jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (83 posts)

Jimmy Savile - supplier of children for sexual abuse by the elite

  1. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    Now a proven paedophile, UK celebrity and close friend of Prince Charles, Jimmy Savile was also a supplier of children to be abused by the rich, royal and powerful eilte of the UK. 

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/15/j … e-cesspit/

    He said of himself that he was untouchable, and could get anything he wanted.
    Politicians, Prime Ministers, and members of the UK royal family were apparently his clients to whom he regularly supplied children from his paedohile ring. Should this matter be investigated further? What do you think.

    1. sparkster profile image93
      sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think David Icke hit the nail on the head years ago. Everyone labelled him crazy but this is the second time he has been proven correct about some of his claims

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The frightening thing about labelling him crazy, is that he now gets ignored, even when he speaks the truth.

        Seems he knew about Savile, when the rest of us didn't.

        Three years ago, I wrote hubs about Thomas Hamilton and the paedophile ring, and also about the high level paedophilia going on  in the UK government, and he is backing up all I said.

        I have often wondered whether or not I should leave those hubs published. Difficult to prove either way, but of course, maybe evidence is seeping out bit by bit.

        That David Icke link is super-scary.

        He said Edward heath butchered little children. OMG! Is it true? It could be, that is frightening.

        Savile got away with it for a whole lifetime, and it is true, he died with a wealth that would seem to be far in excess of what he could possibly earn, despite his DJ and TV presenter work.

        Between the Masons and the Bilderbergers, just how can the truth be uncovered?

        Who is protecting our children?

        1. sparkster profile image93
          sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would like to read the hubs.

          1. IzzyM profile image85
            IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't really want to link them here, but if you go to my profile page and press Ctrl+F, a search box opens top right on your browser, and type in the words from the titles.

            Saves scrolling through all those hubs, as the search should bring each one straight up.

            1. sparkster profile image93
              sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you.

    2. 0
      Kathryn LJposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jimmy Saville was a creepy bloke.  I thought so in the 60's and failed to see how anyone could take a weird freak with a dodgy 'bob' seriously. I found his 'charity' work vulgar and sometimes down right aggressive.  Looking at film footage of him pawing under-age girls during interviews, I am amazed that their parents didn't hunt him down and deprive him of his testicles.  I don't know anyone that liked him.  On a lighter note, if Ted Heath was a satanist, he wasn't a very good one, because he hated Margaret Thatcher and yet she still triumphed to become Conservative leader.  Maybe she made a bigger pact with the devil?

  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    Although it's true that accusations regarding Saville and others are very much in the UK headlines, I have yet to see one report which links Edward Heath and the Royal family to pedophilia or satanism. This sounds like pure speculation and nothing more. In terms of further investigation, there's currently a massive investigation underway into Saville and "others" One of the others is supposedly a high profile cabinet member from a former government. But if I was the author of this article, I'd be extremely careful about naming members of the royal family, or high profile British politicians, without any substantial evidence. They may well find themselves in court. 

    Having said that, there's definitely more to come on this story, although I suspect the scandal may centre around politicians and celebrities.

  3. innersmiff profile image89
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    I as well would warn against outright accusations at the moment - but would urge the investigation to go as far and for as long as possible. Savile is very likely only the tip of the iceberg.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely. I suspect this will be another "MP's expenses" type implosion. And will probably embroil politicians, amongst others, from both of the main parties.

  4. sparkster profile image93
    sparksterposted 3 years ago

    I agree with all the comments so far.  Icke should be very careful... then again, he released this information (or disinformation/misinformation) years ago and has been okay so far.  Icke says he travels the world speaking to people who make such claims but at the end of the day you don't know who is telling the truth and who isn't.  In Icke's case I'm guessing that the information he releases is corroborated from many different sources who don't know of each other and that's probably why he's so confident it's the truth.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not for one minute suggesting that there isn't any truth in it, I honestly don't know. But in fairness, even if people have made allegations, they don't necessarily always amount to truth. Also, in the interests of justice, some verifiable evidence should be offered if such claims are made.

      There are people who've had their whole lives ruined when claims were made against them, which later turned out to be false, so he should exercise some caution in this regard. Once someone has been labelled as a pedophile, even if proven innocent, the **** sticks.

      It will be interesting to see where the proper investigation leads, though. And if proven guilty, they should go to prison for a very long time.

      1. sparkster profile image93
        sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Like Freddie Starr?  He has been accused and arrested (and released on bail) in relation to the Savile Sex scandal.

        1. IzzyM profile image85
          IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Was he not arrested twice in relation to this?

          I had to laugh when we have this old man being interviewed on TV and protesting he doesn't like young girls when his fiancee at his side looks about 14!

          1. sparkster profile image93
            sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, his fiancee is 34, just under half his age!

            1. IzzyM profile image85
              IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              She's 34??

              Wow she must have had a good life LOL

          2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Freddie Starr was a bit strange, and when he appeared here in Guernsey I know he 'mooned'  (flashed his buttocks) at a girl I later went to school with. She must have been no older than about 6 or 7 at the time and her Mother told my Mother about it. I don't believe it was ever reported to the Police.

