Posts Tagged ‘Savile’

Why Are Our Political Elite So Obsessed With Lowering the Age of Consent?

January 15, 2013

Why are UK politicians so preoccupied with lowering the age of consent? Who asked for it to be lowered in the first place? Not parents in Britain, that’s for sure. Listen to this bit of common sense before you start your debate…

UPDATE: British PM Rules Out Lowering Age Of Consent To 14…



10 Reason to Cancel Your TV License and more…

January 15, 2013

BanTheBBC says:

Up until the last few years I used to be a big fan of BBC programming and would invest at least a few hours every day watching programmes like Eastenders, Top of the Pops, Only Fools & Horses, Question Time, Newsnight, Panorama, etc.

But these days I cannot bring myself to watch any BBC programmes at all. Even watching just five minutes worth makes me feel dirty. It’s not the quality of the programming that’s at issue, it’s the fact that the BBC is such a repulsive propaganda machine that seems to pay no attention to the concerns of the very people who are funding them.

The BBC has had it too good for too long. One of the major problems posed by the BBC is their lack of accountability to the very people who pay their wages — us. The BBC is never far away from controversy but nothing ever seems to change and no one in their corporation ever seems to be worse off as a result of their wrongdoing. Imagine for a moment that it was a completely different media company we were talking about, and not the BBC. For argument’s sake, let’s say it was ITV or Sky. What would happen is that the viewers would refuse to watch that TV station any longer and/or they would cancel their subscriptions. And if enough people did this, the company would go bankrupt very quickly. That’s because these company’s are directly accountable to their viewers who pay their wages via subscriptions or from watching the adverts. However, the BBC does not afford us this luxury to the people who fund them. It doesn’t matter how many people stop watching BBC programmes because the BBC will continue to receive £3.4 billion a year from our pockets. Therefore the BBC has no financial impetus to even want to change what they do. Even if a million people suddenly stopped watching the BBC, it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the BBC’s annual turnover, which means that they can continue to anger people as much as they want without any fear of redundancies, pay cuts or the company going bust through lack of consumer confidence in their products.

Therefore we only have one real option available to us and that’s to cancel our TV Licence…

More on ‘The Great TV License Scam’…


BBC Trustee Anthony Fry Defending George Entwistle’s ‘Entitlement’ – The 450K Golden Parachute

November 24, 2012

By Andrew Woodcock

A BBC trustee who was involved in the decision to give George Entwistle a £450,000 payoff for resigning as director general insisted today he still believes it was the right thing to do.

Anthony Fry said that Mr Entwistle made clear he wanted a full year’s salary as a condition of resigning after just 54 days in the job – twice as much as he was entitled to under his contract and the same as he would have got for being sacked.

Mr Fry said the BBC Trust was faced with the decision of whether to draw a line under the issue immediately or face a protracted wrangle and a possible industrial tribunal, which lawyers warned could result in Mr Entwistle receiving an additional £80,000.

Despite his “irritation” over being asked for double the payout to which the director general was entitled, he told the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that he decided – and Trust chairman Lord Patten agreed – it was better to accept the offer of resignation on November 10.

Mr Fry revealed that the outgoing director general also received a year’s Bupa private medical cover, as well as up to £10,000 to cover legal fees connected with his resignation, legal expenses of up to £25,000 to help Mr Entwistle give evidence to two inquiries into the Jimmy Savile affair, and £10,000 for PR.

The BBC trustee accepted that the figures involved would appear to licence fee-payers to be “in the stratosphere”, but insisted that they were not out of the ordinary for senior BBC managers.

Mr Entwistle received less than former chief operating officer Caroline Thomson, who was paid £670,000 – two years’ salary – when she left earlier this year after being beaten by him in the contest for the director general’s post, he pointed out.

“The director general made it very clear to the Trust through his lawyers that the only thing that was on the table if he was to resign was a payment of £450,000,” Mr Fry told the PAC during a hostile grilling by the committee.

With an increasing sense of crisis building around the BBC following Mr Entwistle’s much-derided response to Newsnight’s inaccurate report on child sex abuse, Mr Fry said he felt that getting the matter resolved quickly was “by far and away more important than sitting on a moral high horse and trying to get the director general to change his mind about the terms under which he would leave”.

He told the committee: “That was a judgment call. If I was asked to make that judgment call again today, I would do the same thing.”

Mr Fry said he felt “a degree of substantial irritation and aggravation” at having to pay Mr Entwistle £450,000, rather than £225,000.

But he was interrupted by PAC chair Margaret Hodge, who told him: “It is not you. It is the licence fee-payer.”

Hearing the details of Mr Entwistle’s severance package, Ms Hodge told Mr Fry: “We express incredulity. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how this is viewed in the public domain, given that it is licence fee-payers’ money. That is the real shocker about this.

“He took a public job, he was hugely well remunerated, he failed in 54 days, he gets incredibly rewarded for failure… There is no understanding of what the ordinary punter turning on the telly feels about it.”

MPs on the committee expressed shock that Mr Entwistle’s contract – and his severance deal – included thousands of pounds-worth of private medical cover.

BBC chief financial officer Zarin Patel told the committee that Bupa cover was a standard part of senior managers’ packages, with 574 of them enjoying the perk at a cost of around £2 million a year, but the practice was halted for new recruits as a cost-saving measure last year.

Ms Hodge said: “I think we are shocked that the BBC feels it is appropriate to use licence fee-payers’ money to fund individuals to get private medicine. I think that is shocking as a principle.”

She urged the Trust to “reflect” on whether medical cover should also be withdrawn from existing staff.

And PAC member Richard Bacon demanded to know why licence fee-payers’ money was given to Mr Entwistle to pay for “PR or bouncers” to help him deal with “doorstepping” by the press.

