Dave Higgens — The Independent May 10, 2013

Jimmy Savile sporting his OBE at Buckingham Palace 1972. Click to enlarge

A lawyer for victims of Jimmy Savile has said that a report which concluded there is no evidence he was protected by police officers “doesn’t add up”.

The West Yorkshire Police (WYP) report, published today, examined the history of the DJ and TV presenter’s relationship with the force, including how officers attended his well-known Friday Morning Club at his Leeds flat.

But the report concluded: “There is no evidence that he was protected from arrest or prosecution for any offences as a result of his relationship with WYP, or individual friendships with officers.”

But Alan Collins, who represents 40 victims of the disgraced broadcaster, said: “Savile was able to run rings around the police for decades. He used police officers.”

Mr Collins told ITV’s Daybreak: “”He was engrained with them, dovetailed with them.

“The report begs a lot more questions. It provides some answers but the report reveals memories that are not as sharp as perhaps they ought to be, ‘can’t remember’, documents that can’t seem to be located.

“It doesn’t add up.”

The report said 68 of Savile’s victims have now come forward in the force area. None came forward in his lifetime.

The youngest of these was five years old at the time and eight others were aged nine or under.

The report said: “No evidence has been found to conclude that there was any impropriety or misconduct in relation to the Friday Morning Club.”

The report also examined the way in which WYP used Savile’s celebrity status to front a range of campaigns and appeals.

It concluded: “The review team have concerns regarding the absence of a process to secure Savile’s services for some of these events and also the over-reliance on personal friendships that developed between Savile and some officers over a number of years to secure that support.”

The report said it was “of greater concern” that the force continued to used Savile as part of crime prevention campaigns even after it received a request from Surrey Police in 2007 to check what records were held on the broadcaster as part of its investigation into abuse at Duncroft School.

The report said: “Although rumours did exist of previous investigations taking place into allegations made against Savile, when these were explored they were found to be without any foundation.”

Jimmy Savile and a younger Tony Blair. Click to enlarge

Despite numerous interviews, system searches and inquiries with other agencies, the review team found no evidence of any previous allegations being made to West Yorkshire Police against Savile.

It said: “The force does recognise that some people may have difficulty in reconciling this fact; indeed WYP has difficulty in reconciling this as, since October 2012, 68 victims have come forward to report Savile’s abuse in the West Yorkshire area.”

Assistant Chief Constable Ingrid Lee said in her introduction to the report: “There is no doubt that police forces made mistakes in relation to sharing and keeping information relating to Savile so no single clear picture of his offending could be made.

“As Savile’s home police force, WYP would have been the obvious place to collect all such information, but investigation has shown that much of the available information during Savile’s lifetime was never shared with WYP and, when it was, WYP did not connect the events to recognise a potential pattern of offending.”

Ms Lee said the review was started “to separate myth and rumour from fact”.

She said: “When taken in context, Savile lived for over 80 years as an individual who has duped millions into believing that he was a genuine celebrity, a charity fundraiser and a harmless eccentric who did nothing but good in our communities.”

Jon Christopher, of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, said people would ask precisely what was “going on” between Savile and senior police officers.

He told BBC Breakfast: “I think people will look at it and think ‘What is going on there?’.

“Because clearly he has been involved with a lot of officers and not just police officers, but other professionals as well.

“Nevertheless, it’s the police officers who are in the light with this one and clearly the lessons have to be learned from that, if he was under suspicion in other force areas that something could and should have been done at that time.”

Source

The media has lauded Lord McAlpine’s recent memoirs, something about being Thatcher’s bagman, as being “controversial, biting, and very revealing”. It was, according to various breathless accounts in the newspapers, “sweeping through parliament like wildfire”. It fact, it is merely bitchy and it completely whitewashes the real truth about Tory finances when he was their fundraiser – and Thatcher’s favourite Boy Scout. It is bitchy because McAlpine is a bitch.

It is only remarkable in what it does not reveal. One minute he is pouring scorn on Michael Heseltine, then claiming him as a friend. He refers to the fact that his wife nursed Heseltine at their opulent Venice home when Michael had his heart attack. What he does not reveal is that at the time of his demise, Heseltine was on the job with his titled long-time mistress who had to be hustled onto the next plane as Mrs Heseltine rushed from London. They must have passed mid-air. According to other pundits, Heseltine had gone out there to find out where the “missing millions” had gone from Tory party funds. Apparently they had one “hell of a row.

He bitchily has a go at Major for asking him to approach the dubious Greek shipping tycoon, John Latsis, who immediately signed a banking order for half a million pounds. He fails to mention that Thatcher had already stung the maverick millionaire for similar sums. And that he had fixed it.

A book like this had a golden opportunity to explain the “Missing Millions” once and for all. According to a wide- ranging investigation by Business Age, recently re- launched, the magazine alleged that at least £150 million were completely unaccounted for during the Thatcher years.

This is an allegation, which is widely accepted throughout parliament and led directly to the Nolan Report which heavily recommend that all parties should reveal the identities of their sponsors and the amount of their donations. Despite this wise suggestion, applauded by John Major himself, Tory Party finances are still a “bag of worms” (Guardian).

During her long and boring tenure in office, Margaret Thatcher, and her family, became very rich indeed. McAlpine himself lost millions (At least £120m) in an abortive scheme in Australia to build a sort of rich man’s Disneyland.

All McAlpine had to do to sort out the widespread rumours was use this opportunity to explain exactly where the money went to.

Major, by the way, immediately announced that he never took part in any fund raising and let the CCO work entirely autonomously. This is claptrap. The Prime Minister, any Tory Prime Minister, is the de facto “chairman” of the CCO. It is entirely his tool. It is accountable to no one else, not even accountants, for they are not required under present law to present their accounts for any kind of proper perusal.

On charges that he is a paedophile there is not a word, except a mention by Lynn Barber in the Observer Review in which she had asked him why he had not sued us. He refused to comment, except to say that if she repeated the allegation, he would sue the Observer.

He dismisses, in the book and in subsequent interviews, the cabinet meeting in which Margaret Thatcher and the rest of her government considered the consequences to the Tory party if senior police investigations into the paedophile activities resulted in a prosecution. Thatcher herself decided he would have to go, and if he went quietly, they would say no more about the matter unless there was an arrest. It was that close.

When he slid away, breathlessly relieved at the close shave, to go abroad in voluntary exile for “tax reasons,” the Tories were £10 m in debt. Yet he claimed he had raised £150 m for them. It literally doesn’t add up.

Source

Also see: 

Lord McAlpine and the Paedophile Ring

Pervert Jimmy Savile sexually abused vulnerable girls during sinister black masses, it has been claimed.

The BBC star dressed in black robes during the rituals which allegedly took place in the basement of Stoke Mandeville hospital, in 1975.

Five years later, the Jim’ll Fix It star supposedly took part in more satanic abuse at a plush London residence. A 21-year-old was reportedly forced to take part in an orgy in a room decked out with satanic symbols.

Disgraced Savile hid his face with a mask during the abuse, but was identified by the 12-year-old victim in the Stoke Mandeville case. She spotted his distinctive white hair sprouting from beneath the garments and recognised his voice.

She told therapist Valerie Sinason she was molested, raped and beaten during the twisted ceremony by Savile, who chanted “Ave Satanas” with other devil worshippers in the dark, candle-lit room.

Sinason told the Express what the unnamed victim said happened while she was being treated at Stoke Mandeville hospital, in Bucks. Savile raised millions for the hospital and had his own room there.

“She recalled being led into a room that was filled with candles on the lowest level of the hospital, somewhere that was not regularly used by staff. Several adults were there, including Jimmy Savile who, like the others, was wearing a robe and a mask,” said Sinason.

“She recognised him because of his distinctive voice and the fact that his blond hair was protruding from the side of the mask. He was not the leader but he was seen as important because of his fame.

“She was molested, raped and beaten and heard words that sounded like ‘Ave Satanas’, a Latinised version of ‘Hail Satan’, being chanted. There was no mention of any other child being there and she cannot remember how long the attack lasted but she was left extremely frightened and shaken.”

A second case of devil worshipping and sex abuse by Savile was reported to Sinason.

“The first part of the evening started off with an orgy, but half-way through some of the participants left,” she told the Express.

“Along with other young women, the victim was shepherded to wait in another room before being brought back to find Savile in a master of ceremonies kind of role with a group wearing robes and masks. She too heard Latin chanting and instantly recognised satanist regalia.

“Although the girl was a young adult who was above the age of consent, she had suffered a history of sexual abuse and was extremely vulnerable,” said Sinason.

No action was taken by police to investigate either claim.

No Stoke Mandeville hospital spokesman was available when contacted by IBTimes UK.

Source

There is no more ordinary-looking row of suburban Edwardian houses in the country than Rocks Lane, south-west London. But nowhere has given rise to such an outlandish series of allegations than the one formerly known as Elm Guest House. The claims are now being re-investigated by the Metropolitan Police, decades after they were first made. Attempts have been made by care workers to lay bare the secrets of Rocks Lane but to no avail. Whatever the outcome of their investigations in the past, the police seem convinced that a number of serious wrongs need to be righted.

Rocks Lane is a conspiracy theorist’s dream, taking in allegations of the grooming of young boys in care for sex, elaborate gay parties involving senior public figures including members of the Conservative Party, charges of a police cover-up and even the suggestion of murder. The police believe that in the context of the Jimmy Savile scandal and renewed claims over the treatment of boys in care in North Wales, there is every reason to look again at an extremely murky saga.

A month ago, in conditions of the utmost secrecy (so much so that nothing was even put on computers), the Metropolitan Police set up Operation Fairbank, to look into, among other things, allegations made by Tom Watson in the House of Commons. The Labour MP had spoken of a “powerful paedophile ring” and its links to a previous prime minister’s “senior adviser”. Mr Watson has been uncharacteristically diffident about speaking to journalists on the issue since then, saying that he is passing on any information to the police. He said yesterday: “I’m not seeking to add any specific allegations myself, but hope that my comments will help the authorities get to the bottom of this.”