            Going to recent events it appears unclear as to whether he was arrested or voluntarily accompanied Police for questioning. Certainly he had been quoted some days back as saying he would welcome being interviewed by Police (and hoped he would be) so he could clear his name.

            1. IzzyM profile image85
              IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              OMG well at least the world knows now (they will see it through this thread).There is no smoke without fire.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not talkng about Freddie Starr, the article names Ted Heath as a satanist and a pedophile, but with no evidence, same about members of the Royal family, no evidence. If it is true that either of these people have committed these crimes, are you aware that they could "get off" because of allegations like these, which might mean that a fair trial is impossible?

          Although I have no doubt that you want to bring these people to justice if they are guilty, you are really not helping the victims by sharing unsubstantiated allegations. This is exactly the kind of material that a fancy, expensive lawyer will use to demonstrate that there has been a trial by media. That's how these kind of cases get thrown out of court. And the guilty party walks free, just to abuse again.

          Press for the investigation, press for the charges- but don't make the mistake of thinking that pointing the finger, without evidence, will help anyone but the abuser.

          1. IzzyM profile image85
            IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hollie these allegations are all over the internet, but I have never once seen them in print, which I believe they would have to be to use 'trial by media' as a defence.

            I'd actually not heard before of Royal family involvement. They're a bunch of in-breds anyway, good on this generation for finding someone to marry who they weren't actually related to.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Trial by media is not just print media anymore, Izzy. If a prosecutor can show that a jury may be, even inadvertently, influenced by media (including the internet) it's the beginning of a case.

              The OP's link suggests that the Royals have links to pedophiles and that they are satanists, just like Ted Heath. I'm no fan of either, but read the link, you can see how a prosecutor would just love this one!

              1. IzzyM profile image85
                IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I hate lawyers almost as much as I hate paedophiles!

                The whole 'satanist' angle is new to me too.

                Sounds like an excuse.

                You know, "I like killing people therefore I must be a satanist."

                You could just be a sick, twisted barsteward desperate to find a path that makes your actions seem justifiable.

                We had someone before who was a satanist. Even his name gives me the shivers. Aleister Crowley.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The whole satanist stuff dominates the Op's link.

                  1. IzzyM profile image85
                    IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I read that. There was a lot of new stuff in that link, but it all tied in with stuff I had heard before.

                    I wonder how prevalent satanism is within our society?

                    I remember some newspaper reports of signs of ritualistic killings in graveyards in Glasgow a few years ago. I think they meant animals, not humans, but not sure. Pretty scary stuff.

          2. sparkster profile image93
            sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When I said like Freddie Starr I was referring to what you said about allegations sticking.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I was thinking about one of the Sun's campaigns about naming and shaming pedophiles, and although I can see why many people would want to, it can prove counterproductive (they go underground, don't sigh the sex offenders register and become even more of a danger to children, because the authorities can't monitor them properly)

              Some readers of the sun confused the term pedophile with pediatrician, causing a whole load of problems for one particular man and his family, he was beaten up, his family abused and he was completely smeared.

              I think it's really important to nail real pedophiles, but we have to do the right way.

  5. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago

    I have been covering this for a couple of weeks - only meant to do a quick blog post about it and then as I dug deeper - it is shaping up to be a very big scandal reaching throughout ALL of British society.




  6. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti … alist.html

    I've been reading loads of stuff on it all again.

    The above link is not so far removed from what David Icke said.

    Children going missing from children's home in Jersey. Dead bodies dug up years later. Children murdered for pleasure. Widespread abuse. Top level cover-ups.


    1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
      mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just to correct one thing there, it turned out not to be a child's body at all in Jersey, and if I remember correctly it was a piece of coconut shell. There was a lot of publicity about how bad it was that it had been reported as a piece of skull without any results from forensics having been returned yet, (I live in the neighbouring island so I know this is what happened as we got all the details on the local news as the events were unfolding). It also seems no-one actually 'went missing', in fact the only thing that was proven to be true was the abuse itself.

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Really? Wow that's a relief! I wasn't in the UK at the time, so missed the story as it happened.

        I sincerely hope it isn't true about children being murdered, but when the kids are picked from care homes, these stories could be true.

        Sometimes kids are in care because they have no families, and no-one to report if they go missing. Except care home staff of course, if they are to be trusted.

        In the 80s, my best friend's daughter went a bit wild when she hit puberty. Her daddy had just died of cancer, and at just 11/12 she was getting heavy periods and extreme mood swings.

        She was a little nightmare!

        Then when she turned 13 and shot up so that she was taller than her mother, she became violent with it, to the extent of actually attacking her mother with knives, though in the end stabbing the walls and not her mother.

        My friend didn't know how to deal with it, and called in Social Services to ask their advice.

        Shockingly they immediately took the girl into care, and got a court order to take over parental rights.

        (This is all true I was around at the time).

        Her mother was broken-hearted, and immediately started legal proceedings herself to get her daughter back.

        Meanwhile the daughter, who even though she had told the social workers she hated her mother without actually meaning a word of it, kept running away to try and get home to her Mum.

