The recent Jimmy Savile scandal has dominated the news in the UK over the last week or so. It is a disgusting sordid tale, I had heard the rumours before and when he died I, along with a couple of other Daily Telegraph bloggers, cautioned others against the over exuberant praise that they were heaping upon him in his online obituary. We were all shouted down, “How dare we tarnish such a great man’s memory.” was the general retort. I can remember posting that those bloggers criticising us would likely end up feeling pretty stupid when everything started to come out.
My primary concern is that, given this historic opportunity to set the record straight, the public will be fobbed off with only a partial truth, yes it will be horrifying but it will be only a small sectioned off, cordoned, quarantined, sanitised half truth, quarter truth, hundredth truth. I can already see a media move to this end. They are focusing exclusively on Jimmy Savile, Entertainers, and the BBC but this is only the tip of the iceberg. That Jimmy Savile was a predatory child abuser is clear but what is not being reported or speculated upon is that Jimmy Savile was a pimp and provider to powerful paedophiles in the UK. It is those powerful paedophiles who will do everything in their power to ensure that this entire affair will be cauterised as near to Jimmy Savile as is possible.
I’m going to try and give you a fair overview of the true situation, though you will not like the picture I draw.
Let’s start with the founding in 1974 of the ‘Paedophile Information Exchange’ (PIE), the breakaway ‘Paedophile Action for Liberation’ (PAL) and their affiliation with ‘National Council for Civil Liberties’ (NCCL), now known as ‘Liberty’, today headed by Shami Chakrabarti but then run by, future Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt and aided and abetted by Harriet Harman who worked as the legal officer with her husband Jack Dromey. The NCCL didn’t exclude PIE until 1983.
It is a good place to begin, not because it represents a chronological starting point for this story, because it certainly does not, but because it highlights the attitudes of paedophiles towards paedophilia and incest which prevailed at that time . It is also interesting to note that throughout this period up until 1980, child pornography was legal in Denmark and so there appeared to be a precedent.
It would seem that paedophiles thought of themselves as a persecuted minority. The decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK in 1967 seems to have spurred paedophiles to organise and seek a change in the age of consent, decriminalisation of incest, and legalisation of child pornography. The very fact that such organisations like PIE could openly operate, affiliated to the NCCL, publishing magazines and newsletters which promoted paedophilia and facilitating paedophile rings through contact advertisements demonstrates that for these people and the law, the situation was clearly different from today. The majority of people in the country were just as opposed and disgusted by paedophilia as today but these people did not feel as though they were doing anything wrong.
But paedophiles had been organising long before that. They were as shameless and guilt free as a meeting of the local trainspotters.
Here is a selective quote from a story in the Mail from Guy Marsden, Jimmy Savile’s nephew.
At 13, Guy and three friends hitch-hiked to London ‘for an adventure’. They returned home about five weeks later but regularly ran away to the capital for similar periods.
On the first trip in 1967, the group of boys went to Euston Station and were quickly invited to a grubby flat by men who recognised them as easy prey, although Guy says he was never abused.‘About four days later’, Jimmy Savile turned up at the flat where they were staying. ‘He recognised me and I thought “this is it, I’m going to get in big trouble here”. I hadn’t been in touch with my parents to tell them where I was. But Uncle Jimmy just took us away to a much better place.’
The group of runaways ended up in a fabulous house – believed to belong to a famous pop impresario – with a big indoor swimming pool. The celebrity home was one of the party venues.
‘At night you would get about 15 or 20 people turning up. There would be music and tables full of food, we couldn’t believe it. There was everything we needed and we just hung around.
‘At first we automatically assumed the children lived there, but we soon realised they didn’t. They would be brought there, sometimes by Uncle Jimmy, and would stay for six or seven hours until 3 or 4am. They were just little kids, boys and girls.
‘Two or three would go off and come back later. ………………..there is no doubt at all in my mind what they were being used for.‘They used to say they were “playing.” You heard sounds and moans and groans coming from the bedroom and knew what was going on.’
Guy said he believed he and his friends were there to ‘keep the kids happy’. ……………… I never saw Jimmy Savile sexually abuse any of the children, but as far as I am concerned he was part of a paedophile ring at those parties.’
There are a few things which I find interesting about this story. The first is that it took less than 4 days for Jimmy Savile to find out on the paedophile grapevine that his nephew was in London, and the protection that that connection afforded him, the regularity and high attendance of these parties, and that Savile sometimes provided the children from care homes, boys and girls [so not just from the Duncroft girls’ school in Surrey] but was not the only one to do so.
Care home children are particularly vulnerable, and if you are a paedophile, they’re ideal prey. They are often emotionally vulnerable, voiceless, and institutionalised. I’ve read many comments from people asking why it was that these victims didn’t speak up before. I’m afraid that they often did speak up but were not listened to. Many of these children had the most appalling upbringing, many later developed mental health problems, others have criminal records. For a paedophile, a vulnerable victim who will never be believed is ideal. There are a large number of people coming forward now and each victim is finding confidence in numbers that they didn’t have on their own. But it has since come to light that Jimmy Savile’s name was mentioned by atleast two victims during the original Haute de la Garenne investigation in 2008.
