Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:50 am

In February 2010 – a month before resigning – he set up Tokra Limited, at an address in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire.

The fanciful name could have derived from a science fiction television series, Stargate. Kennedy might well have seen parallels between his company's mission and the plot, which features the Tok'ra as an alien race symbiotically inhabiting human hosts. In their human guise, the Tok'ra fight a powerful, evil race who seek to control and destroy the planet.

Calling himself a logistics officer, Kennedy registered himself as sole director of the company. Intriguingly, the address he used is the work address of Heather Millgate, a solicitor specialising in personal injury, and a former director of Global Open, a private security firm.

Global Open was set up in 2001 by Rod Leeming, a former special branch officer. The company keeps a "discreet watch" on protest groups for clients including E.ON.

It first came to public attention in 2007 when it was implicated in the case of Paul Mercer, a friend of the then Conservative shadow defence minister, Julian Lewis, who was exposed by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade of spying for the arms firm BAE.

Regarding Julian Lewis:

(as detailed earlier in this thread)


Michael Colvin

Colvin was associated closely with several other Conservative 'people' on the right wing of the party including Julian Lewis who is said to be involved with a number of international right wing 'covert' groups linked with high finance, and arms dealing.

Colvin was also associated with two allegedly corrupt and discredited former Parliamentary Lobbyists, Ian Greer (cash for questions) and Derek Laud (wikipedia/Derek Laud) (Cash for Knighthoods aka Cash for Rentboys).

Both Greer and Laud have links with South Africa - Greer now lives there and Laud is a frequent visitor.

In view of their links with Parliamentary corruption in the UK and extreme levels of alleged corruption in the 'new' South African multi-racial Government, it seems possible that both Greer and Laud may find the culture of South Africa politically highly amenable.

It is probably only a coincidence, but during a major scandal around the abuse of children in care in an area of the UK called Clwyd, both laud and Greer's names were mentioned by alleged victims in connection with organised sexual abuse involving VIP's including, allegedly, members of the UK Government.

During that scandal a fire in Hove, near Brighton, killed five alleged victims of abuse. Many people believe the fire was deliberately set. With the five young people from Clwyd who died was a Health Visitor from Hampshire where Laud has a home and where Colvin lived. She also was killed in the fire.

Michael Colvin died at a fire in his magnificent Hampshire home. He had been speaking to Derek Laud days, if not hours, previously.

There have been many allegations that Hampshire County Council, and of course Colvin lived in Hampshire, through the influence of Derek Laud and his friend Julian Lewis, is a central player in a national paedophile ring supplying young boys from care systems as in Clwyd to VIP's. The VIP's are said to have included top people in the law, commerce, and politics - across the party spectrum - at specially organised parties and other gatherings sometime on a one to one basis and sometimes at hotels where staff allegedly colluded with the exploitation of youngsters.


The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children's homes other than North Wales.

There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names.

Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.


Scallywag Magazine

See original post

- The article ended by saying they would welcome being sued as they would defend the story as no one was there to defend the children
- The Prime Minister John Major however did sue Scallywag and its distributors for the claim he was having an affair with Claire Latimer and won. Forcing Scallywag out of production
- Claire Latimer later claimed Major used her as a 'decoy'
- Major was later confirmed to have been having an affair at the time with Edwina Currie
- Following the shut-down of the printed magazine Scallywag tried to continue online
- Julian Lewis MP sued their service provider and got them to shut it down while he was standing for election, using a rarely known electoral law about someone standing against him trying to influence voting
- Simon Regan, co-founder of Scallywag, was standing against him at the time claiming he was a liar and not fit for office
- Angus Wilson, the other co-founder of Scallywag, was killed in 1994 in a car crash in Cyprus aged 31
- You can read Simon Regan's appeal to find his killer, posted on Usenet in 1997, here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?hl=e ... kJUEfcyVYU

- Regan's letter from February 2000, regarding the Waterhouse inquiry and his own personal feelings about the abuse that had occurred and how is was being handled then, can be read here:

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/1 ... er-up.html

- Regan died of a 'short illness' in the summer of 2000 the day after his birthday, aged 58, little else is known

He signed this, too - though it's hardly that big of a deal...

Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:49 pm


Jimmy Savile victims 'were laughed at or ignored'

Victims of serial sex attacker Jimmy Savile were not believed when they first confided in others, an NSPCC report has found.

Many were ignored, dismissed or laughed at by those they told shortly after Savile abused them.

Some of them were even told by friends or relatives they were "lucky" the late DJ had paid attention to them.

Meanwhile more than 130 alleged victims are awaiting a court ruling that could affect a compensation scheme.

The NSPCC said the accounts were "heart-rending", and the victims had shown "true courage".

The former presenter of the BBC's Top Of The Pops and Jim'll Fix It died aged 84 in October 2011 - a year before allegations that he had sexually abused children were broadcast in an ITV documentary.

The revelations prompted hundreds of victims to come forward. They said they were attacked at BBC premises or in other institutions, including hospitals.

The report was commissioned by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to find out why so many victims stayed silent for so long.

The research was carried out by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), which interviewed 26 people. Four were adults when they were abused; the others were children. One of them had reported the matter to police at the time but no action was taken.

A number of victims who were staying in hospital when they were abused told staff at the time but were not taken seriously.


The report says those who did not come forward until decades after the attacks stayed silent for so long because they felt that, as Savile was a celebrity, their word would not be believed over his.

Several had not realised what had happened to them as they were so young, with many saying they had not understood Savile's actions constituted sexual abuse.

The report says: "Some remembered feeling that an elder - particularly a celebrity like Jimmy Savile - must know better than they did.

"There were also cases where participants also remembered feeling conflicted, and wondering if they should feel flattered or grateful that he had 'chosen them'."

There was an "overwhelming belief" that their complaints would not have been accepted at the time.

"Jimmy Savile was a powerful and influential adult, who was seen as a 'charitable, good guy' raising a lot of money for charity," the report says.

"This led to feelings of hopelessness and inferiority in his victims, who felt there was no way that their word would have been believed over his."

Many also thought that crimes had to be reported by an adult, rather than a child.


The report found that Savile's abuse caused wide-ranging repercussions throughout victims' lives, including mental health problems, substance abuse and thoughts of suicide.

Years after being attacked, a "significant number" of the victims, who were aged between eight and 26 at the time of the abuse, have still not told family and friends.

Those interviewed by the NSPCC said media reports of others coming forward played a part in their subsequent decision to report the crimes.

The report says: "Crucially, all participants said that they would not have come forward now, had they not seen the stories of other victims in the press."

However, some revealed that seeing images of their abuser in coverage of the scandal triggered flashbacks and made them feel physically sick.

Most victims felt police were helpful when they came forward - but one reported feeling she was to blame when an officer commented: "I think I would have pushed him off."

All of those interviewed said they did not believe police intended to be unhelpful or inconsiderate.

NSPCC director of national services Peter Watt said: "The responses these victims received when they first revealed Savile's sickening crimes make heart-rending reading.

"They were ignored, dismissed, not believed, laughed at and astonishingly told in some cases they should feel lucky he had paid them attention."

Mr Watt said everyone should be aware of signs of abuse to "ensure there is never a repeat of the Savile scandal".
'Pain and anguish'

He praised the victims' "true courage" in talking about their experiences, adding: "Half a century on, the world finally discovered just how dreadful his crimes were - something these men and women had known all that time but felt powerless to do anything about."

The report also covers calls by the victims for the introduction of new ways for people to report sexual abuse and for additional specialist training for police officers investigating such crimes.

One of HM Inspectors of Constabulary, Drusilla Sharpling, said the report "vividly portrays the pain and anguish suffered by Savile's victims".

"Despite the difficulties they have faced, victims have highlighted important ways in which police responses can be improved," she added.

"We owe it to them to make sure that the police service responds positively and ensures victims are supported, listened to and treated with compassion."

Chief Constable Simon Bailey of the Association of Chief Police Officers said there had been a change in the way society reacts to child abuse since Savile committed his crimes.

He said: "We know that reporting is always going to be emotional and difficult for victims of sexual abuse but, partly following the allegations against Jimmy Savile and other high profile child sexual exploitation cases, across society there is a much greater understanding of child abuse and an intolerance of it."

The High Court hearing in London, expected to last three days, is being held to decide who should be the executor of Savile's £4m estate.

NatWest bank is the current executor, but the Jimmy Savile Charity Trust, the major beneficiary of the estate, wants it to be replaced.

Lawyers representing victims said the ruling could affect those who have made compensation claims. A compensation scheme with NatWest has already been agreed and is supported by the NHS and the BBC, they added.

Liz Dux of law firm Slater Gordon, who represents some of Savile's victims, said in a statement: "It is not about amounts or cold hard cash, but redress. The victims suffered some horrific abuse, often in silence.

"It is right and proper that their suffering is now recognised. I urge everyone involved in the process to make it as smooth and pain-free as possible in order to guard against any further suffering."

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... om-charity

Jimmy Savile victims under compensation threat from charity

JIMMY Savile's victims fear his charity wants to block a proposed compensation scheme.

By Jonathan Corke/Published 23rd February 2014

It would see their claims against organisations including the BBC and NHS resolved quickly and legal costs kept to a minimum.

But for it to work it needs all parties subject to litigation over paedophile Savile's abuse to agree.

NatWest bank, executors of Savile's estate, supports the plan, according to a source close to one of his victims.

But the major beneficiary of the DJ's £4.3million estate, the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, will tomorrow apply to the High Court in London to replace the bank as executors.

The source said: "If they were supporting the scheme why would they want to do this?"

The charity was founded 30 years ago for the "relief of poverty and sickness" and stands to gain more than £3.5million from Savile's estate. As of March 31 last year accounts show it had total funds of £3.6million.

It is understood almost 140 of Savile's victims are seeking compensation.

Our source said it would be a "massive setback" and "a real blow" if the scheme was not approved.

They added it would mean victims would face lengthy legal battles to seek financial redress.

The former Top Of The Pops presenter, who died aged 84 in 2011, is believed to have abused up to 1,000 victims over more than six decades.

After claims of his offending were made public in 2012 trustees decided to close the charity.

But that move has been put on hold pending the legal actions.

Jo Summers, a lawyer from PWT Advice, the firm that represents the trust, said: "Our application to the court is to replace the executors of the late Jimmy Savile's estate.

"This is an administrative matter and, as far as we're concerned, does not relate to the compensation scheme."

No one from the NatWest was available for comment.

Law firm Slater and Gordon, representing the majority of those taking legal action, said it was unable to comment.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm

semper occultus » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:11 am wrote:......the PIE : NCCL link is old news - looks like its now subject to some formal investigation :

The truth about Labour's apologists for paedophilia: Police probe child sex campaign group linked to three top party officials in wake of Savile scandal

Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt linked to vile group
They were key figures at National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL)

The NCCL was an 'affiliate' of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)
PIE members may have abused children on an 'industrial scale'

By Guy Adams and Michael Seamark
PUBLISHED: 23:13, 18 February 2014 | UPDATED: 08:02, 19 February 2014



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

Harman wasn't so quiet on Savile scandal: Deputy Labour leader toured TV and radio stations

Harriet Harman may be reluctant to speak out now, but when the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded in 2012, she loudly demanded a judge-led inquiry.

She toured television and radio stations proclaiming ‘we need to get to the truth’ for the sake of child abuse victims.

She flatly rejected any notion that attitudes had changed or that it was a ‘different world’ years ago, insisting even in ‘historic’ cases, there were lessons to be learnt.

Miss Harman even lectured Parliament that, whatever injustices had occurred in the past, they should be dealt with now to protect others in the future.

