that
any such suggestions would be welcomed. I will come to the
suggestions that were made later.

Mr Neill’s Interim Report

9.148 On 22 May 1972, Mr Neill submitted his report which he

described as an ‘Interim Report’ to the BBC. In his covering
letter, he said that he would be glad to discuss it further at a
convenient date after 1 June.

9.149 The first part of Mr Neill’s Interim Report consisted of a preface

in which Mr Neill explained why it was so described. He said
that he had envisaged at the outset that the News of the World
would be prepared to cooperate in making available to him at
least some of the evidence on which they based their
allegations. That had not happened so, even in respect of

548
 named individuals, his judgements were of necessity
provisional. He also explained why the absence of “the
evidence of the prosecution” had affected the form of the
Interim Report.

9.150 The Preface was followed by an Introduction, in which Mr Neill

recorded that in addition to the allegations of wide-spread
corruption there were, in later articles, allegations about the Top
of the Pops.

9.151 Much the larger part of the Interim Report was concerned with
the allegations concerning payola. This was understandable
because this had been the focus of Mr Neill’s instructions. In
addition, even though Mr Neill did not have access to the police
materials, the News of the World articles gave detailed
allegations against a substantial number of named individuals.
This meant that the witnesses could be identified and
questioned at some length.

9.152 The latter part of the Interim Report was concerned with the
allegations relating to Top of the Pops. Here the situation was
different because only two specific matters were examined,
although Mr Neill also heard some evidence about the Top of
the Pops programmes generally.

The Neill Report – on the Subject of Harry Goodwin

9.153 Mr Neill’s enquiries into the allegations relating to Mr Goodwin

were very limited because he could not obtain the tape
recording of what Mr Goodwin had said to the journalists. He
interviewed Mr Goodwin about the matters featured in the
article of 21 March 1971. By the time that interview took place,
Mr Goodwin had already provided the statement to the BBC in
1971 to which I have referred in which he had denied “to the
best of his recollection” ever having made the statements
attributed to him in the News of the World. By the time Mr

549
 Goodwin was interviewed by Mr Neill, he had changed his story
completely. No mention was made of blackmail or of visits to
the police. Appreciating, no doubt, that the original
conversation had been taped and that it may only be a matter
of time before Mr Neill had access to the tapes, Mr Goodwin
admitted that “he may well have made those statements but
that they were mainly untrue and his motive was to impress the
businessmen”. As I have said, I can now confirm that Mr
Goodwin had indeed said the things alleged in the article.
Whether they were true or not is another matter.

9.154 Concerning Mr Goodwin, Mr Neill expressed his conclusion

that, in isolation, he would have found it impossible to accept
Mr Goodwin’s explanation, for he was “an unimpressive
witness”. However, after interviewing several producers (Mr
Stewart, Mr Dorfman, Mr Cornish, Mr Whitehouse and Mr
Charman), Mr Cotton and “in particular” Mr Birks, the Central
Services Manager (TV), he was “prepared to accept that, whilst
there may have been isolated instances of immorality, the
picture of TOTP given by Goodwin was a figment of his
imagination”, although Mr Goodwin remained very much a “law
unto himself and there was no real supervision of what he did”.

9.155 As I explain at paragraph 9.131, I have not had access to Mr

Neill’s underlying papers which have long since been
destroyed. As was customary at the time in reports of this kind,
Mr Neill did not set out any of the evidence. I do know that he
had the memorandum prepared by Mr Hughes relating to the
concerns which had surfaced in 1969; indeed, it appears that
that memorandum was prepared as a result of a request for
information from Mr Neill. Apart from that, I do not know what
other evidence, if any, he heard. It may well be that the people
he interviewed told him that, although they had heard rumours
about the showing of blue films, they had little actual knowledge

550
 of the matter. I say that because I have seen interviews given
to the police in 1972 by Mr Charman, Mr Cornish, Mr
Whitehouse and Mr Stewart and that is the gist of what they
had to say about Mr Goodwin and the blue films allegations.

9.156 I do not know what Mr Birks told Mr Neill about Mr Goodwin. I

have been unable to interview Mr Birks. He is in his nineties
and very anxious to help but he explained that he cannot
remember the events of 1971/1972. I accept that.

9.157 Mr Neill heard evidence from Mr Dorfman. I took evidence from

him as well. In evidence to me, he had nothing but praise for
Mr Goodwin who was, at the time I spoke to Mr Dorfman, alive.
He described him as “a very simple, straightforward, incredibly
good photographer, [who] lives a very, I think, monastic life”.
He had no recollection of the article concerning Mr Goodwin
which appeared in the News of the World. He did remember
that there were rumours concerning Mr Goodwin showing
pornographic films in his dressing room but he told me that he
did not believe them. He had a vague recollection of some
form of police investigation and remembered that the main
producer of the show, Mr Stewart, had wanted to sack Mr
Goodwin. However, this was because of the rumours rather
than the article.

9.158 It is a pity that Mr Neill was denied access to the tapes of Mr

Goodwin’s interview with the undercover journalists, as he
would have had some impression of Mr Goodwin’s personality
from what he said and also from his use of language. Having
(unlike Mr Neill) had the advantage of reading the transcripts of
those interviews, I myself would reject as wholly mistaken Mr
Dorfman’s impression of Mr Goodwin as a simple
straightforward man who led a monastic existence. I think, if he
had read the transcripts, Mr Neill would have concluded, as I

551
 have done, that Mr Goodwin was very much more involved in
sleazy activities than he was prepared to admit.

9.159 So far as I can tell, Mr Neill heard evidence only from the
several producers I have named and Mr Birks. I have been
able to spread the net a little wider and have taken evidence
from a few witnesses who worked on Top of the Pops during Mr
Goodwin’s era. I took evidence, by telephone, from Ronald
Howard, who worked for some years as Mr Goodwin’s
assistant. He (together with Mr Goodwin) had attended the
‘sting’ meeting with the undercover journalists. I accept what
he told me. He was not interviewed by Mr Neill. In evidence to
me, Mr Howard confirmed that Mr Goodwin had indeed
entertained members of the studio team (as well as members of
bands) to showings of titillating photographs or films and that
Mr Goodwin “had got into trouble” with the BBC, after which the
practice had ceased. As I understood his evidence, Mr Howard
was saying that Mr Goodwin obtained and supplied the blue
films although someone else actually operated the machine on
which they were shown. Mr Howard was keen to impress upon
me that, by modern-day standards, the films or photographs
would be considered tame.

9.160 Mr Howard did not accept, however, that Mr Goodwin took

pornographic photographs of members of the studio audience;
his recollection was that this aspect of the News of the World
article was completely made up. I do not think that this can
have been completely made up for I have read for myself the
transcript of Mr Goodwin saying that he had photographs of
young girls from the audience and that some of them were
“porny”.

9.161 I think it likely that, on occasions (possibly not frequently)

photographs of a pornographic nature were taken by Mr
Goodwin, as he had admitted in the taped conversation, but I

552
 accept Mr Howard’s evidence that he had no knowledge of
them. Such photographs were, I believe, almost certainly taken
after the show was over and after Mr Howard had left the studio
to go home. I heard the evidence of a witness who chose to
remain anonymous (for good reason) and who told me that she
had attended the show on a handful of occasions with a friend
from school. On one such occasion, she was photographed by
Mr Goodwin. She showed it to me. Although (and I
emphasise) this photograph was perfectly innocent, it
serendipitously included an image of the girl’s watch which
clearly showed the time to be exactly 10pm, well after the show
would have finished and the audience departed. This witness
also told me that the photographs that Mr Goodwin had taken of
her school friend were “more provocative”.

9.162 For my part, having had access to more evidence than was
available to Mr Neill, I have little doubt that the contents of the
News of the World article about Mr Goodwin were substantially
true. I am quite satisfied that the core elements, that Mr
Goodwin showed blue films and took “porny” photographs of
female members of the participating audience, were accurate.
Mr Goodwin did not sue the newspaper. There is a striking
similarity between what Mr Goodwin is said to have admitted on
tape and the contents of the memorandum of Mr Hughes who
had investigated similar allegations in 1969. Both refer to the
taking of photographs of the female audience; both describe the
unsuccessful attempt to expose Mr Goodwin’s activities by the
Investigation Team. Mr Hughes even describes in his
memorandum how Mr Goodwin had mistaken him and his team
for CID officers as reflected in the article and, I confirm, on the
tape. I think it likely that the showing of blue films was at its
height in 1969 and that it probably stopped or was much
reduced after Mr Hughes’s investigation and the unproductive
swoop. Mr Howard says that the film shows stopped after that

553
 and there are some indications in the tape recording that, after
Mr Hughes’s ‘swoop’, Mr Goodwin had been worried about
losing his position on Top of the Pops which he greatly valued.

9.163 While I quite understand why, given the evidence available to

him, Mr Neill reached the conclusion set out in his interim
report, I think that, if he could have reviewed his conclusions
after hearing the tapes or reading the transcripts, it is likely that
he would have changed his view of Mr Goodwin.

The Neill Report – Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Related to Top of the

Pops

9.164 Mr Neill’s interim report does not contain any reference to the
News of the World article based on the material provided by the
former stand-in, Mr Briton. Mr Neill did, however, deal with the
general environment at Top of the Pops. As I have already
said, he interviewed Mr Cotton, Mr Birks and five Top of the
Pops producers. The Savile investigation has not been able to
interview Mr Stewart, Mr Cornish, Mr Charman or Mr
Whitehouse; all are dead. So is Mr Cotton. Mr Birks has tried
to assist us but cannot now remember the events in question. I
have been able to see the police statements of Messrs Stewart,
Cornish, Charman and Whitehouse but these do not deal with
the kind of allegations made by Mr Briton (older men picking up
young girls and seducing them), allegations which are to some
extent echoed in Mrs McAlpine’s complaint. Mr Neill concluded
on the evidence he had heard that the allegations about Top of
the Pops were grossly exaggerated, if not actually untrue. He
declared himself to be reassured about Top of the Pops
generally to a large degree, save for certain systemic problems
which he described and to which I will refer shortly. Mr Neill
had not, of course, seen any of the material in the possession
of the News of the World or the police.

554
9.165 Although as I have said, I do not know what Messrs Stewart,
Cornish, Charman and Whitehouse said to Mr Neill about moral
danger issues, I can form a view as to what Mr Dorfman would
probably have said. I am sure he would have painted a very
reassuring picture. I say that because he appears to have
acted as a BBC press spokesman at the time of these
allegations and it seems highly likely that he would have given
the same message to Mr Neill as he gave to the press. For
example, and as I have already noted, in the Evening News of
5 April 1971, he is reported to have said that it was “absolute
nonsense” to suggest that young girls appearing on Top of the
Pops were dated after the show and, in The Sun on 6 April
1971, Mr Dorfman is reported to have said of Top of the Pops
“It is a perfectly straight-forward, above-board, jolly-jolly show”.
He added “I have never been aware of anything going on that
one ought to be ashamed of”. When speaking of the possibility
that Claire McAlpine might have spent the night with a celebrity,
he said that he could not remember meeting her: “She might
have had stardust in her eyes – but I have no control over what
happens after the show”.

9.166 When Mr Dorfman gave evidence to the Savile investigation, he

said that he could not recall saying these things to the
newspapers and added that they did not “even sound like
[him]”. However, having seen the articles, he accepted that he
must have made those statements even though he does not
remember doing so. He said that he thought he must have
spoken to a reporter in the bar. He was adamant that he knew
nothing about Claire McAlpine’s death. Indeed, he did not think
that he was working on Top of the Pops by 1971, although BBC
records suggest that he was. Nor did Mr Dorfman remember
that he had been interviewed by Mr Neill. He said that, as a
producer, he was not in a position to see for himself what was
going on out of the spotlight on the studio floor or in dressing

555
 rooms or generally after the show. He stressed how busy the
producer would be on the day of the recording; he would have
no time to think about what was going on in dressing rooms.
Looking back on those times, however, he was now prepared to
accept that “the monitoring of the audience probably was not
adequate because these things were happening”.

9.167 I accept Mr Dorfman’s assertion that he does not remember

acting as the BBC spokesman at the time of Claire McAlpine’s
death and that, as a busy producer, he would have limited
knowledge of what was going on in the background at Top of
the Pops. It was unfortunate, to say the least, if Mr Dorfman
spoke to the press when he did not have actual knowledge of
the issues under discussion. If that was the case, his
reassuring assertion in the press that Top of the Pops was a
perfectly decent “jolly-jolly show” was worthless.

9.168 It rather looks as though the other producers may all have
advanced a reassuring picture. This would explain why Mr Neill
felt generally reassured. I am fortified in my view that the
producers would probably have given Mr Neill a reassuring
picture by my interview with Stan Appel, who was a production
assistant and then a director on Top of the Pops in the 1970s.
He was not interviewed by Mr Neill. He was unaware of any
cause for concern about Top of the Pops. His evidence, that he
would not have been aware of what might have been
happening on the studio floor or in the corridors or dressing
rooms afterwards because he was so busy, tallies closely with
the evidence of Mr Dorfman. However, when asked if anyone
was responsible for the moral welfare of the young people in
the participating audience, Mr Appel said that there was nobody
in particular, although the floor manager would be expected to
keep an eye out for anything inappropriate.

556
9.169 A further reason for believing that Mr Neill would have been
given a reassuring account of Top of the Pops comes from the
evidence of Jim Moir, who worked in the Light Entertainment
Department throughout the 1970s (and eventually became its
Head). He did not, however, work directly on Top of the Pops.
His evidence was that he never had any occasion during the
whole of that time to feel concerned about any issues of
immorality, concerning any stars or staff.

9.170 In my view, the reasons why reassuring evidence would have

been given are threefold. First, as Mr Dorfman explained, the
producers did not know whether assignations were being made
on the studio floor during the show or what was taking place
afterwards because they were in the gallery. Second, it seems
to me that they would not want to think that anything was
occurring which might endanger their show; they were part of a
successful enterprise and would naturally want it to continue.
They would not want to rock the boat. Third, I think there was a
general attitude among the people involved in Top of the Pops
(an attitude which was not in any way inconsistent with attitudes
in the entertainment industry at that time and even to some
extent in society as a whole) that, if anything was going on, that
was the business of the young people concerned, who were all
old enough to consent.

9.171 If Mr Neill had had access to evidence from more junior

members of staff, it is possible that some of them would have
been more knowledgeable and might have been more
forthcoming than their seniors about what went on. I cannot
say with any degree of certainty that they would have been. I
will, however, describe the evidence I heard on these topics.

9.172 Quentin Mann worked for the BBC for over 30 years. In the late
1960s and 1970s, he was a floor assistant and assistant floor
manager; he often worked on Top of the Pops. He said that the

557
 stand-ins used to pick up girls from the audience and take them
out. It never occurred to him that the girls might be under the
age of 16.

9.173 Gill Stribling-Wright worked as a production assistant on Top of

the Pops from 1968 to 1971. She said that the atmosphere on
the show was “very laddish”, with “risqué humour” and
“manhandling”. She said that there were a lot of young girls
who were desperate to get in and “to sleep with a roadie” or
have some contact with someone who had something to do
with Top of the Pops. She said that the stand-ins were “seedy”.
She could well believe that they made arrangements to meet
girls and take them out after the show but the production staff
would not do such things. There were also a lot of record
pluggers present, some (but not all) of whom were “seedy”.
She was certain that people would sometimes have sex in
dressing rooms; it was part of the “old casting couch culture”
but she did not know of any specific examples. She said that
she did not feel responsible for the girls in the participating
audience. She added that “it was very difficult to tell … who
was 15 and who wasn’t. Who was underage and who wasn’t”.

9.174 Paul Hughes-Smith was an assistant floor manager on Top of

the Pops from about 1969 to 1971. He felt uncomfortable about
aspects of the programme; for example, the way the young girls
were photographed from a low angle so that a good deal of leg
was showing; also the way in which the audience, mainly girls,
were herded about the studio “like cattle”; the lascivious way in
which Savile used to look at the girls on camera and the way in
which he got them to come very close to him on the podium;
also that he would see young girls going down to the basement
(where the group dressing rooms were) after the show instead
of leaving the premises.

558
9.175 When shown the News of the World articles, Mr Hughes-
Smith’s reaction was to say that he found the allegations “highly
credible”. He thought it would have required quite a strong
person to take concerns about the programme up to a higher
level, such as telling Mr Cotton. People would not have wanted
to be dragged into an investigation; it would be safer to keep
quiet. He thought that management would not have wished to
confront the kind of problem that had been described in the
News of the World. He explained that “blowing the whistle”
would at that time have been very difficult for several reasons:

“You would fear that people would regard you

as a nuisance. You may worry that you did not
have enough evidence to speak out. You might
fear getting embroiled in something which might
lead to your own conduct being subject to close
scrutiny. People would fear that, if there were
an investigation, you would not know where it
might end.”

9.176 Mr Hughes-Smith gave a good description of his view of the

culture of Top of the Pops. He said that it was “an
extraordinary mixture of sleaze and innocence”. The innocence
was thinking that what was happening, as presented on the
screen, was just good, clean, fun, family entertainment. The
failure to see that those things represented something other
than what appeared on the screen was a kind of innocence.
The sleaze was the reality of what was actually happening and
also the grossly-inflated idea of the value which the girls placed
on what Top of the Pops might do for them. He added “I mean,
celebrity culture is still about that”.

9.177 It does seem to me that, if Mr Neill had been told what I was
told by these three witnesses (and possibly others who may
have been available then) he would not have felt quite as
reassured as he did.

559
9.178 There is very little evidence that Mr Neill had been asked to
carry out a general review of Top of the Pops. I have
mentioned that, although, based on the evidence he received,
Mr Neill was generally reassured about Top of the Pops, he did
express some concerns about systemic organisational aspects
of the programme. I quote:

“A programme such as “Top of the Pops” does,

however, present certain problems in that it
introduces into the labyrinthine TV Centre a
substantial number of teenage girls. I was very
impressed with Mr Birks and with the care with
which he evidently tackled these problems, but
the following points appeared to me to be worth
further attention.

(a) I got the impression that there was some

uncertainty as to the division of responsibility
for “participating audiences” between the
production staff and those responsible for
security. It seems to me that there should be
some clear guidance as to who is to be
ultimately responsible for the behaviour and
control of audiences of this kind.

(b) I understand that the control of visitors to the

BBC Club has been tightened up in the last
year or so. There are obvious disadvantages in
having the Club in the TV Centre itself and it is
important that the stricter control should be
maintained.

(c) Although in the light of the other evidence I

broadly accepted Goodwin’s assertion that
what he had told the reporters was untrue, I
was left with the impression that Goodwin was
allowed to be very much a law unto himself
and that there was no real supervision of what
he did. It seems to be his practice to bring with
him a small number of girls from the North of
England who appear as part of the audience in
the programme and I was not satisfied that he
had ever received proper permission to do this
or that there were any adequate arrangements
made for these girls to change their clothes if
they wished to do so.”

560
9.179 The evidence I have heard and read is entirely in accordance
with these concerns and conclusions. However, to some
extent, these concerns reflected what BBC staff must already
have known. They knew about the security problems; they
knew it was difficult to police the age limit and they knew that,
on Top of the Pops nights, young people were getting into the
BBC Club. The BBC’s reaction had already been to raise the
age limit to 16 and to try to tighten up the ticketing
arrangements. It also tried to be more vigilant about entry to
the BBC Club. However, the evidence I have heard suggests
that, while Top of the Pops was recorded at Television Centre
where security arrangements were difficult to enforce, while
there was no official document which could be required to prove
age and while there was a licensed Club on the premises, all
these good intentions would prove very difficult to realise.

9.180 I should add that evidence I heard from witnesses who

attended the show in the years following 1971/1972 suggests
that no real changes were made. I have seen no document
which suggests that any clearer rules of responsibility for
audiences were laid down. It may well be that more effort went
into asking young people about their ages but I am satisfied
that some people under 16 (both boys and girls) were
sometimes let in. Also no attempt appears to have been made
to stop staff members bringing young relatives to the show;
such young people would not be subject to the same degree of
supervision as ordinary members of the audience. Nor was any
attempt apparently made to restrict the right of celebrity
performers to bring whoever they liked in to see and take part in
the show.

The Neill Report – Conclusions about Mrs McAlpine’s Complaint

9.181 Consideration of Mrs McAlpine’s complaint was not part of Mr

Neill’s written instructions, but Mr Neill dealt briefly with it. He

561
 recorded that he had interviewed A7 about his alleged
association with Claire. I interpose to say that A7 told the
Savile investigation that no such interview had taken place.
Later, he informed us, through his solicitor, that he accepted I
might prefer the BBC records to his recollection and stated that
he did not wish to imply any impropriety on Sir Brian’s part. I
am satisfied that Mr Neill did interview A7. Mr Neill recorded:

“[A7] told me that the girl had come to see him

on several occasions and had invented stories
for the purpose of getting access to him. He
said she seemed to him in a sort of fantasy
world but that she had not made any sexual
advances of any kind.”

I interpose again to say that Mr Neill’s account of what A7 said

is completely at variance with what A7 told us, namely that, to
his knowledge, he had never met Claire McAlpine.

9.182 The only other witness Mr Neill interviewed on this issue was
Mr Cotton, although he also saw statements from Mr Preston
and Mr Moorfoot (both whose statements appear to have been
destroyed) and a number of memoranda which are clearly the
same documents as I have seen to which I have referred
above. Mr Neill did not recount Mr Cotton’s evidence save to
say that he had interviewed A7 together with Mr Preston and
had been satisfied with A7’s denial that he had ever taken the
girl home from Top of the Pops. Mr Neill does not mention Mr
Preston’s reservation about the inconsistency between what A7
had said and his agent’s first thoughts about A7’s movements
on the night in question.

9.183 It seems to me that Mr Neill’s investigation of this issue was

substantially hampered by the inadequacy of the internal BBC
investigation, such as it was, and in particular by the lack of any
note of what A7 had said when first interviewed by Mr Cotton
and Mr Preston. Given that the evidence provided to Mr Neill

562
 has not been retained, we do not know what evidence was
available to him.

9.184 On this issue, Mr Neill’s main conclusion on the evidence he

had heard was that the BBC appeared to have dealt properly
with Mrs McAlpine's complaint. With great respect, given all the
evidence I have seen, I cannot agree with this conclusion. I
have already explained why I think that the BBC's internal
investigation into Mrs McAlpine's complaint was inadequate
(see 9.61-9.65 above).

9.185 Mr Neill also concluded that the allegation against A7 was

“probably an Invention”. I pass no comment on this conclusion
as it is outside my Terms of Reference.

The Police Investigation and Report

9.186 The police investigation led to prosecutions and convictions in

respect of the payola allegations, although very few involved
BBC employees. In respect of the Top of the Pops part of the
investigation, the police interviewed a large number of
commissionaires or security officers, some production staff and
technical operations crews who had been connected with the
programme during the 12-month period prior to 1 February
1971. During the Metropolitan Police’s visits to Television
Centre to observe Top of the Pops in operation, they appear
not to have seen anything untoward.

9.187 In due course, a report was prepared in three parts by the

Metropolitan Police. The first two parts are not relevant to this
investigation. The third part, completed on 26 October 1972,
appears to cover all the remaining issues investigated by the
police, including allegations and concerns arising from Top of
the Pops. Only chapter 11 of the 14 chapters in the third part
deals with the programme. The Metropolitan Police allowed us
to look at a redacted copy of that chapter.

563
9.188 The Metropolitan Police’s report concludes that Mr Goodwin
had indeed shown blue films on BBC premises at Lime Grove,
mainly during the period 1967 to 1969. The audiences for the
films had included BBC staff and members of the popular music
community. Mr Goodwin himself admitted to the police that
blue films had been shown to staff on two occasions but he
denied that the films belonged to him; he claimed that they
belonged to “a casual person employed on the programme”.
There was evidence from a BBC commissionaire that he had
been instructed by a studio manager to get young girls out of
Mr Goodwin’s dressing room but no reference to evidence that
Mr Goodwin also took pornographic photographs of young
members of the audience, although it is recorded that Mr
Howard denied to the police (as he did to me 40 years later)
that that had occurred.

9.189 It was reported that a number of underage girls (some as young

as 13) had attended recordings of Top of the Pops after bribing
commissionaires to let them in. What this evidence amounted
to I cannot tell as the only statement I have seen relating to
conduct of this kind is that of a commissionaire who admitted
that, on occasions in 1970, he had given a spare ticket to the
mother of a young girl (there is no evidence of her age) who
wanted to get in to the show but had no ticket. The girl’s
mother had given him 10 shillings to thank him. He had been
reported and interviewed, had told the truth and had been
dismissed. He told the police that his conduct was general
practice among the commissionaires.

9.190 The report referred to information given by Mr Briton, the former

stand-in, to whom I refer at paragraphs 9.78 to 9.79. He had
repeated to the police the substance of the information he had
given to the News of the World, including the allegation that
girls were smuggled into BBC premises without tickets, that

564
 they were seduced and that many of the girls who came to the
show were under the age of 16. He said, however, that he
could not prove that any underage girls had been seduced.

9.191 I have been told that the police also interviewed 30 female
members of the participating audience of Top of the Pops. I
understand that many were under 16; indeed some were as
young as 13. None reported that any sexual advance had been
made or that any sexual contact had occurred between them
and BBC staff. However, the report did note that some of the
girls seemed reluctant to be open with the police as they had
been accompanied to the interviews by their parents. It
appears that the police concluded that the arrangements for
admission to Top of the Pops should be tightened up and that
the lower age limit should be raised from 15 to 16. As I have
earlier observed, this change was made.

9.192 As for Claire McAlpine, the report quotes Detective Chief

Superintendent Booker as saying “Our enquiries into this matter
have revealed that in fact this child was highly emotional, stage
struck and living in a world of fantasy” and “that she had,
through her own efforts, established some contact” with a
number of celebrities “but the extent of her involvement is
grossly exaggerated”. The report does not substantiate these
conclusions by reference to evidence in the way that it does
with other allegations, such as, for example the allegations
against Mr Goodwin. The Savile investigation has asked the
police what investigations were made in respect of Claire
McAlpine which led Detective Chief Superintendent Booker to
this conclusion. In particular, we have asked the police whether
they interviewed Mrs McAlpine, Claire’s three friends and the
two celebrities allegedly named in the diary. I have been told
that there is no record that any of these people were
interviewed.

565
9.193 When the police report was complete, it appears that
arrangements were made for a copy to be provided for BBC
senior management. However, I can find no reference to any
discussion of the issues it dealt with in the minutes of meetings
of either the Board of Management or the Governors.

Conclusions about the BBC’s Response to the Various Wake-up

Calls in Respect of Top of the Pops

9.194 Looked at in the round, it appears that the only reaction of the
BBC to the various problems which had been drawn to its
attention in respect of Top of the Pops was to raise the
admission age from 15 to 16 and to attempt to tighten up the
ticket arrangements for entry to the show and entry to the BBC
Club. These measures would, even if successful, do very little
to tackle the gravamen of the concerns which had been raised,
which consisted of allegations that young girls might be being
picked up for sexual purposes. First, raising the admission age
to 16 would (provided the rule could be enforced) ensure that
whatever sexual contact there might be between the audience
and older men would be lawful sexual contact. But was that
really all that mattered? Was it acceptable that there was a real
possibility of sexual contact between 16-year old girls and much
older men, be they stand-ins, photographers, cameramen,
musicians or whoever? In any event, the BBC well knew that it
was extremely difficult to enforce the age limit, whether 15 or
16. Without requiring proof of age, it would always be easy for
some girls to claim to be 16 when they were not.

9.195 Tightening up on the ticket arrangements would not prevent

staff from inviting chosen girls onto the show or inviting them
back for repeat visits should they choose to do so. Even with
the admission arrangements to the Club properly enforced, girls
of 16 were still allowed in (or younger if they looked 16)
provided they could get a member of staff to sign them in. I can

566
 see that enforcement of the Club rules might make some
difference in that it might close off one venue for meeting but I
have little doubt that there were others.

9.196 The real problem was, as Mr Neill pointed out, that Top of the
Pops introduced into the labyrinthine Television Centre a
substantial number of teenage girls. Once there, those girls
were unsupervised. Once there, they could make contact with
visiting groups and their support teams and all sorts of BBC
staff. I have little doubt that some of the girls would have been
more than happy to have sexual contact with such men on the
premises, insofar as practicable and also to make assignations
for afterwards. There is evidence both before my investigation
and before the Hall investigation, that some girls used to ‘throw
themselves’ at celebrities, pop stars and anyone associated
with them. It seems to me likely that a culture could develop
whereby the men took it for granted that the girls were willing to
have sexual contact. I cannot think that it was acceptable for
the BBC to run a programme which effectively provided a
‘picking-up’ opportunity such as this.

9.197 The impression that I have from the Board of Management and
Governors’ minutes and from the various internal memoranda
to which I have referred, was that no one within the BBC
seemed to consider the possibility that the News of the World
articles might have lifted the lid off a true state of affairs at Top
of the Pops. There has been a thread running through the
evidence I have heard that the BBC felt that the tabloid press
was ‘anti-BBC’ and that much of what they published was likely
to be untrue or at least greatly exaggerated. That was a
dangerous attitude for the BBC to adopt. In fairness to the
BBC, it did take the payola allegations seriously but I do not
think that it treated the Top of the Pops allegations with the
seriousness they deserved. There is no hint of any concern

567
 that some of the young audience would be impressionable and
star-struck and would be vulnerable to the advances of anyone
(including such people as stand-ins, photographers or roadies)
who had acquired a superficial glamour by virtue of association
with the programme. On the contrary, the concern within the
BBC seems to have been to dampen down any adverse
publicity and to ensure, so far as possible, that any sexual
contact taking place in connection with the show would be
consensual because the girls would be over 16.

9.198 This criticism might seem harsh but it seems to me to be borne

out first by the BBC’s immediate reaction to Mrs McAlpine’s
complaint and then by its failure to maintain any real focus on
the issues raised following the inquest into Claire’s death.

9.199 I have already said that I regard the BBC’s reaction to Mrs
McAlpine’s complaint in early 1971 as wholly inadequate. The
matter was handled within the Light Entertainment Department
and did not apparently go any higher, despite the fact that Mrs
McAlpine had asked to speak to the ‘Chairman’. I note,
however, that the Solicitor’s department was involved. The
attitude of those involved was evident at the outset. The matter
was pre-judged: Mr Preston proposed to do nothing about the
complaint because the allegation against A7 was “completely
out of character”. Mr Derrick’s view was that there was
“probably no substance in the complaint” but that, because it
was lodged by a member of the public, the Corporation was
“duty bound to investigate it”. No real investigation took place.
Mrs McAlpine was not invited to speak face to face with the
BBC. The only step which was taken was to confront A7 (in an
unrecorded conversation) and, when a flat denial had been
issued, to accept that denial without demur. It seems to me
that Mrs McAlpine was justified when she said that she had
been “shrugged off”.

568
9.200 I am not alone in viewing the response by the BBC to Mrs
McAlpine’s complaint critically. While I could not interview
those directly involved in the process, I have spoken with a
number of witnesses about the events and tested my reaction
by inviting their comments. No one to whom I spoke was able
to endorse the approach taken by the BBC. Mr Moir’s view was
particularly relevant. Whilst emphasising his impression that Mr
Preston, Mr Cotton and Mr Moorfoot were all decent and
honourable men, he acknowledged that the way in which the
complaint was prejudged was shocking. Viewed overall, he
concluded that the impression given was that those involved
wished to close the matter down as quickly as possible “to get
this done with, buttoned up, mother talked to and the matter
closed down”. This view was shared by Brian Clifford, who
worked in publicity and then became Deputy Head of the
Information Division and eventually Head of Corporate
Promotion. He said that it appeared that the BBC did not wish
to engage with Mrs McAlpine. It would have done the minimum
to make the fuss go away. A7 also expressed concerns about
the adequacy of internal BBC procedures during this period.

9.201 In my view, the BBC’s reaction following the inquest into

Claire’s death was also inappropriate. From the Board of
Management minutes, it appears that the main concern was to
control adverse publicity and to ensure that the BBC’s position
was protected at the inquest. When the inquest passed off
without reference to the BBC, it appears that the BBC, relying
on the police statement that Claire was a fantasist, considered
that the file (insofar as it related to the moral danger issues on
Top of the Pops) could effectively be closed. Thereafter,
matters were left to the police and to Mr Neill who, given the
limited scope of his instructions, understandably only revisited
the ground covered by the initial investigation into Mrs
McAlpine’s complaint. In my view, when these allegations were

569
 raised by the News of the World and following the inquest into
Claire McAlpine’s death, the BBC should have undertaken a
thorough investigation of what went on during and after Top of
the Pops. The focus of this should have been to establish what
ought to be done to protect the young people who attended the
show. This was not the responsibility of the police; they were
there to investigate possible criminal behaviour. The BBC’s
responsibility was much wider than that. But the BBC’s
reaction was limited in effect to problems of ticketing, admission
and policing the age limit.

9.202 Nor does it appear to me that the BBC instructed Mr Neill to

carry out an in-depth investigation of Top of the Pops. He was
instructed to enquire into the payola allegations, which seem to
me to have been the BBC’s main concern. I do not know what
anyone said to Mr Neill about covering the allegations relating
to Top of the Pops and Claire McAlpine and there is nothing in
the written records to clarify what he was asked to cover in
these respects. I think that, to the BBC, allegations of bribery,
corruption and rigging of popular music charts were much more
serious than allegations that it was failing in its duties of child
protection.

9.203 Some may say that it is not altogether surprising that the BBC
did not give the Top of the Pops problems its main attention. In
those days, child protection was not given the prominence it
receives today. As I have said in Chapter 3, some people
thought that a casual sexual relationship between a girl of 16
and a much older man was acceptable; it was lawful and
therefore no one else’s business. With a girl of 14 or 15,
provided the girl was willing to have intercourse, some people
thought no great harm would be done even though the act
would be unlawful. Even accepting as I do that these attitudes
were common in society, I cannot accept that they would be

570
 proper attitudes for a public service broadcaster such as the
BBC. I am driven to conclude that the attitude of the BBC was
that, so long as it made sure that all the girls who came to Top
of the Pops were 16 or over, the problem was solved.

Top of the Pops in the Later Years

9.204 So far, I have concentrated on events which occurred in the late

1960s and early 1970s and the relevant environment, culture
and practices of that time. The Savile investigation heard from
other witnesses who worked on Top of the Pops in later
periods. Their evidence suggests that the environment at Top
of the Pops did not change much over the years.

9.205 Charles Garland, who was a floor manager on the programme

from 1986 to 1988, said that on Top of the Pops nights there
were a lot of girls trying to get into the building and sometimes
succeeding. It was obvious that they wanted to be with their
idols. He thought that BBC staff realised that some of these
girls were not there just to collect autographs. They might well
have been willing to have sex. This did not shock or surprise
people as there had been “a good deal of promiscuity in the
liberated 1960s which led to a very much more open attitude
towards sexual encounters than there had been before”.

9.206 Mr Carr presented a similar picture in the 1980s, when he was

working on Top of the Pops. There were still security problems
on nights when a popular group was performing, particularly the
“boy bands”. Wood Lane would be brought to a standstill and
girls would manage to get in when they should not. The BBC
knew this was happening; it was obvious. He thought there
was a general realisation that not all the girls would be over 16.
He thought it was believed that the girls, or some of them, were
there for sex. He thought that the attitude was that, because
there was a presumption that the girls were over 16, it was their

571
 own business. The reason the BBC wanted to keep them out
was because they were a nuisance, not to protect them from
moral danger. He thought that being chased by girls was an
occupational hazard, or an occupational advantage, for bands.

9.207 Roger Cook, the investigative journalist, occasionally worked at

Television Centre during the 1980s and recalls seeing crowds
of young girls in the corridors outside the studios on Top of the
Pops nights. From the way in which they behaved, and
conversations he overheard in passing, he had the impression
that “some of them were there in the hope of – not to put too
fine a point on it – bedding the presenter…”.

9.208 As mentioned above, the Savile investigation spoke to a

witness who worked at the gate at Television Centre, who
agreed that Top of the Pops nights were particularly difficult and
challenging. The witness told us that “girls used to try and
creep in in vans”.

Conclusion about Top of the Pops

9.209 My conclusion is that, at least during the 1960s, 1970s and

1980s (and possibly after that period), young people attending
Top of the Pops were at risk of moral danger. Even after the
entrance age was raised to 16 in 1971, there remained intrinsic
problems relating to the protection of young people. The format
of the show brought young people into unsupervised contact
with older men in circumstances where it was easy for them to
make arrangements which could lead to inappropriate sexual
contact. The atmosphere on the show was exciting and
‘testosterone-laden’. I have no doubt that some of the young
audience were impressionable and over-excited. I also have no
doubt that some of the men (perhaps not many but some) took
advantage of their position to have sexual contact and to make
assignations with some young members of the audience.

572
 Some of the young people may have seen Top of the Pops as a
way of advancing a career in show business and have thought
that associating with the men involved would help. I am sure
many of them were willing to do what they did. But that is not
the point. The BBC should not have been allowing this to
happen. It knew of the risks and it did not take them sufficiently
seriously. In fact, I think it may be that the only solution to this
problem was to change the format of the programme
completely so that there was not a young studio audience.
That was never considered as an option, I think because the
priority was to continue to run a successful show.

Knowledge about Savile in Relation to Top of the Pops

9.210 What about Savile in the midst of all this? I collected as much
evidence as I could from witnesses who had had dealings with
Savile on Top of the Pops.

9.211 Francesca Bergman attended Top of the Pops six weeks

running in 1969/1970 when she was aged 17/18. Her brother-
in-law (who is dead) worked with the BBC as a freelance
director. When he heard that she was going to Top of the
Pops, he told her not to go near Savile, because he liked young
girls. Pieter Morpurgo, a floor manager between June 1971
and December 1972, heard rumours that Savile liked young
girls; he thought this meant young girls of about 15 or 16. He
would see Savile arrange for particular girls to be on the
podium next to him and he would be very close to them. He
heard rumours that Savile took girls to his camper-van. He saw
that Savile’s dressing room always seemed full of “kids”.

9.212 Ann Mann, a production assistant on Top of the Pops between

1971 and 1974, said that there was gossip that Savile liked
young girls (sexually) meaning underage girls but not children.
On one occasion, she saw him in his dressing room with a

573
 young girl (aged between 14 and 16, she thought) and he was
not wearing trousers, only a track suit top and underpants. The
girl was sitting down (possibly on a chair or on the couch or day
bed) and was not distressed. Ms Mann did not tell anyone; she
was very busy at the time. Afterwards she just thought that that
was what Savile was like. She thinks that, if she had told
anyone, they would have just thought it was funny.

9.213 Mr Hughes-Smith worked on Top of the Pops for two periods,

one being in 1970, the other much later. He heard it said that
Savile wore track suits so he could be ‘quick on the draw’. He
thought Savile was lascivious and disapproved of him.

9.214 David Hare held various positions at the BBC, including that of
Lighting Director. He worked on some episodes of Top of the
Pops throughout his 31-year BBC career. He heard rumours
about Savile having “hanky panky” with young girls but he
thought they were not children and would be old enough to
consent. The rumours were treated in a jokey way but with
some disapproval as well.

9.215 Beryl Hoda worked as a production assistant in the Light

Entertainment Department in the 1970s. In about 1971, she
was told that Savile liked young girls (sexually) but she did not
think that this meant underage girls, just teenage girls much
younger than him. She thinks this conversation took place in a
small group. The attitude of the group was that the others had
already heard these things before; it was something to snigger
about. She thought Mr Cotton would have known about it as
well; it was so widely talked about. She was not surprised
when the scandal broke in 2012.

9.216 Phil Bishop was a director/producer in the late 1970s. He said

that Savile always used to choose the girls and boys he wanted

574
 close to him on the podium, instead of letting the director or
floor manager choose them.

9.217 Mr Carr said that there was never any concern about Savile
but, if there had been, it would have been handled quietly so as
to prevent damage to the programme. The producer or
perhaps the Head of Light Entertainment would have had a
quiet word but the priority would have been to protect the
programme. In any event, said Mr Carr, if people had known
that Savile was consorting with girls of 16, no one would have
thought anything of it. It would have been different if they were
under 16 but they would not have been under 16 because of
the age limit. He did not think anyone would have noticed if
Savile had taken a young girl back to his dressing room after
the show. There were so many people around. If someone
had said to him that they had seen Savile with a girl in his
dressing room, it would not have been of any real interest; it
would have been up to them what they did. That was so, even
if Savile had been in his fifties at the time. Only if Savile had
been seen with a very young girl would there have been any
concern.

9.218 I conclude that quite a number of staff members heard rumours

about Savile having a sexual interest in young girls but I have
not heard from any member of staff who claims or admits to
having seen anything that was clearly sexual in nature.

9.219 I did, however, hear from Ian Hampton, who was not a member
of staff but a musician who played bass guitar for a group called
Sparks which had several hit singles in the mid-1970s. Mr
Hampton estimated that he appeared on Top of the Pops about
15 or 16 times. On perhaps three occasions, Savile was the
presenter. In addition, Mr Hampton recalls seeing Savile at the
show on one occasion when he was not the presenter; he was
just mingling with the audience.

575
9.220 On that occasion, Mr Hampton noticed that, at one stage,
Savile left the studio with a young girl. Mr Hampton does not
know where they went. Nor could he say how old the girl was.
He could not say that she was underage, just that she looked
young. Mr Hampton was surprised to see this and a little
concerned. Mr Hampton told that night’s presenter what he had
seen. Mr Hampton recalls that the presenter’s response was to
tell him not to be silly. About 20 to 30 minutes later, Mr
Hampton saw Savile and the girl return to the studio. At that
stage, Mr Hampton was even more concerned because the girl
appeared to be distressed and unhappy. Savile walked away
from her in a dismissive way. One of the reasons why Mr
Hampton was concerned was that he had heard rumours (in the
music industry generally) that Savile had sex with underage
teenage girls. He had also heard rumours that Savile had a set
of minders, sometimes referred to as his mafia.

9.221 Mr Hampton also described another occasion when he saw

Savile leaving the studio with a young teenage girl. On this
occasion, Savile was the presenter and he left the studio for
only a few minutes. Mr Hampton did not see the girl when
Savile returned to the studio. On his return, Savile was his
usual flamboyant self, went straight onto the podium and
carried on with the programme. Mr Hampton said that he was
unaware of any reaction from the BBC staff to Savile’s
disappearance. Mr Hampton said that the members of his band
all noticed what had happened. Mr Hampton spoke to Robin
Nash, who he thinks was the producer of the show that night. I
am not sure whether in fact he would have been the producer
or the director at that time. In any event, Mr Hampton spoke to
Mr Nash, asking what Savile was up to. When Mr Nash asked
him what he meant and he had explained what he had seen, Mr
Hampton says that Mr Nash told him not to be ridiculous. Mr
Hampton had the impression that what he had said had put Mr

576
 Nash’s hackles up. Mr Hampton himself thought that Savile
had been up to “no good” with the girl. Mr Hampton told us that
he discussed this incident with the other members of the band
but they felt they were not in a position to do anything more. Mr
Hampton said that they were only glad to be on the show and
did not want to rock the boat. The show was important to them.

9.222 The Savile investigation has been unable to speak to Mr Nash,

who died some time ago. We have spoken to the presenter to
whom I refer above. He has no recollection of the incident.
Following this discussion, our impression is that the presenter
(whom I shall not name) would have thought that the
suggestion that Savile was taking advantage of a young girl
was preposterous.

Matters of Concern Which Were Not Reported but Which Could Have
Been Noticed

9.223 In Chapter 5, I set out incidents which entailed some form of

improper or illegal conduct by Savile while working on Top of
the Pops. First, I am satisfied that he often had a small group
of young girls with him in his dressing room: see the evidence
of Val and Angie at paragraphs 5.10 to 5.29. These girls were,
on their own account, 15 or over and some may well have
looked 16; I do not know. These girls enjoyed being there; it
was the basis of their social lives. They would not have
dreamed of complaining to the BBC about Savile’s requirement
that they should go back with him to his caravan or flat for sex.

