No, I won't be watching the so-called 'documentary' tonight.
No, not even to see if Esther Rantzen can actually face the camera, unlike the excerpts that have been trailed across every TV show since Sunday, showing her looking down and off to one side as she speaks. I'm no body language expert, but it seemed odd to me, frankly.
Nor am I interested in the tawdry 'revelations' of other has-been media darlings who knew all along, of course they did, yet did nothing at the time. Or the wink-wink, nudge-nudge of tabloid hacks who conveniently forget that 'everyone knew' (and crawled out of the woodwork with 'exclusives') about poor sods like Barry George and Chris Jeffries too.
And I'm especially not interested in the agenda being pushed by the likes of Julie Bindel, with her "Unless we start listening to children, in decades to come we will be hearing the same tragic stories" schtick.
Because the 'children don't lie about abuse!' nonsense got us moral panics like the Orkney debacle, the Cleveland nonsense, the McMartin Preschool case and many, many more, in fact one linked to the 'revelations' about Savile himself, the Haut De Le Garenne skull-fragment-that-never-was...
No, what interests me most are the vested interests that are either pushing this for all they are worth, or benefiting either directly or indirectly from it.
There's those that will be breathing a sigh of relief that the spotlight has shifted from them, just as it was getting uncomfortably hot.
There's the people who profit from setting themselves up as modern Witchfinders General, like Jim Gamble.
There's the control-freaks and authoritarians, who will use it as justification for yet more crackdowns.
So remember, as you lap it up and agree at the office watercooler that 'there's no smoke without fire!' and 'Well, he always looked a bit odd' that this is the sort of stuff that gets us crazy policies in schools and causes reasonable people to see dark shadows in everything. Which while it might make for amusing TV shows, is really no way to live, is it?
So was Sir Jimmy Savile a strange man with dark desires and powerful friends, who presented a persona of good while secretly plotting evil? I don't know. I do know that if he was, he's not the only one in this whole kerfuffle fitting that description.
Not by a long chalk...