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.
Jives,
I think we know mind of ‘Habbakuk’ from that post to Mary. In fact I can see the flames.
Necrophilia – Iraq – Palestine – Jimmy Savile – at 0:59 onwards:
***Really a Must See!***
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJtLsKtGCSY
With thanks to Larry Levin.
Only that far Nevermind?
Thanks Nevermind. Post number two genuinelly had me in stitches.
no surprise:
Newsnight claims ‘leading Tory from Thatcher years was part of paedophile ring who raped boys at Welsh children’s home’… but BBC sparks new fury by failing to NAME ‘shadowy’ politician
•Alleged abuse victim Steven Messham told Newsnight he was raped more than a dozen times
•Editor of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Iain Overton, had claimed on Twitter that Newsnight would name him
•The tweet prompted furious speculation online about the identity of the alleged paedophile, who is still alive
•But Newsnight said there was ‘not enough evidence’ to reveal the identity of the man it has accused
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226833/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Newsnight-claims-leading-politician-Thatcher-years-centre-widespread-paedophile-ring.html
I did not respond to the sillyness/smutty remark Mark. He/she is named after a prophet in the Hebrew bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habakkuk
@ Jives : “…almost sinister in it personal dimension..”
I see you’ve picked up some of the linguistic tricks used by the Establishment. Man up and tell me (us) how it’s “sinister”. Am I, for example, proposing to encourage a fox to get her chickens? Put weedkiller on her dahlias?
Off you go, the floor is yours.
English Knight
Have deleted another post of yours. if you want to post stuff about “Jews, gays and dykes” there is a whole internet out there for you but you will be banned from this bit of it if you continue that stuff.
Come on chaps. Let’s not rock the boat. We should all stick together…. Dimblebore Jnr. Mealy mouthed tw*t.
Broadcaster backs BBC against Jimmy Savile ‘witch-hunt’
Broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby said the attacks on the BBC were “very distressing”
Jimmy Savile scandal
Erasing the memory of Jimmy Savile
Child protection: The road to hypervigilance
Savile: Alleged victims’ stories
Mark Easton: Giving victims a voice
There has been a “disturbing relish” in the way critics have laid into the BBC over the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal, Jonathan Dimbleby has said.
The broadcaster told the Times newspaper there has been a “witch-hunt” against the corporation, which had become “horribly out of proportion”.
“The real focus should be on what Savile did wrong,” he said.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20190426
There are names on this list – one of which is McAlpine another is Leon Brittain.
http://www.seancopland.com/articles/sex_offenders_register_free_online_search.html
I’ve done something of a round-up of sites on the Internet that name names in the growing sex scandal. You can read it here
In the meantime – A Joke: What do children and power have in common? They are both abused by politicians.
Just an afterthought @ Jives’ post, which – if I may descend to his own linguistic register – would have seriously “pissed” me off if it wasn’t so ridiculous.
He also characterises my post about Mary as “ugly”. This board contains, on an almost daily basis, “ugly” posts about quite quite a number of people, eg, to take a recent example,the one(s) slyly hinting that Prince Charles (and other members of the Royal family, are either paedophiles or homosexual) – but I somehow seem to have missed Jives’ indignation in that regard.
Could the answer be that “ugly” attacks – mostly unsubstantiated – on the great and the good are fine with Jives, but woe onto anyone who dares to deliver a gently kick to one of the “coterie” of this board?
Just a question.
Habbabkuk
Jives’ status and yours are the same on this blog, so your disagreement on this point is on an equal footing. None of the commenters are “attached” to this site. That is why I have discouraged volunteer moderators from commenting overmuch, as it blurs that line (which caused ructions lately). Readers can judge your disagreement with Jives as they wish. Readers, incidentally, outnumber commenters about 100 to 1.
Kempe,
You deserve a reply because you make a very simple logical fallacy. To argue that the pattern of Savile’s behaviour is such that I cannot believe that paedophiles are only to be found among his “lower-class” friends of course does not mean every one of Savile’s acquaintances is a paedophile. That is the stupid “some sheep are black” to “all sheep are black” fallacy. You are not actually that stupid and are seeking to obfuscate for ideological reasons. Why, I know not.
Yeah, Old-Testament-person: lay off Mary. Keep it civil, keep it factual.
Nothing was proved against Jimmy Savile while he was alive was it? Case closed as far as I’m concerned.
