Isn't this the perfect example for Lord Leveson of how the media can handle a story?

Without the dangers of libel - he's dead - the media can say whatever they like and use innuendo to encourage or create gossip, false allegations, problems for rival papers or broadcasters... and also the positive side, opening cans of worms, causing examination of genuine problems.

Leveson must surely be watching and I suspect His Lordship is tempted to tear up his written report to start again. Or not?

Leveson is probably just wishing he could retire and forget the whole ghastly saga.

The media now really are the absolute scum of the earth. What was once a great and necessary industry has degenerated into the gutter with innuendo, gossip and false claims treated as genuine without proof.

I simply do not believe one of those women who have made these claims. Not one of them has offered anything resembling conclusive proof. Their claims need to be examined minutely.

Quite ludicrously tragic celebs...Rantzen, Gammbaccini, Street Porter jump on the bandwagon to claim that some silly bleached haired ghastly track suited talking head was such a powerful figure he could stop exposure.

It defies belief. It is incredulous that they insist that a rampant Fleet Street that was beholden to no-one except shareholders..that has dragged members of the Royal family, powerful businessmen, judges and politicians through the mud on flimsy claims would be frightened of Savile.

Not one has questioned the motives of this disgraced copper who has a financial reason for boosting his false 'child protection' self appointed credentials.

Mind you I had to laugh : The Daily Express, owned by a pornographer, has an expert claiming Savile chose his penthouse in Leeds because it overlooked a park and a holiday house that overlooked a beach so he might..just might, be able to look at children through binoculars.

And then one of their rabid columnists boasts how Savile was kicked of The Canberra. The Canberra ??? what a joke..I'd jump overboard if I was forced to travel on that tub.

Interesting review in the Huffington Post, especially at the end...

When Jimmy Savile died, 4000 mourners packed the streets of Leeds to pay tribute to the showman. After 40 years in show business, he was a TV family favourite who did hospital porter shifts in his spare time, a friend of royalty, a DJ who'd raised millions for good causes with his marathons and other tireless efforts.

ITV's documentary on him will do much to sweep those memories of him to the side, as it explored claims by several women that, far from being the genial eccentric everyone knew about, he was a consistent sexual predator. And worse, that his status as a famous family favourite was the means by which he got close to his alleged young victims and controlled their silence.

The actual incidents were less shocking for the fact that they have been much touted across the media in the last few days, with more and more stories being unravelled.

Nevertheless, it was still disturbing to hear, in their own words, the accounts of Val, 15, assaulted at the Television Centre of her young pop dreams "dozens of times", Angie, 15 "on a number of occasions, swept away by the glamour of knowing such a famous man", to hear about his visits to a girls' boarding school where his unwanted attentions were the talk of the common room, his treat trips for favourites in his Rolls Royce, and to see the footage of the fixed grin of a shaking 14-year-old Coleen Nolan as smiling Jimmy cuddled her for the Top of the Pops cameras.

Most chilling of all, arguably, was the footage of him welcoming his guest Gary Glitter to his show Clunk Click, where they both shared the stage with lots of young girls.

The alleged victims were consistent in their accounts, detailing their confusion and fear as teenagers, and their sadness and repulsion in later life. Their stories, however, after the last few days, were not surprising.

More freshly unsettling were the accounts by witnesses from those days who, despite supporting the girls' claims, appeared to drop themselves right in it.

Radio producer Wilfred De'Ath confirmed Savile's "shocking" reputation at the time, but pointed out in someone's defence - Savile's, his own? - that "he never attempted to hide this predilection, so it was generally known". So that's all right then.
De'Ath even spotted him with one young girl, whom he estimated to be around twelve, based on the fact that he himself was the father of two girls...

Despite this, De'Ath found the most "demeaning" aspect - to him - of the whole dreadful business was when Savile forced him to speak on the phone to one young girl, whom the producer believed to be in Savile's bed at the time. Despite the obvious horror of this episode, De'Ath decided to imitate the young girl's high, silly voice as he recounted it. Now that's demeaning.

The long-running wall of silence remains baffling to everyone hearing these stories for the first time, despite De'Ath's explanation that he was young, scared, that Savile was famous, well-contacted and a wrestler to boot. Well, Jimmy Savile was 84 when he died last year, and he hadn't been wrestling for a long while before that.

But even if we accept the young producer's explanation of being overwhelmed by celebrity and power, Esther Rantzen doesn't have that excuse, and the presenter's contribution to the programme was the most chilling of all.

Rantzen was obviously very upset when shown the footage of the women's accounts, and her analysis profound and disturbing as she recalled,

"We all colluded with this. We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable. Everybody knew of the good he did, and what he did for children, and these children were powerless."

