[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-made-repeated-attempts-to-get-jimmy-savile-knighted--despite-pleas-from-concerned-aides-8713407.htmlAccording to Cabinet Office papers, Margaret Thatcher was warned about Jimmy Savile, but still kept pushing him for a knighthood.[/url

So, his behaviour was known about at the very top of the tree.

And who did anything about it (apart from inviting him to Chequers for Christmas)?

What an absolute scandal. The Prime Minister was aware of newspaper reports that Jimmy Saville had sexual intercourse with women and still felt his raising of millions of pounds for hospitals was worthy of a knighthood. Raising money for hospitals is all well and good, but how can Thatcher ever condone the practice of a man having sex with women?

The report you link to indicates only that there were reports of him "sleeping with women". Is there a fundamental problem with this behaviour?

Or have you somehow imposed a link with the benefit of hindsight that, because he "slept with women", he should not have been honoured as this meant he was a paedophile?

I believe that Maggie herself must have slept with Denis at least twice, as they had children. Things might have turned out differently had that shameful behaviour barred her from high public office, but I don't think it really does.

I doubt very much that "complex" was meant as an indicator of 'sleeping with women'.

Whether that was code for 'oh, we daren't tell her the real truth' or whether it is simply indicative of one explanation she was given by senior civil servants (there were four rebuttals, apparently) is obviously unclear.

I would, however, very much doubt that there was a tendency of rejecting anyone (male, certainly) for a gong on the basis of heterosexual promiscuity. After all, the English upper classes have hardly been paragons of abstinence and monogamy - or even heterosexual exploring a, if we take into account public schools etc.

I doubt that Mrs T herself was particularly naive.

It has been pointed out a number of times that for someone to have spent so many holidays at Chequers, he must have been vetted by the security services. His own 1974 autobiography made entirely clear that he was abusing his position for sex (and that he was not arrested because the polices were doing the same).

The mainstream media knew - and chose to nothing.

Now, Jerry has previously made some excellent comments on the change in culture in this respect, and I think he's essentially correct.

The point is that the BBC has been made a scapegoat - largely for reason of political agenda - but it is increasingly clear that a great many people, including some in positions of great influence, knew that Savile was "complex", and did nothing. The point is not that 'Thatcher was to blame', or anything as crass as that, but that people in very senior positions knew that something was amiss. And goodness, it's fairly widespread knowledge that Phil the Greek worked his way through the lady's maids and that Andy is not exactly 100% hetero. So again I'd suggest that, unless the 1980s were a sudden time of sexual Puritanism, it was not about consensual sex between adults.

Apart from a few sportsmen and lollipop ladies it seems to me that it is almost a requirement to be unethical or corrupt on some level to get an award these days. I say that based on numerous examples appearing in the press.

Carol and Mark were/are twins, so once would suffice.



Also bear in mind that Thatcher refused to promote Jonathan Aitken because of his shameful behaviour in having "made Carol cry" after their relationship ended.

Once was more than enough considering what was spawned!

So are we suggesting that the UK's first femal PM ushered in (or just happened to be around during) a 1980s sexual Puritanism, as I suggested earlier?

It was actually The Sun wot did it. And it was The Sun's article about him picking up chicks while running marathons which was causing the delay in him being honoured. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... eport.html Personally I think Mintball should be embarrassed by this thread. But I think she's so far over the edge with her bias she won't be.

It was actually The Sun wot did it. And it was The Sun's article about him picking up chicks while running marathons which was causing the delay in him being honoured. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... eport.html Personally I think Mintball should be embarrassed by this thread. But I think she's so far over the edge with her bias she won't be.

Coming from you that's hilarious.

Just make sure you don't attack any paediatricians next time The Sun lead you into a rage about paedophiles.

Am I embarrassed about some of the things I've done on rlfans? Yes. One example specifically I was completely out of order about. I can admit when I'm wrong.

But you should be embarrassed as a professional journalist by reading that story and coming to that conclusion.

There was at least 4 paedophiles in thatchers government, 1 is still very much politically active.

