Starve the BBC and Other Savile Initiatives.
A while ago, someone drew my attention to a Tweet from @fleetstreetfox regarding Lord Rennard. I was quite shocked at the time, for Susan Boniface has said that the reason she took up the ‘anonymous identity ‘ of fleetstreetfox was to allow her to write of things that might have caused a problem in her day job as Mirror journalist. Now I can quite understand that the tabloids are all under orders to follow the party line on Savile – ‘definitely’ Britain’s worst ever paedophile, despite a startling lack of evidence – but this was an anonymous comment apparently buying into the party line that Savile ‘raped children’, a claim that had only previously appeared in the uncontested Yewtree allegations.
Quite by chance, last week one of those ‘child rape’ allegations made it into the harsh light of day, in evidence given ‘under oath’ no less. We haven’t seen anything that substantial in the entire Savile saga so far – unless you count Fiona Scott-Johnston giving a statement ‘under caution’ at Staines police station, which I seriously hope is a misunderstanding on the part of the woman described as devious and manipulative by Meiron Jones and other Newsnight researchers, for the only reason that a ‘victim’ might be required to attend an interview under caution would be if they were suspected of having committed a criminal offence themselves, like perjury or conspiracy to waste police time, and that surely can’t be a possibility?
This new and brave survivor of historic abuse had decided to publicly identify herself after 34 years of silence as Leisha Brookes, now aged 45. What a horrific tale she had to tell. At nine years old she was befriended ‘by a cameraman’ who she thought ‘would make her famous’. She was taken to meet Jimmy Savile three or four times at BBC centre. For two years this nine year old was regularly encouraged to ‘sit on the knee’ of 35 other men at the BBC. Or maybe the 35 ‘other men’ were seen on the three or four occasions she also saw Savile. That’s nearly nine pairs of knees on each occasion, but however many pairs of knees were involved, it is difficult to see the evidence of abuse, or why Savile is singled out for naming in this shocking account – if there are 35 child abusers still alive, including the cameraman, why is the Sunday Express so shy of naming them? Surely they are not waiting for them to die, and be named and shamed like Savile? There could be children at risk right now!
Still, Ms Brookes hugged her secret to herself for 34 years, not telling her parents, nor teachers, nor even confiding in a friend, narry a phone call to child line, nor even an anonymous letter to the BBC warning them of the dangers lurking within; nobody noticed that this innocent child was being horrifically abused by being forced to sit on men’s knees as the price of potential fame. The damage done was immense. Her five children were taken into care as a result of her mental health issues. Her life ruined.
Still she forced herself to watch the BBC, despite the terrible memories it must have brought back for her. The one thing she couldn’t bring herself to do was to pay a TV licence. To give the BBC money after all that had happened to her was a step too far; three times in the past seven years she has been fined for not having a TV licence citing ‘personal reasons’ for her refusal to pay. Until last November when she finally decided to give evidence to Operation Yewtree. Savile was dead and she felt that she could safely disclose her ghastly secret.
Last Friday, she was back in Colchester court for the fourth time in seven years – failing to pay her TV licence yet again. This time she was prepared, the knowledge of all those other ‘Yewtree’ victims had given her fresh courage; the stunned magistrates listened in shocked silence as she explained how sitting on Savile’s knee 34 years ago had wrecked her childhood and left her a broken woman who couldn’t possibly agree to pay a penny piece to the BBC:
“I have always refused to buy a TV licence because I was one of the children that was sexually abused at the BBC.” Miss Brookes went on to state that she had been abused by Savile and had documents in court proving that she had given evidence to police as part of Operation Yewtree.
‘No matter what you fine me , I am not going to give a penny to my abusers from the BBC. I cannot pay the BBC or anyone connected with it.’
Personally, if it was me, I’d refuse to have a television in the house, rather than just to pay the licence fee; all those repeats of Top of the Pops must have reignited the nightmare. The article in the Express and the Mail detailing this story have attracted a rash of comments along the lines of ‘starve the BBC, none of us should be paying those sorry abusers a penny….’ which might prove a tad inconvenient for Ms Brooks.
See, if we all take this line and refuse to pay a licence fee, then her court case against the BBC for allowing her to sit on all those knees all that time ago, will come to a sorry end, on account of there being no money to pay the victims….
Still, she’s suing the Savile charitable estate as well. I do wish she’d name those other 35 abusers though, a little thought for other potential victims wouldn’t go amiss.