But... the founder of Childline, whose constant message to abused children is "It's not your fault, it's always the adult who is to blame" was also able to "block our ears to the gossip, to the rumours". All these people waiting 30 years for these stories to come out... why did they wait one day?

The presentation of the documentary was also a bit unsettling. I'm glad a barrister was on hand to explain the whys and wherefores of credibility, but it was clear this is a case going nowhere now, with the alleged perpetrator lying in his gold coffin. Why did Mark Williams-Thomas wait so long, and how many times did we need to hear "I'm Mark Williams-Thomas" or "at the BBC"? Ok, ITV people, we heard you.

So now Savile's dead, there is no one to charge, no one to punish, and no one to tell his side of the story. Hopefully these women will feel immeasurably better for speaking up for their younger, vulnerable selves, but the situation asks huge questions of more individuals than just the not so genial eccentric, and, despite the efforts of a few brave people, won't ever properly be fixed.

As ever, the lies of omission, what's missing is most telling.

What they don't want known, they just leave out. Like, WAXIE MAXIE & FAT SIX-FIGURE FEES !

Warping-minds, wrecking-lives, and the millions mislead are victims, along with those misrepresented.

Unstated mainstream bent-media mantra:

" Not telling truths, just pushing half-cut newZac, proZac, muZac - same shit different dogs."

These 'stories' are not new though and have been an open secret for decades. No part of the media had any guts to publish before, so now have carte blanche when he was dead? That's the big hypocrisy about it all.

Even Louis Theroux in that actually very good documentary with Savile did 'skirt around' the issues with him and thats probably the closest we got in his lifetime.

Regarding the Beeb, there was a documentary a few months ago about the Television Centre and some of the talking heads on that did allude to a lot of hanky panky in the dressing rooms there. Again, none of this is new and I suppose hanky panky and art, be it TV or theatre or whatever goes hand in hand because of the type of people involved. Does this mean 'kiddie fiddling' (I refuse to use the misunderstood word paedophilia) probably not!

I've known journalists and PRs who have created rumours and stories that have become fact....people and other hacks just believed them because it suited them. Anyone who has worked with Hollywood publicists knows they create lies on a daily basis..and they are deadly serious as big bucks are involved.

I and a well know tabloid journalist made up a completely false story about a movie we had just seen in New York in the 1980s. The drunker we got in A bar afterwards the madder the story became. A London tabloid ran it on page 2 after my pal filed it. It surged around the world. In a month it became fact and has remained so.

I can point to at least 3 Wikipedia pages that contain fabricated tidbits I created over the years alone or with someone else.

I like the idea of leaving them there as some sort of project where I might expose them in the future because I hate the pomposity of today's media which is worse than I've ever known it..as it descends even lower. But I might drop dead tomorrow so they are now 'historical' events.

That said I have no clue as to the life of J.Savile but I do know 'rumours' are self perpetuating rubbish that should never be believed unless you have actually seen something with your own eyes.

200 years ago they used to burn some poor old lady as a witch because someone saw her nibbering to her cat and spread a rumour.

The Huff Post article JK has posted is the first to begin questioning this madness. Those jumping on the bandwagon will be condemned eventually including the ridiculous Rantzen.

Even with (or maybe due to) a small cruel streak, take-no-s*it BIG Hit - Hedda Hopper ROCKS !!

This KINGofHIT$ board has trashed the rest, so give US the money Maxie !

I suspect the overwhelming opinion about all this is... why is the media inflicting all this ghastly sleaze on us?

Because it would be quite easy, if the UK economy was covered all the time in the media as the Greek economy is covered in the Greek media, that plebs would start getting restless.

Right now there are apparently 120 leads in the police / Scotland Yard investigation. 10 staff / officers working on it. About 20 to 30 victims.

I would rather hear "proper" news. It may be a "tabloid" story but it'll be all over "Today" and "PM" for ages.

NSPCC bloke on Radio 4's "PM" talking about victims. The earliest "assault" by Sir Jimmy was apparently 1958. 40 calls have come in to the NSPCC .. so has a 67 year old woman called the NSPCC and said she's one of Jimmy Savile's victims? And she never felt the need to talk about it all this time without revealing Savile's identity?

Hedda wrote

"It defies belief. It is incredulous that they insist that a rampant Fleet Street that was beholden to no-one except shareholders..that has dragged members of the Royal family, powerful businessmen, judges and politicians through the mud on flimsy claims would be frightened of Savile."

Was Savile untouchable because he had managed to penetrate so far into the establishment he probably had dirt on far bigger fish then he?

.... and of course, especially when times are hard, if you were lucky enough to meet Jimmy Savile years ago when you were a young girl and are prepared to stoop so low as to accept a few grand from a tabloid newspaper for your "story".