His faux naivety usually allows his subjects to drop their guard, it's a great mechanism, but Saville was far too pathalogically manipulative to be undone by such a trick - Louis's a smart cookie, I bet he kicks himself over this.
No I don't think I've ever seen Louis uncover anything with his methods. He is usually just confirming his predisposed narrative. His faux naivety works more as a comedic effect for his viewers than anything of journalistic value
Savile was so confident because he knew he was protected by the lords, politians and powerful men who did some of the foul things with him. If the sheep befriends the wolf, it's eat or be eaten.
@Hagen van Tronje Yeah it's a shame that no one will be held accountable for these atrocities But sadly these people are so powerful we can do nothing, even as intelligent people but just sit on the fence and watch.
oh please ..he was confident because he was protected by the patriarchy. He was protected by a culture in which men like him did like him and other men thought ah sure its ok.
@@silverkitty2503 more like the monarchy. He was Charlie's spiritual advisor. Also had connections to lord Mountbatten. Mountbatten was like Saville just bigger scale.
Beyond the awful sexual acts, the most shocking thing I heard about Saville was when he was working for a northern ambulance service, he excitedly volunteered to assist in the recovery after a fatal car accident. One of the passengers got decapitated, and Saville rapidly rolled under a lorry and retrieved it, after which he held up like a football trophy. I think what's so terrifying is that it shows his monstrous ways were not limited to his sexual abuse, but also had a morbid fascination like a serial killer would. The personification of evil.
I think that was covered on the Netflix documentary. Those were his words - not sure if anyone has ever corroberated that story. It strikes me as a story that a devious cunning and "tricky" individual would tell to reinforce the aura he was a bit weird, but basically just good.
Yes sir, if a normal citizen is unaffected by such scene then he is a psycopath. I once saw a similar accident where a biker was almost decapitated and lying on road. I puked and could not sleep for days. I spoke with a friend who was a 4th year medical student and he said that he too fainted first day when they were studying in mortuary. Smell and the scene was too much for him, but he got used to it slowly. Now he can eat food after 10-12hrs surgery.
@@alexbelotti1603 so did all the bigwigs at the BBC and the metropolitan police, are they all in the same boat as J Knowing and Being are two very different things.
I’m sure everyone thinks they would have had the moral courage to have outed Savile. Don’t kid yourself, he was a very dangerous man with friends in very high, and low places.
Yes. I did hear though that on the hospital circuit senior staff told young patients to stay in their beds when Savile visited and to pretend to be asleep. ie they knew he was a bad 'un. I hope this tactic saved many patients from being molested. So disturbing to hear about even many years later.
Look at Johnny Rotton. People praise him as the guy who "said it like it was" back in the day but let's revisit that.... He clearly knew Jimmy Savile was a molestor and other than saying "I don't like him and I want to punch him for being creepy" he didn't tell anyone about Jimmy. Even those who were against Jimmy couldn't be honest to the public so what makes people think they would've been any different?
Everyone's a hero behind the keyboard, but those keyboard warriors likely personally know someone with a reputation like Saville but haven't done a thing to out said person.
Jesus... all you people accusing Louis Theroux of covering up for Savile or turning a blind eye are ridiculous. This is not that hard to understand: As intelligent as Louis Theroux is, Jimmy Savile saw him coming a mile off, sized him up, and knew exactly how to play him, just as he had been doing his entire life. Louis Theroux fell for it. He will feel guilty about that for the rest of his life - but he should not have to put up with idiots on youtube saying "he must have known" when he clearly did not. Savile got away with his crimes because he knew how to pick his victims, because he knew how to size up potential witnesses and what to say to them and how to act around them, and because he had some well placed connections in the BBC who decided they would rather do nothing in the hopes what they had heard about him was all rumors than try to tackle him and find out the truth. There was no massive conspiracy - there doesn't need to be. THAT'S what should frighten you. But instead you look for someone to blame. What people fail to understand is that someone like Savile does not need a complicated web of connections and "friends in high places" to get away with abusing vulnerable people and children. He knew people were suspicious of him. He wasnt afraid of that - he knew what every truly skilled liar knows in their bones: that it doesn't matter if people don't believe your lies, you only need them to doubt themselves, to doubt that THEY would be beleived if they reported you or called you out on your lies, and they will say nothing. He knew how human beings assess risk, and that most people will not take the risk of accusing an innocent man of molesting a child if they have doubts about what they think they saw or heard. Savile knew this about people and exploited it thoroughly. In addition to his profile and quite a bit of luck, he continued to abuse children and get away with it for decades. The fact that one man can do that, for that long, to that extent, and get away with it purely on account of his charisma and confidence is what should scare people. Not some tangled conspiracy.
My now wife is Polish and when she first came to visit the U.K. and Saville was on something she pointed him out immediately as someone dangerously weird. I chuckled and said he’s just an English eccentric. There’s the trick.
Yep, I completely resonate with what you are saying and your wife. I was the same; not from the UK and in Germany he was not really popular or known. I visited friends in the UK and watched a show and this man appeared and it sent shivers down my spine. I had a nightmare about him that night. I mentioned this to my friends and they also laughed it off, saying he's just a funny weirdo.
@@vladimirimp This nation was founded on eccentrics ...what about simon cowell ? ... jonathan king ......Noddy from slade ? .....Rick parfitt from status quo .. are all these perverts as well . .. . .?
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact, that if this documentary HAD been more hard hitting, then it probably wouldn't have been broadcast! Saville had many friends at the BBC and in the police force, while he was still alive. The people that be, would never have dared broadcast it and maybe lawsuits would have been brandished etc. At the time his questioning, went further than anyone else had and people complained at the time that he was picking on an old man and trying to dig up dirt, that wasn't there! Ive rewatched the documentary since and still come to the same conclusion as I did at the time. That the man was a total creep and very weird and I didn't like him!
I'm glad you expressed what I feel reading these comments. The original piece was very damning for those that are observant. However, it was enough of a cover that Saville and his enablers probably felt safe hiding behind. Nobody at the time bothered looking into Saville, not even anywhere close to what Louis did. I always find it amusing, that all the hindsight moralists came out after the aftermath and telling others off. Nobody did anything even remotely close to digging out his dirt towards the end, that he literally died with honors and accolades piled onto him. Louis does what he does very well. He's highly respected and has a huge body of acclaimed works, and people who dismiss them based on his Saville episode ought to have their brains checked.
He addressed what he called rumours, he is an enabler, part of the establishment that we are supposed to believe the truth that makes them money, views and ratings.does not matter if there is any truth in it, they are in the business of making money, and go with the story that makes them money, views and fame.
The Andrew Neil interview with him was probably the most difficult grilling he'd had, I don't know why Savile agreed to it. Neil is one of the best political interviewers out there, intelligent, sardonic and always exposing the contradictions in politics. Savile had to spend about 10 minutes being asked about his love life and he used about every trick in the book to deflect, sidestep or bluster his way through the answers. Savile still didn't give much away, he'd had hundreds of partners but couldn't remember any, anyway he'd never talk about it because he was a gentleman, they all get bored with him though, he travelled too much too and then Neil gives him an easy out by saying no tabloid has ever published a picture of him with a lover so in reality they don't exist and it's just all gossip which Savile agrees is right.
Yeah what did happen to ALL Savile's friends at the BBC ? Well Aunty Beeb allowed them all to slip away. They are now collecting their pensions paid for out of the TV licence fees. Makes me want to puke.
I agree. It would have most certainly have been pulled, not just because of law suits by Savile , but also because it would have revealed just how complicit the BBC was in covering up Savile’s and others, like Paul Gadd, and their crimes against children during the making of BBC ‘hit shows’. Although Louis Theroux didn’t draw out Savile’s crimes throughout the interview he did show very clearly just what an odious and malevolent person Savile was. On the subject of Andrew Neil’s interview of him, I think that Neil was the one who got closest to revealing Savile’s proclivities and criminal behaviours, in fact Savile did let slip during the interview that ‘women know too much’. He realised his mistake so he diverted attention from it by bringing out a banana and eating it in a comedy way…very vulgar and very calculating, he obviously had prepared. But still nothing was done. Savile’s crimes were finally exposed in the 2012 documentary by Mark Williams-Thomas, ‘The Other Side of Savile’ aired by ITV.
I think Savile's eccentricity worked both ways for him. It lead people to think he is a bit of a wrong un, but it also meant that when people heard rumours about him they thought 'people are making those up because he is weird and eccentric'.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. He was frighteningly intelligent and could 'play up' to the eccentricities of his own personality to dupe whomever he pleased.
I used to know someone who had been a 'minder' for radio 1 dj's. When the Saville story came to light, he said the situation was a multilevel one. Saville was very cautious about the people he let get close. On one level there were the people who he classed as gullible, those who would believe everything he said. There were those who he could get a lever on for something in their personal background, these were the ones he had a hold over. Some he garnered because their position gave him security; it was a case of, oh he must be on the level he is friends with so and so. He may have made a pretense of being their close friends, but they meant very little to him, they were really a means to and end to him. His charity work, which gave him so much public acclaim, was a very calculated move, appear to do good, and that's all people can see. He was calculating and manipulative, as was seen on Louis Theroux's programme, the fact that he had found Theroux's home address speaks volumes, that was his insurance policy, he must have been happy with the programme, I will leave that statement there. At the BBC, he was the goose laying the golden eggs, and for some that was all that mattered.
@@marksandsmith6778 That is all he told me, at the time there were still some of Savilles' minders floating about, one I believe ended up in prison because he shared the same "interests" as Saville, which is one of the reasons he was employed. I do know that he, Saville, was suspected to be linked to at least one death, but nothing concrete could ever be proven.
He's a culture vulture who's done almost all his episodes on Americans, and none on british subjects, except Saville, whom he befriended even though he knew he was a pedo rapist.
@@heeeeeresrossy Well, it appears that Jimmy Saville presented himself as an eccentric, jovial, happy, outgoing character. He was also the man in the very androgynous, flamboyant, glam era of Top of the Pops. I'll bet he always crossed boundaries with kids, that were overlooked by society as "just Jimmy". He appears never to have felt shame or guilt, or indeed shame or guilt was never imposed on him, as a result it is not known whether remorse for his behavior to kids ever entered his lexicon.
Second rate at best. Savile ran rings around him, demonstrating a superior intellect, and Theroux now has sleepless nights knowing that we know, he really aint that good...........
@@heeeeeresrossy What about reading his (JS) autobiography back to him and asking for him to explain some passages in it. Wouldn't that be a better piece of journalism?
When Savile was alive people in show business were aware of his behaviour but decided to turn the other cheek to protect there careers, now his dead everyone has a voice.
@@jennytaylor3324 when you can’t prove something it’s libellous/ slanderous. Those who knew enough to prove it were on his side. Those who suspected him felt legally and reputationally trapped.
He wasn't there on a mission to expose Savile's crimes to the extent that a court of law could convict him. He was there to find out whatever Savile would allow him to.
having seen Theroux in the wimbledon royal box the other day ..sitting with the Duke of kent who just happens to be Grand master of free masonry ....I think we can safely say that Louis' mission' was to cover up the crimes of his fellow 'brothers' . .. no doubt about it !
I absolutely adore Louis. Such an intelligent articulate guy. He makes fantastic documentaries. Always giving more focus to the subject and not himself.
Since when? He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself. And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
Documentary makers choose a style. Louis chooses a participatory style. If he really wanted to focus all the attention on a subject, he would have chosen not to participate on camera (observational). I like that he does appear, but he is one of the very few participatory documentary makers I can watch without feeling the scenery being chewed up.
@@NxDoyle some of his stuff is very good, there was one on a religious cult in America that was extremely revealing, another on gambling at Las Vegas that perfectly captured the gambling mania and obsession, people gambling for 12 hours straight, the amount of tension in their body language was very telling. He also did a very fine one with the Milwaukee Police Department on gang crime.
I worked with a bloke who was a serial abuser albeit on a minor scale, of younger women in the organisation we worked for. There were all sorts of *rumours* , but no *facts* - that's how it works... when me and a collegue made a stand on a certain issue, we were hauled over the coals by the bloke's senior manager, with whom he was thick-as-thieves... kind-of like Savile in miniature.
When I was 25 I asked the female manager my age why the large insuranc e company didn't see her Managers' behavior. He was 40 and used his float home as a pad to lure new employees, many under 20 in their first real job, and some even still living at home. She said: The suits at Head Office HAVE TO KNOW: he has the largest turnover of any dept. in the country.