Another committee member, Guto Bebb, said the director general’s severance brought to £4 million the sums paid out to 10 departing BBC executives in the past two years, adding: “It does look as though losing a job at the BBC is the same as winning the lottery.”

Mr Fry told the committee that the Trust, which acts as the BBC’s regulator and has no part in day-to-day operations, met on the afternoon of Saturday November 10 in the wake of what was widely regarded as a disastrous set of interviews by Mr Entwistle about the Newsnight affair.

The programme had been forced to apologise to Lord McAlpine after wrongly implying that he was involved in child sex abuse, but the director general admitted he had not been aware of the allegations the BBC2 show was planning to air.

At the meeting, Mr Fry said there were “serious concerns around the issue of whether the gravity of the situation had been grasped by the director general”, who told them the BBC must not “over-react” to the crisis, while trustees felt the main danger lay in under-reacting.

“It is clear from what happened subsequently that the director general left the meeting with the very clear impression that he no longer carried the full support of the BBC Trust,” said Mr Fry. “I would characterise that as a fairly accurate reading of the tone of the meeting.”

Mr Fry said Mr Entwistle contacted the BBC’s director of human resources Lucy Adams later that afternoon and asked her to tell Lord Patten that he was “minded” to discuss the terms of his resignation. His lawyers then made clear that he wanted a payout of £450,000, along with further sums to cover other expenses, some of which were refused.

But the Trust never told the director general that he must resign, revealed Mr Fry, telling the MPs: “We did not at any stage, and nor did the chairman, say ‘George, you’ve got to go’.”

There were “no reasons under the terms of the contract” under which the BBC could fire Mr Entwistle without giving him a full year’s salary as compensation, said Mr Fry. And he added: “At no stage on Saturday evening was the director general prepared to resign his position as director general of the BBC other than with the payment of £450,000.

“I expressed the very strong feeling that, in the best interests of the BBC and licence fee-payers, reaching an urgent conclusion was better than playing it long and hoping that in the next 12 or 24 hours the director general’s position would change.”

He added: “Did I feel good about it? Absolutely not. Do I still feel good about it? No. I still feel it was the right thing to do.”

Mr Fry said that compensation for resignation or dismissal was a standard feature of senior people’s contracts at the BBC and it would have been “extraordinary” for someone in a position like Mr Entwistle’s to be expected to serve a probationary period after being hired.

Ms Hodge urged the Trust to allow spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) to look at the terms of Mr Entwistle’s departure.

But Mr Fry said he was not in a position to give permission for such an inquiry, though Lord Patten made clear he was ready for the NAO to conduct a “holistic” review of the BBC’s senior management, including the issue of severance packages.

Mr Fry said he was “deeply concerned” about the number of senior managers at the BBC and the levels of pay they receive, and had taken steps since arriving at the Trust to reduce both.

He told MPs that some cuts had been made, but added: “It is still a journey, still work in progress…

“I recognise – more than sometimes people understand – how shocking some of these numbers are to licence fee-payers.”

Mr Fry said that in addition to his pay-off, Mr Entwistle had a pension pot of £833,000, which would give him an annual pension of £38,000 to £40,000…

Read more at The Independent


Are Secretive Cabals Keeping Us in the Dark Over UK Child Abuse?

November 17, 2012

Peter Sterry
21st Century Wire
Senior Editor

An ugly truth: our system of law enforcement and justice is broken. Quite simply, it bullies the victims, and protects men in positions of power.

Old wounds are being reopened again…

Another previously buried report of organised paedophilia in North Wales has turned up – fears that revelations could lead to the authorities being sued – again. It’s the same pattern of key evidence and key witnesses NOT being included in these Inquiries and Hearings.

It prompts the question: what else hasn’t been included as evidence? Was evidence destroyed? More key incriminating evidence in the North Wales scandal has been reported as ‘lost’ by the police. This appears to be generally acceptable for the government, seeing that no counter investigation was launched to find out who has been ‘losing’ all this important evidence.

It’s also known that former Deputy Director of the Bryn Alyn boys home, Des Frost, was NOT called as a witness, despite being one of the men who had originally reported abuse at the home to the police.

What should be clear by now, is that the Waterhouse Inquiry was anything but thorough, and now Lords Peers are calling for further Waterhouse reviews to stop.

Question: What did then Welsh Secretary, William Hague, know and when did he know it?

The establishment’s story line today were expected to support is this: five separate documented cover-ups in 27 years, and 0ver 2000 witness statements… are all the work of media vandals and deluded conspirators.

It seems like those in positions of power and influence, as well as wealthy elites in public life are pushing back, because they don’t want certain dirty deeds to be exposed to the public at large. If they are exposed, it will most surely alter the power structure in Britain for some time to come. These revelations simply cannot come to light, period.

Watch this latest report about ‘lost’ evidence…

Here is Sian Griffith’s interview she speaks, among other things, about Thomas Kenyon, son of Lord Kenyon, and others, along with more ‘missing evidence’, more proof (how much does the government need?) that from the onset, the police and judiciary have intervened to suppress evidence which is in the public interest:

The elite claim that all these witnesses are lying, and making up their abuse. To what benefit? But if the elite are covering up their sordid crimes, one can easily see why they would want to do this, Qui Bono?

You decide…

Police ‘Lost’ Thick Dossier But Seized by MI5 on Suspected Paedophile Sir Cyril Smith

RELATED: The Original SCALLYWAG Magazine paedophile ring investigation is available online


Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Pedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To Stop Hemorrhaging of Public Confidence

November 11, 2012

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire
Guest Columnist

A disturbing shift has occurred over the weekend in Britain.