Paedophiles will always seek out positions which give them access to children. That is why there are so many allegations about Roman catholic priests. If you are a catholic and a paedophile there is no better position to attain than one that gives you such authority, private access to children and unquestioned trust within the community. Similarly, a position within children’s services, or a care home might give similar access. If that were the case there should be some record of abuse, shouldn’t there ?
Let’s begin in North Wales. This story was originally from the Guardian, October 15th, 1997 (no longer found there), and it’ll give you a very clear idea about why it is that Jimmy Savile and his ilk seem to always get away with it. (Oh, by the way, I’ll add the link to the original source below the article and if you are curious about who is being protected you’ll find out if you click on it and read on)
PUBLIC FIGURES NAMED IN PAEDOPHILE RING
Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales.
The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.
The Guardian today publishes for the first time detailed evidence about the alleged ring, which is said to have been based in Wrexham, and to have infiltrated local children’s homes over a 20 year period.
Witnesses claim that members of the ring used their connections with police and social services to conceal their activities. All of the accused have denied the allegations.
Those named to the tribunal include: A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.
The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-age boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.
A powerful public official who has previously been cleared of abuse. Six witnesses have given separate accounts to the tribunal of his alleged rape of young boys. Another has reported him attending parties in Wrexham which were supplied with boys from a children’s home.
Two social workers and two police officers, one of whom was accused of abuse on four separate occasions and exonerated each time, another of whom has since been jailed in another part of the country for gross indecency with a child.
More than a dozen other local men, including an executive with a local authority, a senior probation officer and a director of a major company.
All those named as members of the alleged ring have denied the charges, either in evidence to the tribunal or through their lawyers.
When the tribunal was established last year, it had been assumed that the press could report its proceedings, using the laws of privilege which allow them to name names from court cases and public hearings without fear of libel actions.
However, Sir Ronald then ruled that the media could not report the name of any living person who was accused or likely to be accused of abusing children in the North Wales homes unless they had previously been convicted of such an offence.
Since then he has extended his ruling twice: he has granted anonymity to one man who died 16 years ago and to another who has twice been convicted of sexually assaulting boys from a North Wales home.
Sir Ronald has argued that his ruling will encourage alleged paedophiles to come froward and give honest evidence without fear of retribution. Critics say this is unnecessary, since he has the power to compel witnesses to attend, and that those who have come forward have done so to deny the allegations and not to make a clean breast of their alleged offences.
One lawyer who has been involved with the tribunal said he feared that the anonymity ruling was actively discouraging witnesses. “Newspaper readers may well have information of potential value to this tribunal. They may themselves have been the victims of abuse, or they may have worked with the alleged abusers. But if the press is not allowed to inform them of the names of those against whom allegations are made, they will not learn that their information is important. So they will not come forward.”
The tribunal was ordered by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague, after Clwyd county council decided not to publish the report of an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse in its children’s homes. The tribunal, which has been hearing witnesses for eight months, is expected to continue to take evidence until January.
Source – Here
Northern Ireland, again originally from The Guardian, June 6, 1996
‘True scandal of the child abusers’.
From East Belfast’s Kincora Boys’ Home, via Leicestershire, Staffordshire and London, to the children’s homes of Clwyd, we have witnessed 25 years of cover-up. Cover-up, not to protect the innocent but to protect the regularly named elements of the British establishment who surface whenever widespread evidence of child abuse is exposed.
From the public schools right through to the Catholic and Anglican churches, child abuse has been allowed a special place of sanctuary… Social workers, police, security services, local and national political figures remain the common factors in the fall-out from the [child abuse] inquiries…
In case after case the cycle is described – a child is ‘taken into care’, then abused in a home, handed on to an outside paedophile ring and out on to the rent-boy/prostitution circuit beyond, if they live that long… Journalists find themselves battling first with authority, then with the libel laws, to publish the truth about a vast web of abuse.
And The Times, 31 October 1999
“Paedophile inquiry … Several public figures … in a paedophile ring, including leading politicians, aristocrats and senior policemen” and – “Such is the sensitivity of the document that the only copy is due to be placed in a strong room at the Cabinet Office” – from John Harlow, Social Affairs Editor – additional reporting Zoe Brennan and Simon Trump
Are you starting to get the picture ?
Right across this country from Haute de la Garenne in Jersey to East Belfast’s Kincora Boys’ Home, from Bryn Alyn in Wales to Islington in London the UK’s care homes have been used by prominent paedophiles to pick up underage boys and girls.
They are powerful, they occupy top positions in the establishment and they will do everything they can to keep it all hidden for you.. Jimmy Savile was just a small part of this. Some parts of the mainstream media want to talk about this but they are being muzzled.
In 1999, following the confiscation of credit card details from Landslide Productions of Fort Worth, Texas, an online paedophile company by US authorities, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.
However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice.
I hope this post gives readers some food for thought.