Name them then. Put in a complaint to the police if you know the facts.

Or are you one of the people who are protecting these paedophiles? What are you getting by protecting these people?

She regularly makes misleading posts yet is the first one to cry foul when newspapers do it.

Yes name them, lets see if you have the minerals?

After all if it's true you have nothing to fear....

And you, Sir, have no room to talk.

You're all trousers and no balls.

You run away the moment someone asks you a direct question – presumably because you're not bright enough to think beyond soundbites and then formulate something like a response that involves more than just a bit of kneejerkery. After all, you claim to use other people's opinions (polls) as evidence to back up any soundbite opinion of yours – and have been shown up time and again for this poor tactic.

And while we're at it, here's a little challenge: feel free to quote some of these "regularly ... misleading posts". If they're 'regular', they'll be easy to find. And then you can explain what is "misleading" about them.

a) I can't imagine what you're "professional" in, then, if it is presumed that one carries one's working life into this little realm of cyberspace. After all, if you presume that this and the work for which I am paid are connected (why?) then it is logical to assume that the work that everyone does is also connected to what they do in cyberspace in a non-work capacity.

b) At present, much of my work involves dealing with a b*****d of a piece of software in a team that is building a massive new website. Since the software itself is now 'officially' known not as 'XXXXXXXXXXXXX', but as "F**cking XXXXXXXXXXXXX", and we're working on a painfully slow server, creating taxonomies, uncovering snafus and inconsistencies that have been created by an external provider that is only slowly making code releases, trying to get a vast number of other people to use bloody house style at the same time etc etc, it's a wonder I don't spend all (personal) online time throwing metaphorical bricks through metaphorical f*****g windows.

c) Since the likes of Liz Jones and Samantha Brick can apparently makes oodles of dosh writing execrable bølløcks; while the likes of John Inverdale can do the same in a TV sense, I'm streets in front in the journalism stakes, darling.

d) Did you struggle to understand my second, rather more detailed post on this thread? If so, what did you not understand about it?

The skills of carpentry, driving a truck, being a cashier etc don't really transfer to web forums.

The skills of reading and comprehension do.

To read THAT story and come to THAT conclusion??? Were you watching TV at the same time and mixed up the TV show and the article? Maybe you outsourced the writing of your post to an Indian with only a few weeks of learning the English language?



I understood it. It was "Blah, blah, blah, evade the point, make pathetic half excuses BS, blah blah blah."

But seeing as you feel it's worthy of response, I'll respond to it.



Well your doubts were wrong. The cited newspaper articles in The Sun which were mainly about picking up women at marathons. There was a media report about Saville being some kind of gangster as well.

Your statement was that "someone at the top of the tree knew about him". The inference that they knew he was a paedo but still chose to push for him receiving a knighthood. There was no evidence whatsoever that the people at the top knew Saville was abusing kids.



So someone at the top knew Saville was a pedo and didn't bother telling Thatcher, who was at Chequers with her ****ing family? Or did they tell Thatcher and she wasn't bothered?

But more likely the security services held rudimentary background checks and nothing came up. Once he'd been checked once, and stayed at Chequers with no incident, they probably never even bothered checking again.



"Abusing his position"??? He was a TV and radio presenter. He managed ballrooms.

I suppose you think that all the PL football players are "abusing their position" because they get loads more sex than they would if they weren't footballers? Of course not. This is pretty much 180 degrees away from your actual position on the matter.



If someone knew Saville was fiddling with kids and they did nothing then they should be in jail.

But thinking that Saville is a creepy weirdo and being jealous that he gets loads of women isn't *knowing*.

Pretty much the whole of Great Britain *knows* that John Terry had an affair with Wayne Bridge's wife.

Now, the problems with that are: 1. She wasn't Bridge's wife, she was his ex gf. 2 Both Terry and VP vehemently deny that they ever had sex. 3. There's no actual evidence from anyone else that they were having an affair. The only evidence was Terry visiting her house.

But because the whole country knows that JT screwed Bridge's wife, Terry loses the England captaincy, Capello loses his job as England manager and Terry receives years of vile abuse.