I knew Saville-esque dude who sexually assaulted women within the social circle, and they've all gone to the authorities to no avail. He later fled town.
Savile was an expert at control,he knew he would be in charge in the documentary.Louis was up against a brick wall but we all knew what Savile was like.If anything it showed us how unlikeable Savile was.
He got away with it because he targeted marginalised people. His victims were girls, people with criminal records or a reputation for being 'bad', people with mental or physical disabilities. Countless people spoke out against him and were shamed into silence. He had powerful friends in the government and the royal family because the association helped salve their consciences. His charitable works removed the responsibility from them to deal with the appalling way that sick people or troubled kids were dealt with
@@stevewa4552 as did the tories, maggie knew about him but still fought for his knighthood. him and mogg's dad were investigated for noncing long before too.
When I was 14 yo, I visited my uncle in London along with my family. I told my uncle was a post man, that I wanted to go on Jim'll fix it. My uncle a post man, knew, and told me, I should NEVER do such a thing. People close to Savile must of know!
@@xvsupremacy7190 definitely ...Cowells bailed out king after arrest ...Jonathans 'Protege' ...Look at the Tra++++nny*s rubber face now!!!! . . .what a joke !!!!!!
@@xvsupremacy7190 I used to know a few people who knew Cowell, worked for him around 20 yrs ago, and couldn't speak high enough about him, apparently a decent guy.
The real story still hasn’t been told: who protected him and why? Why was he given offices and bedrooms in children’s hospitals, and why? Who authorised these things and why? Oh he did charity work. That’s not a satisfactory answer.
That's the most disturbing thing and keys to a mental hospital so he can go and abuse already vulnerable and suffering people when he likes, it's so sickening.
He had been curiously given the keys to Stoke Mandeville Hospital....read reports that stated that he would visit in the middle of the night the morgues and his then, silver rolls was seen regularly there in the car park until late into the night !! Who covered for him......well...i think we already know the answer to that.....it was everybody that got close to him and became friends and partakers in his Satanic Nightmare !
The country is run by a network of paedophiles . Paedophilia is their lure , their reward , and their control device . The fact that Savile was thrown to the wolves should tell you where he was in the hierarchy .
Louis Theroux was the closest anyone got to uncovering this monster and allowed Jimmy to slip multiple times, he deserves all the respect we can give him. Read his books or listen they are immensely revealing and shows Louis amazing career.
John Lydon probably got closest in that, now famous, interview with the BBC. He even called them out, saying they wouldn't allow him or anyone else to talk about Saville and the deplorable acts _they knew_ he was committing.
Louis's honesty that he is there with a spotlight and seeing the effort that he puts in to show as much of the truth as he can through his wit and craft is so admirable.
He's not honest at all though. He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself. And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
I remember as a young child living in Manchester, my Mum had been in hospital where Savile visited.He kissed her hand. She said then she disliked him strongly! Thats over 45 years ago
My Mum is a Private care worker and looked after someone who was in a children's hospital at one point and the nurses were warning one another that Saville was coming. Fucking harrowing.
@@littlefish1167 haha well of course that's not what I meant. Obviously there was no reason to report anything but it stuck in mind even at that young age. I was a big fan of Jimmy and his shows. The thing is, there were many concerns and complaints which went unheeded because of his position and powerful influence
The amazing thing is that LT didn't know JS was a necrophiliac /nonse, as i heard the rumours from a first hand source in 1994. And I didnt have a team of researchers, I knew a nurse from Leeds Gen hosp.
Pretty sure he asked Saville about those rumors in the documentary, of course Saville denied them. It wasn't that Louis wasn't aware of the rumors, but that's all they were at the time.
Me too. I actually called saviile a paedo next time i was in the pub after Louis original documentary, only to find out that one if my friends was a saville fan because of his charity work and he was not happy with me, or Louis for his questions. 15 years later me and that friend revisited our argument about saville..... his tune had changed by then.
@@davidjames579 from memory ( this is 20 yrs ago now), it was 2 things he said. Firstly, his reason as to why he went around saying he hated kids. It sounded ridiculous. Secondly, he made a creepy comment about a girlschool (can't remember exactly what he said now, but I do remember thinking it was inappropriate). Coincidently he made another girlschool comment on have I got news for you. If you add to that, when I was a kid my dad would turn over the tv to avoid the "creepy" Jimmy saville, so I guess I was influenced by my dad's dislike of him as well. If you're asking however did I genuinely think he was definately a paedo after watching the Louis doc, probably not. But I definately thought he was a wierdo.... and when you discuss suspicious wierdos who crack jokes about girlschools, after youve had a few pints, its not too big a leap from calling them a wierdo to calling them a paedo. And my mate wasn't happy with that at all.
Have been hearing this about JS since the 60's. Can't have been exposed to much media in your life. Passages in his autobiography make harrowing reading (re a teenage runaway) and how can that be a secret?
I had never really paid any attention to Savile. Came across Theroux's documentary and after about 5-10 mins I went "Wow, that guy is such a creep, and they let him near children ?" And then Theroux of course brings up the allegations and I figured that there must be a really big cesspool behind it if they keep a lid on that ... I was rarely more sad to discover I was right.
Money corrupts. If you don't have morals and you are greedy or lack the motivation to make the money you desire yourself, then you end up with a saville or worse. Look at the tories. They will do anything for money. How many paedophiles do they know that donate to the party? Our own PM was close friends to ghislaine maxwell and his sister wished her well during her sex trafficking trial. Look at our royal family.. Paedophilia has become a status symbol within the "elite" establishment in the UK.
The conversation was more nuanced than that. Don’t be reductive like that when Savilles point was meant more along the lines of wanting less rumours of the kind being disseminated in the tabloid ecosystem. The question was initially asked by Louis to explore the irony of his character in Jim will fix it if he had indeed hated children. Making young peoples wishes come true would be a strange profession for someone who hates them. While there was subtext throughout the entire documentary and I felt it was very revealing he was very adept at choosing his words wisely as to not overstep in one direction or the other. If that hadn’t been the case I’m sure he would have been found out years earlier.... such a monster
@@TheMarcymark "I felt it was very revealing " and in that, the documentary was succesful. commenters saying he should have done more, know not a lot about journalism
This illustrates the cognitive weakness of hindsight bias. With today's knowledge it's easy to look at the situation of the past and say "it was obvious", but it wasn't so at the time. If you want to test this, just look at today's celebrities and predict who will be the shamed one in 10 years from now. You might have suspicions but it's impossible to be sure.
What all you guys are missing is that he has been asked about Saville so times and has gone on record plenty.He had said that ,yes,he had heard the rumours and hearsay about him,but didn't work on the assumption that they were true,or not.Here he merely shows regret that he didn't pursue this angle more directly. I can see that in retrospect he would have loved to ask the million dollar question,but spending weeks with him,he obvs could afford to alienate him immediately. As he says, he had time to hone his attack and he failed, for which he feels regret.Saville was asked by Tom Hibbert from Q magazine if he was into sex with dead people and he just went ,Now then now then,and smoked the question away.Theroux must have been aware that there was no chance of getting a confession or evidence, but he did get closer than any other interviewer.
This is exactly it! All these people accusing Louis Theroux of hiding something or not digging deep enough are ridiculous... I have a lot of respect for Louis, he is a very intelligent guy but Saville saw him coming a mile off. That's very clear now. And yes that's all there is to it!
@@ulpetzmaznat1366 you have to remember savile came from a poor destitute working class background, whereas theroux was brought up in a very privileged sheltered upbringing where everything was all milk and honey, savile knew how gullible he was
Saville was a gangster - as simple as that. He had friends in very high and also very dark places - he knew that the protection racket he had created for himself was vertually impregnable. Nobody grassed him up because they were unbelievably scared of him and what his mates could possibly do if you did try and expose the truth - which would have been very difficult to prove such was his manipulation of his media profile. Louis's documentary insinuated that there was a dark disturbing side to Saville without fully pulling the trigger on him - but without concrete evidence at that time what we got from Theroux's study was about as far as they could go without any major legal or possibly personal retribution from Saville himself.
@@thewheatfields8852 Quite possibly. I’m not an expert, it was only that his behaviour is different to how it tends to be in interviews. Plus the amount of people who hid what Saville was doing, it does make you wonder - or at least it does me, anyway
@@rorz999 yes that's what i thought that he felt shame or guilt, because i bet he feels guilty that he let ( not by choice ) that he let Jimmie saville deceive him. He probably thinks to himself " I go and vist death row in a lot of the prisons in America and i look them in the eye and i can get them to reveal their big horrible deepest secrets, so why couldn't of got Jimmie saville to admit some things and i might of been able to stop it " you know stuff like that, like you said looking down is a natural reaction. I always thought that Louis theroux was an alright person and he's something intelligent to say. Not like alot of these celebs, famous for being famous. It's like when people go on about the Kardashians and they say this " Do you want to keep up with the Kardashians and i say "no i rather not, i don't want to keep up with the Kardashians, I've got a rather talkative brick wall who's very intelligent plus this brick wall also brings his good friend along and that good friend is called watching paint dry and between them they've got quite the interesting vocabulary. 😂
he feels guilty as any good person would. i dont think hes hiding anything. 1 in every 100 males is a physcopath yet most people believe theyve never met one. its much harder to recognise evil then you think.
Savile was not "one of a kind," but maybe more prolific than most of his sort. A lot of men in showbiz seem to have been predators, and for a very long time. It's not for nothing that the Victorians thought of the stage in general as a dangerous place for women and, it turns out, boys as well. Middle class parents used to be suspicious of most workplaces for their daughters: whereas anything was acceptable for the lower orders. I suspect that sexual abuse was always a feature of show business, but it became more acceptable for the men to hint at or even talk about it in the 1960s. The DJ John Peel used to run a "Schoolgirl of the Year Contest" and long ago described receiving oral sex from fans as young as 13. Photographers used to abuse their models: that was Roman Polanski's modus operandi in the legal case he fled from. Donald Trump once ran a model agency where there was a casting couch.
@@danielebowman Why would the media refuse to report it? You really think the tabloids wouldn't have published that story if they had some kind of evidence?
@@krishnan-resurrection714 OK, you keep believing those internet sites that tell you that. Don't stop to consider why they might be telling you that though.
@@RevStickleback any and all media is controlled by freemasonry ...guess what savile was ??? (its an open secret ) ... see my videos to explain the codes they use ....
he was interviewed by the police once and they virtually apologized for interviewing him. He wasn't convicted of anything. Amazing how some people are protected, like the MP, Cyril Smith, yet Jeremy Thorpe was tried ( but found not guilty ).
You can find a transcript of the interview on the Guardian website. They did no such thing. They asked him the appropriate questions and he answered them by total denial. After that they can't get out thumbscrews and torture a confession out of him.
@@peterh1353 fair play, I went off "evidence" off a TV show where they made a claim of kidgloves treatment of Saville by Police. . I believed that to be the case, due to the fact that MI5 officers told a Rochdale CID Inspector to lay off Cyril Smith.
Theroux had heard the rumours because he mentioned them to Savile during the documentary. As a child, I had heard rumours that Savile was into necrophilia. But hearing rumours and actually knowing the facts are two different things.
@@neilsun2521 Lydon knew the rumours. Theroux knew the rumours. Loads of people knew the rumours but it's very difficult to make an allegation against someone based on rumours.
It's clear from this that Louis feels a huge sense of guilt. I want to tell him that he isn't to blame, the deception was national. and Savile was by that time an experienced pathological liar.
@@ggravett people who had close knowledge of him might have been aware earlier. But in the general population it wasn't known. That is why he was applauded during his life. It was only after his death that most people became aware of it.
Louis prob feels bad for not seeing through him, but, had he done so it would likely have ended in his assassination and Savile's continuing. He was a sinister and nasty piece of work. In the original documentary, before the interview had properly commenced, he had copied down L's home address on a piece of paper, where he left in plain sight for him to notice. It seemed like a thinly veiled threat, because when L asked how he's acquired it, he replied with something like, "I can get anything", and it felt like a warning for L not to dig too deep. Evil like that, whilst in itself has no power, protects itself very well. He had the royals, and therefore the cops, and God knows who else in his pocket, which gave him effective immunity to any exposure - much less consequences.
