Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Jimmy Savile's paedophilia is consistent with the BBC's culture

"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones," observed Mark Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. So let it be with Jimmy Savile.

Last night's Panorama was deeply shocking in its revelations (watch it on iPlayer - 'Contains some upsetting scenes'). Upsetting, indeed, for an entire generation of children who grew up on 'Jim'll Fix It' and the belief that in Jimmy Savile was a man who cared about them, their hopes, wishes and dreams. But let us not pretend that the BBC has absolved itself with this exposé: they investigated themselves and broadcast their tawdry findings only because they'd been caught: rumours about Jimmy Savile had been rife for decades, but no-one in the Corporation acted. Senior executives were told certain facts, made aware of witness testimony and advised about a potential cover-up, but none heeded the warnings.

Jimmy Savile raised a phenomenal £40 million for various charities during his life time - "How's about that, then, guys and gals?" But it appears to have been a means to an end - his end, that is, and getting it away. "Now then, now then, now then," he'd say. It's easy to speak ill of the dead. And as the BBC's Director General George Entwistle appears today before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, no doubt he will deflect, duck-and-dive and effortlessly defame the memory of the gold-dripping, cigar-smoking, shell-suited celebrity they created.

"Goodness gracious," gasps John Whittingdale, the Chairman of this committee. "As it 'appens, I just cannot believe that a man so depraved and prolific in his offences against children managed to hoodwink the British Government, the Prime Minister, the Honours Committee, the NHS and even the Vatican."

Jimmy Savile was awarded the OBE (1970) and a knighthood (1990) 'for services to charity', and was further honoured by Pope John Paul II who made him a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great (KCSG). To be awarded one honour 'inappropriately' may be regarded as a misfortune; to be awarded three looks like carelessness.

Was there no due diligence? Did no-one bother to Google? Did they not even think to read Jimmy Savile's own autobiography, in which he brazenly boasts of his sexual conquests and speaks of a compliant BBC culture? How could this have gone on for 40 years without anyone at the BBC lifting a finger to prevent a predatory paedophile from raping girls and torturing boys?

And that's something else: the Panorama investigation focused relentlessly on the 'abuse' of young girls. There was one boy interviewed, but the whole bisexual or pan-sexual aspect of of Savile's crimes was scarcely interrogated. This was not 'abuse': it was the chronic, systematic rape and torture of children, and it took place on BBC premises with the apparent knowledge of executive producers and the alleged participation of other sleazy celebrities like Gary Glitter. They'll never be able to screen 'Top of the Pops' again.

Astonishingly, David Nicolson, director of 'Jim'll Fix It', told The Sun that he caught Savile having sex with a 'very, very young girl' in his dressing room. When he raised concerns about this, he was ridiculed and mocked. It isn't clear why he never reported the crime to the police, but his failure to do so has resulted in the current investigation following 400 lines of inquiry from over 200 witnesses.

200 victims? 400? How many are reluctant still to come forward? How many boys, especially, are silenced by the shame?

Savile died on the 29th October 2011, and the BBC decided that fulsome tributes in their Christmas schedule were more important than a Newsnight investigation into the allegations. At the time, George Entwistle was the head of BBC Vision, and was in charge of the Christmas schedule. One might hope that John Whittingdale cross-examines Mr Entwistle rigorously on that whole process, for surely, in the context of doubts, rumours and witness testimony, the decision to honour Savile with the BBC's equivalent of a State Funeral was simply and straightforwardly wrong.

Of course, it's easy to be wise in retrospect, and to criticise from a distance. But it must be apparent to any reasonable person that Savile's disgusting behaviour was tolerated by the BBC because its own understanding of truth and morality is inconsistent at best, and perverse at worst. It is not merely still living the sexual revolution of the 60s; it is extending it, constantly pushing at the limits of liberalisation and inculcating a degrading relativism which undermines the conservative and cohesive fabric of society.

The BBC did not merely tolerate Jimmy Savile: he was one with them and they were consubstantial with him. There were and are no moral absolutes in that culture; evil exists only in the eye of the beholder. The pervasive liberal-left ethos corrupts and handicaps all that it pretends to care for: to report Jimmy Savile's sexual proclivities is to be judgmental; to be judgmental is to be narrow-minded; to be narrow-minded is to believe that you possess the truth; to possess the truth inclines you to force your values upon others; it is to acknowledge 'sin' or falling short of a certain standard.

The BBC's postmodernist dogma is antithetical to such absolutes: they are simply not admitted in their canons of tolerance. They hold to no truth, espouse no responsibility and repudiate all notions of morality. Even as they pretend to investigate themselves for their moral failings, there will still be many within its walls who will look at Jimmy Savile with pride, admiration and even envy.


Blogger Kate Danaher said...

A question (and I'm not trying to be a smart-alec here) : how much of Savile's out-of-control behavior was due to protection by Britain's libel laws? Let me suggest that the case that Savile's could be compared to would be that of Michael Jackson. Jackson was an eccentric celebrity who really, really, REALLY dug kids. However, as we all know, roughly 20 years ago he was forced to confront and I think eventually pay up on allegations of child sexual abuse. Magazines like the Nat'l Enquirer could dog Jackson in a way I don't think they can in the UK. I'm not trying to minimize the role the BBC played here in the cover up. I just wonder to what extent the legal climate lent additional unintentional cover to Savile's deeds.

23 October 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

The most nauseous thing so far was Harriet Harman in full "caring" PC mode, demanding a full public enquiry.

Yet she, Christine Hewitt and Jack Dromey (Mr Harriet Harperson) supported the legalisation of sex by adults with young children as a"civil liberties " issue on behalf of the homosexual lobby, when PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) was an affiliate of the National Council for Civil Liberties .

23 October 2012 at 10:07  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I wonder if the investigations will include looking at the presenters and the likes, of other programmes such as Blue Peter and The Old Grey Whistle Test; in fact all programmes that have been aimed at the younger audience.

23 October 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, together with Jack Dromey, are not fit to moralise on any issue. Their stance on paedophilia in the past should be thoroughly investigated. We should all be offended - no, outraged - that people sitting in our legislature held such views...the time of reckoning is at hand.

23 October 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger FrankFisher said...

Fed up with this sneaking in of excuses for the media and BBC - 'Was it because of libel laws?' - no, it wasn't. You only have to look at the horse's mouth: repeatedly last night the same phrases came up "It never crossed my mind to report it". Never crossed my mind?