Her battle cries of 2012 contrast sharply with her silence in the past week in the face of questions about her role in the paedophile-supporting National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Miss Harman has said only that the Daily Mail’s story is ‘untrue and ridiculous’ but has refused to answer any questions, as have her husband, Jack Dromey, and their Labour colleague Patricia Hewitt.

In October 2012, as Savile was revealed to have abused children at schools, hospitals and the BBC, Miss Harman was beating the drum for a public inquiry.

Only an ‘overarching’ judge-led investigation into Savile’s rampage of abuse would suffice, she argued.

On October 15, she told MPs debating Savile in the House of Commons: ‘It is impossible to overstate the suffering caused to those whom he abused. No one should be complacent.

‘This goes wider than just the BBC. There are still countless young women and men who have been abused but have never complained because they bear a great burden of shame, guilt and disgust, and fear that they will not be believed.

‘Should not our strong and clear message to them today be: “Come forward now, seek the support that you need to address the wrong that has been done to you, and, in doing so, not only secure the justice that you deserve but protect others in the future”?’

Miss Harman also called for the Home Office to be part of the historic investigation because Savile abused children at an Approved School run by the Home Office.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that any such inquiry, had it taken place, might have unearthed a letter sent to the Home Office in April 1978.

It was written by the legal officer of the NCCL, one Harriet Harman, and it argued that child pornography should not be banned as ‘indecent’ unless it could be shown that the child depicted had been harmed.

Click through to the article for images of the full letter.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby semper occultus » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:00 pm

.....weird...this whole Mail Spring offensive seems to be a re-hash from December ...there's some interesting extra detail :

Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children

Magpie magazine distributed in the late Seventies to members of PIE
PIE is Paedophile Information Exchange - the name of a far-Left lobby group
Called for legalisation of child sex and age of consent to be lowered to four
Emerged this week Labour government of the time may helped finance the organisation and The Magpie
Home Office now ordered a 'thorough, independent investigation' into claims
Hewitt, Harman and husband Dromey encountered the PIE as young officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties

By Guy Adams
PUBLISHED: 00:27, 14 December 2013 | UPDATED: 11:46, 20 December 2013


At first sight, it might be a harmless parish magazine or the newsletter of a respectable society of bird-watching enthusiasts.
Called The Magpie, the now-yellowing A5-size pamphlet was distributed in the late Seventies to members of an organisation called the PIE. The inside cover carries a workmanlike ‘editor’s letter’ highlighting ‘our third annual AGM, which is to be held in London in the summer’, and inviting readers to seek election to ‘our Executive Committee’.
Page three advertises a memorial service for recently deceased PIE member Alan Doggett, who worked as the conductor of the London Boys’ Choir, and was apparently to be remembered for his ‘friendliness, integrity and loyalty’. There follows a selection of short news stories, a letters page and several long feature articles, which are scholarly in tone and peppered with academic jargon.
But it doesn’t take long for any right-minded person who flicks through The Magpie — dispatched quarterly in plain brown envelopes to up to 1,000 members — to realise that behind its matter-of-fact tone and appearance, something is terribly, terribly, amiss.
For the initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange. This turns out to be the name of a far-Left lobby group which spent much of the Seventies and early Eighties publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex — and the age of consent to be lowered to four.
Today, PIE has been widely forgotten. But at the time, it achieved prominence for circulating articles by tame psychologists and cod scientists promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles.
Take, for example, a long article by Dr Edward Brongersma, a Dutch politician and academic who was renowned for his ultra-liberal views on sexual morality.
‘A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial,’ he argues, ‘providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.’
Take also an article in which a PIE member called Keith Spence, who had recently moved to Stockholm, writes of his (unsuccessful) efforts to abuse ‘heart-shatteringly beautiful’ children at the local swimming pool.
‘If you think England is frustrating for paedophiles, you should try living in Sweden for a bit,’ he complains.
Towards the back of the journal are adverts for a book called Towards A Better Perspective For Boy-Lovers, and admiring reviews of magazines with names such as Male International, Kim, and Boys Express.

Today, almost 35 years later, the contents of The Magpie seem so vile and amoral, and the activities of a lobby group dedicated to advancing the human rights of predatory paedophiles so disgusting, that it’s incredible either was allowed legally to exist at all.
However, it now seems that the Paedophile Information Exchange wasn’t just tolerated by the liberal authorities of the time. There is growing evidence that the era’s Left-wing establishment saw it as a socially acceptable pressure group and actively encouraged its ugly campaigns and sinister public meetings.
Indeed, it emerged this week that the Labour government of the Seventies may even have helped finance the organisation and its morally bankrupt publication The Magpie.
On Sunday, the Home Office announced that it had ordered a ‘thorough, independent investigation’ into shocking allegations that the Paedophile Information Exchange received public funds while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.
It will examine whether tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was funnelled to it via the Voluntary Services Unit [VSU], a department of the Home Office that gave annual grants to charities and non-profit-making lobby groups.
The probe comes after a whistle-blower had claimed the payments were signed off, over several years, by a senior civil servant who worked under Labour’s then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees.

Dig beneath the surface of this ugly scandal, however, and you will soon discover that Lord Rees — who died in 2006 — is a long way from being the only prominent Labourite whose good name may be tarnished by it.
For it also raises tricky questions for three of the most senior Labour figures of recent times: deputy leader Harriet Harman, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, and shadow housing minister Jack Dromey, a former party treasurer and Harman’s husband.

Turn the clock back to the Seventies and this trio had strangely close links to the Paedophile Information Exchange. And the long-defunct organisation’s sudden return to the news pages may very well bring those links back to haunt them.

Harman, Hewitt and Dromey first encountered the PIE when they were cutting their political teeth as young officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties [NCCL].
This tub-thumping human rights organisation — these days known as Liberty — was far more radical than its modern equivalent, and was actively forging alliances with a host of ultra-liberal pressure groups.
One such group was the PIE. In 1975, it somehow succeeded in convincing the NCCL to grant it official ‘affiliate’ status.
The move was a signal victory for radical Left-wing activists, who had for years lobbied for more ‘enlightened’ attitudes towards sex between adults and children.
It was also, of course, a PR coup for those who sought to promote paedophilia.
‘The PIE somehow managed to convince feminists and the gay rights lobby that they had shared values and that we all belonged in the same club,’ recalls one feminist writer whose magazine was lobbied for support by the PIE after the Exchange won NCCL affiliation.
‘Anyone who spoke out against them feared being called a “homophobe”, which in Left-wing circles at the time was about the biggest insult anyone could throw at you. So they were invited into the liberal establishment.’
A PIE ‘information’ leaflet published at the time, called Paedophilia: Some Questions And Answers, shows how the organisation had managed to ally its cause to the gay rights movement.
‘Homosexuals are now widely regarded as ordinary, healthy people — a minority, but no more “ill” than the minority who are left-handed,’ it read. ‘There is no reason why paedophilia should not win similar acceptance.’
The NCCL — then under the chairmanship of Henry Hodge, the Left-wing solicitor who would go on to marry Labour MP Margaret Hodge — appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker.


‘The PIE was also being picketed by the National Front, so a lot of people also supported them on the basis that our enemy’s enemy had to be our friend,’ says the writer. ‘It seems terrifyingly simplistic now, obviously, but that was the political context.’
Over the ensuing years, the NCCL — which had Hewitt as its General Secretary from 1974-83 — provided valuable support to the paedophile lobby as it pursued a string of legal and political campaigns designed to advance its twisted agenda.

In 1975, for example, the NCCL conference was addressed by the PIE chairman, Keith Hose. Delegates passed a motion declaring that ‘awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual’.
In 1976, with Jack Dromey on its executive (he served from 1970-79), the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’.
‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage,’ it read. ‘The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’

The statement might have been cut-and-pasted from the propaganda book of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Two years later, in 1978, Harriet Harman, then a newly qualified solicitor, became the NCCL’s legal officer. She promptly wrote its official response to Parliament’s Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography.
Her letter claimed that such a law would ‘increase censorship’, and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.
‘Our amendment [to the proposed law] places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,’ she wrote.
Such statements, from officials in what was (and is) a respected human rights organisation, may go some way towards explaining how the Labour-run Home Office of the era might have allowed public grants to be directed towards the PIE.
The NCCL presided over by Harman, Hewitt, Hodge and Dromey had, after all, helped foster an environment where woolly liberalism trumped child protection.
To many on the Left, promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles came to be regarded as a legitimate act of political subversion.
Sources close to the Home Office investigation, which was announced this week, say the whistle-blower who sparked it first came forward in the late Seventies. However, his concerns were ignored by officials working for Labour Home Secretary Merlyn Rees.

Previous roles: Harriet Harman pictured aged 32 with the shadow home Secretary, Mr Roy Hattersley, when she was a solicitor for the National Council for Civil Liberties

I understand that the civil servant suspected of approving the Voluntary Services Unit grants to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the Seventies died in 2006.
Officials are now trying to establish the nature of this man’s relationship with the late Steven Adrian Smith, a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange who was employed as a security guard in the basement of the Home Office during the same era.
If the two men were working in cahoots, it will surely fuel suspicions that an establishment paedophile ring had been allowed to take root in the department.
After all, it emerged earlier this year that Geoffrey Dickens, a Tory MP who campaigned against paedophilia, had approached the then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983 with allegations concerning widespread abuse of children, some of it by prominent individuals, in children’s care homes.
Nothing appears ever to have come of Dickens’s claims.

As for the Paedophile Information Exchange, its fortunes began to wane in 1981 when secretary Tom O’Carroll — a press officer for the Open University — was jailed for conspiring to corrupt public morals by publishing ‘contact’ advertisements (which put readers in touch with vendors of child porn) in an edition of The Magpie.

Even after O’Carroll’s fall from grace, Patricia Hewitt was willing to stick up for the organisation. In a 1982 essay entitled The Police And Civil Liberties, she offered a thundering critique of his trial.
‘Conspiring to corrupt public morals is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof,’ she wrote, arguing that O’Carroll’s involvement in distributing child porn had ‘overshadowed the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution’.

But sympathy in the National Council for Civil Liberties for the PIE’s aims was fading. In 1983, its affiliation was formally withdrawn. And the PIE disbanded in 1984.
The ensuing years saw its reputation permanently sunk, following the convictions of dozens of prominent members for child sex offences.
Among them was Peter Righton, a key government adviser on children’s homes, and a PIE founder, who was fined in 1992 for possessing child porn. He died in 2006, never prosecuted for abusing boys in his care — though he openly admitted doing so.
As for Harman, Hewitt and Dromey, they went on to climb successfully the greasy ladder of politics.
Despite the public revulsion against paedophilia, none of the trio would ever properly apologise for the NCCL’s historic links to the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Indeed, a spokesman for Harman said yesterday that despite her employment by the NCCL during its formal affiliation, ‘the very suggestion that Harriet was in any way supportive of the PIE or its aims is untrue and misleading’.
It has been left to Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty — who, born in 1969, had nothing to do with the affair — to offer the only public apology.
‘It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the Seventies,’ she told me yesterday.
‘The most important lesson learned by Liberty over the subsequent 30 years was to become a well-governed modern human rights movement in which protecting the vulnerable, especially children, will always come first.’
With fresh light about to be shed on this dark passage in history, it’s a message that other — perhaps more guilty — parties would be well advised to heed.

…some of the documentation is…interesting…if you’ve not just had your breakfast….