9.224 There is very little evidence about BBC staff noticing these
young girls coming and going to and from Savile’s dressing
room and I can understand why. There were so many people
around and BBC staff were busy doing their own jobs. It was
nobody’s specific responsibility to protect the moral welfare of
young members of the audience. The floor manager was

577
 responsible while the show was on but once the audience had
left the studio and the studio supervisors had escorted out
those who had not slipped away (of which I am satisfied there
were quite a number not in any way connected with Savile), no
one was responsible for them.

9.225 Apart from the regular members of Savile’s Team, I know of at

least five young people (C10, C12, C42, C9 and C46) who were
invited back to Savile’s dressing room, where he abused them
sexually. They were not willing for this to happen but they did
not complain and there is no evidence that anybody noticed. In
the light of what I have said about the way in which the
programme operated, that is not surprising. There may well
have been others who suffered a similar experience but who
have not come forward to this Review. But I have no evidence
that any such person made a complaint to the BBC.

Matters Which Were Reported to Staff

9.226 In Chapter 5, I have recounted two serious indecent assaults

which took place on Savile’s podium during the recording of the
show. Both of these resulted in an attempt to complain to a
member of staff. One, C16, was assaulted by Savile when she
had been asked to go onto the podium while Savile introduced
an act. He put his hand under her open coat, unzipped her hot
pants at the back and put his hand inside her knickers. She
was upset and jumped off the podium. When she complained
to a member of BBC staff, a man with a clipboard, probably the
floor manager or his assistant, she was ejected from the
building. I do not know the exact date of this incident in 1969
and have not been able to discover the identity of the floor
manager on that occasion.

9.227 Several witnesses told me that an incident of that type should

have been recorded in the daily log and should have been

578
 investigated. So far as I am aware, this did not happen. Mr
Dorfman was one of the tranche of producers responsible for
Top of the Pops in 1969. He might have been that night’s
producer; I cannot say. Mr Hughes-Smith thought that if C16
had reported this incident to a stand-in, she would have been
ignored but if to someone like him, the matter should and would
have been reported to the floor manager who should have
recorded it and reported it upwards. Mr Bishop said that the
complaint should have been logged and should have been
escalated to Mr Cotton. Ms Mann was shocked by the
description of the C16 incident and said it should have been in
the log. She thought that the man with the clipboard must have
been the floor manager or his assistant. She thought that the
incident might not have been handled as it should have been.
She thought that “there was certainly chauvinism in those
days”.

9.228 My impression is that the person to whom C16 complained

regarded her as a nuisance and may well have thought the
incident was funny. There is no evidence that he recorded it or
reported it upwards and I think that it is very unlikely that he did
so.

9.229 The second incident which resulted in an attempt to complain

entailed B8 and took place on 24 November 1976. The
producer was Mr Stewart (deceased) and the director on that
occasion was Mr Bishop. The assault took place on a podium
during a recording and its effect on B8 can be seen on camera.
Although B8 does not show any visible sign of distress, it is
clear that Savile is doing something to her and that he thinks it
is funny. Her description of what he was doing (he had put his
hand underneath her bottom and was keeping it there and
“fiddling about”) is entirely consistent with what one can see.
When the song was over and B8 was free to move about, she

579
 spoke to a BBC man standing near a camera. She has a
vague recollection that he was wearing a headset round his
neck. When she told him what had happened, he told her not
to worry, that it was just Jimmy fooling about. Mr Bishop, the
director of the show on that occasion, told us that, at the time,
he was not aware that anything untoward had occurred. What
is particularly striking about this complaint is the reaction of the
BBC man to whom B8 complained. He clearly believed B8
when she described what Savile had done; indeed, it does not
appear to have come as any surprise. Given this, I do not think
that he would have recorded the incident or reported it
upwards.

9.230 It appears to me that neither of those two incidents became the

subject of an effective complaint which would have alerted
senior management to the existence of a problem with Savile.

9.231 Apart from the two studio incidents which I have just mentioned,
some other incidents occurred in or around the studio. None of
these incidents were reported by the victim concerned and
there is no evidence that they were noticed by anyone else.

Conclusion about the BBC’s Awareness of Savile’s Misconduct while

on Top of the Pops

9.232 I do not think that any member of senior management (see

Conclusions paragraph 28) was ever made aware of Savile’s
abuse of young people while working on Top of the Pops. That
was partly because no report was ever made direct to senior
management by a victim and partly because staff members
who did receive reports or complaints did not pass them on as
they should have done. Any other staff members who might
have had the opportunity to observe what was happening were
busy doing their own jobs. Even after the Neill report, it does
not appear to have been anybody’s responsibility to look after

580
 the welfare of the young members of the audience. Another
reason may well have been that such things as were observed
by staff were not regarded as seriously wrong – indeed they
might well have been thought of as amusing – and were not
reported upwards.

9.233 However, the most important and obvious reason why what
Savile was doing was not recognised was because of the
general environment of the programme, which I have described
earlier in this chapter. In the testosterone-laden atmosphere,
where everyone was, in theory at least, over the age of 16,
child protection was simply not a live issue. But, as I have said
earlier, if there had been a thorough investigation of what went
on at Top of the Pops when concerns arose in 1971, much
might have been discovered about the culture and atmosphere
which, when brought to the attention of senior management,
should have resulted in changes being made. For example, the
right of visiting artists to invite young people to see the show
and to entertain them in their dressing rooms might have been
discontinued. Such changes might have put a stop to Savile’s
activities in relation to the show or at least would have curtailed
them.

581
582
CHAPT ESS OF SAVILE’S
TER 10 – AWARENE
A S SEXUAL
L MISCON
NDUCT
WITHIN
N THE JIM
M’LL FIX IT
T TEAM

Introdu
uction

10.1 s chapter, I shall examine the

In this e evidence which sh
hows to
what extent ma
anagementt and me
embers of the team
ms who
d on Jim’lll Fix It were
worked e aware off Savile’s sexual
s hab
bits and
conduct. First, I will explain how Jim
m’ll Fix It wa
as made.

How J
Jim’ll Fix Itt Was Mad
de

10.2 Rogerr Ordish was

w the pro
oducer of Jim’ll Fix It througho
out the
whole of its 19--year run from
f 1975
5 to 1994. Before th
hat, he
producced Clunk Click (also
o presente
ed by Savile) for two
o series
in 197
73 and 197
74. He tolld the Savvile investig
gation thatt it was
Bill Cotton, Hea
ad of Light Enterta
ainment, who
w had chosen
c
Savile to presen
nt Clunk Click.
C Mr Cotton apparently admired
a
Savile’s abilitiess and wass impresse
ed by the success he
h was
g on BBC Radio 1.
having After tw
wo series, Clunk Clicck was
discon
ntinued; it had not be
een very successful
s and, in ad
ddition,
Mr Co
otton had become
b aw
ware of ‘w
wish-fulfilment’ progra
ammes
broadccast in Am
merica. He
e thought that
t such an idea co
ould be
used successful
s ly by the BBC.
B Savile became
e the prese
enter of
a wish
h-fulfilmentt programm
me which was
w named
d Jim’ll Fixx It. Mr
Ordish
h told us th
hat he exp
pressed the
e opinion to
t Mr Cotton that
a the pressenter. His reason was
Savile would nott be ideal as w not
on acccount of any
a views he held about
a Savile’s chara
acter; it
was because
b h though
he ht Savile was not very articulate.
Howevver, Mr Co
otton thoug
ght that Savile was th
he right person to
nt the new show and that was his
presen h decision.

10.3 In the early yearrs of Jim’lll Fix It, Mr Ordish re

eported dire
ectly to
otton, as Head
Mr Co H of Lig
ght Enterta
ainment. Later, Mr Ordish
reporte
ed to Jim Moir,
M as Head of Variety, then as Head of
o Light
Enterta etween 1987 and 1993.
ainment be

58
83
10.4 Mr Ordish’s production team varied in its constitution but was
always small. Typically, it would comprise a director, two or
three researchers, a production assistant and possibly a
production secretary. Sometimes Mr Ordish directed the
recordings himself but there might also be a separate director
for location work. On location, there would be a small technical
crew in addition to Mr Ordish, any other director and one or two
researchers. In the studio, there would be the usual studio
management team and technical crew.

10.5 The general approach was as follows. The production team

operated throughout the year, receiving letters from the public
asking for something to be ‘fixed’. Ideas emerged from the
letters for possible ‘fixes’, the team’s shorthand term for
something which would be fixed. A researcher from the
production team would make contact with potential ‘fixees’, the
shorthand term for a person who would be the subject of a ‘fix’.
If the fixee was a child, the researcher would speak to the
child’s family and would assess whether the proposed fix would
work as part of a show. If something looked potentially
workable, the arrangements would go ahead for the fix to be
filmed. This would entail plans, scripts and filming on location.
Much of this work would be done during the summer and a
collection of fixes would have already been filmed before the
series of programmes began in the winter. Savile would only
very rarely be involved with either the ideas for fixes or the
filming of them. Only very occasionally did he put forward an
idea for a fix and even more rarely did he take part in filming –
one notable exception according to Mr Ordish was when the
Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took part.

10.6 From evidence I received, it was clear, however, that this

general approach was not always followed and there were
occasions where a fix was set up without a request from a

584
 fixee. These so-called “dubious fixes” appear to have fallen
into two categories. The first category is where either an
organisation or individual approached (or was approached by)
the programme about a potential fix. The second, and much
more questionable, category appears to have been where a fix
was set up as a favour to a third party.

10.7 Mr Ordish gave me two examples of the first category. The first
example involved Margaret Thatcher, when she was Leader of
the Opposition. It appears that Savile, who knew Mrs Thatcher
(as she then was), suggested to her that some fixees might
meet her as Leader of the Opposition. According to Mr Ordish,
this fix was set up and a school was visited where it was
announced at assembly that a small number of pupils could go
to the House of Commons and meet Mrs Thatcher. Lots of
children wanted to go and three or four were chosen. On that
occasion, no letters requesting a fix were prepared. The
second example involved an offer to Jim’ll Fix It by the Royal
Air Force Costal Command to use one of their Nimrod aerial
reconnaissance aircraft. To facilitate this, the programme took
a letter from a potential fixee asking for Savile’s autograph and
offered its author the chance to get the autograph if she was
prepared to photograph Savile on the deck of a cross channel
ferry from a Nimrod aerial reconnaissance plane. The fixee
agreed, the fix took place and the letter was read out on the
programme unaltered.

10.8 I heard about further examples. One came from the evidence
of C56 (see paragraphs 3.88 and 5.230). C56’s father wrote to
Jim’ll Fix It in 1984 suggesting a fix for his daughter. She was
asked to write a letter of her own shortly before the show was
filmed.

10.9 This category of ‘dubious fixes’ appears to me to have been

entirely acceptable. No doubt excellent and entertaining

585
 television followed and all fixees enjoyed themselves.
However, the second category of ‘dubious fixes’ raises greater
concern. I heard two examples of such fixes, albeit not from Mr
Ordish, who told me that he had no knowledge of them.

10.10 The first dubious fix in this category was explained to me by

Robin Smith, who worked on the production team on Jim’ll Fix It
between 1987 and 1989. He told me that the programme was
having difficulties filming a (genuine) fix involving a child looking
out from the clock-face of Big Ben. Mr Smith thought that there
were some objections from the Palace of Westminster
authorities. Savile was asked if he could help. He did so and,
promptly, the problems were solved and the fix was arranged.
However, this was followed by a fix involving a child meeting
some penguins. Apparently the child’s parent had assisted in
resolving the Big Ben problem. The fix was arranged first and
the letter followed. It looks as though this was a favour for the
person who had helped to sort out the problem on the Big Ben
fix.

10.11 The second dubious fix in this category took place in late 1980
when Keith Harding, an antiques expert, ‘fixed’ a broken
jewellery box. This was the subject of some press coverage in
November 2014.

10.12 I met A23, the fixee. She told me that, in 1980, when she was
13 years old, she owned a jewellery box. When the jewellery
box was opened, a tune was played and a miniature ballerina
danced in a circle. The box was in working order except that
the arm of the ballerina was broken. A23 told me that, entirely
‘out of the blue’, she was asked by her uncle’s girlfriend, who
worked for the BBC as a researcher, if she would write a letter
to Jim’ll Fix It about her broken jewellery box. In particular, she
was asked to say that the music did not play and the ballerina
would not go round when the box was opened. She agreed to

586
 do this because she was asked to and because the prospect of
appearing on the programme was exciting. However, it was not
true. The ‘fix’ of the jewellery box was filmed, but the fix was a
con. In it, Mr Harding was shown apparently mending the
mechanism and making it work. A23 was filmed telling Mr
Harding that the box would not work and being grateful to him
for mending it. She was shown apparently enjoying the fix. In
fact, she told us at the time she was “laughing” because it was
all made up.

10.13 The press have reported an additional element of this story.

According to the press, Mr Harding was a convicted child sex
offender and membership secretary of the Paedophile
Information Exchange, a body which campaigned for the age of
consent to be reduced. All I can say is that A23 told me that
she (and her brother, who also appeared on the programme)
were chaperoned throughout and enjoyed themselves. There
is no question of any abuse taking place.

10.14 The Savile investigation wished to discover how Mr Harding

had come to be involved in the programme and in particular
whether Savile had been involved in making the arrangement.
We asked Mr Ordish. He remembered the fix but said he was
“really shocked” by what he had learned about how it was set
up, describing it as “awful”. He very much doubted that Savile
would have been involved in making the arrangement and said
he thought it was much more likely that it would have been set
up through Peter Campbell, the show’s director, as a means of
giving some publicity to Mr Harding as an antiques expert. This
happened; at the end of the film, there is a lingering shot of the
nameplate which gives Mr Harding’s name and his business
address very clearly. No doubt Mr Harding was happy to get
the publicity. We have been unable to trace the researcher
who made the approach to A23. Whatever the story behind this

587
 dubious fix, it was in my view ethically wrong to ask a young
person to write a letter that was untrue, to take part in filming
pretending that her musical box was broken and to appear on
national television receiving a badge for a fix that was wholly
false. As I say at paragraph 4.73, I do accept that some
element of make-believe is inevitable in television. However, in
my view, this make-believe was unethical and distasteful.

10.15 Returning to the making of the programme, the next stage in

production was to devise a series of programmes, usually about
12 to 14 programmes per series which would usually run from
December or January through until March or April. The last few
series ran from the spring until the summer. Each programme
would comprise three or possibly four filmed fixes linked
together with studio ‘chat’ and some music. Arrangements
would be made for the fixees and their families to come to
London to take part. Mr Ordish would write the script to pull the
whole programme together. Savile took no part.

10.16 Until some point in the mid-1980s, recording of the show

generally took place at BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush; then
it moved to Television Centre. This change is not without
importance as the theatre was quite small and Jim’ll Fix It would
be the only programme which was being recorded on the
premises that day. There were far fewer people about than
there would be at Television Centre. The procedure for the
day, however, remained the same. The fixees and their
families would arrive in the late morning and the fixees would
be filmed reading their letters. Savile would arrive after lunch
and would go to his dressing room. Mr Ordish would tell Savile
what the fixes were for the day and talk him through the script.
Other members of the team did not have much contact with
Savile until the rehearsal began, although they might have to go
to his dressing room to take papers or messages. The

588
 rehearsal would take place in the afternoon; then there would
be a break for refreshment, when Savile would usually return to
his dressing room. The recording would take place in the early
evening, usually finishing at about 7pm. There would be a little
party afterwards and Savile would sometimes come to the
hospitality room where there would be an opportunity for the
families to be photographed with him. Then everyone would go
home.

10.17 Within quite a short time after it started in 1975, Jim’ll Fix It
became an extremely popular and successful show. At its
height, it had 16.5 million viewers and held a prominent early
evening slot on Saturdays during the winter season. Although
the programme was not originally intended as a children’s
programme, it rapidly acquired a huge following among children
and became the kind of family programme which parents and
children would watch together.

10.18 The overwhelming impression that I have from the staff who
worked on this programme was that they loved being involved.
Mr Ordish was generally a popular producer and ran a happy
ship. Staff were proud to be involved, as the show was very
successful. I think it fair to say that very few of the staff
positively enjoyed working with Savile. Most, but not all, of the
women disliked him; most of the men were neutral about him.
Many recognised that the show depended upon his name as a
figurehead. In short, for many, Savile was something of a ‘fly in
the ointment’. But, as he was there so little, they were still very
happy to be involved.

Child Protection on Jim’ll Fix It

10.19 I was told of 17 occasions of abuse by Savile in connection with

Jim’ll Fix It, of which nine were of children under the age of 16.
While there was no formal child protection policy on the

589
 programme or, indeed, in the BBC as a whole during the period
of Jim’ll Fix It, that does not mean that the staff were not
concerned about the welfare of visiting children. They were. In
my view, this concern and the approach of the programme staff
to the welfare of the children must have had the effect of
reducing the opportunities Savile had to abuse on Jim’ll Fix It.

10.20 The general impression I have from witnesses who worked on

Jim’ll Fix It was that they put a great deal of effort into looking
after the children who took part in the show and giving them a
safe, happy and memorable day. When it became known that
allegations were being made that Savile had abused children
on the premises on Jim’ll Fix It recording days, the staff and, in
particular, the researchers who were largely responsible for
them, thought this was impossible; they thought the children
were so well looked after. For one thing, a child was always
accompanied by a parent, chaperone or member of staff. For
another, Savile’s dressing room was usually so full of people
that he would never be alone with a child. Savile’s dressing
room door was almost always open. I accept that those
opinions are genuinely held although I do not accept that they
represent the full story.

10.21 Several witnesses explained to me how children were looked

after on Jim’ll Fix It. This system was not thought of as a child
protection policy; it was just the way children were looked after.
In fact it was an informal child protection system. Patricia
Houlihan, who worked on the programme at the outset, was
tasked, by Mr Cotton, with finding out what, if any, regulations
would apply to children who would take part in the show. She
was also asked to find out how children should be cared for. A
system was set up which was designed to ensure that the
children were safe and happy during their visit.

590
10.22 First, any child or young person under the age of 18 who was
invited to take part in the show as a fixee and who would be
needed at the recording of the programme had to be
accompanied by a chaperone. Usually, this would be one or
both of the child’s parents; sometimes it would be another
relative, adult friend or youth club leader. I am satisfied that
that rule was strictly followed. In addition to the presence of a
chaperone, on the recording day, each child or young person
would be the responsibility of a researcher. He or she would
greet the child and the chaperone and settle them into a
dressing room which would usually be shared by all the fixees
for the day. The researcher would ensure that the fixees and
chaperones were ‘fed and watered’. If the fixee was needed for
something connected with the programme, such as make up or
dressing or recording the reading of the letter of request, he or
she would be accompanied by a researcher or assistant floor
manager until returned to the chaperone. The researcher was
not usually expected to remain with the child the whole time; it
was acceptable for the child to be left in the care of his or her
chaperone. As I understand it, when the rehearsal was about
to begin and the child was about to go onto the studio floor, the
researcher would hand over responsibility for the child to an
assistant floor manager.

10.23 On the set, the child would be in full view of several members of
the team, including the floor manager and assistants and the
technical teams. The parents or chaperones would generally
be watching from the audience seats. When the rehearsal was
finished, the children would be taken back to their dressing
room or to a cafeteria for some refreshment. They would be in
the care of their parents or chaperone during that time. When
the recording was about to begin, the assistant floor manager
would take the children back into the studio. When the
recording was over, the children would be reunited with their

591
 parents or chaperones and would attend a little party at which
there would be drinks and snacks. Savile might come to thank
everyone for taking part; if so, there would be a photo-
opportunity with him. Sometimes, he would not come to the
party but would receive groups of children in his dressing room
where he would sign autographs for them, possibly on a
photograph of himself which he would provide.

10.24 The fact that these arrangements were followed at the

recording of the programme makes the treatment of C56 while
out filming all the more surprising. As I explain at paragraph
3.88, C56’s fix involved a three day trip abroad. C56 went with
the (male) director and a female researcher but without a family
member or anyone she knew well. C56 was eight years old.
For the first time, she had to look after herself alone in a hotel
room. She told me that having to shower and dress completely
alone and having to go and find the director and researcher at
breakfast “when I was so young really … stayed with me a little
bit”. She told me she was “quite sad” and “lonely and unsure”
and agreed that she was probably a little frightened, even
though, as she told me, she was quite used to doing things
alone. I should stress that C56 was treated kindly on the trip,
but I do think that it was inappropriate and inadvisable for the
BBC to permit an eight-year old girl to travel in this way, even
though her parents must have agreed.

10.25 Different arrangements existed for children and young people

who attended as part of the audience. Children had to attend
with an adult. Quite often there were parties of young people,
for example, groups of children from a school or youth club who
would be accompanied and supervised by teachers or youth
leaders. Some members of the audience were selected to sit
on the beanbags on the stage, as a privileged subgroup of the
audience. That would mean that some children might be

592
 separated from their supervisors and from the rest of their
group who would remain in the audience seats. Those young
people would be reunited with their supervisors and groups at
the end of the recording and, if they were not invited to the
party, would go home. If they were connected with one of the
fixes, the whole group might be invited to the party or to see
Savile in his dressing room but they would be with their
supervisors.

10.26 There were no special arrangements for young people who

attended as Savile’s personal guests. Savile quite often invited
guests who were connected in some way with his charitable
work but, sometimes, the guests were simply personal friends.
Such people were not regarded as being the staff’s
responsibility; they had their own duties to attend to. Such
guests would be allowed to sit either in the audience seating or
sometimes on the beanbags. It appears that Savile would
make the arrangements for their admittance to the building. He
was free to invite them to his dressing room before the show, in
the refreshment break before recording began and, if he
wished, after the show was over.

10.27 On the face of it, those arrangements sound reasonable. But,

in fact, they were not entirely satisfactory. If one recognised the
possibility that Savile might be a sexual predator, one could see
that there were potential loopholes which he could exploit to
make opportunities to abuse a child or young person. Indeed,
some of the BBC witnesses themselves accepted that, with the
benefit of hindsight, they could see that there were potential
loopholes in the arrangements. For example, a child might be
left in his dressing room in the care of his parent. Savile could
come in, have a chat, send the parent away to find a cup of tea
and take the opportunity to abuse the child. That is what
happened to C20 in 1976. Another possible loophole could

593
 arise during the post-recording party. If Savile decided to take
a member of a group away to his dressing room, the leader of
the group might not accompany him or her. That is what
happened to Kevin Cook and is also what C40 told the police
had happened to him.

10.28 There was also the possibility that one of Savile’s personal
guests might be abused in the dressing room. The staff did not
feel that they had any control over Savile’s personal guests.
C36 who was well over 16 at the time permitted sexual activity
with Savile in the dressing room and C37 (a Duncroft pupil)
reported general touching over the clothes in the dressing room
after Clunk Click. I did not receive any evidence that an
underage guest of Savile’s was abused in his dressing room at
Jim’ll Fix It.

Awareness of Savile’s Sexual Deviancy

Overview

10.29 There were many members of BBC staff working on Jim’ll Fix It
who neither heard nor saw anything of concern so far as Savile
was concerned. In particular, these included the technical staff.
It is easy to understand why they would not hear or know
anything. They would not necessarily be regular members of
the team; they might be assigned to the show on an occasional
basis. Also, they would be fully occupied on the studio floor
and would have no contact with Savile until he came onto the
set.

10.30 There were, however, quite a number of Jim’ll Fix It staff who
were aware of rumours about Savile’s sexual misconduct and
some who observed inappropriate conduct themselves. A
number of women staff had to put up with having their hands or
arms kissed and licked and one or two had worse experiences
than that.

594
10.31 In Chapter 5, I reported on a number of incidents of sexual
misconduct which occurred in connection with the making of
Jim’ll Fix It. Where these concerned people who were not on
the staff of the BBC, there was no report to anyone in the BBC.
Also, so far as I can see, there was no reason why any member
of the Jim’ll Fix It staff would have been aware of what had
happened. Where the incidents concerned members of the
BBC staff (such as B9 and C3) the incidents were not reported
to Mr Ordish or to anyone in a senior position on the Jim’ll Fix It
team.

10.32 Mr Ordish has stated publicly and in his evidence to the Savile
investigation that he never had any cause to be concerned
about Savile’s conduct. He told us that he had heard rumours
about Savile’s sexual preference for young females, but not
underage girls and he says that he was unaware of any actual
misconduct. Therefore, he says, there was never any question
of him reporting any concerns to senior management. He did
say that, on occasions, he had heard Savile talk in “blokey
terms” and make remarks such as that there had been
“someone in the flat last night”.

10.33 There is no clear evidence that Mr Ordish was aware of any

sexual misconduct by Savile in connection with Jim’ll Fix It.
There is, however, some evidence from which it would be open
to me to infer that Mr Ordish had concerns about Savile’s
conduct and realised that there was a need to take special
care. Some of that evidence comes from members of his staff.
I will set out that evidence before I state whether I draw the
inference that Mr Ordish did in fact have concerns about Savile
and did in fact realise that there was a need to take special
care.

595
Awareness among Staff of the Need to Take Special Care

10.34 I shall summarise the evidence of BBC staff who worked on

Jim’ll Fix It. In addition to those members of staff who did have
concerns, I shall mention the evidence of those who did not. I
shall deal with this evidence so far as possible in chronological
order, in an attempt to build up a picture of what was known
within the team as the years went by and of what became
known to Mr Ordish. The team changed over the years; people
came and went; some stayed for years and some for only a few
months. Only Mr Ordish remained throughout.

10.35 Gill Stribling-Wright worked as a researcher on Clunk Click from

the beginning (1973), then moved on to Jim’ll Fix It where she
did three or four series ending in 1978. Ms Stribling-Wright said
that she never had any concerns about Savile’s conduct
towards the young people on the show. She thinks that, if any
of the team had had concerns, they would have talked about
them and Mr Ordish would have been included in the
conversation. She never saw Savile behave inappropriately
towards a woman except that he kissed and licked her hand
when they were introduced, which she found unpleasant. The
only indication that she ever had that Savile had a sexual
preference for very young women arose when she remarked in
respect of a woman that they both knew that she was “such a
pretty girl” and Savile responded that, in his opinion, this
woman was “a bit walnutish” – in other words too old to be
attractive. The woman concerned was in her mid-twenties. Ms
Stribling-Wright, who was of a similar age, said “Thanks a
bunch” and they both laughed. She never thought about
whether Savile was interested in underage girls. She did not
even think he had a strong sexual appetite. If anything, she
thought he probably bragged a bit about his sex life to cover the

596
 fact that he was not “pulling” women very much. She could not
remember any examples of the way in which he bragged.

10.36 Ms Houlihan, mentioned earlier in this chapter, worked as a

researcher on Jim’ll Fix It in 1975. Before she started work on
the show, she had read Savile’s autobiography As It Happens
and knew what he had said about his relationships with girls.
She had been “absolutely amazed” by that. She said that,
when she knew she was going to work on Jim’ll Fix It, she had
felt “a bit daunted” because of what she had read but, when she
met Savile, “he didn’t bother [her] at all”. She found him quite
easy to work with. While working on the show, she never heard
any rumours about Savile’s sex life and had no concerns at all
about him. She thought, however, that there were “hundreds of
groupies around”, some of whom may have been underage.
His dressing room was always full of people. He liked to hold
court. Her recollection was that these people were usually
middle-aged men rather than young girls. She said that there
was only one unsettling thing about him. He showed her his
rings and told her that they were made from the eyes of dead
people from the mortuary at Leeds General Infirmary. Ms
Houlihan believed him. She thought that he got a buzz out of
frightening her. She thought that he liked going to the mortuary
and he liked talking about Broadmoor.

10.37 Phil Bishop worked as a director on Jim’ll Fix It between 1975

and 1979. He heard that Savile was a womaniser but never
heard any rumours about him behaving inappropriately with
young girls. He did remember one occasion when Savile had a
very pretty young woman with him who seemed to be aged
about 18 or 19. She was Savile’s personal guest and he told
Mr Bishop that she had won a beauty contest at Broadmoor
(where she was a resident) and that part of her prize was to
come to London and sit on the beanbags during Jim’ll Fix It.

597
10.38 Mr Bishop thought that Mr Ordish was a “very honest and
honourable man, if gullible”. He was sure that Mr Ordish was
not “aware of what was going on”. He said that Mr Ordish was
not what he would call “a strong person” and “Savile did talk
him into all sorts of things”. If Savile did not like working with a
particular member of the team, that person would be moved.
Savile would have gone over Mr Ordish’s head to Mr Cotton if
necessary to get his way.

10.39 Jill Henderson worked as an assistant floor manager for one

series of Jim’ll Fix It, in 1976/1977. She knew that Savile had a
reputation for liking young girls. She said that everyone knew
it; it was “kind of received wisdom. It was something we all
knew…It was…in the zeitgeist and it was something you felt
was true from having met him”. She never dreamed that, by
‘young girls’, people meant very young girls or children. She
thought they probably meant girls who were slightly underage
but, as he was “so deeply unattractive”, she could not imagine
him attracting such people.

10.40 Ms Henderson loved working on Jim’ll Fix It because the team

tried to give the children a marvellous time. The only downside
was working with Savile on the day of recording. She felt an
instinctive dislike of him and wanted to keep him at arm’s
length. She thought he was a “dirty old man” who “lusted after
young women” but she did not think that he actually did
anything about it. At the time, she felt uncomfortable that the
show was helping Savile to support a positive public persona
that was inaccurate.

10.41 She never had any concerns about the safety of the children
who appeared on the show. First, they were usually much
younger than the mid-teenagers that Savile appeared to be
interested in. Second, the children and young people on the
show were in a very “regulated atmosphere” or so it seemed to

598
 her, always accompanied by either their parents or a
researcher or else in full public view sitting on the beanbags.
Third, she thought that, although Savile was lustful, he never
did anything about it. She thought he was too old. He would
have been about 50.

10.42 A sound engineer (whom I have called A6) told us that he

worked on Jim’ll Fix It on a few occasions in the 1970s. He had
a trainee who was about 19 years old. On the first occasion
they worked with Savile, A6 and his trainee went together to fit
Savile’s microphone. Savile liked to have the box fitted to the
back of his trousers and had to lower his trousers a few inches
to allow this. There was no problem. The following week, A6’s
trainee went to fit Savile’s microphone in his dressing room.
When he returned, after some delay, he was clearly upset. He
said he was “never going in there again”. It was time for the
show to begin and there was no time then for A6 to find out
what had happened. When the recording was over, A6
removed Savile’s microphone himself and later took his trainee
aside in an attempt to find out what the problem was. His
trainee was tearful and told him that Savile had asked him to fit
the microphone whilst they were both on the bed and had
seemed to want to fondle him.

10.43 A6 reported this to his line manager, the Sound Supervisor.

After a few weeks, when his trainee had gone off on a training
course, he tried to find out what had happened about the report.
He spoke to the Sound Manager (the next level up the
management line), who said that he would find out what was
happening. A6 heard nothing more. It is believed that the
Sound Supervisor has died and we have been unable to trace
the Sound Manager. It appears that A6 did not discuss this
episode with anyone on the Jim’ll Fix It production team. He

599
 took his concern up his own, separate, management line but it
appears to have fizzled out.

10.44 B9 worked as a production secretary on Jim’ll Fix It in

1980/1981, when she was about 20. Soon after she started,
she was warned to be careful when with Savile. Also, one of
the researchers (she cannot now remember who) told her that
Savile did not come out on location for filming the fixes
because, in the past, there had been trouble with him and
underage girls. She had the impression that everyone on the
team was aware of this. I interpose to say that no one else told
me that this was the reason Savile did not usually go out on
location.

10.45 From time to time, B9 had to visit Savile’s dressing room. She
had to put up with wet kisses on the hand and arm and, on one
occasion, Savile “stuck his tongue straight down [her] throat”.
There were some guests of Savile’s in the room. She did not
report this to Mr Ordish as she enjoyed her job and she said
“Well you think, … it’s Jimmy Savile; he’s got such a fantastic
reputation, sort of just keep quiet and get on with it”.

10.46 B9 said that Savile often invited guests onto the show and that
sometimes these were quite young girls. They would go to his
dressing room. She could not say how old they were but they
seemed to be in their teens.

10.47 Camilla Griffith-Jones worked as a production assistant on

Jim’ll Fix It in 1982/1983. When Ms Griffith-Jones began, she
was warned that Savile might “grope her”. She said that he did
“slobber” over her a bit. She also said that Savile sometimes
had young girls in his dressing room. They could have been as
young as 13/14 years old. People said that “he liked young
girls” but she did not understand this to be anything “sinister”.
Ms Griffith-Jones thought Savile might be gay as he did not

600
 have a girlfriend. She said that she felt that if anyone of her
level of seniority had raised concerns, nothing would have been
done and it “would not have done any favours” for the person
who raised it.

10.48 Quentin Mann worked as a floor manager on Jim’ll Fix It quite

regularly from 1981 or 1982. He was aware that Savile was “a
ladies’ man” and would often make a remark if he saw an
attractive woman or girl. He saw Savile kiss women’s hands
and arms – but only those he knew well and his impression was
that they did not seem to mind. He said that Savile was always
putting his arm around people and could be described as tactile
but, he said, people were a little more familiar in those days.
He said he was unaware of any feeling among the female
members of the team that they did not like working with Savile
and he never heard any suggestion that there was a need to
take special care of children or young people so far as Savile
was concerned. He said that Mr Ordish was quite firm with
Savile about the way in which things were to be done.

10.49 Ian Smith worked as a cameraman on Jim’ll Fix It in the 1980s.

He heard from a fellow member of the technical crew that
Savile was attracted to young boys and girls.

10.50 Terry Walsh worked as a researcher on Jim’ll Fix It in the early

1980s. He heard from fellow researchers that Savile was
‘sleeping’ with underage girls.

10.51 John Ainsworth worked in set design. At some time in the

1980s, he was told by a set designer who worked on Jim’ll Fix It
that Savile was not to be left alone with children.

10.52 A production assistant who worked on Jim’ll Fix It in the 1980s

heard rumours from crew members connecting Savile with
young boys and girls but, because Savile was about 40 (or so
she thought; in fact he was in his mid/late fifties or early sixties),

601
 she understood this to mean that the young people were in their
late teens or early twenties.

10.53 Stuart Murdoch worked as a Visual Effects Designer at the

BBC. In 1985, he worked on Jim’ll Fix It. He told the Assistant
Floor Manager on the show that he thought Savile was ‘a bit of
a cold fish’. The Assistant Floor Manager agreed and said
“Just make sure that he [Savile] doesn’t walk off with a member
of the audience.” We have not been able to identify the
Assistant Floor Manager in question.

10.54 Anne Gilchrist worked as a researcher on Jim’ll Fix It for one

series in 1985. Later she had a successful career in the BBC
and became Controller of the CBBC Channel and Creative
Director in the Comedy Department.

10.55 When Ms Gilchrist met Savile for the first time, on Jim’ll Fix It,
having been introduced by another researcher, he kissed her
hand and her arm all the way up to her shoulder. She was
taken aback. She did not like this but she did not complain
because he was the star of the show. After that incident, Ms
Gilchrist did not want to be in Savile’s company unless
absolutely necessary and another (male) researcher used to
take messages to Savile so that she would not need to speak to
him. Ms Gilchrist did not hear rumours about Savile although
she knew that people thought he was “weird”.

10.56 As part of her job, Ms Gilchrist sometimes had to take children

to meet Savile in his dressing room, usually to get his
autograph. Sometimes the parents came too, sometimes not.
She had what she described as a “general feeling” that children
should not be left with Savile without a member of the
production team present. She thought one of the team ought
always to be with them. She said that she expressed this
opinion to Mr Ordish. Other members of the team were present

602
 in the office. She could not recall Mr Ordish’s reply but felt that
he was quite dismissive. There was no discussion of her
suggestion; he did not ask why she had made it.

10.57 Ms Gilchrist does not think that any instruction was ever given
to staff to be careful not to leave children alone with Savile.
She herself did not give such an instruction; she would not have
had the authority to do so. She said that one of her fellow
researchers shared her concerns as did another floor manager
whose name she cannot now recall. Unfortunately we have
been unable to contact either the floor manager or the
researcher concerned.

10.58 Ms Gilchrist agreed that Mr Ordish was very keen to keep

Savile happy but she said that this was a common situation for
producers “with a star on their hands”. When Ms Gilchrist’s six-
month contract came to an end, she was not given a second
contract. She received a letter which explained that Savile had
not got on with her.

10.59 David Nicolson started to work for the BBC in 1982. He says
that it was common knowledge in the music industry, not just at
the BBC, that Savile had a liking for young girls. He began to
work on Jim’ll Fix It in 1988. He had the impression that Mr
Ordish ‘cow-towed’ to Savile. He observed that Savile used to
bring young girls into the studio with him; they looked as though
they were in their teens, although not under 16. They were not
at all glamorous and he thought that most of them looked
“troubled”. He – and he believes others on the team –
assumed that Savile had sex with these girls and he thought
that Mr Ordish assumed that as well.

10.60 On one occasion, Mr Nicolson had occasion to go to Savile’s

dressing room. He knocked on the door, waited a few
moments and went in. He found Savile with a young girl, in her

603
 teens. It appeared to Mr Nicolson that some form of sexual
activity had been going on. Savile looked annoyed that Mr
Nicolson had come in. The girl looked embarrassed; she was
brushing down her clothes. Mr Nicolson quickly excused
himself and left. He did not tell Mr Ordish about this incident.
In his view, there was nothing particular to report. The girl did
not look underage and had not seemed distressed in any way.
Mr Nicolson thought that he had probably mentioned what he
had seen to friends in a casual way, saying something to the
effect of “what’s the guy up to?” I have also referred to this
evidence in Chapter 8 because it was the subject of a report in
The Sun newspaper in 2012, where it was claimed that Mr
Nicolson had told “BBC bosses” that he had seen Savile having
intercourse with a young girl in his dressing room. I am
satisfied that Mr Nicolson did not tell Mr Ordish or indeed any
“BBC boss” what he had seen.

10.61 Jeannette Pease worked as a researcher on Jim’ll Fix It for

three series in 1986, 1987 and 1988. Ms Pease remembers
being told either by Mr Ordish or another researcher that they
were to be careful not to let Savile be alone with children in his
dressing room, or indeed anywhere. This was a direction about
how children were to be chaperoned during their day in the
studios. She thought that, if it was another researcher who had
told her this, it must have come from Mr Ordish as, at that time,
she did not believe that her co-researcher “would have been
giving [her] a direction like that without it having come from
whoever was producing the show”. She had the impression
that Mr Ordish and the researcher concerned were very close,
having worked together on a previous series of the show. She
thought that the background to this concern was something
which had appeared in the press but she did not know what. I
interpose to say that Ms Pease is the only person who made
that suggestion but there is a real possibility that she is right

604
 and the ‘something in the press’ was the series of articles which
appeared in The Sun in April 1983 (see paragraphs 6.17-6.30).

10.62 Ms Pease did not question the instruction she had been given;
she just adhered to it and was never aware of anything which
went amiss. Savile used to say that he did not like “kids” and,
from watching him working with children on the show, she
thought it was apparent that he did not particularly like children
or have any real interest in them.

10.63 Ms Pease hated the way Savile kissed her hand when they
met, dragging his bottom lip across it. He used to brag about
having female admirers and not being short of female company.
He was always dropping names and saying that he had been to
both Number 10 Downing Street and to Kensington Palace. He
made it clear he was a well-connected and powerful man. He
was always talking about his good works. Ms Pease does not
remember him bringing young girls into the studio.

10.64 Ms Pease thought she was very lucky; apart from working with
Savile, she thought she had the best job in television. She
loved working with the children and making their day happy and
memorable. Leaving aside the way he would generally greet
women, she only witnessed Savile behave inappropriately on
one occasion. A young couple took part in a fix for a young
fixee. The studio was empty and Savile was taken to meet the
young woman (in the couple) before the show began. She was
seated in an empty row of seats and Savile stood on the same
level facing her. The young woman was excited and clearly
thrilled to be involved in the programme. Savile then said
something like “So I’ve done something nice for you today; I
wonder if you’d like to do something nice for me”. From their
relative positions, it appeared to Ms Pease that he was referring
to oral sex.

605
10.65 Ms Pease said that she did not know exactly what Mr Ordish
knew about Savile. In particular, she did not know whether
Savile would talk to Mr Ordish in the way he talked to other
people, boasting about his sex life.

10.66 Robin Smith worked on the Jim’ll Fix It production team

between 1987 and 1989. Save where I expressly say so, I
accept his evidence as accurate.

10.67 Mr Smith observed that Savile was too tactile, sometimes to the
point that it made Mr Smith cringe. He said that there were
some people who openly called Savile “a pervert”. Mr Smith
himself never saw any inappropriate behaviour on the studio
floor or in Savile’s dressing room, although he only rarely had
occasion to go in there. He was aware that the female
researchers on the programme did not like working with Savile;
they complained about the way in which he used to kiss their
cheeks, with a wet kiss, dragging his bottom lip across their
faces. The two he named in that context were Jeanette Pease
and Jenny Ricotti. I think he is wrong about the complaint
relating to their cheeks; their complaint was that he kissed and
licked their hands and arms rather than their faces. But he is
right about the fact that they did not like these wet kisses. Mr
Smith said that Savile often brought guests with him to Jim’ll Fix
It. He never saw him with the same woman twice and thought
that Savile never seemed to have a relationship with any
particular woman.

10.68 Mr Smith said that, when he first started on Jim’ll Fix It, Ms
Pease told him to be careful about the families and the children
who were in contact with Savile, especially any teenage girls.
He said that all the staff were aware of the need to be careful
not to allow young girls to go to Savile’s dressing room. The
biggest risk times were in the interval between the rehearsal
and the recording and at the end of the recording. This

606
 evidence is in conformity with that of Ms Pease: see above. It
seems likely that she passed on to Mr Smith the warning she
had received.

10.69 Mr Smith said that, at the beginning, he did not have any real
understanding of the need for this warning but, in about 1988,
he did an assignment with Mr Nicolson. He says that Mr
Nicolson told him that he had surprised Savile having sex with a
girl in his dressing room. As soon as he heard this account
from Mr Nicolson, his understanding of the previous warnings
about Savile “clicked into place”. Mr Smith did not suggest to
the Savile investigation that Mr Nicolson had told him that the
girl had been distressed or that she looked under the age of
consent. Nor did Mr Smith say that Mr Nicolson had expressed
any sense of horror or moral outrage. Mr Nicolson had been
surprised that Savile would take the risk of doing such a thing in
an unlocked dressing room. In his first interview with us, Mr
Smith said that Mr Nicolson had told him that he had reported
this incident to Mr Ordish. However, in his second interview,
when he had been told that Mr Nicolson did not accept that he
had told Mr Ordish what he had seen, Mr Smith appeared less
certain about this aspect of his evidence but said that he had
had the impression that Mr Ordish had been aware of it. If he
did have that impression, I am satisfied it was wrong.

10.70 Mr Smith said that he had recently seen press reports about
what Mr Nicolson had seen in Savile’s dressing room. He was
told that Mr Nicolson had told us that he had not seen Savile
actually having intercourse but that he had seen him in
circumstances from which he had inferred that that is what he
had been doing. He was asked whether he thought that that
was what Mr Nicolson might have told him at the time. Mr
Smith said that it was all a long time ago but his memory was
that Mr Nicolson had told him that he had caught Savile having

607
 intercourse. I asked him whether it was possible that his
recollection of what Mr Nicolson had told him in 1988 has been
confused with or coloured by what he had read recently in the
press. He said that that was a possibility but he still thought
that Mr Nicolson had told him that he had caught Savile in
flagrante. He added that Mr Nicolson was “quite a good
orator… very personable …very energetic… very
enthusiastic…lived the life well…quite flamboyant in how he
was…I remember him telling me in a very – not quite
sensationalist way, but not far short of [it], really.”