I have heard Louis talk about this elsewhere and his failure to expose his subject and his befriending of Jimmy (which is what happened) seems to have effected him quite deeply. In my opinion he need not feel bad about this. JS was a master of being interviewed and saying nothing and was at pains to never let his guard down. He was easily intelligent enough to never incriminate himself. I once heard him being interview on the BBC radio show, In The Psychiatrists Chair, which was played a week after Bob Monkhouse was interviewed. The difference between the two was stark; Monkhouse absolutely excoriated himself whilst Savile bobbed and weaved and said nothing at all.
does anyone have the slightest idea of the exact time that savile first committed this evil for the very first time ? what enabled him do they have any idea to first do this, not much seems to be known about his younger years
@@dustmeistermiller1011 Saville was put a shore for undressing down to his underwear and photographed with two young girls on a bed, on a cruse ship. local police were waiting can’t remember what county, I saw the pictures in the sun that Evidence enough for you I could go on with more. You must be a BBC fan
I have never liked entertainers that amuse the public by acting so stupid. I always felt there was a lot of sadness or weird cr*p going on below the surface. Regardless, I've never heard of someone that was able to do such an excellent job at fooling so many different kinds of people, for so long, from every socioeconomic level. It's great that it was all discovered eventually.
From what we see today , its childish of him to try and make us believe that he was ' deceived'. Everyone knew. No one spoke out. If he'd made an honest documentary then , it would never have seen the light of day, and he knew that.
He didn't know, he had heard the rumours and the stories because everyone had, but he didn't know for certain because very few people did unless they experienced it first hand.
There are rules about programmes and how long they can be online. It is on UA-cam and the BBC could take it down if it is not authorised. But they don't.
Louis being in my opinion, a thoroughly good person, is guilty of what good people do because that is their default. You find goodness in people that you know in yourself and subconsciously expect other people to be as you are. That's the bit it goes wrong, and even if Louis experienced some intuitionistic feelings that this man is not right, judging the other person by your own standards makes it very hard to see the bad. I've no idea of the personal makeup of Saville, what we now know publicly is disgusting and I fear it's worse behind closed doors. Louis is not guilty of anything, he didn't know this man, neither did I, the BBC and good knows how many other people did know and they didn't act and that is and always will be shameful.
What's even worse for Louis is he admitted that Saville was his hero growing up, so he's already predisposed to a favorable bias. I remember having watched the episode in the early 2000s and was really shocked by how weird Saville appeared and how obvious it was that he was hiding something. If Louis appeared bamboozled, I certainly didn't pick up that vibe nearly as much as people say. He showed Saville to be extremely suspicious, and that was more than most of the other reporting of him at that time.
I know this has already been posted many times. But I feel I wouldn’t be doing ‘my minuscule bit’ for society as a whole, if I didn’t also post this thought: Anyone who thinks he hid his actions so well, or that he ‘hid in plain sight’, etc etc etc, and this is why he never ‘got caught’, is living in a fantasy land - either knowingly, or unknowingly. When you look at the list of people who have admitted to knowing that ‘something was up’ (again, see other posts for many names), it becomes obvious that it was a secret, that for whatever variety of reasons, was kept hidden for decades. And there are more names, that I have not seen posted, of other celebrities who have also come forward with similar comments. It’s grotesque and disgusting. I was too young really to remember him at the ‘height’ of his fame (and also his ‘activities’). But still, even when he was older, I still remember him giving me the creeps, and just having that “this guy isn’t right. There’s something weird about him’ feeling. What a hideously “underestimated notion” I had about him...............
Everyone in the entertainment industry knew about him, but he was protected. He was a close friend of the royals, and to get anywhere near the royal inner circle MI5 would have to know Everything about your background. So they certainly knew about Sir Jimmy.
@@dragonflywings4669 Totally. Even if rumours were startling to leek out in the media, I would have been way too young (not quite a teenager yet) to understand anything about this awful topic. And yet, just as you say, I was always strangely creeped out by him…. Did not like him at ALL,
I was too young to know Savile but in retrospect, I don't feel like it was really a secret to anybody. My dad was just a regular citizen, and even he heard the rumours about Savile, and ignored them because he assumed it was Catholic bigotry. Savile alluded to it, people on the street heard about it, he was obviously unhinged, and people reported him for it. His activity was the worst kept secret in British history and yet nothing ever happened. I don't feel any one group or person can be blamed for shielding him, to me he represents a broad cultural failing to hold predators to account
Never had a lot of respect for Theroux and his body of work, I've always found it to be just a kind of ghoulish voyurism, but I respect his honesty in recognising and admitting that he dropped the ball, and that Saville had him sussed as someone who wasn't smart enough to be a threat. That kind of humility in a journalist is rarely seen.
Interesting reading the comments: of course people knew there was something there, which if you`ve seen the original documentary you`d see that Louis was trying to dig to find what it was, but he couldnt put his finger on it. People knew there was something "off" about him, but having a feeling that someone is bad and PROVING it are two different things. At one point the News Of The World newspaper apparently offered a blank cheque to anyone who could give proof that they could print and do a front cover story about it and nobody came forward. Everyone knew he was bad, but nobody outside of Saville himself knew the full extent of the horrors, and nobody came forward with any convictable proof, and Saville was very well known for threats, both legal and otherwise, so without the killer blow of proof that would hold up to a libel trial and a court of law nobody would/could go public with it.
I suspect the other part why no one claimed the cheque was because your article would be featured on The News Of The bloody World. Arguably one of the best sources of toilet paper in the country for a time...
Thank you for using logic. I think some people are too far up their own arse with this conspiracy shit that they assume every celebrity is guilty in some way
There's something disingenuous here from Theroux. He'd be more believable if he said "Savile was a nonce, when I stayed with him I figured it out from my awkward conversations with him, but if you breathed a word he'd sue, and I wanted my documentary series go out without litigation so much I kept quiet"
Rubbish. You don't figure out that someone's a paedophile from having 'awkward conversations'. You're talking about suspicions but you need evidence and proof. Savile was a paedophile but there's *nothing* in the documentary that could be used as evidence of his crimes.
When Theroux got that letter or email from that woman who said she was Savile’s girlfriend at 15 years old, knowing the rumours, why didn’t he take that evidence to the police? I know he said that he wished he could have done something different, well, he could’ve got justice for Savile’s victims whilst he was alive.
@@krishnan-resurrection714 Your comment is the sort of garbage that allows people like Savile to get away with their crimes. Your fling about so many wild accusations that the mud lands in the wrong places.
@@davidlawrence3106 WRONG ...ITS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT sAVILE WAS ONLY THE MEDIA SCAPEgOAT FOR WHATEVER THE GROUP COLLECTIVE IS UP TO ...AND THAT IS BECAUSE SAVILE HAD CEASED TO EXIST ...WAS DEFUNCT ...HAD EXPIRED .....Whatever They are up to ....The Whole Lot are in on it ...
There are some comments here about Louis pretending to be naive in his interviews as some kind of ploy. I don't think so, I think he is doing what interviewers should do, asking questions with an open mind and not being a judgemental prick. That's what I like about him. Some reporters will kick doors in and be utter arseholes but Louis seems like a decent person.
I actually thought his interview was very good, it at the time cemented my feelings that this man was hiding something and had a very dark disturbing side to him, its an interview that stayed with me, oh wow was this proved right after the point, the extent of this was a shock to us all I think. It was also the first time I had seen Louis unable to get anything from a subject that in itself set off alarm bells with me.
Yeah, and we mustn't forget Louis isn't a police officer. He can try to get through a 'person' but Saville was just not a person, a monster where normal human interactions don't work..
I remember when he said he hated kids, next day on the franklin cantoon (the sun paper) he was on a train track tied, and the caption was, we fixed it for him, jeeeeeez, he used this to cover up is filth, beast. lots of people knew what he was up to
People in media probably here a 1000 rumours about famous people being sexual criminals. Take it to the police and they say what "you have heard a rumour? What can we do with that!"
Money speaks. But misogyny speaks louder. Louis Theroux knew. That's not an attack on Theroux specifically. Pretty much everybody knew, from the royals, to MPs, to people of authority in the NHS and public services. Everybody knew and nobody did a damn thing about it. And this isn't the place to explore why they didn't. However - scroll down this post and you'll find most people saying, about Theroux, 'well, he did his best, he could have done more, I suppose, maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong...' in a fairly polite way. Check out the Question Time interview where Janet Street Porter concedes that she knew/suspected. The comments there are a concerted stream of abuse about her 'protecting her own career' and calling her a c***. Not seeing that in this thread. Again - that's not a criticism of Theroux. it's just an observation that men and women are still treated very differently in discussions of this kind.
Someone mentioned earlier in the comments and I just got it. Louis can play naive well, how he did not know about Jimmy Saville, how he failed to notice. Almost like the naivety he uses on his interviews of people. Many senior people knew about the abuse and enabled it.
" Louis can play naive well," being unjudgmental is how he gets people to open up in interviews, and why he gets more out of people as a journalist. Here i feel he's being careful, not secretive. Some say he's not remorseful enough, but you get the sense he feels it. Saying it opens you up to all kinds of trouble, though. People should remember Saville was the monster, nit Theroux.
We certainly all weren't "taken in by this character". It became clear that most everyone who had dealings with him knew or at least suspected of him of his crimes. He was protected at the highest levels. But why? That is the question.
“Highest levels”. Exactly. People are taking about the media “knowing”…like dude was in with the royal family. They DEFINITELY knew. You can’t get into buckingjam palace on the regular without being background checked
@@StraightFelon Exactly. In the " higher" circles Savile's behaviour is " standard practice". He was protected by people in a position of authority who condoned his atrocities. It has been recently reported that 39 (!) Albanian children who were under the care of Kent Local Authority in England, have " gone missing". Will this be " correctly" investigated? Probably not.
The Andrew Neil interview with him was probably the most difficult grilling he'd had, I don't know why Savile agreed to it. Neil is one of the best political interviewers out there, intelligent, sardonic and always exposing the contradictions in politics. Savile had to spend about 10 minutes being asked about his love life and he used about every trick in the book to deflect, sidestep or bluster his way through the answers. Savile still didn't give much away, he'd had hundreds of partners but couldn't remember any, anyway he'd never talk about it because he was a gentleman, they all get bored with him though, he travelled too much too and then Neil gives him an easy out by saying no tabloid has ever published a picture of him with a lover so in reality they don't exist and it's just all gossip which Savile agrees is right.
Really hard for me to believe that the entire UK entertainment establishment, including Lous Theroux, were not all fully aware of Savile and his activities
Sadly they were. In 1986 i was a farm worker in Somerset. My boss was a journalist who was freelance he knew ALL the celebs, he often would on friday morning coffee time ( He was away most of the week). Tell us little snippets of gossip. One day my work colleague said something about saville, my boss who was laughing and messing around totally changed he stood up and told us Saville was the devil himself. Warned us to watch his every move and beware of him. My boss was also an expert on Body language and knew exactly when people were lying. He explained to us only 20% of communication is verbel... 80% is non verbal, body language
@@djsimonrossprice9400 I'm sure. In any company you work in everybody knows who's hard working, who's lazy, who's a crook. Are we expected to believe a gossipy org like the BBC was any different
*Some people* knew what Savile was up to but not 'the entire UK entertainment establishment' and no one knew the full extent of his crimes as most of the victims were totally separate from each other.
@@davidb5173 There isn't anything Theroux could have done. However, he didn't literally ask Savile if he was a paedophile - which would have been a pointless question to ask anyway.
The thing that gets me about Saville is just how meny people knew about him, heck people that set up childrens phone charity's to protect children from people like him knew but didn't say anything.
Was big fan of Louis I've watched most if not all his work, the thing I loved about him is them awkward drawn out looks whilst interviewing as tho he knows we know they know there talking rubbish....nothing different was savile interviews
a point missed by a lot of commenters. just because an interviewer is quiet doesn't mean he believes, and that he didn't believe him doesn't mean he could arrest him on the spot.
Louis is intelligent. He wasn't deceived, he just didn't want to pursue his suspicions. It's much easier to say 'I was deceived' rather than 'I didn't do enough to help'.
I think your spot on. Another BBC creep letting saville get away with it. Louis always talks fondly of saville. It creeps me. Listen to the other interviews. It's far more obvious.
Exactly that. There's stuff that was online a few years ago that's all been taken down now. But the gist of it was that Theroux knew, and wanted to go after Saville, but was told by his superiors that (a) there isn't enough material evidence, and (b) there are powerful people who will stop you.
The whole Savile sordid saga is just a microcosm of how these sort of things work in Britain. In fact it is as British as Yorkshire pudding, shitty weather and arselicking jobsworths: everyone knew but they all averted their gaze while real victims were suffering. Not only they chose not to look, they actively aided and abetted his monstrous behaviour. It appears that Savile's predatory ways were the worst kept secret in the history of British media. And they all pretended to be utterly surprised and outraged, when every single presenter, journalist, broadcaster and entertainer, let alone the staff and the direction of the hospitals he darkened with his evil presence , knew. Only in Bkighty, folks, only in Blighty......
