These last few weeks I have been wondering about Savile and his works and pomps and trying to make sense of how an uneducated lad from Leeds can get into the minds of powerful folk. It is a massive criminal gift but I think it can easily be done if you look for the tell-tale signs given out by these rather unworthy folk. These powerful people crave power not, for what good they can do, but because with this power they can feed their bizarre and horrible fantasies. They can become sexual predators and indulge in these traits to their heart’s content, knowing their victims are in awe and will remain so for life. Any victim who does threaten is quickly made to disappear by those who supply this merchandise or by the coterie of acolytes the powerful gather round them and are of the same persuasion. These acolytes normally pick up the juicy pieces that are left over from the rich meal provided by the stars of the show, the likes of Jimmy Savile.
A quick trawl through the internet reveals the power crazed politicos of the last 30 years. They are always the same names but nearly always because they have not been as discreet as some and probably thought that their power overrode consequences. These people when they attain a certain level start to protect each other and rely on largesse from the likes of Margaret Thatcher to remain in power after overstepping the mark. Thatcher was in a poor position as the first women prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party faced by a legion of these misogynistic, paedophilic perverts in her Cabinet. Her only power over them was her knowledge and with this knowledge she fed their cravings and kept control. Why else was Savile always close to her, he was her grocer.
I have spoken about these men before and their penchant was nearly always young boys and Savile with his well designed charitable life could fetch and carry this kick giving food from orphanages and local authority homes all over the country. These poor unfortunate children were thought of as low life, nobody cared. Their only value was fodder for these rampant masochistic bastards who supposedly ran and still run our lives.
These customers were wealthy men, the rewards were great and this need, this hunger was not just limited to the Tory Party, the Labour Party was also flooded with them. Socialists like Graville Janner, Gerald Kaufman, who incidentally was supposed to do a nice line in stolen goods from his constituency offices in Gorton Labour club, George Robertson, all now Lords who liked young boys, Brown and Blair who went in for the more mature man and woman and Tories like Ted Heath, Leon Britton, Alistair McAlpine who all needed young boys and Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley who took what they could and then there was Derek Laud. Now here is a name to conjure with.
The Tory party is littered with foppish anachronisms like Derek Laud. I knew two in Manchester. One we took in, who had nowhere to live, who I understand blew himself to bits politically at Oxford University in the mid 1990s and anyway he was heterosexual which would not have helped his cause. There was another whose name escapes me, who became leader of the Tory Party in Manchester in the mid 1970s and who was found to be that bad, the Conservative Party have never recovered in the city. These fops are all from dysfunctional families, they all needed politics like an addict needs drugs, they are all naturally intelligent without it seems to many educational attainments and absolutely no innate common sense. They all speak louder and clearer than the rest but most of them shoot themselves in the foot prior to fame. Derek Laud got farther than most but even now has had to scale back on his activities because of outside pressure but I would suggest it is now more undercover, he could never desert his calling altogether.
As far as I can see Derek never graduated farther than the remedial class of a south London comprehensive, where he learnt to act as a pimp for his classmates and hire them out to rich businessmen. Derek himself is a self-confessed homosexual having come out at the age of 14. According to records at 20 years of age, he had been invited to join the Conservative Monday Club, that influential right wing organization where most of the nutty Tory values come from. Previous to that he had been employed by Sir John Beckwith, one of Britain’s richest property investors. Sir John had never married and it seemed to me that Derek was being passed around like fruit, very muscular fruit at that.
By the age of 21 he was working as a researcher and special advisor for Conservative MPs and Cabinet Ministers and as advisor to the Bank of England. He wrote speech after speech for Margaret Thatcher. All this at 21 with no formal education we know of. He must be some guy. A really foppish dresser, a mate of another foppish dresser, Chris Eubanks the boxer. He speaks with a cut glass English accent, he was elected Master of Hounds of the Hampshire New Forest Hunt, he comes from a dysfunctional Caribbean South London family. He has all the makings. Allied to all of this he had a tremendous and fearsome physique, somebody once referred to him as a mini Sampson.
This man must have been an absolute genius. He was Campaign aide for John Major’s leadership bid. He is so well connected it is unbelievable, being a lifelong friend of Samantha Cameron’s family and a personal friend of David’s and a guest at their wedding. He had a massive circle of friends in the Tory Party and early on in his meteoric career, he was associating with Alistair McAlpine, now Lord and one time Treasurer of the Conservative Party, who came under tremendous pressure because of his need for young boys from council homes in Northern Ireland, North Wales and the South of England. Young boys who often mysteriously disappeared after serving their purpose. Alistair unfortunately became so unpopular with the media for his little abnormal activities that he had to get out and is now purported to be living on a sheep farm in Western Australia. Now there’s an opening.