What is known is that in the late 1970s, the Elm Guest House on Rocks Lane was a safe, unthreatening meeting place for homosexual men free from the stigma of a sexual orientation legalised barely a decade earlier. According to a former friend of Carole Kasir, the guest house’s German-born manager, she initially regarded herself as offering gay men an opportunity to “be themselves” without fear. Rocks Lane, which overlooks a playing field, was known to homosexual men as it is close to Barnes Common, itself popular with gay men for cruising.

But Elm Guest House’s willingness to accommodate a small industry (“It became a convenient place for rent boys to take their clients,” says one person familiar with the place), began to attract the attentions of the local police force. One neighbour remembers a months-long police stakeout: “They were there all the time. Police hiding behind the trees to look at the property was a running joke with the neighbours.”

In 1982, the police learned that one of the guest house’s parties was to take place, and the Met’s notorious Special Patrol Group, the precursor of the Territorial Support Group, duly raided the property, resulting in a number of charges being brought against Kasir. The fact that two police officers were in the house at the time of the raid has fed the speculation. The IoS has established that, according to an officer closely involved at the time, two officers were embedded as guests in the property for two or three days, one even pretending to have a broken arm, hiding a police radio in a plaster cast to make secret recordings. If there was a cover-up, it appears not to have involved the local police force, who seem to have been assiduous in seeking to have the place closed down.

As many as 12 boys gave evidence to the police to the effect that they had been abused by men at the house, The IoS has established, but the only conviction was the comparatively minor one of running a disorderly house (ie, a brothel). “Abused boys do not always make the most impressive of witnesses once they get into the witness box,” someone involved in the case said. “The real unlawful activity was underage sex. The police should have been able to make the other charges stick, but the boys were only ever interviewed with a view to them being witnesses against Carole, not as kids who were abused themselves.”

The place continued to attract speculation. Who was at that party has never been established, but as time went on, more and more allegations began to emerge about Rocks Lane. The local police paved the way for the raid, but at some stage Special Branch felt the need to get involved. Why was that, some have asked, unless there was something even murkier going on? Child-protection campaigners alleged that boys had been taken from a local council-run home and abused, a line of investigation that police are now pursuing.

What makes the Rocks Lane story so tantalising for the media is the list of alleged attendees at the parties. One source suggested that Anthony Blunt, former keeper of the Queen’s pictures and an exposed Soviet mole, used to go the parties, but then Blunt’s notoriety made him a magnet for any number of fanciful theories. Those who knew him say the idea is absurd, and that his sexual tastes were far more conventional. Others have spoken of two High Court judges and a Foreign Office official attending. Chris Fay, a social worker who worked for a small charity, the National Association for Young People in Care (Naypic), has alleged that a terrified Kasir had shown him about 20 photographs of middle-aged men with young boys, taken at what he said were kings and queens fancy-dress parties, attended by a number of powerful and well-known people. One, Mr Fay alleged, featured a well-known public figure wearing nothing but a French maid’s apron alongside a young boy nude apart from a tiara.

In 1990, at the age of 47, Kasir was found dead in her flat. The coroner’s inquest concluded that, a diabetic, she had suffered an insulin overdose. Two Naypic employees told the coroner they believed that because she seemingly had not had an insulin injection for three days, she had been murdered, the victim of powerful people who feared she knew too much. Nonetheless, she was found to have committed suicide, worn down by an eight-year battle to have her son, who was taken into care after her conviction, returned to her.

So was the story of Rocks Lane (now mercifully restored to blameless respectability) just another one of consenting adults “romping” behind lace curtains? Or was it qualitatively different, involving something much nastier and more exploitative? Since 1990, ineffectual efforts have been made to overturn this vast stone. A reported 2003 “inquiry”, which ended up being examined by the IPCC, foundered, frustratingly, on unsupported evidence based on the wrong time frame. But now, with child abuse no longer regarded as unthinkable, the climate seems to be changing.

Tom Watson’s Commons statement brought forward a flood of emails from the public. Police have been hindered by the loss of many documents and impassioned but unverifiable testimony, much of which has surfaced on the internet. The allegations deserving of most scrutiny, though, have seemingly eluded the web. The two surviving Naypic employees are reluctant to discuss the case, but it is believed the police are interviewing what, tellingly, they now refer to as “victims”, and are encouraging others to come forward.

The alleged presence of household names adds to the intrigue, but in a celeb-obsessed age, there is a danger that, should such names not materialise, Rocks Lane will be seen as “just another” child abuse case. Yet police sources fear that dozens of boys were either taken or on the run from care homes to be abused. By any standards, that should be a big story.

The net widens

The scandal of abuse at care homes in North Wales, including Bryn Estyn, was reawakened following the Jimmy Savile allegations.

Reports of abuse – involving in the region of 300 children, mainly in the 1970s and 1980s – first led Clwyd Council to commission a report into failings. But the Jillings report was never published, and, amid rumours of a botched police investigation, the Waterhouse report was commissioned. It named 200 abusers, or those who failed to protect children, but was seen as a whitewash after no prosecutions resulted.

Victims of child abuse in Northern Ireland are still waiting for an inquiry into abuse at Catholic church and state-run institutions between 1973 and 1989. It followed the Ryan report in the Republic of Ireland, which found that sexual and psychological abuse was “endemic” in Catholic-run schools and orphanages for most of the 20th century.

In 2010, a three-year investigation into child abuse in Jersey led to seven people being convicted for a series of assaults they inflicted on children, mainly at the Haut de la Garenne home, from the 1970s onwards. Police took 1,776 statements from 192 alleged victims during the course of their inquiry.

Many victims there believe more abuse remains uncovered. An investigation into claims that Savile had abused girls in Jersey was launched last month.

Source

Scotland Yard detectives are looking into allegations that senior politicians abused children in the 1980s and escaped justice because they were protected by their powerful connections.

During past weeks officers from the Metropolitan Police’s child abuse investigation team have interviewed several adults who claim that they were sexually assaulted as children by MPs in a paedophile ring.

The team was set up following claims by Labour MP Tom Watson in the House Commons that the police should look afresh at claims of a “powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10”.

Until today when the Metropolitan Police confirmed its existence, the inquiry, Operation Fairbank, had been operating in secret at the headquarters of the Child Abuse Investigation Team at Empress State Building in Earl’s Court, London.

Officers with the team, part of the Specialist Crimes and Operations Directorate, have spoken regularly to Mr Watson.

The Metropolitan Police stressed that Operation Fairbank was a “scoping exercise” aimed at a preliminary assessment of the evidence rather than a formal inquiry.

However, officers are understood to be taking the witnesses’s claims very seriously and are expected to make arrests in coming weeks.

Raising the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 October, Mr Watson – who alleged widespread phone hacking at the News of the World before police began a new inquiry – urged police to re-open the evidence file on Peter Righton.

Righton, a former consultant to the National Children’s Bureau, was convicted of importing and possessing illegal homosexual pornographic material in 1992.

Saying that the file contained “clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring”, the MP said: “One of its members boasts of a link to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

“The leads were not followed up, but if the files still exist, I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it, and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10.”

Five officers are working on the inquiry.

In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said: “Officers have spoken with MP Tom Watson who has passed on some information which is now being looked into.

“As a result, officers are continuing to collate information. This is being assessed by officers under Operation Fairbank.

“We would continue to appeal to anyone who has concerns to report them to us. Any information is treated with the utmost seriousness and can be given in confidence.”

Updating the public on the investigation into alleged sexual offences in showbusiness, Scotland Yard said that the number of alleged sex abuse victims of the late BBC TV presenter Jimmy Savile had reached 450.

Commander Peter Spindler, head of Operation Yewtree, suggested Savile – who escaped detection and died aged 84 last October – had been a serial abuser of children.

Commander Spindler said: “Savile’s offending peaked in the 70s and what we can show, or will be showing in the New Year, is how he used his position in society across the country – the crimes relate to 17 different police force areas – how he exploited this position to get his sexual gratification.”

In total, 589 alleged victims have come forward to allege abuse by Savile and others.

Over the past two months, detectives have arrested several high-profile names, including the comedian Freddie Starr, the former BBC disc jockey Dave Lee Travis, the former BBC producer Wilfred De’Ath and the publicist Max Clifford. They all deny any wrongdoing. Gary Glitter, who was also arrested, has not yet issued a statement.

Source

The veteran BBC commentator Stuart Hall has been charged with three counts of indecent assault which date back to the 1970s and 1980s.

The former It’s A Knockout presenter, 82, was arrested on Wednesday morning and later that day charged with sex offences.

It is alleged he abused three girls aged between eight and 17 years between 1974 and 1984, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. Hall was released without charge on an allegation of rape and a further allegation of indecent assault but bailed to appear before magistrates on the other charges in Preston on 7 January 2013.

John Dilworth, head of the CPS’s north-west complex casework unit, said: “Following investigations into allegations of sexual assault by Stuart Hall I have reviewed all the evidence that they have gathered and have authorised Lancashire police to charge him with three counts of indecent assault.

“The charges are that between 1 September 1974 and 31 December 1974 he indecently assaulted a woman who was then aged 16 or 17 years, that between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 1983 he indecently assaulted a girl then aged 8 or 9 years, and that between 1 July 1984 and 27 September 1984 he indecently assaulted a girl then aged 13 years. He has been bailed to appear at Preston magistrates court on 7 January 2013.

“This decision is made in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.”

Hall was arrested by Lancashire police at his home in Wilmslow, Cheshire at around 8am on Wednesday morning and taken to a local police station for questioning.

Two marked police vehicles remained on the driveway of his home for several hours and one uniformed officer left carrying two bin bags.

The allegations against Hall are not part of Operation Yewtree, the Metropolitan police’s investigation into Jimmy Savile and other individuals, it is understood.

A spokesman for the Lancashire force said: “The allegations are historic. We are not prepared to discuss further.