        So, they moved around a few care homes before sending her to a secure unit - which has since been closed down, not surprisingly.

        At this unit, they pinned that girl on a bed by having two of three adults sitting on her, to stop her outbursts. But the worse thing was they kept repeating to her over and over again "Your mother hates you" "Your mother doesn't want you back". "Your mother never wants to see you again".

        This girl told me this herself after her release, and refused to let me take it further. Neither would her mother. There is a certain shame involved in having been in a care home, and I guess they just wanted a fresh start.

        I knew journalists and politicians at the time, but could do nothing except ask them to look into the practices going on in this unit, with no names mentioned as evidence.

        That place was closed down for child cruelty and abuse about 10 years after this.

        Think of all those children who suffered, and who this experience will affect their whole lives.

        It is up to us to speak out loudly and clearly when we come across abuse.
        I'm just sorry I didn't.

        1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
          mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The thing that makes this hard is that now there is so much paperwork involved and although I suppose they could claim the child had simply run away, any other way of covering up the missing child would be far more difficult. Authorities now expect to see records of school attendance, vaccinations etc, and there needs to a paper trail to all of these things in place. Even children with no family to report them missing from the care home would be missed by the other children in the home if they suddenly vanished without warning, you just have to hope they are brave enough to report it or tell someone at least. Certainly in Jersey they quickly found that everyone was accounted for and there were no bodies, only a number of cases of physical and sexual abuse, some of which have already resulted in prosecutions, although I believe some cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

          The other story about your friends daughter is awful. It is so wrong that they got away with putting her through that, and as a result how many other children endured similar treatment! I am glad she got back to her Mother in the end.

  7. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    The Anonymous revealed names of pedophiles and nothing has been done yet! It is horrifying the impunity that they dispose of! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! Power to the people to eradicate this scourge! The fact that it is rampant in the upper class explains the lack of action. Money is power.

  8. safiq ali patel profile image71
    safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago

    If  you speak to the great British public many of them have had a wind of this story or stories about Jimmy Savile before. It's all come out in the public over the past few weeks. But these stories have been going round on the rumor mill in Northern England for over 20 years and more.

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I gathered that from a thread I started a few weeks ago. It was widely known or suspected in some parts, but honestly I hadn't heard about it.

      All this reminds me of the Hollie Greig story. Just the other day, I brought it up in conversation with my elderly parents. They hadn't heard about it.


      I am sure someone here wrote a hub about it, but I can't find it.

  9. safiq ali patel profile image71
    safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago

    Oh yeah and the Satanist Killing story. Lots of people work hard to dis-credit such stories. But I have no doubt such killings are widespread and Satanist rings operate in every town and city and are well connected to the internet too. As a writer I have often chosen not to publish on these stories because of a fear of backlash. Extremist rings go to great lengths to protect themselves and destroy anyone who may be working to expose them.

  10. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    .. further down the Jimmy Savile rabbit hole . Apparently Jimmy Savile (and some of his friends) were quite partial to necrophelia as well.

    The real question is, how far does it really go, and will anyone (apart from David Icke and Bill Maloney) have the guts to fully investigate it?   Are there any proper journalists anywhere? Because you can be sure that these activities are still going on today. They did not stop with the death of Mr Savile. So who are these people? Who else was/is a party to these sordid activities?

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/05/s … ccomplice/

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is not a huge difference between necrophilia and child sex abuse, in terms of an amorous response.
      A child will either scream and struggle, or lie completely still, so you can see where the comparison is easy to draw.

      So I believe all that is written in that link you provide, and in the links in that link, is true.

      This is truly horrendous, and thank God it is all coming out now.

      I doubt if there are innocents caught up in this. Every single adult who knew about this, or was involved in this, should be put in the dock.

      Even better, put them in stocks in any Bingo queue up and down the country.

      These are sick, twisted individuals who have worked their way into a position of power and I am positively frightened to think of how widespread this is, or who all are involved.

      But they should NOT be allowed to hide under a cloak of anonymity. We want to know who they are.

      Every single last one of them should be exposed first, and judged later.

      The lives of our children, the next generation, depend on it.

  11. CASE1WORKER profile image86
    CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago

    I have to admit that on news of the original allegations I thought what's the fuss he is dead- now it is pretty clear there is a lot more to it- however before we go on a witch hunt- these people were not only from his generation- there could well be a modern day equivalent within the power networks- CRB checks that the public put so much faith in, would not catch them. The CPS needs to earn its cash and take a lead in prosecition- yes the cases willl be hard to prove- we know that!

  12. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    Anyone in the UK, ITV news have a story about the link between Jimmy Savile and Peter Sutcliff, on right now.

    1. CASE1WORKER profile image86
      CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Arrgh! Just missed it- but i will watch later- I do hope there is not a link between the two simply because what little faith I have in the Criminal Justice system would vanish

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You've not missed it, its on after the break. Turn the TV back on LOL

        1. CASE1WORKER profile image86
          CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, seen it- although they do seem to be saying that he was not linked to the murders- but nothing would surprise me any more.

