Thursday 4 October 2012

Sifting Saville - Part 2

A plaque honouring the late DJ outside his flat in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, has been defaced with the words "pedophile" and "rapist".(Daily Express)

A statue of Jimmy Savile at a Glasgow Leisure Centre has been pulled down amidst allegations that the late entertainer raped and sexually abused young girls.  The operators of the leisure centre said they "felt it necessary" to remove the statue from the community centre, where it overlooked the children's swimming pool. (Huffington Post)

After watching the documentary, and reactions to it, one question which keeps resurfacing: Why have people not spoken out before.  One of the best answers I've seen was this: "I think people have not spoken publicly until after his death because it seems they were afraid they would not be believed as he was such a well known popular figure who did an immense amount for charity"

It is notable that he seemed to prey particularly on young girls at Duncroft boarding school, where it could almost be assumed that as "bad girls", they could be making up tales that would not be believed; hence the risk to Saville was far less.

There's also a Jersey connection.

Dee Coles told ITV News: "Myself and another girl I met on holiday were basically taken into his van by him on a couple of occasions and made to do sexual acts," Ms Cole said. (1)

At least six women have now alleged that Savile attacked them when they were young girls with Dee Coles claiming she and a fellow 14-year-old were both attacked by the personality in his camper van whilst on holiday in Jersey - where Savile regularly visited the notorious abuse-ridden children's home Haute de la Garenne.

She says: "I was taken into his van by him on a couple of occasions and made to do sexual acts. I suppose the compassionate side of me wants to say that he was a man who needed some help. The gut reaction is to say there was something really quite evil about him." (2)

Whether Saville pursued any children at Haut de La Garenne is not known. What can be confirmed is that he slapped an injunction on the Sun against making any allegations that he visited the home, and a photograph showed that he most definitely did.

But here is where the waters get muddy again, and we have to sift out falsehoods. One site on cover-ups notes that he visited the home, and was interviewed by police regarding that:

Jimmy Savile, star of children's television favourite Jim'll Fix It, sued  the Sun in 2008 over a series of articles linking him to Haut de la Garenne, the Jersey children's home where human remains were found and children were allegedly tortured and sexually abused. He initially denied ever visiting the home, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. Savile's reaction was to slap an injunction on The Sun who had to withdraw the picture. This was followed with a series of articles. One asserted that Savile was unwilling to assist with the police investigation and another that he admitted having visited the home. (3)

But then it brings in Edward Heath:

One of those who stood most to lose was Sir Edward Heath, the former prime minister from 1970-74, who was known to visit the Jersey care home the Haute Garenne among others to take young boys on boating weekends on his yacht  called  'Morning Cloud', or as his bodyguards referred to it, 'Morning Sickness'.

The person bringing children for him to abuse is Sir Jimmy Saville. He was seen by the witness, victim, taking young boys onboard Heaths yacht the morning cloud when they were at party conference. Allegedly Saville is known for supplying a number of high profile MP's with children for them to sexually abuse. (3)

As a writer on Fortean Times notes:

The sites which carried the Jersey picture usually segue into a very lurid mythos which has Savile pimping boys to Edward Heath for orgies on his yacht. We are just a few yards from the Twilight Zone of pedophile lizards . . (4)

The Disclosure Project site, which also has the same allegations about Heath, also notes:

Heath was warned on 4 occasions by the head of the Metropolitan police not to loiter in London's lavatories and not to try to pick up young boys. Nonetheless, he quickly fell prone blackmailers who insisted he dress up in a ridiculous Gestapo uniform in which he was photographed.

Under threat of exposure Heath was forced to enter Britain into the Common Market, now the European Union, under very unfavourable conditions. It is still a bone of contention among scholars how he became PM in front of the immensely popular and scholarly Enoch Powell who to all intents and purposes should have been Prime Minister. (5)

We are drifting very far from credible truth here, and I think the notion that Edward Heath had a hidden private life, dressed up in a Gestapo Uniform (and no photos have come to light) and was blackmailed into joining the Common Market is a complete fantasy. David Ike's site goes one step further, and has Heath not only involved in Satanic rituals, but also - according to an eyewitness - shape-shifting into a reptilian, during a ritual.

But the Heath story is interesting, because Heath is also linked to sexual abuse scandals regarding the Kincora boys' home in Ireland.