“We take all allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously.

“We would encourage people with any information about sexual abuse or who has been a victim of sexual abuse to come forward and report their concerns confident in the knowledge it will be investigated appropriately and with sensitivity.”

Hall is one of the BBC’s longest-serving commentators. He still appears on Radio 5 Live’s Sport’s Report on Saturday afternoons, and received an OBE in the last New Year honours list.

When Hall received his OBE, he said he was overjoyed.

“It’s a great surprise, totally unexpected. I’m grateful,” he said. “I’ve always regarded myself as a second-rate provincial hack. Well, that was yesterday. Now I’ve got the OBE I’m still a provincial second-rate hack but I’m a good one.

“It’s a recognition that you’ve put something in. I’ve worked for charity now for the last 52 years, I’ve raised millions of pounds and it’s a little thank you. I feel, in my 82nd year, a little glow of pleasure.”

Hall made his name nationally as a presenter of It’s a Knockout in the 1970s and 1980s, and its European equivalent Jeux sans Frontières.

He has worked on a number of programmes from his base in the north west, including Look North, North West Tonight and Granada Reports.

The BBC said Hall would not be working at the corporation while police continue their investigation into the allegations.

Source

(David Richards, 24, a Brit who teaches English in Mongolia, is a regular contributor.) 

Pedophilia is common practice in the British establishment.

This is difficult for the British public to believe. At our level, pedophilia is a crime heavily punished by the law and condemned by the mainstream media.

However, Illuminati members are above the law and partake in pedophile rings without fear of prosecution.

The Illuminati operate pedophile rings for three main reasons:

1. Most members of the cult have a psychopathic and sadomasochistic psychological make-up, and therefore have perverted sexual desires.

2. Pedophile rings operate as a system of blackmail, enforcing conformity to the NWO. All members of the establishment are vetted by security services. Hidden cameras are place at child sex parties to gather incriminating material.

3. Perversion is the way Satanists worship.  Just as a Christian might perform works of charity, the Satanist will prey on children. 

FOUR EXAMPLES OF ELITE SATANISM 

The following cases prove the existence of establishment pedophile rings in Britain.

Continues …

It appears that the former Conservative Party treasurer is more than a maligned public figure after being accused of molesting young boys. He is also something of a Machiavelli admirer having written on the ploys that can be used to evoke sympathy in an unwitting public.

Some years ago Lord McAlpine was quoted saying some interesting things while promoting his book The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business, which throw new light on his response to the allegations.

We’ll get to those quotes a little later but first it’s worth recalling McAlpine’s shock at the recent accusations made against him.

“I was in a state of total shock really”, he was quoted as saying.

“I was in southern Italy. I don’t have a television, I don’t get newspapers and we don’t have the internet. I suddenly found out I was mixed up in this and I didn’t know what Newsnight was going to say about it.

“It really was a horrendous shock.”

Call me cynical but I cannot help feeling that McAlpine has been making a great play of being a “victim”. By his own admission, he was left “terrified” after the BBC Newsnight implicated him in the child sex scandal

“It gets into your bones, it makes you angry, and that’s extremely bad for you to be angry, and it gets into your soul and you just think there is something wrong with the world.”

Before we start feeling too much sympathy for Lord McAlpine however, we shouldn’t forget that the “shock” he felt was also very profitable. The BBC agreed to a settlement figure with McAlpine of nearly £190,000, paid for with viewers licence fees.

Much like the “holocaust industry”, Lord McAlpine’s ordeal has proved very profitable indeed.

All of which brings us back to McAlpine’s earlier advice based on Machiavelli’s example.

‘McAlpine’s advice on dealing with the media? Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion.’ (Source)

In 2000, when The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business was published McAlpine readily agreed when it was described as:

‘A book on how to manipulate people for the greater good’ (ibid)

The book’s publisher’s blurb described it as:

‘The New Machiavelli mines Machiavelli’s The Prince for the timeless rules and stratagems that can help today’s business rulers survive and prosper in the jungle of greed and treachery that is commerce.’ (ibid)

We are far from convinced of McAlpine’s innocence on charges of sexual abuse. Call it instinct but we suspect that his accuser was threatened or intimidated into withdrawing the accusation.

As Aangirfan has detailed, a growing list of Welsh care home residents who were victims of abuse have died prematurely, often in unexplained  circumstances. We believe it more than likely that the man who named Lord McAlpine as an abuser, Steve Messham, was warned he would follow them if he didn’t retract his statement identifying McAlpine.

The fact that the man who originally helped expose the Welsh care homes scandal nearly had a fatal accident recently is a further indication that forces are at work to silence acussations of abuse. Fortunately, Malcolm King survived but having his car breaks tampered with is the sort of method used the intelligence services, the same services that orchestrated Princess Diana’s fatal ‘accident’.

Moreover, if the intelligence services are involved in keeping the lid on this then it probably reaches far higher than Jimmy Savile and second rate celebrities. Indeed, it probably reaches beyond Lord McAlpine to the very highest levels of the British establishment.

Also see: Scallywag Magazine article on Lord McAlpine and Derek Laud

Malcolm King is a whistle-blower who helped expose the Welsh children’s home sex abuse scandal.

Two weeks ago, he “cheated death” in a car accident ­after his brakes failed.

Malcolm King found his brake pedal unattached and lying on the car floor.
My terror at hands of paedos – Daily Star – 17th November 2012

Police are examining Malcolm King’s motor to see if it was sabotaged.

The car, a well-maintained Volvo, careered across a busy road and was hit by an Alfa Romeo.

Malcolm King, 68, suffered a broken leg.

Labour councillor Malcolm King blew the whistle on a ­paedophile ring ­operating at north Wales children’s homes in the mid-1980s.

The ring allegedly ­involved MI5, Jimmy Savile, politicians, police chiefs and judges.

Malcolm King, a former chair of North Wales ­Police ­Authority, was one of only 12 people given copies of the 1996 Jillings Report, which named ­every abuser.

Deaths of former residents of children’s homes in Clwyd:

Robert Chapman, a former resident of Bryn Alyn, fell to his death from a railway bridge.

Robert Arthur Smith, a former resident of Bryn Alyn, killed himself in May 1978, aged 16, by overdosing on painkillers.

Barry Williams, former resident of Little Acton Assessment centre, Clywd, found dead in a flat where he lived in poverty, aged 21.

Peter Davies died 1985.

Adrian Johns, former resident of Bryn Alyn, died in a 1992 fire aged 32 in Brighton, Sussex. Verdict – unlawful killing.

Heath Kelvin Jones, former resident of Bryn Alyn, found dead in 1992 in a bedsit, aged 18. Cause of death, acute respiratory failure due to solvent abuse.

Peter Wynn hanged himself in January 1994, aged 27.

Brendon Randalls, former Bryn Estyn resident, died aged 27 from alcohol abuse in April 1994. Allegedly the victim of a serious sexual offence.

Richard Williams was found dead in a car aged 18 in July 1994. Alleged to have suffered maltreatment while in care.

Craig Wilson hanged himself in November 1994 aged 16.

Lee Johns, also known as Lee Homberg , former resident of Bryn Alyn where it was alleged he had been sexually abused. Died in February 1995 aged 37.

Mark Humphries hanged himself in February 1995 aged 31. Allegations of sexual abuse against care workers.

Simon Birley, former resident of Bryn Estyn, was found hanging in May 1995 aged 27. Allegations he had been sexually abused by care worker.

Tony Wallis found dead 1996.

“Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of “dark forces” and members of an “organization” that were monitoring her shortly before her death.”

Source

Angus James – From the original Scallywag Magazine in the 1990s 

Lord McAlpine has described allegations that he sexually abused young boys at a North Wales children’s home as “wholly false and seriously defamatory.“

While Steve Messham, a former resident of the care home, says he had “mistakenly” identified Lord McAlpine as an abuser of boys at the home.

As the following article reveals however, Messham had already been beaten up twice during the 1990s to keep him quiet about the sexual abuse of youngsters. Has he been threatened with more if he didn’t retract his recent statement about McAlpine?

The Scallywag article reveals a real can of worms and raises more serious questions about Lord McAlpine’s activities and those of his associates. Such as Derek Laud (above), a long-time family friend of the Camerons and a guest at their wedding, who is also named in the following article.

Laud was the first black member of the Conservative Monday Club in the early 1980s and the first black Master of Foxhounds in Britain. Like Lord McAlpine he is surrounded by all the trappings of the British establishment but like McAlpine he’s also been named as a serious abuser of young boys. 

Indeed, this scandal reaches right to the very core of the British establishment and exposes its rotten, black heart.

Source

Also see the recent article that rekindled the controversy over the abuse of youngsters at care homes:

Alleged ‘leading Tory from Thatcher years was part of paedophile ring who raped boys at Welsh children’s home’

Former resident of a North Wales care home who claims a senior Tory abused him has issued a statement denying that Lord McAlpine was one of his abusers.

The statement follows a public denial by Lord McAlpine earlier Friday in which he called allegations that he had abused children as “wholly false and seriously defamatory”.

Hours later the former resident of the care home and alleged victim of abuse, Steve Messham issued a statement in which he offered his “sincere and humble apologies to Lord McAlpine.

It was, claimed Messham, a case of mistaken identity:

“After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine.”

Although Messham now says that Lord McAlpine was not one of his abusers, he still maintains that a “senior Tory” actively abused boys at the care home during the Thatcher era.

Former Tory treasurer Lord McAlpine of West Green has said allegations linking him to child abuse were “wholly false and seriously defamatory”.

After days of frenzied speculation, the peer released a statement vehemently denying that he abused Steve Messham or any other residents of a children’s home in Wrexham, north Wales.

He said he had visited Wrexham “only once” and that was in the company of an agent from Conservative central office.

“I have never been to the children’s home in Wrexham, nor have I ever visited any children’s home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature,” he said.

“I have never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, I did not own a Rolls Royce, have never had a ‘Gold card’ or ‘Harrods card’ and never wear aftershave, all of which have been alleged.