@@kevinbennett7615 very true, unfortunately. Difficult to argue with your statement. Yet...you will agree that the connivance between institutions to keep Savile’s crimes secret, and the rumours that were always explained away in a wink-wink, “that’s just Jimmy’s way”, Carry On-esque rotten spirit, as well as the attitude of the ruling classes (such as “who cares if a few poor, disturbed children are fiddled with?) are distinctly British in their flavour....
@@kevinbennett7615 we have creepy monsters here in the US, but it seems that those famous creeps were better at hiding it--except for with the victims, who finally came forward and busted them while they were alive.
The only person who knew _exactly_ what Savile was up to was Savile himself. Each of the victims knew something of it, but obviously only a very limited part. Who knows how many rumours and accusations go flying around about celebrities that are in fact totally innocent? I don't see how you can fault Louis here really, his film did expose the fact that something was really not right there. I don't think we should have expected a confession from such an experienced and crafty manipulator.
Theroux has plenty to feel ashamed about. He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself. And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
It's great that you are speaking out Louis. But Ian Hislop asked Savile what he liked and got the reply "anyone I can get my hands on" which is chilling! So brazen. Savile refrained from that kind of comment with you I guess?
Just watching "Jimmy Savile: The People Who Knew". It would appear that Theroux is either an incompetent "journalist" ( and I use that term VERY loosely) or was under strict orders NOT to probe too deeply. Either way it comes across that Theroux's "poor me, I was deceived" stance is ridiculous.
Louis is a legend , love his documentaries, he's not saying the complete truth, he knew about Jimmy saville like everyone else at the BBC, or at least the rumours! Gill Dando Knew and she was murdered by a professional hitman, never been caught. He made the second program out of guilt.
Did you know, or did you hear rumours? Because I heard rumours too. I know he sexually harrassed women, because my aunt worked as a nurse in a hospital he went to, but no one actually had proof of the real evil shit. A lot of it came down to "just look at him there's clearly something wrong with him".
I always got the impression that Saville intimidated Louis a bit in that show. Let him know not to go there and Louis didnt. I always felt Lous bottled it and played it too nice. Id say Louis regrets it now but at the time I can imagine Savilles dark character was quite intimidating to be around, even if he was very old. He was still menacing.
Yes, it was a power game all the way along I thought. Telling them to go away when they show up, how is Savile? He's marvelous! Can we talk about the Royals? That's a no go area. Jim's off on a cruise but you're not allowed to come because I decide. The Godfather will send his boys to your address if you don't watch out. NEXT!
It was Louis' first doc and he knew it would make him. So he treaded lightly cause he was worried Jimmy would pull out. Louis knew the rumours but played safe.
Why has Louis Theroux made this statement on Savile all about himself and the amazing feat Savile pulled off in pulling the wool over his eyes? It's narcissistic and self-centred and morally dubious. It's surely about Savile's victims, not his journalistic skills or integrity, or the high profile and skilled deceptions of Savile himself. Theroux exposed himself here as lightweight and egotistical but the mea culpa here is more about self-aggrandisement than actual self-analysis.
The whole thing was mired in fraud. Why would anyone want to follow a geriatric ex DJ about if there wasn't something in the background? And we all knew what it was. Also he secretly filmed Savile when he wasn't present. What was that about and who else did he pull that trick on?
If you look at the list of people who did the original Saville, along with Louis, the in person crew were all males. I expect if a woman had been present during the entire filming process Saville may have let his guard down just enough for the female member crew to pick up on something. Diversity matters cause men have BLIND spots
Well noted. It's not Theroux's fault, but women simply have more experience (on average) at picking up signals and red flags from abusers, in the same way that people of colour might notice microaggressions that white people won't. Edit: it's not his fault, but you are correct in saying he should learn from this
Until Louis is willing to properly address the role that the BBC played in perpetuating Saville's crimes I cannot take his ostensible regret seriously-it just seems like he's interested in doing and saying whatever helps to maintain and elevate his career rather than sincerely striving to unveil and share the truth.
I saw the movie and you still didn't go deep enough---he had such a creepy vibe that it is shocking how the British people didn't get weirded out from the beginning
Saville was a master manipulator and he got the best of Louis, but Louis can take credit to starting the ball rolling towards further revelations. How the top brass at the BBC got off scot free is baffling and disgraceful.
Savile didn't get the best of Theroux, he just didn't tell him that he was a paedophile. And Theroux didn't start the ball towards further allegations. None of this came out until nearly a year after Savile's death - 13 years after the Theroux documentary.
The BBC top brass are not the police. Unless he was doing something directly infront of them I can't see what they could do. I notice that Savile wasn't allowed on Children in Need after their producer banned him!
@@peterh1353 So when they get the top jobs at the BBC, what part of being the boss doesn't involve being accountable? The buck seems to stop at middle management.
@@andrewoliver3725 Yes and no. If someone has no criminal record you can't give them one. Explain how they are "accountable" to anything which is a serious criminal offence unless they are active participants in it? If Savile had been found guilty of a criminal offence while working at the BBC he would have been fired. As others - large and small - have been. Stuart Hall just for one!
An early episode of Drop The Dead Donkey in which one character said "There's a rumour going around..." and someone else replies not Savile again. He wasn't some kind of criminal genius, he was operating in plain sight. And people ignored what they should have known was wrong. Because? No. There is no excuse.
You have to remember that if anything in the first documentary gave anything away about Savile, he never would have allowed it to see the light of day. That was why he showed Louis he had his home address.
His faux naivety usually allows his subjects to drop their guard, it's a great mechanism, but Saville was far too pathalogically manipulative to be undone by such a trick - Louis's a smart cookie, I bet he kicks himself over this.
No I don't think I've ever seen Louis uncover anything with his methods. He is usually just confirming his predisposed narrative. His faux naivety works more as a comedic effect for his viewers than anything of journalistic value
There's no way him and his team didn't know, Shane on you Louie
He couldn't have said anything anyway.
It's not some tactic, the journalist is supposed to be impartial and often to us, biased commoners, this looks like naivety.
@@olegkosygin2993 It's a tactic.
Savile was so confident because he knew he was protected by the lords, politians and powerful men who did some of the foul things with him. If the sheep befriends the wolf, it's eat or be eaten.
@Hagen van Tronje Yeah it's a shame that no one will be held accountable for these atrocities But sadly these people are so powerful we can do nothing, even as intelligent people but just sit on the fence and watch.
same people now fucking us over with cov19
oh please ..he was confident because he was protected by the patriarchy. He was protected by a culture in which men like him did like him and other men thought ah sure its ok.
@@silverkitty2503 more like the monarchy. He was Charlie's spiritual advisor. Also had connections to lord Mountbatten. Mountbatten was like Saville just bigger scale.
@@mandynixon2258 ????? you for real?
Beyond the awful sexual acts, the most shocking thing I heard about Saville was when he was working for a northern ambulance service, he excitedly volunteered to assist in the recovery after a fatal car accident. One of the passengers got decapitated, and Saville rapidly rolled under a lorry and retrieved it, after which he held up like a football trophy.
I think what's so terrifying is that it shows his monstrous ways were not limited to his sexual abuse, but also had a morbid fascination like a serial killer would. The personification of evil.
Psychopaths like thrills
This was on the netflix documentary right?
I think that was covered on the Netflix documentary. Those were his words - not sure if anyone has ever corroberated that story. It strikes me as a story that a devious cunning and "tricky" individual would tell to reinforce the aura he was a bit weird, but basically just good.
Wow
Yes sir, if a normal citizen is unaffected by such scene then he is a psycopath. I once saw a similar accident where a biker was almost decapitated and lying on road. I puked and could not sleep for days. I spoke with a friend who was a 4th year medical student and he said that he too fainted first day when they were studying in mortuary. Smell and the scene was too much for him, but he got used to it slowly. Now he can eat food after 10-12hrs surgery.
Louis is a rare interviewer, he stands by his work and is human enough to voice his faults.
the best
...more like a fiddler .....
@@krishnan-resurrection714 got anything to base that serious allegation on?
He knew about Jimmy
@@alexbelotti1603 so did all the bigwigs at the BBC and the metropolitan police, are they all in the same boat as J Knowing and Being are two very different things.
I’m sure everyone thinks they would have had the moral courage to have outed Savile. Don’t kid yourself, he was a very dangerous man with friends in very high, and low places.
Yes. I did hear though that on the hospital circuit senior staff told young patients to stay in their beds when Savile visited and to pretend to be asleep. ie they knew he was a bad 'un. I hope this tactic saved many patients from being molested. So disturbing to hear about even many years later.
Johnny Rotten tried to expose him and he got the sack from the BBC.
Look at Johnny Rotton. People praise him as the guy who "said it like it was" back in the day but let's revisit that.... He clearly knew Jimmy Savile was a molestor and other than saying "I don't like him and I want to punch him for being creepy" he didn't tell anyone about Jimmy. Even those who were against Jimmy couldn't be honest to the public so what makes people think they would've been any different?
Everyone's a hero behind the keyboard, but those keyboard warriors likely personally know someone with a reputation like Saville but haven't done a thing to out said person.
a close friend like Louis Theroux
Jesus... all you people accusing Louis Theroux of covering up for Savile or turning a blind eye are ridiculous.
This is not that hard to understand: As intelligent as Louis Theroux is, Jimmy Savile saw him coming a mile off, sized him up, and knew exactly how to play him, just as he had been doing his entire life. Louis Theroux fell for it. He will feel guilty about that for the rest of his life - but he should not have to put up with idiots on youtube saying "he must have known" when he clearly did not.
Savile got away with his crimes because he knew how to pick his victims, because he knew how to size up potential witnesses and what to say to them and how to act around them, and because he had some well placed connections in the BBC who decided they would rather do nothing in the hopes what they had heard about him was all rumors than try to tackle him and find out the truth. There was no massive conspiracy - there doesn't need to be. THAT'S what should frighten you. But instead you look for someone to blame.
What people fail to understand is that someone like Savile does not need a complicated web of connections and "friends in high places" to get away with abusing vulnerable people and children. He knew people were suspicious of him. He wasnt afraid of that - he knew what every truly skilled liar knows in their bones: that it doesn't matter if people don't believe your lies, you only need them to doubt themselves, to doubt that THEY would be beleived if they reported you or called you out on your lies, and they will say nothing. He knew how human beings assess risk, and that most people will not take the risk of accusing an innocent man of molesting a child if they have doubts about what they think they saw or heard.
Savile knew this about people and exploited it thoroughly. In addition to his profile and quite a bit of luck, he continued to abuse children and get away with it for decades. The fact that one man can do that, for that long, to that extent, and get away with it purely on account of his charisma and confidence is what should scare people. Not some tangled conspiracy.
Of COURSE he knew
@@grahamt33 Why is it OH SO OF COURSE obvious to you?
Louis is a 2 faced snake ....in actual fact ...a blood-relation of savile and also jonathan king ....
He just chose to ignore all of the obvious signs and already existing rumor.
@@stevelibby6852 the little known secret is all these TV people are blood-related ..its literally one big family of Liars .....
My now wife is Polish and when she first came to visit the U.K. and Saville was on something she pointed him out immediately as someone dangerously weird. I chuckled and said he’s just an English eccentric. There’s the trick.
Yep, I completely resonate with what you are saying and your wife. I was the same; not from the UK and in Germany he was not really popular or known. I visited friends in the UK and watched a show and this man appeared and it sent shivers down my spine. I had a nightmare about him that night. I mentioned this to my friends and they also laughed it off, saying he's just a funny weirdo.
My Mom is American and studied in Edinburgh for a few years. She saw Savile's show a few times and was disturbed by him.
if you dont like Britain ....try somewhere else !!!
@@krishnan-resurrection714 I think you’ve put your comment in the wrong place.
@@vladimirimp This nation was founded on eccentrics ...what about simon cowell ? ... jonathan king ......Noddy from slade ? .....Rick parfitt from status quo .. are all these perverts as well . .. . .?
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact, that if this documentary HAD been more hard hitting, then it probably wouldn't have been broadcast! Saville had many friends at the BBC and in the police force, while he was still alive. The people that be, would never have dared broadcast it and maybe lawsuits would have been brandished etc. At the time his questioning, went further than anyone else had and people complained at the time that he was picking on an old man and trying to dig up dirt, that wasn't there! Ive rewatched the documentary since and still come to the same conclusion as I did at the time. That the man was a total creep and very weird and I didn't like him!