Derek, who it seems was into this lifestyle like nobody else and just like Jimmy, he could supply for each and every occasion. He was also friendly with Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley who used to take him off to Morocco on holiday, no ladies welcome. However it all got too much, there were people dying in tragic circumstances all round poor Derek and young uppity boys were just disappearing but they were from council homes and didn’t matter. He had to rein in what he did and Cameron offered him first go at the Lord Mayor of London’s job. He had to refuse, his past was too precipitous. He was intelligent, he knew if he went for high office he would be doomed. It shows how unintelligent Cameron is for offering him the position. Boris took the reins, his history was heterosexual but I would imagine with consenting females and he has done well.
Derek went into the City and well paid luxury and hopefully left his turgidity behind him. I wonder. I have said all this because I was trying to consider him in the same breath as Jimmy Savile. Both from dysfunctional families, living in urban back streets, with no formal education but both with a lively intelligence. Both showmen in their own ways, both friends of the great and not so good, both seeing a market and going for it. Both basically evil people. Somebody has to take over the reins from the dead Savile, these weak men with deviant needs are still out there albeit with changed names and I suggest the Master of Foxhounds is a shoe-in if he has not already taken over.
Paul, I would agree with some of this – people in power tend not to undermine other people in power, because they may need to ask a favour one day – but I think that you are going too far and not distinguishing properly between paidophiles and gay men. Remember that most gay men are no more likely to molest young boys than most heterosexual men are to molest young girls.
To take just one example, you mention Ted Heath. I understand (from a source in the gay world in the 1970s, who I consider to be reliable) that for some time Heath had a boyfriend who was in (or had been in) the guards, i.e. who was an adult. I have never heard any suggestion from any reliable source that he might have been a paidophile and, in the absence of evidence, I am sceptical of such a claim. As I have said more than once in your blogs, allegations and innuendo should be supported by evidence – or not made at all.
I don’t have information on most of the names in your list, but many of your claims strike me as implausible.
I think that you started out here with an important theme. Like you, I struggle to understand how Saville got away with it for so long. However, I also think that by overstating your case you made your analysis less credible than it might have been.
You should also note that you are skirting dangerously close to the boundaries of the laws of libel. You have basically claimed above that Tony Blair (among others) was gay. If he reads that you can expect, as a minimum, a letter from his lawyers. Might be prudent to do some re-phrasing before it gets to that point.
Linda,
As much as I enjoy your comments I sometimes become disjointed when you pull me up over matters of fact. I have repeatedly said on my blog that Ted Heath was a customer in a mate of mine’s restaurant in the New forest in the late 1980s, Savile used to bring him a selection of young boys up every now and then for him to pick from, which he did. Also there is record of him and Savile sharing out the fruits at Haut La Garenne in Jersey.
As regards Blair it is a matter of record that he was a cottager and pulled up in Bow Street magistrates court for same.
Paul
I have just looked into what there is online about Blair’s supposed cottaging conviction. Some sources say it happened in 1974. Some say 1983. Some say he was fined pounds 50. Some say 500. There is no consistency here, and these sources have no credibility. This looks like a complete fabrication to me.
It is known (see Wikipedia) that during his student days (1972-1975) Blair dated a woman, Mary Harron. This doesn’t fit well with claims that he might be gay and have been cottaging in 1974. And the 1983 date doesn’t fit well either: he married in 1980.
A gay student in Oxford in 1974 would have had no need to cottage. There was a student gaysoc, which would have offered a far more congenial atmosphere. (In those days cottaging was mostly done by gay men who had nowhere else to meet other gay men.)
The various websites that I have just explored are filled with similar sorts of claims about other prominent figures. They remind me of claims about UFOs and alien abdunctions – and I am astonished that an intelligent person like you, Paul, will accept what they say uncritically.
Linda,
The outpourings in the Savile case are making all moderate thinkers think again. Perhaps I could be persuaded by your argument a couple of years ago but not now. The country at a high level is ruled by perverts of the worse type and the sooner people start to appreciate this the quicker will be these perverts denouement. Your thinking has caused the present stinking load of comment pro Savile which is quickly being undermined.
Paul
Paul,
I hope I am a moderate thinker – in the sense that I think in a moderate way, look for evidence, and evaluate that evidence as carefully as I can. In that sense, I intend to remain a moderate thinker. However, I am perfectly prepared to reach “extreme” conclusions if that is where the evidence clearly leads.
As far as Saville is concerned, when I heard the news I was as amazed as you probably were. I had not expected anything remotely like that. I am rather puzzled by this case (and will probably remain so until a lot more of the evidence is available). It does seem pretty obvious that quite a lot of people must have known – or at least guessed – what was going on and that they did nothing about it. I can well believe in a cover-up (or at least a conspiracy of silence)among people who were close to him, such as his colleagues at the BBC. But suggesting – as you seem to do – that half the British political establishment knew about it, and joined in a cover up, seems a lot less plausible to me. The only thing most members of the British political establishment care about is themselves. Protecting a paidophile DJ would bring them no benefit – so they wouldn’t be very inclined to do it. And I just do not believe that Saville could have been in a position to blackmail the entire establishment: that would be a ludicrous claim.