The earliest version of this in my lifetime was the Kincora boys' home affair in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Then, three gay men working there had abused the boys in their care for almost 20 years. They had survived complaints from the boys, parents and other care workers, because one of them, the late William McGrath, was not only a senior figure in the Orange Order and a friend of the Reverend Ian Paisley, but also an informant for MI5. Rumours spread of boys being taken to big country houses to be used by public figures, including Lord Mountbatten, the former head of MI6, Maurice Oldfield, and Edward Heath. These rumours are still circulating on the Internet.' (6)

Where did these rumours come from? Colin Wallace, a former MI5 officer, revealed that they were part of a plan by MI5 to discredit Heath, so that he would have to give way to a Prime Minister more in keeping with a stronger security service. Colin Wallace, was an army intelligence officer attached to MI5 who resigned in 1976 protesting about MI5's anti-Wilson activities, but he says they also extended to Heath:

Wallace claims part of these covert psychological operations (known as 'psyops') were designed to prevent the election and re-election of a Labour regime. 'We also had a campaign going against Edward Heath and other prominent Tory MPs thought to be too liberal', says Wallace.

'The aim was to discredit them politically by planting smear stories against them in the press. ' For example, Heath and other bachelor politicians were wrongly 'linked' to homosexual scandals, such as the Kincora boys' home affair in Ulster. The ultimate aim, Wallace says, was to remove Heath as leader of the Conservative Party and replace him with someone of a more resolute approach to political and industrial unrest. (7)

Having started rumours about Heath, it is perhaps not surprising that the rumor mongers would start to take up the idea of a "gay Heath" and link it quite spuriously to the genuine information coming out about Jimmy Savilly. That's where we have to be very careful, because we are approaching the point where alongside genuine victims of his abuse, other people - not the victims, take note - are purveying wilder and more fantastical stories. The danger is that if the wilder stories are discredited, no one will believe the real victims of his abuse; it is a case of "cry wolf", and there clearly was a big bad wolf out there.

For those who are interested, there is a site at:
which has a whole collection of bizarre and wildly improbably stories about Heath.

Another falsehood doing the rounds is a transcript which purports to be an unbroadcast segment of the quiz show "Have I Got News For You" in which guest panellist Sir Jimmy Savile is taunted with lurid allegations about his behaviour with underage girls.

As the Express notes:

It's actually fake. No such exchanges ever took place and the "transcript" is the work of a prankster. But the fact that it has been lurking on the internet for years shows how widespread the rumours about the flamboyant DJ and charity fundraiser really were. (8)

Ashley Pomeroy  comments on this:

Of transient interest in mid 2000 was an emailed meme, one which purported to be a transcription of out-takes from an episode of 'Have I Got News For You'.

Shortly thereafter an irresistible e-mail starting doing the rounds, a  supposed transcription of cut dialogue which cast Jimmy Savile in a poor light. There was mention of a scandal involving a young girl, and subsequent financial reparations in lieu of further media coverage.(9)

The full transcript is here
But I would warn readers that it contains very strong language.

Here's the segment which mentions Sarah Cornley:

DEAYTON: Here we go again...I'll be backstage if anyone wants me.
MERTON: (Indicating Saville) That's what you said to the kids on your show, wasn't it?
(Audience laugh)
SAVILLE: No, they never did want me.
HISLOP: Not even Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: She was an exception.
DEAYTON: Who's Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: Sarah Cornley is...
HISLOP: About fifteen grand in damages, wasn't she?
(Uncertain audience laugh)
SAVILLE: That's right.
HISLOP: So if I was going to mention that you threatened to break her arm if she said anything...
SAVILLE: You'd be very wrong. (Pause) I said I'd break both her arms.
(Audience unease)

Ashley Pomeroy  comments on this:

The one substantive fact which could be used to check the transcriptions accuracy - the name 'Sarah Cornley' - only returns links to pages which host the transcript, and indeed the node Sarah Cornley here on Everything is sourced entirely from the information contained in this very node.(9)

Someone claims on a site to have actually witnessed the outtake. I don't think for the moment that they did, or indeed could, but it shows how fantasists are starting to creep into and embellish the stories about Saville, with added verisimilitude of saying there are "witnesses". The danger is that it will lessen the impact of the very real stories that are also being told directly by his victims, and who may keep their anonymity, but have been seen in the TV interviews.

For more on Edward Heath in Jersey and the problems with recent stories, see:

(4) Fortean Times


Anonymous said...

I guess the question a lot of people in Jersey now wish to know after having watched the convincing witnesses, did Jimmy Saville abuse child in care at HDLG.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Tony.

To Anon. I think the answer to that question will be yes & how is this Government going to keep that Quiet from the out side world. That are looking on again.

What a post, food for thought.


Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


Well observed.

There's a danger that a very important and legitimate subject - with real victims - could become discredited because of the tin-foil hat / shape-shifting space-alien lizard brigade.

There are real abusers - real victims - real testimony - evidence.

