The disturbed world of murderous paedophile Jimmy Savile, Royal honours, bizarre childhood dabbling, rotting clothes and a body in the cupboard

jimmy-savilecupboardrotting clothesPrince+Charles

We now know that murderous child-rapist Jimmy Savile was living a lie.

He managed to hoodwink the British public for over 50 years into believing he was a charitable fun-loving DJ and national treasure. Only now are details emerging of the true level of his filth and depravity, this despite many allegations being made over the years, all of which were hushed-up by the police and the paedophilic BBC.

A charade of this scale could only have taken place with protection from the very highest echelons of the British Establishment including the Royals, Number 10 and the Intelligence services. Rather than distancing themselves from Savile, the Royal family actually threw all manner of honours and accolades his way, suggesting they saw no wrong in his child-raping activities. To this day they’ve refused to withdraw his OBE or KCSG. Does that in itself not speak volumes?

In 2002, Christine Smith interviewed Savile for the Mirror and managed to capture some sense of his twisted and  disturbed world with references to sexual experiences at the age of 5, an obsession with his mother’s clothing, his apparent hatred of children and a sick joke about a body in his cupboard:

” The voice is familiar. “Massage Parlour,” it booms over the intercom as I stand outside a non-descript block of flats in Leeds. It’s Sir Jimmy Savile , who I am shocked to discover actually lives here.

He invites me up to his penthouse suite, perched on the top of a white eight-storey building that looks like a 1960s Eastern Europe hell-hole.

But once Jim fixes it for me to enter his home I am transported into another world. Not one I want to be in. I’ve landed on Planet Savile and this is a place where no-one can hear you scream.

I don’t claim to be a style queen. Nor am I an expert on interior decor. But what a disaster! Red walls, blue carpet, white leather sofas, a false arm hanging from an MFI cupboard and a green plastic frog which, Jim insists, guards his apartment.

Who from, I can’t imagine. This is a place that would never need a burglar alarm. Any self-respecting thief would leave the moment he cased the lurid joint.

Sir Jimmy is a phenomenon. Forty years in the public eye and not a single day when he wasn’t weird as hell. Why he achieved such popularity remains a mystery. Perhaps it’s because he’s seen a lot of life. No doubt about it, the guy’s been around.

Miner, wrestler, racing cyclist, dance hall manager, marathon man, Britain’s first DJ, Mensa member, Top of the Pops presenter and the fixer of all the life-long dreams a BBC budget could possibly accommodate.

Watching Jim’ll Fix It as a kid I always thought: “Why is the sum total of this person’s ambitions to be a London bus driver?”

But in those days the Beeb was nothing if not cheap. And it fostered the career of a strange man who would sit in a big armchair wearing gold tracksuits while making Tarzan noises.

So I’m rather pleased to discover that at least the man himself realises he’s a little bizarre.

“I am odd,” says Sir Jimmy, “I am unusual. There are 26million people in this country. Ninety nine point nine per cent of them have planned their lives. And I never did. So I must be odd.”

I let it pass that there are in fact 60million in this country. Perhaps old Jim’s referring to the population when he was born many, many years ago. After telling me he’s odd, astonishingly, he adds: “I’ve never admitted this before.”

Sir Jimmy is talking as he chomps on one of his trademark Cuban cigars. His appalling thin white mullet just about makes it to his shoulders before the split ends run out of steam.

A slave to all that is old-fashioned, it’s clear that this Savile has never been to Savile Row.

He is wearing about five tonnes of chunky gold jewellery, fluorescent yellow trainers, a tight see-through vest, massive dark sunglasses and black tracksuit bottoms.

At least his outfit goes with his flat. Jim always wears a tracksuit. Even in bed. Sometimes he wears the same one for a week. Ugh! Doesn’t he smell?

“No one is here,” says Sir Jimmy. “So it doesn’t matter. I could never live with anyone.”

I sense this dovetails nicely with what the rest of the world would think about living with him. The veteran 75-year-old star has never married, nor has he ever had a girlfriend. Jimmy is obviously not gay. So I ask if he is celibate.

“No, I have dabbled,” he says. “Here, there and everywhere – but not at anybody’s expense. When? Since I was five.”

Five! Who does he think he’s kidding. Am I supposed to believe this rubbish?

“I fall in love three times a day,” he continues. “I go to a cafe, see a waitress and fall for her.

“But I have not missed out. When I was young, I saw people getting excited when they got married, then two years later they wanted to kill each other. That wasn’t for me.