I'm glad you expressed what I feel reading these comments. The original piece was very damning for those that are observant. However, it was enough of a cover that Saville and his enablers probably felt safe hiding behind. Nobody at the time bothered looking into Saville, not even anywhere close to what Louis did. I always find it amusing, that all the hindsight moralists came out after the aftermath and telling others off. Nobody did anything even remotely close to digging out his dirt towards the end, that he literally died with honors and accolades piled onto him.
Louis does what he does very well. He's highly respected and has a huge body of acclaimed works, and people who dismiss them based on his Saville episode ought to have their brains checked.
He addressed what he called rumours, he is an enabler, part of the establishment that we are supposed to believe the truth that makes them money, views and ratings.does not matter if there is any truth in it, they are in the business of making money, and go with the story that makes them money, views and fame.
The Andrew Neil interview with him was probably the most difficult grilling he'd had, I don't know why Savile agreed to it. Neil is one of the best political interviewers out there, intelligent, sardonic and always exposing the contradictions in politics. Savile had to spend about 10 minutes being asked about his love life and he used about every trick in the book to deflect, sidestep or bluster his way through the answers. Savile still didn't give much away, he'd had hundreds of partners but couldn't remember any, anyway he'd never talk about it because he was a gentleman, they all get bored with him though, he travelled too much too and then Neil gives him an easy out by saying no tabloid has ever published a picture of him with a lover so in reality they don't exist and it's just all gossip which Savile agrees is right.
Yeah what did happen to ALL Savile's friends at the BBC ? Well Aunty Beeb allowed them all to slip away. They are now collecting their pensions paid for out of the TV licence fees. Makes me want to puke.
I agree. It would have most certainly have been pulled, not just because of law suits by Savile , but also because it would have revealed just how complicit the BBC was in covering up Savile’s and others, like Paul Gadd, and their crimes against children during the making of BBC ‘hit shows’. Although Louis Theroux didn’t draw out Savile’s crimes throughout the interview he did show very clearly just what an odious and malevolent person Savile was. On the subject of Andrew Neil’s interview of him, I think that Neil was the one who got closest to revealing Savile’s proclivities and criminal behaviours, in fact Savile did let slip during the interview that ‘women know too much’. He realised his mistake so he diverted attention from it by bringing out a banana and eating it in a comedy way…very vulgar and very calculating, he obviously had prepared. But still nothing was done. Savile’s crimes were finally exposed in the 2012 documentary by Mark Williams-Thomas, ‘The Other Side of Savile’ aired by ITV.
I think Savile's eccentricity worked both ways for him. It lead people to think he is a bit of a wrong un, but it also meant that when people heard rumours about him they thought 'people are making those up because he is weird and eccentric'.
That was his trick.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. He was frighteningly intelligent and could 'play up' to the eccentricities of his own personality to dupe whomever he pleased.
It was very clever
Yep. Michael Jackson did exactly the same and it worked for him too.
He also constantly hit on women to make you think he was a lady's man. It was all made up. They couldn't find a single woman who'd slept with him.
I used to know someone who had been a 'minder' for radio 1 dj's. When the Saville story came to light, he said the situation was a multilevel one. Saville was very cautious about the people he let get close. On one level there were the people who he classed as gullible, those who would believe everything he said. There were those who he could get a lever on for something in their personal background, these were the ones he had a hold over. Some he garnered because their position gave him security; it was a case of, oh he must be on the level he is friends with so and so. He may have made a pretense of being their close friends, but they meant very little to him, they were really a means to and end to him. His charity work, which gave him so much public acclaim, was a very calculated move, appear to do good, and that's all people can see. He was calculating and manipulative, as was seen on Louis Theroux's programme, the fact that he had found Theroux's home address speaks volumes, that was his insurance policy, he must have been happy with the programme, I will leave that statement there. At the BBC, he was the goose laying the golden eggs, and for some that was all that mattered.
very insightful comment, Joy.
Interesting 🤔
Please post more, Joy, if you have it
@@marksandsmith6778 That is all he told me, at the time there were still some of Savilles' minders floating about, one I believe ended up in prison because he shared the same "interests" as Saville, which is one of the reasons he was employed. I do know that he, Saville, was suspected to be linked to at least one death, but nothing concrete could ever be proven.
@@joyclark2605 Blimey!
Thanks again.
Louis Theroux is a brilliant journalist and I enjoy and respect his work immensely.
Agreed. Even he was manipulated by Saville. Jimmy may have been a sicko, but a clever sicko he was.
He's a culture vulture who's done almost all his episodes on Americans, and none on british subjects, except Saville, whom he befriended even though he knew he was a pedo rapist.
@@heeeeeresrossy Well, it appears that Jimmy Saville presented himself as an eccentric, jovial, happy, outgoing character. He was also the man in the very androgynous, flamboyant, glam era of Top of the Pops. I'll bet he always crossed boundaries with kids, that were overlooked by society as "just Jimmy". He appears never to have felt shame or guilt, or indeed shame or guilt was never imposed on him, as a result it is not known whether remorse for his behavior to kids ever entered his lexicon.
Second rate at best. Savile ran rings around him, demonstrating a superior intellect, and Theroux now has sleepless nights knowing that we know, he really aint that good...........
@@heeeeeresrossy What about reading his (JS) autobiography back to him and asking for him to explain some passages in it. Wouldn't that be a better piece of journalism?
When Savile was alive people in show business were aware of his behaviour but decided to turn the other cheek to protect there careers, now his dead everyone has a voice.
You mean turn a blind eye.
@@jennytaylor3324 turn a third eye blind
Especially Esther Ranzen
@@jennytaylor3324 when you can’t prove something it’s libellous/ slanderous. Those who knew enough to prove it were on his side. Those who suspected him felt legally and reputationally trapped.
Some of them were probably doing the same thing he was, or similar.
Expecting Louis to catch Savile is like expecting a local pub team to beat Manchester City.
He wasn't there on a mission to expose Savile's crimes to the extent that a court of law could convict him. He was there to find out whatever Savile would allow him to.
of course Savile wouldn't open up
You are looking at this in hindsight. It's easy to say this when we all know what was happening. He hadn't a clue what was going on.
having seen Theroux in the wimbledon royal box the other day ..sitting with the Duke of kent who just happens to be Grand master of free masonry ....I think we can safely say that Louis' mission' was to cover up the crimes of his fellow 'brothers' . .. no doubt about it !
I absolutely adore Louis. Such an intelligent articulate guy. He makes fantastic documentaries. Always giving more focus to the subject and not himself.
Since when? He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself.
And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
Your kidding right ? And um urrrr you know umm is his best articulation
Documentary makers choose a style. Louis chooses a participatory style. If he really wanted to focus all the attention on a subject, he would have chosen not to participate on camera (observational).
I like that he does appear, but he is one of the very few participatory documentary makers I can watch without feeling the scenery being chewed up.
@@NxDoyle some of his stuff is very good, there was one on a religious cult in America that was extremely revealing, another on gambling at Las Vegas that perfectly captured the gambling mania and obsession, people gambling for 12 hours straight, the amount of tension in their body language was very telling.
He also did a very fine one with the Milwaukee Police Department on gang crime.
a very charming Liar . ...and predator . . .!!!!
I worked with a bloke who was a serial abuser albeit on a minor scale, of younger women in the organisation we worked for. There were all sorts of *rumours* , but no *facts* - that's how it works... when me and a collegue made a stand on a certain issue, we were hauled over the coals by the bloke's senior manager, with whom he was thick-as-thieves... kind-of like Savile in miniature.
Yeah sure
BUT you made a stand which is the important part
When I was 25 I asked the female manager my age why the large insuranc e company didn't see her Managers' behavior. He was 40 and used his float home as a pad to lure new employees, many under 20 in their first real job, and some even still living at home. She said: The suits at Head Office HAVE TO KNOW: he has the largest turnover of any dept. in the country.
I knew Saville-esque dude who sexually assaulted women within the social circle, and they've all gone to the authorities to no avail. He later fled town.
Savile was an expert at control,he knew he would be in charge in the documentary.Louis was up against a brick wall but we all knew what Savile was like.If anything it showed us how unlikeable Savile was.
@shaun lynch No, they didn't.
He got away with it because he targeted marginalised people. His victims were girls, people with criminal records or a reputation for being 'bad', people with mental or physical disabilities. Countless people spoke out against him and were shamed into silence. He had powerful friends in the government and the royal family because the association helped salve their consciences. His charitable works removed the responsibility from them to deal with the appalling way that sick people or troubled kids were dealt with
He also got away with it because the BBC let him...
@@stevewa4552 as did the tories, maggie knew about him but still fought for his knighthood. him and mogg's dad were investigated for noncing long before too.
He was funded by the highest people in government and royalty. Fact. Hidden behind the BBC and caravans in children's hospital grounds.
How close was he with the royal princes when he was stalking around Buck House?
@Bill Green About 2 ½ feet
When I was 14 yo, I visited my uncle in London along with my family. I told my uncle was a post man, that I wanted to go on Jim'll fix it. My uncle a post man, knew, and told me, I should NEVER do such a thing. People close to Savile must of know!
the network stretches thru jonathan king and simon cowell ....'Lodgemates' .. .
@@krishnan-resurrection714 there has always been something creepy about Simon Cowell ,
@@xvsupremacy7190 definitely ...Cowells bailed out king after arrest ...Jonathans 'Protege' ...Look at the Tra++++nny*s rubber face now!!!! . . .what a joke !!!!!!
@@xvsupremacy7190 yeah, we need a doc on him too
@@xvsupremacy7190 I used to know a few people who knew Cowell, worked for him around 20 yrs ago, and couldn't speak high enough about him, apparently a decent guy.
The real story still hasn’t been told: who protected him and why? Why was he given offices and bedrooms in children’s hospitals, and why? Who authorised these things and why? Oh he did charity work. That’s not a satisfactory answer.
Exactly. Name and shame all who protected him.
That's the most disturbing thing and keys to a mental hospital so he can go and abuse already vulnerable and suffering people when he likes, it's so sickening.
He had been curiously given the keys to Stoke Mandeville Hospital....read reports that stated that he would visit in the middle of the night the morgues and his then, silver rolls was seen regularly there in the car park until late into the night !! Who covered for him......well...i think we already know the answer to that.....it was everybody that got close to him and became friends and partakers in his Satanic Nightmare !
The country is run by a network of paedophiles . Paedophilia is their lure , their reward , and their control device . The fact that Savile was thrown to the wolves should tell you where he was in the hierarchy .
Charlie boy
Louis Theroux was the closest anyone got to uncovering this monster and allowed Jimmy to slip multiple times, he deserves all the respect we can give him. Read his books or listen they are immensely revealing and shows Louis amazing career.
In the media yes. The Sun got close too at times.
Surrey Police got the closest to uncovering the truth.
Andrew Neil also tried hard in 1995. A tough interviewer.
No ...Theroux helped cover it up . . .. !!!!
he didn't get close to uncovering.
John Lydon probably got closest in that, now famous, interview with the BBC. He even called them out, saying they wouldn't allow him or anyone else to talk about Saville and the deplorable acts _they knew_ he was committing.
Louis's honesty that he is there with a spotlight and seeing the effort that he puts in to show as much of the truth as he can through his wit and craft is so admirable.
He's not honest at all though.
He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself.
And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
I remember as a young child living in Manchester, my Mum had been in hospital where Savile visited.He kissed her hand. She said then she disliked him strongly! Thats over 45 years ago
You have crack the case your the evidence we have all been waiting for ."your mum didn't like Jimmy "
My Mum is a Private care worker and looked after someone who was in a children's hospital at one point and the nurses were warning one another that Saville was coming. Fucking harrowing.
@@littlefish1167 haha well of course that's not what I meant. Obviously there was no reason to report anything but it stuck in mind even at that young age. I was a big fan of Jimmy and his shows. The thing is, there were many concerns and complaints which went unheeded because of his position and powerful influence
@@littlefish1167 wow, not nice at all
The amazing thing is that LT didn't know JS was a necrophiliac /nonse, as i heard the rumours from a first hand source in 1994. And I didnt have a team of researchers, I knew a nurse from Leeds Gen hosp.
Theroux is a sociopath ....take a look at his family background ...i wouldnt trust a word he says . . ..
