A reporter from a Scottish daily who interviewed Jimmy Savile six years ago has said she found him “cagey,” “evasive,” and “very odd.”
The Scotsman’s Claire Smith visited the Scottish home of the late TV presenter in Glen Coe and attended his 80th birthday party to interview him but found his conversation was “characterised by inappropriate sexual innuendo” and “suggestive banter.”
She has now written about the experience in the wake of a series damning allegations over Savile’s behaviour, which led police to describe him this week as a “predatory sex offender.”
In the article, Claire wrote that Savile seemed disappointed that she was not younger when they met and that their conversation had taken on new significance since the allegations emerged.
Claire Smith with Jimmy Savile at his 80th birthday party
She wrote: “I remember when I got back to the office after going to Sir Jimmy Savile’s 80th birthday party, the news editor asked me: ‘Well, what’s he really like?’ I said: ‘I have no idea.’
“After decades of playing cat and mouse with the media, Savile was giving nothing away. He was cagey, evasive, clever, funny and completely inscrutable. There was no way I was going to get anything out of him.
“Looking back on that encounter now, six years later, it becomes clear why he had these defences in place: he had much to hide.
“The past two weeks have brought fresh allegations of sexual abuse involving young girls on a daily basis, and the content of our conversation – his conversation – makes me shudder as I recognise its significance with the benefit of hindsight.”
Her article added: “His conversation was characterised by inappropriate sexual innuendo. This was an uncomfortable surprise: it did not meet my expectations of a children’s entertainer.
“There were regular references to ‘young ladies’ in his suggestive banter, which might have jarred in the unreconstructed 1970s, never mind 2006.
“He asked me to call my mother, then took the phone and told her that I’d come for a job at The Golden Hands Massage Parlour. ‘ She says you can give her a reference,’ he told my mother.
“He was not being flirtatious, just odd. Very odd. And he spoke just like he did on television – in short staccato bursts with a full stop in between each word.
“He was clever. He was funny. He was sharp. But he wasn’t really warm. He wasn’t really likeable. Looking back, I’m amazed how much he was managing to cover up – and how he kept it hidden for so many years.”
Claire also writes about the complex negotiations she had to go through in order to pursuade Savile to write an article for The Scotsman about Glen Coe and how he played a “long drawn-out game” before finally agreeing.
The full article can be read here.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
What saddens me is that all these allegations are coming out now. Why didn’t those affected come forward before. Surely even in the seventies this sort of crime was horrendous. The problem is that the “man” is now dead and he went to his grave knowing that he got away with being a pervert.
Report this comment
What do the family members who tried to block the TV broadcast have to say now?
They must have thought ‘Sir’ Jimmy had gone to his grave with his sainthood intact for eternity – only for his dirty secrets to emerge and destroy his reputation.
All the whingers and whiners trying to stifle the press should realise that his death was the chief catalyst for bringing his crimes to light.
No-one would risk exposing a ‘national treasure’ like Savile while he was alive due to the libel risk. His death opened Pandora’s Box and look what came out.
Report this comment
“I’m amazed how much he was managing to cover up – and how he kept it hidden for so many years.”
Lets consider that quote again. And remind ourselves that no matter who has come forward so far, and how credible the allegations appear, that the matter is still being investigated. But they are still, at this moment, allegations. Everywhere we read that there are “claims” and “inquiries”. But Claire already seems to have made her own judgment.
Call me an old sub, with emphasis on the old.
Report this comment
It’s easy for everyone to be wise in hindsight. Years ago, as a reporter, I interviewed many celebs for a regional daily paper, some of whom later turned out to have cupboards stuffed with skeletons. One of the funniest, zaniest characters I talked to was a certain Jonathan King. It would have been unthinkable at the time that he was heading for jail on child sex charges.
Report this comment
Jimmy Savile’s “tastes” were known about over 40 years ago. When I was organising the Rag Ball at Uni, I asked a senior figure in the music business whether Savile would compare it. I was strongly advised against it because of the number of “young girls” that would be present.
The reason he was never exposed before is the lobby system. This was the same system that protected Jeremy Thorpe’s controversial private life prior to the Norman Scott case – yet how many times have I been bored to death with lectures from supposed “proper journalists” who shied away from sticking the boot in.
Regarding Jonathan King, Pete Waterman told me never to let him or Garry Glitter near either of our families 30 years ago because of their vices. I wasn’t surprised when they were sent down.
I hope the current investigation leads to the long-overdue arrest of one leading broadcaster based north of Watford who has similar tastes to those of Savile. the Old Bill shouldn’t have too much problem arresting him as he is a Freemason.
Report this comment
He’s dead bbems60 so quibbles about prejudice do not apply.
The police investigation will expose the full extent of his abuse and perhaps explain why he got away with it for so long (and their failure to bring him to justice).
You can’t convict a dead man so nothing will be proved in court. We are free to make our own judgments.
Report this comment
I’m really exasperated with people Den who constantly say ”Why did no-one say anything when he was alive?” People did say things. They were usually ignored, laughed at,punished or threatened.
There were a few police investigations. In the 50s, Savile seems to have paid the police off. He was interviewed as late as the 2000s. The CPP declined to prosecute. The police did not ‘join the dots.’ They were not aware that complaints had been made all over the country.
Report this comment