The culture around workplace harassment has changed massively. The culture of policing has changed massively. But somehow I don't think fiddling with children was any more acceptable then than it is now.



The BBC has received a kicking. The rest of the media happily multiply that kicking. If there are many people who knew that Saville was abusing children THEY DESERVE THAT KICKING.



Knowing that Saville is "complex" means precisely F**K ALL. Knowing that he is "complex" could mean that he's a faggot, that he's weird, strange, that he disgracefully gets tonnes of women that I don't get, that he likes to visit West End dungeons and get whipped.

None of that "complexity" was worth doing anything about.

If someone suspected that part of his complexity was that he fiddled with kids then they should have alerted the police. But that is "complex" because an allegation of sexually abusing children can ruin lives.

If someone knew that Saville was abusing kids and did nothing then I wish there was a hell that they could burn in.



Widespread knowledge = puerile gossip. I neither know, nor care, about either of their sex lives.



Suggest it all you want. The documents don't back you up at all. It doesn't work for IDS, and it clearly doesn't work for you.

...and they're off...

Now then, now then....

Fair enough.

Your comprehension skills are lacking.



No. Knowledge. As the former editor of the [iDaily Express[/i revealed last year, he was on a cruise ship in the 1970s when the captain had to confine Savile to his cabin and then chuck him off because of his behaviour toward an underage girl. Either the former editor decided to make that up last year, for some reason, or it was the case. He did nothing about it at the time.

[url=http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349976/The-disgusted-captain-who-threw-Jimmy-Savile-off-a-cruise-shipStory here[/url.

Hitchin mentions libel laws. There have also been reports that he used his fund-raising activities to, in effect, blackmail editors not to print exposés. [url=http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gambaccini-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-stop-private-life-being-exposed.1349090175Story here[/url

I mentioned Savile's 1974 autobiography. Here's the relevant excerpt:

English comprehension. Brian Hitchens did not say that he was on that ship at that time. He said that he's known that Saville was abusing kids because he was told over 45 years ago about that incident.

Does Brian Hitchens know that Saville was a child abuser because he was told that? No, he does not. He had suspicions based on the rumour he was told, but he didn't KNOW.



Well that nails it. If Saville was shifty looking he was clearly guilty. If he was completely innocent he'd have been calm, composed and confident, like all honest people. Everyone knows that if someone can keep eye contact and be confident they are telling the truth.



A pathetic excuse.

Hitchin had a story about Saville being thrown off a cruise ship because he was pestering a 14 year old girl, didn't he?

Hitchin's could have brought forward the cruise ship captain, the ships officers, the parents of the girl, the girl.

The truth is Hitchin's is totally accepting of Saville's guilt because of a 40 odd year old captain's tale and the revelations that have surfaced since his death.



Did Gambaccini know that Saville was a peadophile? Did he know whether those stories were about under age victims?

Gambaccini worked alongside Saville. You claim that "plenty of people knew" but did nothing. Gambaccini is one of these people. Gambaccini bravely comes out and talks about a dead man, but there's no evidence that he did anything while Saville was alive and abusing people.





Now this is actual evidence.

And if I was Mr Brian Hitchin, I'd be printing that in my newspaper and outing him as the paedo he was. I wouldn't be worried about the libel laws after a paedo had just confessed in his own biography. I'd be going after him with every report that came out.

Likewise, if I was in charge of the honours, I wouldn't be replying to Thatcher that Saville was "complex" I'd have just quoted that paragraph and said that he should not and would not be considered for honours ever again.

I'm actually doing some work at the same time as responding to this. At least I found the story to link to.



To a very large extent I agree. I wouldn't ignore the libel issue altogether, though.



Correct. There isn't. What there is is an increasing body of such revelations, from a wide number of people – who don't 'have' to say anything in order to cover their own backs – that appears to stand up. As I noted earlier, I generally agree with Jerry Chicken's comments, made more than once here, that the culture on – let's call it groupies – has changed massively in just a generation and a half.