Pretty sure he asked Saville about those rumors in the documentary, of course Saville denied them. It wasn't that Louis wasn't aware of the rumors, but that's all they were at the time.
The first time I ever suspected something with Jimmy Saville wasn’t right was after watching this programme.
Me too. I actually called saviile a paedo next time i was in the pub after Louis original documentary, only to find out that one if my friends was a saville fan because of his charity work and he was not happy with me, or Louis for his questions.
15 years later me and that friend revisited our argument about saville..... his tune had changed by then.
@@pablohanc Just out of interest what in the doc made you think Saville was a Paedo?
@@davidjames579 from memory ( this is 20 yrs ago now), it was 2 things he said. Firstly, his reason as to why he went around saying he hated kids. It sounded ridiculous. Secondly, he made a creepy comment about a girlschool (can't remember exactly what he said now, but I do remember thinking it was inappropriate). Coincidently he made another girlschool comment on have I got news for you. If you add to that, when I was a kid my dad would turn over the tv to avoid the "creepy" Jimmy saville, so I guess I was influenced by my dad's dislike of him as well.
If you're asking however did I genuinely think he was definately a paedo after watching the Louis doc, probably not. But I definately thought he was a wierdo.... and when you discuss suspicious wierdos who crack jokes about girlschools, after youve had a few pints, its not too big a leap from calling them a wierdo to calling them a paedo. And my mate wasn't happy with that at all.
@@davidjames579 byo
Have been hearing this about JS since the 60's. Can't have been exposed to much media in your life. Passages in his autobiography make harrowing reading (re a teenage runaway) and how can that be a secret?
I had never really paid any attention to Savile. Came across Theroux's documentary and after about 5-10 mins I went "Wow, that guy is such a creep, and they let him near children ?" And then Theroux of course brings up the allegations and I figured that there must be a really big cesspool behind it if they keep a lid on that ... I was rarely more sad to discover I was right.
Money corrupts. If you don't have morals and you are greedy or lack the motivation to make the money you desire yourself, then you end up with a saville or worse. Look at the tories. They will do anything for money. How many paedophiles do they know that donate to the party? Our own PM was close friends to ghislaine maxwell and his sister wished her well during her sex trafficking trial. Look at our royal family.. Paedophilia has become a status symbol within the "elite" establishment in the UK.
A grown man who looks and acts that strange should be the first clue of his abnormality,
Still bragging about it though, eh rotwang?
He asked saville why he says publically that he hated children and the vile man basically answered "to throw them off the scent!"
The conversation was more nuanced than that. Don’t be reductive like that when Savilles point was meant more along the lines of wanting less rumours of the kind being disseminated in the tabloid ecosystem. The question was initially asked by Louis to explore the irony of his character in Jim will fix it if he had indeed hated children. Making young peoples wishes come true would be a strange profession for someone who hates them. While there was subtext throughout the entire documentary and I felt it was very revealing he was very adept at choosing his words wisely as to not overstep in one direction or the other. If that hadn’t been the case I’m sure he would have been found out years earlier.... such a monster
@@TheMarcymark "I felt it was very revealing "
and in that, the documentary was succesful.
commenters saying he should have done more, know not a lot about journalism
@@brmbkl Ronan Farrow did
This illustrates the cognitive weakness of hindsight bias. With today's knowledge it's easy to look at the situation of the past and say "it was obvious", but it wasn't so at the time. If you want to test this, just look at today's celebrities and predict who will be the shamed one in 10 years from now. You might have suspicions but it's impossible to be sure.
Too many people came forward, it was obvious. But people will track anyone who threatens to take away their precious entertainers
Will Smith
Mr tumble
Louis is a smart cookie, he knows exactly what he's doing, he plays naive so well
My thoughts exactly. One of the aspects of his persona I don't personally like.
I agree. He knew he was a wrong un, and just got fame out of it imo.
He always picks the low-hanging fruit. And he had a famous daddy Paul as well.
What all you guys are missing is that he has been asked about Saville so times and has gone on record plenty.He had said that ,yes,he had heard the rumours and hearsay about him,but didn't work on the assumption that they were true,or not.Here he merely shows regret that he didn't pursue this angle more directly. I can see that in retrospect he would have loved to ask the million dollar question,but spending weeks with him,he obvs could afford to alienate him immediately.
As he says, he had time to hone his attack and he failed, for which he feels regret.Saville was asked by Tom Hibbert from Q magazine if he was into sex with dead people and he just went ,Now then now then,and smoked the question away.Theroux must have been aware that there was no chance of getting a confession or evidence, but he did get closer than any other interviewer.
@Mate calm down I'd say you must be referring to Therouxs cynicism.
He knew every detail. He just didnt have the guts to call him out
Jimmy Saville, sized Louis Theroux up, as a soft lad, and run rings around him. All there is to it!
This is exactly it! All these people accusing Louis Theroux of hiding something or not digging deep enough are ridiculous... I have a lot of respect for Louis, he is a very intelligent guy but Saville saw him coming a mile off. That's very clear now. And yes that's all there is to it!
@@ulpetzmaznat1366 you have to remember savile came from a poor destitute working class background, whereas theroux was brought up in a very privileged sheltered upbringing where everything was all milk and honey, savile knew how gullible he was
the most worrying thing about this interview is the angle of Louis's right foot... looks like he's been hobbled by Kathy Bates!
🤣🤣🤣
I was thinking the same thing as I watched.
Has he got something wrong with his foot? I have never noticed that before.
@@marilynkennedy8236 No, nothing wrong with his foot. He straightens it out after a while.
first thing i noticed lol
Saville was a gangster - as simple as that. He had friends in very high and also very dark places - he knew that the protection racket he had created for himself was vertually impregnable. Nobody grassed him up because they were unbelievably scared of him and what his mates could possibly do if you did try and expose the truth - which would have been very difficult to prove such was his manipulation of his media profile. Louis's documentary insinuated that there was a dark disturbing side to Saville without fully pulling the trigger on him - but without concrete evidence at that time what we got from Theroux's study was about as far as they could go without any major legal or possibly personal retribution from Saville himself.
why victims or next of kin didn`t kill the guy is unbelievable. the whole case reeks of a morally weak and corrupt class society
More like a politician than a gangster
@@hanzen5174 he preyed on the weak; kids without a strong family structure or other safety net.
@@brmbkl to me it seems he didn`t know much about those he went after except they were regular people. not the `elite` like himself
savile was a freemason ...like Charles ....and like Theroux .. ..
For a man that looks into peoples eyes when he wants the truth out of them, Louis sure did look at the floor a lot during this...
I wish Judge Judy could see the video and read his body language.
@@thewheatfields8852 Quite possibly. I’m not an expert, it was only that his behaviour is different to how it tends to be in interviews. Plus the amount of people who hid what Saville was doing, it does make you wonder - or at least it does me, anyway
@@rorz999 yes that's what i thought that he felt shame or guilt, because i bet he feels guilty that he let ( not by choice ) that he let Jimmie saville deceive him. He probably thinks to himself
" I go and vist death row in a lot of the prisons in America and i look them in the eye and i can get them to reveal their big horrible deepest secrets, so why couldn't of got Jimmie saville to admit some things and i might of been able to stop it " you know stuff like that, like you said looking down is a natural reaction. I always thought that Louis theroux was an alright person and he's something intelligent to say. Not like alot of these celebs, famous for being famous. It's like when people go on about the Kardashians and they say this " Do you want to keep up with the Kardashians and i say "no i rather not, i don't want to keep up with the Kardashians, I've got a rather talkative brick wall who's very intelligent plus this brick wall also brings his good friend along and that good friend is called watching paint dry and between them they've got quite the interesting vocabulary. 😂
he's being nterviewed, not interviewing. what's your point?
he feels guilty as any good person would. i dont think hes hiding anything. 1 in every 100 males is a physcopath yet most people believe theyve never met one. its much harder to recognise evil then you think.
Savile was not "one of a kind," but maybe more prolific than most of his sort. A lot of men in showbiz seem to have been predators, and for a very long time. It's not for nothing that the Victorians thought of the stage in general as a dangerous place for women and, it turns out, boys as well. Middle class parents used to be suspicious of most workplaces for their daughters: whereas anything was acceptable for the lower orders.
I suspect that sexual abuse was always a feature of show business, but it became more acceptable for the men to hint at or even talk about it in the 1960s. The DJ John Peel used to run a "Schoolgirl of the Year Contest" and long ago described receiving oral sex from fans as young as 13. Photographers used to abuse their models: that was Roman Polanski's modus operandi in the legal case he fled from. Donald Trump once ran a model agency where there was a casting couch.
He had very powerful people around him that knew some of his secrets but probably not all of them. He really worked us all.
Nah, Saville worked the media who refused to report it. The general public didn't know and couldn't have known.
@@danielebowman Why would the media refuse to report it? You really think the tabloids wouldn't have published that story if they had some kind of evidence?
ALL media= contrived crap ...ALL of it .....
@@krishnan-resurrection714 OK, you keep believing those internet sites that tell you that. Don't stop to consider why they might be telling you that though.
@@RevStickleback any and all media is controlled by freemasonry ...guess what savile was ??? (its an open secret ) ... see my videos to explain the codes they use ....
he was interviewed by the police once and they virtually apologized for interviewing him. He wasn't convicted of anything. Amazing how some people are protected, like the MP, Cyril Smith, yet
Jeremy Thorpe was tried ( but found not guilty ).
Jeremy Thorpe was accused of conspiracy to murder, even bigwig nonces can’t ignore those charges
@@lewiskazinsky7334 when it suits them, I think they can
You can find a transcript of the interview on the Guardian website. They did no such thing. They asked him the appropriate questions and he answered them by total denial. After that they can't get out thumbscrews and torture a confession out of him.
@@peterh1353 fair play, I went off "evidence" off a TV show where they made a claim of kidgloves treatment of Saville by Police. . I believed that to be the case, due to the fact that MI5 officers told a Rochdale CID Inspector to lay off Cyril Smith.
If you can, watch Peter Cook's sketch as the judge summing up of the Thorpe trial.
'Had you heard the rumours though Louis?' is the question that should be asked
Exactly. If John Lydon knew in 1978, then surely a high level media employee like Theroux must have at least heard something!
In his new doc revisiting everything he said during his teenage years he had heard the whisperings.
Even if Louis answered "yes", what difference would it make?
Theroux had heard the rumours because he mentioned them to Savile during the documentary.
As a child, I had heard rumours that Savile was into necrophilia.
But hearing rumours and actually knowing the facts are two different things.
@@neilsun2521 Lydon knew the rumours.
Theroux knew the rumours.
Loads of people knew the rumours but it's very difficult to make an allegation against someone based on rumours.
It's clear from this that Louis feels a huge sense of guilt. I want to tell him that he isn't to blame, the deception was national. and Savile was by that time an experienced pathological liar.
Was it really? People knew in the seventies and others well before. I get the guilt but there is still more introspection required by Louis
@@ggravett people who had close knowledge of him might have been aware earlier. But in the general population it wasn't known. That is why he was applauded during his life. It was only after his death that most people became aware of it.
@@carriew5106 Anyone who was a journalist knew, and anyone who knew a journalist knew, even in the 70s.
Jonathan king is related to Theroux ....
He’s feeling guilty, not about what you think though. You’re just another average person who can’t pierce the veil
'People' knew the documentary was going to be made, 'people' who covered Savile. It's all wheels within wheels.
The people organising/financing the documentary were probably the very same ones covering.
Louis prob feels bad for not seeing through him, but, had he done so it would likely have ended in his assassination and Savile's continuing. He was a sinister and nasty piece of work. In the original documentary, before the interview had properly commenced, he had copied down L's home address on a piece of paper, where he left in plain sight for him to notice. It seemed like a thinly veiled threat, because when L asked how he's acquired it, he replied with something like, "I can get anything", and it felt like a warning for L not to dig too deep. Evil like that, whilst in itself has no power, protects itself very well. He had the royals, and therefore the cops, and God knows who else in his pocket, which gave him effective immunity to any exposure - much less consequences.
Definitely trying to intimidate him, what a creep.
@@mbucd looks like it worked
The fact is that Savile Theroux him off the scent. No amount of words after the event can compensate for that.
Pun.