“As I got older I also realised that if I saw a woman in Plymouth, I could not be faithful to her if I then went off to London and spotted another woman.” Nice guy.

I feign surprise that he has never dated. In fact, it’s remarkably easy to work out why. But Jim shrugs his podgy bare shoulders.

Again, I do not fall over in shock when he confesses he has no close friends. “I am a bit of a loner,” he says. “And I never ring anyone up to go out.

“I wait for them to call. What if I rang a girl and she wanted to go out? She may have met Mr Right.”

Pause. “Odd,” he says again, warming to his theme. “That’s what I am.” Yes, that’s what he is. He lights another cigar. “Look, there is no living thing in my flat,” he says, presumably classifying himself as the undead.

“No plants, no dog, no cat, no children. Why not? I don’t want to have to bleeding look after them.”

Sir Jimmy will not allow children in his flat. “They will meddle with things, pull things over,” he says. “I would rather not have them round. I have no paternal desire. Nor will I let them in my car. Odd, I know. But I think it’s a healthy attitude.”

If he hates children, how did he host a show making kids’ dreams come true for 20 years?

“Jim’ll Fix It was for adults,” he insists. “But kids took it over. Most requests were either from children or elderly people.”

I tell him I once wrote in to the programme but never got a reply.

“Your request must have been rubbish then,” he says simply. “We got 20,000 letters a week.”

More likely my request would have been too expensive. I wanted to go the Taj Mahal which, as soon as they realised wasn’t the local BBC curry house, would have been way out of the Jim’ll Fix It league.

One of the reasons for my visit is to find out what Sir Jimmy thinks of Louis Theroux.

A TV programme is being screened next week in which Louis’ victims have a chance to say what they really made of their intrusive interrogator.

“Lovely man,” says Sir Jimmy who got the Theroux treatment last year. “But I don’t know why he picked me. He usually goes for weird people…”

I remind him he is odd. “But not weird,” he says. “That would suggest I indulge in practices which are socially peculiar.”

Spending an afternoon with Sir Jimmy is a sad experience. It’s almost as if he is living in a time warp. He talks repeatedly of how his career is going from strength to strength despite the fact he is a pensioner who is no longer on TV.

Jim’ll Fix It ended in 1993. And he tells me at least three times how he turns down TV jobs every week. But he declines to give details. That’s his style. He delivers a never ending stream of self-aggrandising statements that do not hold water. Not evil lies – just silly childish fibs.

I ask him to name his hero. “Me,” he replies. Yet again, I am not surprised. And his proudest achievement? “Waking up today,” he says.

But what about the knighthood he was awarded in 1990? the 214 marathons he completed? the 107 fights he fought as a wrestler or the pounds 35million he has raised for charity?

“Yes, but waking up means I have made it,” he insists. “A lot of people don’t get to 75.” Give that man a cigar!

HE says he is always busy these day, raising money for his charities or exercising on his running machine. He rarely watches television.

Given he is a multi-millionaire, I ask whether he leads a flash lifestyle. His flat here in Leeds suggests not. My suspicions are right.

With the exception of owning properties in Scarborough, London, Bournemouth, Glencoe – as well as a Rolls-Royce – Sir Jimmy says he rarely spends money. “My flats are cheaper than having a wife anyway,” he quips. “But it is nice to be loaded so I can choose exactly what I want to do.

“I have paid pounds 18million in tax. And that entitles me to a pension. Wonderful.” He recalls the first day he received a pension 10 years ago.

“For the first time in my life, I bought some alcohol,” he remembers, “It was nice to feel light headed. The next day I had a bad headache. I realised I wasn’t missing anything.”

He never votes either. He probably lost his natural political hero when Screaming Lord Sutch  died.

“I am flying at Concorde level,” he says. “Everybody else is at Boeing 747 level. But on my level politics does not affect me. I am my own person.”

He offers me a cup of tea. It’s lunch time but no food is offered. I am relieved. Sir Jimmy has no cooker.

Instead, he relies on doggy bags from restaurants. In his fridge are two slices of roast kangaroo he brought home from a London restaurant two days ago. Sir Jimmy explains he needs little food because he is an athlete. He notices my bemused expression. “Odd,” he says smiling. Too right, buster.

We chat about his Catholic upbringing. Born in 1926 in Leeds, the youngest of seven. One brother and a sister are still alive. Much has been written about the close relationship with his mother, Agnes, who he still refers to as the Duchess.

He lived with her until she died in 1973. He still talks to her daily and keeps her clothes in a wardrobe. They are dry-cleaned every year to stop them rotting. He cannot understand why I view this is as strange.