10.71 From this, I infer that Mr Nicolson could be quite dramatic in the
way he recounted events. I think it likely that this is the
explanation for the difference between Mr Nicolson’s account to
The Sun (see paragraphs 8.4 to 8.21) (and to Mr Smith) and his
account to me. I think he may well have told The Sun and Mr
Smith that he had seen or ‘caught’ Savile having intercourse
with a girl in his dressing room. I am inclined to think that he
did not actually see them having intercourse but he inferred that
from what he saw and therefore he believed that was what had
been happening. I think it likely that, instead of telling Mr Smith
and The Sun that he had drawn an inference, he simply told
them that he had seen them having intercourse. I also think
that he probably did tell both The Sun and Mr Smith that he had
reported the incident to a senior person at the BBC, although, in
the case of The Sun, he corrected that in an email (see
paragraph 8.11). In short, he gave a slightly dramatised
account. I think this is a not uncommon failing in people who
like to tell a good story.

10.72 I return to the rest of Mr Smith’s evidence as it bears on Mr

Ordish’s knowledge about Savile. Mr Smith recounted three
incidents related to Savile which he said took place in Mr
Ordish’s presence.

608
10.73 The first two took place within a week or two of each other.
Savile had an arrangement whereby Thomas Cook, the travel
agents, were sponsoring him in a marathon. Savile asked Mr
Ordish and Mr Smith to make a short film of this event. Mr
Ordish and Mr Smith went to Peterborough with Savile to meet
two men from Thomas Cook. That evening they all had dinner
together at a restaurant in Stamford. Their waitress was young
and pretty and Savile’s behaviour towards her became an
embarrassment for the others. He kept sending for her,
requiring her to come to the table, putting his arm round her
and touching her. From time to time, he went over to the
serving table where she was working. He kept asking her
personal questions and she became nervous and
uncomfortable. Mr Smith thought that Mr Ordish was
embarrassed too because, when the waitress came to the table
with two plates of food, he took Savile’s plate from her and put
it in front of him so that she did not have to go round and stand
near to him.

10.74 The second incident occurred either shortly before the visit to
Stamford or soon afterwards. Savile asked Mr Ordish and Mr
Smith to come to his flat in Park Crescent, near Regent’s Park,
for some reason connected with the making of the promotional
film. Mr Smith could not remember how they gained access to
the building, whether Savile let them in by a remote entry
system or whether they had to speak to a doorman. In any
event, it seems that Savile would have had a few moments
advance warning of their arrival. As they approached the door
of his flat, two young girls came out and left. Mr Smith thought
that the girls could have been anything between 14 and 16
years of age. When Mr Smith and Mr Ordish went in, they
found Savile slightly dishevelled. Mr Ordish made some ‘jokey’
reference to the girls and Savile gave a strange reply saying
something like, “Well you have to trick ’em don’t you?” When

609
 Mr Ordish and Mr Smith left the flat, Mr Smith asked Mr Ordish
if Savile really did have sex with girls like that. Mr Ordish said
he did not know and nothing more was said.

10.75 The third matter which Mr Smith told us about was a story
which he said Mr Ordish had recounted to him. Mr Ordish said
that he and Savile were driving north on the motorway in
Savile’s Rolls Royce. They stopped at a service station and
suddenly a young teenage girl appeared at the window and was
talking to Savile. In a few moments, it had been arranged, with
her parents’ agreement, that the girl was to travel with Savile in
the Rolls Royce. Mr Ordish went with the girl’s family and the
two cars travelled north for quite a way before they changed
over at a service station. According to Mr Smith, Mr Ordish had
been amazed that the parents permitted this to happen. He
had said that he would not have allowed that to happen with his
own children. When I suggested that the parents’ reaction was
not so very surprising, as the two cars were travelling in convoy
and Savile was well-respected, Mr Smith said that his point was
that Mr Ordish himself had been very surprised. What this
added up to was that Mr Smith had the impression that Mr
Ordish would not have trusted Savile with his own children.

10.76 I must mention at this stage that Mr Nicolson also told me that
Mr Ordish had given him an account of the journey on the
motorway with Savile. Mr Nicolson’s account was rather more
dramatic than Mr Smith’s. He said that the Rolls Royce had
stopped at a service station and a girl came to the window and
said her parents had told her she could ask Savile for his
autograph. According to this version of the story, Savile said
“Young lady, you can tell your mother that not only can you
have my autograph, but also you can come to my flat in Leeds
and have a look at it”. According to the Mr Nicolson version,
she went back to her parents' car briefly and then came back

610
 and got in the Rolls Royce with Savile. In Mr Nicolson’s
account, we do not know what happened to the girl. When
asked about this, Mr Nicolson speculated that maybe Savile
had dropped Mr Ordish off at the railway station and had taken
the girl to his flat. But he proffered no explanation of what had
happened to the parents. I think Mr Nicolson’s account is
somewhat dramatised and that Mr Smith’s recollection of Mr
Ordish’s account is likely to be more accurate. This tends to
confirm my view of Mr Nicolson as an over-dramatic historian.
But it also suggests to me that Mr Ordish was sufficiently
interested in what had happened on the journey up the
motorway that he had told two colleagues about it. I mention at
this stage that Mr Ordish has no recollection of this incident at
all and says that, if he had been involved, he would not have
agreed to leave Savile’s car, even if the girl’s parents had given
their consent to that course.

10.77 Mr Smith recalled an evening sometime after all these incidents

when he and Mr Ordish were staying at a hotel near East
Midlands Airport. After dinner (and a few drinks) they talked
about Savile, the Rolls Royce incident and Mr Smith mentioned
the time they had seen two girls leaving his flat. Mr Smith told
me that he thought that Mr Ordish had concerns about Savile
but that these were not so much about the need to protect
children (which he said was not generally in the forefront of
people’s minds in those days) but more about the risk to the
programme if Savile were to be exposed in the press as being
promiscuous. Mr Ordish, he said, was very protective of Jim’ll
Fix It.

10.78 Mr Smith also said that he himself would not have said anything
about any concerns he had about Savile having sex with young
girls. He was trying to build a career in broadcasting and he
feared that, if he had made a fuss, he would have been “eased

611
 out of the way”. He said that, in those days, people did not
think about whether a girl was over the legal age of consent for
sexual intercourse. He thought that the men working on Jim’ll
Fix It would not be concerned about whether the girl was legally
underage, although the women on the team would have been.
The men, however, would still have disapproved of Savile’s
conduct because of the very great age difference between him
and the girls. He thought that the men would not have talked to
the women about issues of that kind; it was a “very male
environment”.

10.79 Jenny Ricotti, mentioned earlier in this chapter, worked as a

researcher on Jim’ll Fix It for about four or five years from 1986.
She did not like Savile and steered clear of him. However, that
was not difficult as her responsibilities on recording days were
mainly with the fixees. She does not remember that Savile
gave her wet kisses on her cheek but he kissed her hand. He
‘gave her the creeps’ and she kept away from him. She never
heard any rumours about Savile’s sexuality and she thought he
was asexual. He never boasted about his conquests in her
earshot. She was not aware that staff were warned to keep
Savile away from young people. Mr Nicolson did not tell her
about finding Savile in a dressing room with a girl and she
thinks it more likely he would have told another man and not
her. She got on well with Mr Ordish at the time and has
remained distantly friendly with him.

10.80 Stan Appel worked for the BBC for decades but only worked on
Jim’ll Fix It on the odd occasion in the 1970s and 1980s. He
says that he never heard any rumours about Savile at all,
although other witnesses have said that he spoke to them
about such matters. Lynn Hunt worked on Jim’ll Fix It as a
production assistant in the 1980s and was friendly with Mr
Appel. She remembers a conversation (to which Mr Appel was

612
 privy) where she was told that she would be too old for Savile
because Savile liked younger girls. She thought the rumours
she had heard were generally known in the Jim’ll Fix It
production team. Also Mr Moir said that, on the train back to
London after Savile’s funeral in November 2011, Mr Appel
asked rhetorically “What about all the stories about the young
girls?” Mr Appel denies he ever said that. It is not a matter of
great importance but I do think he must have heard rumours
and has persuaded himself that he did not.

10.81 Helen Gartell worked as a freelance director (in the studio and
on location) during the last four or five series of Jim’ll Fix It,
which would be from about 1989 to 1994. By this time, Savile
was well into his sixties; he would have been 67 by the time the
show finished in 1994. In her time, Savile never came out on
location at all but she thought that this was because he was not
interested, not because of any reason associated with his
behaviour. During this period, the show was recorded at
Television Centre apart from a group of about four or five
shows which were recorded in Birmingham because of a lack of
studio space in London.

10.82 Ms Gartell had been warned about Savile liking young girls
when she was working on Top of the Pops a number of years
before and, at some stage, she heard that he liked having sex
with dead bodies. However, she did not hear any such things
while working on Jim’ll Fix It. Savile would arrive at about 1pm,
usually with a “seedy” entourage. He used to kiss her hand but
that was all. She did not like him; she thought him “smarmy”
and disliked the way he was always talking about the Royal
Family and Margaret Thatcher. She personally saw very little of
him. Mainly Mr Ordish dealt with him. She thought that Mr
Ordish was “protective” and “possessive” of Savile. She

613
 thought that Savile wielded a lot of influence over Mr Ordish,
with Savile generally getting his own way where they disagreed.

10.83 She said that Jim’ll Fix It came to an end because it was losing
ratings. It was becoming ‘old hat’. One day, Savile said that he
did not want to do another series and her impression was that
the BBC seized the opportunity to end it. I can confirm that,
having spoken to Alan Yentob, who became Controller of BBC
One in 1993, Ms Gartell’s recollection is accurate, at least in
part. He told me that ratings were indeed declining but, in any
event, he regarded Jim’ll Fix It as outmoded. He had other
ideas for the early Saturday evening slot and the change went
through without any argument or even much discussion. He
stressed that the show was not dropped on account of any
concern about Savile.

10.84 C3 worked as an assistant floor manager on Jim’ll Fix It in the

early 1990s. She found Savile quite predatory; he used to
suggest that she should come over and “make an old man
happy”. He used to put his arm round her and would touch her
breast if he could. On one occasion, at an end of series dinner,
he kissed her full on the lips. She did not report this. She also
heard rumours that Savile liked young girls sexually but she did
not think that this meant children.

10.85 Natasha Wood worked in the production office of Jim’ll Fix It for
the penultimate series in 1993. She had heard gossip that
Savile was strange but she was excited at the thought of
meeting him. When they were introduced, she put out her hand
to shake hands; Savile took it, pushed her sleeve back from her
wrist and licked her hand and forearm all the way up to the
elbow. She was 22; he was 67. She thought it very weird.
Savile was laughing and Mr Ordish smiled. She went straight
away to wash her hand and arm.

614
10.86 By this time, the recording arrangements for Jim’ll Fix It had
been changed and three programmes were made on
successive days. On the day after she first met Savile, two
young boys were coming in as fixees and Mr Ordish told her
that she was to chaperone them in the Green Room and that
“Sir James” was not to be left alone with them. Why this should
have been said, I do not know; most children were chaperoned
by their parents. However, that was her evidence and I thought
she was a good witness. So, she sat in the Green Room with
the two boys until it was time for the floor assistant to take over,
when she went up to the gallery. Nothing adverse happened.
She told some of her friends outside the BBC about the
instruction she had been given. At that time, however, she
would not have said anything to people at the BBC which might
have ‘rocked the boat’. She was proud and excited to have got
a job at the BBC.

10.87 Within a short time of her arrival at the BBC, she got to know
people working in the office next door who worked on Top of
the Pops. From them, she heard gossip about what an odd
man Savile was.

10.88 Ms Wood thought Mr Ordish was a wonderful manager but

when, in 2012, she heard him say on television that he had
known nothing about Savile’s sexual proclivities, she did not
think that that was true and that he must have known ‘that
something was not quite right’.

10.89 I summarise the evidence so far by saying that members of the

production team working on the show in the 1970s were not
concerned about Savile being left alone with young people. I
exclude from this statement A6 (who had had cause for
concern about his young trainee) who was not a member of the
production team. However, by the mid-1980s, there appears to
have been a significant degree of concern within the Jim’ll Fix It

615
 team that young people left alone with Savile would be at risk of
some form of inappropriate conduct. I have not been able to
pinpoint from where this concern originated but it seems fairly
clear that the message was passed on to new members of the
team.

Evidence of Awareness Emanating from a Member of the Public

10.90 So far, I have described the evidence of staff members as to

their awareness of a potential problem in relation to Savile.
Towards the end of our investigation, a witness came forward
whose evidence was capable of throwing new light on what Mr
Ordish knew about Savile and the need to protect young people
from him. This woman, who for good reason asked to remain
anonymous, has no connection with the BBC. I shall call her
A4.

10.91 In early 1983, when A4 was 16, she was invited by a school
friend (whom I shall call W) to go to the BBC to watch the
making of a Jim’ll Fix It programme at the BBC Theatre at
Shepherd’s Bush. On arrival, they were shown straight into the
studio. Savile was already on the set, sitting on his chair. It
was suggested that they should sit on the beanbags but they
did not wish to. Savile seemed displeased by their reluctance
and A4 formed an unfavourable impression of him at that stage.
Eventually they sat in the audience.

10.92 When the show was over, A4 and W were taken upstairs to a
hospitality room where they met the people who had taken part
in the show. Savile was not there. When they were about to
leave, the floor manager or assistant floor manager (in effect
their hostess) said that they must not go without speaking to
Savile; he was expecting them. They were taken downstairs to
his dressing room. As they came down, they could see a group
of young children coming out of the dressing room carrying

616
 signed photographs. They were taken into the room and the
floor manager left them there; the door was left open.

10.93 Savile was sitting back in his chair. A4 recalls aspects of the
conversation but is not sure of the order in which they occurred.
He asked the girls how old they were and seemed quite
pleased when they said they were 16. At some stage, while
both girls were in the room, Savile asked them whether they
would like an autograph. W said yes and Savile wrote one for
her. A4 said that she did not want one and Savile seemed
quite annoyed. A4 then suggested she would take one for her
brother. Savile quizzed her about whether it was really for her
brother or whether it was actually for her boyfriend. Then a
time came when Savile told W that she should go; he was
rather rude and said something like “I’m not interested in…you
go”. He showed her out of the room, closed the door behind
her and clicked the ‘snick’ on the lock. He turned to A4 and
started to ask her what she wanted. He could give her anything
she liked. She said there was nothing she wanted and he said
something like “you must want something”. A4 found this rather
frightening and began to feel uncomfortable.

10.94 Suddenly there was a banging on the door and a man’s voice
said something like “Why is the door locked? Open the door”.
Savile went to the door and opened it, saying in a jokey way
that it had not been locked, only stuck. There was a man
standing in the doorway. A4 described him as quite tall, she
thought possibly six feet, with short dark hair. A4 immediately
walked past the man out of the room into the corridor. The man
seemed concerned. He asked her if she was “OK” and she
said she was fine. W was outside the door and the two girls
left. As they were leaving, A4 heard the tall, dark-haired man
say to Savile, something like “Why did you have the door

617
 closed?” or “you shouldn’t have had the door closed”. The two
girls then left.

10.95 A4 was shown a photograph of the Jim’ll Fix It team taken in

1982. She immediately picked out Mr Ordish, who was
squatting in the front row of the photograph. A4 did not say that
she was certain that that was the man but she said “that’s the
short, dark hair. I mean, he looks like he’s tall”. “…That’s the
kind of hair, it was short, dark”.

10.96 When Mr Ordish was asked about this incident, he said he

could not remember it, but said that this did not mean that it had
not happened. On the basis of identification by photograph 30
years later, I could not be certain that the man who came to the
dressing room door was Mr Ordish. However, it seems likely
that it was. First, the description fits well; Mr Ordish is tall and,
at the time, he plainly did have short dark hair. But as well as
the identification, it seems likely that, if anyone was going to
bang on Savile’s door and berate him, it would have been Mr
Ordish. I cannot think that anyone else would have had either
the authority or the courage.

10.97 There is no evidence from any member of staff that a rule had
been laid down that Savile was not to have his door closed (or
locked) while he had any young visitors with him. Viewed from
2015, such a rule seems something one would take for granted
as good practice. Whether it was so in 1983, I do not know.
However, it does appear that Savile understood that he was not
supposed to have his door shut when there were any young
guests with him. That may explain why so many of the staff
had observed that Savile’s door always seemed to be open.

Discussion

10.98 As I have already said, it appears that, in the 1980s, there grew
up in the production team a degree of concern that young

618
 people left alone with Savile would be at risk of some form of
inappropriate conduct. I think that, by the early to mid-1980s,
team members with responsibility for young guests were giving
each other advice about keeping a special eye on Savile.
There does not seem to have been any specific incident which
triggered this. It is possible that the incident involving A4 (in
early 1983) acted as a trigger. It is also possible that one
contributory factor was The Sun articles in 1983 of which some
members of the team may have been aware. Apart from those
specific possibilities, there was Savile’s habit of talking about
sex. There was his odd and sexualised behaviour when
meeting members of staff, such as kissing and licking their
hands. There was his apparent interest in teenage girls and the
awareness of some members of the team that he invited young
female guests of his own onto the show and entertained them
in his dressing room.

10.99 Accordingly, I conclude that, among the people who were

responsible for the safety and welfare of the Jim’ll Fix It guests,
there grew up an appreciation that Savile presented a possible
risk to young people and, consequentially, concern about this
and a practice of trying to protect them from him. I do not think
that this concern was recognised by everybody; nor was it ever
formally articulated. There is some evidence which suggests
that Mr Ordish was a party to this concern. First, he instructed
Ms Wood to chaperone two young boys and not to allow ‘Sir
James’ to be left alone with them. However, the instruction to
chaperone the boys is entirely understandable. If, for some
reason, the boys were not accompanied by their personal
chaperone (usually a parent), it would be entirely proper for Mr
Ordish to ensure that a member of staff should act as
chaperone. Why he should have mentioned ‘Sir James’
specifically is less easy to understand. Second, Jeannette
Pease remembers being told by Mr Ordish or another

619
 researcher that they were to be careful not to let Savile be
alone with children in his dressing room. She thought that, if
she was told this by another researcher, it would have come
from Mr Ordish. He may have said this but, as Ms Pease also
told me that she did not know exactly what Mr Ordish knew
about Savile and I have not been able to speak to the other
researcher, I do not think that it can constitute evidence of
knowledge of the concern on Mr Ordish’s part.

10.100 Now that we know that Savile was a prolific sexual abuser of
young people and we know that he would take whatever
opportunity arose for sexual gratification, I feel I ought to
observe that the precautions that were put in place on Jim’ll Fix
It were generally good and, by and large, appear to have
worked. However, the system was not without loopholes which
could be exploited by a cunning and determined sex offender
such as Savile.

Awareness of Roger Ordish

10.101 Mr Ordish is now retired after a long career with the BBC. I
realise that it must be profoundly distressing for him to face
examination and possible criticism about his conduct while the
producer of Jim’ll Fix It. This section of the Report is directed to
consideration of Mr Ordish’s awareness of Savile’s sexual
activities and proclivities.

10.102 Mr Ordish worked with Savile for over 20 years. Despite the
fact that others may have had the impression that the two were
close friends, Mr Ordish said that they were not. Although he
may have known Savile as well as anybody could, that was not
particularly well. I accept Mr Ordish’s evidence on this issue. I
have been able to gather some impression of the kind of people
who formed Savile’s circle of friends and I do not think that Mr
Ordish would have been one of them. I accept that their

620
 relationship was entirely professional although that relationship
did entail some social contact outside the BBC.

10.103 Mr Ordish said that he was aware that people used to talk
about Savile’s sexuality and, in particular, his sexual interest in
teenage girls. Quite apart from what Mr Ordish heard as
rumour, he himself heard Savile talk or brag about sexual
matters, always in the context of heterosexual activity. He
would sometimes make remarks such as that he had “someone
in the flat last night” although he never provided any detail. Mr
Ordish cited an extract from Savile’s Book As It Happens as an
example of the way in which Savile spoke about girls. In the
book, Savile had described giving a girl a lift and had then said,
in Mr Ordish’s words, that “she showed her gratitude”.85 That,
said Mr Ordish, was the sort of thing that Savile often said. Mr
Ordish thought that Savile did not usually have a regular
girlfriend and spoke disparagingly of marriage as being “a trap”.
There was, however, a short period when Savile appeared to
have a girlfriend. She was in her twenties and came from quite
a wealthy family. She came to the recordings of Clunk Click on
a few occasions. He agreed that he was aware that Savile’s
sexual preference was for young women. Savile never seemed
to be with a woman of his own age. However, he, Mr Ordish,
did not see that as a dangerous state of affairs.

10.104 Mr Ordish said that he never knew whether or not Savile really
did have sex with as many young women as he liked to
suggest. Mr Ordish’s view was that Savile was so clumsy in the
way he dealt with women that he doubted if Savile had much
sexual experience at all. He also thought it possible that the
reason why Savile appeared to prefer teenage girls to grown
women was that he wanted sexually inexperienced partners,
rather than grown women who might find him an unsatisfactory

85
As It Happens, pp. 141-142.

621
 lover. He said that he would have exchanged ideas of that kind
with members of the team with whom he became friendly.

10.105 Mr Ordish described an incident which had stuck in his

memory. He said that, for the first series of Jim’ll Fix It, he had
needed some film sequences to run as part of the introduction.
They filmed Savile walking round Shepherd’s Bush, with
children flocking after him, rather like the Pied Piper. Suddenly
a window opened above them and a woman and girl looked
out. The woman said “Oh, it’s Jimmy Savile” and Savile did his
“usual flannel” in reply. Then Savile asked her “Is this your
sister?” to which the reply was “No, it’s my daughter”. Savile
asked the girl how old she was; she said she was 16. Savile
turned to Mr Ordish and Peter Campbell, the studio director,
and said “Legal! Legal!” Mr Ordish took this as a “blokey joke”
but it had stuck in his mind and now, with hindsight, it “takes on
a terrible significance”. The Savile investigation could not
speak to Mr Campbell, as he has died.

10.106 Mr Ordish agreed that he had visited Savile’s flat at Park

Crescent many times (he estimated about two or three times a
year) but said that he could not remember any occasion on
which he had seen two young girls coming out of the door as he
arrived, as had been recounted by Mr Smith. I accept Mr
Smith’s account of this episode, set out at paragraph 10.74.

10.107 Mr Ordish said that he had no recollection of ever changing

cars while driving up the motorway with Savile so as to allow a
young girl to travel with him. He had often travelled with Savile
but recalled no such incident. Nor did he recall discussing any
such incident. I accept that Mr Ordish does not remember this
but I accept Mr Smith’s account of this episode as broadly
accurate and also that the two men discussed the incident on a
later occasion.

622
10.108 Mr Ordish was adamant that he never had any concerns at all
about Savile’s behaviour in his dressing room. He could not
see how anyone would ever be alone with him. Production
staff, make-up girls, dressers, journalists and all sorts of people
would be dropping in on him and, although the door was
lockable, he said it would only have been locked if Savile was
using the lavatory. I should mention that the layout of the BBC
Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush was such that any unusual
conduct by Savile in his dressing room would probably have
been noticed. I have been to the theatre and have seen that
the backstage area is very restricted and the door to the
dressing room used by Savile is very close to the office where
the security officer sat, near the stage door entrance. Of
course, if Savile had suborned the security officer (which is not
impossible), the proximity of the dressing room to the security
desk would not provide protection.

10.109 Mr Ordish denied that Mr Nicolson or any member of his team

had ever told him that he had caught Savile in a compromising
situation with a young girl in his dressing room. As Mr Nicolson
says that he did not tell Mr Ordish what he had seen, I have no
difficulty in accepting Mr Ordish’s assertion that he was not told
about that.

10.110 As I have said, when asked about the occasion where a man
looking like him is said to have banged on Savile’s door and
berated him for having the door shut (or locked) while there was
a young girl inside, Mr Ordish said that he could not remember
any such incident. He said, however, that this did not mean
that it did not happen; he just did not remember it. The
potential significance of this incident is that it gives rise to the
possible inference that Mr Ordish had established a rule with
Savile that he was not to close or lock his door with a young
guest inside. If he had done so, one would have had to ask

623
 what had prompted the imposition of such a rule. Mr Ordish
said that there was no such rule.

10.111 Mr Ordish was asked for an explanation as to why he might

have berated Savile for having his door shut with A4 inside. He
suggested that someone might have seen A4’s friend W
standing outside the door and have asked her if she needed
help. She might have explained that A4 was inside with Savile.
I think he was suggesting that someone may have sent for him
and he had knocked on the door to get the girl out. However,
he was adamant that, if this had happened, it would simply
have been part of the general practice of child protection on the
show. There was no specific rule established with Savile.

10.112 I find it very difficult to decide exactly what happened in so brief

an incident 30 years ago. I must do my best. I have had three
long interviews with Mr Ordish and I think he is a decent man.
As will appear, I shall not be able to accept all his evidence but
I do not think he has been dishonest. On the other hand, A4
was an impressive witness and I am inclined to accept her
recollection that the man who knocked on the door (who I
conclude was probably Mr Ordish) was concerned for her
welfare and challenged Savile for having closed the door.

10.113 I think Mr Ordish’s suggestion about what had happened in the

corridor is entirely plausible. I think it likely that someone in the
team or possibly even the security man on the stage door
entrance (which, as I have said, was close to the door of
Savile’s dressing room) must have seen A4’s friend, W, waiting
outside the room, asked her if she was all right and that she
had explained that her friend A4 was inside the room with
Savile. I think that that caused someone to send for Mr Ordish.
I think it likely that Mr Ordish would have dealt with this situation
as diplomatically as he could but would have ensured that A4

624
 was all right. I am prepared to accept that Mr Ordish does not
have a specific recollection of this incident.

10.114 Mr Ordish denied that he was ever made aware that any of his
staff had any concerns about Savile’s conduct. He said that he
had some bright and observant people on his team and he is
sure they would have noticed if there had been anything amiss;
they would not have brushed it under the carpet. He said that,
if anyone on the staff had had any concerns, he would have
known about them as the production team shared a small office
and would overhear each other’s conversations. I entirely
accept that there were no discussions as such in front of Mr
Ordish. The nearest the evidence comes to that is that Ms
Gilchrist suggested to him that children ought not to be left
alone with Savile. I accept her evidence that she said that and
that Mr Ordish did not ask her why she said that or discuss the
matter further.

10.115 Mr Ordish was asked what he would have done if he had been
aware of any concerns about the welfare of young people on
the show. He said that it would have been his duty to raise the
subject with his manager. Initially that would have been Mr
Cotton and later Mr Moir. He was also asked what his reaction
would have been if he had heard that Savile had been having
intercourse with a young woman in his dressing room but that
there had been no question of her being underage or not
consenting. Would that have been a matter of concern?
Initially he said “No…You would hear dressing room stories
about all sorts of actors and actresses and so forth”. He agreed
that the BBC’s attitude was that a performer could do what he
or she wished in a dressing room; rather like a hotel room.
However, when he was asked what his attitude would have
been if he had heard that Savile had been having intercourse in
his dressing room with a girl of, say 17 or 18, he said that he

625
 thought that would be something he ought to get involved in.
He would have “had a word” with Savile in the first instance; he
would not have mentioned it to Mr Cotton or Mr Moir. He would
only have done that if it had happened again.

10.116 Mr Ordish was asked what he had thought about material in the
public domain as described in Chapter 6. He agreed that he
had read As It Happens when it first came out in 1974. He
could not remember reading God’ll fix it but thought that he
must have done. Initially, he agreed that he must have seen
The Sun articles of April 1983, because they would have been
sent to him by the Press Office, as part of the cuttings service.
These were the articles in which Savile was described as a
‘Godfather’ who made use of henchmen to commit acts of
violence on his behalf and also described his promiscuous
lifestyle: see paragraphs 6.17 to 6.30. Later, Mr Ordish told us
that he remembered speaking to Ann Rosenberg, the publicity
officer, about them. Mr Ordish’s attitude at the time was that he
thought that Savile had been exaggerating when speaking to
the journalists. He knew that Savile sometimes exaggerated
when giving accounts. He also thought that The Sun might
have embellished the stories. He had not thought it necessary
to speak to Mr Moir about these articles because he thought
they were largely bravado. Later, Mr Ordish wrote to the Savile
investigation to say that, at the time the articles were published,
he had spoken to Savile and had suggested that the articles
and the book were “not good for the presenter of Jim’ll Fix It”.
Savile had replied to the effect that he had not achieved his
present position by listening to people like Mr Ordish.

10.117 I must say that I feel some concern about Mr Ordish’s

progressively more detailed recollection about these articles.
Having initially said that he must have seen them because they
would be among the press cuttings (which implied that he had

626
 no actual recollection of seeing them), he then said that he
recalled speaking to Ann Rosenberg about them. When asked,
Ms Rosenberg said that she remembered seeing the articles
and talking about them but did not say that she had had a
conversation with Mr Ordish about them. However, the
producer of a programme would normally be her first point of
contact. Therefore, I do accept Mr Ordish’s evidence that she
and Mr Ordish discussed these articles and that their attitude
was to discount them as exaggerated. However, for reasons
which I will shortly explain, I am unable to accept Mr Ordish’s
even later recollection, which is that he actually spoke to Savile
about them.

10.118 It was suggested to Mr Ordish that, even if the articles were

exaggerations and untrue, they were deeply distasteful
because they demonstrated that Savile appeared proud to be
known as a sexually promiscuous man with a violent past. He
agreed and accepted that such a person was not really suitable
as the presenter of a family show. However, in interview in
December 2013, he said that he had not thought of that at the
time. He said that it was not his job to decide who should
present a show; it was his job to produce the show with the
presenter who had been chosen. Even if he had thought about
Savile’s unsuitability as the presenter, once Savile was in that
position, it was Mr Ordish’s job “to get on with it” and work with
“the person I’ve been given”. He thought that, if he had raised
concerns about Savile at this stage with Mr Cotton or Mr Moir,
their attitude would have been that the show was very
successful and it must go on. That was so, even though he
said both of them were deeply moral men in their own private
lives.

10.119 The whole gist of this answer is in conflict with Mr Ordish’s later
claim that he had spoken to Savile about the articles suggesting

627
 they were not good for the presenter of Jim’ll Fix It. It is
because of that inconsistency that I feel unable to accept Mr
Ordish’s more recent claim that he spoke to Savile about the
articles. In an even later email communication, after being told
that I found it difficult to accept that he had spoken to Savile
about The Sun articles, Mr Ordish said that he had definitely
said to Savile that his suggestions of gangster connections and
his sexual boasting were not good for the image of the
presenter of Jim’ll Fix It but he was not now sure whether his
comments related to The Sun articles (in 1983) or the
autobiography (which came out in 1974).

10.120 Mr Ordish is trying to remember events which occurred over 30

years ago. I repeat that I regard him as an honest man.
However, I think that his memory is at fault. I think that his first
reaction is likely to be correct; when it was suggested to him in
interview that this kind of boasting showed that Savile was not a
suitable presenter of Jim’ll Fix It, his reaction was to say that
that had not occurred to him at the time. I think that is quite
inconsistent with his later assertions that he had spoken to
Savile about his boasting, either in 1974 or 1983.

10.121 Mr Ordish agreed that Savile was very important to the success
of Jim’ll Fix It which, at the height of its popularity, had excellent
ratings. He explained Savile’s contribution by saying that:

“This strange nature of the man who seemed

almost unable to speak to people on air, which
was an assumed role by him as [he] was a very
bright, intelligent man … [was] maybe …part of
the chemistry that made it so successful,
because he was associated with goodness and
charity and somehow a strange kind of saintly
aura that he liked to cultivate and successfully
did”.

He added that part of the programme’s success was that “The

man who could make this wonderful thing happen at Stoke

628
 Mandeville could also make some unimportant little event come
true”.

10.122 When asked whether he thought it possible that the

programme’s dependence on Savile for its success might have
led him to ‘look the other way’, Mr Ordish replied that he was
not aware of having looked the other way. He made the point
that, at one stage, he had invited Savile to spend the night at
his house and had put him in the bedroom next to his 14-year
old daughter. He suggested that that was not the action of a
man who was turning a blind eye or looking the other way.

10.123 Mr Ordish was asked how Savile’s saintly aura tallied with his
realisation that, in his late forties and early fifties, Savile had a
sexual preference for young women. He answered that he
thought it was “all talk”. At various stages in his evidence, he
expressed the same view in slightly different ways. Once he
said that “I did, for a time, believe that he was all talk”. He said
that “he was such a curious character you wondered if… it was
just talk”. Several times he stressed that he had never seen
any evidence of actual misbehaviour. He added that he would
not have expected to see it. Asked why he thought it might be
‘all talk’, he said that Savile’s dealing with adult women was so
clumsy that he did not seem to have any idea of a normal
relationship. It was suggested to him that, even though Savile
might appear not to know how to deal with adult women, he
might still be successful with young women because of his
celebrity status. He agreed that celebrity could be ‘an
aphrodisiac’ and that he had seen cases where star status had
held magnetism for young women. But he said that it had not
occurred to him that those forces might have been operating in
respect of Savile during his years on Jim’ll Fix It.

10.124 Mr Ordish said he had been horrified when the allegations

came out in 2012. He had been unaware of any problems until

629
 then – so completely unaware that he had given a eulogy at the
reception following Savile’s funeral in 2011.

10.125 I have no difficulty in accepting that Mr Ordish was not aware

that Savile ever committed an unlawful or inappropriate sexual
act on BBC premises. In my view, there is no evidence that he
was aware of such conduct. I find it much more difficult to
decide to what extent Mr Ordish was aware of Savile’s sexual
deviancy and, on account of an awareness of that, to what
extent he realised that there was a potential risk of harm to the
young people appearing on Jim’ll Fix It.

10.126 I do accept that Mr Ordish regarded Savile as a boastful man

with a tendency to exaggerate. There is an abundance of
evidence that Mr Ordish’s impression of Savile was correct. It
was therefore not unreasonable that Mr Ordish should regard
his claims of sexual experience or prowess as exaggerated.
This would include not only the things Savile said directly to Mr
Ordish but also the things he had written or had allowed to be
written about him. I accept too that Mr Ordish regarded Savile
as being clumsy in his dealings with women. However, it is
clear from his own evidence that Mr Ordish did not completely
discount the possibility that Savile was sexually active with
much younger women as he admitted that he had considered
(and discussed with colleagues) the possibility that Savile
preferred inexperienced sexual partners. That implies a degree
of willingness to accept the possibility that Savile was sexually
active with teenage girls.

10.127 As with any instance where I need to consider the awareness of

any individual of what Savile did, it is very important for me to
ignore hindsight when assessing the awareness of Mr Ordish. I
must view every factor, incident and conversation in its moment
and not consider how it might be viewed today in the light of
what we now know about Savile.

630
10.128 Many of the factors, incidents and conversations involving Mr
Ordish identified in this chapter have no relevance to his
awareness of Savile’s sexual deviancy. For example, the fact
that Mr Ordish was aware of rumours about Savile and his
sexual interest in “young girls” (though not, I think, of rumours
that he had sex with girls under the age of 16), the fact that
Savile made boastful remarks about sexual matters, the content
of the book “As It Happens” and The Sun articles of 1983 and
the fact that Mr Ordish knew that Savile had no regular sexual
partner have no bearing on that question. Others such as the
fact that Mr Ordish heard Savile shout “Legal! Legal!” when
hearing that a young girl was aged 16 might, as Mr Ordish said,
“take on a terrible significance” now in hindsight but, at the time,
it was clearly understandable that Mr Ordish treated this as a
“blokey joke”.

10.129 There are, however, some incidents and conversations which,

as I have said, might suggest that Mr Ordish did have
knowledge about Savile’s deviancy. First, there is the evidence
of Ms Gilchrist that she suggested, in Mr Ordish’s presence,
that Savile should not be left alone with children. I do not know
whether Mr Ordish heard that suggestion; he told me that he
does not remember it. If he did hear it, he appears to have
brushed it aside without giving it serious consideration. He did
not ask Ms Gilchrist what she meant. She did not volunteer
that she was talking about a sexual risk and, although
nowadays, that remark would be readily interpreted as relating
to a concern of a sexual nature, at that time, I do not consider it
would necessarily have carried that implication.

10.130 Second, there is the evidence of Ms Pease who said that she
was told (either by Mr Ordish or a researcher) that they were to
be careful not to let Savile be alone with children in his dressing
room, or indeed anywhere. However, Ms Pease also said that

631
 she did not know exactly what Mr Ordish knew about Savile
and she could not, in any event, remember who had given her
that instruction.

10.131 I think Mr Ordish was probably involved in the incident with A4

in Savile’s dressing room but that he has forgotten about it,
possibly because nothing bad actually happened. In any event,
as I explain in paragraph 10.113, I think his suggestion about
what happened in the corridor is plausible. I also accept the
evidence of Mr Smith that he and Mr Ordish saw two teenage
girls come out of Savile’s flat and that this was followed by a
short conversation between them, prompted by Mr Smith, about
whether Savile had sex with girls like that. However, it was Mr
Smith who posed this question (and not Mr Ordish) and there is
no reliable evidence as to the age of the girls concerned. I also
accept Mr Smith’s evidence that Mr Ordish seemed surprised
that the parents of a young girl who travelled up the motorway
in Savile’s car should have trusted their daughter with him. Mr
Ordish does not remember the incident. However, it seems to
me that it is possible Mr Ordish was surprised that the parents
would let their child go with anyone who they did not know
personally. I also accept that Mr Ordish expressed concern to
Mr Smith that Savile’s exploits might come out in the press and
derail Jim’ll Fix It, although that is not evidence of concern
about Savile and underage children.

10.132 There are, therefore, a small number of incidents and

conversations which raise a question about Mr Ordish’s
awareness. However, those incidents and conversations did
not occur as a cluster; they occurred over a period of time. It is
also very important not to let hindsight influence how these
incidents and conversations are viewed. Nowadays people
might well view these incidents and conversations as showing
the existence of a potentially serious problem of a sexual nature

632
 which required some form of investigation or action. However, I
think it is very important to view these incidents in their
moments and, in so doing, I have come to the conclusion that
Mr Ordish never did recognise the collective effect of those
concerns or pointers and that he never thought that Savile was
having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with girls under the
age of 16, let alone boys or young men.

10.133 I must make it plain that, if Mr Ordish had received an explicit

complaint about clearly unlawful sexual contact by Savile, I am
quite satisfied that he would not have swept it under the carpet
but would have handled it appropriately, at least according to
the BBC standards of the time. I am sure he would have
discussed it with Mr Moir and I am sure that some form of
investigation would have taken place. Whether that would have
comprised anything more than asking Savile whether the
allegation was true, I cannot say. But that is hypothetical as no
such complaint was ever made.

Awareness of More Senior Staff about Problems Relating to Savile

and Jim’ll Fix It

Jim Moir

10.134 From 1982 until 1993, Mr Moir was Mr Ordish’s line manager
with editorial responsibility for Jim’ll Fix It. He confirmed Mr
Ordish’s impression that Mr Cotton had been the main influence
on the choice of Savile as the presenter and anchor man for
Jim’ll Fix It.

10.135 Mr Moir said that he had never heard any rumours about
Savile’s sexual preference for young girls or young women. No
one had ever reported any concern to him. He had never had
any suspicions about his conduct. He had never read or even
heard of Savile’s autobiography As It Happens. Nor did he
recall reading The Sun articles of 1983 although he agreed that

633
 it is reasonable to assume that they would have been put
before him as part of the press cutting service. He said that the
first he had heard of rumours or concerns about Savile was
when he was on the train returning to London after Savile’s
funeral. He was travelling with Mr Appel and Ms Gartell. He
said that Mr Appel had asked “what about all the stories about
the young girls?” Mr Moir said that he had asked what he
meant, and Mr Appel had said “Well you know, you know,
young girls” and he (Mr Appel) being “a man of delicate
taste…we didn’t pursue the conversation much further. It was
evident what he meant”. Mr Moir thought that Mr Appel and Ms
Gartell had heard rumours about Savile while working with him.

10.136 Mr Moir said that, if Mr Ordish had had any concerns about
Savile’s conduct, it would have been his duty to bring the
problem to Mr Moir. That would not have been difficult; he
believed he was an approachable manager and in any event
the two had been good friends since the 1960s when they had
worked together on the Simon Dee show. He accepted that a
producer who had a concern about someone within his team
might be tempted to keep the problem to himself and not share
it with his manager, particularly if the person concerned was an
important artist. He could see that the producer might have
loyalty to the artist concerned, loyalty to the show itself and also
pride in it. He agreed that that producer would have a degree
of self-interest in keeping his programme running smoothly. He
accepted that a star presenter could become a very important
part of a programme team because he or she might become
“enmeshed in the format”.

10.137 He thought the relationship between Mr Ordish and Savile was

one of mutual usefulness. I think what he meant was that the
reputation of both was dependent on their involvement with
Jim’ll Fix It and each would have recognised the contribution

634
 the other made to the programme’s success. Mr Moir thought
that, to some extent, Mr Ordish would benefit from some
reflected glory.

10.138 Asked what he thought about Savile at the time, Mr Moir said
he was weird and appeared to be a ‘created persona’ but he
was impressed with the way Savile ran marathons and worked
at Leeds General Infirmary as a porter. He observed that
Savile wore bling and that there was a “great vulgarity about
him” but he could dress appropriately on occasions, for
example if royalty were going to be present. He saw the reason
for Savile’s success as being in the “right place at the right
time” by getting on to Top of the Pops when he did. He said
“he could get away with the gobbledygook”.

10.139 When asked to speculate about what he would have done if a

serious concern with evidence had come to light about Savile’s
sexual conduct, Mr Moir said that, with a show like Jim’ll Fix It, it
would be difficult to deal with and the approach would depend
on the time of year. If the problem emerged during the period
of the year when the show was not actually on air, it would be
relatively easy to deal with. A decision could be taken not to
run another series. It would be easy to explain that decision to
the public without reference to the underlying problem. If the
problem emerged in the middle of a series, it would be much
more difficult. He said that it would always be his policy to
grasp the nettle; it would not be sufficient just to have a quiet
word with the offending presenter and keep the problem under
wraps. He said he had always been guided by the military
principle that “Cover from view is not cover from fire”.

10.140 He gave as an example of grasping the nettle the decision to

pull the rest of the series after the tragic death of Michael Lush,
who was killed while bungee-jumping for a programme called
The Late Late Breakfast Show. He agreed, however, that that

635
 tragedy created a very different problem for the BBC from the
kind of problem we were envisaging. The death of Mr Lush
was known to the public; a decision had to be taken whether to
continue with the series and the BBC decided not to. It seems
to me that a decision about a hidden problem is much more
difficult to handle. I had the impression from my interview with
him that Mr Moir did not know exactly what he would have done
if a serious concern about Savile (with evidence) had arisen
during the series and the information was not in the public
domain. Later, he wrote to the Savile investigation asserting
that if he had learned of any evidence of sexual misconduct by
Savile, he would have referred it upwards and he believes that
the show would have been discontinued.

10.141 Mr Moir said that he was glad that he had not heard about
Savile’s misconduct while he was in post because, if he had, he
would have been faced with the duty to do something about it. I
think that, if Mr Moir had received information about Savile’s
misconduct, he would have referred it upwards and that it is
likely that advice would have been sought from the Legal
Department. What advice would have been given I cannot say.
It may well be that that advice would have been that Savile
should be interviewed and told of the allegation and that, if he
denied it, there would be nothing more to be done. That is what
had happened when an allegation of sexual misconduct was
made in 1971 against a celebrity as I have recounted at 9.61
(although I should note, as I say at paragraph 9.57, that I have
not attempted to make any judgment about the allegation
involving A7 and Claire McAlpine). But that is hypothetical as
no such concern ever arose about Savile. I cannot, however,
share Mr Moir’s confidence that the show would have been
discontinued.

