The outpouring of evidence about Jimmy Savile shows that scores of people working in the BBC, Hospitals, childrens’ homes and even the police knew – not had heard gossip, really knew – about Savile’s paedophilia, but did not blow the whistle.
To me this correlates with the fact that scores of people in the FCO, MI6, MI5, Cabinet Office and other government agencies knew about extraordinary rendition, but did not blow – indeed still have have not blown – the whistle.
Savile had come to be seen as a big and peculiarly “Establishment” figure. The extreme rarity of whistleblowing in society is a strange phenomenon it is worth taking a few minutes to consider. Why did none of those now coming forward with their stories – not the victims, but the eye-witnesses – come forward at the time? Fear is probably the main answer, in particular fear of losing your job if you rock the boat. One problem in modern society is that people’s job is too central to their identity – most people when asked who they are, will reply what work they do. It is not just the need to earn money; your social status and personal relationships are often dependent on your position at work. To lose your job, or to become a social pariah within the organisation where you work, is too much for most people to contemplate.
That is why BBC producers who knew about Savile, saw him at it, did not blow the whistle on one of the Corporation’s biggest stars. It is why so few whistleblowers spontaneously come forward who have seen corruption in local government planning departments or defence procurement, to give an example. For most white collar crime there are people who are not directly involved bu see it and keep quiet. There is also the deterrent of self-incrimination – after a time silence becomes complicity.
In my own case of blowing the whistle on the international torture network, I know for certain that many other Ambassadors and diplomats knew just what was happening, most of them didn’t like it, but nobody but me blew the whistle. One Ambassador sent me a cheery “Rather you than me!” Some were actively complicit by being involved in rendition arrangements, others passively by not trying to stop it. This is why the Gibsom Inquiry into Complicity in Torture was shelved – it could not have proceeded without revealing that scores, possibly hundreds, are guilty, many of them still high-ranking civil servants. It was to protect them and the institutions in which they work, rather than to protect the high profile war criminals like Blair, Straw and Campbell, that the Establishment closes ranks. I always knew I would never be allowed to testify before an Inquiry into Complicity in Torture.
Whistleblowers are not just thrown out of their jobs. They almost never find new employment, as the one quality every employer values above any other quality is loyalty to the employer, right or wrong. Nobody wants a “disloyal” employee, whatever their motives. And if your whistleblowing involves the world of war and spying, they will try to set you up on false charges, like me, like Julian Assange, and not just sack you but destroy you.
Whistleblowers are rare because it is a near suicidal vocation, and everyone else is too scared to help. The Savile case teaches us far more important lessons than the prurient detail of a lurid life. Think about it.
Moderation Notice:
Comments on the 9/11 Post are now open again. Here’s a link:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-10/#comment-276577
@lwtc247
You believe what you believe. You are again missing the point. 1/ It doesn’t matter, does it, to you, really, to have Craig reassert/shift position.
And 2/ The logical flaw is to believe that when there are two events, independent of one another, that discovery of the cause of one has any bearing upon the other.
That is why I said, with superior logic to your own, that Jimmy Savile was clearly behind */** because that then would provide the link that would justify the linking together of these two (so far) utterly unconnected occurrences.
There, is that any easier to understand?
And I should’ve name-checked Clark and Mary, too, in terms of their orientation. I always appreciate the concrete nature of Mary’s research into links between the various players. She shines a light on webs/networks, without then postulating some consciously organized clique that all gather round a table every few months to determine the destiny of the UK/EU/UN/mankind/the galaxy…
I think that people are interested in the geopolitical fallout too, including the restriction of civil liberties at home.
When we think how we may exit this Kafkaesque bollocks we might reflect that there appear to be two doors. One involves escalating war bringing its own conclusion. The other involves some form of revolution in the US, since that is the power which determines everything for the rest of us in UK and Europe.
If it can be shown that the unmentionable was a false flag that might encourage the Americans to revolt, at least in political terms. That would change everything.
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/nonviolence/2914-an-israeli-pilot-in-iaf-on-board-of-qestelleq-swedish-boat-to-gaza
An Israeli Ex-IAF Pilot on Board Swedish Boat To Gaza
Friday 19th October, Spokesperson of Gush Shalom, Adam Keller, said in a press release that Israeli peace activist Yonatan Shapira, who had been a combat pilot in the Israeli Air Force and refused to take part in the bombing of Palestinian cities, has arrived on board the Swedish boat “Estelle” which is making her way towards the coast of Gaza. When the Estelle passed near the shores of Greece, Shapira and other activists made their way in a motor boat, evading vessels of the Greek Coast Guard which sought to bar their way. “Along with the Greek Coast Guard we saw a ship which seemed very much like an Israeli Navy vessel, though it did not fly a flag” said Shapira. He was received with cheers by activists already on board. Shapira had taken part in a similar sailing last year, being taken off by Israeli Navy Commandos near the Gaza shore and spending time in police detention, but not charged with any criminal offence.