That's the issue. I'll be bold. The groupthink at the BBC, the Leftie kowtowing to a doctrinal truth, *absolves* the individual from any kind of requirement to analyse their own moral behaviour. They think, hey, I'm working for this grand morally pure, right-on organisation. Everyone around me is a good person. we *care*. We care for the poor and the excluded. We read the Guardian. We're good! So everything we do, must be good!

Blair was the same. I reckon those kiddy fiddling priests were the same - more or less. When you look to any kind of higher power to tell you what is moral, what is good and bad, then you lose the ability to do it yourself, to even think that you should.

This - all of this, from abuse to cover-up - stems from the BBC's notion of itself as a force for moral good.

23 October 2012 at 10:43  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

So just like leading figures in the BBC, Pope John Paul II had heard rumours of Savile's abuse of children.

Are we supposed to believe this nonsense?

23 October 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Well, which is it, Frank? Do we "look to a higher authority" to tell us good and evil, or do we do it ourselves? Because if we do the latter, then who's to say what Savile did is wrong? You can't have it both ways.

JKL, John Paul may or may not have heard the rumours about Savile, but remember he had spent most of his ministry behind the Iron Curtain. In the atheist states, belief in God was supposed to wither and die. When it didn't, it became something of an embarrassment. Consequently, it was standard operating procedure to make accusations of child abuse against priests who were a little too successful filling their churches, all, or nearly all of them, totally bogus. The result was that when John Paul came west, he may well have ignored such accusations, based on his experience in the paradise of "free thinkers". It's a classic example of the perils of crying wolf.

23 October 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger Dainase said...

Hi Grace mentions that there may be some individuals who will be proud or envious of SJS and his monstrous acts - and this is quite likely to be true, given the sheer size of the BBC and its relaxed moral outlook. But there will be a sizeable number of more recent - and current - presenters who will be very worried indeed that their louche behaviour will also be exposed.

The entire scope of the arts and entertainment industry has been continually riddled with evil, self-gratifying individuals with the power and confidence to command their prey to agree to sordid or humiliating acts in exchange for career advancement. The casting couch is far larger and used for more than those on the inside would ever care to admit. The real shame is that it remains an active method of recruitment and the revelations will only serve to encourage sexual predators in trying to emulate the likes of Savile or Glitter.

23 October 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger Graham Tasker said...

There was one boy interviewed, but the whole bisexual or pan-sexual aspect of of Savile's crimes was scarcely interrogated. This was not 'abuse': it was the chronic, systematic rape and torture of children,

The one thing you can be sure of is that the allegations of 'attacks' on boys will not be looked into, the community of Sodomites will not allow it, as so many want the age of consent reduced.

23 October 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

They're "all in it together" - a culture of moral relativism pushing boundaries at every point, which breeds finger fiddling men/women (with or without religion); expense fiddling MP's; telephone fiddling journalists; money fiddling bankers; drug fiddling cyclists; etc etc.
We need the peace and joy of the righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ (read about it in Romans)- not hypocritical self-righteousness - except by the grace of God go I.

23 October 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger gentlemind said...

I am not interested in the details particular to the Savile story. The important part of the article is the focus on moral relativism. When we replace right and wrong with good and bad, we create degrees of acceptance: "bad" can become "less bad", or even "good".
There is no such thing as "less wrong". Wrong can never become right, because right can never be anything other than right.

23 October 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger ukFred said...

Railtrack was closed down for causing the deaths of several people with poor maintenance. Arthur Andersen was closed down as a result of much less reputational damage than the BBC has suffered as a result of this.

Even worse, the BBC has seen what has happened to the Roman Catholic Church, even though they have never given its crimes and punishments the prominence they deserved. There is no excuse hiding this away in the background. So far we have had Chris Denning, Jonathan King, John Peel, Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter. This is not some "rogue DJ"; this is systemic use of the BBC for abuse of others who would have used their position and reputation to kill off any suggestions that they behaved in any way untoward, and yert that was what happened.

How many have the BBC condemned to the living death of being made to feel worthless because they suffered abuse and their abusers knew that that the victims would never be believed. The BBC is not fit for purpose and should be closed down forthwith, and those luvvies who want to continue to work in broadcast media will need to ensure that they are suitable for employment in commercial companies who would find their directors subjected to much worse terrortism than we have seen directed to commercial companies in this country hitherto.

23 October 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger ukFred said...

Further to my comment wrt Arthur Andersen, the enquiry into the BBC needs to be independent and perhaps the best people to conduct it would be employees of News International who have no interest in the survival of the BBC, and could be motivated to leave no stone unturned to dig the dirt.

23 October 2012 at 12:41  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

I was no fan of Jimmy Saville and never particularly liked him but there is something distasteful in this systematic shredding of the reputation of a man after he is dead and unable to defend himself.

In addition now that 'victims' of Saville are being encouraged to bring legal actions against the BBC and others how can we be sure of the honesty of the allegations brought ? Now that the smell of money is in the air how many people who went to Top of the Pops or Jim'll Fix It will suddenly recover a 'repressed memory' especially in a situation where the number of allegations is somehow taken as evidence of their truthfulness.

The possibility of obtaining compensation for alleged acts decades previously by someone who is dead has corrupted the entire process of examining the truthfulness or otherwise of alleged Child Abuse whether in the Church, Scouts, Childrens Homes or the BBC. The Limitation Act 1980 is supposed to prevent claims being brought after six years but the Courts have interpreted the Limitation Act in such a way as to allow sex abuse claims to be brought decades after the alleged events where the only evidence is unsupported allegations made against a person who is dead and who cannot defend themselves

23 October 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger len said...

There seems to have been a 'cloak of protection' around Jimmy savil.He seems to have often alluded to his 'activities' with minors but nothing ever seems to have been done about it.

This 'protection' Savil seems to have had needs looking into as well as the abuse cases which could be the tip of a much greater 'iceberg'.

23 October 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Kate Danaher:

"how much of Savile's out-of-control behavior was due to protection by Britain's libel laws?"

Absolutely spot on. Savile took out an injunction against The Sun over allegations relating to Haut de Garenne in 2008. Threats of legal action (and one supposes, these days threats of the likes of Brian breathing down everyone's neck in a "far-reaching Inquiry") are one of the most pervasive and perfidious aspects of our justice system. It's about time that along with Section 5, we had an overhaul of the laws regarding free speech and press in the UK.