Annual report for 1975: Patricia Hewitt published this document in April 1976, which included a 'gay rights' section on page ten defending the Paedophile Information Exchange and its members

Defence: Ms Hewitt had described the Paedophile Action for Liberation group, which changed its name to PIE that year, as 'a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children'


AGM minutes: This page reveals how the PIE was represented at an NCCL AGM at the University of Lancaster. Below the list of organisations present is Jack Dromey's name, after he was re-elected to the executive committee of the NCCL in 1977

'People of different ages being nice to each other': The autumn 1982 edition of Rights, the in-house magazine of the NCCL. Self-confessed paedophile Mike Morten's letter was published on page 9 (pictured centre)

Document: This is the cover page of the NCCL's submission to Parliament on the 1976 Sexual Offences Act held at the LSE library, which suggests that the age of consent be lowered to 14

Damning: On page six of the document it is argued that 'a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent' and the age of sexual consent cut to ten 'if the child understood the nature of the act'

Harman & Dromey have issued rebuttals but Hewitt is keeping schtum – seems to be slightly more exposed on this

Harriet Harman condemns paper's 'smear campaign'

A statement released by Mr Dromey said: "Sexual abuse of children is evil and I have always viewed paedophiles and any group associated with them as evil.

"During my time on the NCCL Executive, I was at the forefront of repeated public condemnations of PIE and their despicable views. Then, when I was elected chairman, I took them on.

"I personally chaired the NCCL conference that, on my recommendation, refused to back by a massive majority a loathsome motion from a leading light in PIE calling on NCCL to support the so-called 'rights' of paedophiles. Indeed, my stand was denounced in a leaflet distributed by PIE to the delegates to the Conference.

"Like many organisations in the 1970s, NCCL had been infiltrated but that was the moment the tide was turned. I closed the conference saying that we had to stand up for the rights of children not to be sexually abused and that adults guilty of abuse were the lowest of the low.

"I was then the first to argue that paedophiles could have no place in NCCL.

"As a lifelong opponent of evil men who abuse children, the accusations of the Daily Mail are untrue and beneath contempt."


from :

The Curious Case of Harriet Harman, P.I.E, Lord Longford, Jimmy Savile, Myra Hindley, Cliff Richard, David Cameron and the VIP child-abuse scandal
By thecolemanexperience February 20, 2014


In this report from the Mail, a closely guarded family secret was revealed:

” Around the Palace of Westminster, they are viewed as natural enemies.

… sp my revelation today that Tory leader David Cameron and Labour’s new deputy leader Harriet Harman are cousins will come as something of a shock to them both.

For the ambitious Ms Harman a niece of the late Countess of Longford who likes to play down her posh background, the news, I suspect, will be somewhat worse.

…..excellent historical backgrounder….

HOME TRUTHS – In the 1970s and 1980s, an epidemic of abuse swept through Britain’s children’s homes. More than 100 care workers have already been convicted; more than 1,000 await trial. But no one has yet explained how such a grotesque scandal could have come about. Christian Wolmar has spent two years trying to do so. Here are some of his conclusions

Independent on Sunday, 8th October 2000
by Christian Wolmar


The scandal that unfolded in British children’s homes in the 1980s and 1990s is, on the face of it, inexplicable. A modern western nation with a tradition of caring for the weak – the birthplace of the welfare state – houses thousands of children in residential homes where they end up battered and sexually abused.

It is, according to a government minister in the Lords, “the greatest scandal of the 20th century”. Unfortunately, the minister’s view has not found much echo in society at large. The story has been largely ignored by the press. It has, too, been the subject of little academic research, despite the obvious need for a greater understanding. Successive governments have commissioned reports into particular incidents, but most of these have been at a local level. Yet the importance of understanding the wider history of these scandals cannot be overstated, for without such understanding, it is impossible to frame a policy to tackle the problem.

The scandals cover the breadth of the UK, from Aberdeen to North Wales, East Belfast to Plymouth; and while cases occur from the early 1960s into the 1990s, they predominate in the 1970s and 1980s.

The story really started to unfold in public view in 1989, with the revelation of abuse in Castle Hill – a privately owned home in Ludlow which took in children from local authorities around the country. In response to a series of complaints, police began to interview past residents. Allegations of abuse were made by 57 victims, and in 1991 Ralph Morris, proprietor of the home, was sentenced to 12 years. New investigations rapidly followed: in Staffordshire, in North Wales, in Leicestershire. By the end of last year, there were major investigations in progress by 32 police forces around the country – at which point, following a decision by the Association of Chief Police Officers, Gwent started creating a national database of careworkers against whom allegations had been made. Called the Historical Abuse Database and backed by the Home Office, it is being compiled with reports from all the major abuse inquiries across the country. At the time of writing, there were 1!
,500 names on the database. The final figure is expected to be much higher.

Even if one argues that there was a concentration of abuse in homes in the areas of the major inquiries (a proposition for which there is no evidence), and that some of the allegations under investigation are bound to be false, one could conservatively suggest that 2 to 3 per cent of all children who went into children’s homes in the 1970s and 1980s were abused. The Tribunal of Inquiry headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse found in February this year that at least 650 people had been abused in the children’s homes of North Wales alone. Nationally, over two decades, it is not unreasonable to infer that, of the 600,000-700,000 children who went through children’s homes, between 12,000 and 15,000 were abused.

The reasons for this epidemic are many and debatable. But one possible cause that has received little attention – and that seems particularly relevant to the question of why the epidemic occurred when it did – is the general tenor of the period in question, especially where sexual politics was concerned.

THE ROLE and function of children’s homes changed dramatically between the mid 1960s and the early 1970s. As late as 1967, the service was very female dominated and most of the staff lived in the homes. The Williams committee, reporting on the staffing of residential homes that year, noted: “Two-thirds of people at present employed in residential homes are single women and one-third of all staff are over 50 years of age.” All but 7 per cent of workers in the survey lived on the premises, which provided an important but barely noticed safeguard for the children.

Many of these women had worked all their lives in the system. They were part of the cohort of war widows or those left unmarried by the shortage of men following the Second World War, who had found both employment and a home by taking up jobs in children’s homes. As they left, they were replaced largely by men – since the jobs were now full-time and, increasingly, non-resident.

“The 1970s saw… a deliberate move away from the traditional arrangement whereby children’s homes were in the hands of a husband and wife team as superintendent and matron, or officer in charge and deputy,” noted the Kirkwood report, which followed the gaoling of the notorious Leicestershire abuser, Frank Beck, in 1991. Kirkwood outlined two main reasons for this trend. Such joint appointments were increasingly regarded as collusive because there was no separation between the senior manager and the deputy. And work in the homes was becoming regularised into shift patterns, which might encourage the husband and wife, who would want to share their leisure time, to leave the home in the charge of a junior employee. It was also felt that the “Uncle and Auntie” style of leadership was no longer appropriate now that more difficult children were coming into the system because of changes resulting from the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969.

It was no coincidence that the few scandals that did emerge in the immediate post-war period were in approved schools, which were run by male-dominated authoritarian regimes. When, in the early 1970s, the approved schools were merged into the social services system and became community homes with education, this again increased the proportion of men in the homes.

There was, therefore, a change not only in the sex ratio of employees, but also in the prevailing atmosphere of many homes. According to the report on the abuse carried out by Malcolm Thompson in Sheffield, “only masculine interests and activities were approved, so football and being taken to sporting events were the order of the day”. The male staff drank together in the pub and also, on occasion, with senior social services staff. Women were excluded from this controlling inner circle.

Among the incoming cohort of men, there is a very clear trend which leads to suspicions that many deliberately obtained these jobs in order to exploit children sexually. And, in contrast to the figures for society generally (where there are six times more cases of abuse against girls than against boys), the vast majority of these scandals relate to homosexual abuse of boys.

One has to be careful about referring to the culture of these institutions, as they were so varied. But it is possible to see some traits which were common to many of them. Some, principally the former approved schools which were in remote locations, could be described as “total institutions”, where the very nature of their isolation determined the prevailing culture – repressive, authoritarian, punitive and so on.

“John Smith”, a convicted but repentant abuser, recalls the effects of the change in atmosphere in such institutions in the late 1960s. “I joined the home in 1967 and worked until 1974. At the beginning, I was the only male other than the head of the home. From a ratio of one man to 12 women at the start, by the end it was one to three.” The women in the 1960s had been largely treated as domestics; and, Smith recalls, “We weren’t a profession. Our advice wasn’t asked for in case conferences of future planning. Somebody might just ask how a child was getting on, but that was it. These attitudes resulted in care staff compensating by creating their own culture.” This, as he put it, meant that juniors would “kick the office cat” – the children – since it was the only way to compensate for their frustration.

THE OTHER significant group of institutions where abuse took place was a series of homes run by mostly Labour councils in urban areas. These had different problems, equally of their time, but brought about by the imposition of new and insufficiently thought-out ideologies.

One of the most notorious of all modern children’s home scandals was that exposed from 1992 onwards (largely by the London Evening Standard) in the London Borough of Islington. The scale was relatively small, with about a dozen homes involved; but the range of the alleged abuse was staggering. Allegations concerning 22 named staff included: armed pimps bringing girls back to children’s homes with clients; sexually assaulting other staff; encouraging residents to be rent boys; sale of drugs; staff involvement in sex and paedophile rings; abduction of a child to France; introducing children to pornographic movies; and staff having sexual relationships with children. But perhaps the most shocking aspect of the scandal was the way that none of these allegations had been properly followed up. Junior staff who were worried about girls bringing back older men were told that young people, too, had a “right to sexual self-expression”.

The various subsequent inquiries – of which there were a dozen before a definitive report was produced by Ian White in 1995 – showed that there had been sufficient evidence for managers to intervene much earlier, and that the scandal had been allowed to carry on for many more years because of the failings of both management and councillors.

The events in Islington represented a systemic failure of the whole social services department, which had had a good reputation until around 1982, when the newly elected Labour council decided to set up a revolutionary new structure of devolved management, with 24 neighbourhood offices. This devolved structure led to a chaotic system in social services, with what were later called “confused lines of accountability”. Record-keeping was spread between the local offices, and this made it very difficult for social workers to keep up with “clients” who moved around the borough, or to follow up allegations of abuse.

There was also experimentation with equal opportunities policies on a grand scale. While the central management on many aspects of services may have been weak, the diktats of the personnel department on equal opportunities had to be obeyed. For example, if social services managers decided that a particular post required five years’ experience in a children’s home, this could be overruled by the equal opportunities policy, which could dictate that a far less qualified person should be taken on because otherwise the selection process was discriminatory. Moreover, managers making an appointment could not insist on a reference from a previous employer and could not challenge the references given on the basis of the status of the referee (in other words, an applicant could get away with references from two friends). Muddled management procedures also meant that it was not always clear who was the appointing officer, and appointments could, therefore, be made by a group of!
residential home managers, thereby increasing the likelihood of collusion over appointments.

With the normal checks no longer available to those making appointments, Islington became wide open for sexual predators to move in, and the lax procedures were systematically exploited by determined men seeking to use the children for their own ends.

The equal opportunities team could also intervene in disciplinary procedures. In the comprehensive report which was finally published three years after the first London Evening Standard story appeared, Ian White, who is now the social services director of Hertfordshire, wrote: “We were told that managers believed they would not be supported if they triggered disciplinary investigations involving staff who may be from ethnic minorities or members of the gay community.” Many of the 22 against whom allegations were made were from these groups, in particular gays. Much of the abuse resulted from the fact that there was an overemphasis on recruiting people who called themselves gay but were in fact paedophiles. White concludes that positive discrimination allowed staff to exploit the children in their care for their own purposes.

One former council worker suggested that there was a conscious element of anti-professionalism at the root of Islington’s aggressive equal opportunities policy, which made it very difficult for managers to exercise control. For example, already harassed social workers were expected to take their turns on reception duty despite their massive workloads. This was part of an anti-specialist egalitarianism that had grown up in the radical 1960s and 1970s and had become part of the prevailing ethos, as many of those radicals had obtained positions of power. Weak management was an inevitable consequence of this political philosophy.