As it happens, I think a countrywide refusal to pay the BBC another penny would be an excellent idea. I will be outraged if licence payers money, which should be used to ‘educate, entertain and inform’ is used to pay compensation from an organisation which willfully allowed nine year olds to be taken to a workplace and sat on a man’s knee. The compensation should come personally from the pockets of the executives, producers and researchers who allowed such a shocking thing to happen, it shouldn’t be allowed to penalise the licence fee payers who had no control whatsoever over what was happening at the organisation.
Name the other 35 men Ms Brookes, and let’s see some personal responsibility for what happened. They are still alive you say? Good, let’s see them in court now you have your courage in both hands. You’ve proved you can give evidence under oath, take the next step. Protect other children!
March 16, 2013 at 12:25
-
@Lucozade
Absolutely, when I watched part one of the Witchfinder General
series with MWT as Vincent Price, my first impression was that ‘some’ of these
people seem credible here. However, there was at least one that I found
questionable (I think you all know who I am referring to !). What got my
gander up was the subsequent he haw this bloody program caused. The ‘victims’
stories weren’t really so important then, just alot of self congratulating by
said ‘ex cop’ and the start of investigation after investigation……!
- March 14, 2013 at 00:57
-
I was talking recently with someone, now retired, who rose through the
ranks at the BBC to become head of a major technical department. Despite
having spent all his working life backstage at the BBC and having worked a
handful of times on Savile shows he had never heard any “child molesting”
rumours. So much for “everyone” knowing.
Of course he did know many of the
girls in the Top of the Pops audience were enthusiastically hurling themselves
at any DJ in sight, but that’s rather different. If Savile had a taste for
youngish girls he would hardly have had to bother with anyone who was
unwilling.
- March 13, 2013 at 15:12
-
I had the impression that the importance of the blanket issue was about how
one letter of the alphabet could have seen what was going on underneath it, if
the other letter of the alphabet had her hand moving around unsee-able,
beneath it.
She was supposed to be rubbing his groin – how did that get under the
blanket? In fact if it happened on more than one occasion why was there a
blanket in the tv room? I never found Duncroft to be a cold building and since
he would not have been there every week that rules out Ms B being sick.
-
March 13, 2013 at 14:00
-
I feel for you Anna, trying to conduct this campaign on such a ‘knee jerk,
believe what you read ‘ issue and dealing with serious health worries at the
same time. I feel everyone has gone collectively bonkers over this
child/teenager molesting business. The police seem to be spending huge amounts
of time and resources chasing around listening to tales of ancient gropings.
There is no way most people can recall with complete accuracy, so far back,
exactly where they were in a given year or in what building something took
place that was wrong. The older you get the less easy it is to to perform this
feat. This is why a line should be drawn by a limitations statute. We start
again, preferably without police involvement initially. It has to be and must
remain confidential and be reported to an organisation set up to look at
initial complaints by those who say they have been assaulted. It has to be
within a certain time period too. To ensure better recall. If these conditions
are not met….chuck it out. Easier to research say where and when nearer to the
crime time. The police can get on with work of more benefit to the rest of us
and stop pestering ancient ‘celebrities’.
-
March 13, 2013 at 17:31
-
Good idea, and may I add one thing that is never discussed. Surely the
aim ought not be just to punish paedophiles, but to get them identified and
participating in a treatment or therapy program BEFORE they reach old age,
so that there is some hope they can be rehabilitated. Such treatment could
take place either within the closed walls of an institution or in the
community, depending on how dangerous the offender was assessed to be for
the risk of future offending.
It’s a bit late in the day for Savile, who will definitely not re-offend,
I think, though had he been caught early he might have been rehabilitated
and become a classical music host on Radio 3, where he would not have been
led into temptation.
- March 14, 2013 at 08:02
-
Absolutely agree with statutes of limitations being a necessity in
British law – it would save much time and money!
Jonathan has a point, treatment and therapy would be a good idea and
more humane since, from what I’ve heard, in the UK they are released after
serving time, placed on the local ‘paedo’ list and be jeered and
graffiteed (spelling?) by local society and must lead an unpleasant and
very insular existence, probably ending up topping themselves off.
I don’t know where paedophilia stems from in the human psyche to begin
with, aside from the obvious cases of offenders submitted to abuse
themselves in childhood – it can’t be genetic or a chromosomatic anomaly,
so what are the whys? It seems it was pretty rife in the times of the
great Greek Philosophers and the Rome of the Caesars.
Can any Raccoon readers with psychiatric academia shed any light on why
some men (and I believe women, which seems decidedly strange) become
paedophiles?
-
March 16, 2013 at 01:07
-
Wendi,
You could ask the same question about why some people (apparently)
**** sheep…?
Because their mental probably….