Neil Addison:

Undoubtedly there will be, amongst the "200", at least a few false allegations for precisely the reasons you outline. The answer is a robust justice system. Paedophiles are entitled to the same legal standards as anyone else - and if it is clear that they are not guilty of a particular allegation, even if they are guilty of others, they are entitled to be acquitted. In fact, there are cases where that's what's happened - where one charge cannot be proved, whilst another is. It's not by any means perfect or infallible, much as we might wish it to be, but Due Process is essential.

The difficulty is, as Kate has suggested, we live in a climate in which the rich and powerful can avoid the scrutiny of the Courts through the threat of legal action. That in fact it takes someone's death, in our absurd libel culture, before any kind of light can be shone into their activities. I'd not want to see knee-jerk legislation on this matter - and I think there's some serious issues regarding anonymity of accusers that need to be properly and soberly reflected upon.

But the reality is, our present system almost ensures that both the victims and accused in historic child abuse cases never get their day in court. Of the two, who benefits most out of that?

23 October 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger IanCad said...

I am in total agreement with you Neil Addison.
It is over. Leave it alone.

All the rats are going to board a sunk ship.

Is any credence still given over here to the vile "Repressed Memory Syndrome" hawkers?

Many lives have been ruined in the US by these latter day inquisitors.

The McMartin and the Wenatchee cases were just two of the many groundless prosecutions bought by an evil cabal of ambitious DA's, sick psychologists, incompetent therapists and avaricious lawyers.
When, after many years, the accused were finally vindicated, there were no punitive consequences for those who brought the groundless charges.

Surely this couldn't happen here?
Or could it?

23 October 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger TigerO said...

There is common thread that runs through the JS abuse claims and more recent claims; the abuse of vulnerable children most of whom are wards of the State.

The reason being that these children are on the lowest rung of society and the least able to access justice or be believed by the authorities.

We have JS and Co reportedly abusing these children. BUT we have and will be witnessing the cases of rape and abuse of hundreds of the same young girls by gangs of men from a certain ethnic community.

Has the BBC at any stage done a investigative report into why these more recent events are occurring? No!

Are we to suspect that in fact there is a culture in the BBC that sees these children as sub-human?

What is even more troubling is the attitude of Child Protection within the State. How do State Child Protection services allow this to happen. When a copper on his beat at night and sees young girls wandering the streets does he not think it odd. Is it not his duty to inquire why they are there and ensure their safety?

What are the staff in hostels thinking when older men come to collect young girls. That is not normal. Why are staff allowing young girls to wander the streets late at night when they are responsible for their safety?

There is a simple answer; they really don't care.

23 October 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


It is not over, nor is it ever truly over for the victims of child abuse. That is not to say that victims are somehow unable to make their way in the world, or that they constitute a forever-broken person. I know several people who were abused as children who live normal happy lives - and who you wouldn't outwardly guess were victims. But that does not mean that they haven't faced, and continue to genuine emotional consequences. It doesn't take an extraordinary kind of empathy to realise that people whose earliest sexual encounters are abusive, perceived as mentally shameful, and very often coincide with children being vulnerable are going to be carrying those problems into their adult lives.

You're also misfiring on all cylinders when you take a particular hysteria case and then apply it wholesale to child abuse allegations. The reality is that there are very specific methodological and investigative differences. I entirely support robust investigations, unreduced burdens of evidence, and the bringing of charges against people who make malicious allegations. The reality is, though, that the cases you cite have very little factually in common with the Savile allegations, besides the fact of the general theme of child abuse. This is not over-therapised individuals who've hypno-regressed: these are allegations from a range of sources, over a wide geography, with supporting testimonies from secondary witnesses who do not stand to financially gain from any investigation. Not to mention the copiously cited statements and writings by Savile himself which boast of his predilictions and activities.

There is the potential for, and no doubt will be a fair degree of hysteria in our response, which is entirely unhelpful, not least because it usually provides the cover for future abusers who exploit crass reductive stereotypes to go "undetected". But that doesn't mean that the route of the allegations is hysteric. Any more than a false allegation renders all the others false (should it arise that one of the "200" is false). The answer is to weigh the evidence: something that your response suggests you are unwilling to do.

23 October 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So in the naked dead universe, the lesson of Jimmy Savile would seem to be "Live fast, make money, trust to your fame, screw anything with an available oriface, and die before they catch you." For now he would be safely planted in the dust beyond the reach of either law or justice.

And as for his victims? I suppose they will have to be satisfied with the knowledge that "It sucks to be you."

In the naked dead universe, that is.


23 October 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger Frank Jackson said...

The BBC should be investigating St John International head office in London. St John International in London are currently pulling out all the stops in order to present awards to two known members of the St John New Zealand paedophile gang. The awards are to be presented by the Queen’s representative in NZ, the Governor General.

23 October 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger Tony B said...

Whereas as a Catholic, Jimmy Savile apparently was a believer in moral absolutes?

23 October 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger IanCad said...


There are times when we have to walk away.

The Statute of Limitations is surely up for his alleged crimes.

If others have covered up for him and it can be proven (With perhaps a little extra burden of proof) then certainly they should be subject to the full vigor of the law.

I do share your empathy with any victims of child abuse. Millstones and all that.

However, and I have not followed this closely, but weren't most of the girls in their mid-teens? Hardly children.

You wrote:

"The reality is that there are very specific methodological and investigative differences. I entirely support robust investigations, unreduced burdens of evidence, and the bringing of charges against people who make malicious allegations---"

I have to admit that you are probably correct here, and certainly offer some reassurance that this whole fiasco will not turn into a witch-hunt.
That is, if you were put in charge of the whole affair.

23 October 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

"There were and are no moral absolutes in that culture; evil exists only in the eye of the beholder."

To précis - moral relativism, that which makes the Left so pernicious in all its dealings with society.

23 October 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


One has to trust in the processes of law, and as with Section 5 below, campaign when there are clear deficiencies. Sometimes justice has to be demanded - that's true on a big scale, but it's true on a small scale too. Just think: if every one of the secondary witnesses in the Savile case who saw something inappropriate had actually had the balls to push to bring it into the open, we could have seen this played out in the dock, where it belongs.