Note that Saville was interested in girls (mostly). That makes his case different from those you normally consider. I really don’t know to what extent what you have learned about abuse by priests can be carried over to this case, but it might be unwise to jump too quickly to conclusions about Saville based only on what you know about those other cases. (For one thing, priests would often have been in a position to abuse the same child on multiple occasions. Saville probably was not.) The one thing these cases do seem to have in common is people in positions of power, with close access to children (often rather vulnerable children), few checks on their power, and no stable relationship of their own. It seems a thoroughly undesirable – indeed, dangerous – mixture.
Incidentally, a bit more digging online has revealed where the Blair cottaging story might have started. Have a look at the article dated 25 April 2007 entitled “PM was warned about cottaging on Hampstead Heart” on http://www.thespoof.com. That site is full of spoof articles. It even invites readers to contribute their own. Easy to see how this one might have grown. The game is called “Chinese Whispers”, and it gathers its own momentum.
Among other things you can find online in the same vein are claims that Blair had *two* cottaging convictions. (No doubt before long he will have had three. Or four. And did you hear about that camel he shagged while out in Iraq?) And did you know that Obama used to frequent the gay scene in Chicago? I found that on a website, so it must be true.
Most of this stuff is obviously just propaganda put about by political opponents, and does not merit being taken seriously. Claiming that your opponents are gay / paidophile / communist (or whatever group you think is most damaging) is a political ploy that goes back to at least the Middle Ages. (Think The Templars, for example.) There are enough serious issues related to your blogs and abuse of children. Let’s not get distracted.
Linda,
I look at it this way. I was not surprised by the Savile story. I had known about it for at least 12 years and had written about it previously. A relation of mine knew about it in 1997, I think, when News In Action were thinking of doing a piece on him and it was quashed. There is much unexplained political and establishment skulduggery about that you have to take the extreme view as you put it. Dunblane and the suicidal arms man from Iraq are two great examples. What warranted putting a 100 year ban on the information surrounding both these cases?
I do not say that half the political establishment knew and covered up but if you put me to the pins of my collar I would have to say that a lot did and are still doing and were complicit in the Savile and other cover ups.
Savile was not just interested in girls, he was interested in anything he could get his hands on. Boys, girls, quadraplegics, cadavers and anything in-between. It just so happens that there were more girls taken in by his shows than boys.
Blair’s story is not important, British Prime Ministers, in their droves, for the last 300 years have been prone to this type of work, so he is not unusual.
And I am aware that these extreme views do not sit easy with my investigations into clerical abuse, which is a different story but a story told to me in matching detail by lads from all round the world, without any possible means of collaboration. In fact they still do not know each other.
As regards extreme views keep an eye on Tom Watson’s question to Cameron in this week’s PMQS, it has legs and most of these extreme views have.
Paul
Ding… end of round three.
The one thing that Savile did, which nearly all paedophiles do, is to make sure that there were no credible witnesses. It emerged the police had him in for questioning seven times, but couldn’t make it stick. Think of all the times Archer and Aitken got away with lying under oath, till they were eventually found out. Very devious people. I take against Paul’s view, which seems to imply that more gay people are paedophiles – is there evidence for this?
I remember doing a job in Sheffield a week after Savile had died (a year this weekend). I have quite long hair, light brown in colour. I was greeted by a Sarf London commissioning engineer I’d met a few months earlier in Wakefield, with the following:-
‘Cor Blimey mate, wiv that hair you look like the late Jimmy Savile, the kiddie-fiddler’.
So it would be appear to be common knowledge then as to his reputation. Make no mistake, he was being protected by some very powerful people, almost certainly at the BBC. The pulling of the Newsnight story last November and the subsequent sick-making two tributes last Xmas have not done the BBC any favours.
It may prove very illuminating as to who actually gets charged as a result of the police investigations – till then, I’ll reserve judgement. Already the rumour mill is grinding out a few suspects, some well-known.
On a lighter note, this has resulted in at least one person losing his livelihood – apparently someone until now made a career out of impersonating Jimmy Savile, as he was a look-alike. He’s been unlucky though, he used to do Gary Glitter.
Well, since my last post the names of Freddie Starr and the late actor Leonard Rossiter have come to the surface as abusers. Obviously to accuse the latter one is much easier than taking on the living ones, along with their battalions of highly paid lawyers. Which simply goes to reinforce my opinion that proving serial abuse is nigh on impossible. As to Freddie Starr, he seems less likely than most, that’s only my opinion, but unfortunately for him, mud sticks…..
Watch this space for further developments
Now it transpires Sir Cyril Smith should have been charged back in the very early 70s, the evidence was there but it was decided not to prosecute. His predilictions were well known in Rochdale, where I worked from the late 70s to early 80s. Indeed, the local underground magazine RAP (Rochdale Alternative Press) outright accused him in 1979 of the offences which have now come to light. He threatened to sue them but never did. In his case, I’m afraid, like Sir JS, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
Next someone is going to tell me there was never any cover up, and that others were not involved. Just because the BBC got the wrong McAlpine, it doesn’t mean that more won’t come to light….