  13. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    Oh well that was a bit of a non-story.

    It seems that a retired detective has come forward to say that Jimmy Savile was interviewed during the course of police enquiries into the Yorkshire Ripper murders after a member of public gave them an anonymous tip-off, "but of course, nothing came of it".

    I like this article in the Mirror - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ji … er-1420266

  14. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago

    This picture is doing the rounds... that's Savile, Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno - back when Savile was in charge of Broadmoor


    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you think Frank Bruno is involved too?

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
        mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol, Frank Bruno was opening a boxing gym in Broadmoor at the time and Jimmy Savile arranged a meet and greet for Peter Sutcliffe. Definitely no danger of Frank Bruno being 'involved' in any way.

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
          Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Frank attended Savile's funeral.  I'll make no comment, after all Savile had lots of friends.

          Sutcliffe was a particularly nasty murderer.  He did not deserve a handshake from anyone.  So a misjudgement at best.

          What on earth Jimmy Savile - a DJ - was doing in charge of Broadmoor - where he abused patients and organised early release for some - beggars belief.

          There are plenty of him posing with Prince Charles too.


          Everyone 'knew' about Savile and his habits.  Yet somehow, multiple police investigations were stopped, he was never brought to justice, and so far the UK police have arrested only two people - Glitter and Starr.

          I have spent two weeks on this - wandering around the net - reading in amazement at what looks like a huge cover up involving people all the way from the police, through civil servants to politicians, and possibly beyond.

          I thought I might be going mad - and become a conspiracist.

          Tom Watson, Labour MP, thinks the same.  He has evidence and has been warned by people who should know that he needs to be careful. Details are on his blog.

          Everyone who was a friend of Savile, associated with him, or assisted him should be investigated. Doesn't mean they are guilty - but it's time the police did the job we assume they do...except that they don't.

          1. sparkster profile image93
            sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Savile was a powerful man who was donating a lot of money to such charities, I have also been keeping a close eye on this topic and investigating. State's reaction is suspicious, he's almost acting like yes got a guilty conscience buy u'l not quite convinced just yet. He was a drunk and a wife beater back in the day but do far there is no corroborating evidence.

            Sallie was a known abuser but was just way too powerful for anyone to do anything about it. There were plenty of clues in his 1974 biography.

            1. sparkster profile image93
              sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              * That's meant to say Starr's reaction.

          2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree Sutcliffe did not deserve a handshake, but Frank Bruno (bless him) is not the brightest spark (possibly due to repeated blows to the head over his career) and put 'on the spot' probably simply went through the motion of shaking hands because it was hard to know how to quickly refuse in front of a camera (he would not be the first to get caught out like this as Prince Charles made a similar mistake  with President Mugabe). As for Bruno attending Savile's funeral, well so did many people who actually believed at that point in time that Savile was a decent charitable human being who had raised tonnes of money for various charities over the years. Ignorance is not a crime, and just recently I myself found out that the 33 year old son of an ex of mine has just been given a jail sentence for downloading kiddie porn pics in the thousands. I knew this lad as a 7-8 year old and would never ever have guessed in a million years that he would have ended up doing that. When I last saw him he was about 25, and I would still never have thought for a minute he was 'into' that kind of thing.

            Mugabe Article Link:


            Jimmy Savile wasn't in charge of Broadmoor, he simply visited regularly and had a room there. Prince Charles being seen posing with Jimmy Savile is not a crime as (like the majority of people thought) it was generally thought that Jimmy Savile was the slightly eccentric TV personality who did lots for charity, although it seems clear now he was not the person most thought he was.

            Basically it seems very obvious that Jimmy Savile was a major paedophile and that complaints were ignored by authorities that should have been acted on. It also seems that there are many other well known people  involved in similar crimes and that were associates of Savile's, but if we get to the stage of assuming being seen in a photo with Savile is an indication of your being a paedophile, or at least your knowing he was one (especially as so many thought he was a genuinely nice guy who helped the less fortunate) then there will be an endless list of people to investigate/prosecute, including all the adults who took their children, boy scout troupes etc to Jim'll Fix It shows and shook his hand as a thank you after their 'dreams' were made to come true.

            Edit: It seems for 15 months Savile was put in charge of a task force to run Broadmoor, so for a brief time at least it could be said he was in charge:

            http://www.channel4.com/news/broadmoor- … the-asylum

  15. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    And to anyone reading this thread and thinking this is a purely British problem, I strongly suggest you watch this banned documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

    This problem involves ALL of us. It seems to be rife on both sides of the Atlantic, and probably in every other country too.