“I did not sexually abuse Mr Messham or any other residents of the children’s home in Wrexham.”

McAlpine said that “ill- or uninformed commentators” had used the internet to accuse him of being “the senior Conservative party figure from the days of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership who is guilty of sexually abusing young residents of a children’s home in Wrexham, north Wales in the 1970s and 1980s”.

He said that a “substantial number of people” may have “reasonably inferred” that broadcast and newspaper reports of allegations against unnamed individuals referred to him.

“Even though these allegations made of me by implication in the broadcast and print media, and made directly about me on the internet, are wholly false and seriously defamatory, I can no longer expect the broadcast and print media to maintain their policy of defaming me only by innuendo,” he said.

“There is a media frenzy and I have to expect that an editor will soon come under pressure to risk naming me. My name and the allegations are, for all practical purposes, linked and in the public domain and I cannot rewind the clock.

“I therefore have decided that in order to mitigate, if only to some small extent, the damage to my reputation I must publicly tackle these slurs and set the record straight.

“In doing so, I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.”

Source

Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur and flatmate Ray Teret has been arrested on suspicion of rape, according to Sky News sources.

Teret, 71, was arrested in Altrincham following a police probe into allegations of historic sexual abuse.

The accusations are not linked with the national inquiry into abuse by Savile, said police.

Detective Inspector Simon Davies of Greater Manchester Police, said: “I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not an investigation into the late Jimmy Savile, nor do any of the allegations relate to any involvement by Savile.”

He added: “The arrest follows an investigation by the Serious Sexual Offences Unit into three separate allegations of historic sexual abuse which have been reported to Greater Manchester Police since 28 October 2012.”

A 61-year-old man was also arrested at the same Woodlands Road address on suspicion of rape.

According to Sky sources, the victims say the alleged offences took place around the time Teret was living with the disgraced television presenter in the Sale area.

They add Savile was not there when the alleged sexual abuse occurred.

The arrests come a day after Savile’s nephew Guy Marsden backed calls for the body of the Top of the Pops host to be exhumed and cremated.

Source

Interviewed on ITV’s This Morning Thursday David Cameron was presented with the names of politicians who had allegedly been involved in child abuse.

His response was telling. The prime minister didn’t even look at the list. Instead he warned that the mounting furore over the issue could turn into a “witch hunt”, particularly against gays.

Right. So after decades of being hidden, the abuse of children by senior politicians finally starts coming to light and David Cameron responds by warning against a witch-hunt.

If that is Cameron’s main concern as more cases of abuse come to light we can only ask: whom is he trying to protect?

Is he really trying to protect homosexuals from unwarranted persecution? Or is that just a ruse?

Is Cameron really trying to protect other high-ranking politicians in his party who were, and maybe still are abusing children, but whose names have yet to come to light?

“I’ve heard all sorts of names bandied around and what then tends to happen is everyone sits around and speculates about people, some of whom are alive, some of whom are dead,” Cameron told presenters on ITV’s This Morning.

“I do think it’s very important that anyone who’s got any information about any paedophile, no matter how high up in the country or whether they are alive or dead, go to the police,” he continued.

Given that many have already approached the police with their suspicions about Jimmy Savile, Cameron’s appeal sounds a little hollow. Especially since the North Yorkshire Police in particular have been accused of actively colluding in a cover-up of Savile’s activities. 

The presenter then passed Cameron a piece of paper listing names he had gathered from the internet, asking the prime minister “you know the names on that piece of paper, will you be speaking to these people?”.

As we noted, Cameron didn’t even glance at the names, instead he warned:

“There is a danger if we are not careful that this can turn into a sort of witch hunt, particularly about people who are gay, and I’m worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now, taking a list of names off the internet.”  

Note at this point Cameron’s chief concern isn’t about child abuse among senior politicians, which had been going on for years before it was exposed on the internet. No, he’s more concerned with the persecution of gays and “taking names off the internet”.

That’s right, Cameron’s chief concern doesn’t seem to be the paedophiles in his party but people who are researching the subject and finding things out for themselves.

After all the corporate media can’t be relied on to tell us what’s really going on. The child abuse by top Tory politicans had been ongoing for decades before it was exposed, largely through the internet.

Finally, although he didn’t look at the list of names handed to him we can only wonder: did Cameron know any of those listed?

Were there any senior party members named? Is that why he’s trying to protect them?

This whole scandal is obviously getting a little too close to the ruling Tory Party for David Cameron’s comfort. We can only guess at what more will be revealed in the coming weeks and months. Judging by David Cameron’s performance on This Morning though, many more sordid secrets could be exposed.

Tony Blair left office with a reputation that will mark him as one history’s bloodiest liars. Judging by David Cameron’s performance in recent days Blair’s notoriety may soon be surpassed by Cameron’s.

 “Police & Councils: How much did they know?

It has been Goth Weekend in Whitby – hard on the heels of the Bram Stoker International Horror Film Festival – and the autumn mists and Victorian attire of those parading the streets have conspired to enhance the celebrated eeriness of the town.

Since the Tim Hick’s article “Did North Yorkshire Police ‘fix it’ for Jim” last week, some astonishing revelations have emerged, from almost half a century ago and from more recent times, here in the Borough of Scarborough.

In the late-sixties, when the hippy ethos was first taking flight, ‘live’ music was still the preferred form of youth entertainment, with much emphasis on ‘Love and Peace’. The music scene in Scarborough was vibrant and largely benign.

But there was a darker side.

The ‘hip’ place to hang out for the musicians of the Yorkshire coast music scene was the coffee-bar in the Scarborough Bowling Alley, where girl fans of the local bands where much in evidence.

Conspicuous, in that setting, was the presence of a small group of older guys – the self-professed ‘Oldest Swinger in Town’, ‘Ron G’ and a very camp booking-agent called ‘Peter P’. ‘Jimmy C’ used to swing by. Another regular was Jimmy Savile. The word was that they were talent-scouting.

Some contemporary witnesses are quick to assert that they never saw or heard anything to cause them alarm. But one prominent local recalls being propositioned, by a member of Adam Faith’s management entourage, to attend ‘The Club’ – a strictly private group of older men of questionable tastes. Faith was good friends with local ‘big-shot’ and reputedly predatory homosexual Peter Jaconelli. Hearing that Jaconelli would be present, our informant declined the proposition.

This reference to ‘The Club’ is of special interest, because it ties in with stories amounting to common knowledge amongst the older generation in Whitby, that a local resident (who also owned a club in Scarborough) regularly entertained members of ‘The Club’, including Savile and the aforementioned Jaconelli, in a purpose-built room (fitted out by a local craftsman known to Real Whitby) in his Whitby home.

This room (or ‘chamber’, as it reportedly was known) was equipped with a whipping-post, replete with restraining-shackles and other S&M paraphernalia. Two independent witnesses have come forward who claim to have visited this ‘chamber’ in its heyday, when sex and drugs sessions are alleged to have taken place with some regularity – apparently without being inconvenienced by the attentions of the local Police.

New allegations have now emerged (through postings on the Scarborough News web-site) that one of the alleged members of ‘The Club’ (by then the Mayor of Scarborough, Councillor Peter Jaconelli) was convicted (in York, Bournemouth and Northern Ireland) of offences against minors – but word of these convictions conveniently escaped mention in the Scarborough and Whitby press.

Dennis Lemon, Saville’s former bodyguard when he worked in a club in Leeds, has alleged that Savile had also been in Court in connection with molesting a minor. If this is so, surely the information was available to the North Yorkshire Police (NYP) through the Criminal Records Office.

Thus, a large volume of circumstantial intelligence must surely have been available to North Yorkshire Police.

Unsurprisingly, we have had no response at all from NYP to the earlier Real Whitby article; although they were offered the opportunity to comment. They have not done so and are apparently still relying on an earlier statement:

• “When the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile were publicised, we carried out extensive searches of force records which did not reveal a local connection.”

Despite the obvious connection of prominent local figures, NYP are effectively denying any responsibility for having failed to detect and arrest Savile or any of the other members of ‘The Club’.

One wonders where NYP stand on claims in Savile’s 1974 autobiography ‘As It Happens’ that a Yorkshire Council provided him with six girls as ‘payment’ for his guest appearance at a Mayoral Ball.

In the now famous Louis Theroux documentary, Savile boasted about tying people up in his club and keeping them “down in the boiler room” until 02.00am when he was ready for them. He goes on to state that they would plead to get out but he (Savile) was judge, jury and executioner. Clearly a very sinister statement – particularly as Savile did not know that he was being filmed at the time, as Theroux himself was not present; thus, Savile was not maintaining a public façade.

A boiler-room would be a suitable location for secret confinement and there may therefore have been no need to tie up young people held there as prisoners.  So would a ‘chamber’. And Savile apparently did use ropes and/or other methods of restraint on his victims, though he did not divulge precisely what he did to his young prisoners.

Given his background (he was physically fit, a former miner, professional wrestler and marathon-runner), it may have been acts of violence, or sexual abuse, or some sort of sado-masochistic bondage practice. It certainly may well have been criminal; we simply do not know. But it is clear that tying people up and abusing them was an activity in which he himself claimed to have frequently indulged.

So what was it that he and the other members of ‘The Club’ were doing in that ‘chamber’ in Whitby – with its whipping-post and shackles?

And why did the Whitby Police disregard the rumours rife in the town?

Savile’s associates – ice-cream king Peter Jaconelli and arcade-operator Jimmy Corrigan – loomed large on the Scarborough club scene and even larger along the seafront, where young people traditionally congregate. Talking to traders and shop-owners in the harbour area, it is clear that it was widely-acknowledged that the Savile set – ‘The Club’ – exercised a preference for very young people of both genders.

Did NYP really have no dialogue with local traders? Did they not evaluate local rumour and intelligence? Did they not liaise with Scotland Yard in respect of sex crimes and child-abuse up and down the country?