636
10.142 Later, Mr Moir was asked what he would have done if rumours
had come to his attention as opposed to hard evidence. He
said he would have “prayed” that that would have happened in
May and not during the series run. He would have talked to Mr
Ordish and, if he had said that the rumours were not true, he
(Mr Moir) would not have known what to do. He would have
spoken to Savile. But he said that would not have been much
use as Savile was as:-

“artful as a barrow load of monkeys and with a

pattern of speech that would oblige you to
concentrate heavily on what he was saying to
you…or in the main not saying…I think a
confrontation with him wouldn’t have taken me
very far”.

Savile would have just denied the rumours. When asked what
he would have done then, he explained that he would have
referred the problem upwards, possibly to Michael Grade (as he
was then known), possibly to Bill Cotton. He would have
explained to them that he was concerned about the BBC’s
reputation and the safety of the children on the show. He would
have asked them to interview Savile and then the matter would
have passed out of his authority.

10.143 Mr Moir said that, if the rumours concerned sexual activity with
young children, he would have taken the view that Savile would
have to go. He was asked what his reaction would have been if
the rumours were that Savile was misbehaving with teenage
girls. Would he have felt it right or necessary to get rid of Savile
for that? He said that the thought of Savile at his advanced
years misbehaving with teenage girls was “stomach churning”.
He would have been deeply disturbed at the thought of a man
of 45 to 50 having sex with a 15-year old girl. He thought that
that would have also been the view within the set he knew at
the BBC. An age gap of say 30 years “would not play well”. He
acknowledged that many people now say that attitudes were

637
 different in the 1970s and 1980s and are prepared to excuse or
forgive conduct of that kind on the ground that customs were
different. He said that it was possible that he would have been
affected by those kinds of thoughts if confronted with the
problem of dealing with such rumours.

10.144 Although his earlier evidence seemed to suggest that he

thought Savile might have been taken off air simply on the
basis of rumour, Mr Moir later explained that, if he had become
aware of rumours about Savile and young children, the correct
course would have been to carry out an in-depth investigation.
He hoped he would have had the moral courage to confront the
situation and see it through. It would have entailed asking staff
on the team what they knew. He did not know whether he
would have had the skill to carry out such an investigation. He
hoped that he would have had help and support. The decision
would not have been for him alone. Senior managers would
have been involved.

10.145 It was pointed out to him that Derek Chinnery, who was Head of
Radio 1 at the time, was in precisely that situation in 1973
(when asked by Douglas Muggeridge to speak to Savile about
rumours of sexual misconduct: see Chapter 11). All he had
done was to ask Savile whether the rumours were true. Mr
Moir appeared surprised that that was all that had been done
and added that the concerns in Radio should have been fed
across to Television but he did not think they had been.

10.146 Mr Moir’s uncertainties about how a hypothetical problem

arising from evidence or rumours about Savile’s sexual
misconduct would have been handled may be a reflection of the
fact that child protection was very low on the BBC’s radar in
those days (as indeed it was for many organisations). No clear
policies or procedures existed and I doubt that such matters
were discussed. Sometime after his interview, Mr Moir wrote to

638
 the Savile investigation saying that he would not have been
uncertain as to how a real problem would have been handled,
his uncertainty arose from the hypothetical nature of our
discussion. I accept that. I also accept that Mr Moir’s reaction
would have been to refer the problem upwards. However, I
remain uncertain as to the thoroughness of any possible
investigation and as to the corporate priority of the BBC when
faced with a concern about child protection. If such a concern
had resulted in a difficult choice between axing a popular
programme and damaging the BBC’s reputation or keeping the
matter under wraps, I am by no means certain that axing the
programme and child protection would have prevailed.

10.147 We spoke to Mr Moir a second time, to ask further questions,

particularly about the effect of the publication of The Sun
articles in 1983. He reminded us that he could not recollect
reading The Sun articles when they were published but said
that, on reading them recently, he thought that they showed a
side of Savile that was deeply unattractive. However, he had
no recollection that, at the time of publication, they caused a stir
in the BBC. No one rang him up in a panic (either from the
Press Office or from more senior management) to ask him what
was going on. He accepted that the articles would probably
have come to him through the cutting service in the usual way
and that he may have read them at the time. However, he had
no recollection of anyone senior contacting him about them. He
speculated that, perhaps because the matters written about
related to Savile’s private life rather than his professional life, “a
more lenient view was taken”. He pointed out that the articles
appeared in April, when Jim’ll Fix It would probably not have
been running; the series usually ran from the winter through to
spring. (In fact, records show that the last programme in the
winter series was shown on 26 March 1983, although there was
a Bank Holiday ‘special’ at the end of May.) Mr Moir said that

639
 the effect of the articles would have been less injurious when
the series was not actually running. However, he agreed that, if
the articles showed Savile to be an unsavoury character in
April, that would not have changed by the following winter. He
agreed also that Savile was something of a role model on a
programme which, by 1983, was very much a family show.

10.148 He was asked whether he would not have been concerned

about the articles on account of his own responsibilities,
regardless of the views taken by his seniors. He thought that
the articles were largely (although not entirely) historical and did
not say very much in the text; they now seemed to him to be
exaggerated and “braggadocio”. He thought that would have
been his reaction at the time, as well as now. He did not now
see anything in the articles that would have provoked curiosity
in him to look further into the story under the headline. Nor
would he have thought it necessary to make any further
enquiries about Savile’s character with a view to assessing
whether or not he was the kind of person the BBC should be
promoting as its front man on Jim’ll Fix It. At that time, he had
no other evidence which would have made him want to look
beyond the story itself.

10.149 He was then asked whether he now thought that the picture
portrayed in the second article (which described Savile’s
attitude towards sex which was that he liked casual sex, and
lots of it, with girls or young women much younger than himself
- although not underage - and was never going to have a long-
term relationship) showed Savile to be unsuitable to be put
forward as a good man who made peoples’ dreams come true.
He said that he could not be sure but he thought that the
articles were talking about the past and that the unattractive
aspect of the man would have been balanced in his mind by his
knowledge of all the good things that Savile did. He had to

640
 accept, of course, that the second article was not about the
past; it was written in the present tense. He accepted that the
article made it plain that Savile (who was 56 at the time) was
using his celebrity status to pick up girls for casual sex. He said
that he would have thought then that that was all bragging,
because he could not have seen how any female could be
attracted to Savile, other than for his fame. I interpose to say
that that is exactly the point; it was Savile’s celebrity status that
created his sexual power, not his personal attractiveness. Mr
Moir repeated that, if he had seen the article at the time, it had
not rung any alarm bells in his mind.

10.150 Mr Moir did not discuss the articles with Mr Ordish. Asked
about what Mr Ordish, as producer of Jim’ll Fix It, ought to have
done when he read these articles, knowing as he did of Savile’s
autobiography, Mr Moir said first that he thought Mr Ordish
should have come to discuss them with him, Mr Moir. Then, on
reflection, he said that, as he was the senior man, he should
have initiated a conversation with Mr Ordish. I understand that
what he meant was that, if he had read the articles (which he
cannot remember doing) he should have spoken to Mr Ordish.
He said that, if such a conversation had taken place, the right
thing for them to have done was to pass their concerns up the
management line. He added that, if anybody had considered
“firing” Savile, they would have had to have had very good
“fireproof” reasons because he might have sued. It would have
been “a very big thing to do” and the decision would have had
to be taken at the very highest level, even though Savile’s
contracts with Jim’ll Fix It only ran for one series at a time. He
seemed to be suggesting that it would not be possible to bring
Savile’s association with Jim’ll Fix It to an end unless the deeply
unattractive things which had appeared in The Sun and in his
autobiography could be proved to be true. He seemed to be
saying that the arrangement could not have been discontinued

641
 simply on the grounds that Savile appeared to have a character
which made him unsuitable to present a family show. Finally,
Mr Moir said that, if there had been a discussion about Savile’s
suitability to carry on with Jim’ll Fix It as a result of The Sun
articles, he did not know which way the decision would have
gone. He thought that at least one of the articles might have
been regarded as mainly historical and the other ones mere
braggadocio. All the adverse material would have been
balanced by his good works.

Former Controllers of BBC One

10.151 The Savile investigation interviewed four former Controllers of

BBC One, all of whom were in post during Savile’s time on
Jim’ll Fix It. None of them recalls being aware of The Sun
articles or indeed of any of the other material about Savile
which was then in the public domain. The main purpose of the
questions was to discover what their reactions would have been
if they had become aware of this material; in particular whether
they would have thought that, whether true or not, the articles
showed that Savile was not a suitable person to present a
family show like Jim’ll Fix It.

Alan Hart

10.152 Alan Hart was Controller of BBC One at the time of the
publication of The Sun articles in 1983. He believes that he did
not see the articles at the time of publication. Now that he has
read them, he thinks that his reaction to them would have been
that they were largely exaggeration and bragging. He noted
that most of the material from the first article (“My Violent
World, by Jim The Godfather”) had already been published in
As It Happens and that there was in any event no suggestion
that Savile was a paedophile. He thought he might have
spoken to the Head of Department but expected that he would

642
 have been told that it was all “Jimmy being Jimmy, way over the
top, exaggerating like mad as usual”. He would not have been
concerned about the second article (“How I Pick Up Girls on the
Marathon”) because it did not appear to be related to the BBC.
Besides, he said, there were many stories of this kind at the
time and this one would not have stood out.

10.153 However, when asked how a person who was proud to

exaggerate about this kind of thing fitted with the ethos of a
programme such as Jim’ll Fix It, he said that it did not “fit very
well at all”. He had not thought of that at the time as he had not
seen the material. If he had, he thinks he would probably have
spoken to the Head of Department and told him to tell Savile to
stop saying this kind of thing. He did not think that he would
have considered taking Savile off the programme, which would
have meant the end of Jim’ll Fix It. If that had been suggested,
it would have been a major issue and the decision would have
had to have been taken by the Managing Director of Television.

Lord Michael Grade

10.154 Lord Grade was Controller of BBC One from 1 September 1984
until 7 July 1986. He joined the BBC in 1984 so was not
employed within the BBC when The Sun articles were
published in April 1983. He was not aware of the articles until
they were drawn to his attention by us.

10.155 Lord Grade told us that, when he was at the BBC, newspaper
articles which were thought to be potentially problematical were
brought to the attention of managers by the press office. When
shown The Sun articles, however, he said that he suspected
that people reading them at the time would have thought that
that was just Savile “sounding off”. People would have thought
that it was “his fantasy” and “self-promotion”. I had the
impression that Lord Grade did not think that, even if true, this

643
 kind of material would have been taken very seriously. He
thought that the kind of “groupie culture” where there would be
“a string of girls, whatever age” waiting outside a stage door or
“going into the dressing rooms and coming out”, was just part of
the scene in the 1960s and 1970s. Even in the 1980s, he said,
it was very different from today.

10.156 He explained that, when material of the kind published in The

Sun comes out, the BBC has to gauge whether or not the public
wants to see that kind of person on their screens. He thought
that, nowadays, if this kind of material came out about a big
star, there would be huge pressure on the BBC to stop using
him. This pressure would come from the press and the public.
But in those days, the public reaction was different. When
asked whether that implied that the BBC would react to public
opinion rather than making its own mind up, he said that the
BBC was “a very reactive organisation”.

10.157 He explained that what he called “the default position” was

whether or not the published material was going to damage the
BBC’s reputation. The BBC would only be concerned if there
was going to be a major scandal. Even if people thought that
the material was true, the BBC would not take action unless
there was a scandal. He agreed that that attitude did not sit
well with Reithian values. He did not accept that there was any
such thing as BBC values, because, he said, different values
pertained in different parts of the BBC. He cited as an example
what he said was the strict code of conduct required by Biddy
Baxter, the producer of Blue Peter. He said that she had
dismissed a star presenter because she was pregnant and
unmarried. In a way, this was not a good example because, as
Ms Baxter told us, she did not dismiss the pregnant presenter;
on the contrary, the presenter left the programme voluntarily
and was invited back as a guest with her baby after its birth.

644
 However, that does not invalidate Lord Grade’s point because I
accept that Ms Baxter was very conscious of the need to
advance values which were appropriate for her young
audience.

10.158 To sum up, Lord Grade’s view was that, if the press did not
make a big fuss about these articles by picking them up and
running with them, there would be no pressure on the BBC to
stop using Savile. He agreed, however, that the kind of image
that the articles projected did not fit well with a programme like
Jim’ll Fix It. He thought that, even if the articles were not
actually true, it was not acceptable for the BBC to have a
person who bragged about that kind of thing fronting a show
like Jim’ll Fix It.

Jonathan Powell

10.159 Jonathan Powell joined the BBC in 1975 after several years
with Granada Television. He produced several very successful
drama series and serials for the BBC and became Head of
Drama for a short time before becoming Controller of BBC One
in 1987, a post which he held until 1993. In that capacity, he
was responsible for commissioning several series of Jim’ll Fix
It. Decisions to commission another series were quite
unaffected by any concerns about Savile personally as Mr
Powell was unaware of any reason for concern. The
programme was successful and, as I understand his view,
provided an early evening bridge between the young peoples’
audience and the adult audience of the later evening. In effect,
the decision to commission a further series would go through
‘on the nod’.

10.160 Until he was shown some of the material in the public domain to
which I have referred in Chapter 6, in particular The Sun
articles of April 1983, Mr Powell was unaware of them.

645
10.161 Mr Powell said that he thought that the BBC should not interest
itself in the private behaviour of a celebrity unless the behaviour
was illegal or unless it was inappropriate and became public
and might compromise the BBC’s reputation or the programme
on which the celebrity worked. He thought that the nature of
the BBC’s interest and concern should depend to some extent
on the programme. He thought that the BBC gave great
thought to who was used as a presenter on children’s
programmes and whether he or she was a suitable role model
for a young audience. He thought that the position was rather
different for adult programmes and said that there was a live
debate in the BBC as to how far the BBC should seek to lead
opinion as opposed to reflecting the views of society. Mr
Powell’s personal knowledge of this debate was based mainly
on his experience of producing drama. It was of great interest
but not of direct relevance to the issue which the Savile
investigation wished to approach which was whether, in the
light of material in the public domain, Savile was a suitable role
model for the young audience of Jim’ll Fix It.

10.162 Mr Powell agreed that Jim’ll Fix It was the kind of programme
which, on account of its appeal to children, ought to be
presented by someone who was a suitable role model. He
thought that Savile created himself as a role model by creating
the perception that he dedicated a good deal of his life to good
works, raised money for charity and was on friendly terms with
the great and the good. He thought that these things made him
appear to be more friendly, approachable and warm than he
naturally was.

10.163 When asked what (hypothetically) he would have thought if, as

Controller of BBC One, he had been made aware of The Sun
articles, his first reaction was to say that he probably would not
have taken them very seriously. That said, he explained that

646
 his reaction to the articles would have depended on the
circumstances in which they came to his attention. If someone
(such as the Head of Press) had drawn attention to them as
giving rise to a problem, he would have focused his attention on
them; on the other hand, if they were just lying in a pile of press
cuttings, he might have passed over them.

10.164 In more detail, he said that he thinks that, if he had read the first
of the three articles (“My Violent World, by Jim The Godfather”),
he would not have taken it very seriously; it was talking about
things that happened a long time ago and he would have
thought that Savile was exaggerating the influence or power he
had in the nightclubs around Leeds. He did not think he would
have read the article carefully enough to have been struck by
the claim that Savile could arrange for someone to be ‘done
over’ in London while he was in Edinburgh so that it was
‘nothing to do with him’. He read it as “part of slightly shady
past, a slightly shady club-ridden show-biz past”, and that
Savile’s reputation had changed on account of his charity work
so that he would not have thought that this article needed to be
looked into. He said, however, that it was odd that Savile would
wish to boast about these aspects of his behaviour.

10.165 He expressed greater concern about the second article (“How I

Pick Up Girls on the Marathon”), particularly when read in
conjunction with some of the passages in As It Happens to
which the Savile investigation had referred him. He felt that this
material contained some passages which he described as
“ambiguous” by which I understand him to have meant that you
could understand Savile to be telling you that he had sex with
underage girls. He thought, however, that no one reading this
material would read it carefully: he thought one would just skip
through the pages and not notice the worrying or ambiguous
passages. When asked whether he would have expected

647
 someone in the BBC to have brought the second article to his
attention, he said that he thought not because the article did not
mention the BBC.

10.166 Mr Powell was asked whether he thought that the second

article (whether containing the truth or exaggerations) showed
that Savile was not a suitable role model to present Jim’ll Fix It.
He said “Well he only becomes a bad role model when this kind
of material becomes his identity. If somehow it rolls off him,
then the public perception of him doesn’t change.” He said that
people sometimes did unfortunate things and somehow it did
not affect their public persona. He thought that the question
that should have been asked (within the BBC) was not so much
whether Savile was a suitable person to present Jim’ll Fix It but
whether all the security arrangements for audiences and the
arrangements made for looking after Savile were properly taken
care of.

10.167 Finally, he was asked whether, if someone had suggested to

him that, in the light of these articles, Savile ought not to be
used on a programme like Jim’ll Fix It, he would have
suggested that the BBC should wait to see what the public
reaction was. He replied:-

“I don’t know. I don’t think I would have read it

and jumped to the conclusion that he must be
taken off the screen. I hope I would have read
it and thought ‘We need to have a
conversation at a high level about what he’s
saying’”.

Alan Yentob

10.168 Mr Yentob has been with the BBC since 1968 and, although
coming from a background of extremely successful creative
work (on which he is still working as a presenter and a series
editor), has also held important administrative positions. In
1984, he became Head of Music and Arts; in 1988, Controller of

648
 BBC Two and in 1993, Controller of BBC One. Thereafter he
became Director of Television and, until the end of December
2015, he was Creative Director, a role in which he could
combine high-level influence with the freedom to make
programmes. When I interviewed Mr Yentob he was still the
BBC’s Creative Director. It was clear to me that Mr Yentob is
very proud of the BBC and he described his career with the
Corporation as a privilege. He found it difficult to discuss some
of the issues we had to raise with him but his contribution was
all the more valuable for that.

10.169 I am quite satisfied that his decision to discontinue Jim’ll Fix It in

1994 was taken for artistic and programming reasons and was
quite unrelated to any concerns about Savile. Mr Yentob
explained, and I accept, that he had no concerns about Savile.
He had not heard any rumours about his sexuality; nor was he,
at that time, aware of any of the published material to which I
have referred in Chapter 6. Indeed, that material was
completely new to him when shown it by the Savile
investigation.

10.170 He was asked, on a hypothetical basis, what he would have

thought and done if he had been Controller of BBC One (and
therefore ultimately responsible for Jim’ll Fix It) in April 1983
when The Sun articles were published. He said that he would
have had to discuss them with the people below him who knew
Savile better than he did, such as the Head of Light
Entertainment. He would have needed to know whether this
kind of thing was thought to be true or whether it was thought to
be just boasting. If the view was that this was not true but was
just boasting, he might have advised that Savile should be
warned not to talk like that as it might be misunderstood. When
asked what he thought about someone who boasted about
those kinds of things, he said “I think a person who boasts like

649
 this is pretty foul and unappealing”. When asked whether that
person would be a good role model for young people, he said
that he doubted that he was but said that he did not want to be
“judgmental”. He agreed without hesitation that the BBC does
have a responsibility as to the role models that it puts out. He
added that he did not like what he had just been shown.

10.171 When asked whether he thought that members of the Talent

should be given a degree of leeway in respect of their conduct,
he expanded on what he had meant about being judgmental.
The passage is important and I quote it in full. He said:

“…for the BBC to be morally judgmental and to

expect everyone to hold the same views that
the person making those decisions are, is a tall
order and not necessarily appropriate…it needs
to be a broad church…of the people who
appear on television. You don’t necessarily
know everything about them, nor do you have
the right to know everything about them, but if
you find out things about them which
are…wrong, you have to point it out, you have
to take some kind of action, obviously, and I
don’t believe that Talent has an excuse to
behave badly, no. The question is…do you
warn them, do you tell them…where do you
draw the line? So I think that…it is important,
and it doesn’t go away. It’s increasingly...the
case, that in this world now, where everything is
in the public domain…you are more and more
alert and aware of these things, and the
judgments are tough”.

10.172 Mr Yentob also said that The Sun articles showed a potential
for reputational damage to the BBC and expressed the view
that perhaps the top end of the BBC had not paid sufficient
attention to what was going on in the entertainment world. He
said that today such articles would cause reputational damage.
Today “a mis-spoken word or sentence can get you into serious
trouble”. However, he thought the position might have been
different at the time of these articles because:

650
 “some of the public probably would be forgiving
about this at the time for some reason, because
his reputation – because he was so loved and
liked. I’d like to know how many letters were
written to The Sun complaining about what he
was talking about, how many people believed it,
thought it was boasting. This is not to excuse
the BBC but there is something about…those
times, and that era, where somehow he seemed
immune.”

10.173 Asked whether that meant that it was all right for the BBC to
react to public opinion rather than forming its own view, he said
that the BBC did have to make its own judgments but he
thought that public opinion was plainly relevant to them. He
speculated that, if there had been more of a public reaction to
The Sun articles, maybe people like him in the BBC would have
been more aware of the problem than they were.

10.174 Mr Yentob then looked at other public domain material from

Chapter 6 and reacted by saying “How did he get away with all
of this you ask yourself?” He then volunteered that, if I was
going to say that there was a responsibility on the BBC not to
have missed this material, that would be a fair point for me to
make.

Discussion

10.175 I have already expressed the view that the staff on Jim’ll Fix It
appreciated the need to take care of the children and young
people involved in the show and wanted to ensure that they had
an enjoyable and memorable day. I think that, by the 1980s,
some members of the production team had become concerned
about Savile and felt he could not be trusted with young people.
I think there was no or very little discussion about these
concerns. Instead, there was the tacit adoption of a modus
operandi designed to protect children and young people without
jeopardising the stability of the programme. To a large degree,
those measures worked, although not completely.

651
10.176 I have also explained my views about Mr Ordish’s state of mind.
I think that he did not consciously recognise the pointers and
danger signs in Savile’s conduct which were there to be seen.
Therefore it did not occur to him to discuss any child protection
concerns about Savile with anyone senior to him in the BBC.
Nor was he at all concerned about the content of The Sun
articles. He thought they were greatly exaggerated and, in any
event, they did not suggest sexual activity with underage
children.

10.177 I have accepted that no one above producer level with any
responsibility for deciding whether Jim’ll Fix It should be on the
air was consciously aware of any reason for concern about
child protection in connection with the programme. Yet there
remains for discussion the question whether (quite apart from
child protection), when The Sun articles were published, the
reaction of the BBC (prompted by Mr Ordish or anyone involved
in monitoring press coverage) ought to have been to consider
whether Savile was a suitable person to present this family
programme. Even if it was thought that the content of the
articles was exaggeration, it seems to me that there ought at
least to have been a discussion about whether a person who
seemed proud to boast about his associations with criminal
characters (albeit long ago) and his prolific casual sex life with
young women decades younger than himself was a suitable
person to present this show. There should have been
consideration of whether it was appropriate for the BBC, with its
public interest values, to provide a platform on a ‘family’
programme such as Jim’ll Fix It for a man whose personal
moral standards would be unacceptable to many people. There
was no such discussion.

10.178 Jim’ll Fix It was not just a successful family entertainment

programme. It was a platform for Savile. Both Savile himself

652
 and the BBC made use of Savile’s image as a good man who
made peoples’ dreams come true. This image was directly
related to Savile’s ‘goodness’ as a fundraiser and helper of the
sick and disabled. Although there is now a suspicion that
Savile’s good works were a cover for his sexual deviancy (an
issue on which I express no view), I entirely accept that, at the
time, the BBC regarded Savile as a good man so far as his
charitable work was concerned. The Sun articles presented
reasons why, notwithstanding his good works, Savile was not
an appropriate role model for young people. I will deal with
what was known in BBC Radio 1 in Chapter 11. For the
present, I will deal only with the position in Light Entertainment.

10.179 Mr Ordish knew (or would have recognised if he had applied his
mind to it) that there was a falsity in Savile’s position on Jim’ll
Fix It. This falsity went far beyond the artificiality to which I
referred in Chapter 3, which arose because the programme
gave the impression that Savile had personally arranged for the
young person’s dream to be realised. It clearly extended to the
presentation of Savile as a good man, suitable to be regarded
as a favourite uncle to the nation’s children. He was not and Mr
Ordish knew he was not. Even though I have accepted that Mr
Ordish did not consciously realise that Savile was or might be
an abuser of young people, he certainly knew that he had very
questionable morals. He knew that Savile proclaimed his
interest in casual sex without emotional commitment with
women very much younger than himself. While I accept that
some people may see nothing wrong with such sexual conduct
between consenting adults, I do not think that many people
would regard this kind of conduct as that which should be held
up as an example to young people.

10.180 Mr Ordish also knew that Savile had claimed to have

associated with criminal henchmen and to have had a

653
 questionable relationship with the police. I accept that he could
not have known whether or not those claims were true. I
accept that he thought they were exaggerated. It seems to me
that, whether they were true or not, the fact that Savile was
content to put such material into the public domain shows that
he was not a suitable role model for young people and not
therefore a suitable person to front a programme like Jim’ll Fix
It. Mr Ordish now agrees that that is so.

10.181 Mr Moir accepts that it is reasonable to assume that The Sun

articles of 1983 would have been put before him as part of the
press cutting service, although he has no recollection of them.
When he recently read them, he thought they were braggadocio
and he thought this would also have been his view at the time.
There again, that is not my point. Even if much of the material
in those articles was exaggeration, Savile had not contradicted
them and, indeed, appeared willing, even proud, to stand by
them. As Mr Moir now accepts, that shows that he was not a
suitable person to front a programme like Jim’ll Fix It.

10.182 Among the former BBC One Controllers interviewed, there is a

fair degree of unanimity that a person who is content to boast
about such matters as those Savile boasted about in The Sun
articles (and to a lesser degree in other public domain material)
was not an appropriate person to present a family show like
Jim’ll Fix It which needed a suitable role model. Some also
accepted that the use of Savile on such a show presented a
risk of reputational damage to the BBC. Yet they never
considered these issues at the time because the material was
not specifically brought to their attention. It seems clear that
the main reason why no one drew their attention to these
articles is that the articles did not cause any public outcry.

10.183 I do not think that Mr Ordish gave any thought at all to the
question whether, regardless of the truth or falsity of the content

654
 of The Sun articles, Savile was a suitable person to present a
family show like Jim’ll Fix It. Nor did Mr Moir – if he read the
articles. But, why did Mr Ordish not see the problems revealed
by this material and speak to Mr Moir about it? I think there are
several reasons. First, it seems clear that the priority of the
Light Entertainment Department at that time was to keep a
successful programme running and not to think about other
issues unless a problem presented itself in an obvious form.
Second, as I say above, only if there had been a press or public
outcry arising from the 1983 material, on such a scale as to
affect the BBC’s reputation, would any thought have been given
to Savile’s suitability to front Jim’ll Fix It. There was no such
public outcry. From that one might infer that, at that time,
people did not think that the kind of behaviour described in
those articles was seriously reprehensible.

10.184 Had Mr Ordish spoken to Mr Moir or had the articles been

brought to wider attention and had this led to a discussion
about Savile’s suitability, the issues for discussion should have
included the nature of Jim’ll Fix it and the extent to which the
BBC had a responsibility to its family audiences to put forward a
suitable role model as presenter. It should have been
recognised that the programme gave Savile a platform as a
‘good man’ who made children’s dreams come true and
reinforced his good reputation as a fundraiser and helper of the
sick and disabled. Savile’s suitability for that position should
have been considered in the light of everything that was known
about his character including the fact that he appeared proud to
boast about some very unsavoury aspects of his life. These
matters should have been considered objectively, without
regard to the fact that the public appeared to admire and even
adore him. I consider that such a discussion should have
concluded that the BBC ought not to put Savile forward as this
‘good man’. The result would, I think, have been the removal of

655
 Savile from Jim’ll Fix It which would probably have meant the
end of the programme.

10.185 One of the factors which troubles me is that, without a public

outcry, there would not have been any thought of initiating that
discussion about Savile’s suitability. Two points must be made.
First, if the BBC is anxious to maintain a good reputation (as it
very properly was and is) the right way to safeguard a good
reputation is to ensure that the BBC acts properly, proactively
and of its own volition, rather than waiting for and reacting to a
scandal and public outcry. Second, it does not seem to me that
the public interest values, which the BBC claims to hold dear,
had a very high priority when it came to possible interference
with a popular and successful programme. Although I am of
the view that Mr Ordish ought to have been concerned about
The Sun articles, I do not criticise him personally. His conduct
was a reflection of a corporate attitude.

656
CHAPT
TER 11 – AWARENE
A ESS WITH
HIN BBC RADIO 1 AND THE
E BBC
RADIO
O RELIGIO
OUS BROA
ADCASTIN
NG DEPAR
RTMENT

Introdu
uction

11.1 In this chapter, I shall examine the extent

e to which
w peop
ple who
worked
d in BBC Radio
R 1 were aware of Savile’s sexual conduct
c
and prroclivities.

11.2 Before
e I do so,
s howevver, it is convenie
ent to reffer, as
background, to the awarreness of the mana
agement of
o BBC
ncerns whicch had arissen about the
Radio of the con t moral welfare
w
of young audiences as a result
r of the
e News off the World
d series
hed in 19
publish 971 (see Chapter
C 9)). These issues prrimarily
affecte
ed Top of
o the Pops
P and the Ligh
ht Enterta
ainment
Deparrtment in television.
t er, it was appreciate
Howeve ed that
similarr problemss could arise in co
onnection with some
e radio
shows
s. These potential
p prroblems were discus
ssed at a meeting
m
chaired by the Managing
M Director Radio
R (Ian Trethowan
n) on 6
April 1971. Mr Trethowan
T observed that the News
N of the
e World
series of articles had finished but had been followed by the
ppy episod
“unhap de” of the suicide off a 15-yea
ar old girl, (Claire
McAlp
pine) due, it had be
een alleged, to her associatio
on with
various celebritie
es whom she
s had me
et through Top of the
e Pops.
The minute
m continued:

“[[Mr Trethoowan] felt that, eve en though it had

b
been television whichh was direcctly involve ed, this
c
could lead to bad pub blicity for th
he BBC… and for
R
Radio 1 in particular …. . He was w concerrned at
th
he possibility of a sim
milar scand dal over “R
Radio 1
C
Club”, or other
o audience sho ows of thiss kind,
w
where the BBC might be accused of creating c
[a atmosp
[an] phere in which
w assiggnations beetween
u
unbalance ed [empha asis added d] girls an
nd disc
jo
ockeys mig ght be mad de. C. R. 1&2
1 [Contrroller of
R
Radio 1 annd 2, Doug glas Muggeridge] said that,
w
while aware e of the da
angers, “R Radio 1 Cluub” had
in
n fact an innocent feelf about it, though h there
h
had been some
s com
mplaints fro om schools s about

65
57
 their pupils attending and girls as young as 12
or 13 might well be among those present. He
felt that if the minimum age for those attending
the show were to be raised to 18 this, while
satisfying the schools, would affect the whole
character of the programme. In any case,
“Radio 1 Club” was coming off in the Autumn.
He believed that, on the whole Radio 1 in its
record programmes succeeded in maintaining a
middle path between being excessively
‘square’, of which it was often accused, and of
being irresponsibly permissive. He believed that
most producers behaved impeccably
themselves and that even if audience shows
were dropped, it would still be possible for disc
jockeys to meet girls who had, for example,
hung around waiting from them outside BBC
premises...MDR [Managing Director Radio] said
he felt it would be necessary to ask whether it
was part of public service broadcasting to put
on live audience pop programmes. Radio 1
could still function effectively without such
shows, though undoubtedly the progress round
the country of “Radio 1 Club” had a promotional
value and kept the programme fresh and
varied”.

11.3 On 7 April 1971, Mr Muggeridge reported to Mr Trethowan on

the issue of age limits for radio audiences. He said that the
minimum of age for admission to all radio audience shows,
except Radio 1 Club, was 10 but the age for admission to and
membership of BBC Radio 1 Club was 12. He had just learned
that the Top of the Pops age limit had been raised to 16. It
seems that he had been asked whether it would be feasible to
bring Radio 1 Club into line. He said that this would be
problematical as about 250,000 membership cards had been
issued on the basis of the current age limit. He also pointed out
that it was a practical impossibility to enforce any age limit
“because so many girls look older than they really are”. He
suggested that they could restrict all interviews on Radio 1 Club
to people over the age of 16. He said:

658
 “Thus, as far as public performance is
concerned, we should be acting in concert with
the new “Top of the Pops” limitation. And,
equally, we should be seen to be tightening up
on the one aspect of the show which brings
D.J.s and Club members together formally”.

11.4 Before Mr Trethowan replied, the inquest into Claire McAlpine’s

death took place and was attended by senior representatives of
the BBC including the Legal Adviser, Mr Marshall, whose
memorandum relating to the inquest is set out in paragraphs
9.100 to 9.103. It appears that his account of the inquest must
have been communicated to Mr Trethowan. Mr Trethowan’s
reply to Mr Muggeridge said that the Director-General had
accepted it would not be practicable to raise the age limit for
Radio 1 Club to 16 at the current time. He said that the
Director-General had stressed the concern that the BBC “does
not put itself into the position of appearing to condone
permissiveness”. The letter continued:

“While it is now clear that the allegations about

‘Top of the Pops’ rest on a child’s fantasy rather
than a fact, you are clearly right in what you
said to me last week about the narrow path we
tread in the whole pop area, and in these
programmes in particular. The producers
concerned should make sure that they put
everyone involved in any Radio 1 programme
on his guard, both while the programme is on
the air and during the time before and after the
programme when the audience is milling around
the disc-jockeys. Of course, it is perfectly
harmless for disc-jockeys to sign autographs,
but the sad case of the fifteen-year-old girl is a
reminder of the dangers of the fantasy world
these children can create for themselves.”

11.5 The minutes of the Managing Director Radio’s Direction

Meeting held on 20 April 1971 record that Mr Trethowan drew
attention to a statement issued by the police after the inquest
which revealed that in fact the unhappy suicide was due to
domestic troubles and that the BBC was not involved in any

659
 way. Mr Muggeridge said that he had nonetheless issued a
reminder to all producers for the need for care in regard to
Radio 1 Club and similar programmes and had also ruled that
no one under the age of 16 was to be interviewed during the
programme. Radio 1 disc jockeys too had been reminded of
the need for care during autograph signing sessions. Mr
Trethowan said he had discussed the whole subject with the
Director-General who had agreed that the Radio 1 Club was in
a different category from Top of the Pops and was satisfied with
the precautions radio had taken.

11.6 I have mentioned these minutes and this correspondence

because they demonstrate that the management of BBC Radio
and Mr Muggeridge, the Controller of Radio 1 and 2, were
aware that there were risks in bringing disc jockeys and young
girls together. They demonstrate that radio management was
aware of the difficulty of assessing the age of the young girls
who attended Radio 1 shows and who flocked around disc
jockeys. Although the minutes of the meeting on 6 April 1971
recognise the possibility that Radio 1 disc jockeys might abuse
their position, they demonstrate what to my mind is a most
unfortunate attitude towards the young girls; they appear to be
regarded as a nuisance and are described in the minutes as
‘unbalanced’ rather than merely young and in need of
protection. There is a suggestion in the minutes of the meeting
on 20 April 1971 that Radio 1 disc jockeys should be reminded
to ‘take care’ and that this would be a sufficient precaution,
again implying that it is the girls who are the problem. They
also demonstrate management’s concern about the reputation
of the BBC.

11.7 Against that background, I turn to consider Radio 1’s concerns

about Savile. Savile joined BBC Radio 1 as a disc jockey and
presenter in 1968. He worked for that network until 1987. As I

660
 have explained in Chapter 3, he worked on several
programmes, including Savile’s Travels, Speakeasy and The
Double Top Ten Show.

Investigations Instigated by Douglas Muggeridge, Controller of BBC

Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2

11.8 Largely through media reports, to which I refer below, the

Savile investigation became aware that, at some stage,
probably in 1973, Mr Muggeridge became concerned about
rumours of sexual impropriety concerning Savile. It was not
clear where those rumours came from. However, Mr
Muggeridge must have been concerned and set in train two
separate lines of enquiry. I shall describe them both but, before
I do so, will set this early evidence in the context of the later
media interest in these events which followed the revelations
about Savile’s sexual misconduct in October 2012.

11.9 In mid-October 2012, there were several media reports to the

effect that Derek Chinnery, at some time in the period when he
was Head of BBC Radio 1, had challenged Savile about
rumours of sexual impropriety which had come to the BBC’s
attention. Savile had replied that such rumours were nonsense
and that there was no truth in them. Mr Chinnery had accepted
this denial and nothing further had happened. The media were
critical that that denial had been accepted at face value. It was
suggested that the BBC had known about Savile’s misconduct
decades earlier and had failed to act.

11.10 At about the same time in 2012, Rodney Collins, who worked
for the BBC as a publicity officer in the 1970s, told the media
that Douglas Muggeridge had asked him to “check whether the
newspapers were planning to print allegations of Savile having
inappropriate liaisons with underage girls”. Mr Collins is
reported to have said that Mr Muggeridge told him that there

661
 were allegations about a specific BBC Radio 1 programme,
Savile's Travels, in which Savile went around the country in a
caravan. The substance of the allegations was that underage
girls were involved in liaisons in that caravan. Mr Collins said
that, after making enquiries, he had reported back to Mr
Muggeridge that the newspapers had “heard these allegations”
but were unwilling to print them “whether they were true or not”
because Savile did a lot for charity and was “perceived as a
very popular man”.

11.11 The impression given by this coverage was that the BBC was
aware of the rumours but was concerned more to find out
whether they were about to be published in the press than to
investigate whether or not Savile was in fact misbehaving with
young girls. The BBC was criticised in the press for a failure to
investigate the rumours thoroughly.

11.12 The Savile investigation has tried to find out as much as it can
about these events. Unfortunately, it appears that no relevant
documents still exist, if they ever did. Also, several of the
people who would have been able to throw light on these
events have died – in particular Mr Muggeridge. Of those who
have given evidence, some have difficulty in remembering
events, which is not surprising, given the passage of time.

11.13 I do not know which line of enquiry Mr Muggeridge set in train

first or if he set them in train at the same time. I shall begin by
describing the line of enquiry that involved Mr Chinnery.

The Enquiries Made by Derek Chinnery

11.14 Mr Chinnery spoke to us in January 2013. He died in March

2015. He told us that he joined the BBC in 1941 and eventually
worked in what was then called the Gramophone Department.
He joined BBC Radio 1 when it started in 1967. In 1972, he
became Head of Radio 1. In 1978, he became Controller of

662
 Radio 1. As Head of Radio 1, Mr Chinnery had day-to-day
control of that network and reported directly to Mr Muggeridge.
Below him there were three executive producers, one of whom
was a woman, Doreen Davies.

11.15 Mr Chinnery told us that, when the Savile scandal broke in

October 2012, he was very shocked. Within a short time, he
had talked about Savile to his old friend and colleague, Ms
Davies. She told him that, at some time in the early 1970s, he
had interviewed Savile about rumours which had been going
round to the effect that he was behaving inappropriately with
young girls. He himself had no recollection of the rumours or
the interview but he accepted the truth and accuracy of Ms
Davies’s recollection. She told him that, when interviewed,
Savile had denied the truth of the rumours. It must have been
on the basis of Ms Davies’s account to him that he had spoken
to the media; it is clear that parts of his account to the media in
2012 were based on supposition.

11.16 Mr Chinnery told me that he felt somewhat aggrieved that he

had been criticised in the press because he had accepted
Savile’s denial when asked about the rumours. He explained
that, in his view, it was not the job of the head of a department
to investigate the private lives of the people working in the
department. There was a limit to how far one should enquire
into peoples’ private lives.

11.17 He said that he now understood that the rumours were about
Savile “having sex with girls”. He observed that anything that
Savile “got up to in a dressing room at TVC was a thousand
miles away from what he did from Radio 1”. In any case, he
said, it would have been quite impossible for Savile to ‘get up to
anything’ at Egton House where BBC Radio 1 had its offices or
at Broadcasting House where BBC Radio 1 programmes were

663
 recorded in the 1970s. There were no audiences in the
buildings.

11.18 When he spoke to the Savile investigation, Mr Chinnery

expressed his annoyance at the press coverage, in particular
an article which had described him as “Savile’s boss” and as
“the one person at the BBC who could have done something
about Savile but did nothing”. He asserted that he had had no
idea what was going on. If people at Television Centre knew
and did nothing, he would be disgusted by that. But he thought
it would have been very difficult to stop what went on in
dressing rooms. After all, Savile would be given the key to his
dressing room and could take whom he liked in there. What he
got up to was difficult to pin down. The women were “coming
out of the woodwork complaining, whereas at the time they
were thrilled to bits to be involved in television or to meet the
great star”. He suspected that most of what happened “was
done willingly”.

11.19 With due respect to Mr Chinnery, his lack of memory meant that
he was unable to assist us. Fortunately, Ms Davies had a good
recollection of events.

11.20 Ms Davies said that she had never known Savile well; he was
not one of the disc jockeys for whom she was responsible as
executive producer. She did not want him to be, as she
regarded him as ‘an oddball’. She felt that one could not have
a conversation with him. If she met him in the corridor, he
would genuflect and say “Another boss”. She thought he was
sleazy; he often had an unlit cigar in his mouth and often looked
bedraggled. She had nothing to do with him. When he came
into Egton House, he would go straight into Ted Beston’s (his
producer’s) office. Disc jockeys did not have offices of their
own; they used their producer’s office when necessary.

664
11.21 Ms Davies never heard any gossip or rumours about Savile.
She thought Savile was asexual and was not interested in sex
at all.

11.22 She remembers the meeting between Savile and Mr Chinnery.

She said that Mr Chinnery asked her to sit in as an observer.
That was not unusual. She did not know what the meeting was
going to be about. She did not take any note of the meeting;
she was not asked to and it was not the practice to do so when
attending meetings as an observer.

11.23 She recalls that Savile walked into the room and started joking
about there being “two bosses”. Mr Chinnery asked him to sit
down and said that he had things to say that were serious.
Savile sat next to her on the opposite side of the desk to Mr
Chinnery. He sat back and put one leg over the other. Mr
Chinnery said words to the effect that there was “a bit of a
press thing going on and I have been asked to ask you if you
are going to embarrass us with anything in your private life”.
Ms Davies thinks that, in some way, Mr Chinnery made it plain
to Savile that the issue being raised by the press was whether
Savile was sexually involved with young girls.

11.24 Savile’s response was to say that this kind of thing had been
going on in the press for years and that no one ever got a story
because there was no story. There were no secrets in his life.
He had worked at the Mecca dance hall in Leeds, where there
were lots of young girls and, when the evenings were over and
he had seen girls leaving to go home, he had told the bouncers
to give them money for taxis. He always protected girls and he
had a good reputation as a result. The police knew him and
everything about him; there were no secrets.

11.25 Mr Chinnery asked him if he was sure. Savile said that he was
absolutely sure and that nothing would ever come out. Mr

665
 Chinnery then told Savile that one thing being said was that
Savile had young girls in his flat in London. Savile’s reply was
that sometimes girls came down from Leeds to London for Top
of the Pops. He did allow them to use sleeping bags on his
lounge floor. He slept in his bedroom. They would be offered
tea in the morning and would go off to catch the train. So, to
that extent, the story was true. He added that he stayed three
times a week at Stoke Mandeville (where he had a flat) and
spent time working at Leeds General Infirmary.

