Jimmy Savile met the Royal family not just on many official occasions, but frequently socially. He was a private Hogmanay guest of the Prime Minister on seven occasions. Of course not only on 31 December, I just think that fact illustrates how close he was.
I do not believe that all of these people knew nothing about his persistent and repeated behaviour.
It is not only that I do not believe they could fail to notice. It is that anyone with that level of frequent access to the Prime Minister, other ministers and Royal family would be checked out by the security services. He would not have experienced full positive vetting (now called direct vetting), but a level of vetting would have been carried out on Savile himself. And many of his friends were subject to frequent direct vetting and it is impossible that a picture of Savile would not have built up tangentially. MI5, Special Branch (now also renamed) and GCHQ have tens of thousands of employees. What do you think these people do all day?
When I passed my last direct vetting, the interviewing officer had spent four months of his life doing nothing but investigate me full time. He noted that I continued to have a rather extensive love life, but as it involved only consenting adults and I did not appear open to blackmail, it was no reason to fail me. We discussed this openly. He concluded by saying – and this may not be 100% his words but it is damn close and the sentiment was certainly this:
“Makes a change to be looking at relationships with women in a Foreign Office case. It’s usually small boys!”
We both laughed. Now I swear to you, at the time I really did think he was just joking. I must have been very naïve.
Nebelmind
“And you suffer from compassion bypass, I hope you are not in contact with children.”
_____________________-
And I would keep you well away from any child under 14, Nevermind.
RepublicofNonsense
““So could you supply some reliable sources for what you wrote (no, NOT Chris Spivey, “globalresearch” or voltairenet, thanks all the same).”
___________________
Habb.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/arch-paedophile-jimmy-savile-was-a-devout-zionist-and-an-isr.html
Do you feel another hissy fit coming on?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, just a fit of laughter.
We are talking about sources about Savile’s alleged appearance at a meeting of the Israeli cabinet and you* provide a link which, upon reading, is about Savile going to someone’s bar mitzvah 🙂
Not very good, was it….
*************************
* Why you, actually? I’m still waiting for the original poster – one “Mayneaux Wren” – to provide reliable sources for his fly-on-the-wall description.
OldMark
I read through the report just published. Some of the allegations amount to rape pure and simple. Others are of consensual sex with people who were over-age with no physical force or blackmail. I find the “imbalance of power and age” argument ridiculous. But nonetheless, some of them definitely are rape and assault.
“We are talking about sources about Savile’s alleged appearance at a meeting of the Israeli cabinet and you* provide a link which, upon reading, is about Savile going to someone’s bar mitzvah ”
_____________
Habb.
It’s obvious by your lazy comment that you couldn’t be bothered to read it all.
Savile berated Israel for not keeping all the land and oil after the Six Day war, amongst other things.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/57682/jimmy-savile-came-my-batmitzvah
“Craig’s busy with the modding. Can’t have any mention of Rotherham can we. That would be ‘racist’. While most of your regulars try to link the whole Savile case to Israel and the Jooos.”
____________
Anon1
If that’s the case you’ll love this one as comedian Alexei Sayle calls Israel “the Jimmy Savile of nation states.”
I’ve never heard it put like that before.
It (Israel) clearly doesn’t care about damaging the lives of children,” he added, referring to the late entertainer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/israel-gaza-conflict-israel-is-jimmy-savile-of-nation-states-says-comedian-alexis-sayle-9608337.html
anon1 your comment was deleted for imputing motive
it was deleted by moderators not by craig
your comments are now under restriction for attempting to impersonate moderators
This place gets weirder by the hour! J
Clark
“Sir Jimmy recalled his advice to the Israelis: “I arrived at this reception. The president came to me and asked how I was enjoying my visit.I said I was very disappointed: the Israelis had won the Six Day War but they had given back all the land, including the only oil well in the region, and were now paying the Egyptians more for oil than if they had bought it from Saudi Arabia.
“I said: ‘You have forgotten to be Jewish’. He said: ‘Would you like to tell my cabinet that?’ Next morning, I went to the Knesset; they interrupted a cabinet meeting and I told them the same as I had told him.””