Other councils were affected by the same influences. The Barratt report into abuse in neighbouring Hackney, for example, blamed a failure of management for the abuse carried out at Trowbridge House by Mark Trotter, a care- worker who died of Aids just as the police were closing in on him. Published in January 1998, the report was highly critical of the failure to suspend Trotter both in 1981 and 1984 following allegations about the sexual abuse of boys in his care.

Indeed, the whole social work profession was open to influences which changed the balance between management and workers in ways that were against the interests of children. Thus, in Sheffield, a worker who was under suspicion was promoted rather than being suspended or sacked. Like Trotter, the worker in question was a union activist who was able to claim victimisation as soon as allegations were made.

In Liverpool, meanwhile, and in several other authorities, there was a deliberate policy of expunging any mention of unsubstantiated allegations from an employee’s record. Given that paedophiles often have a standard modus operandi, the retention of such allegations is very important: evidence of similar types of allegation, at different times, by victims unknown to each other, would be a powerful pointer to something being amiss. The policy of expunging allegations was, therefore, just another example of how such ways of operating prioritised the rights of council employees above the needs of the children in their care. In the inquiry into the Trotter case, a union representative, recalling the early 1980s, said: “We tried to make it as difficult as possible for an employer to sack.”

THERE WAS ALSO a more insidious influence at work. The social work profession was forced to work out a way to respond to the new liberal mores of the 1960s and 1970s. The sexual revolution came in stages, each wave being initiated in the United States and quickly travelling over the Atlantic. These were heady and exciting times, and they undoubtedly changed society fundamentally for the better. But it was also a period of experimentation, and no one quite knew what the new boundaries were. Challenges were being made by a wide range of alternative groups to virtually every tenet of the post-war consensus: anti-war protesters, anti-apartheid campaigners, ban-the-bomb activists, gays, feminists and so on formed a huge rainbow coalition whose aims, beyond the negative of disliking the established capitalist order, were hazy and diffuse.

Encouraged by all these liberation movements, in October 1974 a group of paedophiles, who defined themselves as child lovers not necessarily interested in sex with children, formed the Paedophile Information Exchange to “provide the means for paedophiles to feel less isolated and gain a sense of community”. Their aim was also to “alleviate suffering of many adults and children” by campaigning against the laws on the age of consent, to allow adults to have sex with children. But knowing that this was an unpalatable message, they did not put it like that. Instead, they talked of the right of children to have sex at any age. If the Gay Liberation Front represented homosexuals and the feminist movement supported women, then paedophile activists were for children’s rights.

PIE suggested that, as homosexuals had become “gays”, paedophiles should be called “kind persons”. They realised that supporting the right of men to bugger children was unpalatable; but giving young people the right to express themselves sexually was a message that might have resonance in the newly liberated sexual climate.

Despite the preposterous nature of its ideas, PIE was for a while accepted among the rainbow coalition – the range of groups on the left which grew out of the 1960s liberation movements – as a perfectly reasonable cause representing just another oppressed group. As Andrew Lumsden, a former editor of Gay News, says, looking back on the attitudes of the time: “We were fighting against a lot of outmoded laws, and perhaps the ones against paedophilia were as outmoded as those against homosexuality or cannabis.” PIE deliberately set out to be brought into this fold.

The National Council for Civil Liberties was targeted, and a fierce debate within the organisation ensued after PIE applied to become a member. Eventually, it was rejected at the organisation’s annual general meeting. PIE also attempted, for a while, to use the same mailing address as Release, the drugs charity. (I know this because I worked at Release at the time.) And the National Association of Probation Officers was approached as well.

PIE also approached Gay News and tried – unsuccessfully – to get themselves included with other helplines in its listings; and a member of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, a relatively conservative reform group, recalls that, at the organisation’s 1982 conference, the Gay Youth Movement put up a motion which said that CHE should support the “liberation of paedophiles”. The campaigner was later asked along to a meeting of PIE in a pub in Soho, where what he called “a rather naive group that seemed very disorganised” attempted unsuccessfully to win him over.

A social worker who has worked for many years on cases involving paedophiles reckons that the attempt to merge gay and paedophile issues was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters: “They did it to prepare their defence, so that when they were arrested or there was a complaint, they could cry homophobia. It is a very useful charge for them. It can delay, subvert, divert investigations. This is a deliberate defence, particularly from the men who came up in the 1970s, many of whom knew each other.”

PIE was backed by the nebulous Campaign Against Public Morals, which used the language of the left in an attempt to bring PIE into the fold of the rainbow coalition, attempting to portray them – at a time when Mary Whitehouse was at her peak – as an oppressed group. In 1981 it produced a pamphlet, Paedophilia and Public Morals, couched in Socialist Worker- speak with graphics to match; it was published just before the Old Bailey appearance of Tom O’Carroll, PIE’s chairman, and four others on charges of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. (The trial had resulted from a News of the World expose and subsequent police investigations, but the police had been unable to find any hard evidence and had therefore gone for the rather dubious common law offence of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals”.)

The pamphlet characterised the prosecution as a “show trial” which the Thatcher government was going to exploit to its advantage: “The government and all other levels of state apparatus are likely to adapt to the press- created climate by launching an offensive against the gay community, against women and, most important, against children.” But it was all couched in “kids’ lib” terms: “We can be certain of a clamp-down on the autonomous activities of children inside the family in all spheres of life, and specifically of an attempt to smash any gay youth groups. And we can be certain of a concentrated effort to split the women’s movement on the question on which they have been historically the weakest: paedophilia and child sexuality.”

PIE’s defence was always that it wanted recognition for the feelings of paedophiles, not that it was sanctioning sex with minors. But since its supporters and many of its publications then went on to argue that sex was a healthy activity for even the youngest children, it was a difficult line to maintain. Tom O’Carroll, for example, was put on the defensive during his trial when he was asked why he sanctioned a small ad in Magpie, the organisation’s newsletter, from a man seeking to meet a mother with young children. He explained, rather unconvincingly, “Members of our organisation get a lot of rejection in their lives. The last thing I wanted was to be rejecting, to turn people down.”

PIE maintained that it was an organisation that supported paedophiles and campaigned for them but did not advocate breaking the law through sex with minors. Indeed, the prosecution did not attempt to prove that it did – instead they relied on statements and publications from PIE to demonstrate the attempt to “corrupt public morals”. The first trial resulted in one man being acquitted and the jury being unable to agree on the others, but at the second trial Tom O’Carroll was convicted and received a two- year gaol sentence. Combined with earlier setbacks, this spelt the end of PIE, which ceased functioning – whereupon its members (around 450 people had joined at one time or other) went back into the closet.

The importance of the PIE story is not that its members went out deliberately infiltrating children’s homes but that its lobbying, both overt and covert, helped to create a climate in which sex between adults and children became more acceptable. Social workers were clearly confused. Gay sex had suddenly become acceptable: why not sex between adults and young people?

Community Care, the social workers’ trade paper, took PIE’s case seriously enough to print a four-page article under the heading “Should we pity the paedophiles?” in the autumn of 1977, when the paedophilia “debate” reached its zenith. The article was non-judgemental and neutral in tone, and was illustrated by stills from the recently released film Death in Venice, about a man falling in love with a beautiful boy. The author, Mary Manning, found Tom O’Carroll to be “a likeable and gentle young man who has an ongoing interest in social history” but who, at that moment, was concentrating on the promotion of aims such as “the acceptance of paedophilia as a sexual orientation as natural as any other; the liberation of children to enjoy their natural sexuality; and general recognition of the value of paedophilic relationships”.

Manning argued that paedophilic activity was not as frightening as some of its more vociferous advocates implied. She cited a survey of 96 PIE members of whom 54 were homosexual paedophiles: “Only three homosexual paedophiles and one male heterosexual paedophile were attracted by children aged 3-5; 14 homosexual, 14 heterosexual and 10 bisexual being attracted by children in the 6-8 age range.” Most of the rest preferred 10-16 year olds. Therefore, Manning argued, “the realities in terms of the aspirations and practices of most paedophiles is somewhat less frightening than their campaign implies.”

A couple of weeks later, the New Statesman ran a sober article on PIE by Maurice Yaffe, a clinical psychologist who had studied paedophiles. He also argued that the realities of paedophilic behaviour were less threatening than PIE’s hardline campaign might suggest. Such non-judgemental coverage in such respectable publications would be impossible today; and, even bearing in mind the historical context, it is remarkable to look back on.

The overwhelming evidence, of course, points to the fact that child sexual abuse is deeply damaging. This has been proved beyond doubt by many researchers. Studies on the impact of child abuse demonstrate a wide range of associations with various disorders and psychiatric conditions. The campaigning group, Accuracy About Abuse, has uncovered studies demonstrating correlations between child sexual abuse and depression, suicidal tendencies, asthma, ulcers, drink and drug addiction, admission to hospital for psychiatric treatment, sexual dysfunctions and many other disorders.

The issue of whether there are milder and more serious types of abuse is a real one. It seems obvious that a distinction has to be made between the repeated rape of a five-year-old and a consensual relationship between, say, a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old.

But ultimately, as far as abuse in children’s homes is concerned, there is no room for moral relativism. Children in residential care should be safe. They should not be involved in sexual relationships with care workers whatever the circumstances, and that should be axiomatic in the rules of all homes.

The coverage in Community Care and elsewhere in the 1970s does not seem to have addressed the debate in this way. This lack of clear thinking cannot have helped social workers trying to differentiate between acceptable and abusive relationships. As one youth worker from the time put it, “If we opened a door and saw a worker having sex with a resident, we would probably have just shut the door again.”

To confuse the issue further, PIE had a fifth column. Right at the core of social work education, there was an influential apologist for paedophilia.

PETER RIGHTON WORKED variously as a probation officer and as a teacher before becoming a lecturer in social work. In the mid-1970s, he became director of education at the National Institute of Social Work, and a consultant for the National Children’s Bureau. He also taught social services managers at the Open University, and he was widely regarded as an expert on residential care. In the late 1980s, he became a consultant for the New Barns school in Gloucestershire for emotionally disturbed children sent by local authorities. His lover, Richard Alston, ran the school. Righton was openly gay when being “out” was considered brave and “right-on” in liberal circles.

After he had been building this successful career in social work for 30 years, the police intercepted some child pornography that had been sent to him from Amsterdam. Righton claimed it was for research purposes, as had been his one-time membership of PIE, but he was prosecuted for possession of the material and fined. The police launched a major investigation to find evidence of paedophile offences committed by Righton. But they were unable to bring any further charges.

None the less, several staff from New Barns were arrested, and the home was quickly closed. An ultra-authoritarian regime was uncovered, with cases being reported of children being locked in cupboards for hours. It also emerged that the home had been difficult for social workers and parents to get into – because they were not allowed past the front hall under the rules set by the headmaster. These were suspected of being a cover for allowing abuse to take place. But allegations of sexual abuse, in addition to general ill-treatment of the children, were never proved, and the subsequent trial of the teachers collapsed.

Righton was well-connected in child care circles, and several people he knew who worked in the field were later convicted of abuse. For example, there was Rod Ryall, with whom Righton had sat on various committees. Ryall was director of social services at Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire and was sentenced to six years for indecent assault on two boys. But the police failed to find evidence of a paedophile ring.

As with PIE, it is not Righton’s direct role that is important to this story but the influence he was able to wield over the social work profession and society at large. Righton was quite open about his views. In 1977, for example, in an article in Social Work Today, he was quoted as saying that sex between workers and residents in homes was OK. “Provided there is no question of exploitation, sexual relationships freely entered into by residents – including adolescents – should not be a matter for automatic enquiry. Nor should a sexual relationship between a resident and a worker be grounds for automatic dismissal.” The story was picked up in the Daily Mirror but no action was taken against him by NISW.

