Nobody is 'untouchable' or 'too powerful'

Kim Kardashian surrounded by guards (Image: Daily Mirror)

You may initially find it bizarre, possibly offensive and irrelevant when I put Kim Kardashian and Jimmy Savile in the same context as I do here. True, they are both completely different people - one is a reality TV star whose biggest crime is craving attention, while the other was a notorious child sex offender. But in the context of what I'm writing here, they have something key in common - and recent stories which they were subject to over the past week or so, fuels my argument.

The argument is simple - it is in relation to the term 'celebrity' and how it is being interpreted by the general public. It is also in relation to the perception of 'us' against 'them', and the media's attitude towards those who possess such status. Therefore while both Kardashian and Savile are from different countries, different eras and have different attitudes, we feel as a collective, that they are 'untouchable' by default.

Such 'status' is given to many high profile personalities that come with a lot of baggage. They have the bodyguards, the edgy publicists, overwhelming external popularity, and plenty of obstacles to reach them for anything. These people are seen to get away with anything. Social media has swayed that argument somewhat as such individuals directly address their followers about what they are up to, and are able to respond to, or begin, speculations and headline-grabbing reports on their grounds. But I feel in this instance, we should take social media out of the equation, but want to put emphasis on why I've compared Kardashian to Savile.

Using Jimmy Savile as my first case study here, many of us know what he's been accused of and each story against him has been overwhelmingly convincing. Yet, despite this, he never was scrutinised for committing the most horrific crimes. He lived until 2011. He lived during the phone hacking scandal, he lived during the rising popularity of Twitter. He was also partaking in highly publicised documentaries in his later years. Yet, nobody - no one - ever took action about his darkest secret until after his death.

Savile with Louis Theroux (Image: Mail Online)

Now, I watched Louis Theroux's recent documentary about Savile. Here, Theroux was reflecting on the two episodes he filmed about the former TV presenter between the late 1990s and early 2000s and was punching himself, wondering why he never saw the signs of Savile's hidden history so obvious today. Sure, both had discussed paedophilia after it was whispered in the tabloids that he may have committed such act, yet absolutely nothing was done about it.

His apparent hundreds of victims were voiceless in the matter, but this act wasn't so taboo as the years went by. As a child in the 1990s, I remember local reports about child molesters on the run. They were known and dealt with when quickly caught. I don't get how Savile's grotesque actions weren't reported as certainties, yet exposing actors Sienna Miller and Jude Law's innocent relationship breakdown through illegal voicemail interception was deemed more important?

Certain people knew about Savile and his history of abusing the vulnerable. However, in Theroux's recent documentary, Savile was described as 'untouchable' a number of times, and because of his powerful connections (being photographed with former Prime Ministers and members of the Monarchy, for example) and apparent lack of evidence to formally, criminally charge him, his scandals were never to come out when he was alive. I'm sorry, but if Princess Diana was 'touchable' with all those readily available and insignificant stories that needlessly damaged her reputation when she was living, why not Savile's? I'm sure hacking his phone would have been easy, no?

It is fair to say that the Theroux documentary left me with so many more questions I'd like answered. It is also fair to argue I wasn't around during the height of Savile's career. Yet, scandals caused by high profile people were happening around, and before, that time - Watergate with former US President Richard Nixon, World War II with dictator Adolf Hitler, the list goes on. These people were, by title, extremely powerful, and exposed freely when they were breathing fine. Couldn't anyone have exposed Savile when he was alive? It's worth noting that reports now suggest he didn't molest youths once or twice, but was doing it consistently for over 40 years.

Richard Nixon during Watergate scandal (Image: USA Today)

Of course now there's nothing we can do to turn back time, but today, we're seeing the opposite effect. The media want to expose anyone, over-compensating for what they should have done all those years ago. But they're getting a lot of it wrong, incorrectly accusing singer Cliff Richard, comedian Jim Davidson and BBC Radio 2 presenter Paul Gambaccini. These false cases shows careless journalism and shoddy reporting, escalated to government where its ministers launch multi-million pound inquiries likely to conclude things we already know.

We can change that. As members of a large community, have to do what we feel is right, both collectively and individually. If you feel someone is ruining the harmony, confronting the alleged culprit isn't always an option. Nobody is 'untouchable', for heaven's sake.

No 'celebrity', past or present, seen with the baggage I mentioned earlier, should not be seen as 'too powerful' to get away with anything, and are therefore seen to live a perfect and ideal life. Reality star, Kim Kardashian is perceived to have this and therefore seen as a role model. So when she was traumatically burgled in Paris earlier this month, instantly, we are guarded with knowing only the basic facts, but any potential scandal surrounding Kardashian herself is hidden. Sure, it's early days as I write this. But despite the dramatic portrayal of that particular night, the Kardashian brand is swiftly restored to its former glory.

It is practically part of a highly recognised person's job description to be a target of scrutiny, or any sort of attention deemed to be in the interest of the audience the media targets. Certainly, each case should be done delicately and respectfully, however, in the current climate and due to the scale of publicity, say, the Kardashians attract, the days of cherry-picking what gets revealed are numbered.

The main point I discovered from the recent Kardashian saga is that she isn't 'untouchable' in the physical or security sense, hence the burglary, and due to the press' interest in this, she may be 'touchable' if anything deemed scandalous was revealed from it all (and that it needed to be revealed for legal reasons). She needs to learn from other previously 'untouchable' personalities like Lance Armstrong when his 'performance-enhancing drug taking' was exposed, and Rolf Harris when he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young girl. They were exposed the 'right' way.

In modern times, 'celebrities' are seen as automatic role models, we have the right to know if they have a side that states otherwise. It's the perks of being in the public eye. If squeaky clean Ant & Dec for example, did something unlawful, don't we have the right to know? I'm not suggesting they have, or will, but if we want to live in a law-abiding world, we've got to practice what we preach.