Honest, Guv, I Didn’t See Nuffin’ 239

Jimmy Savile met the Royal family not just on many official occasions, but frequently socially. He was a private Hogmanay guest of the Prime Minister on seven occasions. Of course not only on 31 December, I just think that fact illustrates how close he was.

I do not believe that all of these people knew nothing about his persistent and repeated behaviour.

It is not only that I do not believe they could fail to notice. It is that anyone with that level of frequent access to the Prime Minister, other ministers and Royal family would be checked out by the security services. He would not have experienced full positive vetting (now called direct vetting), but a level of vetting would have been carried out on Savile himself. And many of his friends were subject to frequent direct vetting and it is impossible that a picture of Savile would not have built up tangentially. MI5, Special Branch (now also renamed) and GCHQ have tens of thousands of employees. What do you think these people do all day?

When I passed my last direct vetting, the interviewing officer had spent four months of his life doing nothing but investigate me full time. He noted that I continued to have a rather extensive love life, but as it involved only consenting adults and I did not appear open to blackmail, it was no reason to fail me. We discussed this openly. He concluded by saying – and this may not be 100% his words but it is damn close and the sentiment was certainly this:

“Makes a change to be looking at relationships with women in a Foreign Office case. It’s usually small boys!”

We both laughed. Now I swear to you, at the time I really did think he was just joking. I must have been very naïve.

239 thoughts on “Honest, Guv, I Didn’t See Nuffin’

1 2 3 4 5 8
  • Tony_0pmoc


    She used to go to the gym right opposite where we worked in Fulham…

    no big deal – she used to take her kids – to the Ballet on the South Bank at the same time – same gig – as did my wife with mine…

    I was gutted when she died – and I experienced it the flower garden in London

    I thought it was just an accident…but as I got older I gradually came to realise why Princess Diana and The President of The United States of America John F Kennedy were ASSASSINATED

    The Fascists are Not Nice.

    I don’t like Them.


  • defo

    Me neither.You don’t get very many nice fascists to the punnet Tony.

    The term, as adjective itself seems to cover rather a large range of nouns. Could be there’s fascist circus clowns, and clowns are nice. Aren’t they ?
    Mussolini could do jolly, at a push, and Pol Pot could muster a plausible grin.
    Franco however, seemed a right miserable bastard.

    Anyhoo, someone said something about the ‘Liberals of today will be the fascists of tomorrow’, and what with it all starting with the banning and everything (no platform anyone?), so that must be true, I’m afraid were stuck in a feedback loop and you’ll just have to put up with them !

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I keep trying to explain it to the journalists – who live in my avenue – and their kids – who my wife looked after as a childminder when they made her redundant from the bank in the City of London….

    The only way – well so far as I can work out – is to at least give the impression you are telling the truth, rather than blatantly working for The Americans – and All THEIR Fckin Wars…

    Or you will be tainted by the same brush – and you will not get any sex.

    But they seem to be so coked out of their heads…

    They used to be nice barrow boys from Essex.

    Come on Guys

    Just tell the truth.

    My wife used to work with you.

    The Pretty One with the Strong Lancashire Accent.

    She Resigned.


  • defo

    That shoe horning I mentioned earlier.. Project Shillary steps up the pace.


    I’ll say it again. Trump is sideshow Bob, and Sanders is a mirage of hope. Watch the MSM really go to town on him. Trumpet will/has blown his ‘campaign’. Having a huge Republican following does not guarantee the keys to the White House.
    And why would the elite let Trump win, when they have a compliant, experienced dog in the fight ?

    Look into her eyes and see the future. The eyes don’t lie.

  • Mayeaux Wren

    @ Hasbara E Bella

    Tell me you ain’t the kind of chap wherein one could patiently explain a thing all day long and you’d remain precisely as obtuse as when you started out. No Sisyphus, me.

    Otherwise in a discussion about Savile as an individual possessed of power how is mentioning his addressing the Israeli cabinet less germane than the absurd amount of time he spent with Thatcher and sundry royals? Or perhaps I missed something and Savile in fact addressed many parliaments? Then you’d be right to fault me for singling the Israelis out for special mention. But you’ve not that leg to stand on have you?