11.26 Ms Davies said that Savile’s denial was categoric but not
aggressive. He appeared confident, shocked, astonished and
offended.

11.27 I interpose to note that Savile’s response, as recounted by Ms

Davies, was, in some respects, similar to his confident
response when interviewed by officers of Surrey Constabulary
in 2009 about allegations of indecent assault. To the police, he
said that, in his business, he was accused of just about
everything because people were looking for a ‘bit of blackmail’
or the papers were looking for a story but if one had a clear
conscience, which he had, everything was OK. He also told the
police that the allegations the police were discussing were
fabrications and suggested that the accusations were being
made because it was “coming up for Christmas and they’re
looking for a few quid off a newspaper”. Savile also talked
extensively about his good works. This was similar to the
technique he adopted, with amazing chutzpah, when speaking
to Mr Chinnery. He presented himself as the victim of press
intrusion and as a protector of young girls. He had the
confidence to lie about the facilities of his flat; it did not have a
separate bedroom. And he irrelevantly reminded his listeners
of his good works.

666
11.28 I return to Ms Davies’s account. Mr Chinnery then said that, as
long as Savile could assure him that everything was all right, he
could go back and say so. Savile repeated that there was no
truth in anything suggested. Mr Chinnery said that he accepted
that. Savile then left the room and Mr Chinnery said words to
the effect of “what can one do?” Mr Chinnery and Ms Davies
both shrugged their shoulders. Ms Davies herself had believed
what Savile had said. She thinks that Mr Chinnery also
believed Savile.

11.29 When asked whether she knew anything of the background to

the decision to interview Savile, Ms Davies said that she had
not been told anything at the time but had thought about it a lot
and was now convinced that the background was that the press
had got hold of something; as she put it something had been
‘bubbling’ in the press. She did not discuss the matter again
with Mr Chinnery. She assumes that he reported back to Mr
Muggeridge and that Mr Muggeridge would have been relieved
that nothing would come out in the press. She accepted that
much of this was supposition and reconstruction.

11.30 Asked why she thought that the rumours had started in Fleet
Street rather than in the BBC, she said that she did not think
that Mr Chinnery would have bothered to have Savile into his
room, as he did, if the rumours were merely ‘in-house’ BBC
rumours. The inference to be drawn from that remark is that
rumours in the press would have been regarded as more
serious for the BBC than ‘in-house’ rumours. Ms Davies was
almost sure that Mr Chinnery had told Savile that the press
were “sniffing around” about his private life and about bad
behaviour with young girls.

11.31 Ms Davies felt that Mr Chinnery had handled the interview

satisfactorily. He was firm, cold and measured; it was not an
avuncular chat. She thought that it had been sufficient to speak

667
 to Savile in this formal way. At the time, it was not known that
there was anything ‘dodgy’ about Savile. They were dealing
with this without the knowledge we have today.

11.32 She was asked, hypothetically, what she thought would have
been the situation if Savile (who was then aged 47) had
admitted having sex with young girls but girls who were over
the age of 16. She said that she thought that Mr Chinnery
would have been shocked, disgusted and horrified, but there
would probably have been nothing he could do if it was legal.
She said that “one could not live the life of a DJ for a DJ”.

11.33 Johnny Beerling, who knew Mr Chinnery well, as they worked

closely together for some years, said that Mr Chinnery was a
straightforward man and that, if Savile had assured him that
there was no truth in the rumours, he would have accepted it.

The Account Given by Rodney Collins

11.34 I turn to Rodney Collins’s account. In the early 1970s, Mr

Collins worked as a BBC Radio publicity officer, answerable
directly to Mr Muggeridge. He saw his role as a bridge between
BBC Radio and Fleet Street, in particular with the objective of
improving relations between the BBC and the tabloid press. He
told me that, historically, the BBC had had quite good relations
with the broadsheets but had had difficult relationships with the
tabloids. He thought that there was a sense of animosity and
distrust in the BBC towards the popular press (I am sure he is
right about that) and reminded me that, in the early 1970s, the
BBC had faced allegations in the News of the World,
concerning the payola scandal and the death of Claire
McAlpine: see paragraphs 9.66 and 9.81-9.85.

11.35 Mr Collins recalled that, sometime in 1973 (he thinks it was

June), Mr Muggeridge called him in and asked him what he
thought of Savile. In fact, at that time, Mr Collins was

668
 concerned about the way in which Savile’s Travels was being
run. This had nothing to do with allegations of immorality. It
was simply that Savile and Ted Beston, the producer, appeared
to him to be running their own show, quite cut off from BBC
management. Mr Collins found it impossible to contact either of
them when they were out of London and could not get the
information he needed to do his job as publicity officer. He had
already written to Mr Muggeridge explaining these concerns.
Mr Collins also found Savile quite difficult to deal with. He was
reluctant to be interviewed by the press. Savile wanted to be in
control of his own publicity.

11.36 Mr Collins explained this to Mr Muggeridge and said that he did

not think Savile added much to the network. Mr Muggeridge
agreed that Savile was different from all the other disc jockeys
on the BBC’s books. Then Mr Muggeridge said that he had
heard rumours about Savile “maybe not behaving the way he
should”. Mr Collins understood the concern to be about sexual
behaviour and had the impression that the rumours were in
some way connected to Savile’s Travels. He thought that Mr
Muggeridge was not talking about improper behaviour on BBC
premises. Mr Muggeridge did not say where he had heard
these rumours.

11.37 Mr Muggeridge suggested that Mr Collins should make

enquiries of three or four people he could trust among his
contacts in Fleet Street. Mr Collins understood that he was to
find out anything he could, not simply whether there was risk of
a publication which might damage the BBC’s reputation. Mr
Collins told me that he then made such enquiries of four
journalists. He says that all four gave a similar response. In
summary, in Fleet Street, Savile was regarded as an odd
character and the papers did not know a great deal about him.
They had heard rumours, which may have been about young

669
 girls and parties and such like, but nothing specific. Later, in
his evidence to the Savile investigation, Mr Collins said that one
of the journalists, Martin Jackson (now deceased), had said
that, although he had heard rumours, his newspaper would not
be publishing anything because Savile was respected for his
good works and was very popular. Mr Collins said that he
reported his findings back to Mr Muggeridge and added that
none of his contacts was aware of any police interest in Savile.
He says that Mr Muggeridge seemed disappointed and said
“Damn!”. Mr Collins knew nothing more about any further
action taken by Mr Muggeridge.

11.38 As Mr Collins had mentioned to us the name of Mr

Muggeridge’s private secretary, Sheila Stringer and, as he had
the impression that Ms Stringer was privy to Mr Muggeridge’s
thoughts on this issue, the Savile investigation has tried to
locate her. We have not succeeded and such information as
we can find suggests that she died over 10 years ago.

11.39 In 2012, Mr Collins spoke to the press, as mentioned above.

His story, as published, is consistent with what he told us. Mr
Collins also told us that he had recently tried to contact the four
journalists to whom he had spoken in 1973. One of them has
died. One is now well in his 80s and does not remember a
conversation relating to Savile. Mr Collins claimed that the
other two contacts remember speaking to him about Savile.
One is Mike Day, who worked for the Press Association. He
has told us that he recalls talking to Mr Collins about Savile and
a story relating to possible misbehaviour with children; there
was reference to a caravan. He thought that the concern was
that the Daily Mail might publish an exposé of Savile. He said
that there was a lot of talk about Savile in press circles at that
time but that no one had any actual evidence and no one was
prepared to print a story without an affidavit. However, Mr

670
 Day’s recollection is that this conversation took place rather
later than Mr Collins recalls and that Mr Collins was then
working for Radio Luxembourg rather than the BBC. Mr Collins
left the BBC in 1974. The other journalist was Aldo Nicolotti,
who then worked for the Evening News. Mr Nicolotti has told
the Review that he cannot remember any such conversation
with Mr Collins.

11.40 In 2012, Mr Collins became aware, from media coverage, that

Mr Muggeridge had, in the early 1970s, asked Mr Chinnery to
speak to Savile about rumours of sexual misbehaviour. He had
not been aware of that at the time.

11.41 Mr Collins told the Savile investigation that, shortly after Mr

Muggeridge’s enquiries into Savile, which had failed to disclose
any evidence of misconduct, a decision was taken to axe
Savile’s Travels. Mr Collins was of the view that this decision
was causally connected with Mr Muggeridge’s lack of
confidence in Savile. In fact, that programme continued until
1977 (as Mr Collins now accepts), which suggests that the
decision to stop it was not related to any concerns Mr
Muggeridge may have had about Savile’s conduct. We have
not come across any documentary record that explains why the
programme was stopped.

11.42 It was suggested to me by Peter Rosier, a former BBC press

officer that, it would have been naïve for a BBC press officer or
a publicity officer to go stirring up interest in Fleet Street,
particularly if the original rumours had started within the BBC.
When Mr Collins was asked about this he said that Mr
Muggeridge had asked him to approach journalists and he had
been very careful to go to journalists whom he could trust
where there was no danger of stirring up unwanted interest. I
have no reason to doubt Mr Collins’s assertion that he was
asked to approach trustworthy journalists and did so. I can see

671
 Mr Rosier’s point and Mr Muggeridge’s idea does seem to have
been a high-risk strategy but it appears to have done no harm.
No allegations appeared in the papers.

11.43 Mr Collins, who seems to have known Mr Muggeridge quite

well, was asked what he thought Mr Muggeridge would have
done if he had received information that Savile, a man in his
mid-40s, was indulging in casual sex with young girls, not
underage but in their teens, old enough to consent. He thought
that Mr Muggeridge would have dropped Savile’s Travels from
the schedule if he had received information to that effect.

Comment

11.44 The significance of this evidence is that Mr Muggeridge was

aware, from some source or other, that it was being said that
Savile was behaving improperly in connection with Savile’s
Travels and also that he had young girls to stay in the flat in
London. I think it highly likely that rumours of that kind were
circulating both within and outside the BBC and it is possible
that Mr Muggeridge was aware of either or both. Mr
Muggeridge made two separate enquiries, one through Mr
Chinnery and one through Mr Collins.

11.45 Mr Muggeridge was told by Mr Collins that the press were

aware of rumours about Savile but were unable to substantiate
them and were not going to ‘go after’ Savile. I shall assume
that Mr Chinnery told Mr Muggeridge that Savile had said that
the press were always ‘sniffing around’ but had never found
anything because there was nothing to find. Both of those
responses would tend to reassure Mr Muggeridge in respect of
his probable concern about the risk of immediate publication
and reputational damage to the BBC. It appears that Mr
Muggeridge was satisfied with the result of his enquiries, as
there is no evidence that he made any further enquiries or

672
 discussed the matter with anyone else. It is possible, of course,
that he did and that the Savile investigation has failed to find
such evidence. But we have cast our net as widely as possible
and nothing has emerged. In particular there is no reference to
Mr Muggeridge’s concerns in the minutes of the Board of
Management.

11.46 I think it highly likely that Mr Muggeridge’s main concern was

the risk of reputational damage to the BBC rather than any
concern on moral or ethical grounds that the BBC ought not to
employ a man who might be involved in unattractive and
possibly unlawful sexual conduct. In short, I do not think his
primary interest was to investigate Savile’s conduct, rather it
was to find out if anything was likely to come out in the press.
Having been reassured on that score, it appears that he did
nothing further.

11.47 In so concluding about Mr Muggeridge’s primary interest, I rely

in part on the evidence of Ms Davies that Mr Chinnery was
concerned (from his conversations with Mr Muggeridge) that
Savile might embarrass the BBC if the press were to publish
any story about him. She said that Mr Chinnery would only
have “danced about as he did” in response to Mr Muggeridge’s
concerns because the rumours were circulating in the press.
She thought that Mr Chinnery would not have interviewed
Savile (as he had been asked to do by Mr Muggeridge) if the
rumours had originated within the BBC. I infer from that, that
Mr Muggeridge was concerned about press revelations. I also
rely on the opinion of Mr Beerling. He said that, from his
knowledge of Mr Muggeridge, he thought it more likely that the
enquiries were instigated because he feared possible
reputational damage rather than on moral grounds.

11.48 Because I have concluded that Mr Muggeridge’s main concern

was about the risk of reputational damage to the BBC, I find

673
 myself puzzled by Mr Collins’s evidence that Mr Muggeridge
seemed disappointed and said “damn” when told that there was
to be no exposé of Savile. Such a response is quite
inconsistent with the reassurance he had just received. Mr
Muggeridge’s alleged disappointment would be consistent only
with a desire on his part to get rid of Savile. There is no other
evidence to suggest that he wished to do so. I conclude that Mr
Muggeridge was more likely to have been relieved and
reassured than disappointed by the results of his enquiries.
However, Mr Collins has explained that Mr Muggeridge used to
say ‘damn’ many times a day in the course of conversation. I
can only conclude that his use of that expression on this
occasion was not intended to convey disappointment but was
merely a standard response.

What Should Mr Muggeridge Have Done?

11.49 Viewed from today, it seems reprehensible that Mr

Muggeridge’s main concern, on hearing the rumours, was that
the BBC’s reputation might be damaged and that he was less
concerned about the welfare of any girls who might be sexually
involved with Savile. That is particularly so when it is
appreciated that Mr Muggeridge was aware of the concerns
which had arisen in 1971 in connection with the News of the
World and Top of the Pops. However, I do not find it so
surprising when I approach the question as the BBC of 1973
would have approached it.

11.50 I have explained in Chapter 9 that it does not appear to me that,

in 1971, the upper echelons of the BBC were anything like as
concerned about the allegations of sexual immorality as they
were about the allegations of corruption in the payola scandal.
At that time, it appears to me that many people in our society
generally (and therefore probably also within the BBC) did not
regard the age of consent for sexual intercourse as an

674
 important matter. I think there was a generaI perception in
some parts of the BBC that many girls of 14 or 15 were ready
and willing to have sex with their pop idols. They hung around
waiting for them, behaving in an excited way and generally
being rather a nuisance. I think that many people took the view
that if these young girls wanted to have sex with celebrities and
if their parents gave them the freedom to do it, it was a matter
for them and no one else’s business, even though the activity
was unlawful. That would not mean that they personally
approved of such behaviour, just that they believed that that
was how the world was. Although I cannot ascertain what Mr
Muggeridge’s personal attitude was, I do think that the attitude I
have described was common in the BBC in the early 1970s.

11.51 Of course, it would be strange for Mr Muggeridge to be worried

about revelations of unlawful activity in the press as being
damaging to the BBC’s reputation and yet for him not to be
worried about the girls themselves. If the activity was unlawful,
it must be unlawful for a purpose and the purpose must be the
protection of the girls concerned. But I do accept that many
people did not see it in that way. I have written earlier about
the view that the age of consent was too high and should be
changed (see, in particular, paragraph 3.7). So, although I,
today, do not approve of his attitude, it does not seem
surprising to me that, at the time, Mr Muggeridge’s primary
concern would have been the danger of immediate reputational
damage to the BBC through its association with Savile. It is
also not surprising that the news he received from Mr Chinnery
and Mr Collins would reassure him as to the immediate future.

11.52 It would, however, be surprising to me if Mr Muggeridge did not

retain some lingering anxiety about Savile and the potential for
damage to the BBC’s reputation. Would he not have asked
himself why such rumours existed, as had been confirmed by

675
 Mr Collins’s report? Could he sensibly accept Savile’s denial at
face value? After all, if the allegations were true, one would not
expect Savile simply to admit them. If Mr Muggeridge was
concerned about the risk to the BBC’s reputation (as I am
satisfied that he was), one might have expected him to be
concerned about the long-term risk, even if he had been
reassured as to the short term.

11.53 I have to ask myself whether it was reasonable for Mr

Muggeridge to have put aside his concerns about Savile. I
must try to strip out the benefit of hindsight. I must bear in mind
that Savile had a good reputation in many respects. He was
well-known for his charitable works for which he had been
awarded the OBE in 1972. He was a successful broadcaster.
He was well-loved by the public at large. He appeared to have
friends in high places. Mr Muggeridge’s concerns were based
only on rumour about conduct which was distasteful but not
necessarily illegal. There was certainly nothing which Mr
Muggeridge could sensibly have reported to the police. Nor do
I think it could be suggested that, on the basis of what was
available to him in 1973, Mr Muggeridge should have
considered dispensing with Savile’s services. Nor do I think
that Mr Muggeridge had any grounds to suspect that Savile was
behaving improperly on BBC premises. The closest the
rumours came to the BBC was the suggestion that he behaved
improperly with girls in his camper-van when out on Savile’s
Travels. If true, those rumours might entail an element of
unlawful conduct, in that some of the girls, although apparently
willing to do whatever they were doing, might have been under
the age of consent.

11.54 Viewed from the 21st century, one would say that Mr
Muggeridge should have been concerned about that; indeed
the safety and welfare of those girls should have been his

676
 primary concern, rather than the reputation of the BBC.
However, I must say that such matters do not appear to have
been of much concern to many people at that time, whether
inside or outside the BBC, apart of course from people who had
a specific interest or concern in protecting children for whom
they were personally responsible. Child protection
responsibility, as we think of it today, was a concept virtually
unheard of at the time, either inside or outside the BBC.

11.55 My conclusion in respect of Mr Muggeridge is that, given the

ethos of the time, I do not think he should be personally
criticised on the ground that he did not make further ‘child
protection’ investigations into the rumours about Savile. I say
that because child protection was not at the forefront of
peoples’ minds at that time (both within the BBC and generally)
and Mr Muggeridge appears to have been aware only of
general rumours of misconduct with girls who were not
necessarily underage. However, Mr Muggeridge’s main
concern had been that there was a risk to the BBC’s reputation.
I find it surprising that he should have been satisfied, as he
appears to have been, that there was no risk to the BBC’s
reputation from Savile in the longer term. Rationally, I think he
should have retained some lingering anxieties about Savile and
the risk to the reputation of the BBC arising from the rumours
which he knew were current inside and outside the BBC.

11.56 I think, as a prudent manager, with the interests of the BBC at

heart, he should have retained some concerns about Savile
and should have shared them with senior colleagues in other
parts of the BBC. I think he should also have kept a watching
eye and a listening ear on Savile within BBC Radio. Of course,
as Controller, he could not keep a watching eye personally, but
he must have had staff below him, to whom he could have
confided his concerns. They could have kept their eyes open

677
 and could have made discreet enquiries. As I shall explain later
in this chapter, if they had kept their eyes and ears open, I think
it likely that information would have come to light which would
have increased the level of concern to the point where the BBC
would have had to consider dispensing with Savile’s services.
For one thing, in the following year, 1974, Savile’s book As It
Happens was published and would, if read against the
background of a perceived risk of reputational damage, have
increased the BBC’s concern about Savile being a potential
time bomb.

11.57 I have asked myself whether Mr Chinnery should share some

responsibility for the decision to ‘close the book’. He did not
remember the events at all. It seems to me that what ought to
have happened is that Mr Muggeridge and Mr Chinnery should
have discussed matters and should have agreed on a way of
keeping their eyes and ears open. But I do accept that the lead
on this should have come from Mr Muggeridge and, if he was
not concerned, there was no real reason for Mr Chinnery to be
so. After all, Mr Chinnery’s main job at that time was to get a
schedule of programmes on air. It is true that Mr Chinnery
became Controller of BBC Radio 1 in 1978 and could then have
instigated an investigation. However, by that time, Savile’s
involvement in Savile’s Travels and Speakeasy had come to an
end; after that, his only involvement with BBC Radio 1 was as a
disc jockey and even that was diminishing. Although I think that
rumours about Savile continued to circulate and that Mr
Chinnery was aware of them, I do not think that it would be right
to criticise Mr Chinnery for not instigating an investigation when
he became Controller.

11.58 I say that Mr Chinnery remained aware of the circulation of

rumours about Savile in reliance on the evidence of David
Treadway, who became Chief Assistant BBC Radio 2 in 1983.

678
 He told the Savile investigation of an occasion, soon after his
arrival, when he was having lunch with a group of BBC Radio
executives, probably at The Salad Bar opposite Broadcasting
House, and was told a story about Savile and sexual
misconduct. Mr Treadway thought that the story was told by Mr
Chinnery and that all the others present had heard the story
before. Mr Treadway also had the impression that Mr Chinnery
was not comfortable having Savile on the network and would
have got rid of him if he had felt free to do so.

What Was Known about Savile in BBC Radio 1 and What Would Have
Been Discovered if Enquiries Had Been Made within BBC Radio 1?

11.59 I turn now to consider what was known about Savile’s sexual
deviancy within BBC Radio 1 and what would probably have
happened if Mr Muggeridge had appointed someone to make
enquiries within that part of the BBC in, as would have seemed
sensible, the period between 1973 and 1975. It seems to me
that the natural course would have been for Mr Muggeridge to
ask Mr Chinnery to cascade enquiries down through his staff in
a discreet way.

11.60 Within BBC Radio 1, I envisage that Mr Chinnery would have

spoken to his executive producers (particularly any with
responsibility for Savile’s programmes) and beyond that to
those at producer level. There is no evidence to suggest that
any executive producer, at that time, would have had any
awareness of misconduct by Savile. Such evidence of
awareness as exists comes from lower down the chain.

BBC Radio 1 Producers – Ted Beston

11.61 Mr Beston was Savile’s BBC Radio 1 producer for 11 or 12

years from 1968 or 1969 until 1980. The Savile investigation
has heard a good deal of evidence about Mr Beston but
unfortunately has not had the benefit of hearing his own

679
 account of events. At an early stage, in December 2012, Mr
Beston wrote to Tim Davie, then the BBC’s acting Director-
General, in response to his appeal for assistance for the
Review. In his letter, Mr Beston told Mr Davie that his health
was not particularly good and said that he was not aware of any
illegal activities relating to Savile. He told Mr Davie that, to the
best of his knowledge, there were no complaints about Savile’s
radio programmes or about him personally, during his time as
his BBC Radio 1 producer. He said that he was unaware of
any illegal activities while working with Savile. Savile had kept
his private life separate from his broadcasting life. He, Mr
Beston, had been aware that Savile had “various relationships
with women who were of age” but he was not aware of any
activity with “underage children”.

11.62 In May 2013, when the Savile investigation had received

evidence about Mr Beston, he was asked to attend for
interview. His solicitor said that he was not in good health and
that he had been traumatised by his recent arrest and police
interview. He would not be able to contribute to the Savile
investigation. In January 2014, we sent Mr Beston a summary
of the evidence we had received which included allegations that
he was aware of some sexual misconduct by Savile. We asked
him to reconsider his refusal to give evidence and offered to
visit him at his home to take his evidence (as we had done with
other witnesses who were unable to attend for health reasons).
After some delay, Mr Beston’s solicitor replied in March 2014
saying that Mr Beston was outraged by the allegations we had
put to him; he wished to refute them and was prepared to
respond. Thereafter there was correspondence in which the
Review sought to arrange an interview and Mr Beston’s solicitor
sought further particulars of the evidence relating to his client.
In particular the solicitor asked for sight of the transcripts of the
evidence relating to Mr Beston but we were unable to provide

680
 these for reasons of confidentiality. The solicitor also
expressed the view, with which I do not agree, that an interview
was an inappropriate format for the receipt of Mr Beston’s
evidence.

11.63 I do acknowledge the difficulty that Mr Beston may have had

because the Savile investigation was not able to provide the
names of the witnesses who have provided evidence about him
or the full details of what those witnesses said. This is
unfortunate but is an unavoidable consequence of holding a
private as opposed to a public inquiry. On 15 April 2014, we
sent Mr Beston’s solicitor a chart containing as much
information as we felt able to disclose. Mr Beston’s solicitor
asked for more detail but then, on 9 May 2014, Mr Beston
provided a signed statement of evidence. However, this did not
deal with many of the issues and, on 29 May 2014, we sent a
further letter providing some additional information and asking
Mr Beston to answer some specific questions. The contents of
the reply received in July 2014 have been incorporated into this
account.

11.64 I am therefore in the unfortunate position of having to decide

about the probable truth of various allegations made about Mr
Beston’s awareness of Savile’s sexual proclivities without
having the benefit of hearing his oral evidence or of being able
to probe his answers and assertions. As will become apparent,
there will be occasions when I prefer the evidence of a witness
whom I have seen (and have been able to test) to that of Mr
Beston.

11.65 The first matter I must consider is the nature and extent of the
friendship between Savile and Mr Beston. A number of
witnesses said that Savile and Mr Beston appeared to be good
friends. For example, B5, who worked as a studio manager,
said that they seemed very “chummy” and that their

681
 conversation was full of “smutty overtones”. A24, who worked
as a production secretary in, among other places, Radio 1 and
knew Mr Beston well, said that he “did seem to have a very
good relationship with Savile. They did seem to get along very
well”. As she put it “they just seemed to mesh”. Another
witness, A10, who worked in studio management in radio, said
that they appeared “very close” and she thought that Mr Beston
admired Savile. They appeared to have known each other for
years, although Mr Beston later told her that he had known
Savile only since they had worked together on Savile’s Travels.
Witnesses said that Mr Beston and Savile used to go on cruises
together. A11, who worked as a production secretary on BBC
Radio 1 between 1979 and 1985, said that it was “common
knowledge” in BBC Radio 1 that Mr Beston went on cruises
with Savile. She thought from her own observations that Mr
Beston and Savile were “best buddies”.

11.66 In his response, Mr Beston said that he found Savile an easy

person to like, partly because he was a fellow Yorkshireman.
He agreed that he admired Savile for his charity work. He said
that, although they had a close working relationship for 12
years, they only saw each other once a week, on a Friday,
when Savile would come in to the studio to record links for his
record programmes. He said it was rare for them to work
together outside the studio. That was in contrast to evidence
the Savile investigation had heard from other witnesses to the
effect that Savile and Mr Beston used to travel about together
making recordings for Savile’s Travels. Mr Beston also said
that he and Savile did not socialise together and had only been
out for dinner together once or twice during the 12-year period.
He agreed that they went on cruises together (he thought two
or three times in all) and said that these were authorised by his
Controller for the purpose of obtaining material and interviews
for Savile’s Travels. He says that he was responsible for

682
 ensuring the technical quality of the recorded material. I am
prepared to accept that Mr Beston’s presence on cruises was
authorised as being necessary and appropriate for the
production of the programme but I find it hard to understand
why it was not regarded as sensible (for similar reasons) for Mr
Beston to accompany Savile while making recordings in the
UK. In fact I think he sometimes did, although I accept that
Savile often made recordings when Mr Beston was not present.
I think that Mr Beston has sought, in his evidence to us, to
minimise the amount of time he spent with Savile.

11.67 Chris Lycett, who worked in BBC Radio 1 for 15 years

(including as a producer) and knew Mr Beston, said that he
thought that Mr Beston’s attitude to Savile having casual sex
would have been “Good on you”. He found that Mr Beston was
“slightly sleazy” when talking about women.

11.68 Mr Beston said that he could not recall any smutty or sleazy
conversations. He said that he found Savile to be a private
man who was very guarded about his relations with women.
While it may be that Savile did not speak about sex with any
particular woman or girl, many witnesses said that he often
talked about sex and in a boastful way. His published work, in
particular As It Happens, does not reveal a man who was
reticent about sexual matters.

11.69 B3, who worked in Egton House in the 1970s, told the Savile
investigation that she had the distinct impression that Mr
Beston shared Savile’s lewd sense of humour. She recounted
how Savile and Mr Beston crossed paths with her in the lobby
of Egton House. Savile stood in her way and made a sexual
movement with his lower body. When she moved out of his
way so as to pass him, Savile blocked her path and repeated
the movement. Mr Beston was grinning and appeared to find it
amusing. In his statement Mr Beston said that he had no

683
 recollection of this alleged incident but he thought it was
something that must have happened hundreds of times
because:

“that was the nature of the man. He would

always flirt with women, in ways which may now
not be considered appropriate, for example
putting his arms around women, hugging or
squeezing them. It was like he was always
performing or playing up to his reputation as a
ladies’ man. Some people considered him a
clown or buffoon but in my experience most
people found him amusing and enthralling”.

Mr Beston stressed that he was not saying that he found this

conduct flirtatious or amusing, only that “people generally did”.
However, having heard B3’s evidence, I am satisfied that Mr
Beston was grinning and appeared, on that occasion, to find
Savile’s conduct amusing.

11.70 C41, who, as a record promoter, used to visit Egton House to

meet BBC Radio 1 producers described an occasion when she
was waiting outside the open door of Mr Beston’s office. She
could see Mr Beston and could hear the conversation going on
within. Mr Beston was regaling two or three male record
promoters with a story of what used to go on in Savile’s
caravan during the making of Savile’s Travels. He was talking
about the young girls that were in Savile's caravan and she had
the impression that Mr Beston meant that the girls were in the
caravan for sexual purposes. At one stage, she heard Mr
Beston say that one of the girls was only 14. In his response to
the Savile investigation, Mr Beston said that he cannot
remember this occasion but added:

“Talking about young ladies following Savile or

being around Savile would not have been
unusual but certainly a girl of 14 is not
something I would have found funny and
absolutely not something I would have been
gossiping about in the way alleged”.

684
 In another part of his response, Mr Beston has agreed that, on
occasions, he did gossip about Savile and women although he
says that this was only in the context of Savile being a ladies’
man.

11.71 A26 worked as a record promoter for over 30 years. He came

to know both Mr Beston and Savile in the early 1970s. He said
that Mr Beston told him that he and Savile used to go on
cruises together and that Mr Beston boasted about the number
of women they slept with. A26 did not suggest that there was
anything illegal about this. Mr Beston denies that he ever
boasted about his or Savile’s sexual exploits on cruises.

11.72 Tom Burtonshaw, who worked as a studio manager on Savile's

Travels, said that Mr Beston told him that he had found Savile
with a girl in his camper-van. Mr Beston told the Savile
investigation that he did not recall this incident. Nor could Mr
Beston recall the occasion described, for example at paragraph
7.37 when he had, allegedly, been driving Savile to a civic
reception in the camper-van. According to the story, Savile had
a young girl in bed with him in the back. As they approached
the town, Mr Beston stopped the van and the girl got out. He
and Savile drove on to be greeted by the Mayoress at a civic
reception, where she “thanked Savile for all the wonderful work
you’re doing for the children”. (See also Chapter 7 – Rumours,
Stories and Jokes.) Mr Beston was told that the Savile
investigation had heard a number of versions of this story.
However, his response was simply to say that he had never
driven any of Savile’s vehicles.

11.73 Asked whether he could recall any incident resembling these

accounts of Savile having sex in his camper-van, Mr Beston
described an occasion when he went up to Scotland to meet
Savile who was doing a long distance charity run. He said that
he was with Savile for about an hour. During that time, a young

685
 woman approached Savile. This was not unusual on this kind
of excursion. Savile and the young woman went into his
camper-van together. Mr Beston then said:

“I have no idea what took place when they went

into the van, for all I know she was getting an
autograph, a photograph or they were chatting
or he was doing an interview with her. I do not
know if his team knew any more than I. She
was only in the van for a short time. A short
time later i.e. within the hour maximum that I
was present, an old lady brought Savile a pot of
marmalade and said that it was for the work that
he did for young people”.

11.74 This account is similar to one of the stories which (with some
slight variations) went around the BBC in the 1970s and which I
have referred to in Chapter 7. As recounted, the story included
the assertion that Savile was actually inside the van having
intercourse with the female (described as a young girl) when
the old lady arrived. This was sometimes said to be evident
from the movement of the van. I ask myself who could have
been the source of this story. I do appreciate that other
members of Savile’s team could have spread this story but I do
not think that his support team on long distance runs would
have been BBC staff. The fact that this story went around the
BBC draws me to the conclusion that it probably originated from
Mr Beston. I also accept that a story such as this could well
have been embellished when it was repeated. However, the
way in which Mr Beston has told the story to the Savile
investigation would not have been worth telling. It seems to me
quite likely that Mr Beston told people that Savile had been
having intercourse inside the van when the old lady arrived.
Whether that was true or embellishment I do not know.
However, the point of all this is that it draws me to the
conclusion that Mr Beston was aware that Savile had casual
sex with young females when out on his runs and that Mr
Beston thought that was funny and enjoyed gossiping about it.

686
11.75 In Chapter 5, I described the evidence of ‘Val’, a member of
Savile’s London Team, who said that she went out once in the
camper-van with Savile, Savile’s radio producer and another
girl. In the radio producer’s sight and hearing, Savile told Val to
go with him to the back of the van (where there was a bed) and
she did so. She was aged 16 at the time. At the time of her
interview with us, Val did not name Mr Beston in this context.
She was told by her lawyer that she could not do so, in light of
the fact that, at that time, Mr Beston had been arrested.
However, I am satisfied (from the description given by Val) that
the radio producer to whom she was referring was Mr Beston.

11.76 Mr Beston told us that he cannot remember this incident and

that he was never aware of Savile having sex with anyone in
his caravan. He added that, because Savile was very guarded
about his sexual relations with women, he would not have told
him (Mr Beston) about anything like that. It has been pointed
out to Mr Beston that it is not alleged that Savile told him about
this incident but that he, Mr Beston, saw and heard Savile tell
Val to go into the back of the camper-van with him. His
response has been to say only that he has no recollection of
this incident. I accept that Mr Beston does not remember this
occasion but I have found Val to be a reliable witness and I
accept that it happened. I infer that the incident did not give
rise to any sense of shock in Mr Beston’s mind and that he has
forgotten it. I also infer that he was aware that Savile had
intercourse with girls who were very much younger than
himself. At the time of this incident, Savile would have been in
his mid-forties.

11.77 When addressing the gossip about Savile which he would hear,
Mr Beston wrote that:

“People at the BBC and in the music industry

talked about the number of young ladies who

687
 were around Savile and I think some may have
spoken about whether they were a bit young for
a man of his age, but not that they were too
young in terms of being underage”.

I infer from this that Mr Beston himself did not think there was
anything wrong or inappropriate for Savile to have lawful
consensual sex with teenage girls.

11.78 A further witness, A10, whose evidence I shall describe in more

detail below, said that when she worked as a studio manager
on Savile’s Travels and Speakeasy in the early 1970s, she was
surprised to find that Savile used to invite young girls to sit with
him in the studio. She estimated that these girls were in the
age range of 12 to 15. She said that Mr Beston was obviously
aware of their presence; indeed she thought that he must have
approved of it because the girls would usually have to be
collected from Reception and that would be done on his
authority. Mr Beston agreed that Savile did bring guests to the
studio, mainly business and charity people but “he did have a
rock star status so girls as well”. He added that Savile seemed
to enjoy the right and authority he had to bring guests into the
studio. He said that he assumed that the arrangements relating
to Savile’s guests had already been made before he (Mr
Beston) became the producer and, as a new young producer,
he was not in a position to question them. In any event, the
guests never interfered with the recording of the show. I do not
criticise Mr Beston for allowing these young girls to come into
the studio. The relevance of this evidence is that it shows that
he knew that Savile willingly surrounded himself with young
girls. This was not a case of a disc jockey who could not throw
off his following.

11.79 A24, who worked as a production secretary in Radio 1 between

1973 and 1977, knew Mr Beston well. She told me that she
asked Mr Beston how Savile was able to “get away with this”.

688
 By “this”, she meant managing to be portrayed in the media “as
some sort of saint” because of his work for charity and, at the
same time, sleeping with a lot of women (although A24 did not
by this mean underage girls). A24 told me that Mr Beston
replied to her by saying words to the effect that:-

“The media were never going to talk about that

side of him because it could spoil his career
and…all the good work that he was doing for
charity could be affected”.

11.80 A12, whose evidence I shall return to below, said that, in 1974,
while working as a studio manager on Savile’s Travels, Mr
Beston told her that Savile “got off on dead bodies”. Mr Beston
told the Savile investigation that he knew that Savile worked in
hospitals but was never aware of any ‘getting off’ on dead
bodies. He heard of this rumour only “after the TV exposure”.

11.81 In Chapter 5, I summarised the evidence of C33. She learned

that Mr Beston worked with Savile and believed that he idolised
him. She described how, in 1978/1979, when she was 19, Mr
Beston invited her to an event in Shepherd’s Bush (which does
not appear to have been on BBC premises), ostensibly for the
purpose of meeting Savile. But when she met him, it was clear
that the purpose of the visit was for her to have sex with Savile.
She is of the view that Mr Beston knowingly invited her there for
that purpose. Mr Beston’s evidence is that he cannot
remember this incident, although he does remember the young
woman concerned. He recalls that she was a tough personality
and would not take any nonsense from anyone. He also says
that, if such an arrangement had been made for her to meet
Savile, he (Savile) would have had to give his approval and she
would have had to express an interest. That was indeed C33’s
evidence; she had been asked whether she would like to meet
Savile and she had said that she would. She had not
understood that the meeting was for the purpose of having sex.

689
 I found C33 to be a reliable witness and I accept her account of
the incident. From what Mr Beston knew of Savile’s sexual
proclivities, I am driven to the conclusion that Mr Beston was
aware that Savile would wish to have sex with C33 when they
met and that Mr Beston was willing on this occasion to act as a
provider to Savile. While Mr Beston would never have thought
of reporting this incident because he had made the
arrangement, this is precisely the sort of incident which Mr
Beston, as a producer, should have reported promptly to his
executive producer.

11.82 Kevin Howlett, who was a BBC Radio 1 producer, said that, in
the mid-1980s, when he was editing an archive interview with
Savile in the Radio Radio series, he was working next door to
Mr Beston’s office. It seems that Mr Beston heard Savile’s
voice on the tape talking to a girl and he came into the room
and said something like “The things that went on in that Savile’s
Travels caravan!” Mr Beston was told of this evidence. His
response was:

“I do not recall these conversations. If I made

these comments they refer to all the gossip
that there was about Savile. He was a bit of
an enigma, a bit apart from the Radio 1 family
and quite private. People used to gossip
about him all the time and people used to ask
me about him all the time. I gossiped as much
as anyone probably. I think people were
interested in him precisely because he was
private and kept himself to himself.”

Mr Beston has been asked what was the nature of the gossip
that he himself was prepared to put about. He says that it was
only to the effect that Savile was a ladies’ man and that some
people said that the young ladies who were “around Savile”
were a bit young for a man of his age. Mr Beston has now
confirmed in correspondence that what he meant by “around
Savile” was ‘having sexual relations’ with Savile.

690
11.83 Nicky Campbell, a BBC Radio 1 disc jockey and television
presenter, told the Savile investigation that, after Savile’s death,
he spoke to Mr Beston to see whether he would agree to give
an interview about Savile for Matthew Bannister on BBC Radio
4. After some discussion, Mr Beston agreed to do so but said
“I’ll never talk about what really happened back in the old days”.
Mr Beston says that he cannot recall this conversation. He
says that he was asked to take part in the programme and did
so without placing any restriction on the questions asked.

11.84 Although much of the evidence suggests that Mr Beston knew

about Savile’s sexual interest in teenage girls, there is one
piece of evidence which casts some doubt on that. Sue
Davies, who worked as a researcher on Speakeasy in 1977,
said that Mr Beston was very excited one day because he
thought that he had caught Savile in the act of making an
assignation with one of the girls standing outside Broadcasting
House. He showed Ms Davies a piece of paper on which a
telephone number had been written. Mr Beston seemed to
think that this was evidence of an assignation. Ms Davies
thought that Mr Beston seemed “gleeful” that he had got some
evidence. Ms Davies was surprised that Mr Beston was
surprised; she would have thought it was ‘par for the course’. I
find this piece of evidence puzzling. It seems to suggest that
Mr Beston suspected, but did not know, that Savile was
sexually interested in teenage girls (to the extent that he would
make assignations with them) whereas other evidence
suggests that he knew it and did not need proof. Mr Beston
does not recall this incident and has not offered any comment
up on it.

11.85 As I have said, I have to make a judgment without the benefit of

the full evidence of the person who is open to potential
criticism. With that caveat, my conclusions are first, that Savile

691
 and Mr Beston were on very friendly terms even if they did not
socialise together outside work. I am satisfied that Mr Beston
admired Savile and that his admiration was not limited to
Savile’s good works. I think he admired Savile as an
entertainer and as a celebrity and for his reputation ‘as a ladies’
man’. I think that, from their cruises together, Mr Beston must
have been aware that Savile had a strong sexual appetite and
liked casual sex. I think also that he must have been aware of
Savile’s sexual interest in and preference for teenage girls. I
think that must have been evident to him during the time they
spent together, as I am satisfied they did, at least on occasions,
when travelling about in the camper-van collecting interviews
for Savile’s Travels. Savile appears to have acted as a magnet
for teenage girls when out and about. In short, I am satisfied
that Mr Beston knew that Savile would have casual sex with
teenage girls (and other slightly older women) as and when he
could get it.

11.86 I find it much more difficult to decide whether Mr Beston

actually knew that some of the girls Savile had sex with were
under the age of 16. He denies it. There is some evidence that
he knew; C41 said that she heard Mr Beston regaling a group
of record promoters with tales of Savile’s exploits and
mentioning that one of the girls was only 14. I found C41 a
sensible and credible witness. Her account of listening to Mr
Beston gossiping has a ring of truth about it; other witnesses
speak about the way he gossiped and he himself admits that he
did. On the other hand, this incident was very brief and took
place a long time ago. It is possible that C41 is mistaken about
the detail that Mr Beston said that one of the girls was only 14.
I also bear in mind that many of the girls who flocked around
Savile while travelling were clearly very young. I am also
satisfied that girls whom Savile brought into the studio (and
were seen by Mr Beston) were in the age range of 12 to 15.

692
 Pulling all the evidence together, I cannot say that Mr Beston
did know that some of the girls with whom Savile consorted
sexually were underage: he might have known. But at the very
least, he must have realised, from their appearance, that some
of the girls might well be underage. Also, if they were in fact
over 16, it would not in some cases be by a very wide margin.

11.87 In short, I am satisfied from the evidence I have received that

Mr Beston was aware that Savile had a powerful sexual
appetite in particular for teenage girls, at or around the age of
consent. I do not think that Mr Beston disapproved of Savile in
any way and therefore cannot have disapproved of him for that.
The evidence that Mr Beston arranged for C33 to meet Savile
for sex, which I accept, demonstrates his approval of Savile’s
conduct in relation to older teenage girls.

11.88 I do not think that it ever crossed Mr Beston’s mind that he

ought to discuss what he knew about Savile with his executive
producer. If he had been asked what he thought about Savile
by someone making enquiries on behalf of Mr Muggeridge or
Mr Chinnery, I think he probably would have played down what
he knew and would have said that he knew nothing of concern.

11.89 In my view, Mr Beston ought, of his own volition, to have told

his executive producer what he knew of Savile’s proclivities.
Had he done so, it must at least be possible that steps would
have been taken which would have led to Savile leaving the
BBC.

BBC Radio 1 Producers – Other Producers

11.90 The evidence I have heard suggests that no other BBC Radio 1
producer would have known anything of significance about
Savile other than rumour. Savile did not work regularly for any
other producer besides Mr Beston and apparently did not
socialise with other producers. I was told that, when he came

693
 into Egton House, he went straight to Mr Beston’s room. When
he went to Broadcasting House to make recordings, he did not
stay long and was not sociable. On occasions, he brought his
own entourage with him.

11.91 Mr Beerling is a good example of a producer who hardly knew

Savile and knew little about him. He joined BBC Radio 1 at the
start in 1967 as a producer and eventually rose to be Controller
of BBC Radio 1. He told the Savile investigation that he heard
rumours about Savile “liking” young girls but did not hear that
these girls were under the age of consent.

11.92 I conclude that enquiries of other BBC Radio 1 producers would

not have taken the investigation any further.

More Junior Members of Staff Including Studio Management

11.93 There were some members of staff who, in my view, could, if

asked, have given accounts of Savile’s conduct which would
have added to concerns rather than allaying them. In the main,
these were members of the studio management staff. Studio
managers were managed quite separately from programme
makers. They provided a facility when a studio was booked.

