Towards the end of 2012, ITV aired a programme called Exposure - The Dark Side of Jimmy Savile:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nHDZfSl36g One of the programme's conclusions was Jimmy Savile had been behaving in a sexually abusive way with young girls and teenagers. Since then the public has been informed on an almost daily basis of further details and allegations concerning his behaviour. Commander Peter Spindler of the Metropolitan Police described Jimmy Savile's "pattern of offending behaviour as appearing to be on national scale and described him as a predatory sex offender" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19946626
This is an interesting statement to make given that any evidence is based on allegations as Jimmy Savile died in 2011 without ever being charged or convicted of a crime. Is the commander saying the police have the foundational evidence, facts and knowledge of Jimmy Savile's "offending behaviour" therefore they can provide proof of their claims of him being a "predatory sex offender" and of his behaviour "as appearing to" have been on a "national scale" It begs the question how long have the police had this information, how and who brought it to their attention, have they just come into possession of this foundational evidence and found it to be so overwhelming they can confidently and authoritively describe him as a "predatory sexual offender"
Something doesn't add up. On the one hand the police, it's presumed, have enough evidence to make and issue the above statements but somehow didn't have this evidence whilst Jimmy Savile was still alive. This stance is not dissimilar to that taken by Esther Rantzen who featured in the documentary. Esther Rantzen made statements which appeared contradictory. For example she said she "believed the women" but also stated "before watching the documentary" she "was determined not to make up her mind" concerning Jimmy Savile's behaviour as this according to Esther would have been "utterly unfair"
In the space of an hour however Esther had learnt enough to declare "the jury is no longer out" admitting there were "rumours and gossip" which "we all heard" but admitted however "we all closed our ears" Given that the allegations in the programme described the sexual abuse of young girls/teenagers, below the age of consent, generally, how fair was it of Esther and her friends/acquaintances to close their ears to the plight of those young girls/teenagers and was she admitting to believing the women in the documentary or is she talking about the young girls/teenagers who were being abused on premises owned by the British Bullshitting Corporation. If as she admits to hearing "rumours and gossip" who else heard, when and what did they hear, how long were they closing their ears. Jimmy Savile and Esther Rantzen were both involved with the British Bullshitting Corporation between 1964/5 until 2006.
Depending on when Esther first heard the "rumours and gossip" this appears to be a really long time to be closing your ears, it's a wonder she could hear the instructions of the directors and producers of the shows she fronted or was involved in.
If she's admitting to believing the women in the documentary, what in the documentary swayed her opinion and if she is talking about the young girls/teenagers abused on the British Bullshitting Corporation's premises then what changed her mind as she appeared originally to be certain, it was "rumours and gossip" or is this an indication of how it was dealt with by Esther and her friends/acquaintances. Other words that could be used are denial, minimisation and a lack of the duty of care, Esther claims she has towards those who contact Childline and the National Association of People Abused in Childhood both charities which she is involved with, indeed she is a patron of the National Association of People Abused in Childhood and is credited with setting up Childline.
What were her motives in setting up Childline, did she learn from Jimmy Savile it would do wonders for her image as the saviour/rescuer of children and was a way of literally gaining access and opening doors for more ego driven and selfish purposes. The following image shows and suggests this as being a possibility http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1304&bih=648&tbm=isch&tbnid=E2R2dA6p6bCDCM:&imgrefurl=http://cabinetroom.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/jimmy-savile-the-british-government-the-power-of-plausible Clearly paedophilia doesn't appear to do anyone's reputation any harm or prove to be a hinderance whilst climbing to the top of the greasy pole.
Using charities as a front certainly helped Jimmy Savile as many have remarked "he did so much for charity" and those involved with the charities did a lot for Jimmy Savile by covering his back and turning a blind eye. Has Esther Rantzen ever attended a training course and studied the issue of child protection. Admittedly Esther Rantzen wasn't the only person to have an idea regarding Jimmy Savile's behaviour, her stance smacks of hypocrisy however given her role and involvement with the aforementioned charities.
Indeed since the programme aired many other people involved with the media have come forward with rumours and gossip they heard. Some claim they themselves were "scared" they "wouldn't have been believed" it was "common knowledge" in media circles, "it was different back then" "everyone was at it" it wasn't easy to determine the age of young girls/teenagers, due to them wearing makeup and the clothes they wore blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Others via the publicist Max Clifford are claiming "they are scared" because although they never engaged in "anything like that" "they may have had a photograph taken" with young girls/teenagers. Others have voiced the warning of it turning into or becoming a "witch hunt" none of these responses appears to show any concern towards or to be about the young children of both genders who it is alleged were abused sexually by Jimmy Savile. Given the number of people in the media who have come forward claiming to have heard or witnessed Jimmy Savile's behaviour towards children and teenagers, why didn't they take a stand collectively and do or say something. The police had also been informed of Jimmy Savile's behaviour but like others decided not to take any action due to a lack of substantive evidence, whereas they are giving the impression and expect the public to believe they are doing something now.
Will Jimmy Savile's links with Haut de la Garenne be re-examined as these have been made public: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJtLsKtGCSY
Too little to late springs to mind given there is plenty of information available to the public which suggests Jimmy Savile fulfilled the role of master of ceremonies or a lord of the rings type character - one ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them in and in the darkness bind them. The ring in this case including paedophilia and pederasty, along with various other practices such as bestiality and necrophilia, child sacrifice and torture etc.
It is well documented Jimmy Savile had connections with members of the alleged and self proclaimed "elite" and agents of the establishment, claiming as he did to working "deep cover" and stating he "wasn't a grass" Could this be the reason he was so obviously protected and that's why despite people informing the police and relevant authorities he was enabled to continue. In the documentary when Louis met Jimmy, he brags about a policewoman wanting to take action against him, due to him keeping a young female runaway overnight with him in his club, clearly proud of himself, he says "if that had happened, he would have brought half the station down with him"
Clearly it was in the best interests of a lot of people to not take the appropriate and lawful action needed to stop him, allowing him to continue abusing for decades, children and young people of both genders, corpses and others who were vulnerable. The British Bullshitting Corporation have sought to cover their backs by engaging in their standard practice of programming the public with the usual diet of disinformation, misinformation and propaganda with the intention of deceiving and distracting the public further so they eventually get bored and move on to the next glittery thing.
Despite the media's response to the truth of Jimmy Savile - the abuse of children is an issue involving members of the self styled elite, including members of the royal household, current and former agents of the government such as the minster without portfolio named in this video://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUYzf3ybKbE.
The following blog provides far more information and goes into greater depth concerning the abuse of children. http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/mcalpine-and-north-wales-child-abuse.html?spref=tw
Lets not forget despite the media programming, the abuse of children is not unusual amongst members of the aforementioned groups.
Previous cases of the abuse of children to have hit the headlines included the stories of Marc Dutroux in Belgium http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/dutroux/evil_1.html
Joris Demminck from Holland. Joris Demminck was the former secretary general of the justice ministry http://www.investigatedemmink.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&title=Latest_News&idsubmenu=136 and from America again in 2011 the story of Jerry Sandusky broke the surface http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedfiles/press/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf
What these articles highlight is that this practice, far from being unusual, appears to be very much a part of the culture and circles these people come from and inhabit.
If we are serious about protecting children it's essential we come to grips with, examine deeply and acknowledge the abuse of children is an ongoing and far reaching problem. Indeed a little research will lead one to conclude it's an extremely lucrative endeavour and in order to stop it, we need to stop believing the government, members of the establishment and the self styled elite will do something about it. They wont, because more often than not they are the perpetrators, controllers and purveyors of the abuse of children.