I have heard Louis talk about this elsewhere and his failure to expose his subject and his befriending of Jimmy (which is what happened) seems to have effected him quite deeply. In my opinion he need not feel bad about this. JS was a master of being interviewed and saying nothing and was at pains to never let his guard down. He was easily intelligent enough to never incriminate himself. I once heard him being interview on the BBC radio show, In The Psychiatrists Chair, which was played a week after Bob Monkhouse was interviewed. The difference between the two was stark; Monkhouse absolutely excoriated himself whilst Savile bobbed and weaved and said nothing at all.
does anyone have the slightest idea of the exact time that savile first committed this evil for the very first time ? what enabled him do they have any idea to first do this, not much seems to be known about his younger years
Bob Monkhouse was a bad bad n once
The victims were swept under the carpet police told to leave it
And who told the police to leave it? Kier Starmer.
@@dustmeistermiller1011 Saville was put a shore for undressing down to his underwear and photographed with two young girls on a bed, on a cruse ship. local police were waiting can’t remember what county, I saw the pictures in the sun that Evidence enough for you I could go on with more. You must be a BBC fan
@@dustmeistermiller1011 sorry read your Question without my glasses lol your not Naive
Forget 'saville' who has taken his place ? And doing it now.
We will only find out once that person dies, and then another takes their place. The cycle continues...
PA, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, etc
I have never liked entertainers that amuse the public by acting so stupid. I always felt there was a lot of sadness or weird cr*p going on below the surface. Regardless, I've never heard of someone that was able to do such an excellent job at fooling so many different kinds of people, for so long, from every socioeconomic level. It's great that it was all discovered eventually.
He's still a sir though. I think that out of respect to the victims his honour should be posthumously removed.
Further to my earlier reply, I just had a Google and apparently the honour can't be removed posthumously. Shame.
Rolf Harris has entered the chat
From what we see today , its childish of him to try and make us believe that he was ' deceived'. Everyone knew. No one spoke out. If he'd made an honest documentary then , it would never have seen the light of day, and he knew that.
A lot didn't know until after his death.
He didn't know, he had heard the rumours and the stories because everyone had, but he didn't know for certain because very few people did unless they experienced it first hand.
So you knew, and you didn't speak out?
@FloydTheBarber exactly.
Theroux is a reporter, not police or justice.
But what a relief all these keyboard warriors would know exactly what to do...
@@brmbkl seriously? Louis Theroux is a highly respected journalist in the UK. If he had heard something, had any evidence, he should’ve reported it.
It's odd why the Saville episode is no longer available on BBC IPlayer
There are rules about programmes and how long they can be online. It is on UA-cam and the BBC could take it down if it is not authorised. But they don't.
Louis being in my opinion, a thoroughly good person, is guilty of what good people do because that is their default. You find goodness in people that you know in yourself and subconsciously expect other people to be as you are. That's the bit it goes wrong, and even if Louis experienced some intuitionistic feelings that this man is not right, judging the other person by your own standards makes it very hard to see the bad. I've no idea of the personal makeup of Saville, what we now know publicly is disgusting and I fear it's worse behind closed doors. Louis is not guilty of anything, he didn't know this man, neither did I, the BBC and good knows how many other people did know and they didn't act and that is and always will be shameful.
What's even worse for Louis is he admitted that Saville was his hero growing up, so he's already predisposed to a favorable bias. I remember having watched the episode in the early 2000s and was really shocked by how weird Saville appeared and how obvious it was that he was hiding something. If Louis appeared bamboozled, I certainly didn't pick up that vibe nearly as much as people say. He showed Saville to be extremely suspicious, and that was more than most of the other reporting of him at that time.
I know this has already been posted many times. But I feel I wouldn’t be doing ‘my minuscule bit’ for society as a whole, if I didn’t also post this thought:
Anyone who thinks he hid his actions so well, or that he ‘hid in plain sight’, etc etc etc, and this is why he never ‘got caught’, is living in a fantasy land - either knowingly, or unknowingly. When you look at the list of people who have admitted to knowing that ‘something was up’ (again, see other posts for many names), it becomes obvious that it was a secret, that for whatever variety of reasons, was kept hidden for decades. And there are more names, that I have not seen posted, of other celebrities who have also come forward with similar comments.
It’s grotesque and disgusting. I was too young really to remember him at the ‘height’ of his fame (and also his ‘activities’). But still, even when he was older, I still remember him giving me the creeps, and just having that “this guy isn’t right. There’s something weird about him’ feeling. What a hideously “underestimated notion” I had about him...............
Everyone in the entertainment industry knew about him, but he was protected. He was a close friend of the royals, and to get anywhere near the royal inner circle MI5 would have to know Everything about your background. So they certainly knew about Sir Jimmy.
I remember being a young teenager in the seventies, and always felt JS was a total creep !!!
@@dragonflywings4669
Totally. Even if rumours were startling to leek out in the media, I would have been way too young (not quite a teenager yet) to understand anything about this awful topic. And yet, just as you say, I was always strangely creeped out by him…. Did not like him at ALL,
I was too young to know Savile but in retrospect, I don't feel like it was really a secret to anybody. My dad was just a regular citizen, and even he heard the rumours about Savile, and ignored them because he assumed it was Catholic bigotry. Savile alluded to it, people on the street heard about it, he was obviously unhinged, and people reported him for it. His activity was the worst kept secret in British history and yet nothing ever happened. I don't feel any one group or person can be blamed for shielding him, to me he represents a broad cultural failing to hold predators to account
"he hid his actions so well, or that he ‘hid in plain sight’ " the people that did know, didn't matter.
Never had a lot of respect for Theroux and his body of work, I've always found it to be just a kind of ghoulish voyurism, but I respect his honesty in recognising and admitting that he dropped the ball, and that Saville had him sussed as someone who wasn't smart enough to be a threat. That kind of humility in a journalist is rarely seen.
Interesting reading the comments: of course people knew there was something there, which if you`ve seen the original documentary you`d see that Louis was trying to dig to find what it was, but he couldnt put his finger on it. People knew there was something "off" about him, but having a feeling that someone is bad and PROVING it are two different things. At one point the News Of The World newspaper apparently offered a blank cheque to anyone who could give proof that they could print and do a front cover story about it and nobody came forward. Everyone knew he was bad, but nobody outside of Saville himself knew the full extent of the horrors, and nobody came forward with any convictable proof, and Saville was very well known for threats, both legal and otherwise, so without the killer blow of proof that would hold up to a libel trial and a court of law nobody would/could go public with it.
I suspect the other part why no one claimed the cheque was because your article would be featured on The News Of The bloody World. Arguably one of the best sources of toilet paper in the country for a time...
@@joeogle7729 True garbage rag indeed, however also one of the biggest selling tabloids in the country with a BIG chequebook.
Thank you for using logic. I think some people are too far up their own arse with this conspiracy shit that they assume every celebrity is guilty in some way
There's something disingenuous here from Theroux. He'd be more believable if he said "Savile was a nonce, when I stayed with him I figured it out from my awkward conversations with him, but if you breathed a word he'd sue, and I wanted my documentary series go out without litigation so much I kept quiet"
I think you have nailed it. I think Theroux is a typical media phoney who only cares about his career.
Rubbish.
You don't figure out that someone's a paedophile from having 'awkward conversations'.
You're talking about suspicions but you need evidence and proof.
Savile was a paedophile but there's *nothing* in the documentary that could be used as evidence of his crimes.
When Theroux got that letter or email from that woman who said she was Savile’s girlfriend at 15 years old, knowing the rumours, why didn’t he take that evidence to the police? I know he said that he wished he could have done something different, well, he could’ve got justice for Savile’s victims whilst he was alive.
..cos he is into exactly the same stuff ! .... thats why ....
men didn't stand up for women then--barely do nowadays
@@krishnan-resurrection714 Your comment is the sort of garbage that allows people like Savile to get away with their crimes. Your fling about so many wild accusations that the mud lands in the wrong places.
@@davidlawrence3106 WRONG ...ITS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT sAVILE WAS ONLY THE MEDIA SCAPEgOAT FOR WHATEVER THE GROUP COLLECTIVE IS UP TO ...AND THAT IS BECAUSE SAVILE HAD CEASED TO EXIST ...WAS DEFUNCT ...HAD EXPIRED .....Whatever They are up to ....The Whole Lot are in on it ...
He failed to listen to the voice of the victims, he said it himself.
Louis Theroux who works for the BBC, got deceived by Jimmy Savile. The great researcher Louis Theroux, you alright there mate?
There are some comments here about Louis pretending to be naive in his interviews as some kind of ploy. I don't think so, I think he is doing what interviewers should do, asking questions with an open mind and not being a judgemental prick. That's what I like about him. Some reporters will kick doors in and be utter arseholes but Louis seems like a decent person.
The trouble with that is he was so 'open mined' that his brains fell out, a common hazard of not being "a judgemental prick".
Theroux = a textbook sociopath .....
Nice honest guy is Louis.
When you watch people round Seville they almost tip toe around him like they are scared, it’s weird.
...Top Boy to the Royals . . . .
I actually thought his interview was very good, it at the time cemented my feelings that this man was hiding something and had a very dark disturbing side to him, its an interview that stayed with me, oh wow was this proved right after the point, the extent of this was a shock to us all I think. It was also the first time I had seen Louis unable to get anything from a subject that in itself set off alarm bells with me.
Yeah, and we mustn't forget Louis isn't a police officer. He can try to get through a 'person' but Saville was just not a person, a monster where normal human interactions don't work..
Thanks so much for posting,
The most sincere Man since Hughie Green...
Louis’ backwards foot is weirding me out
Couldn’t stop staring😫
HIs foot is deceiving him.
I remember when he said he hated kids, next day on the franklin cantoon (the sun paper) he was on a train track tied, and the caption was, we fixed it for him, jeeeeeez, he used this to cover up is filth, beast. lots of people knew what he was up to
No excuses. People in the media and health service knew about Savilles revolting ways but they said nothing. Money speaks!!
People in media probably here a 1000 rumours about famous people being sexual criminals. Take it to the police and they say what "you have heard a rumour? What can we do with that!"
Money speaks. But misogyny speaks louder. Louis Theroux knew. That's not an attack on Theroux specifically. Pretty much everybody knew, from the royals, to MPs, to people of authority in the NHS and public services. Everybody knew and nobody did a damn thing about it. And this isn't the place to explore why they didn't. However - scroll down this post and you'll find most people saying, about Theroux, 'well, he did his best, he could have done more, I suppose, maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong...' in a fairly polite way. Check out the Question Time interview where Janet Street Porter concedes that she knew/suspected. The comments there are a concerted stream of abuse about her 'protecting her own career' and calling her a c***. Not seeing that in this thread. Again - that's not a criticism of Theroux. it's just an observation that men and women are still treated very differently in discussions of this kind.
@@peterowen9183 BOYS CLUB
Someone mentioned earlier in the comments and I just got it. Louis can play naive well, how he did not know about Jimmy Saville, how he failed to notice. Almost like the naivety he uses on his interviews of people. Many senior people knew about the abuse and enabled it.
" Louis can play naive well," being unjudgmental is how he gets people to open up in interviews, and why he gets more out of people as a journalist. Here i feel he's being careful, not secretive.
Some say he's not remorseful enough, but you get the sense he feels it. Saying it opens you up to all kinds of trouble, though. People should remember Saville was the monster, nit Theroux.
Jonathan king is related to Theroux ...
If Johnny Rotten knew in 1978 how could Theroux not have known and obviously did not investigate ?
@PilgrimMission ... good point.
We certainly all weren't "taken in by this character". It became clear that most everyone who had dealings with him knew or at least suspected of him of his crimes. He was protected at the highest levels. But why? That is the question.
“Highest levels”. Exactly. People are taking about the media “knowing”…like dude was in with the royal family. They DEFINITELY knew. You can’t get into buckingjam palace on the regular without being background checked
@@StraightFelon Exactly. In the " higher" circles Savile's behaviour is " standard practice". He was protected by people in a position of authority who condoned his atrocities. It has been recently reported that 39 (!) Albanian children who were under the care of Kent Local Authority in England, have " gone missing". Will this be " correctly" investigated? Probably not.
..yes 'Taken in' in the same manner that you were taken in by Louis Theroux's innocent wide-eyed Little boy act !
The Andrew Neil interview with him was probably the most difficult grilling he'd had, I don't know why Savile agreed to it. Neil is one of the best political interviewers out there, intelligent, sardonic and always exposing the contradictions in politics. Savile had to spend about 10 minutes being asked about his love life and he used about every trick in the book to deflect, sidestep or bluster his way through the answers. Savile still didn't give much away, he'd had hundreds of partners but couldn't remember any, anyway he'd never talk about it because he was a gentleman, they all get bored with him though, he travelled too much too and then Neil gives him an easy out by saying no tabloid has ever published a picture of him with a lover so in reality they don't exist and it's just all gossip which Savile agrees is right.
