Talk of “round up the usual suspects”. Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr are not even low-hanging fruit for the Met, they are windfalls.
Jimmy Savile’s behaviour was evidently priapistic, and his predeliction for under-age sex, it is plain, was indulged continually in semi-public situations. The risk or exposure, or the thrill of his own incredible immunity, appear to have been part of the enjoyment.
I do not accept that there were two Jimmy Saviles; that one, the open pervert, only appeared when he was with the conveniently already discredited Gadd and Starr, and the other entirely respectable Savile was the friend of Royalty, senior politicians and public servants and entirely blameless in his behaviour. It seems to me much more intrinsically probable that the mutual indulgence of shared vices was the stuff of his friendships in both groups.
Savile’s elevation into the social elite brought him the immunity from prosecution for sexual exploitation that social elites always appear to enjoy. The “posh” part of Savile’s social circle continues to be protected, while Glitter and Starr will satisfy the public mood for revenge.
I am sure there is a great deal more to know than Glitter and Starr. I fear we shall never be permitted to know it.
It was ever thus … above the old Bailey it says “Punish the wrongdoer. Protect the children of the poor”.
Habbakuk
Don’t be daft. Of course in matters of human behaviour there is no general rule to which there is not the odd exception.
BTW @Mary : oysters are not, repeat not, fattening
I did not say that they were. The writer on the Scarborough Maritime History Centre website said it.
HuffPo and Guido Fawkes not displaying their newsnight scoop anymore.
Trial by Blog again. So anybody who associates with a paedophile MUST be a paedophile themselves? Unless presumably they’re a victim I suppose. I’d better go and hand myself in then, I can think of two, a bloke who used to fondle apprentices and a teacher at my old school. Neither was ever arrested, neither had friends in high places to protect them. Everybody knew, it seems incredible but back then it just wasn’t taken as seriously as it is now.
Oh and once again accusations of paedophillia are supported with allegations that so-and-so is gay. I thought the old queer-bashers’ creed that all homosexuals are kiddy-fiddlers died out in the 1970’s. Obviously not. So far all but one of Savile’s identified victims are female anyway.
Kempe
Talk about Aunt Sallys. Nobody has said all savile’s acquaintances were paedophiles, nor that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia,
How else are we supposed to interpret this?
“I do not accept that there were two Jimmy Saviles; that one, the open pervert, only appeared when he was with the conveniently already discredited Gadd and Starr, and the other entirely respectable Savile was the friend of Royalty, senior politicians and public servants and entirely blameless in his behaviour. It seems to me much more intrinsically probable that the mutual indulgence of shared vices was the stuff of his friendships in both groups.”
“mutual indulgence of shared vices” if by that you’re not accusing Royalty, senior politicians etc of sharing Savile’s paedophillia what then? Looks like guilt by association to me.
Also:-
“Royal servant George Smith made a rape allegation against more senior royal servant Michael Fawcett, whom he also alleged to be a male sex partner of Prince Charles.
Those two allegations have never appeared in the British media*, although they have been published abroad. When the appeared in Le Monde, that newspaper was prevented from coming into the country.”
Irrelevant but apparently offered as supporting evidence.
*Untrue, but never mind.
The spam blocker has gone into double figures!
The problem is not how high it goes but how low it goes.
I am now reasonably certain that all of respectable society was at it. My ex once described a passing moment when her (very posh) godfather transformed into lover and transformed back again.
The reason why Savile did not get exposed is not the height of the scandal but its breadth and depth. I am very glad it has all been aired. It has given me a first taste of what mourners call ‘closure’. A point at which instead of being accused of being sick, one starts to see that it was the accusers who were sick all along.
Lord McAlpine it is, and the Tories are rocking. But the knock-out punch will have to be the naming of the Tory “handler” who got dyke Helen Bouden to set the high libel bar for a dead Savile, as an escape route for Rippon.
http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/487313_203664619767875_598847032_n.jpg
🙂
Phil,
Deleted that link because I don’t believe it, and accusations of that sort should not be made lightly.
Craig, I think it’s you who is being a bit daft this evening. Or showing your FCO training.
Oldest trick in the book :
A makes an assertion
B contradicts that assertion, setting out some facts
Craig says oh, no, A’s assertion is correct, the facts that B brought into play are just exceptions to the general rules as set out by A.
To which Habbakuk asks : who says?
Well done, Mary, always vigilant, aren’t you.
But a bit to touchy and self-righteous for my taste.
BTW, how’s your garden getting on, and the hens (or was it cocks)?
Nost Guido’s Newsnight link? Check my Torygraph link above, or Google “Newsnight+Overton” – the story’s still there. Maybe Guido got an earful from Cameron?
And, amazingly, the Express and Craig are temporarily as one on this:
“Well I can tell Mr Cameron that this claim is not sensational, anything but. In fact Tom Watson has barely scratched the surface.
I have compiled a list of 132 utterly shameless establishment child abusers. These include MPs, lords and local councillors. A similar list for members of Her Majesty’s Constabulary exists.
SEARCH EXPRESS COMMENT for:
I don’t believe these lists are complete. This is not conjecture or media gossip but people, primarily men, who have been prosecuted for child sex offences throughout the UK.
Many of these abusers still represent constituents and are “serving the public”. At the very least we should know who they are, where they are and if their public decisions are influenced by the greater good or their own twisted perversions.
