Jimmy Savile and workplace culture today
The Metropolitan Police's Operation Yew Tree is looking at eight allegations against Sir Jimmy Savile
When I was a cub reporter on my local newspaper in the late 1970s, I returned from the magistrates court with what I thought was a front page story. A councillor had appeared on charges of sexual assault on young girls, an alleged abuse of power that had left me shocked.
But my disgust turned to outrage when the news editor told me they wouldn't be running the story. "Our readers don't want to hear about that kind of thing," he said. I remember he used the word "paedophilia" - a term I hadn't heard before. Whatever it meant, it was not a subject deemed worthy of space in that evening's paper.
It is a reminder of just how attitudes have changed. Many readers will recall how, 40 or 50 years ago, children were warned about the uncle with "wandering hands", the local flasher who hung around the playground or the PE teacher who took particular pleasure in getting small boys to do naked press-ups (that happened at my school).
But all too rarely were these kinds of concerns taken to the authorities. In fact, one suspects that the police would have regarded accusations of such improper behaviour as domestic or trivial. Rather like my news editor, the desk sergeant would probably have shrugged and suggested the complainant worried about proper crime.
The Jimmy Savile story takes the sexual politics of the present day and applies them to another age. The teenage groupies in the 60s and 70s who hung around the pop scene, hoping a bit of the glamour and excitement would rub off onto their own lives, were entering very dangerous territory - a world where sexual liberation was colliding with traditional power structures.
“Start Quote
End QuoteMany career women over the age of 50 will have a story of being touched up or groped by some senior colleague at work”
It is obvious now that many young lives were seriously damaged by powerful men who took advantage of the new freedoms and opportunities, exploiting their position without thought for their responsibilities. The sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll philosophy glorified hedonic pleasure, living for the moment and to hell with the consequences.
But consequences there were for the victims, if not for the perpetrators.
Today, of course, the word paedophilia is a familiar term in the news lexicon. Those found guilty of crossing the boundaries face the full force of public condemnation as well as the full force of the law. There is nothing trivial or domestic about the sexual assault or rape of children.
A similar cultural change can be seen with the sexual politics of the office. Many career women over the age of 50 will have a story of being touched up or groped by some senior colleague at work. From the 60s until relatively recently, there existed a pervasive attitude that unwanted sexual advances were an irritant rather than a disciplinary matter or a crime.
Has office life improved for women since the 1960s?
Although the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 did provide some protection for women in the workplace, it was not until the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that employers were obliged to take seriously the issue of female staff being bullied or sexually harassed in the office.
Bosses covered their legal obligations by introducing equal opportunities policies and training sessions, requiring staff to discuss and consider the meaning of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in the work-place. I think this open debate had a much bigger impact on male behaviour in the office than the threat of legal action.
The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations of 2005 provided clear protection for any woman subjected to "unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her".
The TUC has said that law means "that if, for example, a colleague persists in making remarks about what nice legs a female employee has, or her boss promises her promotion if she goes away with him for the weekend, she should be able to claim that this is sexual harassment".
| Legislation | Aim |
|---|---|
|
To protect women and men from discrimination on the grounds of sex or marriage - established the Equal Opportunities Commission (now the Equality and Human Rights Commission |
|
|
To criminalise stalking and bullying in the workplace, and to make employers vicariously liable for harassment claims by employees |
|
|
To introduce new definitions of indirect discrimination and harassment, and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave |
At the time these laws were being debated, there were plenty of voices arguing they were unnecessary - more red tape binding business from the "right-on brigade". Today, I suspect few people would demand the repeal of such legislation. Office politics has changed markedly over recent decades.
So, again, when considering the lecherous behaviour of disc jockeys and other pop celebrities in the past, we need to remember the cultural framework within which it happened. That is not to excuse the boorish, thoughtless or vile activities of powerful men who should have known better.
But it is a reminder of how far we have come and how recent some of those changes have been. We sometimes fail to notice how civilizing forces are improving people's behaviour.
Anyone with information into these allegations - or who needs support on the issues raised in this article - can call the NSPCC on 0808 800 5000 or email help@nspcc.org.uk, or call their local police station by dialling 101.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)




Giant Oklahoma tornado kills dozens
Smarter future
Light relief
In pictures
Echoes of revolution
A leaf from nature's book
Click
Comment number 595.
beckysharp8th October 2012 - 22:27
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Link to this (Comment number 595)
Comment number 594.
Portugeezer9th October 2012 - 15:27
It is saddening, yet utterly predictable, that a number of people commenting here are more concerned with attacking the BBC, presumably irritated at having to pay a licence fee, than in having any genuine concern for the victims. This vile cynicism has no place in any genuine debate regarding this appalling matter. My thoughts are with the victims in the hope that they find some belated justice.
Link to this (Comment number 594)
Comment number 593.
Rufus McDufus9th October 2012 - 15:36
"592.
AJS
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
The fact that this sort of thing is newsworthy today is a testament to just how far we have come. "
Child rape was definitely not acceptable 50 years ago!
Link to this (Comment number 593)
Comment number 592.
AJS9th October 2012 - 15:34
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
The fact that this sort of thing is newsworthy today is a testament to just how far we have come. It doesn't mean, though, that in 50 years' time we won't look back with incredulity at the early years of the 21st century and think "We called *that* equality?"
Link to this (Comment number 592)
Comment number 591.
Cynical_Alan9th October 2012 - 15:33
Just becasue the allewged offences were i the 70's and so on is no excuse.
Sexist and odious behaviour is never justified however talented, (or in the case of Saville, not), the perpetrator is.
Women and young girls are fully deserving of respect whatever the era and to try and excuse any of this, or these allegations, is ridiculous.
Link to this (Comment number 591)
Comments 5 of 595