Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Louis Part 2

I left off last night at the beginning of the letter story. The two woman who wrote to Theroux in 2000. He says 
I went along to meet them for tea in London. They were in their mid-forties. They described their 'relationship' with Jimmy as being 'long' and 'friendly'. 
Fifteen years later Theroux decides to take a long hard look at their story 'But knowing everything I know now, some details that they told me seem troubling' 
I said to one of them, 'How old were you ?' She said 'You sound like Jimmy, that's the first question he would always ask'
Now, let's stop there for a moment and consider this. Why would Jimmy care, what age his prospective girlfriends, were if he was a predatory rapist ? Just putting that out there, my contention being that he was more than mindful of the age of consent. To me that doesn't tally with accounts of alleged rapes of children in hospitals etc.
Louis continues If you extracted the details it is predatory and inappropriate and unhealthy. In fact, one of them was fifteen when she started the relationship, so it was criminal. But, you've got the friendship and their tone which was to do with affection.
In fact, in those early days JS was involved in multiple sex assaults, some involving children

It's 23 mins in now and here we meet a BBC producer who worked with Jimmy on Clunk Clicck, J Fix it and Top of the Pops. Jill Stribling-Wright is asked if she read the official reports 
 No, I haven't read them in depth ... I didn't see anything, I mean, I've done various interviews about it and I really didn't see a thing that would give cause for concern. The musicbusiness was like that, sex and drugs and rock and roll. People could get away with stuff, much as they probably still do.
She then explains the fact that she wasn't 'shocked' by the revelations
Theroux baits her with the accumulation of accounts as contained in the reports she barely read, would it have made a difference if she had. Her response is interesting
It seems ... like you're, or, I feel like I'm trying to justify why this happened and why nobody did a thing about it.

Next up, Jimmy visits Theroux at his office at the BBC. You had to be Jimmy Savile to get away with this get up 
 Louis, didn't bat too many eyelids about those short shorts and string vest 
He was dressed inappropriately, his behaviour was borderline-creepy, but at the same time ... I felt this was part of his comin persona 
This bit of the show did make me smile, I'd heard so much about Savile's short shorts, he obviously set out to semi-shock folk, to get a reaction. I smiled as he asked the office girls if it was OK for him to change his clothes right there in front of them. Not one of them batted an eyelid, they were so, not interested in him or his attempt at a joke, changing from one string vest to another ! LOL
  The whole trip was a performance from a man who's glory days were long over. Sad really 

 A few minutes later we're back in Scarborough with Louis having another go at an awkward question. Wonder why this was not included in the program at the time
 Louis is reading from a letter that's obviously been sent To Jimmy's solicitor following a press attempt to smear his name

Louis - Were you (can't understand words here) your client has agreed not to pursue a claim against this newspaper ?'
Jimmy - That's right, they said I was derogatory to the er, patients, right ? Which I wasn't and they agreed and said, 'we have made a mistake, kindly take this nice few quid'
Louis -  That seems a bit rich ... being derogatory to patients given all the money you made' for them
That's why they all pay up 
Do they ?
Ooooh Aye !

Next - Cherie

   An alleged 'victim' who comes out with a story so preposterous, I start to wonder if Theroux might be working as a double agent, deliberately sabotaging his own journalism. Surely he doesn't believe this crap ? You can read it here, I really cannot be bothered to transcribe what she tells Theroux, save the fact that she defines herself as a 'victim'
Do you really consider yourself a victim - are you happy with that term ?
Er, yeah - I would never let my children watch him on television

Cherie has her own business, and she's uploaded videos to the internet. Here she describes the accident that led to her admission to Stoke Mandeville Just one of a series of lemons life has managed to throw in her direction ! No mention of jogging men throwing themselves through windows here, but watch it anyways for the LOLZ, she and Clive who was present during Louis interview, are clearly a few sandwiches short of, a few sandwiches ! 

 If I was Louis wife I'd be worrying about his mental health, to think he actually be serious in this next bit of the show. Of that bit in When Louis met .. where Louis is surprised that Savile has his address written on a piece of paper. Like Cherie who says Savile must have seen her medical notes, or been told by a doctor, someone in the know, that she was in that room alone, Louis suggests that he too may have been scoped out, maybe friends in high places gave Jimmy his personal information ? 
He even asks her -
You think that I was gullible and silly ?
You were young and he was like, 'I'm the celebrity' 
What has been difficult is the realisation that I I failed to get to the truth about him.
Cherie - He was so good at disguising everything 
Stoke Mandeville ? Burns victim ? All my bells started ringing and as if by magic, Maggie Jervis tweeted this whilst I was busy writing !

I don't know about you guys, but I'm finding Louis Theroux a lot harder to fathom than Jimmy Savile ! What the hell is he up to ? It's clear he's not interested in establishing any facts. WE still don't know when that bloody Clunk Click episode was actually recorded, why didn't he at least, ask the 'walnuttish' one ( you have to watch it to know what I'm talking about here)  that bloody question

Tomorrow, I'll cover Theroux's meeting with Sylvia Nichol. Dear, lovely Sylvia, who knew Jimmy for more than 40 years and still has a place for him in her heart
I'll also cover a woman who worked for the Mail on Sunday. What happened during her interview has caused a few ruffled feathers - stay tuned guys and gals 

Bless you Sylvia ! 
BTW, I didn't watch the whole of Cherie and Clive's youtube video, if they do happen to mention jogging men, let me know !




  1. I watched the programme on Sunday and have read several transcripts of it since. The more I examined it the more I thought that Theroux was like one of those old religious monks who would whip themselves with birch twigs as a penance for the sins they had committed.
    One aspect I find difficult to get my head round is the admission from at least two of the so called victims that they had been abused in their childhood by close family members. Where have I read this before that they attach an old story to a modern personality as a way of seeking closure!!!!!
    Sylvia and Janet are to be applauded for their loyalty unlike this whining winger who I expected to see burst into tears when he realised his so called guilt.

    1. Nice to hear from you again Damian. Louis's taking a bit of a pasting in some of the reviews !

    2. Of the four 'victims' in the programme, two say they'd been abused regularly before meeting JS, another seems to have been on heavy medication and tells a story which you'd have to be on drugs to believe (Louis?)...and the fourth is the sad old lady who wants to remember that she used to have big boobs and a short skirt but actually phoned in her 'funny' story about meeting Jimmy Savile to the radio station. Of course, the story would become much funnier once 'the revelations' gave her permission to change the story and add the punchline...the one she'd heard heard down the pub in 1978, perhaps?

      'He dropped his tracksuit bottoms and said, "How's about that then?"'

      Hahaha. She even catches her own smile before carefully putting the pained grimace back up...and Louis...did you have to do the second take of this indoors because, on the first take, in the street, you'd blurted out, "Ha. Bollocks, you daft old bint!"?

      It's a cracker.

    3. This guy has the nerve to call himself a documentary maker...and he can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

  2. Thanks for your comments on Louis and the program and your "finds" like the previous video of Cherie and her husband. All appreciated.

    1. Cheers John but the credit for the video of Cherie & Clive goes to Tara Snow who tweeted it to me Monday night ! :-)

  3. There would have been nothing illegal about Jimmy "dating" a 15 year-old providing he did not engage in sexual behaviour before she was 16. At that time, even "French" tongue kissing would not have been an offence. I recall one of the DJ's at radio One said in his autobiography that he had "fallen in love" with his eventual wife when he first met her aged 13. He married her when she was 17 and I think the marriage lasted all their lives.