It is noteworthy, too, that there have been other investigations into sex offences involving young people in Scarborough. So why have we heard nothing of any NYP investigation into the Savile set?

And why has an FOIA request to North Yorkshire County Council Social Services, asking for the number and dates of past allegations against Savile, been refused on the grounds that “the large amount of work involved would bring the cost of answering the request over the amount to which we are legally required to respond”. Our information is that a further FOIA request has since been submitted, constraining the request to reports from just three ‘sample’ institutions – Raincliffe School, Throxenby Hall and the day-and-boarding-school Scarborough College.

Councillor Tom FOX (Con.) was reportedly with NYP for thirty years, mostly in Scarborough, finishing as acting head of the Scarborough Police. Following retirement, he was elected to Scarborough Borough Council in 2003.

Councillor Tom FOX has now twice been asked to confirm (or deny) prior knowledge or awareness – either as a Police Officer or as a Councillor – of allegations against Savile. No response.

And yet Councillor FOX has assured the public, in the Scarborough News report of his belated proposal that Savile should be stripped of his honorary Freedom of the Borough of Scarborough title (conferred in November 2005), that:

• “if the council had been aware of such revelations at the time of Sir Jimmy Savile’s nomination for ‘Honorary Freeman of the Borough of Scarborough’ the council would have refused it”.

Are we to conclude, from that pointedly conditional form of words – “if the Council had been aware” – (as distinct, say, from “Councillors were unaware”), that the Council did not know – but Councillor Tom FOX did? It would appear that he is not intent upon clarifying his intention.

Last week, Councillor Tom FOX was offered the opportunity, ahead of the publication of this article, to submit a comment for inclusion in this article. No response.

A great deal has been made of the Savile cover-up by the BBC and other national institutions. In the aftermath of the Hillsborough cover-up and the astonishing number of Chief Constables presently under investigation for corruption of one sort or another (eleven), including allegations of ‘undue influence’ in a sex-crime investigation, the Police in this country are in a state of “plummeting morale” – according, that is, to the Lord Stevens Report.

Now The Daily Mail has published allegations of Savile having held regular meetings with Police Officers and ‘gangsters’, and The Daily Mirror has reported that Scarborough Police have failed to search Savile’s Scarborough apartment.

Questions are being asked at the highest levels of Government. Anti-corruption champion Lord Maginnis of Drumglass has referred to the North Yorkshire Police as “that particularly dubious Constabulary that merits careful investigation”.

Small wonder that there is little confidence in the region that the forthcoming highly-politicised election (on 15^th November) of a Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire will deliver answers to these urgent questions.

But our more immediate question is this:

• Has there been a Police/Council COVER-UP over Jimmy Savile – right here in the Borough of Scarborough?

Is it not time for transparency? Time for someone to make a definitive statement? A statement for which he (or she) will stand ready and willing to accept full accountability?

Is that not the rôle of the Leader of the Council – Councillor Tom FOX?

Source

It’s reflected in the BBC news coverage and now it appears in the behaviour of its staff too. As it by osmosis, the conventions furthered by the corporation are now being mirrored by its employees.

The BBC’s slavish adherence to the New World Order’s agenda is obvious in everything from the wall-to-wall coverage it gave to Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction – which turned out to be a lie – to its studiously ignoring of the REAL facts behind 9/11.

But just as the New World Order is being promoted by the BBC, the manners and mores behind it are inevitably seeping beyond BBC newsdesks into the rest of the corporation.

In the latest revelation, it has been alleged that the late TV star Leonard Rossiter watched as three BBC staff attempted to anally rape a young male TV extra.

Far from intervening or raising the alarm, the star of BBC comedy shows watched with obvious relish, according to the victim who has described the BBC as a “cesspit of depravity”.

Although the sexual assault took place at the BBC Television Centre in the 1960’s, Rossiter’s accuser finally called police after being appalled by stories of sexual abuse within the BBC that have emerged amid the Jimmy Savile affair.

Little wonder though that the “news” coming from BBC reporters and commentators has until now been at pains to avoid any detrimental mention of homosexuality. After all, that is part of the corporation’s agenda: to encourage the acceptance of homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’ rather than a sexual perversion.

Little wonder too that tales of Jimmy Savile’s exploits or stories like the one below are increasingly being heard. For what has been hidden and buried for so long is finally, inevitably coming to light.

To make matters worse though, the British public are still legally bound to subsidise the organisation in which this sort of behaviour abounds through broadcast license fees. 

Police are currently investigating the allegations but we believe that similar reports will surface in the coming weeks and months.

Finally, if you believe the BBC should be held accountable: STOP PAYING YOUR LICENCE FEES. We know it’s mandatory but if you want to make the BBC answerable it’s one of the few options left.

And short of outright violence against BBC staff or property, we think if enough people stop paying it will make them take notice.

Late screen legend Leonard Rossiter accused of performing a sex act as three BBC staff tried to rape 18-year-old TV extra

Leon Watson – Daily Mail nov 3, 2012

Screen legend Leonard Rossiter is the latest celebrity name to be embroiled in the sex scandal engulfing the BBC.

The Rising Damp star, who died in 1984 aged 57, has been accused of performing a sex act as he watched three BBC staff trying to rape a male TV extra.

An anonymous male accuser told The Sun the trio twice assaulted him at BBC Television Centre in West London when he was 18.

He said Rossiter, who also starred in the much-loved series The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, watched the second 1960s attack.

It is the latest scandal to hit the Corporation following the mountain of claims made about Sir Jimmy Savile.

Today, the alleged victim branded the BBC a ‘cesspit of depravity’ as he recalled the assault, one of two he said he suffered at the TV Centre.

Police are now investigating after the man stepped forward to give a statement and detectives are understood to be considering arrests.

The accuser was an 18-year-old extra on the set of a controversial BBC play titled The Year of the Sex Olympics when the attacks took place in 1968.

He told The Sun: ‘In the rehearsal room in TV Centre one BBC man tightly held my wrists while two others were behind me trying to rape me.

‘I was the victim of two assaults. The second time they obviously tipped off Leonard Rossiter because while I was struggling and shouting for help he was in the room. He obviously found it all a big turn-on. He was watching with glee.

Continues…

Fresh allegations that a ‘leading politician from the Thatcher years’ was at the centre of a widespread paedophile ring were aired on the BBC’s Newsnight programme Friday night.

Alleged abuse victim Steven Messham told Newsnight he was raped more than a dozen times after being picked up in a car that turned at night at the children’s home in North Wales where he lived.

Newsnight described the man as ‘a shadowy figure of high public standing’, but failed to name him.

Mr Messham, who made his allegations to the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal but claims they were ignored, said ‘various things would happen’ at the hands of a senior Tory politician and he was ‘basically raped’.

Mr Meesham was one of hundreds of children abused in the 1970s and 80s – exploitation brought to light by the Waterhouse Inquiry Report in 2000.

But he told BBC Newsnight the inquiry uncovered just a fraction of the abuse.

As a teenager he went to the police and made statements against the senior public figure, but claimed officers told him he was a liar.

A second anonymous alleged victim reported the public figure to police, but was also rebuffed.

He said: ‘When I made a statement to the police the police crossed [his name] out and said there was no point.’

Earlier today, a senior Whitehall source expressed dismay at the chaos engulfing the BBC and suggested the corporation was trying to divert attention away from the Savile scandal.

He said: ‘This looks like they are trying to create a smokescreen to divert attention away from what happened with the Savile programme. That is disgraceful.’

Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ‘The danger is that the people at the BBC think that after not running the Jimmy Savile paedophile programme that they need to be more editorially robust and muscular.

‘But if that is what is behind this, it is absolutely crazy. Now if they don’t screen this programme, it will look leave horrible rumours circulating on the Internet about innocent people.’

Before the programme started the editor of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Iain Overton, mysteriously tweeted that a ‘senior political figure’ was to be outed as a child-abuser on Newsnight.

However, the programme said at the end of tonight’s report that there was ‘not enough evidence’ to name him. Following the end of Newsnight, the BBC refused to comment.

However MailOnline understands the investigation about the unnamed man, who is alive, is being looked at by the BBC’s legal team.

Immediately after, viewers expressed their anger that the BBC failed to name the suspect on micro-blogging site Twitter.

Referring to presenter Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan ‏tweeted: ‘So #Newsnight bottled it again tonight re exposing a paedophile? And they have the gall to mock tabloids? Grow a pair, Paxo.’

Another tweeter, Brixtonite, said: ‘Incredibly irresponsible of #Newsnight to suggest they were going to reveal name of paedophile then not do so. Speculation & gossip now rife.

‘I don’t, and I don’t want to know about rumours. I want Newsnight to do decent thing and take what they know to police.’

Newsnight took the decision despite Mr Overton’s crystal clear message online: ‘If all goes well we’ve got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.’

Following the broadcast, MailOnline approached Mr Overton for a comment, but he was not available.

Mr Overton’s bureau is a not-for-profit organisation which works with news outlets to publish in-depth investigations. It says it has been working on this project for the BBC.

It piles more pressure on the beleaguered corporation after last month it was revealed Newsnight dumped an investigation into paedophile Sir Jimmy Savile, even though they had interviewed his victims.

It took a ITV documentary to reveal that Jimmy Savile had carried out decades of abuse involving hundreds of children, some of whom were attacked on BBC premises.

It emerged that Newsnight had carried out its own investigation into the paedophile DJ – including an interview with the same victim in the ITV documentary- nearly a year before.

A BBC team spent six weeks probing allegations that the presenter abused pupils at a school in Surrey, speaking to at least four women who claimed they had been assaulted or knew about events.

But the report was shelved at the last minute at the request of the programme’s editor Peter Rippon. It was not until last month that the BBC aired its own investigation into the scandal, on Panorama.

It covered both Savile’s crimes and the Corporation’s reaction. Mr Rippon stood aside from his role at Newsnight after the BBC said his explanation for shelving the story was ‘inaccurate or incomplete’.

The corporation’s director general George Entwistle was hauled before a select committee last week to explain why and how it happened.

He denied that the broadcaster helped cover up allegations that Savile preyed on women.

And now there are huge doubts about whether this latest investigation into the mystery political figure will be broadcast.

Channel Four political correspondent Michael Crick says he has spoken to the man at the centre of the allegations, who denied that he was a paedophile and said he would sue if Newsnight broadcasts anything on him tonight.

He also added that the man said he had not been approached for a comment by the BBC, despite it being earmarked for tonight’s Newsnight.

The Metropolitan Police have told MailOnline they have not been handed anything on the subject of the investigation.

The row comes after Labour MP Tom Watson shocked the Commons last month by alleging there was ‘clear intelligence’ linking a former Number 10 aide with a notorious group of sex offenders.

He has compiled a dossier allegations for the Metropolitan Police, which is currently dealing with hundreds of allegations of abuse against Jimmy Savile.

But it is unclear if this is linked to the Newsnight investigation.

Mr Watson suggested a Number 10 insider was named in files connected to the conviction of a child porn smuggler in the early 1990s.

He told the Commons: ‘The evidence used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring.

‘One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

‘The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10.’

Mr Cameron said Mr Watson ‘raises a very difficult and complex case’ and he was ‘not entirely sure which former prime minister he is referring to’.

Source

The BBC and Jimmy Savile: Could It Happen Again?

Yes – Because it’s Happening Now. 

“Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”

David Walsh, the journalist who, in 1999, first questioned Lance Armstrong’s remarkable performance in the Tour de France.

At a moment when the BBC is being forced to confront the toxicity of its intrinsically compromised “networked” and “club-like” nature – in which uncomfortable facts can be hidden in plain sight if that’s what suits a number of people – I was most interested to read a parallel story; one which has echoes of the BBC’s omerta.

On the 11^th October, the Press Gazette carried an interview with sports journalist David Walsh, who was the first person to publicly question the plausibility of the startling performance of cyclist Lance Armstrong. What struck me most about Walsh’s story was not so much that he was a person who walked a lonely and demanding path, against the groupthink of the day (there are always a few) but, rather, his grounds for doing so.

He wasn’t leaked dynamite information – he didn’t obtain access to secret medical reports – he had no “deep-throat” source back then, in 1999. Instead, he coolly observed what he was witnessing – and asked himself the plain and obvious question: “is this plausible?”

He didn’t think so. Following Armstrong’s victory in the 1999 Tour, Walsh wrote “This afternoon I will be keeping my arms by my side because I’m not sure this is something we should be applauding.” His only ground for writing that provocative opinion in the Sunday Times, was his intuition for the plausible.

Walsh incurred widespread damnation for his comments. But as he said in the Press Gazette article, “Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”

And David Walsh carried on doing that thing which is actually surprisingly rare amongst the journalistic profession – he went to his subject – and simply asked the obvious questions.

Lance Armstrong invited Walsh to interview him in 2001; “He rang me because he knew I was asking a lot of questions and he thought that if I come along, and he’s really nice to me, and he gives me a one-on-one interview, I’ll be as happy as every other journalist and I’ll become his friend,” Walsh says.

“I didn’t feel any desire to be his friend because I had a sense of what he was like, and I felt there were lots of questions that needed answering.”

Walsh’s first words to Armstrong when he arrived at the hotel were: “I don’t believe you’re clean, but this is why I’m here, because I have questions. But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”

David Walsh had those suspicions – and he simply went, and bluntly asked the obvious questions. And carried on asking them. And he was right.

Now that so many people in the BBC are mumbling about how the conduct of Jimmy Savile was so widely suspected – and that there were so many rumours – and, indeed, actual victims to be spoken with, as we now know – why did no BBC journalists go and ask – and persist in asking – the plain and obvious questions of Jimmy Savile – and ask the same obvious questions of those who had employed Savile, and those who persisted in enabling him to be around children?

What is it – about that simple foundation-stone of journalism – just asking the damn question – that is so difficult for 99% of today’s journalists?

Well, as an example of the modern phenomena that so increasingly threatens the entire relevancy of traditional hacks – a citizen’s media journalist – I am going to ask some damn questions.

Some obvious questions – arising out of things that sit in plain sight, yet which go unremarked, uninterrogated.

For example – why are BBC journalists still – this very day – silently permitting the scandalous and corrupt concealment of decades of child-abuse to go unquestioned?

What are their motivations – their reasons – for doing that?

Could it be – like the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong – the most plain and obvious explanation?

That corruption is widespread amongst BBC staffers?

Indeed – I’m asking – I’m pointing at the elephant in the room – and asking the question: “is, in fact, corruption endemic in British journalism?”

That is my gut-instinct – just as Walsh had his about Armstrong.

Gaby Hinsliff, former Political Editor of the Observer, wrote in a tweet at 1.37 on Friday 12^th October, “Whatever failings of BBC management, BBC journalists are doing an exemplary, unflinching job of reporting Savile case.”

Really?

Well – now that it is safe and undemanding to do so – maybe a number of BBC hacks are reporting the sordid details of Savile’s conduct. But are they asking THE important – the plain and obvious questions, a la David Walsh?

Are they questioning the very “culture” of the BBC as a traditional institution – and all the baggage that brings?

Are they asking – “is corruption and concealment a common currency in the BBC?”

Or – “why has the BBC played the role it has, in so strongly assisting the Jersey establishment to cover-up child abuse – including abuse by Savile?”

Well, let’s hope one or two them might be planning to do that, though I haven’t yet seen any sign of it. And to help any budding David Walshes in the BBC – I’m going to assist, by laying out some of the stark and extraordinary matters that require – that demand – questions.

And the failure of the BBC to deal competently or honestly with current child-abuse scandals in Jersey is one of those matters that demands interrogation. Consider yourself to be a serious and ethical BBC journalist? Then come to Jersey – and ask the damn questions of the BBC management and staff here.

The plain and obvious questions.

In the previous posting – I wrote of the “currency of concealment” in respect of child-abuse.

But the currency of concealment applies to most walks of life – most situations. Let’s face it – knowing stuff – embarrassing stuff – or problematic stuff – about people – having done them favours, or they having done you favours, by keeping schtum about certain matters – and helping each other up the career ladder, is how influence is peddled in Britain; it is how the nation “networks” – and, frankly, it has been for hundreds of years. Corruption, and the concealment of corruption, is endemic in the UK.

And in so many ways – the way the traditional media has worked, is simply a giant, technicolor, unsubtle cartoon version of that workaday custom – that way of “doing business”.

Don’t take my word for it. The journalist who broke the phone-hacking scandal, Nick Davies, said at the Leveson inquiry, “journalism doesn’t begin with checking facts, it’s about selective decisions on what to cover”.

That’s as good a one-sentence description of how journalism works as you will ever find.

Here’s something I noticed, when my career was in politics; journalists look down on politicians with contempt. And, in most cases, you couldn’t blame them. But lacking in the perspective of those journalists, is the realisation that they too float down the same gutter, perhaps clinging to a fractionally more elevated turd. And maybe not even that.

The blunt truth is that most journalists are lazy, uncourageous and useless. 95% of them are unspeakably crap – yet without even in mitigation, the self-acceptance that you might find amongst most politicians. The smug self-regard of broadcast journalists in particular is a revolting wonder to behold when you have the misfortune of attempting to work closely with them.

One of the questions that must be asked, is actually, “do we need to re-assess what we think journalist are for?” Our customary answer to that question might have been ‘reporting important news’, or, ‘holding power to account.’ But in reality, today – hell, for decades, the real function of most of the mainstream media has been to act as a ‘filter’, a kind of ‘control-mechanism’ on public discourse. As Nick Davies said, journalism is “about selective decisions on what to cover”.

And there can be fewer more pertinent examples than the corrupt concealment of child-abuse in Jersey – and the concealment of that corrupt concealment, by the traditional media – the BBC in particular.  The unacknowledged key, power of the traditional media – that of omission – has been both exposed, and rendered redundant by Jersey bloggers.

One of the things the media, even at a national level, still does not seem to have grasped, is that their major power (and perhaps their most serious cultural failing) namely the power of omission, is dead.

Let’s be clear – the power of the British media is simply immense, absolutely immense.

For all the fears, some justified, some not, the British media has of a post-Leveson world, in order to be reasonably confident of retaining their freedom, influence – and respect – the mainstream media has to wake up to a whole new paradigm.

That paradigm is this:

The editorial “freedom” that the media used to enjoy – to pick and chose what stories it would not run – that freedom to “omit” – that great power to filter  the very type of stories to be published, and thus control the terms of debate – is gone.

Gone forever.

The World Wide Web has killed it; killed that power of omission, stone-dead.

I’ve been an un-paid blogger, writing journalistically since February 2008. Consider this fact: during the time-period since then, to the present, I have written and produced more evidence-based investigative journalism – than every journalist, from all of Jersey’s traditional media – in all of the post-World War II years – combined.

Take, for example, just the following three blog-postings:

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/05/graham-powers-statement-part-1.html

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/06/jersey-independence.html

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-end-of-beginning.html

In  those articles  you can read approximately 94 pages of explosive and damming evidence – direct from THE key, centrally involved source – the actual Police Chief who was illegally suspended by Jersey’s government of shady spivs.

Suspended – for several complimentary  purposes of the Jersey oligarchy – primary amongst which was the local establishment’s wish to prevent the full and proper investigation of decades of concealed child-abuse. Child-abuse including that by Jimmy Savile.

The illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief took place, not in 1978 – but in 2008.

You are worried about child protection?

You wish to comfort yourself with, “well – most of the Savile crimes took place in the 1960s & 70s – it couldn’t happen today.”?

Wrong.

It happens today. It has happened.

A Police Chief who was exposing decades of child-abuse and cover-up was illegally suspended – without due process – on no even faintly credible grounds whatsoever – and was then unlawfully denied legal representation. This  happened in November 2008.

The Police Chief trying to expose the failures that led to decades of child abuse concealment – illegally suspended.

And the two Jersey politicians who led the executive responsible for this crime – were both subsequently awarded OBEs.

And what has been the response of the BBC to this contemporary and on-going scandal involving child-abuse cover-up?

The BBC in Jersey provided copious air-time to the politicians responsible for the corrupt suspension of the Police Chief, and proceeded to peddle – wholly unchallenged – a plainly false, obviously dishonest account of events. This is the BBC – pro-actively engaging in an illegal child-abuse cover-up. In the present day.

And no – before you ask – the BBC cannot claim to be the victims of some monstrous and manipulative fraud, some cunning exercise in hoodwinking them. The facts and circumstances surrounding the illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief were so patently extraordinary – so obviously devoid of due-process – so wholly lacking in any credibility – that the most cursory consideration raises many obvious and immediate questions – gut-instinct questions of the kind David Walsh asked – without even the need to engage in any investigative work.

Consider the situation: Jersey has only one Police Chief; under his leadership, for the first time, decades of child-abuse and failures by the public authorities are being investigated; the local politicians have made no effort to disguise their anger and irritation at the “bad publicity” and the questions raised about their competence and stewardship of public safety; suddenly – a couple of weeks before a Jersey general election, which might have gone badly for the traditionalists – the Police Chief is suspended with an attendant high-level attack by the local establishment upon the entire credibility of the child-abuse investigation, and a lot of spin to the effect that “there was no big problem after-all”.

As a journalist – what kind of questions immediately spring to mind when faced with that situation?

“Partisan politicians – suspending a Police Chief – who has been investigating decades of failure by those politicians? Could this be a profoundly dangerous and corrupt abuse of political power, to undermine and sabotage good, modern policing, for self-interested political purposes?”

“What – if any – credible reasons, or plausible justification, do those politicians have for going straight to such a “nuclear-option” of suspending the Police Chief? They have to explain.”

“Given the obvious and profound public interest questions that arise – was due process followed?”

“Just how plausible were the various assertions made in the press-conferences in the immediate wake of the suspension? Were those claims credible?”

“Given the obvious scope for the suspension being a politicised act – did the Jersey politicians seek any external advice, from Whitehall?”

“What was the state of knowledge concerning these events of the Crown’s representative in Jersey, the Lieutenant Governor?”

“Was that Office fulfilling its role lawfully, namely that of ensuring that her Majesty’s subjects in Jersey are protected from corruption and abuses of power?”

Those are just a few, a mere handful, of the plain and obvious questions that any serious journalistic endeavour on the part of the BBC would have asked.

Even before dramatic, documentary evidence was supplied to them on a plate, as I will explain below.

And this is not some criticism based upon a theoretical debate concerning the political economy of the mass-media. There are real people – real children – now real adults – who suffered appallingly, and who, in some cases at least, may have been protected from suffering – if what passes for the ‘Fourth Estate’ in Jersey had ever done its job properly.

Amongst BBC Jersey’s accretion of am-dram luvies, trustafarian brats, cocktail party air-heads, “Christian” social-climbers, and bicycling surf-nazis – not one of them,  not one  – has sought out and spoken with, and striven to get an understanding of what the dozens of victims of institutionalised child abuse in Jersey went through. Not one of them has tried to discover –and convey to the Jersey audience, what it was like to be raped by a well-connected freemason at the age of 12 – or sodomized by a civil-servant – or have your arm broken by another civil servant – or have mental health issues at the age of 14, and then be locked into solitary confinement – for two months. 

It is worse, even, than that. Not only has the BBC in Jersey utterly failed to do any of that basic journalistic leg-work – they’ve actually refused – flatly refused – to report stories – and use evidence – when it’s been actively handed to them on the proverbial plate.

The child protection scandal first erupted as a public controversy in Jersey in July 2007. I was the Health & Social Services Minister, and had spent the previous six months working with whistle-blowers and survivors, in investigating what was an ever more alarming catalogue of abuse, incompetence, failure and cover-up; a wretched history that plainly involved the senior civil servants routinely lying to me and other politicians when we asked questions. Having discovered some of the atrocities, I happened to be asked a question in the Jersey parliament – and I gave an honest answer, stating that “if I was being asked did I have any faith in Jersey’s child protection systems, frankly, I would have to say no, and I would be commissioning an independent inquiry.”

This triggered an illegal plot amongst the malfeasant civil servants, and the rest of the Jersey cabinet, to engineer my dismissal on the supposed grounds that by “publicly criticising the service”, I was “undermining staff moral”. We subsequently learnt of the illegal plot – because the civil servants in question attempted to co-opt the Police Chief Graham Power into supporting it. He rejected any such involvement, and wrote a file-note recording the incident. That file-note can be read at the following blog-posting:

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/12/letter-from-exile-9.html

Here’s a brief quote from the file-note:

“Bill Ogley and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

That file-note is as apocalyptic a piece of evidence of a high-level, quite deliberate – and criminal – conspiracy to conceal child-abuse as you are likely to come across in any of the noted child-abuse scandals in Britain.

How much reporting – indeed, how much reference at all – has the BBC made to that piece of dramatic, documented evidence?

None.

And I can’t say I was surprised that the BBC refused to report that evidence, when it came to light in late 2009. You see, I had realised just how wholly corrupted and decadent was the BBC’s operation in Jersey back during that summer of 2007, when I was fighting single-handidly to expose the child-abuse cover-ups. Back then, none of us were aware of the covert police investigation, so it seemed to the civil servants and oligarchy politicians that they could cram the lid back down on the decades of abuse and suffering and carry on the concealment – if only they could discredit me. The then Chief Minister, Frank Walker (who until recently had been the boss of the company that runs Jersey’s only “newspaper”) tabled a vote of no-confidence in me as Health & Social Services Minister. Knowing that this would be debated in September, in late August I e-mailed the then boss of the BBC in Jersey – Denzel Dudley – and suggested that the issues were plainly so important – accountability and standards in child-protection – that the BBC should have me and Walker live in the studio on the Sunday phone-in, to debate the issues, and answer questions from the public, before the Jersey parliament debate. The response of Dudley, in the name of the BBC, was to write back to me, saying, “Thank you for your offer, but the BBC does not host political debates in case it might influence the decision-makers.”

The exclusion, the deliberate marginalisation of opposition opinions – the ‘omission’ of any meaningful alternative to the entrenched local oligarchy – is the established modus operandi of the BBC in Jersey. That incident in particular was simply a corrupt act, on the part of the BBC in Jersey, designed to protect Walker and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy from meaningful scrutiny and challenge, in respect of their decision to support child-abuse concealing civil servants, rather than prioritising the protection of vulnerable children.

But that was back in 2007; surely, you may ask, the BBC must have recognised its mistakes since then? No, not the BBC Jersey outfit. It is certainly correct to say that for a period of maybe six months or so, the BBC at a national level started taking the matter seriously – and had to do so over the heads of the “gone-native” local operation. Some good TV coverage took place, including a Panorama program. But the corrupted “network” of influence within the BBC swung into place behind the scenes – and when Jersey’s good Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended in November 2008, the BBC, including at the national level, became entirely passive – wholly and extraordinarily supportive of the Jersey oligarchy position – notwithstanding all of the many very obvious, gut-instinct questions immediately arising in the face of the suspension.

All of those very obvious, and fundamental questions concerning the very safety and independence from political interference of policing in Jersey – questions concerning the protection of the public by the police, from the corrupt and illegal actions of government departments? It was as though none of those questions existed as far as the BBC was concerned.

And thanks to the internet and blogging, we needn’t entertain the customary lame excuses of the traditional media for not asking the obvious damn questions – like “well, we can’t possible ask such questions, because we have no evidence”; for as real journalists like David Walsh show, you don’t need evidence to at least ask the questions. But, as it happens, the BBC do have evidence. Dramatic and sensational evidence. They have that 94 page interim statement by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.

I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.

I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22^nd September  2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing.

To cut a long story short, my various attempts to discover what, if anything, the BBC planned to do with the dynamite document, ended with me writing these words to Jon Gripton, Laura Ellis and Rachel Hallett of the BBC: -

“Sadly, I note I have not received so much as an acknowledgment from Mr Gripton, to my e-mail of the 16^th, in which I asked why the BBC had not fulfilled its various obligations in respect of the evidence concerning the unlawful and repressive suspension enacted against Jersey’s then Police Chief Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.

You know – it’s a funny old world. Never in my most fevered imaginations – at least not until I started to witness it a few years ago – did I ever think that THE BBC would become so starkly and evidencedly collusive in the hushing-up of an unlawful sabotaging of a child abuse investigation.
 
Especially when THE BBC has been furnished – on a plate – with very dramatic documentary evidence, upon which it could base very substantive reports.”

There we have it – in grim coincidence, at a time when the true nature of influence, concealment and omission as practiced in the BBC – in respect of something so awful as child abuse – has had the spotlight shone upon it. Evidence which shows – even now, in 2012, in a child-abuse concealment scandal that actually includes Jimmy Savile as one of the abusers – still the BBC is covering-up the truth.

Even when they’ve had the evidence handed to them on a plate.

The conduct of the BBC gets no better. BBC Jersey hack Simon Jupp, when asked by me on twitter a few days ago why the BBC wouldn’t report the Graham Power statement, responded by saying, “Not a question for me, Stuart.” But, as I replied to him, “Simon – it most certainly IS a question for you, like this culture of non-reporting IS a question for ALL BBC staff now.”, and, “You, & other individ’ BBC staffers, can’t hide in the mechanism anymore. The moral responsibility to do something is yours.”

The BBC and its defenders at a national level, largely rely upon a claim that the Savile abuse, and the culture that enabled it, “was all so long ago. It couldn’t happen now. These days, our journalists would ask those questions – would not be afraid – would pursue those very obvious lines of inquiry.”

Really?

Do you want to know how many BBC journalists have asked me what must be possibly the most A1, vital and primary question which arises from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster? How many BBC journalists have approached me and said: -  “Mr Syvret, you were – as Jersey’s Health & Social Services Minister – THE legally empowered “public authority” with responsibility for child protection and for investigating child-protection failures; when you were seeking to exercise those legal powers, as you were actually obliged to by law, you were pro-actively prevented from doing so by the senior civil servants and your cabinet colleagues. How can vulnerable, isolated children in the system expect protection by the actual legal authority responsible for that ultimate oversight, if it can be obstructed like that – and could it happen again?”

How many BBC staffers – in the pre, or even post-Savile era – have asked that core, obvious question concerning the systemic obstruction of the proper discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law, and the structural collapse of legal accountability in the child-protection apparatus?

None.

That’s how many.

Not one, single, solitary BBC journalist has – from the beginning of the controversy five years ago – to the present day – asked me that key, and obvious question. Not once.

We are swift enough – perhaps with justification – for assuming that various public officials – and politicians in particular – will frequently be corrupt. Why so rarely indeed, is the same thought publicly expressed – in the media – about journalists?

You’re asking me the question? Asking me to just look at how things obviously appear – and make a judgment-call? You want me – like Walsh, with Armstrong – to say what I think? What my gut-instinct is?

I think corruption is widespread in British journalism.

I think it’s endemic.

I go further: I think – upon any sober and wise consideration – it would actually be quite remarkable if it wasn’t.

It is axiomatic – that wherever you find power – of any kind, and any kind of influence over that power – you will find corruption.

I have no doubt – no doubt whatsoever – that amongst the many national journalists I have communicated with over the course of the last five years – when trying to expose the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups and other crimes – a number of them have been straightforwardly corrupt.

I believe they’ve been in acceptance of payments – of bribes – of some form of benefit or other – in order to skew stories in favour of the powerful – in order to relay, as spies, back to the powerful, what campaigners like me were saying – to work as private detectives, and convey what evidence we had  back to their employers. In particular, I believe journalists accept bribes, in order to simply omit certain stories, certain evidence. Bribes to exercise that ultimate media power – of simply making sure the damaging stories just “don’t appear”.

Why do I think that?

Because there can be no other rational explanation for some of the frankly astounding conduct on the part of various news outlets that purport to be straight and rational and honest.

As with David Walsh, and his deduction concerning Armstrong, you can demand of me “what evidence do you have for that?” And like Walsh I say, “well, I don’t have the evidence to prove anyone’s guilt – but I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions”.

And I do. Because, when all’s said and done – putting in a spectacular performance in the ascent of Alp d’Huez – even though cheating your competitors, is still just entertainment at the end of the day.

Knowing that children have been battered, raped, sodomized for decades  – but then allowing immensely powerful politicians and judges to conceal such gross crimes by refusing to ask them the obvious questions – and refusing to report the available evidence – is a bloody atrocity.

Ask me – who is the bigger villain? Lance Armstrong? Or BBC staff who are – today – enabling the concealment of grotesque degrees of child protection failure and the political corruption that underpins it? The BBC staffers – without question.

Are we supposed to believe that rife corruption can exists amongst, say, MPs – most of whom are, let’s face it, pretty individually powerless in the big scheme of things – yet journalists who work for national media outlets – and who thus can exercise absolutely crushing, awesome power over certain events – for example, by exercising the power of omission – are rarely, if ever corrupt?

That they don’t take dramatic bribes – don’t have “pension settlements” established for them – don’t have BVI trust-funds with mysterious sources – that some of them don’t have lucrative “secondary employment” with the security services – or that they don’t have various tax-dodging arrangements set-up in places like Jersey, hence their reluctance to rock-the-boat of the tax-haven? Because, let’s face it, it could be very embarrassing  – or worse – for senior BBC figures if their use of Jersey’s off-shore finance arrangements became known. I mean, we could be speaking of far worse than, say the mere embarrassment that befell Jimmy Carr. When all’s said and done, his Jersey arrangements were at least legal. He wasn’t evading tax. Unlike a lot of Jersey’s clients. It’s worth remembering, the notorious gangster Al Capone was eventually nailed for tax-evasion. Just imagine – just how “influential” it would  be to have knowledge of the tax-fiddling of senior people in the media, such as the BBC?

Let’s face it – if you’ve “done business” through Jersey – the Jersey mafia know about it. Don’t ever think otherwise. “Client confidentiality?” You damn fool.

Consider; a couple of weeks ago, the Lib-Dem party was involved in some justified scrutiny of Jersey; Vince Cable had spoken  of the need to combat tax-avoidance through off-shore centres – and Lib Dem MP John Hemming had spoken in the House of Commons against the concealment of crimes by Jersey’s authorities. Then – hey – wouldn’t ya know it – the media get hold of a story about how a major donor to the Lib-Dem party is, in fact, based in Jersey. A co-incidental revelation? Or a shot across the bows of the three main UK parties – from the Jersey oligarchy, whose traditions, abuses of power and frequent overt criminality are unsustainable, and who are feeling embattled?

Just how many BBC staffers, journalists, editors, directors, trust members etc – have such things as “tax-efficient” remuneration arrangements?

How many BBC people have “off-payroll” remuneration set-ups, or are employed through “service companies”? Maybe through arrangements based in Jersey?

How many of them have had, and still have, “additional” sources of “employment” or remuneration – from third-party activities? And, to state the bloody obvious, what impact do such third-party influences have upon the conduct of the BBC?

What, indeed, have been the specific employment and remuneration arrangements for BBC Jersey staffers, editors etc during, say, the last 15 years?

How many of them – who have operated under “brand-BBC”, have, in fact, been “freelancers” – generating very handsome wealth-streams for themselves – in exchange for what the BBC in Jersey does – or does not – cover?

What commercial or financial arrangements have these people “working” under (or at least “using”) the BBC name, had with spin-doctor firms – of which there are many, with large budgets, in Jersey? 

I don’t have any evidence – just like David Walsh with Lance Armstrong – but I too have the gut-feeling – and draw the obvious conclusions just from seeing the reality I am watching – and am going to ask the obvious question – are some BBC staff corrupt?

If David Walsh can ask that question of Lance Armstrong – I can ask it of the BBC in respect of its staff in Jersey – and those in the UK who are responsible for letting the BBC Jersey operation become just so – obviously – corrupted. Corrupted – and collusive – in the concealments of child-abuse.

So corrupted, in fact – so startlingly and plainly – that it is actually quite remarkable that so many BBC people, and others, still maintain the collective fiction that this performance is “normal”, is “good” – like all those people in the parable of the emperor’s new clothes.

No.

This is not right.

This performance is not plausible.

Indeed – it’s so implausible, there has to be an explanation for it.

The BBC – certainly in respect of Jersey, at the least – is corrupted.

Corrupted to the point of actively participating, today – in the year 2012 – in the concealment of child-abuse cover-ups.

There are some blindingly obvious possible causes of this appalling conduct by the BBC.

And I am asking that question.

Will some decent “real” journalists do the same?

And if they will not, well – as with the Lance Armstrong drug usage – at least someone will have asked the obvious question, a question drawn from the obvious appearance of things.

The BBC today? A different culture to that which protected Savile over the decades?

No. Not unless it purges its entire Jersey operation.

Not unless it investigates, at a national level,  the relationships and contacts of all of its senior or influential people, with the Jersey establishment, and their financial arrangements with Jersey.

Not unless it finally holds the Jersey authorities to account for their plain and evidenced corruptions, oppressions and concealing of child-abuse. And in that regard, the BBC could make a start, by reporting the issues arising from the 94 page statement of the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power – and asking the Secretary of State for Justice just why he has failed to ensure the proper rule of law in Jersey?

Like David Walsh with Lance Armstrong – I’m looking at the BBC, and I’m saying I don’t believe you’re clean.

Stuart Syvret

Source

The Jimmy Savile child abuse allegations were flagged up to the office of former BBC boss Mark Thompson at least twice, according to new claims.

The then director-general’s office was formally alerted by journalist Miles Goslett in May and by an ITV email in September, The Sunday Times reports.

According to the paper, his aides were told on both occasions that the allegations concerned Savile’s alleged abuse of minors on BBC premises.

Mr Thompson, who has since left the BBC and is about to start a job as chief executive of The New York Times, denies he was ever personally informed.

Mr Goslett is said to have spoken to Jessica Cecil, the head of Mr Thompson’s office and asked to speak to him about allegations that Savile had molested underage girls on BBC premises.

Ms Cecil told Mr Goslett to speak to the press office and said she did not tell Mr Thompson of the allegations.

A BBC spokesman said: “Jessica Cecil’s firm recollection of this brief call is she advised the journalist to put their points to the BBC press office. She then informed the BBC’s director of communications about the call.”

A spokesman for Mr Thompson said: “Mark was not aware of the conversation between Miles Goslett and Jessica Cecil on May 18, 2012. He was on holiday at the time and this brief conversation was not relayed to him, either then or subsequently.”

On September 7, ITV is reported to have contacted Mr Thompson’s office with detailed questions about its findings based on interviews with 10 victims. 

Again, Mr Thompson was not informed.

The former BBC chief has previously said he was neither “notified nor briefed” about details of Newsnight’s investigation into the Jim’ll Fix It star which was later controversially dropped.

He later told reporters he had “formed the impression it [the Newsnight investigation] was about sex abuse” after a conversation at a party but when he called the news department he was told it had been axed for editorial reasons.

Police have now described Savile, who died in 2011, as a sexual predator who could be one of the worst paedophiles the UK has ever seen.

Hundreds of people have come forward claiming to be his victims. Around 130 have so far been questioned. A further 114 assault claims have been made.

Amid major questions about the culture at the BBC and its decision not to proceed with the Newsnight programme on Savile, the corporation has ordered three inquiries.

The chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, has said he is dedicated to getting to the bottom of the scandal, vowing there would be “no covering our backs”.

He wrote in the Mail on Sunday that the broadcaster “must tell the truth and face up to the truth about itself, however terrible”.

Source