Andrew, The Abbey, Fergie and The Fraudster

[CathyorClaire]

Last thread closed so I thought I'd amalagamate the latest antics for further discussion.

Also wanted to reply to this post near the end:

Perhaps the opportunity to contribute via cleaning jobs will soon arise for them, perhaps even faster than Andrew imagines, if he is up to knowing how to turn on a vacuum that is

He allegedly sent for a maid to climb four sets of stairs to close his curtains. I think he'd struggle with a vacuum

Off to read up on the entirely unsurprising reports on links to the fraudster.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Rousette there is no mention in the article that the Sex Pistols reported Saville and were subsequently banned by the BBC. I think it is more a case of birds of a feather flock together. I don’t for one moment believe these people are that naive.

That'll be because there was no contemporaneous evidence -just a claim in an interview many years later. And the Sex Pistols were banned anyway (after the Grundy interview)

That said, I do believe Johnny Rotten - he's shown sound standards over the years. But I can see why that might not be considered enough evidence.

Well by that standard it’s all contemporaneous evidence then. No one actually reported anything at the time. The Sex Pistols were very young and were banned after their appearance on TOTPs.

It was the problem, wasn't it? No-one with credibility was making the complaints, no serious journalists were investigating - it was the era of phone hacking intrusion into some, but no proper scrutiny of the disastrous 'open secret' that 'everyone knew'

I couldn't actually believe it for the first few hours when the bombshell dropped - because I really thought we had investigative press with standards who wouldn't allow an 'open secret' that terrible to endure. The extent to which 'everyone' had ended up being drawn into colluding with the cover up was beyond staggering

EdithWeston yes I agree, it was and still is staggering to believe.

@LittleBearPad

There were apparently nurses on the hospital ships outside the exclusion zone but they’d be in no position to know about Andrew’s war effort. Astonishing though it is, women have only been deployed in combat zones since 2018.

But people talk so it’s quite possible they heard all sorts.

Putting aside Savile’s criminal activities, who in their right mind would use him as a marriage counsellor. He never married and was really rather odd.

It reminds me of Rasputin. Dodgy advisor with the ear of the Royal family, up to his neck in shady stuff.

[quote Aspiringmatriarch]**@comeoninandclosethedoor It's interesting that the article emphasises the lack of empathy in PA's comments at Lockerbie. I think that's what came across most forcefully in the Emily Maitlis interview, when he was asked whether he regretted the association with Epstein. It genuinely didn't occur to him in that moment to even pay lip service towards empathising with Epstein's victims.[/quote]
Yes there does seem to be a cog missing somewhere.

The tone of his Locherbie comments were half dismissive/half cheerleeder 'oh well, it only landed on a tiny bit of the village' sort of thing, while standing surrounded by utter devastation from the crash. Extreme stupidity might explain it. And having been indulged all of his life.

I must admit I snorted a bit at that title of the Mark Lawson interview in the Guardian. which also could legtimately have been called "In hindsight I was wrong to go ahead with a Jimmy Savile interview after he had just assaulted my producer" rather then "The day I thwarted JS etc" as he was one of very few people to witness an assault in real time as it were.

A lot of justifying after the fact, but to be fair to him, when you see the Netflix documentary, it's clear that some senior reporters did investigate at various points but were thwarted by lack of concrete evidence at that stage. And one of the police investigations did not go ahead because each of the individual female victims thought they were the only one complaining, and weren't told about the other victims for some extraordinary reason . And, heartbreakingly, many of his young vulnerable victims either were too scared to speak out or their complaints were dismissed when they did. And not many people questioned his behaviour: for example he was regularly seen taking teen girls from a female youth offenders institute out for drives in his gold Rolls Royce, he couldn't have been more blatant about it, but apparently no one thought it strange.

What's also clear is that JS was highly intelligent, highly manipulative and a master magician at pulling the wool over people's eyes. And of course he used his influential friendship with the Royal Family to shore up his own credibility and make himself more invulnerable to suspicion and investigation.

no serious journalists were investigating

Not at the time but JS also got let off the hook big time by - for instance - Esther Rantzen who admitted she'd heard the rumours as junior staff but apparently couldn't do anything about it at the time.

There was nothing stopping her when she became a household name herself and even more especially as founder of Childline which was established while JS was still alive and available for a prison sentence.