  16. safiq ali patel profile image71
    safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago

    But the police questioned thousands of people in the Yorkshire Ripper inquiry. Not just Savile. And as for Jimmy Savile he has demised from being a popular BBC broadcaster to being what you might call scourge with lots of Jimmy Savile memorabillia being taken down. The unfair thing is all this has come out when he is no longer around to answer to these charges.  It's all about a lot of infighting among the strange if you ask me. Some of those putting their hands up and saying Savile abused them have equally strange backgrounds and quiet disturbing mental health records. I met a man in 1989 who told me Jimmy Savile was a pedophile But when over years I looked into this informants background I found out that he the informant in 1989 had convictions related to cannibalistic pedophilia going back some 30 years. All in all I hate to say this but I am going to. The Jimmy Savile child abuse story is being mongered by people who were as sick as Jimmy Savile if not sicker. A storm in the pedophiles own tea cup if you ask me. They savile and others were an unbreakable brigade when Savile was alive. Perhaps the real issue was Savile's will and because someone somewhere didn't get what they wanted out of Savile's will they decided to monger or bring back to life stories about Savile that are as old and frail and ailing as Jimmy Savile himself was in the end.  .

    1. CASE1WORKER profile image86
      CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry mate but I dont agree. If there were one or two accusations then I would say yes. I must admit that my initial reaction on hearing the accusations was to leave it be, RIP Jimmy. However in my experience any situation where there are a lot of allegations made usually means that there is some substance.
      It may be that some of the victimes are a bit strange, often they are like that because of what they have been through- sit through a child abuse trial and hear a child talk about rape and abuse, you wont wonder why the children seem a bit strange. Meet a family where they have all been abused, girls as well as the boys and then wonder why no one said anything- its because no one was listening to them- they were a bit strange- a bit naughty at school- a wayward teenager- being abused.
      The kiddy fiddlers like Saville make me sick

    2. Mark Ewbie profile image83
      Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The police.... oh lol.

      The police... are you serious?

      Er... didn't you read about Hillsborough? They changed witness statements and covered it up for thirty years.

      The police is where the problem starts.  They received several complaints before Savile died and acted on none of them.

      After his death and when the rumours on the internet forced them to act they made a statement calling Savile the worst sexual predator in history... or something like that.

      Tom Watson MP has a blog and is talking about the hidden evidence in the Welsh care home case.

      The government is opening up a new inquiry into the second inquiry after the first inquiry about the Welsh scandal.  Three inquiries - one gigantic cover up.

      Jimmy Savile is absolute scum - he abused disabled kids in hospital.  There are witnesses.  They weren't listened to.

      But out there, tonight, are hundreds of other people, some of them senior powerful people and still alive, who know exactly what they were doing.

      Let's hope against hope that the cover up falls apart.

      1. CASE1WORKER profile image86
        CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are some superb police officers who would not cover up anything and then there are some who would do it purely out of incompetence.
        Yes there is a lot more but why are we referring to it in the past tense? I think if any good comes out of this it will be to create a climate where current victims of current abuse  will be able to come forward.
        There are some superb police officers involved in child abuse and hopefully they will be allowed to investigate without feeling their hands are tied behind their backs.

  17. Rain Defence profile image97
    Rain Defenceposted 3 years ago via iphone

    Check out the handshake on the Bruno/Sutcliffe/Savile photo.

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hard to see.


      Masonic handshake.

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
        mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I shake hands like this (actually everyone I know does) and I am not a Mason sad

        1. IzzyM profile image85
          IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's something to do with the position of the thumb. I am pretty sure I keep my thumb straight, but would need to go shake hands with someone to find out for sure.

          That was really interesting what you wrote about the Channel Islands.

          So you are basically living in an independent state? What currency do you have? Are you a member of the EC? Do you have to show your passport to enter England?

          In light of the forth coming vote for Scottish Independence, it would be of interest to know how it works for you.

          Back to what you said about David Icke, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say.

          Like all those people who believe in conspiracies, there is an awful lot of blatant untruths thrown into the mix.

          This makes it really easy to disregard all they say.

          The trouble is, there seems to be a great deal of truth in the mix too, and this makes it really hard to extrapolate what is true and what isn't.

          I think we all need to keep an open mind in this whole shocking affair.

          Thank God for the internet. Previously our only information came from TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, and they are mostly controlled by the Establishment.

          We need someone trusted out there to speak to us. Maybe this Labour MP (mentioned previously in this thread) could be just the one, but how long before his words also get ridiculed? Or he gets murdered...

          1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Izzy,

            We still have pounds and pence but they are minted here and have our own designs on them. We also have both a £1 note and a £1 coin. People can spend UK money here if they wish to, and the value is equal to the UK equivalent. If we visit the UK we cannot spend our coins, but legally we can use our notes, although in reality it is easier to use the bureau de change to convert them to UK notes because hardly any shop assistants etc seem to realise they can accept Channel Island currency.

            A quote from the BBC website says:

            "Guernsey is NOT:

                Part of England
                Part of Great Britain
                Part of the United Kingdom
                A member or an associate member of the European Union

            Guernsey IS "an appanage (customary right) of the Crown associated with the UK and the Commonwealth through the Sovereign as successor to the Dukes of Normandy and over which the Sovereign in Council exercises supreme legislative and judicial powers".

            Guernsey HAS a special relationship with the EEC set out in Protocol 3 of the UK's Treaty of Accession. The act also sets out that the United Kingdom is responsible for Guernsey's, as well as Jersey's and the Isle of Man's, international affairs and defence."