23 October 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Tony Blair used the Iraq war to close down a kiddie fiddling investigation

If there is any truth to the rumours Edward Heath was involved, then we begin to see how statesmen who committed treason where being controlled

When those being investigated are in a position to close down the investigation, what hope is there

23 October 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger Tony B said...

Elby the Beserk - remember Jimmy Savile - the devout Catholic who actually perpetrated these crimes?

On the subject of moral relativism it's been instructive to note the differing responses of Christians. Response one has been to put "victims" in inverted commas. And they were hardly children. And it's distasteful to shred the man's reputation after he's gone..etc etc

The other typical response is the same as His Grace's. It's the fault of atheistic Liberal lefties.


23 October 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Missed the real villians by at least a light-year

WRONG so wrong it's pathetic.

There is a much older, very evil oprganisation, that is notorious, recently, for abuse of minors, of both sexes.
Saville was a member of that organisation.
It's name?

The Roman Catholic Church.
Saville was a Papal knight, was he not?
And what nasty littel grouping does the useless director of the BBC, the failed politician, Patten belong to?
The RCC, of course.
And there are several other nsty little papists near the top of theBeeb - one reason they won't countenance secular "thoughts for the day" of course.

Try attacking the correct target, next time!

23 October 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Another top post from you. The Inspector feels he is not alone in believing that if it wasn’t for our Christian morality based standards and law, this kind of practice when championed by a ‘progressive and hip’ and now Godless organisation which is our BBC would in time have become ‘de rigueur’ for society as a whole. Sobering thought, what !

The many detractors of Christianity who post on this site who would like to see it binned in entirety as a force in our society would do well to ponder this point.

Of course, the awful truth is that some of the contributors to this site are indeed desirous of sex with children, and see Cranmer as a suitable vehicle to advance their cause, by taking every opportunity to highlight failures in the church. Anyone like to admit to that now ?

23 October 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Kinderling said...


Only those who see homosexuality as an equal or higher calling to those of heterosexual incontinence.

23 October 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector, we're talking about crimes perpetrated by a member of your own church! So much for your Christian standards.

23 October 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

From a materialist perspective, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Jimmy Savile lived an ideal life. He received money, fame, & public accolades. He had the ability aand leisure time to act as he desired. And of course he was free to indulge his sexual desires as he saw fit with whomever he saw fit. When measured by the perspective of lived experience as the meaning of life, Jimmy Savile did pretty well by himself. He lived a long and meaningful life. Sure he may have run over a few (OK, many) people in the process. But who can say the cumulative sufferings of many outweight the private pleasures of the one?

This is the difficulty that our post-modern world of doubt and radical autonomy cannot answer. Pointless suffering that can never be put right sits uncomfortably on display in the middle of the room, and they can do nothing but look away. The only answer they can provide is "I am glad that didn't happen to me."


23 October 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Kinderling, would that we could pigeon hole that easily. Local examples of paedophiles exposed in the courts here show that both sexes are at risk from these people.

But wait, you do have a point in as much that secularists who are not of a gay persuasion themselves are, well shall we say passively compliant to queer or straight paedos ‘needs’. That particularly disgusts this man. It just goes to show that if your moral compass is not the Christian God, and you leave it to your own morals, anything goes...

23 October 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, anything else you would like to say / admit to ?

23 October 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger Tony B said...

Carl is "a living God allows this suffering to happen " really better?

23 October 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Tony B said...

You're the Catholic inspector. What about you?

23 October 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Tony B

Carl is "a living God allows this suffering to happen " really better?

Yes. Because God is the one who is capable of giving purpose to suffering. It is no longer pointless but constrained within the Providence of God. It is also God who insures that the man does not remain hidden in the grave with his sins, but is instead called forth to give account for them. God's justice is never denied.


23 October 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Tony B said...

Carl, I meant living, not living. Typo. But of course nine of actually knows that God puts things right. Hope. Opinion. Not fact.

23 October 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Tony B said...

Gaaaa!! I meant LOVING! My phone replaces what I type occasionally for no sensible reason. It's just done it twice.

23 October 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger Tony B said...

I consider both options possible btw Carl. But I can't make much sense of either.

23 October 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, a living God allows anything, like 12 years of NAZI rule for example and whatever those Islamic monkeys in their areas call existence. But of course, those of us who believe understand that this life is a mere test. It is not at the end a complete waste of time and effort.

23 October 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bah ! Believe this man in that he meant to type ‘loving’ too !

23 October 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is the Inspector actually getting worse and worse as time goes on? Where will it end? :O

23 October 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good show DanJ0 !

Tin hat on, there’s a good chap. We moral majority are on the attack, don’t you know. Well deserved shit coming flying towards those that well deserve it. We have Savile's dried out remains to thank for that...

23 October 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So, of all the things Jimmy Savile was, how come the only thing that matters to certain parties here is the fact that he was a Catholic? Personally, I would have thought that the fact of his Englishness is what made him a child abuser.

23 October 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger Mr Veale said...

"..there is something distasteful in this systematic shredding of the reputation of a man after he is dead and unable to defend himself."

It seems to easy to mention Hitler and Stalin. In any case, Mr Addison misses the point entirely. His Grace has identified a salient issue, and was entirely correct to examine the moral context. Any news organisation needs some moral authority; the audience needs to trust reporters to do more than tell the truth. They must value the truth above the good of the organisation, and above personal gain.
The BBC not only failed to discover and report Mr Savile's abuse, despite the evidence at its dispoal. It made programmes which venerated Mr Savile. The BBC seems to be deeply wicked.
I have a 12 year old son who would like to be a journalist; when he is a little older, I will be pointing him to this blog.


23 October 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Preacher said...

IMO, it's up to us to protect the weak & vulnerable regardless of age or gender. To resist the evil of predators should come as second nature to ALL of us.
It's evil to use a position of power & influence to abuse the helpless, but to turn a blind eye through fear is to virtually become an accomplice to the acts committed.

It's becoming non P.C to speak of a day of judgement & the Wrath of God, but scripture speaks of it from start to finish. Indeed, not only Christianity, but Judaism & Islam also condemn sin & evil & tell of a day when the Almighty will Judge the Living & the risen dead.
Scoff if you like, but isn't it time that our religious leaders stopped trying to please mankind with a 'soft' gospel & preached the truth as it is written in their scriptures? Perhaps then the Jimmy Saviles of this World will think of their eternal destiny & reject the evil they feel so free to commit at present.