As a journalist, and in light of the Savile revelations, people have contacted me desperate to share their abuse stories.
Some accuse powerful members of the establishment. Several household-name MPs are said to have committed acts of degradation against children as young as six.
Yes, some of these callers may be jumping on the bandwagon but not many are, as independent corroboration of their stories has already confirmed.
So let’s not be under any illusion that this is only about Savile. I fear it is far from it.”
(Sonia Poulton, 28th Oct)
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354945/Sex-abuse-is-guilty-secret
Hardly likely to be a complete fabrication, and it’s still up.
/”Lost”
@Craig
Upon reflection I am glad you deleted it.
“…aren’t you.”
Unintelligent. Use the curly thing for questions. Thus:
“…aren’t you?”
it was telling how Brits who commented on MSM articles after Tom Watson “shocked” the Commons came up with one politician after another as possibles and, when one did a bit of searching online, they might all have been correct!
those individuals & organisations who are GENUINELY against paedophilia – especially the predatory networks, who seem to have no trouble infiltrating public & private institutions at the highest levels – need to join hands to ensure this pandora’s box is opened at this opportune moment. who knows, maybe we can rid the system of these protected, blackmailable perpetrators of the worst kind of sexual crime.
given the complete failure of past police investigations, and the Beeb appointing Murdoch connected persons – Nick Pollard & Dinah Rose QC – to head their internal investigations, pressure will have to come from the public & those genuinely concerned organisations for a credible, independent inquiry which goes above & beyond the Savile/BBC saga.
there has never been a better opportunity. good luck.
What exactly was divulged in the Scallywag magazine that displeased so many toffs and is linked to abuse in care homes in north Wales and elsewhere??
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/
“Then in 1991 the story broke into the main stream when the Independent HTV and Private Eye publiciced the abuse. Between 1991 and 1993, North Wales Police mounted a huge retrospective investigation and subsequently referred some 800 allegations to the Crown Prosecutions Service. Fewer than 3% of these referrals proceeded to trial, much to the dismay and mystification of many of the alleged victims and of the adults who knew the extent and nature of the alleged abuse”
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/
The UK Column video seems earnest, if a bit random. They propose a desparate idea to help break power pedophile rings – an amnesty.
They quote a 2009 Independant article claiming that Jack Straw quietly introduced a bill which stops children in care from speaking out about abuse.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/justice-ministry-to-bar-parents-from-telling-their-own-stories-1622154.html
The evil of child abuse is surely one of the most galvanising of all possible causes.
If full revelation and prosecution of child abuse is still being blocked by elements in the BBC and Law and Government now, surely the country can manage a mass protest and financial support for, surely the great majority of people all professions, who wish to eradicate this source of harm. A secretive and truely perverse source of harm, which has riddled institutions throughout history till now?
This is not very good coming from a professional ex-diplomat. You know perfectly well that the Royal family were meeting JS the major charitable fund raiser. JS did a very great deal for charity. He was also apparently an extremely odd character with rather unpleasant ‘priapic’ interests. Questions do need to be asked, questions about why the Royal family were exposed to being associated with a paedophile whose activities were well known within the BBC and were also known of and complained of to the police over the course of a considerable timespan, questions about his associations with others who were not involved with charity work and did not appear to share common interests of a usual nature. Does not MI5 have role in protecting the Royal family both physically and reputationally, if not MI5, then who? Our secret service seems more interested in fighting Israel’s enemies than protecting this Realm.
The specific link to the Scallywag magazine story here
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/people-want-to-know-who-people-were-who.html
Totally agree with your piece. It’s the ones we can’t see or hear, we should be rooting out. Hidden and protected by the veil of secrecy. Lots of them, too.
Forthurst, your assumptions should concure, although looking at the video from Bill Maloney, it seems that MI5 could also have an interest in controlling the Royals and their behaviour, for when it suits them and, by whatever means.
What is disturbing that nobody in the BBC is talking of re-opening the Haute La Garenne inquiry, the timidity and public warning given by the police before they arrest and/or interview someone, is very worrying.
What if these cases are not just similar to Marc Dutroux, what if they are connected?
Murdoch’s people have known all about Savile for decades. Both myself and my partner were told over a long lunch at Murdoch’s expense sometime around 1991 by a then NoTW staff journalist, Annette Witheridge (now a contributor to the Daily Mail), all about Savile’s perversions, including the necrophilia at Leeds General Infirmary. She told us that they had a huge dossier on Savile going back decades, but that they were expressing forbidden ‘from above’ from ‘doing’ Savile. Witheridge never explained who precisely had embargoed the accumulated intelligence, but we both got the clear impression it was the proprietor himself, for reasons unknown.
Someone should find out what the News of the World had on Savile, and why they suppressed it (as did several other papers).
Typo: expressly forbidden
Mind numbing Larry – Thank-you
@ Habbakuk,
That’s a really bad post you directed at Mary earlier.
You may disagree with her-fine- but the latter tone of your post was ugly,personal and,as i read it,almost sinister in its personal dimension.
Who the fuck do you think you are?
Have you seen this?
http://www.theworldoftruth.net/GH/TheHallettReportNo1.html
It links the paedophile network with drug running and very, very important people in government and society.