I've never had any time for her or her crocodile tears since.

I've seen some of the JS documentary.

What struck me was how he virtually admitted what he was up to on camera several times. Utterly warped and evil man.

Sorry the point of that post was to say that , as Roussette and others have touched on earlier, both Epstein and Savile used the Royal Family to cloth themselves in false respectability. And the RF and all of their advisors were too beguiled to notice!

The reason for this, once again as with Epstein, was money. Savile was a massively successful fund raiser. It's an unpalatable truth but he also did lots of good in this area and was almost single handedly responsible for saving Stoke Mandeville hospital through the publicity he generated for it. He made himself indispensable.

Sorry but I’m not buying the attraction was money with both Epstein and Saville to the Royal Family.
They have untold wealth. Epstein wasn’t noted for his philanthropy.

He made himself indispensable

And yet not to everyone
Roger Jones, a BBC governor and the Children in Need chairman, is on record as saying he wanted Savile "nowhere near" the charity's activities, at that was even at the time

As a PP said, the scale of the cover-up and blind-eye-turning was truly staggering

@CathyorClaire

I've seen some of the JS documentary.

What struck me was how he virtually admitted what he was up to on camera several times. Utterly warped and evil man.

Yes it was so incredibly blatant! Hiding in plain sight. And hood winking people was all part of the game I imagine. He must have been laughing inwardly at the naeivity of folk.

And of course, it was a different time in terms of awareness. Seeing the casual way in the documentary that he approached women and girls and covered their faces with his hands made me feel ill, especially in light of some of the descriptions of his assaults later on in the programme. But everyone just laughed along! Hopefully someone doing that now would get a very different reaction.

I didn't know that about Esther Rantzen CathyorClaire. I'm quite surprised she didn't do more. I imagine that she had a lot of people she needed to keep on side at the BBC. And so much of BBC management was culpable.

Edith
Or it's the other way round, and they target the Royals? It's a way to the establishment, respectability etc

Yes, a bit of both.

The likes of PA bedazzled by stupendous wealth and those wanting the respectability badge targeting him knowing he could be easily impressed.
No different to Trump/Putin as the KGB targeted him as a useful asset for 40 years. He was prone to flattery and extreme wealth too. Much like PA I imagine.

I had no idea about Andrew’s comments about Lockerbie. The lack of empathy is astounding, even for him.
The close links of the royal family with paedophiles, Saville. Peter Ball etc cannot be a coincidence. AT BEST it shows an extraordinary lack of judgement and complete inability to critically analyse information. Not a person you want as the Head of State.
If you want to know a person look at the company they keep.
There are bigger secrets yet to come out.

@EdithWeston

Some (not all) members of the RF do have a knack of latching on to unsuitable people, Peter Ball, Savile, Epstein and many others. Perhaps because they don't have contact with ordinary people, just sycophants, their gut feelings and inner senses are stunted or something

Or it's the other way round, and they target the Royals? It's a way to the establishment, respectability etc

And yes I agree the Royals don't have normal friendships, because they don't get to meet people on a 'normal' footing.

Good points, both, and as has already been said, perhaps a bit of both.

Just a word about JS, as you've digressed to him. I know someone who says she always knew he was dodgy but she never met him and I think she is being wise after the event. Like many people I thought he was a bit odd and distinctly not attractive in a sexual way, but such a good egg, doing all that work for charity etc. etc. (I used to want him to Fix It for me to go up in a hot-air balloon.)

I had a whole train of thought about instinct and gut feelings after watching it last night, too @Roussette

They’re probably things you just don’t develop if you’re the feted heir, from a a long line of indulged rulers.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Sorry but I’m not buying the attraction was money with both Epstein and Saville to the Royal Family. They have untold wealth. Epstein wasn’t noted for his philanthropy.

I didn't quite say that though.

I said that Savile's phenomenal fund raising accomplishments made other people, such as the Royal Family, overlook any disquieting thoughts they may have had about him. JS did a good job and raised huge amounts, and therefore he was needed. PC even sought his advice as to how it was done.