11.94 A12 started work as a secretary in the Gramophone

Department in Egton House in 1970. She hoped to progress
into studio management and was delighted when, after meeting
Savile on the staircase of Egton House one day, he invited her
to come that evening to watch him record Speakeasy at the
Paris Theatre in Lower Regent Street. On that first occasion,
she sat with the audience but, after the recording, she was
introduced to Mr Beston and, on subsequent visits, she was
allowed to sit with him in the control cubicle and to watch the
technical aspects of the show. Through these attendances she
came to know Savile and Mr Beston. In all, she thinks she went

694
 to Speakeasy about six times. Savile never made any
inappropriate advances to her.

11.95 A12 had heard rumours within the BBC about Savile’s sexual
interest in underage girls and, on attending the Speakeasy
recordings, she could see some evidence of this for herself.
She says that Savile sometimes had young girls with him at the
studio and they appeared to be in the age range of 13 to 16.
She described them as “groupies”. Savile invited some to the
hospitality room after the show. She never saw any
inappropriate conduct and she did not know where Savile went
when he left or whether any of the girls went with him.

11.96 In short, by 1971, A12 had come to suspect that Savile liked to
have sex with young girls, including girls under the age of
consent. She did not tell anyone of those suspicions but I have
no doubt that she would have shared them with a senior person
if asked.

11.97 An engineer who worked on Savile’s Travels in the 1970s heard

that Savile took young girls from the show to his caravan for
sexual ‘play’.

11.98 A10 worked as a studio manager on Savile’s Travels and

Speakeasy in the early-mid 1970s. Savile used to come into
the studio at Broadcasting House to record the introductions
and links for Savile’s Travels. As soon as she started, A10
noticed that Savile usually had young girls with him in the
studio. Sometimes, they would sit behind him in the studio;
sometimes they would be in the cubicle with the producer and
technical people. Colleagues told her that these girls were part
of Savile’s entourage. She thought the girls were aged
between about 12 and 15. Although there were never more
than a couple there at any one time, there were more than that
in the whole group. A10 would see the same girls several

695
 times. She used to hear parts of the conversation between
them. A10 got the impression, from what the girls said, that
Savile and the girls went to Savile’s camper-van for sex. She
thought it was in Regent’s Park.

11.99 She got to know one girl in particular who attended every two or
three weeks. This girl took the same tube train as A10 and they
fell into the habit of talking to each other on the way home. The
girl looked about 14 or 15. A10 thinks that the girl had met
Savile on Top of the Pops and that he had invited her to come
to Savile’s Travels. A10 had the clear impression that there
was some sort of sexual relationship between them. At one
stage, the girl became upset because it appears that Savile had
“dumped” her. She came very close to crying when talking
about this. She continued to come to the studio and A10
thought she was infatuated with Savile. A10 said that Savile’s
brother also used to attend recordings and, at the end, Savile
would leave with his brother and the girls but A10 did not know
where they went.

11.100 A10 never enjoyed working on Savile’s Travels and after a time
asked to be removed from the team. She explained to the
senior studio manager in her group that she did not like working
with Savile. She did not tell her manager what she knew about
the girl she used to talk to on the train and the other girls
because she was under the impression that everyone on her
team had a good idea what was going on. She considered that
everyone involved knew that Savile must have invited the girls
to the studio and that the producer, Mr Beston, must have
agreed to it; otherwise they could have not gained access. A10
thought that what was going on was known about generally “on
the pop side” of radio.

11.101 During the same period, A10 also worked on Speakeasy; in fact
the same technical team served both programmes. There was

696
 a studio audience composed of teenagers. A10 does not
remember Savile bringing guests to that show although she did
see some of the same girls in the audience as she was used to
seeing on Savile’s Travels.

11.102 A10 did not volunteer this information to anyone at the time, but
I am quite satisfied that, if asked about Savile by a responsible
person, she would have been willing to disclose it and express
the concerns she plainly felt about these young girls.

11.103 B5 worked as a studio manager for BBC Radio 1 from 1969. In

the early 1970s, she worked on Savile’s Travels. She would
work in the control room and the studio with Mr Beston and
Savile would be in the studio to record the links. She did not
like working with Savile; she found him over-familiar and
“creepy”. Before she worked with him, she had been warned
by colleagues in studio management “to just watch him” and a
male senior studio manager promised not to leave her alone
with him. One colleague advised her always to wear trousers if
working with him. Her actual experience was that Savile would
have what B5 called “a quick grope”. She would be working at
the back of the control room with both hands on the tape
machine. Savile would come up behind her and fondle her
bottom. This happened several times. She did not complain
about this because she did not think it was sufficiently serious
and anyway this kind of behaviour was not uncommon at that
time. Savile was, however, the only person who did this kind of
thing to her at work.

11.104 B5 also remembered that Savile sometimes brought young girls

to the studio and, rather surprisingly, they were allowed to sit
behind him in the studio itself. This was surprising because of
the need to avoid extraneous noise while recording. It
appeared that Mr Beston permitted it. She had the impression

697
 that the guests would be in their teens but not necessarily
under 16 and certainly not children.

11.105 As I have said, B5 did not report Savile’s groping. However, I

have no doubt that she would have recounted her story if
asked.

11.106 I conclude that, if enquiries had been made of these members

of staff (and possibly others who have not come to the Savile
investigation), significant cause for concern would have arisen.
How these causes for concern would have been handled, I
cannot say. They never came to light.

What Was Known within the Religious Broadcasting Department

Radio?

11.107 So far, I have considered only the evidence of those who

worked with Savile on BBC Radio 1 music programmes. There
was, however, another potential source of information about
Savile if anyone had thought of tapping it. Savile was the
presenter on Speakeasy throughout its run, from 1969 to 1977.
The staff who made Speakeasy were drawn partly from BBC
Radio 1 and partly from the BBC’s Religious Broadcasting
Department. The co-producer from the Religious Broadcasting
Department was initially Reverend Roy Trevivian. Mr Beston
was one of the co-producers responsible for the music content.

11.108 The Head of Religious Broadcasting for the BBC for much of
the 1970s was the Reverend John Lang (who succeeded Penry
Jones in that capacity in December 1971) and the Head of
Religious Programmes, Radio was the Reverend Michael
Mayne. Several producers were also ordained priests. Among
them was Reverend Trevivian who was the first producer of
Speakeasy. Canon Colin Semper (Reverend Colin Semper as
he was then known) joined the department in 1969 and David
Winter (who was later ordained) joined in 1971. Both produced

698
 Speakeasy when Reverend Trevivian became unwell and
eventually retired in December 1973. Reverend Trevivian
appears likely to have known Savile well. He died many years
ago. Canon Semper and Canon Winter both came to know
Savile and have provided evidence to the Savile investigation.

11.109 Other members of the Speakeasy production team knew Savile

to varying degrees. There were some who, if asked if they had
any concerns about him, could and, I think, would have
provided some potentially relevant information. There were
also others working on the programme who had no concerns at
all.

11.110 Helen Pennant-Rea worked on Speakeasy in the early days.

She saw that Savile got on well with Reverend Trevivian and
that they, in a professional capacity, had “good laughs
together”. She thought Savile was an excellent presenter; he
took the programme very seriously. He did not flirt with her and
she was often alone with him. She thought he was asexual.
He used to show off about what he was doing. She thought he
was always on “an ego trip”. She never heard rumours about
Savile’s sexual life and thinks that Reverend Trevivian would
have been shocked and disbelieving if Savile had talked about
having sex with teenage girls. She says that, if she had seen
Savile admitting to having sex with even a 16-year old in his
dressing room, she would have been very shocked, even
though it would have been legal, and would have reported it
right the way up to the Head of Religious Broadcasting. She
would have resigned if she had been asked to work with Savile
after that. However, she was not sure what Reverend Trevivian
would have done about such knowledge as it might have
affected his career if he had said he would not work with Savile
any more.

699
11.111 B6 worked as production secretary on Speakeasy between
1975 and 1977. She met Savile soon after joining the
department. He regularly kissed her hand and up her arm.
She did not like it but felt unable to say anything. Savile
telephoned her to ask her round to his flat. She never went.
She was in her early twenties and newly married. Moreover, he
seemed an old man (in fact he was 50) and she did not find him
in the least attractive. She never heard any rumours about him
having sexual relations with or a sexual predilection for young
girls. She never talked to Canon Semper about Savile’s
behaviour.

11.112 Sue Davies (then known as Suzan Davies) worked as a

researcher on Speakeasy for a few months in 1977. Ms Davies
found that Savile and Mr Beston were “an overwhelming team”.
Savile used to make a fuss whenever she came into the room.
He used to say “Ah, oh, here she comes” and things like that.
Despite that, she enjoyed the work and invited the team to her
flat for a party when the series finished. Savile appeared to be
annoyed with her for reasons she did not understand. It seems
that he thought she had “messed [him] around”; she believes
that he was interested in her sexually but she was not
interested in him.

Canon Colin Semper

11.113 Canon Semper joined the BBC in 1969 by which time he was
already ordained in the Church of England. After leaving the
BBC in 1982, he became the Dean of Coventry Cathedral, and
later took a position at Westminster Abbey.

11.114 Six months after Canon Semper joined the BBC, he was
transferred to the Religious Broadcasting Department. Among
other things, he worked on Speakeasy, assisting Reverend
Trevivian. Later, he produced the programme when Reverend

700
 Trevivian was not available. Eventually he took over as the
regular producer. In this way, he clearly came to know Savile
quite well. In the early 1970s, he helped Savile to write God’ll
fix it which was not published until 1979. Canon Semper was
later promoted within the Religious Broadcasting Department.
He became Head of Religious Programmes Radio in 1979 but
was not, at any point, a Head of Department.

11.115 Soon after meeting him, Canon Semper became aware that
Savile had a following of young girls. He told us that, at the end
of a recording of Speakeasy, he would always go down to the
entrance hall of the studio with Savile to thank him and to say
goodbye. There would always be a group of young girls, who
he thought looked about 15, waiting for him. They would have
been in the audience and would have gone down to the
entrance hall ahead of him. Canon Semper would then say
goodbye and leave Savile with the girls so he never saw what
happened afterwards. He stressed that he never saw Savile
take a girl off home with him; he always seemed to be with a
‘gaggle’ of girls.

11.116 He and Savile went abroad a number of times together and

talked a good deal. During a visit to Majorca, when work had
finished for the day and Canon Semper was about to return to
his hotel, Savile would go off alone; he would say that he was
going on to a cruise ship where he would “have some fun”.
Canon Semper did not know what Savile did when he went off
alone. Canon Semper would sometimes ask him about his
evenings, but Savile was very vague and would say only that
he had “had a good time”. He would sometimes say, “Well,
there were some very nice young ladies”. Canon Semper
never really knew whether Savile was joking or half joking or
was serious. He was aware of rumours that Savile ‘had an eye
for the ladies’ but that was obvious to him anyway, regardless

701
 of rumours. It was even obvious from the way in which Savile
treated women. When introduced to a woman, Savile would
kiss the woman’s hand and often kiss up her arm. Sometimes,
he would put his finger on the top of the woman’s shoulder and
run it right down to her hand. Then he would kiss it. He would
do that to people he had never met before.

11.117 When asked what Savile’s ‘eye for the ladies’ amounted to,
Canon Semper replied that it was very difficult to say.
However, he was aware that it extended to the young, teenage
fans who surrounded him.

11.118 He explained about the help he had given to Savile in writing

God’ll fix it. He said that Savile had recorded a lot of material
on tape and he, Canon Semper, had condensed Savile’s
words. This work had been done in the early 1970s when they
were working together on Speakeasy. When asked about the
paragraphs in which Savile speaks of his conversations with St.
Peter (see paragraphs 6.13-6.14), Canon Semper said that
what Savile was saying was that he had had sexual relations
with a lot of young girls; that he could not stop himself and they
could not stop themselves either. He said that Savile was
making an excuse for his sexual behaviour. He was claiming
that he was a victim of the machine of his body. He agreed that
this amounted to a confession that he was having casual sex
with young girls.

11.119 Canon Semper said that, quite apart from the material he had
recorded for the preparation of the book, Savile would often talk
about sex and girls. When asked whether he thought that what
Savile said about sex was just talk or whether he really had
sex, Canon Semper said he thought Savile really did. He
thought that Savile got up to what he called “hanky panky”,
which meant sex. He realised that, when Savile said that he
was going to spend the evening on a cruise ship to “have fun”,

702
 he meant that he was going to have sex. He realised that the
sex could have been with a girl of 15, 16 or 17.

11.120 Canon Semper agreed with the suggestion that, although there
was a lot of verbal flummery in Savile’s conversation, and a lot
of boasting, he understood that Savile had sex with a lot of
people some of whom might be underage girls. Savile would
often talk about sex, uninhibited by the fact that Canon Semper
was a priest. Canon Semper thought that Savile talked in a
similar way to other people in the BBC. For example, he was
sure that he would have talked in that way to Reverend
Trevivian but not, he thought, to Canon Winter who came from
the evangelical wing of the Church. He thought that Savile
would probably have sensed where he should not tread,
“whereas with Roy and me he could probably say more”.

11.121 When asked whether his understanding that Savile was having
sex with underage girls caused him concern, he reverted to
saying that he had never known for certain that Savile did that.
He said that he would occasionally “think” but did not “for
certain know” what Savile was up to. He was then asked
whether, on account of his ‘uncertain concern’ that Savile was
having casual sex with girls of 15 or 16, he had ever thought of
talking about it to anyone else at the BBC. Such conduct would
have been illegal if the girl was 15 and Canon Semper agreed
that it would not have been good even if the girl had been 16.
He had not thought of doing so because it was only suspicion
but added that, when Reverend Trevivian had been alive, the
two of them had talked about it. But Reverend Trevivian was
also uncertain as to whether their suspicions were true. Canon
Semper was used to hearing a stream of talk from Savile about
girls, all couched in Savile’s kind of language (such as “nice
young ladies” or having a “nice time”), by which he understood
Savile to mean that he was having sex with these girls. He

703
 thought that, if Reverend Trevivian had had any evidence that
Savile was having sex with young girls, he would have been
deeply disapproving and would have “taken him on”. He then
said that, if anyone had presented him with any evidence of
actual sexual misconduct with young girls, he, Canon Semper,
would have taxed Savile with it. He would not have reported
the problem to the Head of Religious Broadcasting. He would
have handled it himself. He would have said something like
“Jimmy, we don’t do that sort of thing, not here, not in this
place. Just stop it”. He said that he would not have been more
severe than that.

11.122 This part of Canon Semper’s evidence can be summarised as

follows. He was used to hearing a ‘wall of words’ from Savile
about what he was doing and with whom. As part of that wall of
words, Savile was sometimes using words that could have
meant that he was having casual sex with girls, including
underage girls. It was extraordinarily difficult to discriminate
between what was truth, half-truth or untruth. However, Canon
Semper admitted that he had never really tried to do so.

11.123 He was asked whether, if there had been evidence of actual

misconduct, he would have thought that the BBC should have
ceased to use Savile. He appeared to find that a difficult
question. He said that, at the time, he does not think that he
would have thought that. He said that, “in this very strange
mixture,…. there were actually gifts, great gifts”. He said that he
thought the gifts would have made up for the flaws. Canon
Semper appears to have rather liked Savile, to have found him
amusing and also to have admired him for his charitable work.

11.124 I accept Canon Semper as an honest witness. I think he found

his interview with the Savile investigation very uncomfortable.
For the first time, he had to confront his own state of knowledge
and belief about Savile and I think he accepted, for the first

704
 time, that he had known enough to give rise to some
responsibility. I think also he regretted his role in ghost-writing
God’ll fix it.

11.125 I accept that Canon Semper did not “know” that Savile had sex
with underage girls in the sense of ever seeing it happen, but
he clearly did “think” that Savile had casual sex with a lot of
girls, some of whom might have been underage. I deal with the
question whether Canon Semper should have taken his
concerns upwards in the BBC at paragraphs 11.154 to 11.157.
In any event, a number of points he made were surprising.
First, it seems surprising that he should have felt the need to
have actual proof before voicing his disapproval to Savile of
such conduct; second, that he would only have admonished
Savile in an anodyne way, which I am sure would have been
quite without effect; and third that it did not occur to him to think
that Savile’s conduct should be a matter of concern for the
BBC. If an ordained priest was not sufficiently concerned about
such conduct to think that some sort of action should be taken
against Savile, it is hardly surprising that others did not. This
tells us quite a lot about the culture of the 1970s.

11.126 Having said that, however, I think it likely that, if Canon Semper
had been asked by someone from senior management whether
he had any concerns about Savile, he would have said that he
had. I believe him to be a completely honest man. He did
indeed have concerns, although I think that these were overlain
and suppressed by his admiration of Savile, his enjoyment of
his company and his pride in his own involvement in a
successful programme.

Canon David Winter

11.127 Canon Winter told me that he joined the BBC in 1971. He was
not then ordained. He joined the Religious Broadcasting

705
 Department, Radio. One of his assignments was on
Speakeasy. On occasions, he co-produced the programme
when Reverend Trevivian, the programme’s main co-producer,
was absent. He worked with Savile. In due course, Canon
Winter became Head of Religious Broadcasting. He left the
BBC in 1991 and was ordained into the Church of England.

11.128 Canon Winter told the Savile investigation that, before joining
the BBC, he had had some experience of the popular music
culture in the 1960s while working on a series for Tyne Tees
Television. He saw at first-hand what he described as the
“hormonal hysteria” of those days, by which he meant the way
in which the crowds of screaming girls would mob and follow
pop stars. He said that most of the pop stars would “brush off”
these crowds of girls but some would take advantage of the
opportunity offered and would invite girls back to their hotel.
Canon Winter was aware that the result of girls crowding
around a celebrity might lead to sexual contact between the
celebrity and one or more of the girls.

11.129 When he met Savile, Canon Winter was impressed. He found

that Savile was always sharp and witty and appeared
professional. However, women working in the department did
not like him; they found him creepy, unpleasant and
unattractive. But he was a big celebrity and Canon Winter
thought that he was a good performer. He understood that it
had been Reverend Trevivian who had recruited him to present
Speakeasy. He saw Savile as suitable because he was a star,
was well-known for his Roman Catholic faith and because he
could be relied on not to allow the discussion to become too
serious.

11.130 Canon Winter told the Savile investigation that he heard

rumours about Savile’s sexual liking for teenage girls. He
agreed that Savile was “sleazy”. He was asked how a man

706
 about whom such rumours circulated fitted into religious
broadcasting. Canon Winter’s first response was to say that
Savile and Reverend Trevivian seemed to get on well. They
had a similar social background and shared a sense of humour.
But, he said, he personally felt uncomfortable about Savile’s
reputation. He did not like Savile’s lifestyle. Savile lived a
strange bachelor life. He never introduced a girlfriend or
partner as most people from the pop world did. He turned up
as though from nowhere and departed as though to nowhere.
One never knew what he did in between. He did not seem to
have any of the usual ties of relationship.

11.131 Canon Winter did not remember talking to Reverend Trevivian

or Canon Semper about his sense of discomfort. It was put to
him that, if he felt uncomfortable with Savile’s role in religious
broadcasting on account of his reputation, he could have
suggested to his managers that Savile was unsuitable for
Speakeasy. His response was that it was a successful
programme and he did not make that suggestion because his
concerns were only based on rumour. And, he added,
everyone else right up the social scale regarded Savile as the
“bee’s knees”.

11.132 Against that general background, I must discuss the content of

an interview with Canon Winter, broadcast on Channel 4 News
on 12 October 2012, which was also reported in the Daily
Mirror. During the interview, certain comments made by a
former BBC employee named Richard Pearson were put to
Canon Winter. Mr Pearson was reported to have said that, as a
young BBC employee (in the 1970s), he had attended a
meeting with Savile and a “senior producer” at Broadcasting
House. He said that Savile, “who was doing his comedy
presenter routine” had boasted that he had just “had three 14
year old girls” in his trailer that morning. He had claimed that

707
 this kept him young. According to Mr Pearson, it was clear that
Savile meant that he had had sexual intercourse with them.
The article did not identify the “senior producer”.

11.133 Channel 4 News (which is produced by ITN) picked up this

material and filmed a report comprising three interviews, one of
which was with Canon Winter. The report was introduced by
Krishnan Guru-Murthy. I will set it out in full:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy (“KG”): Well, among the

questions that just won’t go away is how much did
the BBC know about Jimmy Savile’s behaviour at
the height of the abuse in the 70s and 80s. A
former Radio 1 producer has told this programme
that Savile openly boasted about having sex with
three 14-year old girls, and says the boast was
made in front of a senior member of staff. Paraic
O’Brien has looked into the allegation and put the
claims to the people in charge at the time.

Paraic O’Brien (“PO”): “It’s Jimmy”. We’ve

spoken to the BBC bosses who worked with Savile
during the 70s when he was abusing young girls.
Some just heard the rumours, others heard him
admit to sex with 14-year olds. The reaction at the
time? “That’s just Jimmy”. We’ve tried to cut
through the corporate winks and whispers of the
time, to look at an example where someone raised
a flag over Savile’s behaviour and to try and trace
that concern up the corporate food chain.

In the late 70s, a young producer at BBC Radio 1

was the first to play “Anarchy in the UK” on the
Radio. Richard Pearson was a rising star and was
invited to meet Savile with a senior producer of a
young person’s discussion programme, called
Speakeasy.

Richard Pearson (“RP”): I went up to a meeting,

which was held, it was an informal meeting, held in
the restaurant at Broadcasting House, with Jimmy
Savile and, er, a senior producer in the religious
broadcasting department called David Winter. And,
at that meeting, Jimmy Savile was doing, like, his
comedy presenter routine, and, one of the things
he said, not particularly quietly, was that he’d had
three 14-year old girls in his trailer that morning.

708
And, when he said “had”, he didn’t mean that they
had come to, you know, criticise his curtains. He
meant…he’d had sex with them.

PO: He just openly said that, out in the restaurant?

RP: Yeah, he openly said that. He said it kept him

young…and I was a…it was…I…I’d only, literally,
just started there and I was pretty shocked by it.
Well, I found it quite repulsive.

PO: And, how did the senior producer react?

RP: He looked embarrassed…and, obviously, after

the meeting had ended…we went back to the office
and I said: “How, you know, can he be like that?
How can he, you know, talk, say things like that? ”
I asked him what he knew and he told me he knew
quite a bit and that it was common knowledge
around the BBC that, er, Savile had sex with
underage girls. He said he’d spoken to him about it
and, um, asked him how it sat with his professed
Roman Catholic faith, and, um, Jimmy Savile, he
said, told him, that he didn’t really understand, he,
Savile, had a relationship with “the Man Upstairs”,
er, who, basically, allowed him to do things like
that, because of all the work he did for charity.

PO (voiceover): [speaking about RP] He refused

to work with Savile. But, what of the senior
producer at the BBC’s religious affairs department,
David Winter? He went on to become head of the
department, eventually trained as a priest, became
a canon and regular contributor to Radio 4’s
“Thought for the Day”.

[Recording played of the start of Thought for

the Day]:

Sarah Montague, Presenter on the Today

programme: It’s time for Thought for the Day, and
the speaker in our Oxford studio this morning is
Canon David Winter. Good morning.

David Winter (“DW”): Good morning.

[Back to voiceover of PO]

PO: He doesn’t remember the meeting with

Pearson, says he never saw evidence of Savile’s

709
inappropriate behaviour. But went on to say,
“everyone knew”.

[Interview with DW]

DW: I wasn’t arranging a programme in which girls

were molested, but I did know that that, there was a
danger that that was going on. The next level,
corporately, was also, well, they knew a great deal
more than I did. I only worked with him on one
radio programme, you know, he was a television
star.

PO: Did you say the next level up corporately knew

more than you did? Who was that?

DW: Every…I….I assume, and I can only assume,

that…erm, the heads of channels and the,
erm…had some idea, that, erm, there were
questions about Jimmy Savile’s behaviour. I’m
sure there were.

PO: Who do you think should have done what at

the time?

DW: I’m not sure that that’s an answerable

question, because, er, that was ‘then’, and we are
looking at it through the perspective of ‘now’. But
the responsibility for the, er, care of the youngsters,
who came to see the programmes and so on,
would have been, ultimately, the responsibility of
the Controller of BBC One. I mean, they were
coming in…

PO: Derek Chinnery?

DW: I, it was Derek Chinnery then, yes.

PO (Voiceover): Derek Chinnery was the King of

BBC Radio 1 during the 70s, one of the old
“Gentleman Broadcaster” generation and Jimmy
Savile’s boss. He told me he hadn’t heard the
rumours. So, I asked him another question….

[Interview with Derek Chinnery]

PO: Was safeguarding children on your radar, at

that time, as controller of Radio 1?

Derek Chinnery (“DC”): Well, you’ve put me in an

awkward position here. If I say “no” it will be
understood that I didn’t care, er, but it wasn’t, there

710
 was no reason why I should have… taken any
special, or placed any special consideration, er, as
far as protecting young children.

PO: Nowadays, that sounds quite hard to

understand.

DC: Well, I find it hard to understand that you think

it is hard to understand because, I, I, I mean, you
run a radio station. You employ presenters. They
come in, you see them, you talk to them, you
discuss the way you want the programmes done
and they do their job.

PO (voiceover): Chinnery was genuinely shocked

by the Savile revelations and says he did not see or
hear evidence of abuse. But, it happened. And,
the culture at the time, ‘let it’.

Everyone we’ve spoken to says of the time, “that’s

just the way it was”. But “that’s just the way it was”
inside a small, media bubble. For the mothers and
fathers of those abused, they didn’t know that
“that’s just the way it was”.

11.134 The Channel 4 News website article of this interview contains a

further passage of conversation with Canon Winter. It is clear
that the interviewer had just asked him what Savile had been
like. It continued:

DW: “What was he like is impossible. Well,

everybody knows what he was like. I mean, that
was the Jimmy Savile, the performance, the big
cigar, the, “how’s that then”, and so on. All the
while.

PO: Although there was this other, dark side?

DW: Well, yes, I don’t know that in the 70s and 80s
people thought of it as all that dark. But it certainly
was there, and, everybody was aware that Jimmy
was always surrounded by well pubescent girls
really. They followed him around, they hung around
his caravan thing, they turned up at his shows, and
he liked them.

PO: “Liked them” as in, molested them?

711
 DW: Well, I don’t know whether he molested
anyone. You assume…what you didn’t know. I
mean, what did he do in his caravan, or, even, what
did he do in his dressing room? I mean, that
wasn’t…everybody suspected, and it was such a
culture in any case. The celebrity culture, the Top
of the Pops culture, it was teenage girls. I mean,
they were the audience, largely screaming, and, it
was, you know, it wasn’t regarded as quite as
shocking…then as it…is now.”

11.135 When we interviewed Mr Pearson, he explained that the

incident he had described took place in the queue in the
cafeteria while he, Savile and Canon Winter were waiting to be
served at the self-service counter. It was not, as I had
assumed from the news report, that the group of them were
sitting down together at a table having a meeting. He thought
that the purpose of the lunch was to discuss another series of
Speakeasy or possibly to discuss the start of a new series
involving Savile. He said that, as they were queuing, Canon
Winter asked Savile what he had been doing that morning.
Savile said that he had ‘had’ three 14-year old girls in his trailer
or camper-van. He understood Savile to mean that he had had
some sort of sexual liaison with them. Asked if it were possible
that he had misunderstood the situation and that Savile had
meant only that he had allowed three girls to sleep in his
caravan because they had nowhere to go, he said that that was
possible but, from the boastful way in which Savile had spoken,
he thought it had not been meant like that. Mr Pearson also
repeated his account of the conversation with Canon Winter
after their return to the office after the meeting.

11.136 Canon Winter told us that he had no recollection of any such

incident as had been described by Mr Pearson. He was
puzzled by Mr Pearson’s assertion that there was a meeting in
the canteen; he said that he went to the canteen every day for
lunch but planning meetings were always held in an office. He
was also puzzled about Mr Pearson’s reference to a discussion

712
 about Speakeasy as Savile, was, by then, “out of the equation”.
Canon Winter said that, in 1977, he was working on Talkabout,
of which he was co-producer with Sue Davies. That, in itself,
gave rise to further puzzlement because he does not recall that
Savile was ever considered as a possible presenter of
Talkabout. In short, although he does not wish to suggest that
Mr Pearson’s recollection is wrong or even mistaken, it does
not fit with the things which he can and does remember.

11.137 I must say that I have always been a little surprised at Mr

Pearson’s assertion that the group were present in the canteen
for the purpose of a planning meeting about a programme. I
think it is likely that Canon Winter, Ms Davies and Mr Pearson,
who had recently joined the BBC as a researcher, went to the
canteen for lunch as a group. I think the encounter with Savile
must have been by chance.

11.138 Canon Winter remains adamant that he never heard Savile say
that he had ‘had’ three 14-year olds in his camper-van. He
does, however, accept that he was used to hearing Savile
talking about sexual matters. So was Canon Semper. Canon
Winter also said that Savile used to speak in a strange
disjointed way and was often quite difficult to understand.
Many witnesses have said that that was so. It is worth
mentioning one startling example of that. Lord Grade told the
Savile investigation that, when he was Controller of BBC One,
Savile came to see him in his office. Savile spoke for a few
minutes but Lord Grade could not work out what he was saying.
When Savile had left, it was explained to him that Savile had
offered to arrange for Princess Diana to come to the BBC to
sign the “Just Say No” petition that Esther Rantzen was
organising.

11.139 I found Mr Pearson to be a reliable witness. I think his memory

may be slightly at fault as to the circumstances of the meeting

713
 with Savile but I do not doubt that Savile made a comment of
the kind alleged while at the self-service counter in the canteen.
It seems to me to have been just the kind of thing that he did
say as part of his ‘comedy presenter routine’. I think that
Canon Winter may have been so used to hearing Savile talking
about sex that he would hardly listen; it would make little
impression on him and would soon be forgotten. Mr Pearson,
who had newly arrived and did not know Savile, was shocked
and it made a big impression on him. I think also that Canon
Winter, who had experienced the groupie culture, may not then
have been as disgusted by the idea of Savile having sex with
teenage girls as he is today. He is not alone in that.

11.140 I think Mr Pearson’s account of the conversation he had with

Canon Winter when they returned to the office has the ring of
truth about it. Canon Winter had indeed had a conversation
with Savile on some earlier occasion about how his religious
beliefs squared with his “immoral life” and Savile had said that
he had an arrangement with “the Man Upstairs” so that, despite
his immoral life, he would be let into Heaven on account of his
charitable works. Canon Winter mentioned that conversation in
his autobiography Winter’s Tale86 and a similar section appears
in God’ll fix It (see paragraphs 6.13-6.14).

11.141 My conclusion about this incident is that, although the Daily

Mirror article and the Channel 4 News item are broadly
accurate and I do not criticise either organisation, the
impression which may have been created, namely that “a
senior producer” heard this disgraceful statement and that,
therefore, the “BBC knew” about Savile’s unlawful activities is,
in my view, an over-simplification; the situation was certainly
not as clear cut as that.

86
D. Winter, Winter’s Tale, Lion Publishing, 2001, p. 114.

714
11.142 Canon Winter agreed that, in the light of what was known about
Savile, that he joked or boasted about having sex with young
girls, those with responsibility for making appointments
probably should have paused for thought. They should have
asked themselves whether Savile was a suitable person to be
on BBC Radio 1 and Religious Broadcasting to front a religious
programme or (I would add) a programme which might
influence the thinking of young people on all sorts of moral and
ethical issues. Canon Winter told me that he had made a
mental note that, if ever he were in a position to choose who
was going to front his programmes, he would not choose
Savile. But, by the time he was in that position, Savile was not
working in the department so the question did not arise. In
respect of the time when Savile was working on Speakeasy, it
was successful and Savile was very talented and he thought
that you could not investigate someone on the basis of
rumours.

11.143 Canon Winter did not know what senior management in

Religious Broadcasting thought about the rumours. He thought
that they must have heard them, as they were well-known and it
was known that girls flocked around Savile. I cannot find out as
the people concerned have died.

11.144 Canon Winter said that some of the things Savile had said and
written would “not have made him terribly acceptable to
Religious Broadcasting”. He speculated that Savile’s sleazy
attitude might have been the reason why Speakeasy was
discontinued, although he did not know the actual reason. It
could not have been publication of God’ll fix it which had
caused the closure of Speakeasy because that did not occur
until 1979. Nor does it seem that the earlier book, As It
Happens, had had any adverse effect. That came out in 1974.

715
 Canon Winter had not read either book at the time of
publication.

11.145 Canon Winter was asked for his reaction to the passage in
God’ll fix it which I have quoted at paragraph 6.14. I will quote
his words in full:

“When they were read to me….I was astonished

and shocked. I mean I couldn’t really believe
that...he could have talked such nonsense to
start off with or that ...he still after that had the
reputation that he had, but presumably not
many people read it. I can’t think of any other
explanation. How could you go on, how could
Mary Whitehouse give him an award for
wholesome programmes for young people?
How could the Prime Minister have him as a
Christmas guest? How did he get a
knighthood? How did he get a papal
knighthood if he wrote that rubbish and it is
rubbish. It’s sinister rubbish; it’s sick, it’s sick.”

11.146 Canon Winter was asked for his reaction to the passage from
As It Happens, the substance of which I have set out at
paragraphs 6.3 to 6.7. He said that if he had read that at the
time, he would not have worked with Savile again. I accept that
that was a genuine reaction when asked about this in 2013. I
am less sure, however, that that would have been Canon
Winter’s reaction in the 1970s.

11.147 When asked what the attitude of people in the BBC in the
1970s would have been if they had known that Savile had
intercourse with underage girls, he agreed it would have been
regarded as utterly unacceptable. But when asked what their
attitude would have been towards the knowledge that Savile
(aged in his 40s) had been having casual sex with girls of about
16 and 17 who were consenting to it, he said it was “a very
interesting question”. He thought that people in the Religious
Broadcasting Department would have said that it was appalling
and that, if that conduct had been “proven”, the BBC would

716
 have stopped using him. But they would have needed
evidence “on the grounds that he was an extremely successful
presenter”.

11.148 Asked if he thought the situation was that no one in the

Religious Broadcasting Department read this material which
was in the public domain or whether he thought that people did
know about it but thought it did not matter, he said that he did
not think people in his department were aware of it.

11.149 Asked if he thought that it was acceptable for people to do

nothing “because it was only rumour”, he said that he did not
think so now. He said that, at the time, it seemed acceptable to
assume that someone further up the hierarchy would be doing
whatever needed to be done and, bearing in mind the BBC’s
very hierarchical structure, if somebody “up the payscale” knew
about the rumours, it was not for him to be worrying about
things like Savile’s reputation. He was sure that the BBC would
have reacted properly if they had received a complaint from
someone who had been molested but he understood that no
such complaint had been received. He agreed that young girls
who had had an unfortunate sexual experience would be
unlikely to complain because they would not have wished to tell
their parents. He wondered why no one had come forward in
the intervening years when the victims had become adults but
he accepted that there were good reasons why they might not;
for example the fear of not being believed and a sense of
shame at what had happened. He said he could well
understand why staff in some parts of the BBC might not want
to report an unpleasant incident, for fear of damaging their
careers, although he did not think that would apply in the
Religious Broadcasting Department. By the time he was senior
in the department, he said, he felt sufficiently “edgy” about
Savile that he would not have wanted Savile to present one of

717
 his programmes. But he admitted that, while he was producing
Savile on Speakeasy, he was pleased to be doing so because
he was caught up in the “glamour/celebrity thing”.

11.150 Finally, he agreed that, although he and others felt “edgy” about
Savile, in the absence of any specific complaint, he did not
think he could do anything. But when the story broke after
Savile’s death, the uneasiness suddenly fitted into place. He
said that, suddenly, he could see, from the rumours and the
lifestyle, the whole pattern of a paedophile.

11.151 In the Church Times of 9 November 2012, Canon Winter wrote

of his regret that he had not raised his concerns at the time. He
said:

“I am my brother’s and sister’s keeper, and, like

many others, I wish that I had been less
trusting, more suspicious, more aware of the
standard paedophile strategies. But this was
more than 40 years ago, and I think we were all
inclined to give people – especially ones with a
distinguished record of good works – the benefit
of the doubt. We were wrong, of course. It is a
harsh lesson to learn, and one that is as
relevant today for the Church as it is for the
BBC.”

11.152 Although Canon Winter does not appear to have known Savile
as well as Canon Semper did, and although he did not hear
quite as much talk about sex and did not learn of as many of
the disturbing aspects of the Savile theology, I do think that he
realised that there were good reasons to be concerned about
Savile. He plainly thought that it was not up to him to do
anything about these concerns; they were a matter for his
managers. He did not volunteer his concerns to his managers
as he assumed that they were already aware of Savile’s
reputation. However, if there had been an investigation and he
had been asked a straight question by a senior person, I think
he would have shared his concerns.

718
Responsibility for Reporting Awareness of Savile’s Character

11.153 I turn to consider the more difficult question of whether either

Canon Semper or Canon Winter ought to have raised their
concerns of their own volition. From today’s viewpoint, the
answer seems obvious but the position is less clear when
considered against the background of the 1970s. I must
consider their positions separately. I realise the gravity of
criticising men who at the material time held strong religious
beliefs and who, later in their careers, held senior positions in
the Church of England.

11.154 Canon Semper, with a degree of honesty for which I admire

him, has accepted that, during the period in which he worked
with Savile, he came occasionally to think (although he did not
have proof) that Savile had casual sex with young girls, some of
whom might be under the age where they could consent and
some of whom would be over that age but not by very much. I
do not think that, when he was working with Savile (or
afterwards), he ever crystallised his thoughts in the way that he
did when he gave evidence to the Savile investigation. If he
had thought about the position carefully, he would have realised
that Savile’s conduct was deeply immoral and might actually
also be illegal.

11.155 However, I can understand why Canon Semper did not

crystallise his thoughts. Such thoughts would have been very
unwelcome to him. I think that he liked and admired Savile and
enjoyed working with him; so much so that eventually he
undertook to ghost-write God’ll fix it. He had a job at the BBC
which he enjoyed and where he hoped his career would
progress. While he was working with Savile, Canon Semper’s
wagon was, at least to some extent, hitched to Savile’s star.
He knew that other people admired Savile. He thought that
other people were aware of Savile’s bad reputation but that it

719
 did not seem to matter to them. There was, I accept, within
some parts of the BBC, a fairly relaxed attitude towards sexual
relations with young girls. There was also a hierarchical culture
within the BBC which made it easy for him to feel that it was not
his job to raise the problem of Savile’s conduct; it was the
responsibility of someone higher up. After all, everyone
seemed to know the rumours. After Canon Semper had been
promoted, I do not that it occurred to him to mention his
concerns to anyone else. By that time, he was no longer
working with Savile.

11.156 If Canon Semper had taken the view that the things Savile had
said to him were in the nature of a confessional and should not
be revealed, I could understand why he would not think of
reporting his concerns to senior authority in the BBC. I could
understand why he might have tried to deal with the problem
himself. But he did not try to deal with the matter himself. And
anyway it does not seem to me that he could have regarded his
conversations with Savile as confidential or in the nature of a
confessional; Savile’s talk about sex was general and open and
the discussions about theology came to be intended for
publication.

11.157 I am surprised by Canon Semper’s statement that, even with

firm evidence about Savile’s behaviour, it would not have been
necessary to take the matter upwards in the BBC. I bear in
mind that, in the 1970s when he was working with Savile,
Canon Semper had not been with the BBC for very long. Even
so, given the awareness that he had, I do think that that he
ought to have volunteered his concerns to someone in a more
senior position. He told me that he did not have confidence in
his Head of Department. I do not quite understand why. Even
accepting that he might not have had an easy relationship with
his immediate manager, I do think that he should have found

720
 someone in authority with whom to share his concerns. I think
he should have seen how wrong Savile’s conduct was and that
it was wrong for the BBC to give a man of Savile’s moral
character the public platform which he was afforded. I think he
agrees with me; that is why he found his interview so
distressing.

11.158 Canon Winter’s position is different. I do not think he came to

know Savile as well as did Canon Semper. They did not travel
abroad together or have the same opportunities for
conversation. There were not the same discussions on
religious topics as took place between Savile and Canon
Semper. Nonetheless, he saw Savile quite regularly and was
aware that Savile talked a lot about sex. He also heard
rumours about his sexual interest in young girls. From his
previous experience before joining the BBC, he knew of the
risks to young girls from contact with pop stars and celebrities.
I find it surprising that, as a man of strong Christian beliefs, he
was not more concerned about Savile than he appears to have
been.

11.159 In the 1970s, although a producer, Canon Winter had been with
the BBC for only a relatively short time. I accept that he
thought that such concerns as he had about Savile were well
known to those senior to him. Accordingly, by a narrow margin,
I refrain from criticising him for his failure to volunteer his
concerns to someone senior in his department. I think it is a
great pity that he did not do so and I am sure that he agrees
with that.

11.160 Over the years, Canon Winter was promoted and eventually
became Head of Religious Broadcasting. When working with
Savile in the 1970s, he had said to himself that, if he were ever
in a position to choose who would front his programmes, he
would not choose Savile. But by the time he was in that

721
 position, Savile was no longer working on religious
programmes. I do not think it would have entered Canon
Winter’s head that he ought to speak to someone in another
part of the BBC about the concerns he had had about Savile in
the past. For that, in my view, he should not be criticised. He
knew nothing definite; he had heard rumours and did not like
the man’s manner of talking or his lifestyle. That was all.

11.161 From this account, it is clear that nobody working on Savile’s

Travels or Speakeasy in the 1970s took the initiative to report to
higher management any concern about Savile’s behaviour. If
enquiries had been undertaken, at the instigation of Douglas
Muggeridge, I think that some material of concern would have
been discovered. Indeed, I think enough would have been
discovered (particularly from Canon Semper and Canon Winter)
to cause BBC Radio to realise that Savile was not a suitable
role model for young people. I consider that once that had
been realised, it should have led to reconsideration of his
continued use, particularly on Speakeasy, where he was in the
position to influence the thinking of young people. The
background to such reconsideration should then have been
passed across to television where Savile was employed on Top
of the Pops and Clunk Click and was soon to be employed on
Jim’ll Fix It. Whether, in fact, that lateral communication
between BBC Radio and Television would actually have taken
place, I cannot say.

Further Awareness of Savile’s Proclivities and Reputation Emerging

in the 1980s

11.162 Very little additional evidence emerged from the 1980s about
what was known about Savile’s conduct within BBC Radio 1.
His career in BBC Radio was declining and, in 1987, he moved
to World Service.

722
11.163 I have already mentioned David Treadway who, in 1983, moved
from BBC Manchester to London to take up the post of Chief
Assistant BBC Radio 2. However, he became friendly with the
senior management team of BBC Radio 1 as well as BBC
Radio 2. Mr Treadway became aware of Savile’s reputation for
being sexually attracted to young girls. The expression used
was that he was “into young girls”. He thought that this meant
teenage girls and it did not occur to him that it might include
girls under the age of 16. The gist of the gossip was that
people thought that this was sleazy but not seriously wrong.
Savile would by this time have been in his late fifties. He said
that the BBC appeared to be unconcerned about the conduct of
any of its disc jockeys. Mr Treadway’s impression was that the
senior management in BBC Radio 1 thought that what the disc
jockeys did behind closed doors and off BBC premises was
none of their business.

11.164 B13, who worked as a studio manager, described an occasion

in the mid-1980s, when she was on duty and Savile came in to
record a programme. He arrived with three or four middle-aged
men. As soon as she greeted him, he walked up to her asked
her whether she was “the woman that I saw last night with the
snake between her legs?” She had never met him before. She
was shocked by this and felt humiliated. She felt that he was
showing off to his friends. Her recollection is that she carried
on with her duties and, when Savile and his friends had gone,
reported the incident to a manager. She gave her story and it
was taken seriously but she did not hear any feedback
afterwards. She did not expect to.