A very noticeable pressure has been building against Britain’s elite establishment composed of politicians, highly paid media executives and celebrities, over the ugly issue of pedophilia and child abuse – a crime which has, for generations, been allowed to be carried out in secret.

Since Friday’s assessment of David Cameron’s most embarrassing TV challenge by seemingly harmless personality Philip Schofield, the whole national conversation is now being engineered by Downing Street and top media executives, to rotate away from Jimmy Savile and MP Tom Watson’s call for a rooting out of organized pedophilia in government – and over to protecting the allegedly fragile reputations of hereditary elites like Lord McAlpine, who according to major newspaper editors and TV pundits, have suddenly become victims of a ‘witch-hunt’ for paedophiles.

Lord McApline: “I never abused children’.

Following a rather obvious, internally staged damage control event, where the embattled BBC Director General George Entwistle went on BBC Breakfast Show and the Radio Four Live programs to fall on his sword for ‘bad journalism’ over last week’s Newsnight set-up – Entwistle resigns. Now the government are crying witch-hunt. It’s an attempt to apply a new spin to the old spin, where the public are now expected to feel sorry for Lord McAlpine and any other ‘proper person’ like him, for being accused of child abuse, or pedophilia.

This is the latest effort by Downing Street spin doctors and certain media executives and hired writers, to shut down any serious debate on paedophiles in power, and close the doors on any more fruitful external or internal investigations.

They really hope to end it here with Jimmy Savile and Sir Peter Morrison, and maybe throw in the clown Gary Glitter for good measure.

Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Why? Because when it comes to its children, parents nationwide will not accept the standard government cover-up inquiry and perverting the course of justice. The nation will not let go of this issue, because it’s out there, and because 9 out of 10 plebs agree that pedophiles should be eradicated from all public institutions.

Up until this week, the major media gatekeepers were locked into a spiraling narrative which they could not escape because the implications towards the people involved threatened to entire power structure – because they are very afraid about what people will find out. In their dark world of cloak and dagger, the most coveted prize of all is dirt. It’s the most valuable form of currency behind the scenes. Newspaper editors, executives, TV producers, police, MI5, lawyers, MPs, Ministers and gangsters are constantly trafficking in information about each other in order to gain an advantage. In this black market of classified information, reports of pedophilia, child abuse – and also homosexuality, are as good as gold.

The key word here is classified.

Gatekeepers and Consensus Makers

David Aaronovitch published his column in the Times on  Thurs Nov 8, 2012, entitled, ‘Beware of a modern Salem over child abuse’. This was 24 hours before another intellectual giant, Prime Minister David Cameron went on national TV and cried ‘witch-hunt’ when ambushed by housewife pin-up Schofield. Predictably, Aaronvitch has led the charge calling for the sacking of Philip Schofield on LBC Radio. Aaronovitch also stating on air that some of the allegations against Jimmy Savile “may not be true”, quite a shocking sympathetic stance regarding the nation’s worse-ever child abuser. Pretty shocking.

Aaronovitch’s ‘witch-hunt’ is a rather hysterical claim. Yet, it’s hard to believe that the great and the good would be crying scared so much to scream “witch-hunt!”, but there you have it. If this scandal wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing right about now.

On its surface, the new witch-hunt talking point sounds like a desperate establishment meme, from an elite criminal ring who are now in such a panic as to try and equate the very serious and documented problem of organized paedophilia operating through positions of power, in government, the media, the police – and the judiciary, with a sensational event which happened in colonial Massachusetts. No, we have stacks of forensic evidence, and police reports that prove that, unlike witches in Salem, paedophiles in British institutions do actually exist.

Rather ironically, the cause of that old Salem witch hunt was guilty men in power trying to cover-up and silence anyone who dared speak of their heinous crimes.

Paedophiles and sexual deviants in positions of power – is a reality, not a ‘conspiracy theory’, as the Times writer Aaronovitch hoped to define it, by denying it exists. Documents in the Belgium child rape and murder case pointed at the involvement of both Belgium AND Dutch politicians, judiciary and police – all taking part in the Mark Dutroux child abuse scandal, but writers like Aaronovitch will tell you that it’s just another ‘conspiracy theory’. The UK’s police and security services do have reams of evidence, but unfortunately for us the public, most of these crimes are sealed by government D Notices, while the rest are buried through internal institutional investigations.

It was also more than a little disturbing to watch how Aaronovitch is said to have spoken to “a Senior BBC journalist”, whom he claims, like Aaronovitch, was “deeply skeptical” about child abuse victim Steve Messham’s testimony. Notice how David Aaronovitch doesn’t name the journalist, but is clearly using his column to draft a conviction – for all we know, David Aaronovitch could just be making things up to spread false information – just like those pesky internet blogs he says he loathes. Anyhow, I think it’s pretty darn safe to say here that the last person I would call on would be a BBC journalist for a second opinion when it comes to child abuse cases (I cough here).

So here we have it, a senior Times columnist who appears to be using his column in a national daily newspaper to deliver his own verdict in the North Wales Child Home scandal by trying to convince the public that victim Messham’s testimony was “shaky”. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he has an ulterior motive, maybe ‘moonlighting’ as they say, but it’s really so hard to tell these days who’s who in the world of big money media.

Aaronovitch: Drafted in again to protect the establishment line.

I suppose that Aaronovitch might also be a little upset to know that fixer Sir Jimmy Savile was also acting as a go-between for Israel and Britain.

What was Jimmy up to in Israel? I can tell you this much – it’s no secret in Whitehall. That’s not a conspiracy theory by the way, and as upset as some folks might be about it, you can’t rewrite history.