________________________
So that’s what all the fuss is about?
The earth-shaking scoop from “Mayeaux Wren”, breathlessly phrased
“…how an English children’s show host might conceivably interrupt an Israeli cabinet meeting and, rather than being met with confusion and flummoxed cries of ‘Jimmy who?’, instead halts the meeting and has everybody listen attentively to what he has to say.”
I’m somewhat underwhelmed.
**************************
BTW, it looks as if the source of that story is Savile himself. Given that most people think he’s an accomplished and shameless liar, why do you believe him?
Habbabkuk, I neither believe nor disbelieve Savile’s statements; that would be the responsibility of The Jewish Chronicle. You asked for a reliable source so I provided one. I simply followed the links from RepublicofScotland’s link, which you could have done yourself.
I have seen a recent incoherent posting of Dershowitz’s that suggests to me that he is at some stage in the development of dementia. Especially when you connect with that his absolutely over the top reactions to lawyers naming him in connection with Epstein’s misdeeds. Extreme anger and irritability are one of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s.
Anon 1
“Craig’s busy with the modding. Can’t have any mention of Rotherham can we. That would be ‘racist’. While most of your regulars try to link the whole Savile case to Israel and the Jooos.”
That’s as maybe, and a shame then. As the comparison between the investigation, trial and sentencing between the apparently Teflon criminal paedos in Rotherham, using their power over similarly aged young girls, and Epsteins treatment at the hands of the authorities in the USA.
Saville, Epstein, Rotherham. If nothing else, they all share the fact that a hell of a lot of people were turning a blind(ed?)eye.
As for the jooos Anon 1, some of us here maybe don’t make a direct link between Janner, Saville, Epstein ect, and some masonic type joooish cabal running the planet.
The established order doesn’t have to organise, per se. The systems we have in place do that through their evolution.
Start with elite schooling, and it all flows into place.
Comparisons with Termites, bees, ants ect are appropriate, where the system runs only as the sum of its parts.
Hillary is seeking a Queen bee type role.
Clark
So why do you reproduce it?
It’s the responsibility of whoever posts it on HERE to take a position on HERE.
The “scource”, as you call it, is the JC quoting something Savile allegedly said. So the real source is Savile himself. And that brings us back to the question of whether one should believe him.
It’s to be expected that most of the trolls are leaping to the defence of SaVILE and Israel.
They are just doing what they normally do by defending the indefensible.
Defo
“As for the jooos Anon 1, some of us here maybe don’t make a direct link between Janner, Saville, Epstein ect, and some masonic type joooish cabal running the planet.”
___________________
I’m sure you don’t, Defo, but there are plenty of Eminences on here who have done…and continue to do so whenever the opportunity arises.
Unfortunately for the good reputation of the blog.
“It’s to be expected that most of the trolls are leaping to the defence of SaVILE and Israel.”
_____________________
I hope you didn’t come out with similar nonsense when you were applying for your ICC job, Exexpat.
Exexpat.
A lot of what happens here, everywhere really, comes down to the false conflation people make of the terms Israel, Zionist, and Joooish.
Easy mistake I suppose, with the Zionists being in the ascendant at present.
Similar lazy thinking equates Jihadi John, the Ummah, Islamism, and Muslim.
“Can’t have any mention of Rotherham can we”
Why not? The Rotherham case is surely an example of how the legal system can perform when it is allowed to. No removal of detectives getting too close the the truth. No edicts from above demanding the case be dropped. No mysterious “lost” documents. A refreshing reminder of how things can and should be done.
Looks like those Saville excusers here can say what they like, and get away with it.
I repeat, you should be banned here for supporting such establishment scum bag paedophile rapist.
This country, next to Belgium, has been under this secret cabal relying on framing people and blackmailing abusers to gain acceptance to the status quo for decades if not a hundred years and thanks to wannabe’s such as habbakuk, useless diplomats and parliamentarians who have failed to educate generations of children, failed to teach them how their system, parliament or Europe works, instead they have kept them in the dark dumbed them down along party political lines and set a biased bbc on them to finsish them off with Trivia and shite galore.
modernise and democratise is not in their dictionary and STATUS QUO is written large.
far from hating this country I have brought my children up in, I despise those who carry on the status quo, who deny its people real democracy, fair proportional votes and opportunities that is currently hogged by some degenerated offspring of the last two generations.
I have chosen to change it, beleieved that a different agenda could sway the inept masses, but the electoral fraud system will not allow change, nor do the organs of the state, judiciary, police and civil service.
John Garrett is spinning in his grave looking at that maudlin’ lot.
Nevermind
“Looks like those Saville excusers here can say what they like, and get away with it.
I repeat, you should be banned here for supporting such establishment scum bag paedophile rapist.”
_____________________
Quote us ONE expression of support for Savile on this thread. Or ONE excuse for him.
If you can’t, withdraw, you bargain-basement Dr Goebbels.
Insofar as I can see, only the people with a vested interest in not knowing about Savile, didn’t know. I once suggested writing in to Jim’ll Fix It for some desire or other and was told flatly by my father that this was not allowed because he was a “pervert”. I remember this well because my parents were the liberal type and never forbade anything.
The thing that seems to tie Savile, Rotherham and all the other CSA scandals together is the Dickensian notion that some children and young people – poor ones, from the care system or dysfunctional families – are unabusable commodities. And that notion is as old as the hills, and shows no sign of retreating. See the latest tabloid headlines where rapes are described as romps and where the young girl groomed by Simon Danczuk was excoriated for being on the edges of sex work. Being on the edges of sex work isn’t a symptom of a vulnerable young person: it’s a sign that young person is unabusable.
It’s difficult enough to place oneself in the mind of these paedophiles, but the idea that the state itself is using them to its own ends, supplying them and then holding the evidence gleaned against them, is torture to the soul.
All these cases, going back to at least Kincora, follow a similar pattern of concealment, resistance and coverup.
You’d think peeps would have become familiar with the pattern by now, but no, each and every case is treated as if it’s the first time it’s ever happened.
No reference to the patterns at all. That’s a clue as well.
Let’s at least hope the Epstein case forces open the deals done by very prominent US lawyers to secure the least of sentences for the most horrific of crimes.
And why!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IgwoCn-Zs
Craig Murray
3;35pm 28/02/16
It is always necessary, in my opinion, to consider whether there is a power relation between oneself and a potential sexual partner. A person with any moral awareness will consider whether consent is being influenced by such a power relation: if so, it may constitute an abuse of power.
Smith readily admits that if sexual relations take place between two people over the age of consent then no crime has been committed. She rightly asks the question, in my opinion, if a man in his late forties who is prepared to have casual sexual intercourse with a girl one day over her sixteenth birthday is an appropriate person to be fronting a show that is principally aimed at the young. I think that is a perfectly good question.
My professional association prohibits sexual relations between myself and a client no matter how old the client is. That prohibition continues for at least two years after the professional relationship ends (many would argue that it should continue forever). The issue is one of vulnerability and power. Similar prohibitions exist in most professions, and increasingly in workplaces. A responsible person in Savile’s position would presumably have borne in mind inequalities of power – and what on earth does a 40-50 year old man want with a 16 year old girl anyway? If you had a 16 year old daughter, or son, would you want her or him seduced by someone like Savile? Would you consider that the BBC should know about it?
Kind regards,
John
MJ So you think the Rotherham abuse case is “a refreshing reminder of how things can and should be done”
Surely you are not referring to the October 2011 theft from Rotherham Council premises of 21 laptop computers containing abuse information – a theft that left no evidence of any break in and a theft deemed too insignificant by the Council for them to notify the Information Commissioners Office.
Perhaps you also are not referring to Council practice of firing actual or potential whistle blowers whilst routinely negotiating severance packages with individuals whose (in)actions should have, more properly, resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
Finally you cannot possibly be referring to the fact that for years South Yorkshire Police deemed it appropriate to simply ignore evidence of abuse. Or maybe it was not ignored as currently 54 South Yorkshire Police Officers are under investigation pursuant to a range of allegations suggesting that they acted to protect the offenders with a view to preventing their prosecution.
Delusional thinking is unlikely to be a solution.
“Why not? The Rotherham case is surely an example of how the legal system can perform when it is allowed to. ”
You might want to re-think that, considering how South Yorkshires finest didn’t seem to perform as expected. On any level. Dismissed victims ect ect
I had a wee tingling that the very heavy sentencing was, in part meant to distract from the obvious failings, or worse, of the legal and child protection system. Racial sensitivities and all that.
The IPPC ? report will shine a light, i’m sure.
Whitehall says no access for the Leave team to EU documentation.
It’s deja vu all over again for those who remember Sir Angus setting us straight on who they serve re Indyref 1.
Leave could play this up for all it’s worth, but that would involve the chance of the plebs cottoning on to what the establishment is all about.
Loony: thanks for the info, I didn’t know about those things. Nonetheless they didn’t derail the case. Justice was done.
“People might not wish to testify against someone while they are alive, because they are too frightened of reprisals”
Reprisals from Jimmy Savile?!!
We’re not talking about the Krays here. What on Earth could he have possibly done?
Chris
28/02/16 9:14pm
Actually, there has been considerable suggestion that Savile was a hard man not afraid to employ violent associates. He said so himself on more than one occasion, as you will discover if you trouble to read the report you are so swift to condemn, which gives references to that effect.
Aside from that, if there were no witnesses to a rape or assault then there was the possibility of an action for slander or libel, particularly acute as he was such a well-loved celebrity. Even if a prosecution were successful, it would mean an extremely unpleasant ordeal for the accuser in court, with a prospect of thorough and relentless cross-examination by an experienced barrister. Also the possibility of one’s personal life being smeared across the papers: just because someone was raped by Savile does not mean that they led a blameless life either before or since. Savile was a wealthy man with access to a lot of resources. There were plenty of reasons why people would be afraid to testify against him. I am rather surprised that you are unable to think of these possibilities yourself.
Kind regards,
John
Craig – You were not being naive. At that time what mattered in terms of blackmailability was homosexuality (tout court): Oscar Wilde was reviled for being a pederast (n’importe quel age) not a paedophile. Even through being an active male homosexual was no longer likely to result in a prosecution after its passage, the Sexual Offences Act, 1967 had a number of exceptions. As the Wikipedia entry puts it: “The legal consequence of the legislation is often described as partial decriminalisation of male homosexuality as the act introduced a strict exemption from prosecution (distinct from a full decriminalisation), the implication of this being that outside this exemption, technically speaking, homosexuality continued to be a punishable offence in and of itself.”
Many officials were – personally – socially liberal in their attitudes. So, positive vetting officers would be likely to avoid terms like “homo” as making them seem prim and dated. They needed, professionally, to be broad-minded: but they also warned of the risks of blackmail, especially for diplomats working in illiberal countries. “Small boys” was, therefore, not used literally by you or your vetting officer. It was an acceptable (and, as you say, jokey) code-word which in practice also covered homosexual acts between consenting adults.
I had a similar experience of positive vetting. One of my referees was then manager of the Bank of Scotland in Dumbarton. (This was 1968, when bankers were pillars of the community, not pillagers.) Ian Macniven (the father of my best friend at school) had a mischievous sense of humour. After I had joined the FCO he recounted his side of the vetting experience. These are not his exact words, but they are as accurate as I can make them: ” This ex-military man came to see me about your application to join the FCO. He asked how I knew you and if I thought you were reliable. Then he got coy and stuttery and asked …if I knew… anything about your… activities in respect of, er.., er.. your…shall we say… sexual activities. So I said, “If you mean, has he slept with me, the answer is “No”.”
When I went to the Shanghai Consulate-General in 1987, the previous British Council representative had just been sacked. In a published letter to the Times he said he had made public his relationship with his Thai (not Chinese) boy-friend precisely because he had no wish to hide the relationship and thus was unblackmailable.
The UK – thank goodness – now recruits the talents of LGBT people and deploys them at every level in overseas posts. Things do change.