.
//..
Guano, honestly, you don’t need Zionists to get people running after sex. It was the ’60s and the invention of the contraceptive pills that started all that. And commercialism has sexualised everything, in the pursuit of advertising, appealing to basic human drives, etc.
Personal sexual liberty is unconnected with paedophilia.
I have been watching a debate from the SNP conference on ch 81. Very interesting and old style politics where you hear all sides of the question from informed and impassioned speakers, so unlike the lame stage-managed Nu NuLab, Con and LibDem conferences where dissent is neither seen or heard.
The question being discussed is about leaving NATO and getting rid of Trident and nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Salmond and co wants to keep the status quo until after/if independence is achieved, ie a postponement of any decision.
A link here but I have not read through to see if it is representative of what I have been hearing and seeing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/oct/19/snp-conference-nato-debate-live-blog
@Herbie
Indeed. It’s what that Orlov guy has been going on about for how many years – anticipate the collapse of society by adopting a lifestyle that is simple enough to absorb it when it comes.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.tw/
One reason we may entertain the notion we are being continually deceived is that government, with it’s superior means of data collection and powers of analysis, has already become aware, some time ago/a long time ago, that the present social order is doomed, but that politically it is impossible to level with the electorate.
I would not call that a conspiracy theory, but it does mean that the interests of the public are not served by listening and acting upon the dictates of politicians, and that there may be a set of class interests that run through the mainstream parties that commit all of them to not opening up regarding the probable impacts coming our way from climate change/oil running out.
This might also explain the role of the Lib Dems in the coalition at a time of austerity. The idea being to closely biind all three parties into a particular line of action. We do, after all, despite the odd kerfuffle, be seem to be living under a government of national unity, pretty much, at a time of austerity, in conditions of more or less permanent foreign war.
What Craig’s blog rests upon, it seems to me, is the recognition of these interests that are capable of transcending party lines, that are more ‘real’ than any particular policy position or declaration of humanitarian principles, and so on. And, of course, which almost never see the light of day, yet are everywhere, forming a subtext that shapes all sorts of decisions. It’s rather similar to the ‘offshore’ of Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands, once you are familiar with the concept, it’s astonishing how often it pops up as a dimension of all kinds of previously seemingly unconnected events.
Craig seems to be an idealist in believing that the law could be applied and a better outcome achieved. With regards to Uzbekistan, the primary benefit would be for the people of that nation, should the much vaunted ‘international community’ apply sanctions of the type that Iran is now labouring under. Positive change might be forced.
On the other hand, where the UK has interacted with much stronger nations than Uzbekistan, the primary benefits of applying law would be to the benefit of the UK’s democracy (over and above the howls of those doing well out of the present arrangement). I have a close friend who rubbed shoulders with the Saudi royals, and she said that *any* nation that has business dealings with them will destroy their own ethical bases, because that is the natural outgrowth of interacting with a group who advocate wholesale bribery as a modus operandi.
I would hardly say she’s been proved wrong. The Saudi influence has certainly been malign in matters pertaining to the UK arms industry.
Mary indeed deserves credit; her tireless digging into public records is a valuable asset to this blog.
Kingfelix, thanks for the vote of confidence. It can get a bit crazy at times, looking after this place.
Sorry Clark. Having looked on the 9/11 thread (1800+ comments!) I put this comment on. Could you please delete it from that thread.
[Mod/Clark: Done.]
A Bullingdon boy in action. To be a pleb or not to be a pleb, that is the question.
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2012-10-19/george-osborne-refuses-to-sit-in-standard-class-despite-not-having-first-class-ticket/
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9ALFWGynxdMt3-zLNV1thpaMZxhSheO2QjCurPBiNLe508qDV (me blushing!)
kingfelix. Actually yes it does matter as Craig’s stance on the whistleblowers aspect of 911 has, by his own argument, highlighted an important inconsistency. Craig does have influence and IF 911 was something very different from what we are asked to believe, then, as this thread shows, people should speak out against it. Craig is a highly respectable chap. His opinions do matter; He has the ability to persuade others and open their minds, like he does about many other issues. I’ll not say any more on the issue, but look forward to Craig’s reply – if he will do me the honour.
@lwtc247
It matters to you, certainly.
Has it not crossed your mind that Craig’s respectability might just derive from *not* subscribing to…
Oh, never mind.
kingfelix. You are consistently misrepresenting my position. Please don’t. Cheers.