Moreover, writer David Aaronovitch also made a highly questionable, and arguably insensitive, if not bizarrely inappropriate statement in the same article:

“The unattractive (because complicating) truth is that sometimes people do lie about being abused. Sometimes it’s for money, sometimes for attention, sometimes because that’s what they infer their listeners want to hear.  Or fantasy has become solidified as fact, the dream as daylight.”

Pretty shocking stuff. Aaronovitch’s statement about victims ‘fantasizing’ about their abusers, is designed to support his rather disingenuous ‘witch-hunt’ thesis, when it appears a paragraph before his own self-styled verdict on Steve Messham’s ‘shaky’ testimony, and this type of statement in the face of what is clearly a national institutional problem almost looks again like Aaronovitch has been put up to help steer public opinion completely away from a problem. His statement is Salem in reverse. Shame on you David.

Aaronovitch has a history of making some rather ridiculous statements, and then cleverly covering their own tracks.Whether defending the mythology of WMD’s in Iraq (after his pro-war campaigning for Gulf War II, he tries to cover his tracks in 2004 saying, “From the outset of the Iraq debate I was a WMD agnostic”), or defending Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Aaronovitch has a pretty shameless record as an establishment gatekeeper, whilst touting some sort of Marxist pedigree. As a former Observer columnist, he is the classic example of a 20th century media-annointed, intelligentsia gatekeeper who typically writes a column per week, appears on the odd panel, looks to be busy by writing a few mediocre history books debunking ‘conspiracy theories’ – and somehow gets paid handsomely for it. His job it seems, is to put his own memes out there into the public conversation in order to get people thinking along received establishment wisdom. The irony here is, when it comes to opinion forming, when it’s all said and done, more people will have read our article here on this website than David Aaronovitch’s piece for the Times – thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s subscription firewall at the

Tories in Arms

Mellor: Here’s one guy who shouldn’t be calling anyone ‘weird’.

The great thing about a Tory is, they will come out to defend their own, even if it’s a bit off key. Another much celebrated (although slightly odd) Tory politician turned media intelligentsia figure, David Mellor, has also come out this weekend in support of pal Lord McAlpine to help discredit Steve Messham by labeling the abuse victim a “weirdo”. Here Mellor is joining the fight to protect the elite, but his motives are obvious. Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP has rightly pointed out that victims could now fear being “taken out to dry” by the media if they name any public figures as paedophiles – something I’m sure the Tory government would hate to have happen now.

The latest rewriting of history is underway with North Wales Child Homes latest ‘photo swap’– enter stage left, ‘Jimmy’ McAlpine, because it doesn’t take a Times reader to figure out that Steve Messham would have looked at images of McAlpine prior to yesterday, “Oops, we made a mistake”. He’s either been threatened or bribed, or both. Would this have been done if McAlpine was not guilty?

This latest establishment stunt is designed to stop the momentum of the revelations about elite involvement in Savile’s activities, and to discredit information on the internet about elites involvement paedophilia.

So Aaronovitch and Mellor’s gatekeeping on the issue of institutional pedophilia in Britain is just one example of how members of the media regularly conform, and in some cases, streamline, to Whitehall’s desired talking points on any major issue involving national security – and make no mistake here, paedophiles in government is a national security issue, just ask the Russians and the Israelis. The media, for the most part, also did this before and during, the war with Iraq. The same thing is happening with this paedophile scandal, and it should sicken the public. It’s a vile exhibition of symbiotic members of the establishment covering each others asses – figuratively, and literally.

Savile: A friend if the elite, protected by the police, the royals and media.

So Pope Entwistle has resigned (aka sacked). Big deal. A new Pope will replace him. No matter how many Director Generals they sack, no matter how many Tory heads cry “mistaken identity!”, the fact is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not working alone and the BBC are beyond guilty with their shameful cover-up. The BBC are officially a damaged brand.

Jeremy Paxman is said to be upset over Entwistle’s departure, and will probably resign next.

Could it be that the system is so corrupt it cannot be trusted to investigate itself?

I would sincerely hope that the public will be the judge of that one – and not highly paid media gatekeepers and secretive politicians.

Investigations – as well as debates on child abuse, need to be opened up, not closed down. Those who are trying to shut either of these down, are very probably covering for the guilty in power.

More and more revelations will be forthcoming. The gilded age of paedophiles could soon be over, because no matter how hard they  try, they cannot rewrite history now.


Writer Nicholas Myra is a former actor and television producer, now a community youth worker, and originally hailing from Tipperary, Ireland. Myra spends his winters in the UK and his summers touring Europe and North Africa by Harley Davidson.

RELATED: The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan Clark




Tory Pier Lord McAlpine break silence: ‘I did not sexually abuse anyone’

November 9, 2012

Former Conservative Party treasurer, breaks silence over internet rumours linking him to the North Wales child sex abuse case, describing them as “wholly false and seriously defamatory”

Gordon Rayner
The Telegraph

Lord (Alistair) McAlpine’s name circulated widely online after Steve Messham, a former resident of the Bryn Estyn home in Wrexham, told Newsnight he had been abused by a high-ranking Thatcher-era Tory.

After the Guardian newspaper named Lord McAlpine but reported that he had been a victim of mistaken identity, the peer released a strongly-worded statement addressing the “slurs”.

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.”

He added: “I wish to make it clear that I do not suggest that Mr Messham is malicious in making the allegations of sexual abuse about me. He is referring to a terrible period of his life in the 1970’s or 1980’s and what happened to him will have affected him ever since.

“If he does think I am the man who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person.”

A local councillor who was also a victim of abuse at Bryn Estyn told The Guardian that he believed a different member of the McAlpine family may have been mistaken for Lord McAlpine.