Righton also wrote an endorsement on the cover of Tom O’Carroll’s book on paedophilia. He recommended it as “written from the heart… [It] offers rational debate about paedophilia in place of… fear-ridden and hostile diatribe.” But it was in a book published in 1981, Perspectives on Paedophilia, that Righton’s views come out most clearly. A collection of essays by different contributors, it is an amazing book given that it was aimed at social work training courses. Its objective is made clear in the introduction: “The common intention of the chapters is to assist in mitigating ignorance about one aspect of human sexuality and hence, possibly, to inhibit, or at least inform, antipathy towards its discussion, its indulgence, or even its existence.”

In Righton’s chapter, there are a number of passages which clearly reveal his views. Attempting to distinguish between what he called “child molesters” and paedophiles, he writes: “Most child molesters, if paedophile at all, are so only incidentally. Most of those I have called ‘dispositional’ paedophiles, when they engage in sexual activity with children, do not molest them… On the contrary, the child’s consent is usually of cardinal importance to them.” Again, the argument that penetration is not the principal aim of paedophiles is stressed: “The preferred sexual activities of paedophiles are, in general, those chosen by, or acceptable to the child – most often cuddling, caressing and fondling of the child’s genitals. Full intercourse or buggery are extremely rare, as is violence in any form.”

One of Righton’s co-contributors, later convicted of sexual abuse, writes: “When an instance of sexual abuse comes to light, we must find ways of dealing with it in ways that do not make matters far worse [original italics]… The opinion of most experienced professionals in that area is that children are usually much more traumatised by the uproar and the questioning that follows discovery than by the sexual encounter itself.”

The fact that Righton could blatantly tout his opinions and retain his senior position demonstrates the confusion over matters sexual which existed in the world of social work. Concern over the rights of oppressed minorities unbalanced the whole profession. There is no other explanation for the failure to tackle Righton.

ULTIMATELY, PIE and the paedophiles were rejected and lost the debate. A review in Gay Times in August 1997 charted the history well: “Gay attitudes to paedophilia have undergone a transformation. In the early days of gay liberation, ‘intergenerational’ sex seemed to occupy a legitimate place on the homosexual continuum. Homosexuals were vilified and persecuted, and so were paedophiles. Denying child sexuality seemed part of the ideology of repression. But genuine anxiety about child sex abuse has hardened attitudes. Gay law reform is a serious business nowadays. We have spent decades trying to shrug off the charge that we just want to molest children. We can do without real perverts hitching a ride on the bandwagon, thank you.”

But the fact remains that the 1970s and early 1980s were confusing times for those who had been brought up in a world of certainties. One abuser, “Jim Clark”, describes with great feeling the way that these changes affected him: “Before the 1960s, life was easier to handle, everyone knew where they stood. You didn’t have to struggle with a conscience torn apart by free expression or grey areas; men and boys had short hair cuts, played men’s games, girls had dolls, sex was a taboo subject, at least in the circles I ever moved in. Then it seemed all of a sudden all the rules and guidelines were dismantled and lonely insecure people like me couldn’t handle this freedom. We may not have liked the austere 1940s and 1950s, but we knew where we stood. Decisions were made for us by unwritten cultures. In the 1960s, I didn’t know what to believe, even with religion, having been brought up as a strict Roman Catholic. Our elders were too shy to enlighten us or answer our questi!
ons. Temptations opened up to us with many people who surrounded us behaving as if this was acceptable. Behaviour previously considered unmanly was now OK. I remember listening to a discussion on masturbation – previously it was a great sin, you went blind. I believed this and then, all of a sudden, it was normal, natural, healthy even, as a doctor told me to do it when I had to see him over a painful groin. Hence my confusion and inability to cope mentally with changes.”

The role of the liberation movements of the 1960s is easy to misinterpret. It was not the climate which allowed freer discussion of sexual matters that was at fault. Indeed, it was that very new-found freedom that led to abusers in children’s homes being uncovered and convicted. As Peter Garsden, a Cheshire solicitor who is representing many abuse victims in claims for compensation, put it, “I’m glad we’re having these trials in the 1990s, rather than the 1960s, because we would never have got convictions then.” But the failure of supporters of greater sexual freedom to distinguish between openness and exploitation meant that, for a time, paedophilia almost became respectable. Some people realised immediately that PIE was different from other liberation groups and not to be given any leeway. But all too many humble, demoralised care workers – in Islington, and in other places where the door was shut when sexual activity was discovered – were unable to make that disti!
nction in an institutional ethos that left them unsure about the boundaries they were supposed to patrol.

BY THE SUMMER of 2000, well over 100 care workers had been prosecuted. However, there may be up to 10 times that number of cases in the pipeline, depending on how some of the big cases pan out. According to evidence given at a trial in June, there have been allegations against 91 care workers at St George’s (in Formby, Cheshire), alone. And some investigations – such as those in Lancashire, Somerset and Avon – have barely got going.

One obvious and common response to such numbers is to wonder if an organised group of paedophiles was collectively responsible for much of the abuse. There have long been rumours among journalists of a conspiracy which goes to the very top of the Establishment. The same famous names – a lord, a couple of politicians, a well-known industrialist, a High Court judge – are often repeated; indeed, such rumours were so commonplace in North Wales (scene of John Allen’s notorious reign of terror) that they were investigated by the Waterhouse inquiry; but Waterhouse refused to release the names because there was no evidence to back up the allegations.

There is a similar paucity of evidence in most of the cases I have investigated. There were suggestions in Islington that an agency of care workers was, in fact, a front for a paedophile ring. These allegations were investigated, but, though there was strong evidence which the investigators took seriously, they remain unproven. In Leicestershire, too, there was quite strong evidence of a ring, but, after much effort, the police concluded that there was none. And the Waterhouse report did find evidence of a paedophile ring which operated in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the late 1970s and 1980s, partly centred on the local branch of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. However, Waterhouse managed to establish little connection between the ring and care homes, and he specifically rejected the idea that there was a conspiracy to recruit paedophiles in children’s homes or “to infiltrate them in some other way”.

The fact that so many like-minded abusers did manage to infiltrate so many homes in such a systemic, if not systematic, way must therefore remain, in part, a mystery. But in large part it can be explained by the reasons given above: by failures of management and ideology that prevented those whose responsibility it was to protect their charges from abusers from doing so effectively.

Paedophile rings do exist, but the abuse epidemic in Britain’s children’s homes in the 1970s and 1980s is not about rings. Rather it is about the pre-conditions of abuse letting in scores of men who were able to take advantage of them. Most of these crimes were carried out by lowly care- workers with little connection with the outside world. Indeed, it was precisely the lack of connection with the outside world which made it so easy for them to carry out the abuse. n

Adapted from “Forgotten Children: The Secret Abuse Scandal in Children’s Homes”, by Christian Wolmar

Demetrious Panton was just one of hundreds of vulnerable children who were systematically raped and sexually abused in care homes run by the London borough of Islington in the Seventies and Eighties.

He was targeted by a now notorious paedophile ring, whose members at some point ran every one of the council’s 12 care homes.

For more than a decade, the group was able to prey on children with virtual impunity, convincing Labour-run Islington’s political elite that anyone who attempted to blow the whistle on their crimes was motivated by homophobia.

Complaints were systematically brushed under the carpet by officials who appeared to give more weight to the so-called human rights of paedophiles than those of children.
Though many of Bain’s co-workers were aware of the abuse, they turned a blind eye, Mr Panton says today. It wasn’t until he confided in his health worker in 1979 that any steps were taken to investigate.
Even then, Bain was allowed to simply resign from the care home — without facing prosecution — and continue with his life.
He told Islington Social Services that his sexual activity with the child was ‘consensual’, and they chose to believe him. Panton was never interviewed and the police were not contacted.
Bain later moved to Morocco, where he was subsequently jailed for child pornography offences in the Nineties. He killed himself in Thailand in 2000.

Demetrious Panton, pictured as a child, endured a year of horrific abuse at the hands of Bernie Bain, who ran the home

Appallingly, Bain’s departure from the home was not the end of Demetrious Panton’s ordeal. Not long afterwards, Islington appointed another predatory paedophile to run the care home at 1 Elwood Street.
His name was Martin Ashley Saville. And for six months from January 1981, he conducted a series of sexual assaults against Panton.
This time police were called and Saville confessed to the abuse. But, he argued that the then 13-year-old Panton had led him on — and escaped with a three-month suspended prison sentence.
Even after that second crime, Islington Council appears to have taken a disturbingly relaxed view of Panton’s ordeal.

‘In a letter to my dad, on my file, they wrote that I’d had a relationship with a man,’ Panton has recalled. ‘How can a 13-year-old have a “relationship” with a grown-up? Why didn’t they do anything?’
It would take more than 20 years for the scandal to be properly recognised and apologised for.


..…and this sort of shit is still endemic…

Rochdale child grooming ring: Council and police had 127 warnings to stop the abuse

Sep 27, 2012 17:57


An independent probe found:

•Missed opportunities to help the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice
•People believed the girls were having consensual sex – and may even have been working as ­prostitutes
•And refused to believe one of the victim’s stories, instead urging her parents to ‘set boundaries’.

The 29-page report was drawn up by the Rochdale Borough Safeguarding Board.

A picture emerges from the report is one of vulnerable young girls, some as young as 10, who were being targeted for sexual abuse, being written off by those in authority who believed the girls were “making their own choices”.
Last edited by semper occultus on Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
semper occultus
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby semper occultus » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:29 pm

coffin_dodger » 19 Feb 2014 12:30 wrote:I don't doubt that the above article has a great deal of merit, but I'm as ever uncomfortable with the 'LABOUR!' aspect - the Mail continues it's political games - by highlighting and scapegoating a part of a much greater whole.
If ever, the first msm rag to treat the political class as single unit will get my attention, quickly.

.....god forbid this issue becomes a party political football but they do have the clout to "make" a story a story even when the facts have been out there for years....& they did previosly publish this :

Former Minister says Thatcher aide was paedophile who preyed on boys' home - and Hague should have known

interesting "cluster" of Bedford weirdness.....there's also some weird stuff in Sussex I need to organise....
User avatar
semper occultus
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby streeb » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:01 pm

Earlier this week, amid increasing media pressure, the U.K. prime minister’s office confirmed that authorities arrested top David Cameron aide Patrick Rock on Feb. 13 on suspicions related to child pornography. Authorities have not yet formally charged Rock, citing the ongoing investigation as the reason behind the prolonged silence at 10 Downing St. Details surrounding the arrest timeline have fueled speculation that Rock, who resigned from his position on Feb. 12, may have been tipped off by colleagues before his arrest. But that isn’t the only troubling circumstance surrounding the already disturbing scandal. For those in the tech community, Rock is well-known as one of the main proponents of the U.K.’s controversial “war on porn.” More specifically, Rock served as Cameron’s adviser for combating child pornography, helping to implement new requirements that British Internet service providers filter search results to sites that the government deemed explicit....

Rock’s arrest is the latest in a string of child sexual abuse allegations to hit the U.K. in recent years. In 2012, the British public reacted with outrage after hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of beloved TV host Jimmy Savile came to light. In 2003, hundreds of British citizens were arrested on suspicion of possessing and distributing child pornography as part of “Operation Ore,” though a decade later its impact has been met with mixed reaction. Suspects in the massive sting operation included teachers, members of Parliament, and ministers.

User avatar
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Zona, BC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:11 pm

Thanks for adding that here (it was also posted on the "Pedophile File" thread) as it's obviously relevant.