23 October 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger OldJim said...

Tony B,

God is not a superhero. God is God.

I don't think the question is unanswerable for any Christian, but as a Catholic it's particularly easy. God does not constrain our freedom. He offers each of us every means we need and many more to direct our freedoms aright, to his Will.

That we do not always comply is neither here nor there.

Basically, we could live in a universe where if you intended to strike your mother, you immediately died before you could and went straight to hell for your evil intent. Or we could live in a universe where if you intended to strike your mother, you could, and you would be shown the consequences of your actions, and invited to repent. Or we could live in a universe where you could not strike your mother because none of us were sufficiently autonomous to act contrary to God's Will, which also means a universe where we would not be properly free to love Him.

If you want both autonomy and a universe which maximises opportunities for repentance, and so offers the greatest mercy, you choose the middle one. If you think reducing pain is more important than the other values, you choose one of the others. None of this is to minimise the evil of suffering, just to contextualise it. I don't see, when put in that light, how anyone could seriously object to the present arrangement.

23 October 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Kinderling said...

OiG: "It just goes to show that if your moral compass is not the Christian God, and you leave it to your own morals, anything goes.

You will find it disgusting in any society of clear-thinking people.

Not the "Brights" however, for Socialism, like Communism, Fascism and Churches were set up to fight once and for all the evils of the world... which are all based upon resentment.

And funnily enough, thru rage up pops their desire for out-of-season unatural sex. Strange that, perversity comes from mishandling traversity into a rising-to-the-occassion to support those 'victim cultures' of lust pots we see around today.

23 October 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Tony B said...


His being Catholic is made relevant only because certain people on here are saying that a/ It's all the fault of left liberal atheists and b/ it wouldn't have happened with the Christians in charge..

Er, hello? Is that an elephant over there in the corner?

23 October 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger dimwoo said...

I generally find this blog interesting and sane in an old-school traditional Tory way, but I can't quite believe how nasty - and crazy - this latest Cranmer post is. His Grace appears to have forgotten to take his pills.

It IS extraordinary that Saville got away with it, but he appears to have very effectively pulled the wool over everyone's eyes - not only the BBC but individuals, private institutions and state ones such as the NHS - with his amazing charity work, charisma and popularity. Of course there were gossip and rumours, and with hindsight and the heightened modern awareness we have these days of how sexual abusers operate and how cunning they can be, it seems astonishing that during the 60s through to the 80s and beyond he was still getting away with it.

But to ask with such faux outrage how this could have "gone on for 40 years without anyone at the BBC lifting a finger to prevent a predatory paedophile from raping girls", is either delusional or deeply malicious. As if *everyone* knew about it at the beeb and smiled indulgently and looked the other way...!

And "torturing boys"??? You make it sound like Saville had his own BBC-approved sex-dungeon. I've not heard talk of "torture" anywhere else - His Grace's imagination is working overtime. Unless you mean that sexual abuse is a *kind* of torture; but then we already have a word for that: sexual abuse, which has vile enough connotations. Torture is a different thing. I guess His Grace must be using the phrase for rhetorical effect only: to make the beeb seem EVEN MORE wicked.

And the "systematic rape and torture of children" on BBC premises with "the apparent knowledge of executive producers" is a ludicrous, hysterical suggestion. Jesus wept! - the Cranmer blog has turned into one of those weird right-wing Xian conspiracy sites. Much further along in the same direction and it will be Satanic Lizards running the BBC...

To suggest that the BBC tolerated and supported Saville's child-abuse because it shared in the liberal-left's moral relativism, as if everyone left of the Tory party somehow thinks that paodophilia is kind-of ok really, can only be the opinion of someone who has taken leave of their senses.

And the finale: "there will still be many within its walls who will look at Jimmy Savile with pride, admiration and even envy"?!?!? I had the impression that the anger that can be plainly sensed in a lot of Cranmer's posts had its origin in a genuinely principled moral position representative of mainstream christianity. But now I see it's much less than that, more the kind of obnoxious, scapegoating hate-speak that emanates from the American far-right.

This is either the hysteria of a Witchfinder General, or the political opportunism of someone who has entirely misplaced their own moral compass and resorted to the lowest form of propaganda: comparable to the worst behaviour of sink-estate lynch mobs.

How depressing.

23 October 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Tony B said...

Dimwoo - precisely.

23 October 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I'd suggest reading around on this subject - part of the problem with people not reporting Savile came down to the fact that there was a general culture of "entitlement". This "Groupie Culture" was absolutely condoned and encouraged by many of the cultural leaders (though I suspect the liberal atheists were largely running after the anti-war movement rather than the BBC in those days). In that sense, it was the product of an age intent on proving it was too grown up to believe in Christian morality, especially on sex, and too youthful to constrain itself.

Now it must be said that the same culture of entitlement was running rampant in the Church - not only the Roman Catholic Church, but the CofE, and many Protestant denominations which have had similar, but far less publicized child abuse scandals. Not all of the blame for that can be placed on the liberalising urge - there are as many public hardliners covering up their sin as there are men who both publically and privately profane the Lord's Commands.

But that's the philosophical difference: the Radio 1 DJs with their youthful groupies (not all as young as Savile, but equally as questionable) were living up to the way that secular culture expected and to a high degree allowed them to. The priests who abused children were about as far fallen from Christian sexual ethics as you can manage.

That's no great practical difference, and certainly no comfort to those who were victims at the hands of both priests and churches in the abuse and cover-ups. But for those of us who advocate and try to live according to Biblical models of sexual purity, there is no invalidation of our beliefs, but rather a desperately sad indication of the need for public restraint and private purity.

Actually, I've found that many of the churches I've been a member of in the last couple of decades have taken child protection very seriously. My old pastor who married my wife and myself always met with congregants in a semi-public place in the church, and required that youth group and Sunday school leaders never be left alone with children long before the State advised and later required similar procedures. But that's perhaps the mark of someone who lives by having everything in the light. Had other congregations put in place similar standards, the Church would have been much better placed to safeguard its members, and not leave them open to the appalling abuse that many of them received.