I ask why he rarely mentions his dad, Vince, who died when Sir Jimmy was 27. “Dad was very kind,” he says. “But I don’t mention him because he pegged it before I was famous.”

Exhausted, I make my excuses and leave. Before I do, he insists I look at the false arm hanging out of his cupboard. “There is a body in there,” he jokes as I fail to laugh.

How’s about that then?”’ve+never+said+this+to…-a085141469

16 thoughts on “The disturbed world of murderous paedophile Jimmy Savile, Royal honours, bizarre childhood dabbling, rotting clothes and a body in the cupboard

  1. It would be interesting to find out if Savile wasnt an abuse victim himself. Why was his mother named “Duchess”? On the contrary, other sources say his mom didnt pay much attention to him back in his childhood. IMO his attitude towards his mother – including her death – leads to a terrible conclusion: incest. Most likely he was abused by his mother in all ways possible including sexually. Possible by his father too, but definitely by her. Even a blind can see that. And reading between the lines, I believe he had sex with her dead body…. Did u know his fam was Jewish but they converted to Catholicism?

  2. I doubt very much that Savile’s family were Jewish but converted to Catholicism .Someone stated on the internet after he died that he was Jewish and that Savile was a Jewish name. This is baseless. It is a northern English name. His mother was of Irish descent and was born Agnes Kelly. I think the claim that he was Jewish was simply a case of people shoehorning facts to fit their pre-existing prejudices and phobias. It is true that Savile was a Zionist who told the Knesset how to conduct their affairs. But he was also a member of the Gypsy Council of Britain and he was not a Gypsy.

    There is plenty of evidence that child abuse goes back as an integral part of the Catholic Church to its earliest days so I can well believe that Savile may have been abused himself as a child. He made some extraordinary remarks in his autobiography which can only be interpreted as meaning that he did indeed have an incestuous relationship with his mother, and furthermore that it continued into adulthood.

    Another apparently baseless claim is that Savile was a Satanist. This again is probably a fantasy. There are people who call themselves witches but they are neo-Pagans. I doubt that Satanism even exists. I found the quoted interview extremely interesting but question the claim in the title that Savile was a murderer . I accept he drove people to suicide. But where is the evidence that he directly committed murder? I wouldn’t put it past him but I don’t believe it’s been proved.

  3. Marianne, re your doubts about “Satanism”. There is a great pic of Savile, dressed in an Aleister Crowley get-up, on the internet. If you want a link, let me know. He certainly is not in Jesus sandals. Often too, Savile is pictured in a Hermetic pose. His cigar was his magic wand. He bought a house in Glencoe because of the infamous massacre – itself a “blood sacrifice” to William of Orange and Mary. He was alleged to be a necrophiliac by some (I heard it long before he died) and chose to be buried at a 45 degree angle, arse down, in a golden coffin encased in concrete. Think he was worried about something ?

    Sorry too, but this is nonsense :

    “It is true that Savile was a Zionist who told the Knesset how to conduct their affairs. But he was also a member of the Gypsy Council of Britain and he was not a Gypsy”. Simply because you write he “was a Zionist”, and not “just a member” of a (hypothetical) “Zionist Council”

    If you drive someone to suicide then you have commited murder; maybe not in the eyes of “crown law”, but certainly morally.


  4. I agree that if you drive someone to suicide, you will normally have moral responsibility for their death. Since saying I doubted the existence of Satanism, I have checked it with Wiki and it seems that Satanism was invented in 1966 and is probably not harmful. Look it up yourself. The article admits that there were forerunners like Aleister Crowley. I wonder if what you see as an Aleister Crowley robe is just an outré dressing gown. I have seen Savile wearing it too and I don’t read anything into it.

    When I was a student, I met some people who considered themselves Neo-Pagans. They were sometimes nice and sometimes not, but they did have problems with Christians who mistook them for Satanists. On one occasion, the Christians threatened them with death. It was no advert for Christianity.

    At this time there was a moral panic about so-called Satanic sex abuse. It was the 1980s and 1990s. It didn’t stand up to scrutiny . If you like, check out my articles on ‘Y Repwblic’ under ‘Theoretical’. Do I say no Neo -Pagan would be capable of child abuse? Of course not. But I don’t see that they are any more likely to be guilty of it than anyone else.

