The Daily Star's FREE newsletter is spectacular! Sign up today for the best stories straight to your inbox Sign up today! Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Related content

The full truth has been uncovered following a seven-month battle by the Daily Star Sunday.

A raft of documents was released last year showing former Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher’s dealings with Savile.

But Whitehall mandarins ordered key paragraphs to be blanked out to save people’s blushes.

We challenged that ruling under Freedom Of Information laws and were initially turned down.

It was only after a further appeal, when we said it was in the public interest to expose what Thatcher and her officials were discussing, that the information was finally released last week.

It shows Savile claimed Prince Charles had agreed to be a patron of one of his charities – and, crucially, last year someone in power had decided we shouldn’t know that fact, despite it being common knowledge that the Prince and weirdo Savile were pals.

Officials at the National Archive, which houses the documents, last night blamed the Cabinet Office, under the control of Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, for redacting the documents.

The cover-up concerned Savile asking Prince Charles to be patron of his Stoke Mandeville appeal.

The letter to Thatcher from one of her aides reads: “Even more encouraging, though again confidential at this stage, Jimmy Savile tells me that the Prince of Wales has agreed to be Patron of the Appeal.”

The nugget was contained in a one page letter headed PRIME MINISTER dated March 6, 1980, and initialled G.V.

The letter was part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, last year.

It included pervert Savile declaring his love for the former PM, showing how well connected he was to establishment figures.

A National Archives official explained the Charles paragraph was excluded under sections 40 and 41.

Section 40 refers to information that it would breach the Data Protection Act to reveal that that person would have a “legitimate expectation” that the information would remain private.

Section 41 covers information that was given in confidence.

Two documents in the dossier are still being covered up and will stay secret for 40 years after a ruling last October when claims about Savile began to emerge.

One, misspelling Savile’s name, is described as “Letter from Jimmy Saville to Prime Minister (undated).”

The other is “Telephone message from Jimmy Savile” dated February 5, 1980.

Last night it was still unclear whose blushes were being spared by those sections ­remaining blanked out.

Freedom of information campaigners have criticised officials for misusing the rules to keep information secret.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign For Freedom Of Information, said: “They often use these sections to protect the identity of people who are actually players in the decision-making process who ought to be identified.

"Sometimes people haven’t behaved properly and shouldn’t have any expectation of having their identity protected. If you persist, you can succeed in overturning these decisions.”

Former Top Of The Pops presenter Savile was a fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville hospital in Buckinghamshire, where he also preyed on young patients.

One paralysed woman said Savile abused her when she was 13 and recovering in the children’s ward in 1971.

Nurses even warned youngsters “pretend to be asleep” when he visited.

The hospital launched its own inquiry after a catalogue of attacks was revealed across the country, dating back to 1955.

Savile was also allowed in and out of Charles’ residence St James’ Palace when he acted as a marriage guidance counsellor for Charles and Diana.

Charles, who led tributes when Savile died, aged 84, in October 2011, had sent him cigars and gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday.

A note with the gifts read: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.”

Last night, a spokeswoman for Charles said the redaction was nothing to do with his office. It was public knowledge that he was patron of that appeal, she said.

And the Cabinet Office added: “As a result of the review of the FOI request, the Cabinet Office decided a small amount of information may be released.

“The reason it was originally redacted is quoted in section 40 and 41.

A review decided that a small extract could be released.”