You have to go deeper Clark – there may well be a link with sexual liberty and paedophilia. We sow the seeds of sexual awareness and curiosity by teaching infants the biology of sex and maybe sexual disease and how it spreads. I think we must learn how to broaden this picture even at a tender age.
For example, when is kissing okay? Necking? Petting? How can you tell if he or she loves you? What to do if someone pressures you to have sex? What if you like that person or think you are in love? These are difficult topics to broach with children.
I believe parents have a responsibility to help children develop into responsible and responsive human beings who celebrate their sexuality but who also do not exploit others or do not know how to stop others from exploiting them.
lwtc247, I think you’re probably at crossed-purposes with Craig. As a former diplomat, Craig thinks of “false flag” as a secret action by the state apparatus itself. Here’s a quote that you may have forgotten from Craig’s original 9/11 Post:
…which basically only rules out actual US policy. I don’t think you disagree with Craig as much as you think.
But please post any further discussion to here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-10/#comment-276577
@lwtc247
Why don’t you just email Craig directly and spare us your nonsense.
Clark; Why the mod on 9/11. Sounds serious.
Thanks for that, Felix. Very interesting.
When you talk about the concept of offshore in legislation and policy etc, do you mean get-out clauses for corporates?
Mark Golding:
Something I think is relevant to your points above is the large amount of shame and embarrassment felt by many adults about sexual matters, and adult suppression of early childhood play that can be interpreted as “too sexual” by adults, this latter also driven by the fear of gossip, loss of reputation and/or getting into legal trouble. Remember also that under British law, a child can become listed as a paedophile for sex play with another child of similar age.
Children pick up on these insecurities of adults, and it puts up a barrier, so children maybe shy away from telling adults about events that seem to be connected with sex; children know they aren’t supposed to be involved, so they fear “getting into trouble”. This leaves children more vulnerable to exploitation.
[O/T – I received and successfully decrypted an e-mail from you. I thought I’d replied, but looking in my Sent Items I can’t find it. Curious. I’ll look more carefully and e-mail again…]
Ben, 9/11 just has a tendency to take over other topics, so Craig created a thread especially for it, and made a “no diversion of threads onto 9/11” rule.
@Herbie
If you put together John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man with Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands, then some of the relationships become clearer.
I am not only talking about corporate behaviour, but why did this offshore system develop, who controls it, what is it used to accomplish, what have been its consequences, and so on, and what can we expect in future.
In the form of Haut de la Guerenne, to go back on topic, for example, we see the power of the small island of Jersey to limit the potential for whistle blowers (by ostracising and threatening internal opposition and by barring foreigners), whether it be regarding murky financial details or paedophilia. Shaxson deals with it well in his book. The corollary to this would be to think of a place like BBC Television Centre as being possessed of something of an island mentality (the Houses of Parliament and the Lords are further examples). The interesting thing about Savile, of course, is that he actively sought out these closed worlds and moved between them freely in order to fulfil his desires – prisons, mental hospitals, hospitals, mortuaries, orphanages, the inner circle of the Royal Family, etc. His fame and his charity work gave him leverage – who knows how it worked, maybe some of these institutions were manned by sympathetic paedophiles, maybe some wanted the money that Savile’s links would bring, and maybe some were simply sincere (and/or flattered) by his attention.
http://treasureislands.org/
Clark
It is not at all obvious to children that a means of avoiding pregnancy, and now disease, is a green light to sexual freedom.
Even for young adults it is not an obvious progression from having sexual relationships to sexual promiscuity.
For that to happen, parents have to give an active green light.
Savile was a salivator for sexual salvation. Don’t always rush to defend Craig. Savile was clearly a sexual icon for the establishment, or they would have binned him.
Good point Clark – thank-you.
Thanks again, Felix. Just watched Shaxson’s interviews and look forward to reading his book.
I’d come across the idea of this emerging neo-feudalism before, but you’ve certainly provided additional focus. I’ve perhaps concentrated too much on the corporate aspect, neglecting the institutional and other elements.
Good stuff!
Guano, I’m not defending Craig. I like my sexual liberty myself, thanks. Many people who knew the details might consider me depraved, but I consider them up-tight idiots. But none of my sexual fun has ever led me to lust after a child. Quite the opposite. The brain, they say, is the biggest erogenous zone, and imagination develops with age.
Or just fail to take any notice, while the commercial, corporate media does it’s work, selling by sex, sending the message:
Our Frank had a filthy mind, started out making soundtracks for porn, but he knew where the real problems come from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4
We are told by Ceop thaty paedophiles are highly organised amongst each other, that they inform each other of ‘opportunities’, even bragg how easy it is to abuse children.