Several sources have suggested that Mr Messham may have been referring to Jimmie McAlpine, who chaired the building firm Alfred McAlpine Ltd, and who lived in Chester, near Wrexham.

The Waterhouse inquiry into the abuse allegations recorded that, according to Mr Messham’s statement to the police, “X (the letter used to hide the identity of the McAlpine family member) had several different motor cars and would wait for him at the bottom of Bryn Estyn Lane.”

Jimmie McAlpine, who is now dead, had one of the largest private collections of cars in Britain.

Reporters covering the inquiry at the time concluded that Lord McAlpine could not be the person referred to as the abuser because Mr Messham said his abuser was dead, whereas Lord McAlpine is alive. And when a Times reporter put Lord McAlpine’s name to Messham in 1996, he said his abuser was in fact called ‘Tom’…

Read more

Savile Psychology: ‘Betrayal Blindness’ is Why We Remain Oblivious to the Lies of Our Time

November 6, 2012

By C. L. Cook
21st Century Wire
Guest Columnist

The current unravelling of the suddenly repellant BBC television presenter, Sir Jimmy Savile’s reputation provides the opportunity for much greater revelations…

Birds of a feather: Child abuser Savile having a bubble with British PM and pal, Ed Heath.

If you’re not in Britain, there’s a chance haven’t followed the Jimmy  case, where Savile’s comic mug adorns practically every front page. Sir Jimmy died late last year, following a six decades-long career in the public eye. Savile began in radio, broadcasting from the famed “pirate radio” ship, Radio Luxembourg in the late 1950’s. From there, Savile went into television, hosting the iconic, ‘Top of the Pops,’ and later the child’s wish fulfillment program, ‘Jim’ll Fix It.’

Children and young adults were the common feature throughout Jimmy Savile’s career, and his personal life. In his off hours, he spent time travelling around to children’s hospitals and care homes, where his charity work garnered millions of pounds for various institutions, and provided him special access to, what we now discover was, an endless supply of victims. Sir Jimmy was a serial paedophile, preying on both boys and girls, (and adults too where he could manage it) to satisfy his sexual perversion.

He was brazen in his abuse, described by a psychologist recently interviewed about the case as following the classic “opportunist” pattern. Offered an apartment at one hospital within the nurses’ residence to accommodate his frequent visits, Savile was often seen coming and going in the late hours, always accompanied by one or more teen-aged girls. Yet no question about either the inappropriateness of this arrangement, or the legal status of his companions was raised. Nurses at one children’s home Savile routinely favoured advised their charges feign sleep to avoid “Good Uncle Jimmy’s” not so good ministrations.

Whether on a visit to an orphanage, hospital, at work, or even at family functions, Jimmy just couldn’t keep his hands to himself. A now infamous clip from one of his programs features the host molesting a teen-aged girl in a crowd of girls, reaching beneath her dress as he signs off another episode of ‘Top of the Pops.’ When that girl attempted to file a complaint, a BBC producer told her: “Get lost!”

As the story grows ever more salacious, a retinue of alleged victims is coming forward, (more than 300 at last count) implicating not only Jimmy Savile but some of the stars who appeared on his program back in the day. Former glam rocker, Gary Glitter, already convicted for child porn, and imprisoned in Vietnam in 2006 for having sex with children, was last week called in for questioning and charged for a years-old alleged attack against a young girl in a BBC studio dressing room; and former comedian, Freddie Starr has too been arrested and charged with a molestation he allegedly perpetrated in Savile’s own dressing room. The revelations paint a picture of Savile and his friends running with impunity a veritable paedophile carnival out of the BBC. And yet, nothing was done over the long years this carried on.

Media men like Thompson now use ‘deniability’ like politicians, in order to protect their lucrative media careers and golden pensions.

Writing for The New York Times, Nicholas Kulish reports the efforts of British freelance journalist, and former executive at BBC competitor, Channel 5, David Elstein to discover why the BBC had cancelled an expose of the rampant criminality allowed to continue so long within the Corporation’s studios. When questioned about the BBC’s decision to shelve the Newsnight expose on Savile, then director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson denied knowledge of either the accusations against Jimmy Savile of paedophile attacks, or editorial decisions made to drop the expose.

An incredulous Elstein, who formerly worked too at the BBC, said of Thompson’s denials;

“This was in six different newspapers in January and February.” Adding; “The big failing internally, and this is where Mark comes into the picture, is the deliberate incuriosity of the senior executives; there is a culture of avoiding knowledge so as to evade responsibility.”

Mr. Thompson, who has since moved to New York to serve as the chief executive and president of the The New York Times Company, later admitted another reporter had made him aware of Newsnight’s Savile investigation, but only after the report was buried.

Appearing on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation radio program, The Current, psychologist and author of the forthcoming book, ‘Betrayal Blindness,’ Dr. Jennifer Freyd describes a kind of institutional amnesia that takes hold of people who so completely fear losing their sinecures. Freyd’s research began with children betrayed by family members, people essential to the child’s survival, and the repression of memory psychologically necessary for the victim’s existential continuance. In these cases, the need to live trumps the sense of injustice and impropriety done, a sense arguably inherent, in effect short-circuiting danger signals that would otherwise trigger a fight-or-flight response.

Extrapolated to an institutional setting like the BBC, where producers, directors, talent handlers, (and even lowly technicians) may be privvy to rumours, the choice to acknowledge and inform against wrong-doing could jeopardize not only an individual’s career, but could possibly endanger the show employing all her colleagues.

Dr. Freyd outlines a few key points, saying: Often people betrayed personally seem to not remember the betrayal. They don’t acknowledge it, or speak to others of it; as if it’s something, “in the corner of their eye, not something they’re looking directly at.”  Like the proverbially “last to know” spouse being cheated on, denial is refuge.