    You can see from the Pliny-Trajan correspondence that the Romans believed the early Christians to be guilty of holding terrible depraved orgies in which they ate babies as well as indulging in sexual depravity. When Christians became the top dogs in Europe, they accused other people of the same thing, including lepers, Jews and those they accused of being witches. Then, the accusations were levelled against elusive Satanists in the 1980s. Someone whose name I forget wrote a book about this called ‘Europe’s Hidden Demons.’ He believed the accusations were always a baseless urban myth.

    I tend to agree but have had a few doubts recently. Geoffrey Robertson has written a book in which he sets out the case that there is a wicked overgrown cult in Europe which involves chanting in Latin and has been dedicated to child abuse since the beginning. What is it? It is the Roman Catholic Church!

    I had a good friend who became a solicitor. She told me about how policemen investigate sexually motivated murders. She said that if they discovered a suspect had a Roman Catholic background, they focused on him. She said there was a correlation between Roman Catholicism and these offences, but it is not publicised. I must admit this is hearsay only, and I can’t confirm it.

    I don’t think it’s necessary to look for arcane cults because child abuse can happen anywhere. You might well be barking up the wrong tree. But could religious cults/religions promote this sort of thing? Yes. Mormonism and the Branch Dravidians come to mind. What about Islam? Mohammed is said to have married a nine year old and to have consummated the marriage the same day. Hinduism has also permitted child marriage.

    So could a sect of wicked Satanists be guilty of ritualised child abuse? It’s not physically impossible and can’t be ruled out, but it has yet to be proved. I believe those who call themselves Satanists are, for the most part, silly show offs from a Christian background. They set out to shock.

    Life would be simple if wicked religious people made it easy for us by calling themselves Satanists. They are more likely to call themselves Christians and to pretend to be virtuous. Life is not simple. It is complicated.

    I don’t really understand what you mean about the depth of Jimmy Savlle’s Zioinist involvement so I must let that go. I will give full disclosure here. I feel that Israel is a rogue state. My sympathy or most of it is with the Palestinians. Having said that, I have friends who are Jews or have Jewish blood. In case you haven’t noticed ,they are like everyone else. I am distressed by the crazy paranoid stuff that appears on the internet about them all the time.

    Does Judaism involve child abuse? Yes, it does! Mutilating a baby’s genitals without anaesthetic is child abuse in my view. But, until recently, there was a medical myth that babies could not feel pain. The parents are not evil people. They are in denial about how harmful it is.

    To sum up, I think my point is that evil does exist but it doesn’t make it easy for us to find it. Life is not a pantomime in which a burglar lugs a sack clearly labelled ‘swag’. I think that’s it then. Cheers.

  5. Oh God, I forgot to say anything about the Glencoe massacre. I accept, of course, that William of Orange was – at least in part- responsible for that, but no history book says that it was a Satanic sacrifice. My understanding is that the head of the clan failed to submit to William’s kingship by the given deadline, through pure mischance and absent mindedness. The Lord of Stair made an awful example of the whole clan.

    Ulster Protestants idolise King Billy. Does that mean Protestantism is a form of Satanism? The fact is that we cannot know why Savile chose to buy a house at Glencoe. It might have been because it was remote or because even he had some ability to appreciate magnificent scenery. It’s not impossible that he took a sadistic pleasure in gloating over the massacre but we just don’t know. You could make the same allegation about anyone who buys a house in the area. With the greatest respect, you’re reading much too much into it. l have to say that I have never heard of Dutch Billy being involved in Satanic sacrifice before. None of his biographers mention it I imagine. Or if they do, hey must be very eccentric ones. I assumed he was a Calvinist like his ancestor William the Silent

    I’ve just been thinking that it wouldn’t be totally unfair to rebrand Protestantism and Catholicism as forms of Satanism. In ‘The Age of Reason’, Thomas Paine said that the God of the Old Testament was more like a demon than a god. He was so cruel. Did he not demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac to him? He changed his mind in that case but not with Jephthah’s daughter. The New Testament also approves of human sacrifice, at least in the case of Jesus: ‘Christ, our Passover lamb, is sacrificed for us.’

    But it would be too confusing to refer to Christianity as Satanism. Let’s not let our imaginations run away with us over Savile or any other character, historical, living or recently dead. It will only blind us to what is really going on. Let’s rely on empirical evidence instead.