Remember also that Cameron and PIE advocate Harriet Harman are cousins. And that Harman is the niece of Lord Longford (Frank Pakenham)

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.c ... e-scandal/

Harriet Harman is herself the niece of controversial peer, Lord Longford.

Longford notoriously befriended Moors Murderer Myra Hindley and was one of her strongest advocates.

Hindley had links to ked to Jimmy Savile who in turn had links to Longford and Cliff Richard:

” We were very interested to read this report about an enquiry , set-up by Lord Longford, to investigate pornography.

Lord Longford was a long-time supporter of child killer, Myra Hindley.

Myra Hindley apparently had links to Jimmy Savile.

Some people claim Myra Hindley is not really dead but is living under an assumed identity.

Lord Longford invited some special chums to help him find out about obscene publications.

Amongst the gang were none other than Jimmy Savile and the very Reverend Cliff Richard :

” Lord Longford has decided to produce a report on pornography…

The committee of inquiry was, predictably, a farce from beginning to end. Its remit was to discover the ‘means of tackling the problem of pornography’, so no one was much surprised when the membership was packed with Christian cronies of the chairman, and excluded those who didn’t see pornography as a problem in the first instance.

And, since a survey in the ’70s revealed that one in five men regularly bought pornographic magazines, it has to be assumed that there were many who didn’t view it in the same negative light.

Amongst those who were included, and who stayed the course, were singer Cliff Richard and Radio One DJ Jimmy Savile, alongside more obvious suspects like Malcolm Muggeridge and the Rt. Revd Ronald Ralph Williams, the Bishop of Leicester.”

Quite what Harriet Harman’s uncle had in common with Jimmy Savile and Cliff Richard is an absolute mystery, but the Tories had better not be too critical of her seedy links.

You see, the Tories beloved Margaret Thatcher was extremely close to Savile and surrounded herself with paedophiles.

One of Maggie’s biggest fans was none other than David Cameron.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/a ... amily.html

Harriet and Dave keep it in the family

Last updated at 22:04 02 July 2007

Around the Palace of Westminster, they are viewed as natural enemies.

So my revelation today that Tory leader David Cameron and Labour's new deputy leader Harriet Harman are cousins will come as something of a shock to them both.

For the ambitious Ms Harman ? a niece of the late Countess of Longford ? who likes to play down her posh background, the news, I suspect, will be somewhat worse.

It's embarrassing enough that the person replacing former merchant seaman John Prescott was educated at St Paul's, one of the finest fee-paying girls schools in the country.

To discover that the woman, who is also Leader of the Commons, is related to Old Etonian Mr Cameron, might bring on a touch of the vapours.

She does, after all, like to mock Cameron for being out of touch with working people.

Their connection, I learn, is through marriage. According to genealogist Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, who has written and edited 50 books on the aristocracy: "There is a clear link between her and Cameron through her late aunt Elizabeth Harman.

"Elizabeth married the prison reformer Frank (the Earl of) Longford and the Earl's sister, Lady Julia Pakenham, married Robin Mount, who was the brother of Cameron's grandfather, Sir William Mount."

While not a blood connection, it should certainly enliven Commons encounters between the right-on Ms Harman and her well-born Tory cousin.
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:25 pm

Exaro News has a new piece of information up as of a few days ago, but their website just disappeared!

Here's a Google cached version, in case they're down for the count:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Revealed: Whitehall official who blocked objections to fund PIE
Assistant secretary at Home Office ‘dismissed concerns about funding paedophile group’

By David Hencke and Alex Varley-Winter | 1 March 2014

Claims that the Home Office once provided funding to the Paedophile Information Exchange centre on decisions by a senior civil servant, Exaro can reveal.

A whistleblower from the department has identified Clifford Hindley as the senior official in Whitehall who, as head of the Home Office’s voluntary services unit (VSU), brushed aside concerns about government funding for PIE, the paedophile group that promoted sex with children.

Hindley, who died some years ago, was an assistant secretary at the Home Office, where he oversaw “co-ordination of government action in relation to voluntary services and funding of certain voluntary organisations”. The VSU was in the section that was responsible for “community programmes”.

Exaro has also established that Hindley was obsessed by an academic interest in gay relationships between men and boys.

A colleague at the VSU, based at the Home Office’s then headquarters at Queen Anne’s Gate, says that he was shocked to discover that PIE made a re-application to the department for funds in around 1979 or 1980. PIE was in a long list of applications to the VSU for taxpayers’ cash, he says.

He raised concerns with Hindley about why the Home Office should be funding an organisation that campaigned to legalise sexual relations with children.

But, he alleges, Hindley took the paperwork from him, and told him to drop the matter.

The more junior, retired official approached Tom Watson, Labour MP, last year and made the allegations about government funding for PIE.

Watson raised the claims with Theresa May, home secretary, who ordered the department’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to investigate.

The whistleblower suspects that Jim Callaghan’s Labour government, and Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative administration, which took over in 1979, may have provided funding for PIE.

PIE’s re-application for funding was during the period when it was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL). Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour party, was then the NCCL’s legal officer. She is embroiled in a row with the Daily Mail over her refusal to apologise for the NCCL’s links to PIE.

The whistleblower is co-operating with Sedwill’s investigation, but it is understood to have been hampered by the destruction of documents, especially for the period of the Conservative government from 1979.

Hindley, who is at the centre of the investigation, studied classics and philosophy at Oxford university, and theology at Cambridge.

He started as a scholar on the New Testament, publishing several academic articles. Then, mid-career, he moved to the civil service.

He continued a strong interest in music as an amateur pianist and choral singer.

He left the Home Office by 1983. In his retirement, he wrote erudite articles for academic magazines on same-sex relationships in operas by Benjamin Britten, the great English composer of the 20th century. One source familiar with his work told Exaro that Hindley was a personal friend of Britten’s.

Hindley wrote, for example, an article, ‘Homosexual Self-Affirmation and Self-Oppression in Two Britten Operas’, for Musical Quarterly in 1992.

For ‘The Cambridge Companion to Benjamin Britten’, he wrote a chapter on same-sex relationships between men and youths in two of the composer’s operas, ‘Billy Budd’, which centres on a young apprentice, and ‘Death in Venice’, a piece about an old man’s obsession with a 15-year-old boy. The book was published in 1999.

Ian Pace, a lecturer in music at City university, where he is head of performance, said: “It is very hard to deny that there are pederastic themes in some of Britten’s operas.”

“Some of Hindley’s writings on Britten certainly show a strong interest in such pederastic elements.”

In addition, the former mandarin wrote an essay for the Cambridge University Press’s The Classical Quarterly on sexual activity between men and boys in ancient Greece as expressed in the writings of Xenophon, the historian and philosopher. The essay, ‘Xenophon on Male Love’, was also published in 1999.

He also wrote an academic treatise on whether relationships between men and youths posed a problem for the military in ancient Greece.

The latest disclosures on PIE and its relationship with the Home Office come as detectives prepare to press charges in an investigation that was sparked by a question in Parliament about a paedophile ring linked to politicians.

Update 1 March 2014 9.14pm: The Sunday People tonight reports that the Home Office provided £70,000 in grants to PIE between 1977 and 1980 – worth more than £400,000 today.

The money was given to the paedophile group under the Callaghan and Thatcher governments, and the Metropolitan Police Service’s ‘Operation Fernbridge’ is investigating, according to the report.

Watson told Exaro and the Sunday People tonight: “It is a remarkable state of affairs, and the home secretary must make sure that a report is presented as soon as possible.

“If the allegations are true, it shows how insidious an organisation PIE was that it could even convince the Home Office to give it taxpayers’ money.”

If you have information that might help our investigation, please contact us. Keep re-visiting Exaro for more on this investigation.

I wonder if he was related to Myra Hindley...
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:28 pm

Semper, Cpt. Marginal, cannot thank you enough for your continued explorations & findings.

This thread has filled up half a Mead notebook since I started trawling through it last week.

I look forward to being able to reciprocate in the near future; PIE is of particular interest to me.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
Posts: 10484
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:38 pm

On the topic of Lord Longford and Myra Hindley, allow me to draw renewed attention to this brilliant thread created by semper occultus: “Loch Ness Monster” – the Scottish paedophile nexus

I'll just quote some things from Wikipedia:

He gained a reputation for eccentricity, becoming known for his efforts to rehabilitate offenders and in particular campaigning for the parole and release from prison of the Moors murderer Myra Hindley. This led to the soubriquet Lord Wrongford from the tabloid press. It also coincided with Longford's contact with Hindley becoming public knowledge in 1972, and allegations of hypocrisy were frequently made against him. In 1977, 11 years after Hindley was convicted of two murders and being an accessory in a third murder, Longford appeared on television and spoke openly of his belief that Hindley should now be released from prison as she had repented for her sins and was no longer a danger to the public.

In 1985, he condemned the Parole Board's decision not to consider Hindley's release for another five years as "barbaric", and his campaign for Hindley continued even after she admitted to two more murders in 1986. This development led to widespread subsequent public and media allegations that Hindley's remorse was nothing more than a ploy to try to bring herself closer to release.

In 1990, Home Secretary David Waddington ruled that "life should mean life" for Hindley (who had been told by earlier Home Secretaries and High Court judges that she would have to serve a minimum of 25 and then 30 years before being considered for parole), as did the next three home secretaries. Hindley made three appeals against her tariff between 1997 and 2000, all rejected by the High Court. Longford spoke of his disgust that she was being kept in prison, saying that she was a changed woman who was no longer a threat. He regularly commented, along with several other Hindley supporters, that she was a "political prisoner" who was being kept in prison for votes, claiming that successive Conservative and Labour home secretaries feared that their party would fall out of favour with the voters if they sanctioned her release. In March 1996, he backed up Hindley's claim in an Oxford University magazine that she was still in prison so that the Conservative government would gain votes: this claim was met with anger by the mothers of two of the Moors Murders victims.[8]

Hindley died in November 2002, never having been paroled.

Longford met several of the relatives of the Moors victims, most notably Ann West, the mother of Lesley Ann Downey. He regularly condemned the media for manipulating West and feeding her desire for revenge, being particularly critical of The Sun newspaper for its "exploitation" of West—she gave numerous television and newspaper interviews calling for Hindley to remain imprisoned for life, and vowed to kill Hindley if she was ever set free.[9] In 1986, he reportedly told West that unless she forgave Hindley and fellow Moors murderer Ian Brady, she would not go to Heaven when she died. He also commented that he was "tremendously sorry for her, but letting her decide Myra's fate would be ludicrous".[10]

The story of Longford's campaign to free Hindley was told in the Channel 4 film Longford in 2006. Longford was played by Jim Broadbent (who won a BAFTA for his role) and Hindley was played by Samantha Morton.