Why is not a single news rag mention other famous vistor’s to Haute La Garenne, why is the inquiery not being re-opened? when there are so obviously new lines of inquiries opening up, is it too uncomfortable for some?
Who else has been mentioned by the victims as regular visitors? Who knew those who were found dead? but nothing was found proofing anyone responsible. The interconnections, the same faces reoccurring, visiting hospitals, Broadmoor, children’s homes, the BBC’s exec. cupboards, hidden away somewhere, all this should be running at high speed, not undertaken with kid gloves, carefully concentrating on one figure and on one figure alone.
The reactions into this case are already making this into the biggest pile ever uncovered, the timidness of the whole process makes it obvious that this pin has deflated the ballon, hit the casus belli.
The ongoing cover up from others implicated or accused, still living persons, should be visible on somewhere on the dark net, if CEOP really has their finger on the pulse they will pick up something.
Are they already being held back?
kingfelix 19 Oct, 5:58 pm:
Spot on! Unchecked power always goes with secrecy, and secrecy is the enabler of corruption.
The line between good and evil cuts through ever human soul. How many have chosen not to blow the whistle because they feared that their little piece of (probably completely unrelated) corruption might get exposed if the cover of secrecy was torn away.
Unable to face the music and to sit facing the opposition heckling, Mitchell slides out. What next? A peerage perhaps? Cameron is losing it methinks. Not a good week with his energy balls up in PMQ.
Mitchell resigns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922026
PS I am informed that Sa Vile was a freemason and if so, that would account for some of the protection.
Surrey County Council are keen to wash their hands of any responsibility for what happened at Duncroft.
‘Meanwhile, Surrey County Council has confirmed it is looking into how Duncroft was managed during the 1970s, a period when Savile was said to have carried out attacks on girls there.
Stanwell resident Andrew McLuskey, who asked the council’s Spelthorne Local Committee for a full report into the running of the children’s home, said: “It is absolutely right and proper. Duncroft was a miniature of what the man [Savile] got up to. I hope they proceed to get to the bottom of it.”
Responsibility
Writing in reply to Mr McLuskey’s request, Councillor Mary Angell, cabinet member for children and families, said Duncroft was a government-run approved school until 1974, when it then became a community home under the National Association for Mental Health, now known as MIND.
Cllr Angell wrote: “It is known that Jimmy Savile visited Duncroft regularly and allegations have been made that he sexually abused a number of young girls [who were] resident there.
“Given the length of time that has passed since the incidents it has proved difficult to track down exactly what contact there was with Surrey, but so far our enquiries do not indicate that Surrey County Council ever had any responsibility for the management oversight of Duncroft.
“We are currently contacting MIND to ask them for a copy of the Instrument of Management that was agreed at the time, and which local authority held primary responsibility.
“We are currently co-operating with Surrey Police in following up any other complaints that might arise. At present, there is no information to suggest that any of the victims were the responsibility of Surrey Social Services at the time. However, we will continue with our enquiries.”‘
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2122632_savile_criminal_probe_starts_as_duncroft_investigated
Great post by Craig. Lots of interesting comments. I agree with most.
The mechanism of commercial confidentiality, meant to protect, say, the chemical formula for a specific product or whatever, now typically has been extended in Orwellian fashion to obscure systemic incompetance and malevolence in public and private sector bodies. It is simply shocking, for example, that NHS consultants, GPs and other NHS staff are gagged (that is the word that commonly is used) from talking publically about the most important things to do with the running/ privatisation/uber-managerialism, etc. of the NHS. This runs totally counter to the principles and practice of a democratic society. Why is there not more fuss about this? Personally, I think they should pick a day and rebel, en masse, speak publically about everything and tell the Neo-liberal Stalinists to take a running jump. Solidarity, and some degree of anarchic Yippie-dom, is what is reqd.
Parky, esp. suggests something even more sinister wrt the Savile case and I wonder if that might be accurate. Someone also mentioned Dutroux. Was Savile procuring children for abuse for Establishment figures in a systemic manner? Did MI5 know of this – they must have known of his own massive child abuse, as they vetted all BBC employees. So, why didn’t they say/do something? Were they protecting Establishment figures, so they could blackmail them, potentially and/or just because the security and intelligence services see protection of the Establishment as their main function? And why has it all – or rather, selective bits – suddenly come out, now? One of the regular posters here, Roderick Russell has penned a poignant piece on this angle. I’m sure he won’t mind me sharing the link here.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/17/1146091/-Jimmy-Savile-Pedophile-Friend-of-Royalty-and-the-Cover-up-to-Pervert-Justice