            When we enter England we still have to show our passport, in fact security everywhere is so tight now that we even have to show our passport to visit Jersey.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/a … ture.shtml

            1. IzzyM profile image85
              IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is excellent information! Thanks, I had no idea.

              I will at some point in the near future sit myself down and thoroughly familiarize myself with the ins and outs of the unique situation in the Channel Islands.

              It may become important for Scotland's future (for comparison purposes).

              1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
                mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, and obviously we can't vote in UK elections either because we have our own politicians to vote for, and decisions of the running of the island are made by the 'States of Guernsey' which is made up of all the local politicians we have voted in Parish by Parish (the island is divided into 10 Parishes and various people stand as 'Deputies' and are voted for by the residents of the Parishes they stand for).

                1. seanorjohn profile image80
                  seanorjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Misty hope you don't mind some more questions on Guernsey and Jersey. I have visited jersey but not yet Guernsey. Can residents get free NHS treatment in GB? And can residents of the Islands automatically become UK citizens.

                  1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
                    mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe there is a reciprocal agreement with the UK so that if we are taken ill in the UK treatment is free and someone on holiday here gets taken ill it is free here. If I moved to the UK mainland I could register with a doctor and get free NHS treatment (I actually still have Social Security card from when I lived there some years back). However, if a person lives here on Guernsey we have to pay for all our doctors appointments and prescriptions (unless we are on benefits). Hospital treatments are covered, but we have to pay for ambulances (most people pay an annual insurance of about £6 to cover them for the cost of an ambulance if they need to call one). There is absolutely no problem with simply moving to the UK from here, we can turn up, get ourselves a National Insurance card and tax coding etc and begin work. I did it when I was 18, then came back to Guernsey 13 years later. People from the UK can also come to work here so long as they are either granted a license or they live in open market accommodation. Most of these jobs are in finance, education, bus driving or hospitality industries. Wages are higher here, but so are most living expenses apart from petrol and cigarettes.

          2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was always taught that to be taken seriously and treated with respect (especially at job interviews, in business meetings etc) a firm handshake was important. Shaking hands with the thumb in the position illustrated in the cartoon ensures a good firm grip. Shaking hands with the thumb straight is more likely to result in a 'limp' handshake. Funnily enough I covered the importance of a strong hand shake in one of my hubs in early 2012 during a 30/30 challenge. I think the hub was on tips for job interviews if I recall correctly.

            I certainly find it hard to believe that Peter Sutcliffe would be a fellow mason even if Frank Bruno was one. Who on earth in the Mason's would vote in Peter Sutcliffe as a member, and it only takes one member to 'black ball' him and he would not be approved anyway. I can't even see it ever having got to a voting stage regardless, as he had nothing to offer them and becoming a Mason is usually something offered to the rich, the famous and senior members of professional organisations. I don't think serial killers/ mass murderers fall into their list of desirable members.

      2. sparkster profile image93
        sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know all the masonic handshakes - this is the handshake of a Master Mason (3rd degree).

        1. sparkster profile image93
          sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just to elaborate, it doesn't matter if you shake hands like this all the time anyway and are not a mason.  When you 1st meet a person you use the 1st degree handshake then whenever you meet them in the future you use the handshake relevant to whatever degree you are.  Furthermore, there are things you can use in speech and body signals that you can give so that the other person knows for definite that you are a mason.

          1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me then like the odds are that Mason or not, Frank Bruno was simply shaking hands the way he does because that is how he shakes hands in general. It was also the first time he had ever been introduced to Peter Sutcliffe, so from what you say it would not have been appropriate to use a handshake relevant to his 'degree' yet.

          2. IzzyM profile image85
            IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So, is it true that they have one trouser-leg rolled up?

            1. waynet profile image46
              waynetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A right crusty hairy growler of a hand shake....

            2. sparkster profile image93
              sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes it is true, it's part of the 1st degree initiation (i've done it).

  18. seanorjohn profile image80
    seanorjohnposted 3 years ago

    Lord mcalpine is a Tory grandee ( he should be in the NEWS soon) who now lives in Italy. I wonder what sort of parti   he went to   with  Ber     Bu  Bu  a                                   

    Check him out.

  19. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    .. now sit down, take a deep breath, and prepare to be taken further down the rabbit hole of lies, deceit and cover-ups in the Jimmy Savile affair, with one of the few people who is actually prepared to name names and to expose the full extent of this ...

    http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child … he-cesspit

    Whether you admire or ridicule him, David Icke has never been sued for what he says in his books, website and public appearances. Why not? Perhaps because it is true? .. and he says he has plenty of hard evidence to back up his claims.

    1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image93
      mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He has probably not been sued for anything he has said because no-one takes him seriously. It wasn't that long ago he was saying the royal family were reptilians who changed back to having reptilian features when out of sight!! Having just read that article I am not impressed, it appears to involve mostly statements and speculation and no actual evidence. His comments about Jersey were ridiculous (I live in the neighbouring island of Guernsey). Quote:

      " Jersey is the fiefdom of mega-rich and mega-crooked networks that combine criminal business, banking and drug operations with paedophilia and Satanism.