But Savile's behaviour clearly went further. But although it's quite clear that was the case, and that at least some people were aware of it etc, I suspect most people, including those in the mainstream media, considered it as unworthy of coverage.

I was doing some film reviewing, back in 1993, when I was told about Savile by a journalist on the [iDaily Mail[/i, who had, until about a year before, worked for the [iTelegraph[/i. His version of why it had not come out, when I asked, was that "Savile has the keys to a lot of other people's cupboards'.

I couldn't do anything: I worked for a tiny newspaper that really had no resources to either investigate anything of such a nature or to defend itself against any legal action (hence my comment on libel above).



I agree. Assuming it wasn't the work of a fantasists. But then again, it ties in with what has come out in the last 10 months.



Do you also see why, now, I don't believe that "he was complex" was the only excuse used by senior civil servants on four different occasions? And why I believe that the security forces must have known at least an element about him?

Equally, as I said earlier, that excerpt, unless pure fantasy, implicates police too.

Hitchen says that part of the reason that Saville was protected was because of the libel law.

I can understand why reports weren't published of him abusing kids if they couldn't legally back them up. You don't close a newspaper making that allegation if you can't back it up. But I have a problem with all the conversations that Hitchen's recalls having with Saville.

If I know someone is a vile paedo who abuses kids, I would have nothing to do with him. I wouldn't be able to write about all the chats I'd had with him like Hitchen does.

If I was being being invited by Cunard to give speeches and a child abuser was staying aboard those cruises in first class for free, I'd be speaking with the company and finding out what was going on. If the company insisted that it was fine that the paedo was there, I'd be withdrawing my services.

If I was the editor of The Daily Star for 7 years and the Sunday Express for a year, I might not be publishing stories outing Saville as a paedo if there wasn't the backing from the legal department, but I'd make sure Saville got so many kickings that people would be questioning why my paper hated him so much.



He was editor of The Daily Star from 1987 to 94. To show that that statement is complete and utter bs I put forward every issue of his tacky newspaper in those 7 years.



And every one of the people crawling out of the woodwork spitting on Saville's grave should be explaining what they did to expose him.



This is the same media that got Frank Bough sacked for coke and visiting brothels, but they deemed Saville fiddling with children unworthy of coverage??? Seriously, you believe that do you?



To me that reasoning is poor. As a journalist, I'd have thought that bringing down a paedo who held the keys to a lot of other people's cupboards would be a fantastic story to publish.

The only problem with that would be if the editor's or owners who were implicated.

My own personal opinion is that there was enough evidence against Savile for pub rumours, but there wasn't enough evidence to get past the legal department.



I totally accept that someone writing film reviews for a tiny newspaper cannot really do anything about a story like this. But journos working for The Sun, Star, Mirror, Mail and Express have no such excuses.



TBH I agree that it's a work of fantasy. Savile got to have sex with an attractive runaway girl (who may have been under age). He bragged about it to a high ranking female office, who he held absolutely no power over because she was new to the area. She was dissuaded from pursuing legal action against him because Savile supposedly would have taken down half the force (getting rid of a bunch of dirty cops would seem to be a happy consequence of nailing an abuser of a vulnerable girl).

And not only that, but one of the bent cops must have come and told him about all the talk in the station about him. That is unless he has astral projection powers and took a trip to the station after he'd been seeing to the girl.

All that would have been used in his defence if he was prosecuted over his autobiography. As a piece of legal evidence it's not worth much. But that is more than ample evidence to not award him a knighthood. Thatcher sees that and IMO he never gets within a mile of her again.



Thatcher's aide was saying she was exasperated Savile wasn't rightly honoured. If the civil servant knew about the rumours surrounding Saville then writing about him being "complex" is a pathetic warning that the government were going to give a child abuser a knighthood. IMO if the civil servant has heard rumours of Savile being a paedo he might reply that Saville's case is "complex", but he either talks to the aide or meets them and tells them why he won't be honoured.

The security forces. I don't believe background checks of the Prime Minister's friends, who happened to have been on TV and the radio about 20,000 times would have been overly exhaustive.

That's because he's a horrible racist c[iunt.[/i