11.165 The gist of this story was confirmed to the Savile investigation
by the other studio manager on duty that day. The details he
recollected were a little different but I am satisfied that they both
recalled the same event. His recollection is that he reported the

723
 matter to his line manager. He then recalls that, a while later,
he was summoned to see a woman in HR. He gave her his
account of what had occurred. He then did not hear anything
further and does not think that he expected to. The line
manager is dead and we have been unable to find the woman
from HR. I do not find it in the least surprising that the BBC did
not take any action against Savile in respect of his insulting
behaviour towards B13. First, this was probably an isolated
complaint. Further, the nature of the culture then prevailing
would have militated against action being taken. Such conduct
as this, which amounted to sexual harassment, was not
regarded as seriously then as it is today. Further, as the Talent
was excused from all manner of misconduct, no one would
have thought of taking Savile to task. Some years later, in the
1990s, when the other studio manager was working for World
Service at Bush House, he became aware of rumours about
Savile’s sexual preference for young women, by which he
understood that he liked to have sex with girls in their teens
who might or might not be underage. He also understood it to
have been the practice at Bush House not to allocate female
studio managers to work with Savile.

11.166 It appears from this later evidence that Savile’s reputation had
not changed. However, staff did not become aware of anything
new of great significance. I can well understand why, after
Savile had been on the scene for so many years, no one
thought that they should do anything about his position.

Summary

11.167 I have already expressed my view that Canon Semper ought to

have taken his concerns about Savile to someone more senior.
What the outcome would have been had he done so I cannot
speculate. I have also expressed my views about the position
of Mr Beston.

724
11.168 In addition, there was a moment in 1973 when Savile came
briefly under scrutiny because Mr Muggeridge became aware of
rumour or gossip about Savile’s sexual interest in teenage girls.
He made enquiries; Savile was questioned, denied not only any
wrongdoing but also denied that there was any danger of
anything coming out in the press. The latter point was
confirmed by Mr Collins’s enquiries of his journalist contacts.
Mr Muggeridge, whose main concern was, I am satisfied, the
risk of damage to the BBC’s reputation rather than concern for
the welfare of young girls, seems to have been either satisfied
or at least reassured that there was no problem for the BBC
and appears to have ‘closed the book’. Bearing in mind the
culture of the time and attitudes towards teenage sex in the
BBC and in society at large, I do not criticise Mr Muggeridge
personally for not probing further into what we would now call
the child protection problem.

11.169 Nonetheless, I am surprised that Mr Muggeridge should have

closed the book quite as completely as he appears to have
done and that he did not, following the enquiries he instigated
through Mr Chinnery and Mr Collins, retain some lingering
concerns about the risk that Savile might damage the BBC.
Indeed, if all the information (including that available to Canon
Semper, and Canon Winter) had been collected and if that had
been shared with television, I think there would have been
enough material to give rise to real cause for anxiety that Savile
might damage the BBC’s reputation and that there was a child
protection problem as well. Indeed, it seems likely that
information would have come to light that would have taken the
level of concern to a point where the BBC would have had to
consider dispensing with Savile’s services. However none of
this investigation or sharing of concerns took place. I do not
know why. Mr Muggeridge was aware that in 1971 there had
been concern within television (in respect of Top of the Pops)

725
 about inappropriate sexual behaviour between BBC staff and
young girls. I accept, however, that, by 1973, that had died
down. When Mr Muggeridge received his report from Mr
Chinnery that Savile had denied any misconduct, he may have
concluded that the rumours had been scurrilous nonsense and
dismissed them. He may have thought, as did Derek Chinnery
and Doreen Davies, that it was not for the BBC to probe into the
private lives of their celebrities. Given the BBC’s corporate
approach to issues of child protection and the risk of moral
danger as discussed in Chapter 9 and in the absence of any
opportunity to speak to him, I do not criticise Mr Muggeridge
personally for his approach.

11.170 I do however repeat my criticism of the BBC for its corporate

attitude to the risks of moral danger to which young girls might
be exposed when brought into unsupervised contact with older
men, be they BBC staff, pop stars, or other celebrities. I have
discussed these matters at some length in Chapter 9 and I shall
not repeat my conclusions here. I do not think that it is an
excuse for the BBC that its attitudes were largely in accordance
with attitudes elsewhere in society. As a public service
broadcaster, it should, in my view, have thought more carefully
about the implications of ignoring the potential consequences to
young girls of having casual sex with older men rather than
regarding such girls as being ‘unbalanced’ and a nuisance.
The BBC should also, in my view, have been more conscious of
its responsibility to the general public and young audiences
when it permitted a man who boasted about his sexual life, as
Savile did, to be put forward as a good man and a role model
for young people.

726
Appendices 1 – 6

727
728
 Appendix 1

Dramatis Personae

First Name Surname Description

Diane Abbott MP Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke
Newington since 1987. Appeared on an episode
of Have I Got News For You? with Savile on 28
May 1999
Lucy Adams Joined the BBC in 2009 and held titles as
Director of BBC People and Director of HR
before leaving in 2014
John Ainsworth Worked for the BBC from 1983/1984 until 1992,
mostly in the Design Department at Television
Centre
Stanley Appel Worked at the BBC from 1953 until 1994.
('Stan') Production assistant then director on Top of the
Pops in the 1970s and 1980s and later producer
of that show (mainly in the 1980s and 1990s).
Occasionally directed and produced Jim’ll Fix It
when Roger Ordish was unavailable
Lord Robert Armstrong Cabinet Secretary to Margaret Thatcher (1979-
1987)
Baroness Bakewell DBE Former television presenter and journalist at the
Joan BBC. Freelance broadcaster, writer and Labour
Party Peer
Matthew Bannister Controller of BBC Radio 1 (1993-1998); Director
for all BBC Radio stations (1996-1999); Chief
Executive of BBC Production (1999-2000);
Director of Marketing and Communication for the
BBC (2000)
Lynn Barber Journalist. Interviewed Savile and wrote an
article about him featured in The Independent on
Sunday on 22 July 1990
Andrew Bateson QC* Former legal counsel for News of the World
Biddy Baxter Producer of Blue Peter (1962-1965); programme
editor, Blue Peter (1965-1988)
Johnny Beerling Joined the BBC in 1957 as a technical operator;
became a producer on the Light Programme and
then Radio 1 in 1967; held various roles at Radio
1 including executive producer and Head of
Radio 1 Programmes and later became
Controller of Radio 1 (1985-1993)
Alan Bell Worked at the BBC from 1958 until 1988:
production assistant, Light Entertainment (1968-
1979); producer/director (1979-1988) (worked
very occasionally on Jim'll Fix It (on location
shooting) during this period); freelance (1988-
2009)
Alison Bellamy A reporter for the Yorkshire Post who knew most
of Savile's friends and wrote his authorised
biography How's about that then? in 2012

* deceased

729
First Name Surname Description
Don Bennett Transport manager at Broadmoor; often worked
as Savile's driver
Jonathan Bennett Worked freelance at BBC Radio Leeds in 1981 in
Technical Operations as well as doing some
reporting and presenting
Francesca Bergman Attended recordings of Top of the Pops in
1969/1970
George Beston Savile's BBC Radio 1 producer for 11 or 12
Edward ('Ted') years from 1968 or 1969 until 1980. Produced
Speakeasy, The Double Top Ten and Savile's
Travels
Christopher Biggins Actor and television presenter
Arthur Birks Joined the BBC as a page boy in 1935, holding
many roles before becoming Central Services
Manager in 1965 and then Central Assistant,
Central Services Group between 1973 and 1977
Lord John Birt Deputy Director-General of the BBC (1987-
1992); Director-General of the BBC (1992-2000)
Phil Bishop Worked in the BBC Light Entertainment Group
from 1969 until 1980. Director and occasional
director/producer on Top of the Pops between
1976-1979 and director/producer on Jim'll Fix It
between 1975-1979
Richard Booker* Detective Chief Superintendent in charge of the
investigations into the payola allegations and
Claire McAlpine's death
Frank Bough Broadcaster best known for presenting
Grandstand (1968-1982), Nationwide and
Breakfast Time (1983-1988)
Lord Melvyn Bragg Writer and broadcaster who began his career at
the BBC after joining on a general traineeship in
1962
Russell Brand Comedian who hosted an eponymous Radio 2
show (2006-2008)
Lucy Brett Studio manager in the BBC Radio Music and
Light Entertainment department (1969-1974).
Occasionally worked on Savile’s Travels
Asa Briggs Professor and BBC historian who has written a
five-volume history of British broadcasting called
The History of Broadcasting in the United
Kingdom, published in 1995
Mike Briton "Mike Briton" was an assumed name. Worked as
a stand-in on Top of the Pops until he was
dismissed in September 1970 for taking part in a
'blue' film

* deceased

730
First Name Surname Description
Richard Broke* Well-known television producer. Worked for the
BBC between 1964 to 1996; joined as a floor
assistant on shows including Top of the Pops
(1964-1966)
Leisha Brookes Widely reported in the media that she was
abused by Savile at BBC Television Centre in
the mid-1970s. She was between 9 and 11 years
old
Joanna Buick Worked in the Technical Operations department
of the BBC as a sound engineer (1979-1986).
Worked on Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It
Tom Burtonshaw Was a Radio 1 studio manager in the late 1970s
and early 1980s; worked on Savile's Travels
Lord Robin Butler Cabinet Secretary (1988-1998)
Baroness Butler-Sloss Retired judge who was President of the Family
Elizabeth Division of the High Court of Justice and the first
female Lord Justice of Appeal. Chairman of the
Cleveland Child Abuse Enquiry (1986-1987)
Nicky Campbell Radio and television presenter and journalist.
Radio 1 disc jockey (1987-1997); presented Top
of the Pops in the late 1980s until the early
1990s; has been a presenter on Radio 5 Live
since 1997
Peter Campbell* A production assistant and later director on Jim'll
Fix It (mid-1970s to mid-1980s)
Robin Carr Worked at the BBC from 1978 to 1987. Was a
director on Top of the Pops over three summers
circa 1984-1986
Dave Cash Former disc jockey for BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2
(1967-1970); presented Top of the Pops in the
late 1960s. Rejoined the BBC in 1999 and
presents local radio
Colin Charman* Producer of Top of the Popsin the late 1960s
Sir Michael Checkland Deputy Director-General of BBC (1985-1986);
Chairman of BBC Enterprises (1986-1987);
Director-General of BBC at the time of Jim'll Fix
It, Top of the Pops, Inside Broadmoor and Triple
Top Ten (1987-1992)
Derek Chinnery* Executive producer at BBC Radio 1 (1967-1972);
Head of BBC Radio 1 (1972-1978); Controller of
Radio 1 (1978-1985)
Dr Anthony Clare* An Irish psychiatrist who became well-known as
a presenter of radio and TV programmes.
Interviewed Savile in 1991 as part of his series In
the Psychiatrist's Chair, published in 1992
Dr Stella Clarke CBE BBC Governor (1974-1981)

* deceased

731
First Name Surname Description
Brian Clifford Worked for the BBC between 1969 and 1994;
joined as a script writer, moved into the
Information Division and ultimately became Head
of Information Services in 1988; left the BBC in
1994 as Head of Corporate Promotion
Lord James Clyde* Scottish judge and author of the Report of the
Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney
in February 1991
Rodney Collins Publicity officer for Radios 1 and 2 (1971-1974),
reporting directly to Douglas Muggeridge
Kevin Cook Member of a cub scout group that appeared on
Jim'll Fix It in 1977. Widely reported in the media
that he was abused by Savile in a BBC dressing
room
Roger Cook Investigative journalist and broadcaster; worked
for the BBC between 1968 and 1985, initially as
a reporter for World at One; created and
presented Checkpoint for Radio 4 (1971-1984)
Mark Cooper Executive producer of Top of the Pops - The
Final Countdown in 2006 in which Savile
featured
Janet Cope Was for many years a member of staff at Stoke
Mandeville Hospital and Personal Assistant to
Savile
Mel Cornish* Producer of Top of the Pops in the late 1960s
and early 1970s
Sir Bill Cotton* BBC Producer (1956-1962); Assistant Head of
Light Entertainment (Variety) (1962-1967); Head
of Variety (1967-1970); BBC Head of Light
Entertainment (1970–1977); BBC One Controller
(1977-1981); Deputy Managing Director,
Television (1981); Director of Programmes and
Director of Development (1982); Managing
Director, Direct Broadcasting by Satellite (1983);
Managing Director, Television (1984-1988)
James Crocker* Solicitor who aided Sir Brian Neill in his
investigation into the BBC and the payola
allegations
Jack Dabbs* BBC radio producer subject to corruption
charges in 1971 amidst the payola scandal;
acquitted in 1974
Tim Davie Acting Director-General of the BBC (November
2012 - April 2013)
Doreen Davies Producer in Popular Music (Sound) before taking
up positions as a senior producer, Popular Music
(1968-1970); executive producer, Radio 1 (1970-
1985) and Head of Radio 1 Programmes (1985-
1987)

* deceased

732
First Name Surname Description
Suzanne Davies Worked at the BBC between 1965 and 1994.
Staff producer (1969-1992)
Sue (Suzan) Davies Researcher on Speakeasy in 1977. Also co-
produced Talkabout in the same year
Les Dawson* Comedian and writer; his television career
included Sez Les (1968-1976); Opportunity
Knocks (1967 and 1990) and Blankety Blank
(1984-1990); also had a long running sketch
show on Radio 2 called Listen to Les which aired
in the 1970s and 1980s
Mike Day Journalist at the Press Association (1968-1991).
One of the journalists on Fleet Street contacted
by Rodney Collins in 1973 in respect of rumours
their newspapers had heard about Savile's
sexual proclivities
LE De Souza House Services Manager at the BBC in the
1960s and 1970s
Wilfred De'Ath Began working freelance in radio at the BBC in
1961. Became staff producer in 1962, working in
the Current Affairs Department. Devised and
produced Teen Scene in about 1964
Angus Deayton Comedian and broadcaster; hosted the episode
of Have I Got News For You? on which Savile
appeared on 28 May 1999
George Derrick* Assistant Solicitor at the BBC in the early 1970s
Gordon
Stanley Dorfman Joined the BBC as a Design Assistant in 1957.
Directed and produced Top of the Pops (1964-
1971) before leaving the BBC in 1974
Julia Drum Worked at the BBC between 1978 and 1996.
Joined as a freelance researcher and director
(assistant producer) for the School's Television
and Further Education departments before being
taken on to BBC staff as an assistant producer in
the Continuing Education department in 1981.
Left the BBC as a senior producer in 1996.
Worked with Savile as the director of Play It Safe
and Mind How You Go
Greg Dyke Director-General of the BBC (2000-2004)
Noel Edmonds Radio and television presenter. Began his career
as a newsreader on Radio Luxembourg in 1968
shortly before moving to BBC Radio 1 on which
he had his own show. Presented Top of the Pops
between 1970 and 1978 as well as hosting
numerous other television and radio programmes

* deceased

733
First Name Surname Description
George Entwistle Joined the BBC in 1989 as a Broadcast
Journalism trainee. Held numerous posts
including Controller of Knowledge and Director of
Vision before becoming Director-General of the
BBC from September 2012 to November 2012
Janet Fielding Actress who starred as the Doctor's Assistant in
Doctor Who (1981-1984). Also made a guest
appearance on Jim'll Fix It in a Doctor Who-
related sketch in 1985; appeared in the
programme Tales of Television Centre
Janet Figgins Former housemistress at Duncroft Approved
School for Girls (1968-1980)
Michael Fogarty Co-author of Women in Top Jobs, published in
1971
Eben Foggitt Worked at the BBC between 1987 and 1992 in
the Copyright Department, as the Head of the
Independents Planning Unit and as the Head of
Business Affairs in the Drama Group. Prior to,
and after, his employment with the BBC, he
worked for independent production companies
supplying programmes to the BBC
Sir Bruce Forsyth Television presenter and entertainer
Alan Freeman* Recruited to the BBC Light Programme as
presenter of the Records Around Five show in
1960; presented Pick of the Pops (1961 and
1964-1972); one of the original presenters of Top
of the Pops (1964-1969); presented Saturday
Rock Show on Radio 1 (1973-1978); rejoined
Radio 1 in 1989 until 1994 as presenter of Pick
of the Pops and the Saturday Rock Show
Charles Garland Worked at the BBC between 1986 and 1998;
floor manager on Top of the Pops (1986-1988)
Helen Gartell Worked in the Light Entertainment Department
from 1969 to 1987. Freelance location and studio
director for Jim'll Fix It (1989-1994)
Anne Gilchrist Controller of CBBC (2006-2009). Worked as a
researcher on Jim'll Fix It for one series in 1985.
Also became Creative Director in the Comedy
department

* deceased

734
First Name Surname Description
Grace Goldie* Joined the BBC in 1944 as a talks producer for
Wyndham radio; she started Political and Current Affairs
programmes on Television in 1948 after joining
the Talks Group, Television; was appointed
Assistant Head of Talks Group, Television in
1954; promoted to Head of Talks and Current
Affairs in 1962; retired in 1965
Harry Goodwin* Resident stills photographer on Top of the Pops
(1964-1973). Was the subject of a News of the
World article published on 21 March 1971 which
detailed hidden recordings taken of Mr Goodwin
boasting about having taken pornographic
pictures of young girls from Top of the Pops and
showing blue movies in dressing rooms before
recordings of the show
John Goudie Editor of the BBC Radio 4 arts magazine
programme, Front Row, in July 2006 at the time
it did a piece on the final Top of the Pops
Lord Michael Grade Controller of BBC One (1984-1986); Director of
Programmes, Television (1986-1987); Chairman
of the BBC Governors (2004-2006)
Larry Grayson* 1970s television presenter best known for
presenting The Generation Game after Bruce
Forsyth
Hughie Green* Television presenter, best known as the
presenter of Double Your Money and
Opportunity Knocks
Camilla Griffith-Jones Production assistant on Jim'll Fix It in 1982/1983
Krishnan Guru-Murthy Television presenter and journalist. Presented an
episode of Open to Question on which Savile
featured on 29 September 1988
Ian Hampton Bass guitarist in the band Sparks
Keith Harding* Antiques expert who appeared on an episode of
Jim'll Fix It in late 1980
David Hardwick Freelance journalist and casual contributor to the
BBC in the 1970s
Alan Hardwick Former Calender News presenter (ITV) and
current Lincolnshire Police and Crime
Commissioner. Has also worked for the BBC.
Source of an article in The Mirror relating to
Savile published on 26 October 2012
David Hare Began working for the BBC in the Technical
Operations (engineering) department in 1958.
Worked on Top of the Pops in a junior capacity in
the 1960s. Left the BBC in 1989

* deceased

735
First Name Surname Description
Alan Hart Joined the BBC in 1959 as an editorial assistant
on Sportsview; held various other roles including
BBC One Controller (1981-1984) (re-
commissioned Jim'll Fix It), Special Assistant to
the Director General (1985-1986) and Controller
of International Relations (1986-1990)
Caroline Haydon Worked in BBC Current Affairs between 1979
and 1986. Subsequently became Deputy
Commissioning Editor for News and Current
Affairs at Channel 4. Currently an editorial
adviser to the BBC Trust
John Helm Joined the BBC as sports editor for BBC Radio
Leeds in 1970; network football producer, Radio
(1976-1981); Head of Outside Broadcasts for
Radio (1980-1981)
Jill Henderson Worked for the BBC between 1975 and 1985;
started out as a secretary before taking positions
as floor assistant, assistant floor manager and
floor manager. Was an assistant floor manager
for one series of Jim’ll Fix It in 1976/1977
David Hepworth Journalist and music writer
Ian Hislop Journalist, satirist, writer, broadcaster and editor
of Private Eye; was on Savile's team in an
episode of Have I Got News For You? broadcast
on 28 May 1999
Beryl Hoda Worked at the BBC between 1966 and 1979.
Was a production assistant in the Light
Entertainment Department in the 1970s. Worked
on Top of the Pops with Robin Nash and dealt
with letters to Jim’ll Fix It for two weeks
Patricia Houlihan Worked at the BBC between 1968 and 1991.
May have worked on Clunk Click in around 1973
and was a researcher on Jim'll Fix It in 1975 as
well as being involved in its initial setting-up
Ronald Howard Assisted Harry Goodwin in taking photographs at
Top of the Pops. Goodwin allowed him to use his
studio to develop photographs
Kevin Howlett Joined the BBC as a studio manager in 1978;
producer for Radio 1 (1981-1995). Worked with
Savile on a few occasions, predominantly for his
documentary called Radio Radio in 1986
Arthur Hughes Head of the BBC Internal Investigation Team
who investigated Harry Goodwin in the late
1960s to early 1970s
Paul Hughes-Smith Worked as an assistant floor manager on Top of
the Pops between around 1969 to 1971
Charles Hullighan* Former Head Porter at Leeds General Infirmary

* deceased

736
First Name Surname Description
John Humphrys Author, journalist and presenter on television and
radio. Interviewed Wilfred De'Ath on the Radio 4
programme Today on 26 March 2013
Lynn Hunt Worked at the BBC between 1979 and 1997;
was a production assistant on Jim’ll Fix It for one
series in the 1980s
Michael Hurll* Joined the BBC in 1956 as a floor assistant for
the Billy Cotton Band Show before progressing
to stage manager and then director of the
programme; producer, Light Entertainment
Group, Television (1964/1965-1972/1973);
executive producer (1972/1973-1987/1988);
producer of Top of the Pops (1980-1987)
Mike Hurst Musician and record producer; was a member of
The Springfields; presented Teen Scene. Co-
compered an episode of Teen Scene with Savile
in 1965
Sheila Innes Worked at the BBC between 1953 and 1987.
Joined the BBC as a studio manager; producer,
Education Department (1962-1973); executive
producer, Further Education (1973-1977/1978);
Head of Continuing Education (1977/1978-1983);
Controller of Educational Broadcasting (1983-
1987)
Anna Instone* Head of Gramophone Department at the BBC
from the 1950s until the early 1970s
Martin Jackson* Joined the Daily Express as a showbiz reporter
and later became a radio and television editor for
both the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. Was
one of the four journalists contacted by Rodney
Collins in 1973 in respect of rumours their
newspapers had heard about Savile's sexual
proclivities
David Jacobs* Joined the BBC in 1945; one of the original Top
of the Pops presenters between 1964 and 1966
Louise Jameson Actress who starred as the Doctor's Assistant in
Doctor Who (1977-1978); appeared in the
programme Tales of Television Centre
Meirion Jones Former BBC Newsnight journalist; producer of
the Jimmy Savile Newsnight edition (2012)
Margaret Jones Former headmistress of Duncroft Approved
School in the 1970s; aunt of Meirion Jones
Penry Jones* Head of BBC Religious Broadcasting between
1967 and 1971
Shy Keenan Author, sexual abuse survivor and founder of
Phoenix Survivors, an advocacy group for
victims of sexual abuse

* deceased

737
First Name Surname Description
Sir Ian Kennedy Chairman of the public Inquiry into children's
heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary
(1984-1995) that published its report in 2001
Liz Kershaw Initially worked for the BBC as a presenter for
BBC Radio Leeds in 1984; Radio 1 disc jockey
(1987-1992); Radio 5 (1992-1994); Radio 5 Live
(1994-1998); interviewed Savile in 1997
Andy Kershaw Joined the BBC in 1984 as a presenter for The
Old Grey Whistle Test; Radio 1 disc jockey
(1985-2000); had a regular show on Radio 3
(2001-2007)
Cecil Korer* Joined the BBC as a scene-shifter in 1957; stage
manager in Manchester (1959); floor manager on
Top of the Pops in the 1960s; assistant producer
on Top of the Pops (1964-1965)
Sima Kotecha BBC reporter who interviewed Derek Chinnery
for BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House show
The Very Lang* Assistant Head of Religious Broadcasting (1964-
Reverend 1967); Head of Religious Programmes, Radio
John (1967-1971); Head of Religious Broadcasting
Department (1971-1980)
Bob Langley Best known as a newsreader on Nationwide and
Pebble Mill at One in the 1970s. Walked with
Savile and a film crew for 24 hours in 1971 on a
charity walk Savile was completing from John
O'Groats to Land's End
Mark Lawson Novelist, playwright, journalist and arts
broadcaster for BBC One, BBC Four and Radio
4. Presenter of the BBC Radio 4 arts magazine
programme, Front Row, in July 2006 when it did
a piece on the final Top of the Pops
Bunny Lewis* A London-based manager, record producer and
composer. Sometimes acted nominally as an
agent for Savile
Frances Line Joined the BBC as a radio producer in 1967;
became a producer for Radio 2 in 1970,
progressing to Chief Assistant, Radio 2 in 1980.
Became Chief Assistant for Radio 4 in 1983;
Head of Radio 2, Music Department (1985-
1989); Controller of Radio 2 (1989-1995)
Richard Littlejohn Daily Mail journalist. Wrote an article about
Savile and the BBC for the Mail Online on 12
September 2013
Michael Lush* Died whilst rehearsing a bungee jump for a BBC
programme called The Late Late Breakfast Show

* deceased

738
First Name Surname Description
Chris Lycett Worked at the BBC between 1966 and 2000,
ultimately becoming Head of Production, Radio 1
in 1991. Worked with Savile as a programme
operations assistant on Savile's Travels and
Speakeasy
Ann Mann Worked in light entertainment at the BBC
(1968/1969-1978); production assistant on Top
of the Pops (1971-1974)
Quentin Mann Worked at the BBC between 1962 and 1996 and
continued to work with the BBC on a freelance
basis after that. Was a junior clerk (1962-1966);
floor assistant and assistant floor manager
(1966-1981/1982); floor manager (1982-1996).
Worked on Jim'll Fix It and Top of the Pops
Katy Manning Actress who starred as the Doctor's Assistant in
Doctor Who (1971-1973); appeared in the
programme Tales of Television Centre
RJ Marshall* BBC Solicitor in the early 1970s
The Very Mayne* Head of Religious Programmes, Radio (1972-
Reverend 1979); Dean of Westminster (1986-1996)
Michael
David McAlpine Stepfather of Claire McAlpine, a dancer on Top
of the Pops who committed suicide aged 15
Vera McAlpine* Adoptive mother of Claire McAlpine, a dancer on
Top of the Pops who committed suicide aged 15
Claire McAlpine* Top of the Pops dancer who committed suicide
aged 15 on 30 March 1971
Lord Robert McAlpine* Senior Conservative minister wrongly implicated
Alistair in the North Wales child abuse scandal after a
Newsnight programme was aired
Elizabeth McDowell Worked at the BBC (1967-1996) mainly in the
Continuing Education department; joined as a
producer's assistant
Ian McGuinness Was a staff relations officer at Thames
Television in the 1970s. Described a short sketch
made at Television Centre in which a man
representing Savile was making salacious
comments to another man who was dressed up
as a little girl and sitting on his knee
Paul Merton Writer, actor, comedian, radio and television
presenter; appeared on an episode of Have I Got
News For You? with Savile on 28 May 1999

* deceased

739
First Name Surname Description
James ('Jim') Moir Joined the BBC in 1963 as a production
manager in Light Entertainment. Held several
other production roles before becoming BBC
Head of Television, Variety at the time of Top of
the Pops, Play It Safe and Jim’ll Fix It (1982–
1987). BBC Head of Light Entertainment at the
time of Top of the Pops, Inside Broadmoor and
Jim'll Fix It (1987–1993). Retired from the BBC in
2003
Alan Monahan Worked at the BBC between 1972 and 1985;
was a press officer and publicity officer for Radio
in the 1970s and 1980s; eventually took
positions as Chief Information Officer and Chief
Publicity Officer for Radio
Bob Monkhouse* Comedian and television personality
Sarah Montague BBC presenter since 1997. Presenter on the
Today programme, Radio 4, since 2002
Rex Moorfoot* Worked at the BBC between 1937 and 1977.
Head of Presentation, Television (1960-1977)
Douglas Moran Chief Assistant in the Appointments Department.
Author of the 1973 report Limitations to the
Recruitment and Advancement of Women in the
BBC which resulted from investigations into
inequality launched by the BBC
Pieter Morpurgo Joined the BBC in 1966 as an assistant floor
manager in studio management; floor manager
on Top of the Pops between 1971 and 1972
David Mortimer Louis Theroux's Executive Producer until May
1999 but acted as a consultant on the
documentary When Louis Met...Jimmy.
Resumed duties as Louis Theroux's Executive
Producer in November 2000 as part of his role as
Deputy Controller & Head of Development,
Documentaries & Investigations
Douglas Muggeridge* BBC Radios 1 and 2 Controller at the time of
Savile's Travels, Speakeasy, Double Top Ten
(1969-1975); went on to be Director of
Programmes, Radio (1975-1978) and Deputy
Managing Director, Radio (1978-1980). Became
Managing Director, External Broadcasting in
1980
Stuart Murdoch Visual Effects Designer at the BBC (1979-1987).
Worked twice with Savile on Jim'll Fix It in 1984
and 1985

* deceased

740
First Name Surname Description
Pete Murray Co-hosted the first edition of Top of the Pops and
presented it throughout the 1960s as well as
presenting two one-off episodes in the 1980s.
Became one of the original Radio 1 disc jockeys
in 1967 before moving to Radio 2 (1969-1983)
Robin Nash* Joined the BBC in 1952. Producer of many light
entertainment shows including Top of the Pops
(1973-1981). Head of Variety, Television (1978-
1981)
Andrew Neil Journalist and television presenter; interviewed
Savile in 1995 for the Channel 4 series Is This
Your Life?
Sir Brian Neill Former Lord Justice of Appeal. Appointed by the
BBC to conduct an independent investigation
into the allegations of corruption at the BBC that
featured in a series of News of the World articles
in 1971
Trevor Neilsen Studio supervisor (1970-1979); supervised
audiences on Top of the Pops
Aldo Nicolotti Was a reporter for the Evening News in the
1970s and one of the journalists on Fleet Street
contacted by Rodney Collins in 1973 in respect
of rumours their newspapers had heard about
Savile's sexual proclivities
David Nicolson Director and producer at the BBC in the 1980s;
was a director on Jim’ll Fix It and occasionally
did work on Top of the Pops
Paraic O'Brien Reporter for Channel 4 News. Interviewed
Richard Pearson in October 2012 about
allegations that Savile had boasted about his
sexual exploits with underage girls in a meeting
at Broadcasting House in the 1970s
Roger Ordish Producer of Clunk Click (1973-1974), Jim’ll Fix It
(1975-1994), (2007) and Top of the Pops (1974)
Richard Pearson Freelance researcher in BBC Religious
Programmes, Radio (1977-1980) before moving
into Television (1980-1985). Gave an interview to
Channel 4 News in October 2012 alleging that
Savile had boasted about his sexual exploits with
underage girls in a meeting at Broadcasting
House in the 1970s
Jeanette Pease Worked as a researcher on three series of Jim’ll
Fix It in the 1980s
Helen Pennant-Rea Began working at the BBC in 1967/1968;
researcher on Speakeasy (1971-1972)
(Unknown) Phillips* Step-father of Leisha Brookes

* deceased

741
First Name Surname Description
Nick Pollard Former Head of Sky News. Appointed by the
BBC in October 2012 to lead an independent
Review to establish whether there were any
failings in the BBC management of the
Newsnight investigation relating to allegations of
sexual abuse of children by Savile
Jonathan Powell Joined the BBC in 1975, having previously
worked at Granada Television. Became a
producer and then Head of Drama before taking
up a role as Controller of BBC One in 1987. In
this role, was responsible for commissioning
several series of Jim'll Fix It. Left the BBC in
1993
Tony Preston* Assistant Head of Variety, Light Entertainment,
Television in the early 1970s
Ronnie Priest* Light Entertainment Organiser (Variety) in the
early 1970s
Dame Esther Rantzen Television producer, presenter and investigative
journalist; initially joined BBC Radio as a studio
manager in 1963 before moving into BBC
Television in 1965 and taking up production
roles; best known as presenter and producer of
That's Life (1973-1994) and for founding
ChildLine
Mike Read Radio 1 disc jockey (1978-1991); presented Top
of the Pops (1978-1990) and appeared on the
final episode of Top of the Pops in 2006
Lord John Reith* First manager of the BBC (1922), proposed the
structure of the BBC and became its first
Director-General in 1927
Jenny Ricotti A researcher at the BBC between 1986 and
1989/1990 and looked after children on Jim'll Fix
It
Peter Riding Worked at the BBC between 1966 and 1993,
eventually becoming Deputy Head of the
Continuing Education Department, Television.
Produced Play it Safe (1981-1982) and Mind
How You Go (1983)
Peter Rippon Editor of BBC programme Newsnight(2008-
2012)
Tina Ritchie Joined the BBC in 1986. Worked as a journalist
and newsreader in radio; newsreader on Radio 1
in the early 1990s
Michael Rix BBC technical operator (1959-1965);
cameraman (included attachments to different
departments, including Personnel) (1964-1993);
manager of safety services, News and Current
Affairs Directorate (1993-1995). Worked on Top
of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It as a cameraman
* deceased

742
First Name Surname Description
Gay Robertson Worked at the BBC for a year in the 1960s and
between 1970-1993. Was a publicity officer,
Light Entertainment (1970-1982)
Most Roche Bishop of Leeds when a celebrant at Savile's
Reverend funeral; has since been elevated to Archbishop
Arthur and is now serving as the Secretary of the
Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments
Jean Rook* Journalist best known for her regular column of
nearly 20 years in the Daily Express
Ann Rosenberg Publicity officer for Light Entertainment shows at
BBC Television in the 1970s
Peter Rosier Joined the BBC as a press and publicity officer
(General) in 1968; publicity officer (Current
Affairs and Religious Programmes) (1970);
publicity officer (Current Affairs) (1971); publicity
officer (News and Current Affairs) (1976); chief
publicity officer (1980/1981); Assistant Head of
Information Division (1982); Head of Information
Division (1984); Head of Corporate Affairs and
Media Relations (1989). Retired from the BBC in
1993
Jonathan Ross Television and radio presenter. Left the BBC
after 13 years in 2010
Robin Scott* Controller of the Light Programme (1967);
Controller, BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2 (1967-
1969) (during the time of Savile's Travels); BBC
Two Controller (1969-1974)
Dr Peter Scott-Morgan Management consultant engaged by the BBC in
2003 to conduct an investigation into the
systems driving BBC culture as part of the
initiative Make It Happen instigated by the then
Director-General, Greg Dyke
Canon Colin Semper Producer, Religious Broadcasting, Radio (1969-
1975) (producer of Speakeasy during this
period); Overseas Religious Broadcasting
Organiser, Radio (1975-1979); Head of Religious
Programmes, Radio (1979-1982). Ghost-writer of
God’ll Fix It
Nina Shields Worked at the BBC between 1979 and 1984 as a
personnel officer, Television Studios
Douglas Sillitoe* A BBC scene painter who abused and took
indecent photographs of Leisha Brookes
David Simmons Worked as a staff producer with BBC Radio
London (1970-1976) and presented the Saturday
afternoon R&B show on Radio 1 (1972-1975).
Continued to work freelance for the BBC until
1979

* deceased

743
First Name Surname Description
Jeff Simpson BBC Radio 1 press officer (1986-1993) and a
producer on Top of the Pops (1999-2003, 2006).
Has interviewed Savile on a number of
occasions
John Simpson Has worked for the BBC since 1966 in many
roles including foreign correspondent, diplomatic
editor, political editor and presenter of the Nine
O'Clock News and Newsnight. He has been
World Affairs editor of BBC News since 1988
Monica Sims Former BBC employee who wrote the report
Women in BBC Management,which investigated
why there was a shortage of women applicants
for top jobs in the BBC, published in 1985; had
been Head of Children's Programmes, Television
and Controller of BBC Radio 4
Dan Slater Reporter who wrote three articles for The Sun in
April 1983 that appear to be based on an
interview between Slater and Savile
Ian Smith Worked on Jim'll Fix It as a cameraman in the
mid-1980s; also worked on Top of the Pops
between 1984 and 1994
Robin Smith Worked as an assistant floor manager and
researcher on Jim'll Fix It between 1987 and
1989
Sir Cyril Smith* Liberal and then Labour MP for Rochdale (1972-
1992)
Gillian Spiller Worked at the BBC between 1960 and 1999
(with a short break in the 1970s). One of her
roles was audience coordinator (1986/1987-
1999) on various shows including Top of the
Pops
Peter Spindler Former Commander of Metropolitan Police,
Scotland Yard, who initially headed Operation
Yewtree
Ed Stewart* Was one of the original Radio 1 presenters and
fronted Junior Choice (1968-1980); presented
shows for Radio 2 (1980-1983); returned to
Radio 2 to present regular shows (1991-2006).
On television, he presented Crackerjack and Top
of the Pops (late 1960s to late 1970s)
Johnnie Stewart* Joined the BBC Sound Effects department in
1937; rejoined the BBC after the war as a radio
producer; moved to BBC Television in 1958 to
produce Juke Box Jury; created Top of the Pops
which he produced between 1964 and 1974
Gillian ('Gill') Stribling-Wright Worked at the BBC between 1966 and 1983.
Researcher on Clunk Click (1973-1974) and
Jim'll Fix It (1975-1978); producer's assistant on
Top of the Pops (1968-1971)
* deceased

744
First Name Surname Description
Sheila Stringer* Former private secretary of Douglas Muggeridge
Auguste Tardieu* French forensic medical scientist who wrote at
Amboise length about child sexual abuse in the 1850s and
1860s
David Tate Worked at the BBC between 1964 and 2004.
Worked as a producer with Savile at Radio 1 and
BBC World Service in the 1980s
Helena Taylor Worked as a production secretary on Speakeasy
in the mid-1970s
Lesley Taylor Worked at the BBC between 1974 and 2010;
was a secretary and then a production
coordinator. Worked on Speakeasy and Jim'll Fix
It
Baroness Thatcher* Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Margaret (1979-1990)
Louis Theroux Broadcaster and documentary film-maker.
Interviewed Savile in 2000 for a BBC Two
programme When Louis Met...Jimmy
Mark Thompson First joined the BBC in 1979 as a production
trainee. Director-General of the BBC from 2004
to 2012
Sue Thompson Worked at BBC Leeds from about 1976 to 1978,
mainly in the newsroom but assisted with the
recording of Yorkshire Speakeasy on one
occasion
David Treadway In 1983, joined the BBC in London having
worked for BBC Manchester. Chief Assistant,
Radio 2 (1983-1989) and a senior Light
Entertainment producer, Popular Music in
Glasgow and senior producer, Popular Music in
Manchester
Sir Ian Trethowan* Joined the BBC in 1963 as a parliamentary
commentator; was the first Managing Director of
Radio in the new era of Radios 1-4 in 1967;
Director-General of the BBC (1977-1982)
Reverend Roy Trevivian* Producer in the Religious Broadcasting
department (1965-1973); co-produced
Speakeasy (early 1970s)
Nick Vaughan-Barratt Executive producer and Head of Events before
leaving the BBC in 2011; was based at BBC TV
Leeds (1971-1980); worked as a researcher for
Savile's Yorkshire Travels and as a studio
director for Yorkshire Speakeasy; advised
against preparing an advance obituary for Savile
in 2010
Sophie Waite Assistant producer of Top of the Pops - The Final
Countdown in 2006 on which Savile featured

* deceased

745
First Name Surname Description
Terry Walsh Worked on attachment as a researcher in the
BBC's Light Entertainment Department (1980-
1981); worked on Jim'll Fix It and Top of the
Pops, amongst other shows
John Walters* Worked for the BBC between 1967 and 1991;
produced Savile's Travels
Karin Ward Former Duncroft pupil who, aged 14, claims to
have been abused by Savile and to have
witnessed abuse on BBC premises by another
man in Savile's presence
M J ('Teddy') Warrick* Executive producer, Radio 1 (1970-1978); Chief
Assistant, Radio 1 (1978-1982)
Gordon Watts Devised Teen Scene with Wilfred De'Ath and
presented the show
Sir Huw Wheldon* Managing Director of BBC Television (1968-
1975)
Mary Whitehouse Founder and President of the National Viewers'
CBE* and Listeners' Association (1965-1994);
campaigned against content that she saw as
encouraging an increasingly permissive society
Brian Whitehouse* Producer and Director on Top of the Pops in the
1960s and 1970s
S.G. Williams Controller, Television Administration at the BBC
in the 1960s and early 1970s
Grenville Williams Worked in the BBC's internal Management
Consultancy Department (1972-1986); eventually
became Head of the Radio Unit, Management
Services Group (1980-1986)
Mark Williams- Former Detective with the Surrey Constabulary
Thomas involved in both the dropped BBC Newsnight
programme and the ITV Exposure programme
concerning sexual abuse by Savile
Richard Wilson Joined the BBC as a trainee comedy producer
for Radio in 1991; left as a senior producer on
Radio 5 Live in 1996; became a freelance
television producer and is now Head of Comedy
Entertaintment at Hat Trick Productions
Canon David Winter Joined the Religious Broadcasting Department,
Radio in 1971 as a producer. Was a co-producer
on Speakeasy in the 1970s before becoming
Head of BBC Religious Broadcasting (1982-
1989). Left the BBC in 1991 and was ordained
into the Church of England
Derek Wiseman Worked at the BBC between 1969 and 1994 in
the Studio Planning Department. Joined as a
junior engineer and progressed to project
manager

* deceased

746
First Name Surname Description
Sir Terry Wogan * Television and radio broadcaster who worked for
the BBC from 1967
Natasha Wood Worked as a production assistant on the
penultimate series of Jim’ll Fix It in 1993
Sally Wood Producer of Top of the Pops - The Final
Countdown in 2006 on which Savile featured
Nick Wright Worked as a floor assistant at the BBC between
1964 and 1966. Mostly involved with pop shows
including a number of Top of the Pops episodes
Will Wyatt Joined the BBC in 1965. Occupied a number of
senior posititions, including Assistant Managing
Director, Television (1988); Managing Director,
Television (1991); Chief Executive, Broadcasting
(1996); Retired in 1999. Author of The Fun
Factory, A life at the BBC published in 2003
Alan Yentob Joined the BBC in 1968. Past roles include Head
of Music and Arts from 1984, Controller of BBC
Two from 1988, Controller of BBC One from
1993, Director of Television and Creative
Director for the BBC (1994-2015)
Earl of Chaired the government-appointed committee
Crawford* (appointed in July 1925) advising on future
management and control of broadcasting
A1 Worked for a company that provided chauffeur-
driven cars to the BBC
A2 Appeared on Top of the Pops about three times
in late 1970 and early 1971 at the age of 13
A3 Attended Top of the Pops with C35 on several
occasions in 1971
A4 Attended a recording of Jim'll Fix It with a friend
in early 1983
A5 Relative of Savile
A6 BBC television sound engineer during the mid-
1970s
A7 A celebrity who was the subject of a complaint
from Vera McAlpine that he had seduced her
daughter, Claire McAlpine, after a recording of
Top of the Pops
A8 Female BBC camera operator who was
subjected to a campaign of sexual harassment
by a colleague
A9 Worked with Savile whilst at the BBC in Leeds in
the 1970s
A10 Worked as a studio manager on Speakeasy and
Savile's Travels between 1973-1975
A11 Production secretary on BBC Radio 1 (1979-
1985)

* deceased

747
First Name Surname Description
A12 Whilst working as a secretary in the
Gramophone Department at Egton House
(began in 1970), A12 attended several
recordings of Speakeasy at Savile's invitation.
Later worked as a studio manager on Savile's
Travels
A15 Production Assistant at BBC World Service in the
early 1980s
A16 Member of the Secretarial Reserve since 1989
A17 Worked at the BBC for 15 years from the late
1970s
A18 Worked for the BBC for 30 years from the 1970s
A19 Freelance presenter who regularly worked for the
BBC during the 1980s
A22 A former Duncroft pupil
A23 Appeared on Jim'll Fix It as a "fixee" in 1980
A24 Worked for the BBC between 1971 and 1977,
including on Radio 1
A25 Joined the BBC in 1986. Has worked in both
radio and television
A26 Record promoter (1971-2001)
B1 Joined the BBC in 1972; worked in television
B2 Was working for BBC Radio in about 1970 when
she attended a recording of Speakeasy in
Manchester
B3 Worked at the BBC in Egton House during the
1970s
B4 Worked at the BBC during the early 1970s
B5 Studio manager on Radios 1 and 2 from 1969.
Worked on Savile's Travels in the early 1970s
B6 Worked with Savile on Speakeasy in 1974/1975
B7 In 1975, B7 was introduced to Savile through a
friend of her mother and went to Broadcasting
House to watch him record links for a radio
programme
B8 Was sitting on a podium with Savile during a
recording of Top of the Pops in November 1976
B9 Production secretary on Jim'll Fix It in 1980/1981
B10 Barman in the BBC Club at Television Centre in
1987
B11 Attended Jim'll Fix It with a group of classmates
in 1988/1989
B12 Secretary at the BBC from 1978
B13 Studio manager who recorded a programme with
Savile in the mid-1980s
B14 Worked at BBC Radio 1 in the early 1980s and
had to take a script to Savile in a room at The
Langham Hotel

* deceased

748
First Name Surname Description
C1 Met Savile at Broadcasting House while on work
experience in 1985/1986
C2 Telephone operator at BBC Manchester in the
late 1960s
C3 Assistant floor manager on Jim'll Fix It in the
early 1990s
C4 Met Savile after going to a recording at Radio
Luxembourg in 1964
C5 Worked at the BBC in Leeds. Met Savile after a
recording of Speakeasy in 1970
C6 A record plugger who visited Egton House in the
mid-1970s
C7 Attended a recording of Jim'll Fix It in the 1980s
C8 Used to attend Television Centre where his
grandfather worked
C9 Attended a recording of Top of the Pops in
December 1973
C10 Met Savile at a recording of Top of the Pops in
December 1973
C11 C11's brother was a "fixee" on Jim'll Fix It and
she attended the show with family members in
1988
C12 Attended recordings of Top of the Pops fairly
regularly in 1969
C13 A studio manager at the BBC from the late 1960s
to early 1980s
C14 Was invited by Savile to a recording at
Broadcasting House in about March 1978
C15 Part of the participating audience on Top of the
Pops in 1975/1976
C16 Appeared on Top of the Pops in 1969 dancing on
a podium
C17 Worked in the bar of the BBC Club and met
Savile in a corridor at Television Centre in 1978
C18 Went with a friend to Savile’s flat in Park
Crescent in 1981/1982
C19 Chaperoned her sister on Jim'll Fix It in 1978
C20 Appeared on an episode of Jim'll Fix It in late
1976
C21 Appeared with a friend on Jim'll Fix It in 1988
C22 Chaperoned her daughter (C21) at a Jim'll Fix It
recording in 1988
C23 In 2006, was working on Front Row, a BBC
Radio 4 programme, in which Savile and others
were interviewed about the last episode of Top of
the Pops
C24 A technical runner on The Sunday Show in
1997/1998 on which Savile appeared as a guest

* deceased

749
First Name Surname Description
C25 Was working at BBC Television Centre in 1972
where she met Savile
C26 A former receptionist at the BBC's Lime Grove
studios
C27 ('Angie') Member of Savile's 'London Team' who would
attend recordings of Top of the Pops whenever
he was presenting
C28 ('Val') Member of Savile's 'London Team' who would
attend recordings of Top of the Pops whenever
he was presenting
C29 A former secretary at the BBC
C30 A former Duncroft resident during the early
1970s
C31 Appeared on Jim'll Fix It in 1986
C32 Was invited into the BBC's Lime Grove studios
by a man who said he worked for Radio
Luxembourg in 1959
C33 Knew Ted Beston through her job. Beston
invited her to an event in 1978/1979 for the
purpose of meeting Savile
C35 Went to watch recordings of Top of the Pops in
the early 1970s, initially with A3 and then later
with other friends
C36 Met Savile at Stoke Mandeville. He invited her to
recordings of Jim'll Fix It in 1990
C37 Met Savile at Duncroft in 1973/1974 and went to
the BBC on a few occasions to watch Clunk Click
C38 Was turned away at the door of Dickenson Road
Studios before a recording of Top of the Pops in
1964/1965
C39 Attended two recordings of Top of the Pops in
Manchester in 1964
C40 Went to Savile's dressing room after a recording
of Jim'll Fix It in 1976
C41 Was a record promoter when she met Savile on
the stairs in Egton House in 1968/1969
C42 Went to a recording of Top of the Pops with a
friend in 1970
C43 In the late 1980s, worked as a production
assistant on Open to Question on which Savile
was a guest
C44 Attended a recording of Speakeasy in 1973
C45 Used to go to work with her relative who was a
security officer at BBC Television Centre
C46 Attended a recording of Top of the Pops in
December 1973
C47 Performer on a programme on which Savile was
a celebrity guest in 1976

* deceased

750
First Name Surname Description
C48 Former BBC presenter
C49 Was invited to attend a recording of Jim'll Fix It in
late 1975
C51 A junior employee at the BBC during the late
1980s
C52 Attended recordings of Top of the Pops between
1972 and 1975
C54 Former altar boy at a church that Savile visited
during the 1970s after a Radio 1 Roadshow
C55 Former Duncroft resident who went to watch a
recording of Clunk Click in early 1974
C56 Appeared on Jim'll Fix It as a "fixee" in 1984
C57 Attended a recording of Top of the Pops with
friends in 1972

Note:
A1 to A26 - witnesses who were not victims of Savile but who have requested anonymity.
B1 to B14 - complainants about Savile’s behaviour who have been anonymised by the Review.
C1 to C57 - complainants about Savile’s behaviour who wished to remain anonymous have been
given a code number.