A certain deceased former Lib Dem MP was mentioned in Private Eye (again) this week. As usual the mainstream media have not said a peep as far as I can detect.
habbakuk, the non person, is able to solve the captcha, so he’s in, well done.
There is no need to fight, rancour or colour favours here. We do at times let rip, dearest newbie, but try not to get personal. I know how hard it is at times.
Mary happens to be a wealth of information an asset prone to CSI, I bet she has to bath her fingers in asses milk every evening to attain their usual subtleness thereafter and she does not need such jibes.
So leave it out.
Here’s a name to conjure with –
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/mysterious-derek-laud.html
Ticks Tom Watson’s boxes.
Thank you for that post, Craig.
And now, how about a response – or better still, an apology – from Jives?
Craig 2 Nov, 2012 – 8:50 pm
“Phil, Deleted that link because I don’t believe it, and accusations of that sort should not be made lightly.”
Seeing what has not been treated so is intriguing.
I think Jives is still waiting for a response from you, Hab. Namely, who the XXXX do you think you are? One from me – have you anything to say on the topic? Or are you only here to troll?
Probably best not to feed you. Ends.
@Komodo
I enjoy reading your posts, however:
“We could maybe have some confidence in Yew Tree if we knew it was headed by a – preferably female – policeman with a strong record in combating paedophilia and a rigorous approach to dishonest policemen.”
There are good and bad people, and this has nothing to do with gender, to suggest that a woman is needed is ridiculous. A police man/woman with the right amount of integrity will do surely. WTF?
This whole Jimmy Saville business has my head spinning, I just can’t believe the hypocrisy of it all – the media runs the story again and again when clearly they are the ones that should be brought to account (along with all the guilty peados obviously) for hiding it. I had dinner with the editor of a foreign newspaper about ten years ago; he told me about wor Jimmy and he was outraged at being silenced about it.
😉
The winky face was attached to the line ‘please don’t pick on my grammar’. Not sure where that went.
I’m sure I read somewhere that Winston Churchill “liked to sodomise the younger boys…”
I do sigh a bit when you lot go on so much about Zionists, only because I think they can’t be involved in every wrongdoing in the world… buuutttt… it turns out Winston was a Zionist too!
There’s no suggestion that the two are related, I just thought it was worth mentioning.
Maybe it’s how “peadophillia” was looked at throughout the ages or something? Maybe it was more acceptable, or was it to do with the huge gulf between haves and have nots?
@ Komodo : “who the XXXX are you” was your question. I think Craig answered that one, didn’t he?
I shan’t bother to ask you who you are (note the absence of the XXXX)
“I expect him to be arrested in the next few weeks. I am not so sure if the current government minister will be arrested for the same offence.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19658&hl=
Komodo, you have to realise that someone who is no one, needs recognition, attention and our love….
Was Savile useful to the Security Service? Is that why he was protected? Did some of his alleged activities give them the leverage (aka the potential for blackmail) they seem systemically keen to seek on politicians and other powerful figures? Certainly, for years they protected many senor figures in organised crime – eg. allegedly, Arthur Thomson Senior in Glasgow wrt Northern Ireland gun-running and more. And sex info. on politicians and others has always been most useful.
Habbabkuk,
1. No,im certainly not going to apologise to you.
2. Your post to Mary was patronising and then simply got weirder.You said she was “touchy and too self-righteous” for your taste but offered no counter argument or salient points.After your characterisation you strangely enquired after her garden. So,from a personal slight to a personal question do you really expect to be viewed,or answered favourably? Really? To me there was something unsettling about the style and tone.
3. Dont tell me what posts i should or shouldnt react or respond to.Or how i should be responding.I’ll make my own mind up,thank you.
4. I refuse to take linguistic wrangling advice from someone who refers to themselves in the third person,thank you very much. Now,there’s nothing wrong per se with illeism. It doesnt necessarily imply a psycholigucal or self-reality disconnect or narcissism it just, sometimes to me, suggests a sljght strangeness of tone. Which is OK but it nevertheless leaves a certain impression when used in a dialogue.
5. We’re a broad church in this blog. There is no clique or strategic alliances. Long time posters disagree all the time. That’s healthy and is one of the reasons this is such a popular and vibrant blog.
6. Dont be so thin-skinned about swear words-or at least possibly pretend to be. We’re all grown ups. Some of the nastiest barbs in this blog never use swear words when a snarky supercilious tone is far more wounding.
Finally, apologies to all other posters for dragging this post O/T. I was called on a point of order and felt it worth replying.
Cheers.