-
March 16, 2013 at 10:45
-
Sheep, pigs, goats etc. is pretty off the wall but I guess a lonely
herder stuck out in the mountains for months at a time could have a
hiccup if he wasn’t all there in the first place!
A US article says: ‘Four percent of today’s population suffers from
a sexual orientation focused on children’ and that some 68% of
pedophile abuse is committed by parents or relatives… 4% is a lot!
Treatment and therapy appear to be ineffective although ‘Castration –
Drastic, yes, but it is also considered very effective. However, it
isn’t used very often.’
All pretty icky…
-
March 16, 2013 at 11:38
-
Wendi,
Re: “A US article says: ‘Four percent of today’s population suffers
from a sexual orientation focused on children’ and that some 68% of
pedophile abuse is committed by parents or relatives… 4% is a lot!
Treatment and therapy appear to be ineffective although ‘Castration –
Drastic, yes, but it is also considered very effective. However, it
isn’t used very often.’ All pretty icky”
The population of the U.S or the population of the world? It sounds
like a lot either way….
But I suppose you could ask, just for comparison, what percentage
of the population is homosexual (not saying there is anything wrong
with that, just for comparison)? And what percentage is suffering from
mental illness?
I suppose it also depends how they are defining ‘children’ in their
studies too….
-
March 16, 2013 at 12:51
-
It was US population and they were referring to pre-pubescent
children. I wonder how they came up with those statistics? Do they
collect recorded ‘known’ cases and accusations and then double that
figure assuming the same amount again never comes to the
authorities’ attention?!
The percentage of homosexuals would be much higher and ‘mental
illness’ covers a whole gamut (key question being “what is
‘normal’,”) so that has to be pretty high too. However,
homosexuality is accepted by most societies today and mental illness
is some anomaly in the brain from birth or acquired through an
event/events in life and therefor no fault of those suffering from
it – but pedophilia definitely isn’t accepted in modern society.
- March 16, 2013 at
13:29
-
Re: “A US article says: ‘Four percent of today’s population
suffers from a sexual orientation focused on children’ and that
some 68% of pedophile abuse is committed by parents or relatives…
4% is a lot! Treatment and therapy appear to be ineffective
although ‘Castration – Drastic, yes, but it is also considered
very effective. However, it isn’t used very often.’ All pretty
icky”
I worked for a couple of years in a leading sex offenders
treatment center in the US run by Geo Corporation and although I
was not a therapist involved in delivery of sex offending therapy,
I knew many people who were and many of the offenders also.
I would not say that treatment is completely ineffective,
though it is a slow long expensive job and takes years. There is
no evidence at all that castration is effective in any way. Where
would the studies be done? Or so-called chemical castration for
that matter. One reason for this is that paedophile sexual abuse
does not necessarily involve the man getting an erection and
penetrating the child. It could just be kissing or fondling and
even if he had physical or chemical castration he might still get
pleasure from getting a hand job or blow job from a child. There
are also some men, (including allegedly the Roman Emperor
Claudius) who like to insert their penis in the mouth of an
unweaned infant. (Interesting that the Spanish colloquial word for
semen is “leche” which means milk.)
A lot of sex offenders probably do come under the heading of
psychopaths and personality disorders and many of them have
records of other crime, especially related to drugs, alcoholism,
petty theft, deception, general delinquency, etc. The sex crimes
are often related to opportunism (neighbour kids for example) as
these people don’t usually have a pattern of normal dating,
courtship, etc. except within the delinquent group.
I am sceptical about the existence of “rings” of highly placed
paedophiles, because the logistics of organizing such activity and
keeping it secret in the days of Internet and cell phone cameras
seem almost impossible to me. This may have been a bit different
back in the days when homosexuality was illegal and there was a
kind of homosexual underworld, but that is hardly the same
thing.
-
March 16, 2013 at 10:57
-
Ok – I’ve sauntered on over to this post now and here’s my tuppence
worth ! This is one of the 2 ultimate ‘taboo’ subjects (the other being
death – necrophilia). There is one book that’s been published listed on
amazon ‘understanding and addressing adult sexual attraction to
children’ which is a study of ‘normal’ everyday people who are
‘attracted’ but do not act on their impulses and apparently, there are
alot of them ! The rationale would be – if we ‘understand’ what makes
these people tick (before they – well tock – offend) we can take
preventative measures. I think the problem is we are still stuck where
the Germans were in 1945 – in a kind of denial that such ‘feelings’ are
possible. We do not want to ‘understand’ paedophilia – we just want to
burn all child abusers (and ANYONE accused of this) at the stake. Anyone
who dares to speak up for Jimmy Savile runs the risk of the mob – that’s
why all his friends etc are keeping a very low profile. Here lies the
great injustice – you can accuse someone of child abuse and if they are
dead not only can they not defend themselves but neither can their
allies. Me, I couldn’t care less what the morons think – I know for a
fact that a great many people do not believe these stories – let’s put a
stop asap !