23 October 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger dimwoo said...


On the whole I agree with you. Since the 1960s let the cat out of the bag the western world has treated sex as if it is a theme park offering wild rides for free and you can go on as many times as you like. I sense this attitude is fading somewhat these days and is no longer so reflective of the general culture. But if anything it is kept alive by big business, which uses sex to sell in a thousand different ways.

Your reasoned and articulate critique of modern society is a far cry from Cranmer's base assertion that the BBC is a hotbed of amoral leftist atheist paedos.

23 October 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Jimmy Savile was not remotely left-wing. He was a close personal friend of Margaret Thatcher's and he was appointed to his position at Broadmoor by Edwina Currie.

23 October 2012 at 23:33  
Blogger non mouse said...

This is a horrible topic, Your Grace; though I don't know what the msm expect us to make of it. It certainly has its "Demoralising" aspect, and I wonder if it will help if we consider the subject in some historical contexts.

Way back when JS was making the better part of his name, we had the business of his near contemporary, the 'Moors Murderer.' Now I never read the details; I don't want to know them because I need to sleep at nights, so it was a long time before I managed any understanding of "abuse." But the NOTW always had its fans, didn't it? So some people always knew what goes on; and how many of those readers got something vicarious from the filth?

And then there's the business more directly associated with JS: the entertainment and theatrical world. Someone else above has noted how nasty show business has been, historically. Anyone who has had the misfortune to peruse Jacobean drama, with any sort of insight, will know exactly why that generation suffered the Closing of the Theatres. And that's not to claim things hadn't been bad enough in earlier (and Shakespearean) times... 'bawdy' was ever rife. I tend to be grateful that the Bard at least gives us somewhere else to go (most of the time). Nevertheless, it would be naive to claim that the horror didn't extend from corrupt adults to children even then. After all, those were ages when marriages were contracted for early adolescents; and when young boys were contracted out to learn military and courtly service from powerful 'lords.'

And then there's the little matter of those boarding schools that developed alongside the older traditions....

But entertainment ever attached itself to the rich and powerful, so no wonder it, too, is rotten. As for the 'pop stardom' world of modern times-- well, it's some time since that young "songstress" died, exhibiting, at the very least, drug abuse. At that time I mentioned the depravity of her world, pointing to other tragic figures like Johnny Cash and Elvis. Again, I wish I could still take their music at face value. I believe that was what sold the records then; but I suspect the truth of their personal lives is far more vile than most people will want to imagine.

Furthermore, looking back at some scenarios we've all heard about, I'd bet that many famous people of the "jet-setters' " age, including news magnates and politicians, are tinged with the same pigments. What about those people who used to swan about at international yacht parties, for example-- the ones the society columns held up for plebbish envy? Oh, I don't think James Bond's world was half as unrealistic as we'd like to believe.

Your Grace, the power-wealth hierarchy has always nurtured abuse and depravity; and it has protected its leading figures for a variety of reasons. We know, after all, that Alexander the Great was no more an angel than some of the notorious Roman emperors... etc. Yet some of these people brought protection or advantage to their people. Consequently, their power had to be protected and, because of that, they became more corrupt. We, however, are now encouraged to corrupt ourselves, vicariously, by feeding on the rotten bodies of our own historical figures. How cowardly and infectious can that be?

On all sides, I say: it comes down to the lust for power, Your Grace. Now if we could not only curb the corruption of others, but also discourage the public tendency to feed on it ... Might day ever follow this long and terrible night?

[Oh, and and I pray they never put out any details about our post-modern politicitians; that would be more nauseating than anything yet.]

24 October 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

dimwoo said ...

"This is either the hysteria of a Witchfinder General, or the political opportunism of someone who has entirely misplaced their own moral compass and resorted to the lowest form of propaganda: comparable to the worst behaviour of sink-estate lynch mobs."

I wonder which. Mind you, one does not necessarily exclude the other.

24 October 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

Look at the photo of this man. It says it all. What sane person would allow a man who looked like him near their children? Who would let their 10 year old daughter sit on this man's knee?


Think how history would have been changed had the USA voters in the election of 1960 known of JFK's serial philandering. We must know about the sleazy lives of people in power or who have influence in order that their crimes can be brought to justice like any other citizen who commits similar crimes.

Has anyone gone to jail for the massive coverup by police and social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire of at least 150 children sexually and physically abused by Pakistani Muslim men because the authorities were afraid to make arrests for fear of being called racists?

24 October 2012 at 04:52  
Blogger John Magee said...


It's hard to imagine now that the infamous McMartin preschool abuse case lasted SIX years! Your discription was perfect.It was a groundless prosecution bought by an evil group of ambitious DA's, sick psychologists, incompetent therapists and avaricious lawyers.
When, after many years, the accused were finally vindicated, there were no punitive consequences for those who brought the groundless charges.

That was an era that gave us adults accusing their parents of belonging to Satanic cults when they were children and abusing them and even killing babies. People believed this garbage and lives were ruined. Therapists convinced hysterical people by hyptonic regression to their childhood and convinced them that their fathers or even their mothers had abused them.

The insanity in the 70's and 80's over trumped up child abuse cases was the same atmosphere on a national scale that grasped the Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1690's.

24 October 2012 at 05:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

dimwoo @ 23.22 says to AIB, 'Your reasoned and articulate critique of modern society is a far cry from Cranmer's base assertion that the BBC is a hotbed of amoral leftist atheist paedos.'

Headline from the Daily Telegraph, 'NINE BBC staff members, including current employees, face allegations of child sex abuse, the BBC director-general told MPs yesterday. '

Ever heard of the cockroach theory?

In case you haven't it goes like this; when you see one you know there's another ten behind the skirting boards.

Cranmer's 'base assertion' is looking more like a 'base case' by the minute.

24 October 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger MattNotts said...

An interesting conversation above about whether His Grace has gone over the top a bit with this - I've not read all the posts above, but I don't think anyone's yet pointed out the 'censored' (by Panorama)emails coming out in the newspapers now. I also initially thought that yesterday's post was a bit harsh. Then I read these words from a 'censored' email from the Newsnight reporter, which reads;

"Having commissioned the story, Peter Rippon keeps saying he's lukewarm about it and is trying to kill it by making impossible editorial demands.
"When we rebut his points, he resorts to saying: well, it was 40 years ago...the girls were teenagers, not too young...they weren't the worst kind of sexual offences etc.
"He hasn't warned BBC1 about the story, so they're beavering away on the special, oblivious."