    Fact of the matter is that I gunned for the best three examples of his otherwise impossible influence and power I could find. And my point remains – How the fuck did such an unlikely, low-rent, charmless (and creepy even) host of what could only be described as a dead ordinary children’s show: spend ten Christmases at Thatcher’s place; have the royals at his beck and call; and, yes, interrupt an Israeli cabinet meeting? A penny ante English children’s show host? Seriously? It’s absurd on its face.

    Clearly Savile was far more than a mere children’s show host. He was untouchable – he said so himself and history proved him right. In the real world such an adjective could never be applied to a children’s show host but… for a ringmaster/procurer in a paedophile blackmail power structure? Do-able. And here’s Craig wondering at the unlikelihood of no one seeing nuffin’. He’s begging the question – fact is, they saw, they knew, they were there at the Elm Guest House dressed in pink tutus taking their pick from a line-up of twelve year old boys.

    But don’t mind me, Hasbara. God forbid anyone should penetrate your obtuseness. Carry on.

  • Techno

    I think many people are missing the point.

    Savile didn’t meet powerful people until he was already famous, so there was already an established level of truat. For example, he wasn’t a terrorist and he wasn’t likely to try and assassinate anybody. He also probably had no access to sensitive information (except possibly the sexual kind).

    Savile also did not have any power, unlike a politician or a member of the Armed Forces, so he was not particularly vulnerable to blackmail. He was just an entertainer.

    MI5 are an information gathering organisation, they don’t enforce anything. It is not their role to report anybody to the Police. They wouldn’t do this anyway as it might reveal a source or technique and jeopardise future investigations.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    “MI5 are an information gathering organisation … It is not their role to report anybody to the Police.” Techno, 8:05am, today.

    Jolly good. Carry on, chaps. Innocuousness personified.

    The key, though, is in the last sentence: “They wouldn’t do this anyway as it might reveal a source or technique and jeopardise future investigations.”

    Now, about precisely which sources and which future investigations might we be talking?


    I think it’s becoming pretty clear that the police, the security services, Old Uncle Tom Cobbly and all were likely to have been complicit in at the very least a cover-up and arguably far more. It’d be quite useful have skeletons – possibly even to facilitate the development of those skeletons – on potentially and actually powerful people, for possible “future investigations”.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)



    Basically what you’re saying is Savile probably wouldn’t have been deep vetted {you mean: deveoped vetting}”


  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    Sensible post (I wouldn’t have bothered to respond to RoS if I’d have seen it in time. I hope he reads it carefully and lerarns.)

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Mayeaux Wren

    Thank you for starting to set out your stall.

    So far you’ve explained – at some length – that Savile was “far more than a mere children’s show host.”.

    You seem to have him down as “a ringmaster/procurer in a paedophile blackmail power structure? Do-able.”.

    That’s interesting.

    You seem a level-headed,well-informed sort of bloke so could you perhaps set out in some more detail how you think this ‘paedophile blackmail power structure’ worked and what was Savile’s rôle in it?

    Thank you in advance.

  • Silvio

    Heading back “across the pond” in search of well protected kiddy-diddlers in high places:

    Conspiracy of Silence: The Franklin Cover Up

    Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada.

    At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who ordered all copies destroyed.

    A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired FBI Agent Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by its participants involved.

    Note that the “Larry King” referred to in the documentary is NOT the popular US talk show host Larry King, but a different individual individual /Silvio

    Embedded video (1hr) at link below:

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Kempe demolishes Silvio….and wastes no time doing it 🙂

    That’s what this blog needs – real-time rebuttal of the nutters.

  • Mayeaux Wren

    ‘Thank you in advance’? Is that like ‘please’? Hmm… thinks… it’s like ‘please’ albeit with an assumption that you getting what you want is a done deal. Yes, it turns a request into a command. Interesting. How much you tell us about yourself, HEB.

    And still as unctuously obtuse as ever I see. The model I posit is self-explanatory. I’d say the problem here is not that you don’t understand it but rather that you understand it perfectly well but sadly have no rhetorical means of shooting it down. For a chap who eschews ‘please’ for ‘thanks in advance’ that must be frustrating.

    Since we’re asking things of each other, can I trouble you to exercise your skills in narrative construction? Don’t worry, it’s right up your alley. Your task (thanks in advance) is to explain how an English children’s show host might conceivably interrupt an Israeli cabinet meeting and, rather than being met with confusion and flummoxed cries of ‘Jimmy who?’, instead halts the meeting and has everybody listen attentively to what he has to say.