Following his conviction Brady was moved to Durham prison, where he asked to live in solitary confinement.[146] He spent 19 years in mainstream prisons before being diagnosed as a psychopath in November 1985 and sent to the high-security Park Lane Hospital, now Ashworth Psychiatric Hospital, in Sefton;[147] he has since made it clear that he never wants to be released from custody.[148]

The trial judge recommended that his life sentence should mean life, and successive Home Secretaries have agreed with that decision. In 1982 the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane said of Brady: "this is the case if ever there is to be one when a man should stay in prison till he dies".[149] The death, in November 2007, of John Straffen, who had spent 55 years in prison for murdering three children meant that Brady became the longest serving prisoner in England and Wales.[150]

Although he refuses to work with Ashworth's psychiatrists, Brady has occasionally corresponded with people outside the hospital, including the late Lord Longford, criminologist Colin Wilson and various journalists.[152] In one letter, written in 2005, he claimed that the murders were "merely an existential exercise of just over a year, which was concluded in December 1964". By then, he went on to claim, he and Hindley had turned their attention to armed robbery, for which they had begun to prepare by acquiring guns and vehicles.[c][154] During several years of interactions with forensic psychologist Chris Cowley, including face-to-face meetings,[155] Brady told him of an "aesthetic fascination [he had] with guns",[156] despite his never having used one to kill. He complained bitterly about conditions at Ashworth, which he hates.[157] In 1999 his right wrist was broken in what he claimed was an "hour-long, unprovoked attack" by staff.[158] Brady subsequently went on hunger strike, but while English law allows patients to refuse treatment, those being treated for mental disorders under the Mental Health Act 1983 have no such right.[159][160] He was therefore force-fed and transferred to another hospital for tests, after he fell ill.[161] He recovered and in March 2000 asked for a judicial review of the legality of the decision to force-feed him, but was refused permission.[159][162]


Ashworth Hospital, where Ian Brady remains incarcerated as of 2014

Well, it's got to be a good place to keep a lid on any inconvenient information he may know.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 79#p526279

Ashworth Hospital Inquiry (1992) investigated the circumstances surrounding four specimen untoward incidents: a patient's sudden death, an alleged sexual assault by staff on a patient, and serious physical assaults. The events spanned several years. The Panel found:

• a culture of denigration of patients
• frequent physical and mental bullying of patients by
overt racist attitudes and staff membership of right
wing, racist political groups

• victimisation and bullying of RCN members
• poor quality nursing care
• frequent use of seclusion as a punishment
• a rigid, over restrictive regime
• circulation of hate mail and offensive literature to
patients and victimised staff
• lack of therapeutic optimism, poor clinical team work
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:03 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:28 pm wrote:Semper, Cpt. Marginal, cannot thank you enough for your continued explorations & findings.

This thread has filled up half a Mead notebook since I started trawling through it last week.

I look forward to being able to reciprocate in the near future; PIE is of particular interest to me.

I appreciate everyone's contributions to this as well, including your "libel decoder ring" comment which was pretty funny and stuck with me.

My current line of inquiry is into Tony Blair's purported D-notice of a pedophile scandal involving members of the government. Specifically, I'd like to find some more sources on this that don't link back to Wayne Madsen. This list (found on a site using Madsen as a source) is pretty crazy though:

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-p ... e-scandal/

‘Assorted Party Political Perverts for your attention’

. Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell – Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

. Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys – Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on children

. Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor – Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and was forced to resign.

. Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington – Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

. Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy – Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

. Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan – Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

. Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website – Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

. Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”.

. Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe) Martin Locklyn – Convicted and jailed for 15 years for sexually abusing 3 14-year-old boys.

. Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire) David Spooner – Convicted and jailed for 1 year for masturbating in front of 2 young boys.

. Labour Mayor (Westhoughton/Lancashire) Nicholas Green – Convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault against little girls between the age of 6 and 10. He raped one woman on her wedding day.

. Prominent Labour Party activist Mark Tann (who has met Tony & Cherie at Party functions) recently got a 15-year sentence for raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.

. Entire Labour Party conspired to conceal the activities of Labour Party activist and serial child-molester Mark Trotter, who died from AIDS before he could be convicted.

. Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding – Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

. According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Blair?

. William Straw – Son of Labour Foreign Secretary, and former Home Secretary – Jack Straw, was cautioned by Police for drug dealing, amid a frantic Government attempt to cover up the matter and gag the media as to his identity. Jack Straw also has a brother who was convicted of a sex attack on a schoolgirl. Lovely family!

. Homosexual mass murderer; Dennis Nielsen, who strangled and dismembered 16 young men in the 1980`s, was also a highly active member of Labour fringe groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, and the SWP. That’s when he wasn’t busy boiling peoples heads in a pot, or masturbating over the corpses of his victims.

. Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman – Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

. Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

. Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire – Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

. Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

This we are afraid is only the tip of the iceberg. this will be continued…
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby cptmarginal » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:07 pm

Exaro News has a new piece of information up as of a few days ago, but their website just disappeared!

Here's a Google cached version, in case they're down for the count:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us


@ExaroNews - Our site is down again. We seem to be having problems with our hosting service. We expect that it will be back soon.
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby Plutonia » Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Just stashing some pointers to Savile's involvement with organized crime here - a lot of copy pasta and links, and excuse any re-posts.

Also, for anyone not familiar with the Yorkshire Ripper case, what stood out for me was how improbably incompetent was the police investigation - so much like the Picton case. So here's this too:
Jimmy Savile's amazing plan to capture the Yorkshire Ripper
By Jonathan Corke/Published 9th March 2014

A document unearthed by the Daily Star Sunday which was written by police during the five-year manhunt records how Savile “will gladly give his phone number for the Ripper to give himself up to”.

The card, one of at least four from the Ripper inquiry relating to Savile – was found last year in West Yorkshire Police (WYP) files.

Two other cards appear to suggest the Top Of The Pops presenter was himself a suspect for the Ripper murders.

After details of Savile’s abuse became public in 2012, retired Ripper detective John Stainthorpe said Savile’s name had been put forward by members of the public.

Mr Stainthorpe said Savile was quizzed and it emerged a dentist made a cast of his teeth to check against bite marks on some of the Ripper’s victims.

But last year a WYP Savile review, Operation Newgreen, said the Ripper cards did not indicate he was a suspect.

The force said: “Over the five year period thousands of men were spoken to and their details recorded on cards.

“Searches of the paperwork relating to the investigation have identified four index cards relating to Savile.”

It said one made “reference to Savile offering his services as an intermediary for the police, should the ‘Ripper’ wish to make contact”.

But it said the cards “contain scant information and do not indicate whether Savile was a ‘person of interest’ to the inquiry team”.

It added: “The information held was his name, date of birth, home address and various reference numbers.”

The cards, released under the Freedom of Information Act, also record other intriguing details.

One had his address in Roundhay, Leeds, along with his height, 5ft 9in, his “slim” build and hair colour.

The documents also refer to a “white Cortina”, a vehicle linked to one of the Ripper’s attempted murders.

The details will spark more questions over WYP’s Savile review, which Avon and Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan said last year did “not have the look and feel of an independent report”.

The documents are also likely to pose more questions over Savile’s friendship with Ripper Peter Sutcliffe.

The lorry driver was caught in January 1981 after murdering at least 13 women in Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and Manchester between 1975 and 1980.

Three years later he was transferred from prison to Broadmoor where Savile was a regular visitor.

Some now wonder whether the pair were pals before Sutcliffe was caught and whether Savile could have been an accomplice.

We can also reveal Savile snubbed a detective’s bid to help him solve another 47 crimes he linked to Sutcliffe.

Last year former WYP officer Alan Foster said he approached Savile to ask if he could get Sutcliffe to speak to him but Mr Foster said Savile “didn’t really answer me properly”.

Meanwhile, in a separate twist, it emerged last month that Savile told Surrey police in 2009 he had pals in forensics in Wetherby, West Yorkshire.

Until 2012 there was a forensic lab there which dealt with Ripper murder evidence.

A series of reviews into Savile’s offending are under way and one is looking at his involvement at Broadmoor.

Quizzed over Savile and the Ripper, WYP told us: “As with thousands of other men in Leeds at the time he may at some point have been approached by detectives on the investigation.

“What is without doubt is that Savile clearly was not the Yorkshire Ripper."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... ire-Ripper

He was speaking in 2002 after the infamous Louis Theroux documentary, in which the shamed pervert was secretly filmed boasting about his brutal criminal past as a nightclub proprieter in Leeds.

Brandishing one of his trademark cigars, he hisses: "I mean, he was having a go to try and get a bit of salacious TV so of course I suddenly drop into Godfather mode.

"If he wants to die, he can die. He won't be the first that I've put away."

At the time, Theroux laughed off the apparent threat and said he took Savile's menacing words "with a grain of salt".

However, detectives were yesterday urged to "keep an open mind" about whether the now-notorious presenter may have been telling the truth.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/354874 ... mit-murder

Jackson said he believed the reason for the BBC's initial reluctance to use Savile on Top of the Pops was because of his background in the club scene. As well as DJing he was a club manager in the 1950s.

"Savile was thought to be dodgy, there was a feeling he was heavy, you didn't cross him, he was a heavy dude," Jackson said.

He added that those who came through the clubbing circuit, flooded with cash and drugs, were tough: "They had bodyguards, they had sharp elbows, you had to protect yourself."

John Oldfield, who was on the Yorkshire committee of the Royal Variety Club of Great Britain from 1981 to 1996, and its chairman in 1989, also had concerns about Savile's background in clubs.

"We didn't let him near the charity. Everyone knew, everybody I spoke to knew he was dodgy. It was widespread, it went back to when he was working at the Meccas, all over the UK, but also in Leeds," said Oldfield, who owned an ad agency based in Leeds until he sold out in 1999 and is now membership director of industry trade body the IPA.

"He had a reputation for entertaining young girls. He was the top DJ in Leeds. He was always chasing around with young girls, it goes back 30 to 40 years, and it just wasn't right, even when you consider it was the days of flower power and free love. He looked dodgy, he sounded dodgy, he was dodgy. And why did he always turn up with that motorised van?" http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/n ... mmy-savile

In today’s Times story about the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile, David Sanderson highlighted some quotes from As It Happens, Savile’s 1974 autobiography, that nobody else seems to have picked up on. It’s strange that they haven’t, because they are startling:

[Savile] writes of an incident at the Mecca Locarno ballroom in Leeds, where he worked as a DJ during the 1950s, when a female police officer came in with a photograph of “an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home”.

Savile writes: “‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” He then writes that the girl did go into the club and “agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, [and] come home with me”. He wrote that he did then hand her over to the “lady of the law…[who] was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me”.

I repeat, this is Savile’s autobiography. It wasn’t winkled out of him by a cunning interviewer; he didn’t let it slip when he was pissed. It wasn’t a post-modern joke.

Rather, these are words he wrote in a book, which were read by a publisher, and presumably by lawyers, and by reviewers, and by readers. One of his alleged victims even claims he gave her a copy of it, after abusing her, with the inscription “No Escape!”.
What can these words possibly mean, except for what they seem to mean? How can nobody have noticed?

Right now, many are presumably wondering how his behaviour can have been concealed for so long. But it wasn’t concealed. It was right out there, in plain view, and nobody wanted to see. I’m not sure what the lesson of all this is, but if there is one, it’s horribly bleak.
http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/328 ... mmy-savile

In bed with Jimmy
Tuesday 11 April 2000
The Guardian
...The creepiest moment in the documentary occurs late at night when he thinks the camera is off, and he talks about the dancehall days. "I wouldn't stand for any nonsense whatsoever. Ever, ever. I never threw anybody out. Tied them up and put them down in the bloody boiler house until I was ready for them. Two o'clock in the fucking morning... We'd tie em up and then we'd come back and I was the judge, jury and executioner. If a copper came and said 'You were a bit heavy with those two guys', I'd say 'Your daughter comes in here, she's 16, she's not supposed to come into town. Presumably you'd like me to look after her. If you don't want me to look after her, tell me and I'll let them dirty slags do what they want to her.' "

When Theroux questioned him the next day, Savile said he was talking metaphorically. I ask him again what he meant. "With words. I tied them up with words. I would never tie anybody up," he says. I tell him I don't believe him. "Some of my people might have done." How long were they tied up for? "Noooooooah. I forget now. How long does it take to eat? We discussed things." Savile likes to refer to himself as the Godfather.

He says the dirty slags weren't the wide boys - lovely, harmless lads. They were the drug dealers who flogged purple hearts for sixpence each. He squeezes his eyes shut and whispers in a menacing staccato: "If those people wanted to sell drugs, so be it, but it must not happen in my place. All there is to it. No arguments. I invented zero tolerance."
http://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3 ... 81,00.html

Mick Starkey, described by the TV star as his “bodyguard”, is being ­investigated by the police watchdog over claims he contacted Surrey detectives as they looked into allegations against the pervert.