  6. It’s so kind of you to allow me to put up stuff here. It’s only just occurred to me that the site master doesn’t agree with me about anything so his/her tolerance is greatly appreciated. I thought it would be a good time to put up a post. I note that the Daily Express is a really poor paper and has been especially so under the editorship of the transparent and condescending numbskull, Peter Hill. It is this rag which had the story about Savile chanting “Hail Satan!” in Latin, then beating and raping a twelve year old in a ceremonial way. Please note that this story doesn’t even claim to be a first person account. It’s the only story about Savile that I find implausible. Savile was an opportunist who didn’t need incense and costumes to get him going, and I don’t think there’s another account of his using more violence than was necessary to achieve what he wanted i e sex.

    Of course it’s not literally impossible but it’s unsupported to say the least. The evidence of Savile’s hobnobbing with Roman Catholic cardinals and a former Pope, and his papal knighthood are manifest for all to see. Why do people want to blame Satanists and Jews when the elephant in the room is the Catholic Church? This is terrifying.

    I have a friend who became a fundamentalist Christian. She was once upset that it was Hallowe’en. She thought it was a Satanic festival. She expressed her feelings by going to a local hospital and setting off the alarms. Policemen poured in One put out his hand to restrain her, so she kicked him in the groin!

    Satan really can’t exist. The idea of him evolved over time. In the Book of Job, he and God gang up on Job very unfairly. He and God seem to be good friends. It is far from certain that he and Lucifer are the same person. Popes encouraged Christian missionaries in Europe to take over the local Pagan gods and turn them into saints. My school history book on the Middle Ages says that a priest in Britain had one altar to the Christian God and another to the local goat headed god. Some gods just didn’t make the grade. So they became demons or devils. The goat headed one became relegated, and was equated with Satan from the Bible.

    The church tried to take over Hallowe’en but didn’t quite succeed, at least in this country. I’ve heard of Christian parents reusing to allow their children to celebrate this festival because they think it’s Satanic.

    Of course there could be misguided people who worship this fictional character Satan, but from the wiki article, it looks as if they’re just having a laugh. Let’s look at what Savile was like. He pretended to be saintly, and said he tried to live a good life so he would go to heaven. My partner was at a psychology lecture. The lecturer said, “Vicars are often psychopaths!” Everyone burst out laughing. He said “No, I mean it!” It’s the perfect disguise. Advertising your evil will get you nowhere.

    When people began to wake up to the reality of child abuse in the 1980s and 90s, it was terrifying to find that the culprits were respected people, priests, doctors, teachers. So people began looking outwards and blamed Satanists. A more mature and helpful response would be to take a good look at our society and ourselves and admit we and our respected leaders may have a dark side

    In the European witch craze, it was marginalised people, old, disabled and poor women who were the most frequent victims -although no-one at all was safe. We hear of sexism, disablism and classism now. They were much worse then. These people clearly had no supernatural powers. Otherwise, they would not have been helpless in the face of their accusers. They were not evil. They were vulnerable.

    I did not think we had a witch hunt against alleged paedophiles as some said. There really is a lot of paedophilia about. But now we hear of Bijan Ebrahimi, a kind, vulnerable, entirely innocent man, demonised as a paedophile and burnt to death. He was a poor disabled man, instead of a poor disabled woman. That’s the only difference. There was no evidence against him. Clearly, it is single men, not single women who will be picked out for this witch hunt.

    The grim history of the last century has already shown us what demonising Jews leads to. For God’s sake, let’s not throw frivolous accusations around. It’s a luxury we can’t afford. If we don’t have evidence based justice, cool heads, fairness and a reliance on the scientific method of looking at the world, life will not be worth living. Only a small part of the human mind is rational, but we must cultivate it. Compassion and inclusivity are also good, I suggest.

    Happy Hallowe’en and kind regards

  7. Jimmy Savile was a satanist,along with Tony Hardman, Ken Bailey, Stephen Paul Merrfield, David Adams and others. The satanic circle involved people inside and outside the world of entertainment. David Adams murdered Clare Stagg during the 1980s and Sandra Court was murdered after she recognised some well known faces at the Steppes nightclub in Bournemouth.

  8. Daniel, I’ve just looked up the murder of Clare Stagg on Google and have found no mention of Jimmy Savile or Satanism. Please provide evidence and citations. I have read that police are seriously linking Savile to the murder of a small girl who went missing near a place where he stayed, but I don’t think this is the same girl is it? After all, someone else had been convicted for the murder of Clare Stagg. In the latter case, I believe it’s more that the police haven’t ruled out Savile. Perhaps the best evidence that Savile may have been a murderer is that when he threatened Louis Theroux, he said he ‘wouldn’t be the first he’d put away.’ Personally, I’d put nothing past Savile but it’s very much speculative at the moment.