- March
16, 2013 at 11:08
-
Strangely enough I would have said ‘burn him at the stake’ myself
without a second thought had it mean your ordinary john do/de in the
street accused of raping children and nor Sir Jim ! Perhaps the old
dear is still doing some good in a funny sort of way. The rabid story
makers might yet be doing us all a favour – forcing us into
discussions none of us ever wanted to have – after we’ve proved them
all wrong that is !
- March 16, 2013 at 11:18
-
There’s a very curious case here, involving a married priest and
all sorts of complications.
The nub of the case though seems to be that he is likely to be sent
to prison for this crime:
“William Finnegan, 59, known to his
parishioners as Father Bill, denied forcefully kissing the 17-year-old
and touching her bottom, but was found guilty by jurors at Bradford
Crown Court.”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/sex-pest-priest-with-secret-wife-warned-he-faces-jail-for-assault-1-5503184
Same neck of the woods as Jimmy. Must be something in the
water.
-
March 16, 2013 at 11:58
-
rabbitaway,
Your right there.
But I think there is probably a motive in the excessive attempt, by
media anyway, at shaming people for expressing their doubts, and
ramming down our throats that all ‘victims’ (in other words anyone who
makes an accusation) “must be believed” automatically, and not be
doubted, and I think that is because if we didn’t just blindly believe
them, and avoid questioning them – their silly little scheme they’ve
been cooking up would fall apart before out very eyes.
Their is no need to say you don’t believe an accusations when you
no nothing about the circumstances at that stage, but by the same
token, you can’t know whether they are telling the truth either –
whether you chose to ‘believe’ a story should be based on it’s own
individual merits and discretion – because some people tell the truth
and others don’t, some do make up lies. An open mind (and respect to
both parties) until more can be found out seems like a far more
logical approach to me….
-
March 13, 2013 at 10:56
-
I am no longer getting Red Arrowed on The Mail. They just aren’t printing
my comments.
- March 13, 2013 at 02:05
-
Forgot to tick the box again! I meant to ask Susanne, are you still keeping
well? my last scan was ok , next one in August.
- March 13, 2013 at 07:41
-
Next scan next month – better be OK, if I pop me clogs right now it will
only add to the conspiracy theories sadly!
- March 13, 2013 at 13:56
-
Best of luck with the scan.
- March 13, 2013 at 16:58
-
Good luck and don’t let the scanxiety get to you, let me know how you
get on. Never thought of that, it certainly would add to the conspiracy
theories! but sure you will be fine.
- March 13, 2013 at 01:20
-
I see no reason to write Jimmy Savile off just yet.
I’m not convinced of the evidence or the motives for this and he’s not had
a trial and would never get a fair one now, so why should I?
He may not have been perfect, but neither is anyone else, and all this
picking at every little fault as if it somehow adds weight to the theory he’s
a ‘sex offender’ is ridiculous – the sort of thing we used to look back at
things like the ‘Salem witch trials’ and laugh at them for.
How would anyone feel if this was done to their granddad after his death?
Even if there is some truth in it (which i’m not convinced there is), there
is no way in this world he is guilty of even the tiniest fraction of what he
now stands accused of.
Something has gone WAY wrong here – and I think that is undeniable…
- March 12, 2013 at 23:55
-
It seems to me that all these women are seriously disturbed publicity
seekers and I can’t believe any of them. I am all in favour of stopping the
licence fee it is long out of date they can get a subscription like Sky. I
would also like to know what parents would let a 9 year old go off with a man?
seems very odd to me. Hopefully someday some real journalist will investigate
the whole fiasco properly.
-
March 13, 2013 at 01:17
-
The problem is there are journalists out there that want to search for
the truth but are constricted by the editors final decision. The balance is
all wrong, people are too scared to oppose or question as they are vilified,
pefect example was when Paul Daniels gave his opinion, yet, the papers will
not print a fair unbiased story as it will be seen to be vilifying the
allegded victims. If we as a society are not careful with the hysteria
surrounding JS we could become a society where fathers, brothers, friends,
teachers etc will be terrified to be anywhere near a child. The number of
cases that are falsely reported to the police is unbelievable, yet in the
process they have to be investigated as if they were true. In the meantime
the accused lives are ruined beyond repair.