* deceased

751
752
 Appendix 2
Chronology

Date Event
31 October 1926 Savile born.
1940 Savile left school at the age of 14 and went on to do
various jobs, including as an office boy.
1944 Savile conscripted as a Bevin Boy to work in the coal
mines at the age of 18.
1950s Savile started working with Mecca, initially at the Mecca
Locarno Ballroom in Leeds.
1958 Savile joined Radio Luxembourg and presented The
Teen and Twenty Disc Club.
17 October 1959 Savile first appeared as a guest on Juke Box Jury at
Lime Grove Studios.
1959 Savile raped C32 at Lime Grove Studios when she was
13.
1960 Savile presented Young at Heart on Tyne Tees
Television.
1962 Savile had a regular column in The Sunday People.
1 January 1964 Top of the Pops launched on BBC One, broadcast live
from Manchester. Savile presented the first programme
and appeared regularly thereafter.
1964 Savile sexually assaulted C4 when she was 17. It is
likely that this took place at the Adrian Hotel in Hunter
Street, Bloomsbury.
1964 Savile raped C39 at his flat in Salford after she met him
at Dickenson Road Studios following a recording of Top
of the Pops. She was 16.
1964/1965 C38 was indecently assaulted by Savile in a men’s
lavatory at the BBC’s studios in Manchester when he
was 15.
Mid-1960s Richard Broke witnessed Savile in his dressing room with
two young girls of about 12. The girls accompanied
Savile in a taxi to Lime Grove Studios where Savile was
filming an insert for a programme and then returned with
him to his dressing room back at Television Centre.
February 1966 Top of the Pops moved to London, sometimes broadcast
from Lime Grove Studios, sometimes from Television
Centre.
1967 Savile left Radio Luxembourg.
1968 Savile joined BBC Radio 1, presenting Savile’s Travels.
1968 Savile first met ‘Angie’ (C27). He raped her a few weeks
after their first meeting. She was 15.
Late 1960s Savile kissed C2 full on the lips when she bent down to
give him a peck on the cheek in the canteen at BBC
Manchester. She told her supervisor.
Late 1968/early 1969 Savile sexually assaulted C41 on the staircase in Egton
House. She was a record promoter and was 17 at the
time.

753
Date Event
1968/1969 Savile invited Dave Cash, a disc jockey, to his camper-
van while they were working at Battersea Fun Park.
There were two young girls there aged about 15.
March 1969 Harry Goodwin first came to the attention of the BBC for
making pornographic material in his dressing room after
Top of the Pops. An internal investigation took place.
1969 Savile presented Speakeasy on BBC Radio 1.
1969 Top of the Pops moved definitively to Television Centre.
1969 Savile first met and indecently assaulted ‘Val’ (C28)
when she was 15. He later raped her.
1969 Savile first met and indecently assaulted C12 in his
dressing room at Top of the Pops when she was 14 or
15.
1969 Savile indecently assaulted C13 during a voice test for a
charity appeal he was recording at BBC Radio when she
was 22. She told her immediate managers.
September 1969 Savile indecently assaulted C16 on a podium during a
recording of Top of the Pops when she was 15. She
complained to a member of BBC floor staff.
June 1970 Savile indecently assaulted C42 in his dressing room at
Top of the Pops in London when she was 15.
1970 Savile sexually assaulted and attempted to rape C5 in
his camper-van after a recording of Speakeasy at the
Paris Theatre. She was 19.
1970 Savile got into bed uninvited with B2 in the spare room of
his flat in Manchester. They worked together on
Speakeasy. He refused to leave so she got out and slept
on the couch.
Early 1970s Savile sexually assaulted C26 in his camper-van while
parked in the BBC car park at Lime Grove Studios.
1970/1971 Savile made a sexual movement with his lower body at
B3 in the reception area of Egton House.
Early 1970s Savile put his hand under B4’s armpit and said “Tickle
you under there” in the BBC Club at The Langham.
Early 1970s Savile came up behind B5 and stroked her bottom on
two or three occasions while she was working as a studio
manager on BBC Radios 1 and 2.
Early 1970s Savile presented Savile’s Yorkshire Travels for the BBC
in Leeds.
Early 1970s Derek Chinnery, then Head of Radio 1, interviewed
Savile about rumours circulating to the effect that he was
behaving inappropriately with young girls. Savile denied
the truth of such rumours.
1970s A9, who worked with Savile on Savile’s Yorkshire Travels
and Savile’s Yorkshire Speakeasy, used to see young
girls who looked about 17 or 18 at Savile’s flat when he
had the occasion to go there.

754
Date Event
1970s When working as a production assistant on Top of the
Pops, Ann Mann saw Savile in his dressing room with a
young girl aged between 14 and 16. Savile came to the
door wearing only a track suit top and his underpants.
26 December 1970 Savile presented The Jimmy Savile Show.
Early 1971 Complaint made to the BBC by Vera McAlpine, the
mother of Claire McAlpine, that a celebrity had invited
her daughter back to his flat after a recording of Top of
the Pops and had seduced her.
14 February 1971 Between 14 February and 14 March 1971, the News of
the World published a series of articles alleging
corruption in the BBC in both radio and television, known
as the “payola allegations”.
19 February 1971 Brian Neill QC instructed by the BBC to conduct a private
inquiry into the specific charges of bribery and corruption
(and other instances of partiality) in the BBC which were
alleged in the News of the World issue dated 14
February 1971 (and any subsequent issues).
17 March 1971 Whilst accompanying Savile on a charity walk, Bob
Langley saw Savile come out of his camper-van with two
young girls of about 14. He made a crude gesture which
Mr Langley took to mean that he had either just had sex
with them or that he fancied them. Later that day, Mr
Langley also witnessed another young girl of about 14
come out of Savile’s camper-van while he was talking to
him. She walked away without even looking at Savile
and Savile made the same crude gesture as before.
30 March 1971 Death of Claire McAlpine, a 15-year old who had
attended Top of the Pops on several occasions.
March/April 1971 The News of the World ran articles suggesting that
young girls attending Top of the Pops were in moral
danger as the result of unsupervised contact with older
men. These referred to Mr Goodwin, Mrs McAlpine and
an allegation made by Mike Briton regarding BBC staff
picking up young members of the audience on Top of the
Pops.
April 1971 Inquest into death of Claire McAlpine.
April 1971 Commencement of police investigation into payola
allegations at the BBC covering, amongst other things,
concerns relating to Top of the Pops and possibly the
background into Claire McAlpine’s death. This led to the
publication of a three-part report by the Metropolitan
Police.
1971 BBC attempted to tighten ticket arrangements and
security at Top of the Pops. Age limit increased to 16.
1971 Savile had sexual intercourse with C35 in his camper-
van while parked in the car park at Television Centre
after Top of the Pops. This occurred either shortly before
or just after her 16th birthday.

755
Date Event
1971 Savile appointed OBE.
26 December 1971 Savile presented The Jimmy Savile Show.
Early 1970s Savile indecently assaulted C45 on two occasions in his
dressing room at Top of the Pops when she was about
12.
1972 Savile tried to sexually assault C25, an employee at
Television Centre, in his camper-van while parked in the
Broadcasting House car park.
1972 Savile indecently assaulted C57 while he was standing
around him in a group of young people on the set of Top
of the Pops. He was 12 at the time.
1972 Savile indecently assaulted C8 at Television Centre on
four occasions when he was about 10. C8 told his
grandfather, who worked at Television Centre.
22 May 1972 Interim report of the inquiry by Mr Neill QC delivered to
the BBC (the Neill Report).
26 October 1972 Metropolitan Police published third and final part of their
report into the payola allegations. This part included
allegations and concerns arising from Top of the Pops.
1972-1975 C52 abused by Savile on BBC premises, which started
when she was 14 or 15 years old.
1973 Savile kissed and put his tongue in the mouth of C44
after a recording of Speakeasy at the Paris Theatre when
she was 17.
1973 Savile allegedly indecently assaulted a girl during the
making of a Top of the Pops programme when she was
15. She reported this to the Metropolitan Police in 2003
but her complaint did not proceed further.
1973 Savile presented The Double Top Ten Show on BBC
Radio 1.
5 May 1973 Clunk Click launched on BBC One with Savile as its
presenter.
June 1973 Douglas Muggeridge spoke to Rodney Collins, a BBC
Radio publicity officer, about whether he had heard any
rumours of sexual impropriety concerning Savile and
suggested that he make some enquiries amongst his
trusted journalist contacts in Fleet Street. Mr Collins
reported back that there were rumours about Savile but
that they were unsubstantiated.
December 1973 Savile indecently assaulted C10 in his dressing room
after a recording of Top of the Pops when she was 15.
December 1973 Savile raped C9 and indecently assaulted C46 in his
dressing room after a recording of Top of the Pops at
Television Centre. C9 was 10 and C46 was 12.
1973/1974 C37 indecently assaulted by Savile in his dressing room
at the BBC when she was 15.

756
Date Event
1973/1974 Savile indecently assaulted Karin Ward in a dressing
room/hospitality room at the BBC Theatre when she was
15 or 16.
Early 1974 Savile rubbed C55’s breast at a recording of Clunk Click
under the guise of making sure that a sticker was stuck
firmly to her. She was 15.
20 April 1974 Clunk Click discontinued after two series.
1974 Savile’s autobiography As It Happens published.
1974 Savile asked B1 to go back to his flat with him after a
recording at Broadcasting House. She refused.
1974 Savile indecently assaulted C29 at the side of the studio
where rehearsals for Top of the Pops were taking place
and invited her to his dressing room. She declined the
invitation.
1974/1975 Savile would often telephone B6 at work to ask her to
come round to his flat; she always refused. Whenever
she met him at work, he would kiss her hand and
continue up her arm.
1975 Jim’ll Fix It launched with Savile as its presenter.
Mid-1970s Savile made sexual advances towards A6’s trainee
television sound engineer when he went to fit Savile’s
personal microphone for Jim’ll Fix It in his dressing room.
A6 made a formal report at the time.
1975 Savile indecently assaulted B7 in his flat following a tour
of the BBC studios to which he had invited her. She was
14.
Mid-1970s Savile sexually assaulted C6, a ‘plugger’, in Ted Beston’s
office at Egton House.
Mid-1970s Ian Hampton, from the band Sparks, made two informal
reports within the BBC after seeing Savile on two
separate occasions leave the studio with a young girl
during recordings of Top of the Pops.
Between 1974 and 1976 Savile indecently assaulted C54 in a church after a Radio
1 Roadshow. C54 was aged between 10 and 12 at the
time.
1974/1975 Savile assaulted C15 at a recording of Top of the Pops
while he was dancing as a member of the audience. He
was 15 at the time.
Late 1975 Savile indecently assaulted C49 in his dressing room at
the BBC Theatre after a recording of Jim’ll Fix It and in
the presence of a photographer and another young boy.
C49 was 13 at the time.
1975/1976 Leisha Brookes was first indecently assaulted at
Television Centre when she was about eight or nine.
1975/1976 Young girl driven home from Television Centre by A1 in a
state of distress.
1976 Savile’s autobiography republished under the new title
Love is an Uphill Thing.

757
Date Event
1976 Savile appeared on Read All About It with Melvyn Bragg
to discuss the second edition of his autobiography.
1976 Savile raped (orally) C40 in his dressing room when C40
visited with a group of children from a children’s home to
watch the making of Jim’ll Fix It. He was 10 or 11.
July 1976 Savile indecently assaulted C47 in his dressing room at
the BBC in Manchester when both were to appear on the
same programme. He was 15.
24 November 1976 Savile sexually assaulted B8 on camera during a
recording of Top of the Pops. She told a BBC employee
what had happened.
Late 1976 Savile indecently assaulted C20 while he was changing
for an episode of Jim’ll Fix It in which he was to appear.
He was 15 at the time.
January 1977 Savile abused Kevin Cook in his dressing room after
attending a recording of Jim’ll Fix It when he was nine.
Late 1970s Savile presented Yorkshire Speakeasy for the BBC in
Leeds.
Late 1970s Savile boasted to Richard Pearson and Canon David
Winter at Broadcasting House that he had “had” three
14-year old girls in his trailer that morning, meaning that
Savile had had sex with them.
Late 1970s Michael Rix received a call from a male colleague that he
had placed in the Drama Department who said that he
had rejected sexual advances from a more senior person
and that he was about to leave as he felt that he was not
going to make progress. Mr Rix spoke to a senior
colleague in the Personnel Department who said that he
was aware of the situation but that nothing would be
done.
1976 to 1978 Sue Thompson witnessed Savile with a young girl of
about 13 or 14 in school uniform on his knee in his
dressing room while she was assisting with a recording
of Yorkshire Speakeasy. He had his hand up her skirt
and he was kissing her.
1977 Savile’s Travels and Speakeasy discontinued.
1978 The Double Top Ten Show discontinued. Savile
presented Jimmy Savile’s Old Record Club on BBC
Radio 1.
1978 Savile invited B12, a secretary at the BBC, to his flat in
London under the pretext of trying to find her somewhere
to live. She declined.
February 1978 Savile indecently assaulted C19 whilst she was sitting on
the beanbags during a recording of Jim’ll Fix It at the
BBC Theatre in Shepherd’s Bush. She was 18.
March 1978 Savile raped C14 at his flat in Park Crescent after inviting
her to see him record a show at Broadcasting House.
She was about 22.

758
Date Event
Autumn 1978 Savile sexually assaulted C17 in the corridor at
Television Centre.
1978/1979 Savile sexually assaulted C33 at an event to which she
had been invited by Ted Beston. She complained to Ted
Beston.
1979 Savile’s book God’ll fix it (ghost written by Canon Colin
Semper) was published.
1970s/1980s A17 reported an incident of sexual assault to her BBC
personnel officer who asked her “if she had a chip on her
shoulder”. She knew from this that her complaint was
going nowhere so she did not pursue it.
Early 1980 A8, a female camera operator, was subjected to a
campaign of sexual harassment by the leader of her
team, also a trade union representative. Senior
management became involved and A8 was eventually
moved to a new team but no action was ever taken
against the team leader, who had a reputation for sexual
harassment.
1980s A18 was assaulted by a male director. She was
encouraged to tell the Personnel Department but was
informed that there was nothing the BBC could do as the
individual concerned was freelance.
1980s Female members of staff complained to the Personnel
Department after a senior member of staff was harassing
them by inviting them to take part in sexual games which
many would regard as perverted. They were told that
nothing could be done.
Late 1980 A23 appeared as a fixee on Jim’ll Fix It in connection
with a dubious “fix” of a broken jewellery box which was,
in fact, not broken. No abuse took place.
1981 Savile made lewd remarks to a programme secretary
when she accompanied Jonathan Bennett to greet Savile
prior to an interview on Radio Leeds.
1981 A15 accompanied a colleague who wanted to make a
complaint of sexual assault to the BBC Personnel
Department. Her colleague was told that making a
complaint would be “ not making the right decision”. After
some meetings, the allegation was not pursued. A15
was also later assaulted but did not complain as she felt
that no one would listen to her.
Early 1980s Savile grabbed B9, who worked with him on Jim’ll Fix It,
kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth when she
handed him a document in his dressing room.
Early 1980s Savile put his cigar between his legs and asked B14 to
taste it after she delivered a script to him at The
Langham Hotel.
Early 1980s Savile first proposed for a knighthood by the then Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

759
Date Event
1981/1982 Savile greeted C18 at his flat in London by taking her
hand and licking it with the flat of his tongue all the way
from the fingertip to her wrist. He also asked her and her
friend if they would like to strip off and go on the sunbed.
They both declined.
Early 1983 A4 was invited to watch the making of a Jim’ll Fix It
programme at the BBC Theatre at Shepherd’s Bush with
her friend when she was 16. Savile locked her in his
dressing room with him but they were interrupted.
11 to 13 April 1983 A series of three articles were published about Savile in
The Sun newspaper for which he was interviewed by
Dan Slater.
1984 C56 was touched indecently by Savile at a filming of
Jim’ll Fix It when she was eight.
1984 Savile ceased presenting Top of the Pops.
Mid-1980s Savile made a lewd remark to B13, a studio manager,
when he came in to record a programme. B13 reported
the incident to a manager.
1985/1986 Savile raped C1 at his flat in Park Crescent. C1 was 15
at the time and was on work experience at the BBC in
Broadcasting House.
1986 Savile indecently assaulted C31, then aged 13, in a room
in Television Centre after the filming of a Jim’ll Fix It
programme.
1986 Savile indecently assaulted C7 when he was aged about
10 and sitting on the beanbags during a recording of
Jim’ll Fix It.
1986 Leisha Brookes made a complaint against Savile to the
Merseyside Police.
March 1987 Savile left BBC Radio 1 and moved to the BBC World
Service to present The Vintage Chart Show.
1987 B10 first met Savile when he was about 19. They met on
a few occasions in the canteen at Television Centre
where Savile was always physical with him. He pushed
up against him, stroking him (over his clothes) and
sometimes pinched his bottom.
1987/1988 Savile sexually assaulted C48, a presenter, in the lift in
Television Centre.
1987 to 1989 Robin Smith witnessed Savile behaving inappropriately
with a waitress at a restaurant in Stamford in front of
other diners. He also witnessed two young girls coming
out of Savile’s flat in Park Crescent and a slightly
dishevelled-looking Savile.
1988 Savile assaulted C11 at Television Centre where she
had gone to watch a recording of Jim’ll Fix It.

760
Date Event
1988 Savile touched C21 inappropriately when she was 14
while she was preparing for an appearance on Jim’ll Fix
It and squeezed her very tightly after the show. Savile
also rubbed himself against C22, C21’s mother, while
squeezing past her in the audience seats.
1988 While working on Jim’ll Fix It, David Nicolson saw Savile
in his dressing room with a young girl of about 16 in
circumstances which suggested that they had just
engaged in some sexual activity.
1988/1989 B11 experienced Savile’s ‘wandering hands’ in the studio
during a Jim’ll Fix It programme. She was 14 or 15 years
old.
1988/1989 C51, a junior employee at the BBC, was sexually
assaulted by Savile in a small BBC canteen while her
supervisor went to get them some coffee. She reported
it to her supervisor when he returned.
Late 1980s Savile appeared as a guest on the programme Open to
Question. While appearing on the show, he persistently
tried to get C43, a production assistant, on her own.
Late 1980s A25 told by a colleague that Savile was ‘a paedo’. She
mentioned it to a female editor, whose response was that
it was very tough to get on at the BBC as a woman and
that, as a result, A25 might not want to ‘rock the boat’ by
taking this any further.
October 1989 Savile left the BBC World Service.
1990 Savile received knighthood and papal knighthood.
22 July 1990 Lynn Barber wrote a feature on Savile in The
Independent on Sunday regarding his knighthood and
rumours about him.
Early 1990s Savile made suggestive remarks to C3, then an assistant
floor manager, while working on Jim’ll Fix It. He also
used to put his arm round her and would touch her
breast if he could and once kissed her.
Early 1990s Savile invited C36 on a few occasions to watch the
making of Jim’ll Fix It. In his dressing room, he would put
his hand inside her knickers.
Early 1990s A16 made a report of bullying to a personnel officer. She
was told that there was no point in taking action if she
wanted to stay with the BBC. She did not take her
complaint further.
1991 Dr Anthony Clare interviewed Savile as part of his series
In the Psychiatrist’s Chair.
1994 Jim’ll Fix It discontinued and Savile’s role as a regular
television presenter ended.
1995 Savile interviewed by Andrew Neil for the Channel 4
series Is This Your Life?

761
Date Event
1997/1998 Savile made sexual invitations to and indecently
assaulted C24, a technical runner, while he was waiting
to go on the set of The Sunday Show in Manchester.
28 May 1999 Savile appeared on Have I Got News For You.
13 April 2000 The BBC broadcast the Louis Theroux documentary
When Louis Met Jimmy.
27 July 2006 Savile indecently assaulted C23 at Television Centre
where she was interviewing three past disc jockeys on
Top of the Pops, including Savile, for a BBC Radio 4 arts
magazine programme, Front Row.
30 July 2006 Final episode of Top of the Pops – Top of the Pops –
The Final Countdown – broadcast, which was co-
presented by Savile.
October 2009 Savile interviewed by Surrey police following three
reports of historical sexual abuse at Duncroft School.
The decision was taken not to prosecute him.
2010 Nick Vaughan-Barratt was asked to consider whether the
BBC should prepare an advance obituary for Savile (then
in poor health). Mr Vaughan-Barratt advised against that
course, giving as his reason his knowledge of Savile
from many years before and his view that Savile was
“ironic, flawed and fascinating”.
2011 BBC Newsnight investigation took place into accounts of
Savile’s abuse of teenage students at Duncroft School
led by Meirion Jones.
29 October 2011 Savile died.
9 December 2011 BBC Newsnight investigation abandoned.
8 January 2012 First press report regarding the abandoned BBC
Newsnight investigation and the BBC’s interest in
allegations made by three women that Savile had
behaved inappropriately with them at a school in Surrey
during the 1970s.
August 2012 The press revealed that ITV was making a documentary
about allegations that Savile had sexually abused
teenage girls in the 1970s.
3 October 2012 ITV broadcast the documentary The Other Side of Jimmy
Savile as part of the Exposure series, which described
incidents of alleged sexual abuse by Savile in a variety of
locations, including on BBC premises.
12 October 2012 The BBC announced that its Executive Board had
decided to commission two independent reviews: one
into the decision to abandon the Newsnight investigation
(the Pollard Review) and one into Savile’s activities to
discover whether he had abused young people on BBC
premises and, if so, whether the BBC had known or
ought to have known about it (the Smith Review).

762
Date Event
22 October 2012 The BBC broadcast the Panorama programme What the
BBC knew in which Karin Ward (who had also been
interviewed in November 2011 by the BBC Newsnight
team) described sexual abuse by Savile.
23 October 2012 BBC’s Respect at Work Review established.
January 2013 Joint report Giving Victims a Voice published by the
Metropolitan Police and the NSPCC into sexual
allegations made against Savile.
2 May 2013 Report of the BBC’s Respect at Work Review published.
6 May 2013 The BBC announced that a further investigation would be
undertaken into the conduct of Stuart Hall as part of the
Smith Review (the Hall investigation).
4 June 2013 The BBC announced that Dame Linda Dobbs DBE would
lead the Hall investigation.
March 2014 GoodCorporation instructed to undertake an independent
review the BBC’s child protection and whistle-blowing
policies and processes.
July 2015 GoodCorporation’s conclusions published.

763
764
765
766
 Appendix 4
Senior Roles in BBC Radio and the World Service During Savile's Active Period
Radio

1970
1975
1980
1985
Savile's Travels Savile's Travels

Speakeasy Speakeasy
World Service
The Double Top 10 Show The Double Top 10 Show

Programmes
1987
1988
1989

Jimmy Savile's Old Record  The Vintage 
Jimmy Savile's Old Record Club Chart Show
The Vintage Chart Show
Club

Programme
Director‐General Sir C. Curran Sir I. Trethowan A. Milne Director‐General Sir M. Checkland

Sir M. 

Sir H. 
Greene
Checkland
F.  Managing 

Positions**

B. 
Director, World 

Management 
Managing Director, Radio Sir I. Trethowan P. Newby A. Singer Sir R. Francis Sir J. Tusa
Gillard

Sir D. Hatch
Service

Wenham
Director of Programmes,  G.  D. 
P. Newby

Sir D. 
Hatch
Radio Muggeridge 1987
1988
1989

Mansell

M. Sims
C. 
Controller, Radio 1 and 2 D. Muggeridge

767
McLelland

R. Scott
Controller, Radio 1 D. Chinnery J. Beerling

Management Positions*
C. 
Controller, Radio 2 McLelland
Sir D. Hatch B. Marriott

M. 
Head of Radio 1 D. Chinnery
White

Head of Radio 1 Programmes D. Davies

J. Beerling

1970
1975
1980
1985

*   In view of the changes in nomenclature over the years, the majority of the stated management roles are as they were named at the mid‐point in Jimmy Savile's BBC Radio career ‐ 1978
    (with the exceptions of: Controller, Radio 1; Controller, Radio 2; and Head of Radio 1 Programmes, which were roles that were introduced at a later date
** In view of the changes in nomenclature over the years, the stated management roles are as they were named at the mid‐point of Jimmy Savile's World Service career ‐ 1988
768
 Appendix 5
BBC Management Structure 
(as at the mid‐point of Savile’s career in respect of BBC Radio, Television and World Service)

Director ‐ General

Positions as at 1978 Positions as at 1985 Positions as at 1988

Managing Director, Managing Director, Managing Director,

Radio Television World Service

Director of  Director of

Programmes,  Programmes, 

769
Radio Television

Controller, Controller, Controller,

Radio 1 and 2 BBC One BBC Two

Head of Light 
Entertainment 
Group, Television
Head of  Head of 
Radio 1 Radio 2

Head of  Head of 
Comedy Variety
770
 Appendix 6

Summary of Savile’s Inappropriate Sexual Conduct in connection with his

work with the BBC

Breakdown of Victims

Under 16(1) 16 and over Total

Female 21 36 57

Male 13 2 15

Total: 72(2)

(1)
Note that where a victim may have been 15 or they may have just turned 16, they
have been treated as 15 for the purposes of compiling this data.
(2)
Note that the number of incidents will be higher than 72; a number of victims were
subjected to inappropriate sexual conduct more than once.

Age Range of Victims

12 years and under 11

13 years – 15 years(3) 23

16 years – 19 years 17

20 years – 30 years 19

Over 30 years 6

Total: 76(4)

(3)
Note that where a victim may have been 15 or they may have just turned 16, they
have been treated as 15 for the purposes of compiling this data
(4)
This figure is higher than the 72 victims because some victims were subjected to
inappropriate sexual conduct by Savile at different ages.

771
Nature of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct

Female Male Total

Rape 6 2 8

Attempted Rape 1 - 1

Indecent / Sexual Assault 34 13 47

excluding Rape

Less Serious Sexual Conduct 7 - 7

Inappropriate Consensual 5 - 5
Intercourse / Touching

No Physical Touching 6 - 6

Not Overtly Sexual 2 - 2

Total: 61 15 76(5)

(5)
This reflects the fact that some victims were subjected to incidents of
inappropriate sexual conduct of more than one nature.

Decade Number of Victims

1950s 1

1960s 10

1970s 44

1980s 17

1990s 3

2000s 1

Total: 76(6)

(6)
This reflects the fact that some victims experienced inappropriate sexual conduct
in more than one decade.

772
Programme Number of Victims

Top of the Pops 19

Jim’ll Fix It 17

Speakeasy 6

Savile’s Travels 3

Clunk Click 3

Charity appeal/programme 2

Open to Question 1

Radio 1 Roadshow 1

The Sunday Show 1

Yorkshire Speakeasy 1

N/A 21

Total: 75(7)

(7)
This reflects the fact that some victims experienced inappropriate sexual conduct
on more than one programme.

773
 Appendix 6
Victim Breakdown: Under 16

Relevant
1 Relevant Programme (if
Witness Code / Name Male Female Age Year of Incident Location of Abuse Nature of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Paragraph(s) of Total
applicable)3
Report
1 B7 F 14 1975 Savile's flat in London Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.170 - 5.177
2 B11 F 14/15 1988/1989 BBC studio Jim'll Fix It Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.253
Savile's flat in Park Crescent,
3 C1 F 15 1985/1986 Not Applicable Rape 5.232 - 5.238
London
4 C7 M Appx. 10 1986 BBC studio Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.248
5 C8 M Appx. 10 1972 Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.98 - 5.102
Savile's dressing room at Television
6 C9 M 10 1973 Top of the Pops Rape 5.148 - 5.166
Centre
7 C10 F 15 1973 Savile's BBC dressing room Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.142 - 5.147
8 C12 F 14/15 1969 Savile's BBC dressing room Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.60
9 C15 M 15 1974/1975 BBC studio Top of the Pops Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.186
10 C16 F 15 1969 BBC studio Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.62 - 5.65
11 C20 M 15 1976 BBC dressing room Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.192 - 5.194
12 C21 F 14 1988 BBC make-up room Jim'll Fix It Not Overtly Sexual 5.252
13 C27 (Angie)* F 15 1968 Savile's hotel in London Top of the Pops Rape 5.12 - 5.22
Savile's dressing room at the Paris
14 C28 (Val)* F 15 1969 Speakeasy Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.23 - 5.29
Theatre
15 C31 M 13 1986 Room at Television Centre Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.239 - 5.247
16 C32 F 13 1959 Room at Lime Grove Not Applicable Rape 5.31 - 5.46

774
17 C35 2 F 15/16 1971 Savile's camper-van Top of the Pops Inappropriate Consensual Intercourse/Touching 5.78 - 5.79

Late 1973 - Mid- Savile's dressing room at BBC

18 C37 F 15 Clunk Click Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.117 - 5.121
1974 Theatre at Shepherd's Bush
19 C38 M 15 1964/1965 Toilets in Manchester studios Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.54 - 5.55
20 C40 M 10/11 1976 Savile's BBC dressing room Jim'll Fix It Rape 5.181 - 5.182
21 C42 F 15 1970 Savile's BBC dressing room Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.66 - 5.67
Savile's dressing room at Television
22 C45 F 12 Early 1970s Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.80 - 5.89
Centre
Savile's dressing room at Television
23 C46 F 12 1973 Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.148 - 5.166
Centre
Savile's BBC dressing room,
24 C47 M 15 1976 Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.187 - 5.191
Manchester
Savile's dressing room at BBC
25 C49 M 13 Late 1975 Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.180
Theatre at Shepherd's Bush
Savile's dressing room at Television
26 C52* F 14 /15 1972 - 1973 Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.103 - 5.106
Centre
27 C54 M 10/12 1974/1976 Local church Radio 1 Roadshow Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.179
Studio at BBC Theatre at
28 C55 F 15 Early 1974 Clunk Click Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.122
Shepherd's Bush
29 C56 F 8 1984 BBC studio Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.230
30 C57 M 12 1972 BBC studio Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.95 - 5.97
1975/1976-
31 Leisha Brookes F Appx. 8 - 11 Various rooms at Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.200 - 5.212
1977/1978
32 Kevin Cook M 9 1977 Savile's BBC dressing room Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.195 - 5.199
Savile's dressing room/hospitality
4
33 Karin Ward F 15/16 1973/1974 room at BBC Theatre at Shepherd's Clunk Click Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.123 - 5.134
Bush
 Relevant
1 Relevant Programme (if
Witness Code / Name Male Female Age Year of Incident Location of Abuse Nature of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Paragraph(s) of Total
applicable)3
Report
34 Unidentified Girl F Appx. 13/14 1976-1978 Savile's BBC dressing room Yorkshire Speakeasy Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.289 - 5.292
Total5 13 21 34

* Denotes witness who also experienced other inappropriate sexual conduct at age 16 or above which is shown on the table "Victim Breakdown: 16 & Over" but who has not been recounted in total numbers.
1
Location information is victim specific not incident specific.
2
Note that C35 may have been 15, or she may have just turned 16. For the purposes of compiling this data, she has been treated as 15 and accordingly included on this table.
3
Where "Not Applicable" is indicated, this means that there was either no programme associated with the incident, the individual cannot recall this information or identifying the programme could lead to the
identification of the anonymised individual.
4
Note that Karin Ward may have been 15, or she may have just turned 16. For the purposes of compiling this data, she has been treated as 15 and accordingly included on this table.
5
Numbers incude two hearsay accounts.

775
 Appendix 6
Victim Breakdown: 16 & Over

Relevant
Relevant Programme (if
Witness Code / Name Male Female Age [range] Year of Incident Location of Abuse1 Nature of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Paragraph(s) of Total
applicable)4
Report
1 B1 F 20 - 30 1974 Studio at Broadcasting House Not Applicable No Physical Touching 5.288
2 B2 F 20 - 30 1970 Savile's flat, Manchester Speakeasy Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.71

3 B3 F 20 - 303 1970/1971 Reception area at Egton House Not Applicable No Physical Touching 5.75, 11.69

4 B4 F 20 - 30 Early 1970s BBC Club at The Langham Not Applicable Not Overtly Sexual 5.76
5 B5 F 20 - 30 Early 1970s BBC control room Savile's Travels Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.77
6 B6 F 20 - 30 1974/1975 BBC premises Speakeasy Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.167
7 B8 F 16 - 19 1976 BBC studio Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.183 - 5.185
8 B9 F 20 - 30 Early 1980s BBC premises Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.229
9 B10 M 16 - 192 1987 Canteen at Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.249
10 B12 F 16 - 19 1978 Over the telephone Charity Programme No Physical Touching 5.284 - 5.285
11 B13 F 20 - 30 Mid-1980s Radio studio at Bush House Not Applicable No Physical Touching 5.231
12 B14 F 20 - 30 Early 1980s A room at The Langham Hotel Not Applicable No Physical Touching 5.287
13 C2 F 20 - 30 Late 1960s Canteen at BBC Manchester Not Applicable Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.56
14 C3 F Over 30 Early 1990s BBC premises Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.256
15 C5 F 16 - 19 1970 Savile's camper-van Speakeasy Attempted Rape 5.68 - 5.70
16 C6 F 20 - 30 Mid-1970s Egton House Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.178
17 C11 F Over 30 1988 Room at Television Centre Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.251
18 C13 F 20 - 30 1969 Radio studio at Egton House Charity appeal Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.61

776
19 C14 F 20 - 30 1978 Savile's flat, London Not Applicable Rape 5.214 - 5.219
20 C17 F 20 - 30 1978 Corridor at Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.220
21 C18 F 16 - 19 1981/1982 Savile's flat, London Top of the Pops Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.228
Studio at BBC Theatre at
22 C19 F 16 - 19 1978 Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.213
Shepherd's Bush
23 C22 F Over 30 1988 BBC studio Jim'll Fix It Less Serious Sexual Conduct 5.252
Just outside studio at Television
24 C23 F Over 30 2006 Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.262 - 5.266
Centre
25 C24 F 20 - 30 1997/1998 BBC premises The Sunday Show Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.259 - 5.261
26 C25 F 20 - 30 1972 Savile's camper-van Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.90 - 5.94
27 C26 F 20 - 30 Early 1970s Savile's camper-van Savile's Travels Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.72 - 5.74
28 C29 F 16 - 19 1974 BBC Studio Top of the Pops Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.168
Portable corporate hospitality
29 C33 F 16 - 19 1978/1979 Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.221 - 5.227
cabin
30 C36 F 16 - 19 Early 1990s Savile's BBC dressing room Jim'll Fix It Inappropriate Consensual Intercourse/Touching 5.257 - 5.258
31 C39 F 16 - 19 1964 Savile's flat, Salford Top of the Pops Rape 5.47 - 5.53
Late 1968/Early
32 C41 F 16 - 19 Staircase in Egton House Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.57
1969
33 C43 F 20 - 30 Late 1980s BBC premises Open to Question No Physical Touching 5.286
BBC Radio studio at Paris
34 C44 F 16 - 19 1973 Speakeasy Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.107
Theatre, Regent Street
35 C48 F Over 30 1987/1988 Lift in Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.250
36 C51 F Over 30 1988/1989 Canteen at Television Centre Not Applicable Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.254 - 5.255
37 Trainee M Appx. 16 - 192 Mid-1970s Savile's BBC dressing room Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.169
 Relevant
Relevant Programme (if
Witness Code / Name Male Female Age [range] Year of Incident Location of Abuse1 Nature of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Paragraph(s) of Total
applicable)4
Report
Dressing room in basement at
38 Unidentified Girl F Appx. 16 - 19 1988/1989 Jim'll Fix It Indecent/Sexual Assault excl. Rape 5.325, 8.4 - 8.21
Television Centre
Savile's dressing room at Lime
Grove and Television Top of the
16 - 19
* C27 (Angie) (F) 1969 - 1977/1978 Centre/Savile's hotel in Pops/Speakeasy/Savile's Inappropriate Consensual Intercourse/Touching 5.12 - 5.22
20 - 30
Brighton/Savile's camper- Travels
van/Savile's flat, London
* C28 (Val) (F) 16 1970 Savile's camper-van Top of the Pops Rape 5.23 - 5.29

Savile's dressing room at

Television Centre/Savile's hotel in
16 - 19 1970s Top of the Pops/Speakeasy Inappropriate Consensual Intercourse/Touching
Brighton/Savile's camper-
van/Savile's flat, London

Savile's BBC dressing room,

* C52 (F) 16 - 19 1974 - 1975 Top of the Pops Inappropriate Consensual Intercourse/Touching 5.103 - 5.106
Television Centre
5
Total 2 36 38

* Denotes witness who also experienced other inappropriate sexual conduct under the age of 16 which is shown on the table "Victim Breakdown: Under 16" but who has not been recounted in total numbe
1
Location information is victim specific not incident specific.
2
Note that the legal age of consent for homosexual men was still 21 at this time.
3
External data used - Births Register.
4
Where "Not Applicable" is indicated, this means that there was either no programme associated with the incident, the individual cannot recall this information or identifying the programme could lead to the
identification of the anonymised individual.
5
Numbers include one hearsay account.

777
 Breakdown of Victims by Gender and Age

Female 21 36

778
Male 13 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Under 16 Over 16
 Breakdown of Victims by Decade of
Incident

58%

779
22%

13%
1.5% 4%
1.5%

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

 Associated Programme
Top of the Pops

Jim’ll Fix It
31%
Speakeasy
11% Savile’s Travels

780
5.5% Clunk Clink
35%
5.5%
Charity
2% 2% 4% appeal/programme
2% 2%
Open to Question

Radio 1 Roadshow

The Sunday Show

Yorkshire Speakeasy
 Breakdown of Victims by Age Range

25

20

781
15
23
10 19
17

5 11
6

0
12 and under 13–15 16–19 20–30 Over 30
 Breakdown of Victims by Nature of
Inappropriate Sexual Conduct
Rape

62%
Attempted Rape

Indecent/Sexual Assault*

782
9%
Less Serious Sexual
6.5% Conduct
1.5%
10.5% 8% Inappropriate Consensual
2.5%
Intercourse/Touching
No Physical Touching

Not Overtly Sexual

* excluding rape