It made me wonder if His Grace was onto more than I realised.

24 October 2012 at 09:21  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

There is a lot of anger and outrage about Jimmy Savile and his unpleasant habits.

But that was then. Now we know, and behave, better

But do we? We live in an age when the NHS fixes contraceptive coils to 13 year old girls, without telling their parents. The official sex education policy is "you will know you are ready for sex, because it will feel right" (as emphasised on the 'respect yourself' website by Warwickshire County Council). When was the last time that a school encouraged the police to investigate who made a 15 year-old girl pregnant?

Legally, there is still an age of consent. But it is being widely, and officially, ignored. This is exactly what the Paedophile Information Exchange was pressing for 30 years ago.

24 October 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger Tony B said...

Interesting. Exactly the sort of things some Catholic defenders of Savile have said, both here and on the Catholic Herald website. Well I never.

24 October 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Tony B

Sorry, who are these Catholic defenders of Savile?

Can you explain the relevance of his religion here? Say he had been Jewish, would that be relevant?

24 October 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

What is relevant here is that Savile, and quite possibly others, were put amongst children by a public institution whose staff at managerial level had good reason to believe he was a child abuser.

Cranmer, if I understand him correctly, suggests there was a background culture of sexual permissiveness which allowed that to happen.

That seems a reasonable proposition to me. Savile's personal religion, politics etc are irrelevant to that broader argument. Tony B cannot quite grasp this and Cranmer weakens his own argument by introducing the question of Savile's religion.

24 October 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Cranmer weakens his own argument by introducing the question of Savile's religion."

John Knox's lovechild,

You must be reading a different article: nowhere has His Grace mentioned Savile's Roman Catholicism. You weaken your own argument by fabricating His Grace's argument. He merely mentioned that Savile had been awarded the KCSG, and this reference was made in the context of other awards and honours.

Or is it your proposition that the Vatican ought to be spared this embarrasssment? If so, please justify this.

And before you allege that the mere mention of the KCSG 'weakens' His Grace's argument, you might like to consider that it is not an exclusively Roman Catholic order, since prominent non-Roman-Catholics have received the honour, including Bob Hope, Rupert Murdoch and Roy Disney.

24 October 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Tony B said...

John Knox's lovechild.

I have not failed to grasp anything, but you have.

Savile's religion only becomes relevant when certain people seek to blame left-liberal atheists and moral relativism for the abuse, when the acts themselves were carried out by a conservative Catholic. That is the only reason I felt it necessary to mention his religion.

His Grace actually weakens his argument by twisting the crimes of a conservative Catholic until they become the crimes of lefties who all condone or actively participate in paedophilia, apparently!

24 October 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tony B:

Blaming left-liberal atheists and moral relativism as the cause of the abuse is as difficult an endeavour as connecting Savile's Catholicism with his paedophilia.

On the other hand, noting that the culture at the BBC, which explicitly advanced something that might be described as laissez-faire sexual "morality", played an important part in the reasons for Savile going largely unchallenged, is neither irrelevant or misleading. One has but to read and listen to the reams of individuals who suspected, and even witnessed events but either didn't themselves care or were under the impression that nobody else cared. In the same way, one cannot look at the Catholic Church and conclude that its culture is irrelevant. On the other hand, as I outlined above, whereas Savile and co. were living up to the cultures that supported them (even if that wasn't the intention* of the majority of people around them), Catholic priests - and Savile the Catholic - were utterly falling away from Christian sexual ethics.

In that sense, you overextend your own argument by talking about 'the crimes of a conservative Catholic'. Were Savile a conservative Catholic he would not have abused children. It is as oxymoronic as arguing that celibate priests abuse children - by definition if they are celibate (and Savile as a single Catholic should have been), they are not having sexual contact with anyone, let alone abusing children.

Savile probably wasn't a paedophile because he was a Catholic, or a Radio 1 DJ, or from the North of England. But he almost certainly got away with it because he worked at the BBC, was at the centre of a cult of the celebrity, and abused children in a culture in showbiz that was at best primarily concerned with its own hedonistic impulses, and at worst positively condoning sexual impropriety.


*We should never forget, though, that this is a period in which such Labour luminaries as Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell were publically and openly campaigning to decriminalise adult-child sexual relations.

24 October 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

It occurs to me that 'laissez-faire' is highly ironic, given that instead of a "hands off" policy, it seems very much to have been one of "hands on". But hopefully you get the intended meaning.

24 October 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger Tony B said...

anon in Belfast

I'm not connecting Savile's paedophilia with his Catholicism, and I thought I'd made that clear.

>Were Savile a conservative Catholic he would not have abused children

Really? One ceases to be conservative or Catholic if one commits a crime? Interesting idea but I'm not sure it really holds water. Did he become a left-leaning liberal atheist as soon as he touched the first girl, maybe?

24 October 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger OldJim said...

Yeah, anon in belfast, I think "he wasn't a conservative Catholic because he was a paedophile" is a stretch too. If we could demonstrate that he condoned or exonerated his paedophilia, that would do to demonstrate that he was no conservative Catholic at least. No conservative Catholic can hold that moral theory. It is impossible.

The trouble is that a person doesn't have to deny that they are breaking a moral law in order to break it. As a (I'm not sure about "conservative", can we say "Orthodox"?) Catholic I know very well what sin looks like, and when I do sin, I do not "fool myself" that it's ok, but am well aware of what I am doing.

I admit that without a firm moral code, as you will find in a religion, a person who frequently commits the same sin will convince themselves that what they are doing is not actually immoral at all. But you are assuming Savile was such a person, and I see no pressing evidence of that. All that we have is a man who commited monstrous sin, which is something a Catholic is perfectly capable of doing whilst retaining full knowledge of its immorality, horrid as that is to say.

24 October 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tony B:

"Did he become a left-leaning liberal atheist as soon as he touched the first girl, maybe? "

No, but this is not something that I have suggested, nor is it what Cranmer suggested in his original article.

"One ceases to be conservative or Catholic if one commits a crime?"

One can, quite obviously, be a sinner and a Catholic, and one can hold any number of conservative positions and still be a paedophile. However, a conservative Catholic by very definition can be expected to adhere to Canon Law - particularly regarding sexuality. Of his alleged behaviour, Savile in no way qualifies for this. That he was Catholic is a matter formerly between him and his priest (if indeed he had one - I don't know) and now between him and God. That he was a conservative Catholic is precluded by his lifestyle, both observed and alleged.