The 61-year-old former West Yorkshire officer was a regular at the Friday Morning Club, a men-only meeting with friends including police at Savile’s flat in Roundhay, Leeds.

Transcripts of the Jim’ll Fix It host’s interview, released this week, sparked anger as they appeared to show officers adopting a soft approach.

The 2009 interview – in which Savile boasted of his “collection” of police contacts in Leeds– took place months after Mr Starkey allegedly contacted Surrey Police over their plans to quiz Savile on claims he assaulted girls in a school near Staines in the 70s.
The ex-cop would often drive the paedophile in his Rolls-Royce...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ji ... ck-2464098

Police question officers in Jimmy Savile's 'breakfast club'
West Yorkshire police to quiz officers who attended Friday gatherings at disgraced BBC presenter's penthouse in Leeds
The Guardian, Thursday 28 February 2013
Serving police officers who took part in disgraced BBC presenter Jimmy Savile's "breakfast club" meetings at his home are to be quizzed by West Yorkshire police, the force has confirmed.

Police said on Thursday they had "identified some individuals who were in the so-called Friday Morning Breakfast Club", a weekly gathering of the late Top of the Pops host's friends at his Leeds penthouse.

In October, West Yorkshire police said they had no information about officers attending the gathering but that they were free to do what they wished when off duty.

However, a force spokesman said police did attend, and while there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by the officers – some of whom are still serving – they were being questioned to find out more about the meetings.

The spokesman added: "Local officers working in the community were invited by Savile to his home for a coffee. At that time the force was encouraging community officers to interact more with residents in their area. The officers usually visited on a Friday. It was usual for other friends of Savile to be present, drinking coffee and chatting.

"They have explained their attendance and we reiterate that there has been no evidence forthcoming of any wrongdoing by any West Yorkshire police employee, past or current.

"However we are now carrying out further inquiries to obtain a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the contact between West Yorkshire police officers and Savile at the so-called Friday Morning Breakfast Club."

The meetings are believed to have run for around 20 years at Savile's penthouse, which recently sold for £75,000 below the £325,000 asking price.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/f ... kfast-club

As the fallout from the Jimmy Savile abuse allegations continues, dance music historian Frank Broughton asks whether the next revelations may be his connections to organized crime

I always knew Jimmy Savile was a wrong'un; I was certain his cupboards were rattling with skeletons. But rather than a monumental kiddie-fiddler, I had him down as a reconstructed gangster atoning for sins of violence. The Savile stories that fascinated me most centred on his career in the dance halls in the Sixties and earlier, where he began his rise to fame. Doubtless you had to be a hard man to run dances in Leeds and Manchester back then, and Savile's chronology had him hustling his way up through the northern entertainment business as far back as the immediate post-war, inevitably amid a landscape of vice, violence and racketeering.

The decades-old rumours about paedophilia though eminently plausible, always seemed much less intriguing. I didn't doubt his sexuality was as dark as Satan's socks, but what really fascinated me was how Savile the fundraising compulsive could have evolved from Savile the dance hall gangster.

I'd seen him tell Louis Theroux how he ruled his clubs as "judge, jury and executioner" and tied up troublemakers in the boiler room. I'd heard a friend's mother who grew up in Leeds mention that he ran protection rackets. I'd read the allusive line in his autobiography As It Happens where he claims to have taken control of Manchester "below the legal line". In a fit of Savile research I'd even bought a copy of his weird take on Catholicism God'll Fix It (I kid you not) and realised he took religion very seriously. And the theory I constructed was this: all his fundraising, his marathons, his incessant charity work, was meant as atonement. He helped those kids and funded those hospitals as a desperate way of earning forgiveness for some terrible, murderous sin he'd committed back in Fifties Leeds.

Today, as his avalanche of abuse gathers pace, it's disheartening to realise his motivation was probably more banal - noncehood on an epic scale. Disheartening, not because I thought Savile was a loveable freak, but because I hoped the revelations that surfaced after his death would be a lot more colourful and a lot less depressing...
Regardless of what we know now, meeting Savile was an unsettling affair. I've never encountered anyone so charismatic yet so cold. He was completely detached, free of concern to the point of pathology. To save effort he never used names, just 'my friend', or 'our pal here'. And he was slickly double-tasking my interview. As I waited he received a poorly young boy benefiting from his foundation. I sat through a short speech, photos for the kid's local paper, and the family were ushered out. Savile was so non-stick he just glided through everything without a connection.

At 78, though still physically intimidating, he was in the first dip of old age, and the rest of the day had an air of desperation. As he led me round the hospital he announced himself with constant quips and hellos. The staff reacted with strained tolerance; when patients smiled he graciously received their affection like a budget Don Corleone.

The underage thing was on brazen display, too. Just one incident, but a perfect encapsulation. He was proudly letting me know he was a leering old lech, and daring me to do anything with the information, rejoicing in his freedom, impervious. Dropping me at the station, a gaggle of 14- and 15-year-old schoolgirls crossed the road in front of our cab. He ogled one clearly and deliberately and said with pride, "I think I just fell in love." Playing up to the myth, pushing the boundary, issuing a challenge.

The Savile story is an indictment not just of a particularly devious man but of a series of institutions that empowered and encouraged him. And as Andrew O'Hagan has forcefully pointed out, you can't stop there and not ask who supported those institutions. It's not just the hospitals, the schools, the BBC. What is on trial is the whole nation's acceptance of a resilient tradition: the entertainment industry's culture of oddness - and its dark flipside of unequal sex. Rockstars and groupies, Sixties pop managers, sodomised theatrical understudies... and a starstruck nation grateful for anything that colours their dull lives.

There's more to come, however. What protected Savile, beside a nation's complicity, was a network of famous and powerful friends. But what's not come out yet is that Savile's everyday drinking companions were known gangsters and high-ranking policemen. By his own account he was close to some of the north's most nefarious underworld faces, not least members of Manchester's infamous Quality Street Gang, a close parallel to London's Krays.

This is what I want to read about in the next chapter of Savile. Back in 2004 it was his passionless compulsion that left me confused. Why, when he so clearly didn't care about any of this humanitarianism, did he put so much energy into it? I wanted to find that landmark transgression in his past, that reckless piece of dance hall crime that changed him from gangster to fundraiser, the turning point that led a Catholic opportunist spiv to a life of repentant charity work. Maybe, as appears now, the work was its own reward, a ticket to the heart of the establishment and the perfect smokescreen to allow a man addicted to underage sex go unchallenged for a lifetime. But maybe, as more of the early life of this hypnotising self-created monster reveals itself, maybe there's a gangland murder or two as well.
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/ar ... -interview
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby semper occultus » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:42 pm

.….the appreciation of any followers of this thread for any “contributions” I have made is of course appreciated but I must say entirely unmerited & undeserved…

as Searcher has said before the real heavy-lifting on this & sensational digging & research has happened on the Savile thread on the Icke forum……..( & sod the Icke haters on here – that’s just fact – to really get across this you actually need to start reading that from page 1 on ! )…( in fact there were at least 2 Savile threads on there from before it even went “public”…)

..nearly 4k pages now…..at least half of that is total garbage & redundancy but….it would still take prob. 1,000 pages on here to fully boil down the carcass to the real juice….meanwhile I haven’t even kept up with basic copy-pasta duties from even one paper…..partly apathy & even more inexcusably because the MSM does seem to have crossed some sort of zero-point where – despite whatever the fuck the McAlpine fiasco was about - stuff previously confined to tiny one-man blogspots is now flying around our heads like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark in enormous volumes of scarcely credible crap – revelations about the Police have been utterly insane : Hillsborough, Steven Lawrence, Plebgate…..the Crystal Methodist at the Co-Operative Bank to…..Former Tory MP and Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans used his power and influence to rape and sexually abuse young men

…this was another instalment on Sunday…

High Court judge and the child sex ring: Adviser to Queen was founder of paedophile support group to keep offenders out of jail

Fulford was a founder member of an organisation called Conspiracy Against Public Morals set up to defend PIE leaders facing criminal charges.

It later published a sickening pamphlet claiming that children would be freed from the oppression of the state and their parents if they were allowed to have sex with adults.

The 60-page document, unearthed by The Mail on Sunday, is adorned with disturbing child-like pictures and sexual cartoons.

At the time the organisation went under a slightly different name but had the same postal address as Fulford’s group had.

When asked last night about his involvement in the group, Fulford said: ‘I have no memory of having been involved with its foundation or the detail of the work of this campaign.’


Heir to Topsy and Tim children's book fortune revealed to be a convicted paedophile who was on board of PIE when it campaigned for sex with four-year-olds to be made legal

….….is this the Establishment having a big-bath house-cleaning under the cover of Savile-fatigue……...is the Mail timing this as some sort of back-lash against gay marriage or something…….I can’t keep up & really don’t know what the fuck is going on…. I know fuck-all about fuck-all….please appreciate that…..

...hey Plutonia...Savile – like Fred West – was “in” with the local Police & bizarrely the Yorkshire Ripper case isn't even the only sex-killings he has been “linked” to….the Bible John Murders

Bible John is the nickname of a serial killer who is believed to have murdered three young women after meeting them at the Barrowland Ballroom in Glasgow, Scotland, between 1968 and 1969. As of 2014, the killer has never been identified although the known movements and modus operandi of convicted Glaswegian serial killer Peter Tobin suggests that he may have been behind the killings. However this has never been proven and the case remains unsolved.

…whilst it seems inconceivable he was the (sole) perp given his public profile but the photo-fit !



I'm reeling this afternoon.

I can place Savile in clubs and Dance halls in Glasgow in the 60's and 70's.

" What memories! I will never forget the days when I was asked to be the "lunchtime DJ" & was asked to play records on 2 turntables so that there would be no pauses between the songs played. I was "nicknamed" Little Jeff because I had to stand on crates to reach the "mike" !!! This was the start of my career in the Music Business. When Jimmy Saville became the manager he paid me a great compliment by telling me that he was "pinching my act" and transferred me to the Wakefield Mecca after using me in Glasgow & Bradford. What GREAT times we had in those days!!!

The quote comes from here. There is more to be found here.

Leeds Mecca memories.


Just like Sutcliffe in Leeds and Bradford, Peter Tobin frequented Saviles Nightclubs in Glasgow. Tobin met his wife in a Glasgow Nightclub in 1968.

Bible Johns first victim was murdered after attending an Over 25's night at the Majestic Ballroom in Glasgow, not Barrowlands Ballroom ( although it could be the same club with a new name ). There was a Majestic Ballroom in Leeds. Could both have been owned by Savile ?

Glasgow Herald Archive. There is more to be found here.



I've just been rewatching the Louis Theroux film for the umpteenth time and have realised that the link was staring us in the face.

At 34.42 mins Louis confronts Savile about the zero tolerance that had been mentioned when Savile didn't know that he was being filmed.

Louis actually says "There was that bit when you were talking about running the nightclub in Glasgow".

Not Leeds. Glasgow !!

Yeah I keep meaning to update that Scottish thing….Savile is part of it….
User avatar
semper occultus
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

Postby Plutonia » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:07 pm

...hey Plutonia...Savile – like Fred West – was “in” with the local Police & bizarrely the Yorkshire Ripper case isn't even the only sex-killings he has been “linked” to….the Bible John Murders

…whilst it seems inconceivable he was the (sole) perp given his public profile but the photo-fit !


Holy crap Semper!

Thanks for all the context too.

One more thing: Any chance you know of a link 'tween Jimmy Boyle and Savile? I mean something more concrete than Glasgow organized crime? I don't want to do the Icke thread no! No! No!

Not if I don't have to.

[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests