(not satire – it’s UK today)
Some people still think the reason Jimmy Savile managed to abuse hundreds and hundreds of children and women for decades without facing even one prosecution during his lifetime was because he managed to hide his wrongdoing ‘in plain sight’ of the authorities.
I’ve already written about how that ridiculous phrase is being used widely in the press as an allusion for a good old-fashioned cover-up:
Savile wasn’t ‘hiding in plain sight’. It was a cover-up.
I mean, I wonder just how naive you have to be to think that Savile’s known closeness to the police – not to mention prime ministers and royalty – had nothing to do with the institutional failure to prosecute him.
For example – for 20 years until shortly before his death, Savile boasted about what he called his ‘Friday Morning Club’ – in which up to as many as nine serving and retired West Yorkshire police officers would regularly spend the morning at his Leeds home chatting, eating cakes and drinking whiskey with him.
We even know the names of a couple of his guests:
One was a Sgt Mathew Appleyard and another an Inspector Mick Starkey.
So why all the doubt?
This Savile scandal is as obvious a cover-up as anything I can remember for a long long time.
Child abuse scandal can of worms – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?
High level child abuse cover-up? Why has Theresa May barred a US journalist from the UK?
It was the police – not the BBC – who wrongly named Lord McAlpine in abuse allegations
Are McAlpine’s lawyers breaking the solicitors’ code of practice?
Lord McAlpine in his own damning words – The New Machiavelli?
BBC Apologises for Not Naming the Name of Unnamed Name it Didn’t Name
BBC Panorama investigates BBC Newsnight over BBC scandal of BBC cover-up over BBC scandal
Scientists discover dim stars orbitting massive black hole at heart of BBC
Please feel free to comment – you don’t need to register and I’m extremely minimal with the moderating – so please go ahead.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Pingback: Jimmy Savile, West Yorkshire Police and the Friday Morning Club | Welfare, Disability, Politics and People's Right's | Scoop.it
Miners dispute ., hillsborough . Savile ..what’s next for west yorkshire corruption service ?
No doubt these things will keep on occurring while we allow / encourage a celebrity based society. Maybe it has always been the same. Powerful people have got away with murder and all the other crimes throughout history. The silent majority ARE becoming less silent though. Hurrah. http://happiness2share.wordpress.com
Tim Sullivan (FB) said:
Isn’t it an institutional cover up rather than a cover up of Savile. Not a failure but a success for the institution to cover themselves and by default cover Savile’s tracksuited arse. The institution goes all the way to the crown. HM court’s of Justice (sic) HM CPS service this institution was also protected by the press who in turn editorially blocked all the publications of victims allegations against not only Savile but all the other powerbroking weirdo cronies who walk the dark corridors of legal and media power. Their psychopathology extends to the circles they keep and the rituals that secure their oaths of secrecy. Initiation into these cultish power rings is the classical sacrifice of the virginity of the innocent. They have all, who are in the inner circles of this dark realm of power, crossedthe line of universal notion of right and wrong. The sanctity of the innocent is the line in the sand and they cross that Rubicon and are bound to sacred oath for fear of their own lives and that of their families. They are internationalists and jet off to where ever they wish to fortress their hold on the free world of individual sovereignty and freedom to economic bondage upon the means to survive esp. food and water and shelter. The cultish menace of the mortgage or tithe to the landlord strangleholds the economic freedom of the individual. Only that which is surplus to survival should be traded on a fair and interest and thus inflation free economy. We are all internationalists and borders apply to sheep and livestock only. That is unless you have enough vegatable protien to survive.
Tim Sullivan (FB) said:
Also Savile is a dead fall guy…The cowards use the robes and satanic garb to hide their ID’s they don’t give a shit about the satanic mumbo jumbo they just get their sick rocks off by ruining the lives of innocent people….It Wasn’t just SAvile folks it goes right to the crown….man the whole institutional syndicate is rotten in it’s core. I’d rather get hung by them than remain quiet about them…and suicide is for the openly and historically distressed or for the stylising of murder by the state or private cartells of power. The percentage of mysterious circumstances around deaths of culteral hero’s and heroins is improportionate to a rational percentage. many openly shot but so often by the lone wolf patsy who’s coached and manipulated into hating…how easy is it to point a dumb redneck at a target and say shoot.
The Infamous Culex said:
At least we may now sleep a little more soundly, safe in the knowledge that as far as anyone can make out, Jimmy Savile never abused anyone who might ever have looked like or even glanced at Lord Muck Alpine.
