.. by Private Eye reminding me of the dog that didn't bark in the night time?

[somebloke123]

Private Eye has in its time been a scourge of the powerful, and an exposer of their misdeeds.

For example, in its early days in the 60s it was the first UK publication to print the names of the Kray twins. They have had other run-ins with such formidable figures as James Goldsmith, Reginald Maudling, Robert Maxwell and those corrupt politicians from Tyneside e.g. Poulson, T. Dan Smith.

But nothing over the years on Jimmy Savile. They must have been aware of the rumours. OK you do need more than that but was he a more difficult person to investigate than the others mentioned?

I watched Have I got News for You at the a few days ago, and when the JS question came up the panellists completely forgot that it was a comedy show and launched into a defence of the BBC and attack on the Daily Mail.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nd9dc/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_44_Episode_1/

(from about 9:50 in)

No mention of PE's (non)role

End after Savile's death, it was the Oldie (editor ex Private Eye ed Richard Ingram) and not Private Eye that made the running.

[somebloke123]

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nd9dc/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_44_Episode_1/

(from about 9:50 in)

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

There was no mention in any mainstream publication, why focus on PE?

[somebloke123]

Well I suppose that PE in the past has put itself forward as an alternative publication that went into stories and issues that were not covered in the mainstream press.

And even after his death it was the Oldie that first covered it.

[IvorHughJackolantern]

I don't understand who or what 'Oldie' is.

I don't understand your thread title.

And I don't understand why you're fixated on Private Eye over and above any other brand of print media.

[IvorHughJackolantern]

Oh, hang on, scratch point number 2; I just got it.

The others still stand though.

[THERhubarb]

Oi! Kindly attribute the quote to its source please.

[MrsVincentPrice]

The Oldie is a magazine edited by the former editor of Private Eye.

I thought Hislop made a decent stab at explaining himself, (and Saville was very very litigious) but I would like to know exactly what rumours he was told when and by whom.

[somebloke123]

It may well be of course be that PE didn't have enough concrete evidence to go on. And no doubt JS was extremely litigous.

I simply mention the publication because of their past record, where they have gone after powerful, dangerous and litigous people.

A further example was that PE was highly active in investigating abuses at the Kincora boys home:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys'_Home

and also it covered allegations about Liberal MP Cyril Smith:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith

[Sevenfourseven]

Surprising isn't it ? I've just picked up the latest copy of PE and it does have a page and a bit about the Savile case - but it seems to be focussing on press 'hypocrisy' rather than the scandal itself. It also has two articles casting doubt on the reliability of testimonies given about the scandal. Not what you would have expected ...

[Sallyingforth]

I don't normally believe what I read in the papers as they ALL have their own agendas. But I have a lot of time for Private Eye. I think it does a great job of revealing corruption.

[Sevenfourseven]

I agree - that's why I find their approach to the Savile case so surprising.

[Sallyingforth]

I suspect it my become clear in future issues.

[Sevenfourseven]

Yes, I suppose so. I can imagine there are still things to be revealed which would explain this reticence. As others have said - there must be a lot of worried people out there at the moment.

[Boomerwang]

bah can't view iplayer outside of the UK. Makes sense really as I don't pay a licence.

[edam]

Private Eye's not noticeably afraid of being sued - I doubt that would have put them off (unless the cases where they have ended up in court are dwarfed by a previously-unsuspected moutain of cases where they've failed to investigate).

No-one in the media told the truth about Savile - why single out PE?

[TunipTheVegemal]

I really hope this isn't the reason, but PE, while excellent, is a bit blokey and male dominated and it could be the case that they didn't think Savile assaulting a few teenage girls was worth making a fuss about.
Like I say, I hope I'm wrong about this. But there are plenty of people out there who are outraged about child abuse involving boys and not so fussed when it's older girls.

[Sevenfourseven]

In reply to Edam - for myself I'm not singling out PE as morally worse than other parts of the media. But, as PE trades on scandal and exposing wrongdoing I'm surprised it seems to be soft pedalling this particular issue. As Sallyingforth has suggested, possibly there are things to be revealed which will explain this.

[Sallyingforth]

We don't know the half of it yet. This scandal has only just started and we don't know where it will lead.

[Sallyingforth]

I really hope this isn't the reason, but PE, while excellent, is a bit blokey and male dominated and it could be the case that they didn't think Savile assaulting a few teenage girls was worth making a fuss about.

I don't think that would fit with the editor's personal ethos.

[somebloke123]

No I don't either.

[Pagwatch]

I have been reading private eye for two decades and I don't recognise the blokey description. Nor do I think for a moment that 'a few teenage girls would not be worth making a fuss about'

[Pagwatch]

I am probably wrong but I m expecting a 'special' in the next month or so.

[GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt]

I am quite surprised that the latest PE was rather light on content re JS - plenty of articles yes but it all seemed like filler.

I too wonder if they are investigating it deeper and will publsih something in due course.

I think it can be rather blokey, but not in a dterimental way, rather it has a larky humour. God help me for saying this out loud but I do think ian Hislop has a strong sense of moraility. I would like to think he wouldn't have dismissed those women's stories as 'just three women'.

[Jux]

I've been reading PE every fortnight since the early 60s and it never struck me as blokey.

I was wondering whether their recent reticence (well, this issue) was due to the likelihood of police investigation.

[MooncupGoddess]

I think the lawyers have something to do with it - since being stung for a lot of money by Sonia Sutcliffe the Eye has trodden a bit more carefully. Also, their real focus is on dodgy politicians and journalists, and they don't usually pay much attention to popular culture (a good thing in my view!) so I suspect they were much less interested in Saville than in politicians committing sex offences.

Having said that, in the last issue they quote a Sylvie Krin story from about 1990 which depicts Saville as interested in underage girls, so they clearly knew something was going on. I'm sure there will be more, and more detailed, coverage in due course.