I believe an air of caution has to be taken into account and the accusee
should be investigated just as much as the accussed especially in some cases
of historic abuse. We have to differentiate between children that are
victims of abuse and have the courage to come forward, but have an air of
caution over adults that come forward alledging abuse 30/40/50 years after
the event. I also believe that there should be a law that if you are found
out to of falsely accused that you are charged and prosecuted as the damage
from that allegation is irreparable. Perfect example of justice was when
Louis Walsh won a defamation case with (I believe) the Sun newspaper, his
accusee was prosecuted and given a custodial sentence.
- March 13, 2013 at 13:01
-
“I am all in favour of stopping the licence fee it is long out of
date they can get a subscription like Sky.”
The problem here Carol is that, given the choice most people wouldn’t pay
145.50 to receive BBC TV, so the revenue stream of 3.6 billion pounds would
be substantially reduced by a move to subscription, at a guess, I would say
their income would decrease by at least 40% in the first year.
I suspect that any cuts would be stupid ones (i.e. new programming being
cut instead of bureaucracy) and before the end of the 5th year, I suspect
the BBC would either be funded by the taxpayer or bust / sold off to a media
conglomerate.
Exactly what they deserve.
- March 13, 2013 at 13:33
-
I have given up TV largely because of this. I have come to loathe the
BBC because of the way they have exposed generations of their loyal people
to charges that they aided and abetted paedophilia. The organisation is
utterly dysfunctional now and the behaviour of most/all of its journalists
viz-a-viz the Savile affair illustrate a complete loss of personal ethical
fibre and corporate self-belief. Their “entertainment” departments have
long been suborned to the PC wing of British affairs. I still have a
wireless and as a previous fan of Radio 5 now find myself turning it off
at what I now find their spiteful and boringly predictable approach to
almost any story they cover. The World Service is still tolerable,
presumably because the people on that don’t have their heads so crammed
full with Metroman & Metrowoman claptrap.
I don’t mind journalists with an opinion and a personal perspective but
the BBC seems to have bred a generation of smugly self-satisfied ones who
consider they don’t just have an opinion – they are wholly right and
correct, and the those who disagree should be punished somehow, if only by
being mocked or shouted-down.
- March 13, 2013 at 14:18
-
Yes, I have to agree. Living on the left bank of the Atlantic, I used
to listen to BBC radio a great deal and have hundreds of hours of music
programs stored on my computer that I downloaded as an archive.
One day I was listening to a little program on Radio 4 about a
cricketer from the early 20th century, (I forget his name) who
eventually died in a mental hospital with a diagnosis of “General
Paralysis of the Insane”. The main emphasis of the story, as told by the
BBC presenter, a nicely spoken young woman, was that this man suffered
from epilepsy, which was not understood at the time, and that for that
reason he was wrongly placed in an asylum.
I, and others I think, wrote in and pointed out that General
Paralysis of the Insane was the old name for tertiary neurosyphilis and
that the pattern of mental and physical deterioration, including the
seizures and his eventual death from an aneurism were entirely
consistent with a diagnosis of tertiary syphilis, which was a not
uncommon killer in those days before penicillin was available.
When the next episode of the show was broadcast, the nice young woman
started of by saying “We have received e-mails from a number of
listeners about last week’s show who pointed out that GPI was the old
name for syphilis. We in no way intended to suggest that Mr. X had
syphilis…
My first reaction was “Well, young lady, how on earth do you make
that conclusion, especially since that is what it said on his death
certificate?”, but I think at this point I realized that even the most
uncontroversial program about English social history was supposed to be
given an official BBC spin and had little to do with discussing real
facts. Probably the nicely-spoken BBC lady is still making her nice
programme, but I don’t listen any more.
Oh, his name was Johnny Briggs and I found this on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Briggs_%28cricketer%29
-
March 12, 2013 at 22:39
-
Well it’s about to get worse by the look of it. Although MWT admits that
fourth or fifth hand accounts won’t do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jimmy-savile-investigator-offers-to-help-round-up-1980s-paedophile-ring-8531705.html
- March 12, 2013 at 21:24
-
The BBCommonpurpose channel?
They deserve it.
Unlike the
unaccountable government, they have a weakness.
They only get one
tax.
Lets see how long they would last with just the EU
grant.
Neat.
They cannot sue everyone.
They can however beg for more
tax, that’s the problem.
- March 12, 2013 at 20:24
-
What a lot rubbish – where do these people crawl from under and what’s
wrong with the British press that publishes this crap?
-
March 12, 2013 at 19:15
-
Interesting. What seems to happen in modern Britain is that a certain party
line or narrative is created – political correctness, or satanic child abuse,
or whatever the fashionable narrative of the day is – and then it is to be
followed unerringly and without question, without scrutiny. Indeed on some
topics anyone who departs from the “official” narrative is howled down. We are
acting out a national real life version of the story of the Emporer’s New
Clothes.