      The island of Jersey, off the French coast,, is only nine miles by five with a population of 90,000 and yet has 55 banks, more than 33,000 registered companies and hundreds of billions of dollars on deposit. It is a money laundering operation of global proportions and attracts the super wealthy with low tax rates.

      Haut de la Garenne, or 'Forest Heights', was a 'children's home' (detention centre) from 1867 to 1986 and it is clear that it played the role of providing children for sexual and violent abuse by the Jersey Mafia in all its forms - as well as the rich and famous of mainland Britain, including members of the Royal Family. 

      Jersey has an almost self-contained government of its own, but the Queen remains at the top of its power structure and wherever the 'Crown' holds sway, so does Satanism and child abuse."

      Mistake 1 is that contrary to popular opinion there are plenty of low income individuals throughout our islands. The majority of people live an average lifestyle in smaller houses than their UK counterparts (which cost a lot more per sq metre, but wages are also that bit more). Today most locals cannot afford the local property prices unless they lived here before the finance industry arrived in the islands and prices were forced upwards, even renting is  now too expensive for most locally born people. The 'rich' (non locals) are restricted to buying the limited amount of 'open market' properties they are legally allowed to live in (unless they meet and marry a local, or were born here themselves). The amount of 'open market' properties available is a tiny proportion of the total properties on the islands, and the only other option is to get a job here on license, in which case the person can rent a local market property until their license expires, at which point if the authorities refuse to renew it the person has to either leave the island or rent/buy an open market property instead (really silly money and extraordinarily expensive).

      Mistake 2 is that money laundering is so strictly monitored in the Channel Islands that it is all but impossible to launder money through the islands now (Hubby has worked for the Financial Services Commission in Guernsey and still works in finance today). You can't even bring more than ten thousand euros in cash into the island without paperwork to back up where it came from (and multiple checks are made as to the source to make sure it is not done as an attempt to launder money). As for banks, well, finance is the main industry, but even the rules on acceptable directors for any company are tight, and if they don't fulfil the criteria the account will not be allowed into the islands. This system is known as 'Compliance' and the rules and regulations are lengthy to say the least.

      Mistake 3+, Drugs in the islands are all but impossible to get in, and as for drug operations, there could probably not be a worse place to pick if you were going to go into the drug business. The jail sentences here are far higher than the UK, and with no 'parole' (what you get sentenced to is what you get, no early release). The prevalence of Satanism suggestion is also laughable. Whilst there is a fascinating history of witchcraft throughout the islands over the centuries, Satanism is not something any of the islands are known for, or something that I have heard any reports of in all my years of living in the Channel Islands. As for paedophilia in Jersey, well until the Haute de la Garenne stuff coming to light any reports of paedophilia were rare, and in general one of the things people love about living in the channel islands has always been  the fact it is such a 'safe' place to bring up children, with an incredibly low crime level. Children have always played happily on the streets and beaches, plus they could hug teachers etc  all without any problems. Of course there were occasional cases (as with anywhere), but it was still always a huge shock to islanders and made front page news on the rare occasions it happened.

      Mistake 4, Jersey does not have a 'Mafia' lol big time at that one, (where does this guy get these ideas from).

      Mistake 5, the Royal family rarely visit the Channel Islands, and when they do it is usually for a day or so split between several of the islands, followed by press and cameras all the way. It would be pretty impossible to 'sneak' into the islands for any form of paedophile activity as the airports here are tiny and you can't break wind in one part of the island without it being reported at the other end of the island within minutes.

      Mistake 6, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey are totally self governing, and the only reason we have any connection to the British Royal Family is because centuries back we opted to support the British Crown rather than Normandy, in return for which we became a Crown Protectorate/Dependency, which means in the event of attack or invasion the British Crown will protect us, but that is as far as it goes. We don't have UK VAT, UK Taxes, UK car plates, UK laws or anything else basically. We are not even a part of the UK! Our association to the Royal Family largely revolves around loads of children waving flags at whichever of them come over on the rare occasions they visit and have an official drive around the island (usually once every 5 or 10 years).

      Really, whilst I totally believe Jimmy Savile was a paedophile and should have been investigated and punished before his death, and that many of his associates were no doubt much the same and need to be investigated (and punished where relevant) it is ludicrous to use nut jobs like David Icke to back up the case. It actually removes credibility and has the opposite effect to what is intended by those who mean well and want this nasty business brought out into the open.

  20. 0
    Peelander Gallyposted 3 years ago

    So I happened upon this thread a couple of days ago, and ended up reading through it as I found the conversation fascinating. I had never heard of any of these personalities, as I'm sure you folks would assume, even though my dad's English and half my family is there and in Ireland, but today this appeared:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/world … p&_r=0

    Maybe there will finally be an enormous ongoing investigation? It's probably only a matter of time before it hits mainstream American television news if NYT's featuring it.

  21. CMHypno profile image89
    CMHypnoposted 3 years ago

    This is what happens when internet witch hunts get going:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tness.html

    Innocent men get their names smeared over social media, and a troubled man who should have been protected and not thrust in front of a TV camera could potentially end up being sued for slander.

