Esther Rantzen on Jimmy Savile sexual abuse allegations - "Newspapers wouldn't print the stories"

But how does Rantzen – the founder of children’s charity Childline, and herself a former long-serving BBC employee – explain why abuse that allegedly took place decades ago is only now, after Savile’s death, the subject of widespread press coverage and investigations by the corporation and the police?

Speaking at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, where she was promoting her book Running Out of Tears – the proceeds of which will go to the NSPCC – Rantzen identified some of the issues she believes have helped prevent the allegations from coming fully to light until now.

“People are now asking me why Sir Jimmy Savile’s victims were not able to ask for help,” said Rantzen. “The thing about sexual abuse is that people suffering it feel defiled – they take on the shame and the guilt. Someone described it to me as an attack on the child’s soul – it’s not just the physical assault, it’s the emotional, the intellectual, the spiritual assault that it represents.”

Rantzen also claimed that the press had in the past often been unwilling to consider stories relating to child abuse simply because of their unpalatable nature. "When we launched Childwatch and Childline [in 1986], I remember being attacked in a newspaper quite ferociously - because it is a completely appaling message," she said.

"Most of us love and care about children, nurture children, love childishness – what used to be called innocence... So, therefore, to be presented with the fact, or the allegation, that somebody has actually sexually abused a child is horrific. The information is horrific."

Rantzen added that she believed legal and financial considerations had sometimes had a bearing on whether a newspaper would consider running a story connecting Savile with child abuse. "You’ve got the newspapers who don’t print even when people have told them what Savile did to them – and they don’t print because the lawyers have told them that this person was too damaged to be able to give evidence in court or that this child would crumble. And we’re talking about a criminal libel, which is even more expensive than an ordinary libel."

Finally, Rantzen addressed the part of the BBC, where much of the alleged abuse is said to have taken place, pointing to what she suggested was a relatively small number of accusations compared with the weight of Savile's reputation as a television personality and a charitable donor.

"[The BBC was] not, may I say, the only employer for Jimmy Savile – remember the commercials, remember all the other personal appearances he did, remember the charities that he raised millions of pounds for – and you get these rumours, and complaints from children, one at a time," said Rantzen. "I only know of one child who complained at the time, and one witness who saw an attack in a BBC dressing room and reported it. And nothing was done.

"[The BBC had] that terrible conflict in their heads: the national icon, knighted by the Queen, knighted by the Pope, raising millions of pounds for wonderful causes; he spent Christmas at Chequers with Mrs Thatcher, he knew Prince Charles and Princess Diana, he knew everyone... It becomes very difficult when you’ve got a child’s word against someone with that sort of reputation."

But Rantzen praised the corporation's recent reaction to the allegations about Savile, saying: "I think the BBC has now expressed themselves very clearly. The new director general [George Entwistle] has said how horrified he is by this, that he is urging any members of his staff, or ex-members of his staff, who knew any of this to go to the police with their evidence – that’s what the police want because they want to be able to get to the truth – and what the BBC has said is that they will hold their own inquiry once the police investigation is over."

Rantzen added that the degree of public interest in the Savile case was a result of the esteem in which the star had been held before the allegations surfaced. "I think the shock the nation felt is the reason why this story has continued to be headlines throughout the press, throughout the media," she said.

"It’s that terrible shock that 'Alright, he was strange, he was eccentric but we thought he’d done so much good for so many people' – and suddenly we see the other side of Jimmy Savile."