Let's keep focused on that, rather than urban myths.


Anonymous said...

I guess the question asked by Anonymous above is correct, I also think the question needs to be asked who were the staff that let Jimmy Savile abuse children who were in their care ?

Are they still employed today by the States or private companies ?


Anonymous said...

One can only speculate but it is hard to believe Jimmy Savile could have been left alone with children anywhere, without that being well noticed. How likely is it that a celebrity visiting HdlG or other places, would not have been the object of keen interest by all adults, especially staff on site? If he abused children at HdlG, there are witnesses to his attempts to be alone with children. I believe evidence suggests a vast level of complicity.

drb said...

'It is still a bone of contention among scholars how Ted Heath became PM in front of the immensely popular and scholarly Enoch Powell who to all intents and purposes should have been Prime Minister. '

Which year are we talking here? Heath was elected Tory leader in '65 and became PM in '70. Obviously it's normal for the leader to become PM. The 'scholarly' Powell gave his 'Rivers of Blood' speech in '68 he was sacked from the shadow cabinet as a result, but more importantly he lost too much popular appeal/credibility. Also worth mentioning that Macleod or Maudling were Heath's closest challengers at this point.

I mention this only to note again that the inclusion of dodgy statements can detract from the message. In my view the most focused questions are: 'were the 65 teeth pre-war or post war?' and 'why have they not yet been dated?'

Also the 'prove you're not a robot' thing is way too difficult.

TonyTheProf said...

If you read what I am saying, I am criticising the "Disclosure project" not endorsing them about either Edward Heath or Enoch Powell.

The problem of how Saville could have abused children at Haut de La Garenne (and I've not so far been aware of any victim speaking out) is in fact simple. His modus operandi at the Duncroft boarding school was to take the girls out in his posh car for a "treat". I see no reason why he would not have been able to do that elsewhere. We are, after all, talking of an era where child protection policies were not considered. Staff would have probably - as at Duncroft - been enthusiastic about that proposition. But as I say, there is no evidence he did this - I'm just setting out how easy it would have been to do.

Anonymous said...

Tony I've looked at Fortean Times but cant seem to find your reference, it's mostly about strange phenomena etc. also the disclosure project is about UFOs,
what am I missing, can you provide links? thanks.

TonyTheProf said...

thejerseyway said...

Hi Tony.

Just put up Audio & Links to last nights Question Time, with Janet Street-Porter saying it wasn't just Rumours.

But didn't say anything.

You & your readers can Listen HERE

Tom Gruchy said...

After Jerry Dorey was convicted for importing obscene videos showing extreme sm behaviour he was still re-elected to the States.

At the time it was generally seen as "anti-liberal" to condemn what he chose to look at in his own home and that the videos depicted acts between consenting adults.
He famously declared that they did not show animals or children.

A few people protested at the time but what is the general view now in Jersey towards such "obscene" material? The convictions for downloading (which amounts to viewing on most home omputers)obscene images of children would seem to indicate that there is still a considerable local interest but how might this relate to our current standards of morality as a community? Is there any standard at all?

padraig seamus balling said...

When using the Fortean Times site look for the different headings. Urban Legends & Conspiracy will usually be the most relevant.

Anonymous said...

@Tom G: you misunderstand. There is a great deal that people can view on the Internet, up to and including stuff that is pretty unpleasant, but ultimately there are rules about what a site can and cannot put up to be seen by the general public. Only material beyond that line is obscene.

Downloading material and storing it on your own computer allows you to pass that line. This is why criminal charges are not based on whether you view (for argument's sake) paedophilia, but on whether it is present on your system. With the advent of streaming media I believe that in some jurisdictions the presence of cookies and subscription managers which allow access to obscene materials can be treated as if they were themselves obscene.

The big problem with all this, of course, is how you define obscene. The UK has a fairly low threshold: other countries' thresholds are higher (eg Denmark, Netherlands); others are simply different (Japan allows many things forbidden in Europe but forbids others that are permitted here). Jersey, from what I understand of it, has a lower threshold than the UK (thanks to the Calvinist and old-style Catholic currents that run through the establishment), but doesn't have the means to enforce compliance; the fact that most of the population are English rather than Jersey these days also suggests that with the exception of paedophilia there is little sympathy with obscenity laws.

TonyTheProf said...

I think paedophilia can be defined as obscene even in the most lax jurisdictions. Except perhaps in countries which still view as legitimate the idea of the "child bride".

Anonymous said...

I would think the tin-foil hat / shape-shifting space-alien lizard views are propagated by the very security service shills you describe, in order to in more difficult to sift the information like you have.

great post.