And it's well known that Epstein paid off £15,000 of Fergie's debts at a time when she was in financial difficulty. Not a huge amount but enough as a "taster" I imagine to show good will. It was said that this payment "allowed a wider restructuring of Sarah's £5 million debts to take place." Is this code for "Epstein vouched for Fergie financially"? I'm not sure, but if she was about to go bankrupt, having it known by the banks and others that someone as rich as Epstein had thrown her a financial bone, can't have done anything but help!

Epstein's real value to PA was to introduce him to many dubious business men and investors with whom he could do his own dodgy deals. Although his exact dealings with Epstein are shrouded in mystery, didn't PA admit this in the Emily Maitless interview , when he said he didn't regret his "very useful" friendship with Epstein?

So I'm saying the Royal Family were used by both Epstein and Savile to give them respectability and money was key in both cases.

Just a word about JS, as you've digressed to him. I know someone who says she always knew he was dodgy but she never met him and I think she is being wise after the event. Like many people I thought he was a bit odd and distinctly not attractive in a sexual way, but such a good egg, doing all that work for charity etc. etc. (I used to want him to Fix It for me to go up in a hot-air balloon.)

I don’t think you need to have had advance knowledge to notice the cultural pro-Jimmy feeling.

I can remember on my gap year job conversation coming round to JS, and me commenting I didn’t like him, he gave me the creeps. Early 90s, then.

I didn’t know anything, suspect anything, I’d never met him and hadn’t heard anything. It wasn’t a deep analysis of the cultural phenomenon of JS, or conscious suspicion about him personally. I probably hadn’t thought about him much since I was young enough to watch Fix It 8 or 10 years earlier. However his name came up and someone asked me would I watch… or had I seen… or look at this article, or something and I said, no thanks, not a fan, he gives me the creeps.

I was absolutely JUMPED on by colleagues, mostly much older than me, saying what a good guy he was, his marathons, his hospital work etc etc, and suddenly a light hearted conversation wasn’t any more.

So as soon as he was posthumously unmasked that uncomfortable afternoon came back to me and if merely disliking JS was quasi-illegal in his lifetime, imagine how much harder to make a complaint against him.

Maybe your friend is remembering something similar.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

He made himself indispensable

And yet not to everyone
Roger Jones, a BBC governor and the Children in Need chairman, is on record as saying he wanted Savile "nowhere near" the charity's activities, at that was even at the time

As a PP said, the scale of the cover-up and blind-eye-turning was truly staggering

Thank heavens they safeguarded Children in Need. The BBC article about this is very disconcerting when it describes paedophiles being like "flies around a honeypot" in relation to it's fund- raising activities and distribution of funds, and how they had to put up a wall of protection.

It's great that RJ stepped up the child protection but even he didn't report the reasons why he was keeping JS at bay to BBC management, owing to lack of proof.

I can't imagine that someone higher up hadn't heard a few rumours though but apparently not!

When I say "lack of proof" in this context I don't mean lack of proof that it happened, but that the person from whom he received a complaint did not want their name known.

@Candleabra

I had no idea about Andrew’s comments about Lockerbie. The lack of empathy is astounding, even for him. The close links of the royal family with paedophiles, Saville. Peter Ball etc cannot be a coincidence. AT BEST it shows an extraordinary lack of judgement and complete inability to critically analyse information. Not a person you want as the Head of State. If you want to know a person look at the company they keep. There are bigger secrets yet to come out.

God knows there are rumours about a certain fringe royal who was very close to the current lot.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Sorry but I’m not buying the attraction was money with both Epstein and Saville to the Royal Family. They have untold wealth. Epstein wasn’t noted for his philanthropy.

theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/05/jeffrey-epstein-hideous-strength-transhumanism-joseph-pearce.html

Yes he was. MiT had to apologise for accepting money from his foundation. Unfortunately it was all a cover for his vile agenda. Just like Savile and his necrophilia and other evil behaviours.

Their money-sickness and greed only explains part of it. These people are truly depraved, so normal people cannot fathom it.

God knows there are rumours about a certain fringe royal who was very close to the current lot

And let's not forget a certain mentor to our future overlord...

Remember the time Jimmy Saville snuck in a young girl into the palace and Prince Philip acted as royal wingman.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Rousette there is no mention in the article that the Sex Pistols reported Saville and were subsequently banned by the BBC. I think it is more a case of birds of a feather flock together. I don’t for one moment believe these people are that naive.