    On another note, Philip Schofield should be sacked and our Prime Minister should have more important things to do than prancing around on 'This Morning'.  Like Nadine Dorries, Call me Dave should remember that he is a servant of the people and not a two bit celebrity.

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Witch hunt is the correct term for this.  As far as I have seen to date there is no evidence of any wrongdoing except that which has come from opening the floodgates to every female who ever met the man who can claim he touched her inapropriately or whatever.  I cannot believe that it is right for the media to act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner - or even comment before the facts are known.

      In a trial it is illegal to mould public opinion by getting involved,  the same goes for a police investigation - and this is why.   How can anyone believe anything that comes of this unless some direct hard evidence can be produced.

  22. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago

    It is appalling that the Daily Mail can resort to smearing a child abuse victim in order to try to control the agenda.

    It is a fact that the Welsh care home scandal did not release all the evidence or punish all the guilty.

    It is a fact that Hillsborough was covered up by the police.

    The Cameron, May and right wing Tory press, including the Murdochs of course, has swung into action.

    There is a choreography to this. Deny the accusations, smear the victim, and destroy the BBC.

    The Lord Boothby case, on Wiki, is a perfect example of how these people work.  Perhaps the Daily Mail would like to examine the parallels.

  23. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    Child sexual abuse that happened years ago is practically impossible to prove. There has to be witnesses (and there never are) or an admission of guilt by the accused.

    I feel so sorry for this man, the accuser. The Daily Mail is making him out to be a monster, a thief, a cheat and a liar.

    While he could be all of those, let us not forget that this was once a frightened little boy being touched in the most despicable way by adults who should have been looking after him.

    Is it any wonder he grew up to be an unbalanced adult, if that is what he is?

    One of the charges he has faced in the past is benefit fraud.

    He claimed income support while he had £40,000 in the bank - the money awarded him by the courts for being abused.

    So he was abused, It has been accepted.

    Lord McAlpine, senior police officers, whoever, could have touched him as a child. We will never know, because the establishment has closed ranks to protect their own.

    George Entwhistle has made the ultimate sacrifice by resigning his position, a job he only held for 2 months after spending a lifetime working for the BBC.

    The top brass (including him) are grossly overpaid anyway. No wonder TV licences are so expensive.

    Maybe this whole thing was staged to heave him out by a jealous rival? Anything is possible.

    Lord McAlpine could be innocent.

    Yet his dead brother was a known child abuser, according to the BBC in a discussion program about the Newsnight program.

    Strange how the dead brother suddenly gets an airing. He's dead of course, just like Savile, can't fight back.

    There can be nothing worse for a family man than to get accused of something like this when he is completely innocent.

    There have been many such false accusations against Joe Bloggs over the years, yet the director general of the BBC didn't resign over those.

    One rule for them, another for us plebs.

    Poor Steven Messham is a pleb, just like us.

  24. sannyasinman profile image84
    sannyasinmanposted 3 years ago

    The main thust of this thread seems to have been diverted to what its like to live in the Channel Islands, and poor old Jimmy Savile being the victim of a witchhunt! Incredible! The mainstream media and the Establishment in the UK would be proud of you! This is exactlty what they want to do with the whole Jimmy Savile affair, divert public attention long enough for the heat to die down so as to avoid any REAL revelations. 

    The real issue is not about whether Jimmy Saviles victims where boys or girls, whether the BBC knew about it etc, etc. The real issue is this.
    It is alleged that Jimmy Savile
    1. Sexually abused helpless young children from state care homes over many years
    2. Enjoyed having sex with dead bodies in hospital morgues
    3. Supplied children from these care homes for the pleasure (sexual abuse or worse) of the rich and famous, including government/prime ministers and the royal family in the UK

    Number 3 is the important one. It is also alleged that the police in the UK knew all about his activites but were ordered to keep quiet and not investigate. This is why Jimmy Savile was able to boast that he could do whatever he liked and was "untouchable". . . 

    So back to the gist of this thread, . . .
    Here is someone else who is prepared to name names and tell the real truth as he sees it. . .


    What do you think?

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah sorry the thread went off-topic, and am doubly sorry I suggested Savile was an easy target because he was dead. Its a shame he is dead, but if he was alive there'd be the same reaction as we saw this week from Lord McAlpine and his entourage - the Establishment..

      I read through most of that link you posted, and followed a few of the links.

      Have a sore head now, but what I'd like to ask the poster is "where is the evidence"?

      He names a lot of names, but doesn't seem to have any proof to back his claims up.

      I'm not doubting him on some things, but others are bit less unlikely. The Queen Mother as a child abuser? I don't think so.

      He named 5 boys who were star witnesses in some child abuse enquiry who all died in a tragic house fire before the case went to court.

      But no names? 5 boys dying in a house fire would have been big news at the time, but no way to check it without names.

      And if all these people are being murdered by the Authorities to shut them up, how come all our internet accusers are still alive?

      I have a couple of articles linking some well-known people with paedophilia, yet no-one has contacted me, threatened me, followed me about, or tried to set fire to my house.

      Not yet anyway.