Savile is the tip of the iceberg. I bet a lot of people currently shitting themselves are hoping we all focus on lynching the BBC so they can carry on.
There's just so much stuff even apart from the wholly credible witnesses in that programme - including the eye witnesses let's not forget - Sue Thompson the BBC junior producer he saw him abusing a young girl and reported it - in no particular order:
- JS injunction agains The Sun in 2008 to prevent them publishing the photo of him with the kids at Haut de la Garenne - a children's care home in Jersey where Ted Heath's bodyguards reportedly saw JS deliver little boys from the care home to TH to abuse on his yacht Morning Glory - JS has been named by at least one Jersey victim although the investigation was actively run aground by those in power in Jersey - JS had denied ever visiting HdG presumably when he was interviewed over victim's allegations in 2007
- JS's nephew Guy Marsden's statement about running into JS in a child molester's flat he and his school friends had been lured into at King's Cross and ending up guarding 10 - 12 year olds ferried into a pop impresario's from care homes while they waited their turn to be taken into bedrooms by men and abused. {Daily Mail Article}
- JS's own autobiography which a poster refers to above, especially with regard to JS's elevated position in the freemasons and blackmail material he had in order to take down half of that particular Leeds police station with him in the 1950s.
- JS's request to be buried in concrete - "eccentric"
. No. Evidence-DNA destroying? Perhaps. I'm not a forensic pathologist CSI type person so I have not a clue. But a block of concrete would certainly deter an angry mob disinterring a corpse if, as the net was starting to close in with his questioning on HdG involvement in 2007, he started to contemplate things coming out within a short time after his death.
- "God?ll Fix It, his slim volume on religion published in 1978, contained many more unusual insights. Jimmy opened a chapter titled How Do I Cope With Sex? with the following thought: ?Sex at its worst is corruption, as when young people might be corrupted to provide sex.? He went on to talk about how sex could be the source of ?great remorse, great guilt? and insisted his rule was never ?make love to anyone if it causes them distress? or if they were in ?a state of drunkenness or don?t know what they?re doing. I mustn?t take them knowing that when they return to normal they?ll be distressed?.
In closing, he offered a final thought: ?Whether it?s OK to God we?ll just have to wait and see.?" Wonder what God will think when he turns up and has to explain why he's in concrete?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213931/Jimmy-Savile-Little-slaves-sordid-boasts-dark-truth-friend--biographer-Dan-
Absolutely everything JS did was motivated by access and opportunity to abuse children. I don't doubt this for a second. One of his older brothers has a conviction for sexual abuse of a hospital patient. Something went very very wrong in that family. His utter disregard for those children he abused and procured for others to abuse (there are already revelations that his motto was "the younger: the better" as stated by his biographer - the opportunistic abuse of 13+ yr old fans is just what he permitted enough people to see openly)
There have been child care home abuse scandals in concentrated pockets around the country (Jersey, Clwyd/N Wales, Islington, Plymouth to name a few) where abuse was going on through the 60s/70s/80s and the 90s. In all cases it has been only staff abusing the children have been convicted (with puzzlingly lenient sentences) but allegations from victims of being hired out/given to be abused by others have been shut down due to who they identify in positions of power throughout the ages. The names are astonishing and yet, like Savile, the rumours have always been there and insinuated publicly in a variety of ways. In Clwyd the main abuser running the home Bryn also ran several video production companies and was inexplicably estimated to be worth £7m. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/clwyd-at-long-last-the-coverup-is-over-1283994.html
It was strongly suggested the North Wales police were involved which was why the extent of the abuse was allowed to rake in £7m in profits from using those children as studio fodder for their video production companies and why victims' allegations were reportedly not passed to the CPS. In 2007 the Waterhouse Report (the resulting inquiry into the N Wales scandal) was suppressed - www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on-the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/ because as you can see, the list of the accused contained high ranking individuals and police and social workers and suggests links to political parties and the aristocracy.
JS used his links within the freemasons to find, procure for and involve in the abuse of children and then forever have a hold over them. In the early days (1950s) in the dance halls it may have been just the cop shop round the corner from the Mecca Locarno he had connections in as he boasted of, but then the masons has all manner of members from police to parliamentarians to aristocracy. I'm pretty sure he used his "faith" in the same way, as a means to connect with other paedophiles in positions of power or with access to children. His nephew references a priest at the parties. And through this JS built an invincible power base as more and more people in positions of power became known to him as pedophiles. So no, if it's some small comfort I don't think we were as morally negligent or uncaring as we think although there are plently of points to be made about the culture of sexism and children not being listened to. But I also think that JS was very well protected by what he knew about people in power - and he was also known to be very litigious.
I suspect this will end up with a suppressed report or a D notice for 100 years like Tony Blair slapped on the findings of the Islington care abuse scandal or, if they can, we will be incited into scampering after the celebrities who, for sentimental reasons, we will be most upset about. Never mind the fact that those in actual positions of power and authority, some with immense wealth who can afford to buy children and treat them as so disposable they lose their lives, will slip under the radar yet again.