From their observations at the University of Oregon, Dr. Freyd and her colleagues formulated a theory and conducted studies to understand this apparently willful ignorance, coming up with the concept of “betrayal blindness.” Freyd observes, for a person caught in this dilemma of choosing either to know what is going on, or protecting the relationship, especially where the survival of the victim is, or is believed to be at stake, protecting the relationship will come first.

Of the Savile case she notes:

“Some individuals were presumably aware of what was going on, and made the conscious decision not to deal with it because it would get in the way of their own goals. But, in order for this to stay undercover, the way it did for so many decades, it also requires a lot of good people, who would want to tell the truth, didn’t let themselves fully know what was going on. So, the institution setting is a kind of trust situation, where people need that institution, need it for a number of goals that they have, and by being aware they risk their own comfort within that institution. So, without consciously knowing it, they push the information away; they don’t speak out, they don’t fully know, and thus they collude with the perpetrator and with the individuals who do know and don’t want to talk about it.”

In her essay, ‘Lies in a Time of Threat: Betrayal Blindness and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election,’ Eileen L. Zurbriggen cites Freyd’s work, applying some of her findings to the electorate, or mass mind. Zurbriggen remarks upon exit polls taken during 2004, where Bush supporters, by a large margin, claim “honesty” to be among their core concerns in choosing a candidate. The release of these polls, at a time when the litany of Bush administration lies leading to the invasion of Iraq were widely known perplexed the researcher. To make some sense of the dissonance, Zurbriggen invokes the Betrayal Trauma Theory, or ‘BTT’.

Most extensively studied were victims of child abuse, where BTT finds memory impairment increases the closer the perpetrator is; that is, if the abuser is a family member, or someone perceived to be existentially integral, the victim suffered correspondingly greater. She argues, because the president embodies a protector figure, specifically amplified in the case of “war time” president, George W. Bush, voters who perceived Bush as their defender were unable to recognize, even after the facts were known, his layers of lies and misrepresentations leading to war and disaster.

According to Zurbriggen, it may not simply be that Bush supporters just didn’t want to know the truth about his mendacity, or were merely too dim-witted to realize it. She offers, they were being taken in by a psychological correlative linking threat perception to an inability to recognize BS. Or, as she puts it, a “blindness to deception.”

With another American election on the near horizon, and Bush era threat mongering an accepted strategy for both camps, it’s important we now remember to be unafraid. If we are to choose between easy and hard truths, let’s leave the road well-travelled and allow courage be our companion. There are real dangers out there to be sure, and we cannot face them properly if habituated through terror into denial.

Zurbriggen offers advice for the necessary separating of lies from truth, saying;

“Political activists have long argued that resistance and social change are most effective when they are collective (rather than individualistic) projects. One reason for this effectiveness may be that taking collective action breaks the feeling of dependence on politicians and the government, leading to many positive outcomes, including an enhanced ability to judge the veracity of governmental pronouncements.”

Yes, there are real monsters, like Sir Jimmy Savile and his perverse crew out there, but they can only do harm when allowed to remain in the shadow of our fears.

Author Chris Cook is managing editor at based in British Columbia, and also radio host of the weekly public affairs program, Gorilla Radio, regarded as one of the best, and long running shows in the alternative media sphere. See more of Chris’s articles here at his Gorilla Radio’s blog.

‘It’s time for proper police investigation’ says Award-winning journalist who exposed North Wales child abuse scandal

November 5, 2012

Multiple powerful establishment figures accused of heinous child sex crimes were unafraid before – but now live in fear of exposure

By Eileen Fairweather

On Friday night a victim of the North Wales children’s homes abuse scandal told BBC Newsnight he was prostituted in care by a senior Tory politician.

Eileen Fairweather at Haut de la Garrand children’s home in Jersey – a supplier of child victims for the elite.

Steven Messham, now 51, had first publicly named this man 15 years ago at Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s 1997 judicial inquiry into the care scandal.

But the Press was barred from reporting his shocking allegation.

I helped expose the North Wales scandal that led to the inquiry.

It is now agreed that at least 650 victims were horribly abused physically and sexually in nearly 40 care homes over 20 years.

Over several months at the inquiry, hundreds poured out their pain into a stark, modern, mostly deserted council chamber in the remote small town of Ewloe, far from the rich men’s worlds of Westminster and Fleet Street.

But the Press bench was mostly empty.

Some tearfully described being raped or prostituted not just by staff but police officers, businessmen and politicians.

But reporting restrictions meant that the Press was barred from naming unprosecuted allegations.

Only seven staff were ever prosecuted and allegations against the powerful outsiders who allegedly picked up children outside the homes were never investigated by police or the inquiry, whose terms of reference were limited.

The courage and heart-breaking testimony of those who gave evidence therefore mostly went unreported.

The powerful establishment figures accused there of terrible crimes remained unafraid.

Now some ARE afraid. If you think Savile was conspiracy, the dam is about to burst on even bigger cover-ups.

The recent shocking revelations about how Savile and his pervert pals preyed for decades on defenceless youngsters in care homes and hospitals has made Britain realise that paedophile rings really do exist.

And they ARE probably protected by corrupt officials and police, not just by naivety.

For the past four decades, thousands of young people in care across Britain have described similar abuse and prostitution. Many have been dismissed as disturbed or just wanting compensation pay-outs.

Inquiries were held but their findings ignored, and no one joined the dots and asked if this was a form of well-organised crime.

The Savile scandal – which involves children of all classes and the sick, not just impoverished children abandoned to care – has made Britain ask: What if they were telling the truth all along? And what if some abusers were at the heart of Britain’s Establishment?

At least 16 lads from these homes died in tragic or unexplained circumstances, several after revealing abuse. I vividly remember ringing the tribunal and asking if it would be investigating these deaths.

A very self-satisfied functionary told me it would not be and, when I angrily asked why not, he replied with an almost visible smirk: ‘Well, if they’re dead they can’t give evidence, can they?’

Read more at: Mirror


November 4, 2012

Daily Express lends some support to 21st Century Wire, David Icke, and others in fight against paedophile cover-ups

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire

It seems that some of the hard of work by the alternative media is finally filtering down through major mainstream media news outlets.

No longer viewed as ‘conspiracy theory’, the serious issue of organised child abuse and paedophila is bringing these two normally segregated branches of media together. If any single issue can genuinely benefit from this kind of mutual media support, it’s this one.

Here’s how it happened…

We highlighted two weeks ago how London’s Daily Express ran with a story two weeks ago by former child actor Ben Fellows, a story which was first published here on 21st Century Wire.

Even more encouraging this week, has been the mainstream media’s increased interest into the research and past statements of independent activists like David Icke, himself a former BBC colleague of the prolific criminal child abuser Sir Jimmy Savile. Express writer Sonia Poulton explains in her excellent piece on published on Oct 28th, how Icke’s warnings went unheeded:

“For many it reeks of an establishment cover-up, though for years detractors referred to it as “conspiracy theory”.

Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.

Icke claimed Savile supplied children from Jersey’s infamous Haut de la Garenne care home to a senior British MP. Savile denied knowing the home, the scene of a police investigation in 2008 that uncovered widespread child abuse. He lied. There is pictorial evidence of him there.”

What Poulton has rightly pointed out here, is that David Icke was absolutely right about Jimmy Savile all those years ago – and like so many other eyewitness testimonies and police statements made by victims, it was ignored by authorities and establishment media.

The Express also goes here on to support the alternative media’s efforts to get to the bottom of lies and abuse by those in positions of power, in politics, in the police and in entertainment. Their article condemns the recent threats issued to this website by the top civil service body in the country, the Cabinet Office, over allegations made by Ben Fellows which named a high-ranking member of the current, as well as past governments. Writer Sonia Poulton explains:

“The Government must immediately announce an independent inquiry. It must be public and transparent and it must leave no stone unturned. The credibility of Parliament is at an all-time low and serious questions must be answered.Why did Ken Clarke, as justice minister, halve sentences of ­paedophiles last year in a controversial announcement?

Why did the Cabinet Office ­issue threatening letters last week to internet bloggers ­ warning that they must not repeat allegations of a child actor ­claiming to have been touched by a member of the Coalition?”

Good questions. But not questions the state, or the BBC are rushing to answer, despite the public confidence which is clearly at stake.

No matter how sincere officials appear to be when addressing this issue, the public are left with the impression that public bodies are simply dragging their heals on the issue. It’s this type of institutional mothballing which has allowed the problem to fester unchecked.

The public should feel a little more encouraged knowing that even the corporate mainstream media is beginning to take a strong interest, and in the case of the Express – signs of an unwavering stance regarding the eradication of the debilitating social and institutional disease of pedophilia from the nation’s public institutions. We applaud them for their efforts.

This issue, more than any other, has galvanised the public interest – and for good reason. It’s a social scandal that’s not just limited to the BBC, or even Downing Street. It’s a nationwide system of abuse, and ‘farming’ of children, enabled by the use of public money, and carried out through social services via childcare homes across the UK.

The reality is that child trafficking is a business, built on the back of a very lucrative ‘childcare’ housing industry. In fact, child homes are so lucrative, that a number of major banks are now acquiring them as profitable assets.

The problem isn’t just confined to Great Britain. This is also an international problem which is taking place not only throughout Europe, but in North America and elsewhere. But this doesn’t mean that Britain should not take the lead in cleaning up its act. Leaders should be warned that failing to do so could eventually result in ridicule on the international stage similar to that experienced by the Vatican. The issue could become fundamental to future diplomatic efforts, and easily be viewed as a  national security issue, particularly if blackmail is involved at a government level.

The difference between an isolated incident of child abuse, and systematic institutional child sex crimes, is that when it’s covered-up through public institutional and government bodies, it’s not only a crime against children, it then falls under the category of crime against humanity. Such systematic abuse, carried out over generations and covered-up again and again – is worthy of an international trial in the Hague ala Nuremberg.

Someone needs to take the lead, and I think we know by now that it’s not going to be the BBC who is claiming to ‘investigate itself’ in the face of a pathetic cover-up. The broadcaster is still struggling to find its backbone. Only this week, it seems that the BBC bottled yet another Newsnight investigation, one that would have named a major political figure. Another paedophile allowed to walk free.

Next in the queue is the Government itself, who to date, hasn’t taken the bull by the horns yet. After that, there’s the police. If neither of these public bodies can effectively expose, and then seek to correct, the systemic problem of embedded paedophiles working in our public institutions, then who left to remedy the problem? That’s a disfunctional society, and one which even risks collapse, in order to hide away its sins.

It makes you wonder if they are really serious about tacking this at source, or worse – that these same institutions might actually be hampering the overall effort.

Now that’s a disturbing thought.


Read the Express article below, which delivers a bold, but fair analysis of the problem we currently face as a society today…


By Sonia Poulton

IN the weeks that have ­followed Jimmy Savile ­being revealed as a paedophile his carefully crafted charitable reputation has been obliterated. The ­national treasure decorated by the Queen and given keys to ­hospitals has been laid bare and described by one investigating ­officer as “the most prolific serial sex abuser in history”.

Tom Watson MP, first raised the paedophile question in Parliament.

Increasingly, though, rather than being the solitary pervert operating with impunity, Savile may be the tip of a large iceberg.

As more victims reveal abuse at the hands of Savile, or his ­extensive circle of friends, it ­appears the silence that ­surrounded him may say less about his celebrity status and more about whom he may have implicated had his crimes been exposed. Certainly we know that Savile was subject to at least five police probes over five decades. All were quashed. Why? We have yet to be told.

For many it reeks of an establishment cover-up, though for years detractors referred to it as “conspiracy theory”.

Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.

Icke claimed Savile supplied children from Jersey’s infamous Haut de la Garenne care home to a senior British MP. Savile denied knowing the home, the scene of a police investigation in 2008 that uncovered widespread child abuse. He lied. There is pictorial evidence of him there.

Last week, during Prime Minister’s Questions, Labour MP Tom Watson raised the issue of a paedophile ring in Parliament and alluded to a former PM. David Cameron, all perplexed, said he would look into it. Minutes after PMQs, Tory MP Rob Wilson was on Sky News appearing to laugh off Watson’s claims.

This cannot go on. It was these sorts of hasty dismissals that helped Savile get away with it. People laughed it off and claimed “nutters” were saying it.

Well I can tell Mr Cameron that this claim is not sensational, anything but. In fact Tom Watson has barely scratched the surface.

I have compiled a list of 132 ­utterly shameless establishment child abusers. These include MPs, lords and local councillors. A ­similar list for members of Her Majesty’s Constabulary exists.

I don’t believe these lists are complete. This is not conjecture or media gossip but people, ­primarily men, who have been prosecuted for child sex offences throughout the UK.

Many of these abusers still ­represent constituents and are “serving the public”. At the very least we should know who they are, where they are and if their public decisions are influenced by the greater good or their own twisted perversions.

Savile: said to be a ‘mentor’ to Prince Charles

As a journalist, and in light of the Savile revelations, people have contacted me desperate to share their abuse stories.

Some accuse powerful members of the establishment. Several household-name MPs are said to have committed acts of degradation against children as young as six.

Yes, some of these callers may be jumping on the bandwagon but not many are, as independent ­corroboration of their stories has already confirmed.

So let’s not be under any ­ illusion that this is only about Savile. I fear it is far from it.

The Government must immediately announce an independent inquiry. It must be public and transparent and it must leave no stone unturned. The credibility of Parliament is at an all-time low and serious questions must be answered.Why did Ken Clarke, as justice minister, halve sentences of ­paedophiles last year in a controversial announcement?

Why did the Cabinet Office ­issue threatening letters last week to internet bloggers ­ warning that they must not repeat allegations of a child actor ­claiming to have been touched by a member of the Coalition?

Then there is the question that overshadows the whole Savile ­inquiry: why was he allowed to ­become so close to royalty and government? Surely it is the job of the security services to investigate the lifestyle of those who have access to our figureheads?

Yes, this is a dark time in our nation’s history but we must face it head on and keep going until we know the full, unexpurgated truth, no matter how unedifying future revelations may be.

Judging by some of the testi­monies I have heard it is likely to be very shocking indeed. There is no alternative. The ­victims need the truth to be told, no matter how powerful or con­nected their ­abusers may prove to be.

RELATED: No matter how Gov’t spins it, it’s a conspiracy to cover-up paedophilia and other crimes

Pedo-politician: Newsnight claims former top Tory was child sex pervert

November 3, 2012

Soon, the public might adopt this as a new logo BBC concept.

21st Century Wire Says:
This whole affair smells a bit too Beeb for us, after all, which ‘public broadcaster’ has a history of bottling investigations and licking the boots of Downing Street before an illegal war is launched. Which ‘public broadcaster’ internally shut down any investigative inquiry in the murder of Dr David Kelly, again, covering for Downing Street?

When will the Beeb finally have its golden broadcasters license revoked, saving the British public the annual agony of Capita Ltd extorting the annual TV license fee out of recession-stricken Britons? Answer: No action will be taken, save for maybe replacing DG Entwistle with some other middle-aged, balding, male sock-puppet.

And so, the joke continues to new farcical levels. Meanwhile, more children are being abused in public institutions, and more culprits are walking freely as we all sit here and speak.

Oh, and the Government is not much better in all of this, no doubt, covering up volumes which could aid a police investigation, and perhaps shredding a bit too…


By James Lyons

The BBC’s Newsnight claimed last night that a former top Tory from the Thatcher government was a child sex pervert.

The programme alleged he was involved in the “systematic abuse” of young boys at North Wales care homes in the 70s and 80s.

But the man, said to have links to Downing Street, was not identified “because there is simply not enough evidence to name names”.

And yesterday insiders warned that the man at the centre of the claims  denies any wrongdoing and is threatening to sue.

One of the alleged victims has called for an inquiry – and says he wants a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Steven Messham, who claims he was abused as a boy, said: “David Cameron has made a sweeping statement that abused people need to be believed.

“We haven’t been believed. We’ve been swept under the carpet. It’s time for a full investigation.”

Earlier yesterday TV journalist Iain Overton revealed on Twitter: “If all goes well we’ve got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.”

It prompted an internet frenzy of speculation about the identity of the alleged pervert.

Channel 4’s Michael Crick, who used to work on Newsnight, also took to Twitter to claim he had spoken to the man involved, who had not been contacted by the BBC.

He tweeted: “Senior political figure due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he’ll issue writ agst BBC.”

(…)Up to 650 children in 40 care homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at two homes near Wrexham.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: “What I do know is that Morrison was a ­paedophile. And I know that because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.”…

Read more at: Mirror