-
March 12, 2013 at 19:49
-
@Gildas
An apt description, and sums up my feelings each time I hear
or read the words, ‘There Is No Doubt that JS was a prolific predatory
paedophile’ from people who are paid a lot of money to know better than to
come out with trite claptrap. By his own admission Spindler of The Yard, who
spawned the phrase, knows nothing at all other than that he collated some
allegations. Whatever happened to the criteria for assessing intelligence –
‘Is this known personally to me’; ‘Is it from a reliable source’ etc
?
Did JS make a fool of queen and country alike for 50 years? Did he
bollox. But MWT has managed it overnight.
- March 12, 2013 at 21:36
-
I would have no problem at all in believing that Savile was a sex
predator had there been a careful analysis and report of the allegations
against him, but the one inquiry into determining whether Savile was guilty
or not, “Giving Victims a Voice,” was poor. I cannot help but notice how
short the report is compared with the reports detailing the (to my eyes,
relatively minor) procedural errors made in handling the Savile allegations
made when he was alive, such as the one published today. I did not get any
sense that they critically analysed even a sampling of the allegations they
received. It’s as though everyone is happy to outsource the process of
determining guilt to ITV documentaries and tabloid newspapers.
- March 16, 2013 at 12:44
-
GildasTheMonk,
Re: “Interesting. What seems to happen in modern Britain is that a
certain party line or narrative is created – political correctness, or
satanic child abuse, or whatever the fashionable narrative of the day is –
and then it is to be followed unerringly and without question, without
scrutiny. Indeed on some topics anyone who departs from the “official”
narrative is howled down. We are acting out a national real life version of
the story of the Emporer’s New Clothes”
And it’s probably not just happening with this Jimmy Savile thing – we’ve
probably been misled on loads of issues that have just slipped by with us
thinking we have been told the facts – but really been told nothing or the
sort, or in some cases the complete opposite (a few spring to mind).
I think ‘political correctness’ is sometimes the weapon used to try and
encourage people that would have otherwise disagreed, to keep their mouths
shut….
-
March 12, 2013 at 19:08
-
I didn’t believe a word of that woman when I read the story. I noticed she
copied the description of the dressing room she met Savile almost word-by-word
from Kevin Cook (another suspicious “victim”). These more outlandish
testimonies are easier to dimiss. I wish the press didn´t give so much
attention to these attention seekers.
-
March 12, 2013 at 19:42
-
Such an unusual dressing room too. It had a chair and a sink and a mirror
I think. I wonder what else it might have had? A scale model of the Eiffel
Tower perhaps or a stuffed elk?
-
March 12, 2013 at 21:45
-
Kevin Cook’s account and hers account, I think, tried to give a
“general” description of a dressing room (or what they think it might be a
dressing room). I think if they gave a detailed account of Savile’s
dressing room, it would sound suspicious for people who were actually
there.
-
March 12, 2013 at 20:16
-
Kevin Cook likes turkey. A lot. Google it and see what I mean
-
March 12, 2013 at 21:40
-
OMG, lol! Indeed, he likes.
-
March 12, 2013 at 18:31
-
But it isn’t just her Darren.
It’s Beverli Rhodes for example. It’s
‘Karin Ward’. It’s the un-named ‘ritual abuse’ victim as recounted by Valerie
Sinason.It’s the cub scout who changed his story so dramatically that Savile
morphed from his abuser to the guy who saved him from a beating from a
pederast BBC man. And online it’s poor crazy Daffodil.
Out of the hundreds
of accusers, they are probably not all lying.
But can we have some sense
that there are cases which have been properly investigated, and stand up to
scrutiny?
I don’t see at as an MSM plot , I think they have lost the damn
plot.
- March 12, 2013 at
15:07
-
messham No2
-
March 12, 2013 at 15:00
-
An ex-mental patient makes a lame excuse for not paying a TV license, and
gets sensational newspaper coverage. Tells you more about the press than about
the BBC.
-
March 12, 2013 at 15:23
-
With hundreds of Savile complaints recorded, I am still waiting for just
one credible plaintiff to come forward, that is a person who is not a
convicted criminal, former approved school girl, former prison, or former
mental patient, or looking for financial compensation or with an axe to
grind. Just an ordinary British person who has led an obscure, but normal
life and who is respected in their profession and/or community as a solid
citizen, parent, grandparent would do fine. Does not have to be a famous
person or even a very successful person. Even a person who has long since
left the UK would do.
- March 12, 2013 at 17:47
-
I think there are quite a few “normal” people who have made
allegations. One problem is that many *victims* have been produced by the
Media almost randomly, and at times seem to have been given different
names in different publications, which doesn’t help their credibility or
anybody’s proper understanding of what is being alleged.
The most persuasive ones that I have come across always seem to end up
probably being over 16 when any real action starts (if it did at all).
There are always issues about time, date and place which need
clarification and they never are clarified satisfactorily.
Given that Savile claimed to have “had 3,000 birds” by the 1970′s it’s
not surprising that there may be plenty of candidates out there who
certainly had contact with him. On the other hand, if the Beef Biryani
tale is accurate, it paints a picture of a rather sadder and more lonely
man than “Love is an Uphill Thing” would have us believe.
I think the way the alleged crimes have drifted between so-called
‘paedophilia’ and the so-called ‘sexist abuse of women’ is not an
insignificant factor. The age-muddling example was set by that appalling
Exposure TV show, where two years were lopped off the ages of the
highest-profile witnesses.
- March 12, 2013 at 18:27
-
Yes, I mean clear cut cases of rape or paedophilia, not borderline
cases, or over friendly groping. There is an interesting story this week
by Petronella Wyatt alleging that as a teen she was groped by everybody
from Robin Day to Lord Olivier, but I wouldn’t really put those
anecdotes under the heading of paedophilia or attempted rape, even if
they are rather distasteful and reflect poorly on the moral character of
the men. If anything I think it just shows how sexually confused men of
that generation were in the days when there were no cheap charter
flights to Thailand or Internet sex sites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2291904/The-outrageous-confessions-upper-class-Lolita.html
As Anna has also noted, everyone who committed an act of homosexual
sex before 1967 was a sex offender.
-
March 13, 2013 at 05:48
-
I think Petronella Wyatt’s article is very pragmatic. Young girls
can be very manipulative – they’re growing up and discovering the
power of their sexuality – and older men can often be suckers. As you
say, there were no cheap charter flights to Thailand (actually I
didn’t know there were any now) back then and society in general was
less censorious than it appears to be now. It’s quite amazing to walk
down Sukhumvit Road and see those beautiful young Thai girls on the
arms of some pretty unpalatable-looking men old enough to be their
grandfather but these girls are generally keeping their whole families
living in rural villages and it’s an acceptable trade-off for them. In
Kung-Sook Shin’s touching book “Please look after Mom” the mother was
married before she’d even had her first period, acceptable in Korean
rural society at the time and for valid reasons given in the book.
Much of today’s Western society seems to have become ridiculous on the
whole subject of age and sex. I understand paedophilia as sex with
young children – deplorable, unacceptable and punishable by Law – this
current/recent tendency to label sex with normal, consenting pubescent
girls as paedophilia seems way off base.
-
March 13, 2013 at 01:32
-
The ‘Beef Biryani’ tale sounds sort of plausible on the face of it,
but it hasn’t been investigated, so no-one but those directly involved
have any idea how that really came about and won’t until it’s
investigated further e.g what was going on on the internet and with the
papers leading up to all these disclosures…
- March 13, 2013 at
11:12
-
Not quite sure of the relevance of the reference in Operation
Ornament to Ms B having a blanket over her lap at the time if Savile
was supposed to have put her hand on his groin – an event which is
supposed to have happened several times but according to HMIC report
only once!
- March 13, 2013 at 11:20
-
@ Not quite sure of the relevance of the reference in Operation
Ornament to Ms B having a blanket over her lap @
I had the impression that the importance of the blanket issue was
about how one letter of the alphabet could have seen what was going on
underneath it, if the other letter of the alphabet had her hand moving
around unsee-able, beneath it.
Since the whole Duncroft expose began as result of what one letter
of the alphabet said she witnessed, this would be quite significant.
If there was a blanket, she could not have *seen* could she? But she
might have been told, afterwards, mightn’t she….
Sometimes these reports start feeling like a bloody algebra
test………….
- March 13, 2013 at 11:49
-
“Sometimes these reports start feeling like a bloody algebra
test…”
and when working between Ornament and the Pollard review,
beware…Miss ‘A’ becomes Miss ‘B’ and Miss ‘B’ becomes Miss ‘C’ and
one is liable to blow a fuse if some idot appears at the door asking
what is for dinner just when you think you’ve got all your Miss ‘B’s
in a row……..
-
March 14, 2013 at 07:19
-
Am picturing idots, ipads and iphones demanding apple pie…
Maybe replacing Miss A with Animal, Miss B = Vegetable and Miss
C = Mineral would simplify things (certain adjectives come to mind
that would be very non-PC) but I suspect the writers mixed them up
in the reports initially, so if you can get them ‘sorted’ I’d be
very impressed!
-
March 13, 2013 at 12:27
-
@Wendi – We seem to have ‘forgotten’ what “Nubile” originally meant
– ‘Ready for marriage; of a marriageable age or condition.’
[On a
related topic – I wonder what percentage of those “beautiful young
Thai” WERE female?]
- March 12, 2013 at 22:18
-
My initial sentiments exactly… but there may be more to this tale than
that.
Watch this space.
- March 12, 2013 at 14:35
-
Yes I noticed she was involved with some right wing fanatic group (all the
rage these days) , runs a security company and may even be a fully licensed
bouncer. Now I hear she also was found carrying knuckledusters as well !. Nice
pic of her in the Sexpress with gorgeous red hair but I can tell you, I
wouldn’t tangle with her. Not on your life.
- March 12, 2013 at 17:09
-
I picked up on the EDL but ‘right wing fanatic group’? If that refers to
the EDL I’d rather have them than AFA or any other group who wishes to stamp
out debate on immigration or any other subject (with reasonable caveats),
there seems to be a thing with the Left at the moment, free speech is good
as long as it is sanctioned and controlled free speech which agrees with
their ideology.
-
March 12, 2013 at 14:30
-
Has it been independently verified she did make an allegation against
Savile?
The following blog has done some fact checking of her account and,
shockingly, it has come up short. Would that some other fact checking have
been done on other Savile victims. The only reason this ‘victim’ was not
believed was of her involvement with the EDL; others get off more easily. I
suspect the level of fact checking with regard to Savile allegations – because
he is dead – is exactly zero.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/leisha-brookes-curiouser-and-curiouser.html
- March 12, 2013 at 14:48
-
March 12, 2013 at 14:20
-
Oh and why was a nine year old having modelling pictures taken and thinking
the cameraman was going to make her famous? At nine?
-
March 12, 2013 at 14:15
-
This lady is an organiser for the EDL, not a crime in itself, but she has
apparently been relieved of knuckledusters by the constabulary while on
marches. Her myspace site is semi pornographic and she hints she was a ‘bad
girl’ in her youth. I’m quite surprised she hasn’t claimed to be ex Duncroft,
that’s de rigeur these days.
- March 12, 2013 at 14:11
-
Part of me thinks that if this woman has suffered child sexual abuse at the
hands of Savile et al, how come she has had a sex-life which has produced five
children? What is she after fifteen muinutes of sympathy, fame and some
compensation.
The other option is to scrap the licence fee and let the BBC stand as a
viable business.
- March 12, 2013 at 15:10
-
Yes I was wondering about her liking for sex – has something in common
with Karen Ward who was abused as a child according to her book and has 5
children by different fathers!
-
March 12, 2013 at 16:30
-
@Ellen
Slight correction Karin Ward had 7 children to 5 different men….
-
March 12, 2013 at 19:02
-
What, sexually abused children aren’t allowed to have sex lives at all?
They must suffer the consequences of abuse forever and shut their bodies
to everybody? Many sexually abused girls become promiscuous. I know a
person who did manage to have a healthy sex life . Each person deals with
his or her pain on his or her way.
- March 12, 2013 at 17:28
-
Gosh Bunny. What would all the luvies, toadies, uphill gardeners &
otherwise useless jobsworths which this organisation provides employment on
a monumental scale do without the taxpayer subsidy it enjoys. Can you
imagine ? What fun it would be to watch.
-
March 12, 2013 at 14:11
-
Why didn’t I think of that when I got caught without a TV Licence? The fact
that I never so much as met Jimmy Savile seems to be neither here nor
there.
I did get groped by a dirty old man in The Odeon in Neasden, and
let’s face it, being dragged up in Neasden was Child Abuse all by itself.
-
March 12, 2013 at 13:50
-
Being a ‘listening’ sort of chap, I am quite prepared to hear more of what
this lady might have to say, especially as you ask her to name the names. I
quite agree with the idea that the people who own the knees should pay up
rather than the licence payers in British West Hartlepools.
However, listening as I do and for many a year now, I hear a sort of ‘dog
ate my homework’ excuse to the Magistrate; with an added prospect of getting a
sweetie from the teacher for constantly looking after such a naughty pet.
Not that I disbelieve the lady, of course. Oh dearie me no. Women never
tell lies even with the promise of enormous sums in compensation, sudden fame
and attention and gleeful revenge on ‘Men!!!’(tm).
{ 65 comments }