    If you doubt what I say about Catholicism, you can see a video on the internet of Catholic priests running a concentration camp in Yugoslavia in the 1940s. After saying mass in full canonicals in the morning, they went on to use the ‘Serb killer’, a carved knife’ to do what it said on the tin. Then they drank their victims’ blood! Never mind about Satanism. Savile was a typical Catholic.

  9. I’ve just checked and it’s 13 year old Lindsay Jo Rimer whose murder has been linked to Savile. There is no mention of Satanism. Savile was, of course, interviewed by the police about the Yorkshire Ripper murders. The body of 28 year old Irene Richardson was found just about in Savile’s garden. We know now that he was not the Ripper but was later good friends with the person who was. It is always possible that Savile knew Sutcliffe before and that he did have some involvement with his crimes, but this has yet to be proved.

  10. I’ve just seen a barrister Barbara Hewson on Channel 4 News, laughing at Savile’s victims. She was scornful because there had been an allegation of ‘Satanic abuse.’ She stated that Satanic abuse does not exist. It is like alien abduction. On that one point alone, I think she is probably right. I don’t rule the possibility out entirely because it is not physically impossible.

    If that person really was a silly fantasist, they are making it worse for the real victims. This is why we must not tell tall stories in important situations. It is irresponsible and plays into your enemies’ hands.

    I had an open mind on Savile’s guilt until my partner told me that he had seen Savile behaving oddly if not illegally with a girl in 1974. I don’t expect anyone else to be impressed by this, but I know my partner to be very truthful. Probably well over 90% of the allegation are true. How can we be so sure? Because Savile himself stated he did all this in a book published in the 1970s.

    Sine then, after standards became stricter, he often made allusions to underage sex. He obviously had it on the brain. It would be in the context of a joke or a constantly repeated catchphrase. He told an interviewer from UTV that he was not into underage sex. As no-one had accused him of it, it’s a fair indication that he was.

    Similarly, he apparently once denied that he was a necrophilac. It’s an astonishing denial to volunteer without being accused. How many of us would ever feel the need to reassure anyone that we were not into necrophilia? Why would they ever suspect us of it? It is thought to be extremely rare.

    Now, a Dr Sue Procter has recounted people claiming that they had seen Savile wearing ‘huge’ rings set with glass eyes he bragged he had taken from corpses in the morgue. She appeared to believe it, but said it could not be proved. But I have seen a pre-revelation video on the internet in which Savile is definitely wearing false human eyes set into his rings. At the time, I thought it was joke jewellery from a costumier. Of course, that is still possible. He might just have been trying to shock. But it seems increasingly likely that they were taken from corpses.

    It’s also been said that he bragged of putting corpses together in ‘lurid’ and presumably pornographic poses. He would also take part in the tableau. Or so he said. He also allegedly bragged of performing sex acts on individual corpses. It’s highly believable now although it would once have seemed ridiculous. Although the previous inquiries into the possibility of his killing a young girl had either negative or inconclusive outcomes, it does now look possible that he lured a girl called April or Elizabeth away from a home in the 60s, and she was dead by the next day.

    As late as the 80s, I was in an educational establishment where some of the people in authority were dishonest and malignant. They also had positions in the religious hierarchy and as magistrates. They were looked up to. I know from experience that if you told unpleasant truths about them, it was you who would be in trouble. It would be taken for granted that you were lying and also bonkers. Much effort would be put into pressurising you to retract the allegations. The methods would include mockery, name calling, threats and trying to make you sorry for the person who had wronged you. Meanwhile, that person would get a free pass.

    The idea was that a person in a position of authority must by definition be a good and worthy person and in the right. But authority is just a positive word for power. What kind of people seek power? Often, extremely unsavoury people indeed. Barbara Hewson is wrong that old men are being persecuted by children. At least, on the whole she is wrong. She is dangerously wrong in saying the age of consent should be lowered to thirteen. It was thirteen in late Victorian times, and Britain was then like Thailand today. People were coming here as sex tourists.

    I don’t like the woman, but she is almost certainly right about Satanic abuse, as such, being a myth. If you put these myths round and can’t substantiate them with evidence, you may have the intention of standing up for the victims. But you are not doing that. You are making it easier for unpleasant barristers to make them out to be liars. And when you have already been victimised once, it is almost equally painful to be laughed at and disbelieved.

  11. Oh for goodness’ sake, New Spaceman, Savile was really a member of the Gypsy Council without being a Gypsy. There’s nothing hypothetical about it.

  12. Pingback: DID SAVILE MURDER 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL? | Cubahoy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s