Really hard for me to believe that the entire UK entertainment establishment, including Lous Theroux, were not all fully aware of Savile and his activities
Sadly they were.
In 1986 i was a farm worker in Somerset. My boss was a journalist who was freelance he knew ALL the celebs, he often would on friday morning coffee time ( He was away most of the week).
Tell us little snippets of gossip. One day my work colleague said something about saville, my boss who was laughing and messing around totally changed he stood up and told us Saville was the devil himself. Warned us to watch his every move and beware of him.
My boss was also an expert on Body language and knew exactly when people were lying.
He explained to us only 20% of communication is verbel...
80% is non verbal, body language
@@djsimonrossprice9400 I'm sure. In any company you work in everybody knows who's hard working, who's lazy, who's a crook. Are we expected to believe a gossipy org like the BBC was any different
*Some people* knew what Savile was up to but not 'the entire UK entertainment establishment' and no one knew the full extent of his crimes as most of the victims were totally separate from each other.
He literally asks him in the original documentary 'are you a paedophile?'. I really don't know what more people think he could've done
@@davidb5173 There isn't anything Theroux could have done.
However, he didn't literally ask Savile if he was a paedophile - which would have been a pointless question to ask anyway.
The thing that gets me about Saville is just how meny people knew about him, heck people that set up childrens phone charity's to protect children from people like him knew but didn't say anything.
Was big fan of Louis I've watched most if not all his work, the thing I loved about him is them awkward drawn out looks whilst interviewing as tho he knows we know they know there talking rubbish....nothing different was savile interviews
a point missed by a lot of commenters. just because an interviewer is quiet doesn't mean he believes, and that he didn't believe him doesn't mean he could arrest him on the spot.
@@brmbkl if he had wanted to take his career BIG time, he could have done what Ronan Farrow regarding Weinstein, etc.
Louis is intelligent. He wasn't deceived, he just didn't want to pursue his suspicions. It's much easier to say 'I was deceived' rather than 'I didn't do enough to help'.
I think your spot on. Another BBC creep letting saville get away with it. Louis always talks fondly of saville. It creeps me. Listen to the other interviews. It's far more obvious.
He knew all about Saville and he knew he couldn’t do anything about it
Exactly that. There's stuff that was online a few years ago that's all been taken down now. But the gist of it was that Theroux knew, and wanted to go after Saville, but was told by his superiors that (a) there isn't enough material evidence, and (b) there are powerful people who will stop you.
Yes powerful people ,we all know who they are ,the truth will out
@@peterowen9183 But would they have stopped him though
@@rickhardman7376 Louis may have had an accident if he went too far.
@@rickhardman7376 get a badass like Ronan Farrow and change gets forced--even after decades of suffering
He knew all along
The whole Savile sordid saga is just a microcosm of how these sort of things work in Britain. In fact it is as British as Yorkshire pudding, shitty weather and arselicking jobsworths: everyone knew but they all averted their gaze while real victims were suffering. Not only they chose not to look, they actively aided and abetted his monstrous behaviour. It appears that Savile's predatory ways were the worst kept secret in the history of British media. And they all pretended to be utterly surprised and outraged, when every single presenter, journalist, broadcaster and entertainer, let alone the staff and the direction of the hospitals he darkened with his evil presence , knew. Only in Bkighty, folks, only in Blighty......
Not just British. This sort of thing happens everywhere.
@@kevinbennett7615 very true, unfortunately. Difficult to argue with your statement. Yet...you will agree that the connivance between institutions to keep Savile’s crimes secret, and the rumours that were always explained away in a wink-wink, “that’s just Jimmy’s way”, Carry On-esque rotten spirit, as well as the attitude of the ruling classes (such as “who cares if a few poor, disturbed children are fiddled with?) are distinctly British in their flavour....
and PA
@@kevinbennett7615 we have creepy monsters here in the US, but it seems that those famous creeps were better at hiding it--except for with the victims, who finally came forward and busted them while they were alive.
what happened with the Nick Fuentes documentary?? Did Louie quit doing it for a certain reason? im curious
The only person who knew _exactly_ what Savile was up to was Savile himself. Each of the victims knew something of it, but obviously only a very limited part.
Who knows how many rumours and accusations go flying around about celebrities that are in fact totally innocent? I don't see how you can fault Louis here really, his film did expose the fact that something was really not right there. I don't think we should have expected a confession from such an experienced and crafty manipulator.
Very eloquent way to say he isn't a very good investigative journalist.
Jimmy was an excellent ‘narcissist’. He knew how to manipulate anyone. Honestly, Louis has nothing to feel ‘ashamed’ about.
Narcissist and manipulative are not the same thing.
Theroux has plenty to feel ashamed about. He makes every 'documentary' about himself more than the subject. His second doc about Savile was more about how Theroux was deceived and felt like a 'victim', than the actual victims Savile molested. And remember that Savile is apparently Theroux's 'childhood hero' according to the synopsis on the first doc. I'm not far off Theroux's age and we ALL thought Savile was creepy as heck even back when we were kids. We only wrote in to his show to hopefully meet someone we wanted to meet, never Savile himself.
And Theroux's disgusting tweet about the debunked Leaving Neverland (directed by his buddy Dan Reed who has made several hugely noncey statements which the police really should investigate). Where on his twitter he basically victim-shamed every abuse survivor who actually bothered to check the facts Theroux was clearly too lazy too (he thinks Jackson was a nonce, purely because he read it in a debunked book by an actual nonce called Victor Gutierrez whom Jackson had successfully sued as the book was false and defamatory). I'm an abuse survivor myself who watched LN and noticed the huge issues with the words, behaviour, manipulated footaged and the director's sick comments and so I researched into the case and found the guys have been proven time and time again to be frauds who changed their stories every time it failed to win them millions of dollars in phoney lawsuits. Theroux's a liar and fraud himself and I no longer trust any of his programmes.
It's great that you are speaking out Louis. But Ian Hislop asked Savile what he liked and got the reply "anyone I can get my hands on" which is chilling! So brazen. Savile refrained from that kind of comment with you I guess?
Just watching "Jimmy Savile: The People Who Knew". It would appear that Theroux is either an incompetent "journalist" ( and I use that term VERY loosely) or was under strict orders NOT to probe too deeply. Either way it comes across that Theroux's "poor me, I was deceived" stance is ridiculous.
Louis is a legend , love his documentaries, he's not saying the complete truth, he knew about Jimmy saville like everyone else at the BBC, or at least the rumours! Gill Dando Knew and she was murdered by a professional hitman, never been caught. He made the second program out of guilt.
I find it extremely hard to believe that he didnt know anything when most of us in west yorkshire knew it while he was alive
Did you know, or did you hear rumours? Because I heard rumours too. I know he sexually harrassed women, because my aunt worked as a nurse in a hospital he went to, but no one actually had proof of the real evil shit. A lot of it came down to "just look at him there's clearly something wrong with him".
@Bellacapella * How can someone go to the police just based on rumours? Nobody is Gunna do that
@Bellacapella * People knew but you need evidence right? Don't try to tell me how it was in my own home county Iv lived here all my life.
@@Jaggybabs have you not got child protection help lines for that ?... maybe that's by design.
@@Jaggybabs How can you know something if you don't have evidence?
Life comes at you fast when you realize that things you wrote off as conspiracy theories are in fact, facts.
Louis is a freemason ...
I always got the impression that Saville intimidated Louis a bit in that show. Let him know not to go there and Louis didnt. I always felt Lous bottled it and played it too nice. Id say Louis regrets it now but at the time I can imagine Savilles dark character was quite intimidating to be around, even if he was very old. He was still menacing.
Yes, it was a power game all the way along I thought. Telling them to go away when they show up, how is Savile? He's marvelous! Can we talk about the Royals? That's a no go area. Jim's off on a cruise but you're not allowed to come because I decide. The Godfather will send his boys to your address if you don't watch out. NEXT!
As if you would do any better, it’s easy to talk from a computer in a safe space
@@discodave4500 lol how did my comment manage to trigger you???? That is hilarious
@@Razormiller trigger? I’m calling you out on your false superiority.
@@discodave4500 haha The internet is such a mad place. No matter how harmless a comment is someone will always get the annoyed by it. (:
It was Louis' first doc and he knew it would make him. So he treaded lightly cause he was worried Jimmy would pull out. Louis knew the rumours but played safe.
It wasn't Louis' first. He was doing his Weird Weekends in the 1990s. Savile was 2000.
Why has Louis Theroux made this statement on Savile all about himself and the amazing feat Savile pulled off in pulling the wool over his eyes? It's narcissistic and self-centred and morally dubious. It's surely about Savile's victims, not his journalistic skills or integrity, or the high profile and skilled deceptions of Savile himself. Theroux exposed himself here as lightweight and egotistical but the mea culpa here is more about self-aggrandisement than actual self-analysis.
The whole thing was mired in fraud. Why would anyone want to follow a geriatric ex DJ about if there wasn't something in the background? And we all knew what it was. Also he secretly filmed Savile when he wasn't present. What was that about and who else did he pull that trick on?
And yet Johnny Rotten called it back in the 1970s and the BBC censored him for saying it! Go listen to that interview. Everyone knew.
If you look at the list of people who did the original Saville, along with Louis, the in person crew were all males. I expect if a woman had been present during the entire filming process Saville may have let his guard down just enough for the female member crew to pick up on something. Diversity matters cause men have BLIND spots
A better question for Louis is, what are your blind spots in every interview you do?
Well noted. It's not Theroux's fault, but women simply have more experience (on average) at picking up signals and red flags from abusers, in the same way that people of colour might notice microaggressions that white people won't.
Edit: it's not his fault, but you are correct in saying he should learn from this
Come on Louis...people knew back then.. you must have known something was off
Until Louis is willing to properly address the role that the BBC played in perpetuating Saville's crimes I cannot take his ostensible regret seriously-it just seems like he's interested in doing and saying whatever helps to maintain and elevate his career rather than sincerely striving to unveil and share the truth.
I saw the movie and you still didn't go deep enough---he had such a creepy vibe that it is shocking how the British people didn't get weirded out from the beginning
Alot of people were weirded out by him, unfortunately they were only young at the time.
Saville was a master manipulator and he got the best of Louis, but Louis can take credit to starting the ball rolling towards further revelations. How the top brass at the BBC got off scot free is baffling and disgraceful.
Savile didn't get the best of Theroux, he just didn't tell him that he was a paedophile.
And Theroux didn't start the ball towards further allegations.
None of this came out until nearly a year after Savile's death - 13 years after the Theroux documentary.
The BBC top brass are not the police. Unless he was doing something directly infront of them I can't see what they could do. I notice that Savile wasn't allowed on Children in Need after their producer banned him!
@@peterh1353 Exactly.
Rumours are not the same as evidence.
(I might have said that in another thread...)
@@peterh1353 So when they get the top jobs at the BBC, what part of being the boss doesn't involve being accountable? The buck seems to stop at middle management.
@@andrewoliver3725 Yes and no. If someone has no criminal record you can't give them one. Explain how they are "accountable" to anything which is a serious criminal offence unless they are active participants in it? If Savile had been found guilty of a criminal offence while working at the BBC he would have been fired. As others - large and small - have been. Stuart Hall just for one!
I dont actually think a lot of LT work too duplicitous. BUT this is his best work brutally honest and confessional
Good.
I can't help but like the guy; he's honest, quite smart and self deprecating; perfect for what he does.
@@robertdore9592
Compare with Paxman. You get a F2F grilling but you know where you stand
@@marksandsmith6778 Paxman couldnt grill a cheese sandwich ...THEY are all in the club Together ....
An early episode of Drop The Dead Donkey in which one character said "There's a rumour going around..." and someone else replies not Savile again.
He wasn't some kind of criminal genius, he was operating in plain sight. And people ignored what they should have known was wrong.
Because?
No. There is no excuse.
You have to remember that if anything in the first documentary gave anything away about Savile, he never would have allowed it to see the light of day. That was why he showed Louis he had his home address.
He wasn't deceived by Savile.He knew exactly what Savile was.
Sigh...
On the upside Exotic Adrian Street beat the ever-loving crap out of Jimmy Savile
“We missed this vast secret that he had” very strange and hard to believe
That was a really bizarre thing for him to say..
@@Lara-xu3yc whole situation doesn’t sit right
Very hard. He's a liar and defended him.
@@Its_justlisaa especially not to women...just reinforces the boys club
Good mirror on which my own failures faithfully reflect