Nor does there appear to have been any plans to elevate Savile himself to the peerage as Baron Savile of Hevingham.
If Jimmy Saville did any of the things of which he was accused, he did not do it ‘in plain site’. Jimmy was nothing if not a publicity seeking narcisist. My personal view of Jimmy Saville was the same as that of the Director of the NCH? who refused his proferred services because he was a creep. However the same director made it very clear he had no reason to think he was a paedophile.
The picture now portrayed of Saville was that he was an ‘opportunist paedophile’, meaning pretty much that he could not keep his cock in his pocket around anything breathing. This view is the outcome of the wide range allegations from among 750 witnesses interviewed by the police. This conveys the impression he abused 750 people, which he probably did not. From within this group, which may include witnesses that did not corroborate the stories of others, or witnesses whose testimony might contradict the hypothesis that Saville was a predatory paedophile; there are appaparently somewhere between 200 and 250 offences that have been processed, which again implies that number of victims. This might not be the case – there might be multiple offences against a smaller number of people.
The evidence that has been put on screen does not support the hypothesis of someone barely able to control his urges. The independent eye witnesses have clearly indicated that Saville liked sex with young women. But none of these witnesses are stating these women were underage, or indeed unwilling. The evidence of his chauffer is that they were lining up enthusiastically. Why would they do this? I am sure most of them saw Saville as a ‘creep’ in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s; but he would have been one of the routes for them to sleep with the true objects of their desires, the rock stars of the period. It is a pretty well established fact that most of the rock stars of the sixties slept with any number of women/girls, of any age, and they probably took Errol Flyn’s advice and did not ask for their birth certificates. In defence of the BBC – those that have commented have said he liked young sex, not that he liked illegal sex. In addition one female victim made it clear that while sexual acts were commited that Saville waited until after her 16th birthday before sex took place. The second documentary highlighted his secretary, who was used on many occassions as a chaperon when Saville took girls from Stoke Mandeville hospital; this vital witness does not report a single innappropriate incident on all of those trips. But the most important part of her testimony proves that Jimmy Saville was aware of the risks he was taking, and took measures to protect himself from allegation.
If Saville took his personal reputation seriously, he would have done other things to protect it; this would certainly include smoozing the police and local politicians, and it would include threatening legal action for libel. The central premiss of this and other Prides Purge articles is that an innocent person would allow these articles to be published. Why would they? It would be professional suicide to do so. I make reference here to the retired teacher in the Bristol murder case, who I think is a Mr Barker. He was crucified by the press, much of it using internet blogs, to justify publication. He was crucified to the extent that he probably could not have had a fare hearing – why, he was the local weirdo,no doubt some of his ex pupils would have seen him as a ‘creep’.
On the other side of the equation Chris Spivey has stated expressly on many occassions on his blog that the fact that neither he or Scalliwag have not been sued by Lord Macalpine is proof that Lord Macalpine is a paedophile, or in Spivey’s colourful language a ‘nonce’. So here we have it if you don’t sue you are a nonce: if you do sue you are covering up your nonceness.
Have there been cover-ups, well of course there have. Every organisation which had any dealings with Saville will be looking to protect itself, primarily from the endless law suits for compensation. The BBC’s ‘plain-sight’ line was part of this process. Perhaps you are accusing the senior police officers of being involved in the abuse? Or are you saying that the officers you have named actively covered up evidence against Saville. Go on say what you think, do not hide behind words.
V. Allman said:
“there are appaparently somewhere between 200 and 250 offences that have been processed, which again implies that number of victims. This might not be the case – there might be multiple offences against a smaller number of people.”
Around 250 victims, not offenses. Did you read the report? The other 250(of almost 500) were of people who reported, but weren’t interviewed and who didn’t want to name themselves. The police makes divisions of victims and “lines of inquiries” you just have to read their reports to the press. 750 are the lines of inquiries. And the victims are, most of the time, always in bigger numbers than those reported.
“The evidence that has been put on screen does not support the hypothesis of someone barely able to control his urges. ”
“The independent eye witnesses have clearly indicated that Saville liked sex with young women.”
You mean young girls, little girls and boys. But mostly young girls, I’ll give you that.
“But none of these witnesses are stating these women were underage, or indeed unwilling.”
You forgot the 34 reports of rape. 8 with children who didn’t have yet 10 years old. And the reports of rape of teen girls (one less than 16) in the press.
“The evidence of his chauffer is that they were lining up enthusiastically. Why would they do this? ”
You mean the chauffeur who Savile asked him to leave for more than an hour when he took girls who looked less than 12 in his motorhome? He didn’t say they were enthusiastic. Savile could have very well fooled them and raped them there. And even if they were “enthusiastic”, they were 12! It is rape.
“I am sure most of them saw Saville as a ‘creep’ in the 1950′s, 1960′s and 1970′s; but he would have been one of the routes for them to sleep with the true objects of their desires, the rock stars of the period.”
How do you know that? Were you there? None of the stories suggest that. And even if that happened with some of them, it doesn’t justify Savile taking advantage of them.
“It is a pretty well established fact that most of the rock stars of the sixties slept with any number of women/girls,”
So that justifies Savile’s actions? What does this have to do with the sexual abuse of these children by Savile?
“. In defence of the BBC – those that have commented have said he liked young sex, not that he liked illegal sex.”
In the documentaries, most of these witnesses said they looked very young. Around 12, 13, 14, no more. Watch them again. Be informed.
“In addition one female victim made it clear that while sexual acts were commited that Saville waited until after her 16th birthday before sex took place. ”
How cavalier of him! She didn’t said he waited. She said there were sporadic meetings and sex happened when she was 16. Not that he waited. I doubt Savile was seeing her every day, or even every month. Another woman, in the same documentary, said he had sex with her already in the second meeting when she was only 15.
“The second documentary highlighted his secretary, who was used on many occassions as a chaperon when Saville took girls from Stoke Mandeville hospital; this vital witness does not report a single innappropriate incident on all of those trips.”
Savile didn’t do anything inappropriate in front of his middle-age secretary in public places! He must be innocent!
“The central premiss of this and other Prides Purge articles is that an innocent person would allow these articles to be published. Why would they?”
What’s your point here? Savile is innocent? The man confessed underage sex in his biography. People witnessed him with 12 year old girls. Victims came forward. He is DEAD. He can’t be hurt. He got away with it. He won. I don’t understand his defenders, really.
Pingback: Cock-up, cover-up or conspiracy in the North Wales child abuse scandal? You decide. | Pride's Purge
Hi there very nice website!! Guy .. Beautiful .
. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?
I’m glad to find numerous useful info right here in the post, we’d like develop extra strategies
on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
Pingback: Jimmy Savile to be canonised after how he got away with it for so long confirmed a miracle | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Here are 5 questions MPs should ask the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ today | Pride's Purge
Sadly he got a get away with his crimes by dying the scumbag!! And even worse he took with him the names of all the people involved in his dirty ring!! There will be no justice for all the people that finally came forward after many years of keeping his dirty secret!!! Thankfully jimmy saville “clubs” are a dying breed and through education and awareness these people are not allowed to prey upon children so openly and freely. Although they are still amongst us!!
As well as Yorkshire he was a regular visitor to jersey children’s homes where as we all know children lost there lives at the hands of these dogs!!! With no explanation!!!
And even now there is no child protection there really and they have the cheek to ask curtis warren for 198 million!!!!!! Really ?????
Jimmy saville now with hindsight screams nonse! It’s just a shame he didn’t get what he deserved!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Jack Straw on child abuse: “The terms of the agreement did not include an apology” | Pride's Purge
Pingback: The truth about the Tory Party’s cover up of its links to paedophilia | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Tory Party’s cover up of its links to paedophilia
Pingback: Google searches for ‘Leon Brittan’ and ‘PIE’ censored after Cease and Desist notice | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Tory Party admits it ‘mislaid’ Leon Brittan somewhere in the House of Lords | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Meet the man Leon Brittan handed the lost VIP paedophile dossier to | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Danger of sewage hitting air conditioning unit delays Westminster VIP paedophile probe | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Tony Blair on dealing with the developing VIP paedophile crisis: “Carpet bomb it” | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Awkward. Butler-Sloss once said leaders have “sovereign” right to immunity and anonymity | Pride's Purge
Pingback: 8 powerful reasons why Butler-Sloss cannot head the VIP child abuse inquiry | Pride's Purge
Pingback: C of E publishes critical child abuse report – 10 years too late! | Pride's Purge
Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Shock as Jimmy Savile revealed to have been a northerner | Pride's Purge