    I thought you’d enjoy this because no doubt you tire of the humdrum grind of dealing with the hoi polloi here and want something properly challenging to get your teeth into. As tasks go (and mixed metaphors) it’s your, wait for it… Augean stable! Chew away!

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I crack myself up.

  • Chris

    Any “report” made into Jimmy Savile after his death is meaningless. It’s shameful and vile to label a man a criminal when he’s no longer around to defend himself.

    Jimmy Savile lived for over 80 years and no one was ever able to convict him of anything. Surely they had ample opportunity if he was guilty?

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Mayeaux Wren

    You’re a bit of a windbag, aren’t you?

    Fifteen lines of scintillating prose and the only bit of non-woffle I can see is the bit about Savile attending an Israeli cabinet meeting.

    So let’s focus on that for now:

    “…how an English children’s show host might conceivably interrupt an Israeli cabinet meeting and, rather than being met with confusion and flummoxed cries of ‘Jimmy who?’, instead halts the meeting and has everybody listen attentively to what he has to say.”

    1/. your description makes it sound as if you were in the room (I especially liked the “interupt” and “listen attentively”).

    But obviously you weren’t.

    So could you supply some reliable sources for what you wrote (no, NOT Chris Spivey, “globalresearch” or voltairenet, thanks all the same).

    Thanks in advance.

    2/. what significance do you attach to the fact (assuming it’s true) that Savile addressed the Israeli cabinet and would his action have been as interesting, noteworthy and heinous (to you) if it had been, say, the Norwegian or Dutch cabinets?

    Looking forward to a well-argued and substantive piece from you. TIA!

  • John Spencer-Davis

    28/02/16 1:05pm

    The allegations against Greville Janner, to take another example, do not cease to be meaningful just because he died.

    Likewise Cyril Smith.

    It gives their victims, if they are such, an opportunity to testify in front of a judge experienced in assessing credibility. Presumably you would not seek to deprive someone alleging abuse, of such an opportunity?

    I suggest that you read the report and assess its credibility for yourself, rather than issuing a blanket dismissal of it as “meaningless”.

    The report goes into some detail about the reasons why Savile was not disciplined or charged – although it only examines his conduct at the BBC. Again, why not read the report and assess for yourself whether or not it is reasonable?

    Kind regards,


  • Republicofscotland

    “Congratulations to Messrs Halpin and Mayeaux Wren for being the first to get a mention of Israel into this thread.”



    And that really irks you to the bone doesn’t it, nothing to do with off-topic as you’ve came on threads and posted first and second if not third off-topic comments.

    It’s the thought of your beloved Israel getting it in the neck again that really riles you?

  • Republicofscotland

    “Jimmy Savile lived for over 80 years and no one was ever able to convict him of anything. Surely they had ample opportunity if he was guilty


    The investigations only begin when either the culprit is deceased ergo they can say and pin all the blame on them. Or when the culprit has some form of dementia then the sympathy vote kicks in unless you’ve were on the baddies side of WWII, then no matter what illness you have you must be severely prosecuted through the press.

  • fred

    “Any “report” made into Jimmy Savile after his death is meaningless. It’s shameful and vile to label a man a criminal when he’s no longer around to defend himself.”

    It’s legal to label a man a criminal when he is dead. Anyone making allegations before his death would have had to have absolute concrete proof which he was careful never to leave. The allegations of a fourteen year old girl in a borstal wouldn’t have been enough, rumours, speculation and circumstantial evidence were not enough, all the evidence would never have been presented all at once in one place, each case would be treated as an isolated incident. Without solid concrete irrefutable evidence the person making the allegations would have ended up in court themselves.

    Now Savile is dead there are no restrictions so all the information can be made public and everyone can form their own opinions, I have mine, you have yours.

  • Chris

    “Presumably you would not seek to deprive someone alleging abuse, of such an opportunity?”

    Yes, I would seek to do that. If you can’t prove your allegations against someone when they’re alive, you’ve lost your chance.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    28/02/16 1:35pm

    I must say, you have an odd way of looking at the world. People might not wish to testify against someone while they are alive, because they are too frightened of reprisals. Many people were quiet about Robert Maxwell, for example, because he was a master of the libel writ.

