Savile’s strange position at Stoke Mandeville Hospital developed the quality of ‘folklore’ that no one could quite understand but that everyone accepted, according to today’s report.

The investigation noted that his close association with the hospital did not come about from any single decision or moment, but developed over time – but that those involved were “remiss” to let the situation continue.

It added that the hospital had hoped to “gain reputational and potential fundraising advantage” through Savile’s celebrity status.

The report said: “Ultimately, Savile’s eccentricity and lack of sexual inhibition appears to have been tolerated because of his celebrity and his perceived contribution to the organisation.”

The investigation found that his more general eccentric behaviour was often dismissed in what is described as a ‘just Jimmy’ phenomenon – as in staff would say, “it’s just Jimmy”.

His “overfamiliar conduct” was an “open secret” within the hospital among junior staff and “certain middle management tiers”.

Savile had full and unsupervised access to all areas of the hospital for more than 20 years - even to clinical areas.

The report said: “His association, and the permissions and privileges that ensued, grew steadily over the years and involved a great many separate decisions being made by many different people for a variety of reasons.

It added: “Over time, the rationale relating to Savile’s presence and permissions at the Hospital developed the quality of ‘folklore’; no one could totally explain or understand the situation but everyone appeared to accept it. The only common denominator throughout was Savile himself.”

Savile was a regular visitor to the hospital, where he volunteered as a porter, and raised millions of pounds for Stoke Mandeville’s spinal injuries unit. He had a bedroom and office on the hospital site and even had a cafe there – Jimmy’s – named in his honour.

The investigation noted that Savile’s status gave context to his abuse, and that hospital governance and management systems were not robust during the 1970s and 1980s, meaning that concerns and complaints did not get escalated to the senior management level.

This, combined with the fact that victims of sexual abuse do not find the crimes easy to report, meant that: “Savile’s behaviour continued under the radar of hospital managers, compounded by weak communication and complaints management systems.”

However, while the report states that Savile was largely unchallenged during the two decades of his abuse, likely for fear that he might end his association with the hospital, this changed during the 1990s.

Savile’s ‘authority’ then came to be challenged by the newly established Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust, leading to a “protracted” struggle between them.

This, combined with the introduction of better complaint and safeguarding procedures nationally, helped curtail Savile’s abuse.

The report also notes that “in the 1970s and early 1980s, sexual harassment in the workplace was regarded as being something quite separate from sexual abuse, the one often being tolerated and the other not”.

While Savile was widely regarded as a “sex pest” by staff, the investigation notes it was less obvious this would escalate to abuse.

However, the investigation hit out at a “weak” organisational structure at Stoke during the 70s and 80s: “Had the system been more robust then a vital safety net would have been in place and it is reasonable to conclude that Savile’s ongoing sexual abuse could have been prevented in whole or in part.”

It went on to describe failures in the way he was monitored at the hospital: “Whilst no one could have predicted that he would turn out to be a serial sex offender, the failure to abide by contemporaneous policy and procedure ensured that safety nets were not put in place.

“Each senior administrator who was involved in creating this situation and who allowed it to continue was remiss even without the benefit of hindsight.”