    Also, there is comfort in knowing that you are not alone. Many of the witnesses who came forward against Saville were unaware, until after his death, that other people had had similar experiences. It does of course have to be borne in mind that people may come forward to get on a bandwagon after someone has died. That is why they are conducted by a person experienced in assessing credibility. However, let’s suppose you were assaulted by Savile at nine years of age, say, and that he told you no-one would believe you because he was a respected celebrity. It’s perfectly understandable that you would keep silent. That does not make it untrue that it happened nor does it mean that you do not deserve to have your story heard long afterwards.

    Think we’ll have to agree to disagree – I find your views amazingly bizarre, but I guess you’re entitled to hold them.

    Kind regards,


  • fedup

    JSD and other good researchers, I remember years ago reading and account of Disraeli visiting Eaton dormitories with his son whom he would set as a guard in a strategic point so that he would let him (Disraeli) know if anyone was approaching? I am damned if I can remember the title or the author, leaky mind is an elegant progression of time the swine!!!

    Nevermind I second your motion;

    H….kuk and Chris, you both should be locked up.

    The infantile rebuttals alone should carry a sentence of at least eighteen months for offending public sensibilities!!


    Hmm… thinks… it’s like ‘please’ albeit with an assumption that you getting what you want is a done deal. Yes, it turns a request into a command. Interesting. How much you tell us about yourself, HEB.

    You have got the measure of the losers in a very short period of time.

  • Old Mark

    ‘I do not believe that all of these people knew nothing about his persistent and repeated behaviour’.

    Well then Craig, what ‘persistent and repeated behaviour’ do you believe Savile to have indulged in when he was alive ? Because from the hard evidence the paedo label you apparently tar him with (as do most of the other commenters here) is inconclusive at best and in his lifetime would have generated libel suits galore.

    FWIW the ‘persistent and repeated behaviour’ that Savile is reliably reported to have indulged in the 60s and 70s was that of a serial groper and shagger,with a penchant for young flesh, and no questions asked about what cake the current squeeze had on their 16th birthday. In this he would have been far from alone in the pop music world, with its legions of groupies and predatory executives a la Larry Parnes.

    Of course, you could believe that, for example, Savile, in the space of a single TOTP episode, carried out 2 rapes on under age attendees of the show while wearing a womble outfit which, according to its creater, was so cumbersome that organising micturation, let alone sexual activity, was a major operation (see this post from Anna Raccooon, and several enlightenting comments accompanying it)-


    Those commenters here who are rightly sceptical of the claims made by Assange’s accusers while simultaneously accepting as gospel all the post mortem claims made about Saville need to take a reality check. The motivations of the accusers in these cases differ markedly, but in both instances malign motives (political in the Assange case, financial in the Savile case) seem more than possible as explanations.

    (For confirmation that the Beeb is a soft touch when it comes to compo claims, look at the six figure payout obtained last week by the former Top Gear producer who was on the reciving end of Clarkson’s boorishness- not bad for a slap in the face and being called an incompetent Irish fucker- or words to that effect).

  • Clark

    I remember being a child. I found Jim’ll Fix It intensely exciting.

    That excitement was like sexual excitement, but I couldn’t realise that until I was older. Only now do I realise that Jim’ll Fix It gave the impression of children being granted power over the whole world of adults and their conspiracy of authority over and imposition of boredom and conformity upon children.

    I remember hating the impression of being dominated by such boring people as adults. They had no sense of fun.

  • Clark

    We are prisoners of biology. As children we saw the adult world of power and responsibility as bland and pointless, frightening and senselessly violent. Then we grew up and became parents, and to preserve our genetic lineage of descent we take our place in the system that imposes that same ugly, pointless way of life in the myriad tiny decisions of our professional lives.

    But our system is cooking our world, and soon all the children will roast with all the adults, and all the birds and the bees with us.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    You said:-

    “Let’s take it that you are right and that the security services knew all about Savile’s predilection for underage boys and girls.

    And yet his friendships with the good and the great were permitted to continue.

    What conclusions do you, personally, draw from this, if any? I’m curious.

    Thanks, John”

    It seems like this kind of conduct ( misconduct) runs a parallel course with power.

    I knew a MI6 operative who would use his wife’s lipstick and dress in women’s clothes. If I found out by mere chance – no doubt his handlers knew full well. And it does seem that deviance and those attracted to the spy industry oftentimes go hand in hand.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    “Nevermind, you are a lying scumbag”


    And a complete nutter.

    A German who fervently dislikes the UK but continues to live there.

    His post at 13h36 is gutter-press stuff – truly shameful.

1 2 3 4 5 8

Comments are closed.