The irony of your posts, by the way, is that in taking umbrage with the accusation that others 'seek to blame left-liberal atheists and moral relativism for the abuse' the point on which you seem to be hanging your argument is one of false-attribution. Setting aside the fact that nobody has in fact made such a ham-fisted accusation (the title of Cranmer's post really does sum up his argument), all one would have to do is produce someone who really was a left-leaning liberal atheist who supported paedophilia. I think we might be cautious as describing Harriet Harman as "liberal" (at least as long as that term is deemed to hold positive meaning), but she'd certainly qualify on all the other grounds.

However, the argument put forward by Cranmer, and the argument which frankly has any kind of value is not getting hung up on identifying which of his traits made Savile a paedophile (I'd suggest abusing children was probably the main one), but how the suspicions and witnessed acts never resulted in any kind of action - and I'm not merely talking about bringing charges, which are necessarily dependent on evidence, I'm talking about how someone who is surrounded with suspicion of child abuse is nevertheless allowed to remain alone in the company of children on a regular basis. That's where the lefty-liberal-atheist etc. etc. thing comes in: it's about how the culture of the BBC made it possible for him to get away with it. And frankly, the reason he did was because the primary response from those who could have done something was indifference mixed with distaste. Hardly surprising, given that we're looking at a culture where sex was primarily understood in terms of taste rather than morality.

24 October 2012 at 14:01  
Blogger Tony B said...

So, anon in Belfast, where would the production of a left-liberal atheist who didn't support paedophilia leave your argument? Where is the evidence that the people who turned a blind eye to Savile's doings were actually all left-liberals, given that at least one person involved in the affair, Savile himself, was not? Presumably the production of one or more people who were conservatives and turned a blind eye would be a problem for His Grace's theory?

24 October 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


The Catechism has this one covered though doesn't it? If you commit a mortal sin (i.e. an action that is grave, conscious of its sin, and done with full individual consent) and knowingly conceal or withhold that sin, you're committing sacrilege. Furthermore, anything less than perfect contrition, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist is barred. The fact that the sinner may deceive members of the Church, including the priesthood is neither here nor there - he cannot achieve salvation, or effective participation in the Sacraments through his deception.

"A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible." (Code of Canon Law 916)

That's what we're talking about with Savile. That's not a conservative Catholic, that's someone who by very definition separates themselves from the Bride of Christ by their persistent sin and imperfect contrition.

24 October 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tony B

As I've written three times now, it's not my argument. It's the one you've inferred, falsely - and reasserted again here:

"Where is the evidence that the people who turned a blind eye to Savile's doings were actually all left-liberals, given that at least one person involved in the affair, Savile himself, was not? Presumably the production of one or more people who were conservatives and turned a blind eye would be a problem for His Grace's theory?"

Neither Cranmer's original argument, nor anything I have written fixate on identifying Savile's abuse as a conspiracy of Marxists - or indeed conservative Catholics. It's not that you're on one side and I'm on the other - your argument takes an entirely different form and basis from either of us!

I'm more than happy to debate any range of connected matters to this question, but if we can't get past what is a matter of basic reading comprehension, then I doubt much is going to be gained by anyone.

24 October 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger OldJim said...

Well, it all depends on whether Cranmer's argument hinges on there being any left-liberal individuals involved at all.

I don't see that it does. Two falsifiable claims are being made, though:

(i)that the culture of the BBC was left-liberal at the time of the abuse

(ii)that '70's and '80's left-liberal culture or philosophical content was more likely to condone or more conducive to paedophilia than other cultures or contents in Britain at the time

The beliefs of any specific individual are quite irrelevant to these claims, so your harping back to Savile's Catholicism isn't really much in the way of a counterargument.

Was the BBC of the time left liberal in bias? Were sections of left-liberal culture condoning or shrugging at child abuse? Were these sections large or influential enough to influence opinion at the BBC? Were there no more compelling reasons why BBC staff might have stayed silent? By answering any of these four questions with a "no", you can begin to demur from His Grace's argument.

Introducing conservative individuals turning a blind eye, on the other hand, does not do the work you want it to. No contentions were made about individuals, only about the prevailing culture, which informs the behaviour of all people exposed to it, yes, even conservatives.

24 October 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger OldJim said...

Anon in Belfast

It may well be reasonable to imagine that Savile was violating Canon Law, in which case all you say stands.

Unfortunately in cases like this, there is a seal of the confessional, and so the contents of Savile's confessions must remain a mystery.

A good confessor would certainly have withheld absolution until Savile had reformed his life, made restitution to victims and admitted his crimes to civil authorities.

But we cannot know that Savile had a good confessor. If he did intend to amend his life during confession, and his priest was "compassionate" enough to grant absolution without insisting on Savile giving his sordid life a public airing, then it would be quite possible that he remained in full communion with the Church.

And when we start speaking of institutional laxity and left-liberalism in the '70's and '80's, you can see why I might have to hesitate over the question of whether Savile was in communion with the Church.

24 October 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Old Jim

I'd accept to some degree (i) as important - that's why it's probably better to talk about the Radio 1 end of things (i.e. music/showbusiness end, not the Fanny Craddock end).

"Was the BBC of the time left liberal in bias?"

The BBC is not monolithic, and so any argument that relies solely on (i) is going to be shaky.

(ii) is also important, and thematically related to the question of whether enforced celibacy encouraged child abuse in the Catholic Church. Although I'd see this as a valid thesis to investigate, it's probably going to be a red herring (in the sense that it is more strongly linked in perception than in statistical evidence).

However, we can certainly answer in the affirmative for this one: "Were sections of left-liberal culture condoning or shrugging at child abuse?"

Whether or not they were in power at the BBC overall, I simply cannot say - but they certainly appear to have been more prevalent in the section Savile and others (Glitter/Gadd, Jonathon King etc.) worked in.

I'd actually put a (iii) in there as most important: that the culture precluded the basis for sexual morality, that properly adhered to should have robustly responded to the abuse? (A question which can be applied wholesale to religious institutions' responses to abuse by their members).

That's the one that really informs your final question:

"Were there no more compelling reasons why BBC staff might have stayed silent?"

The practical answer is that of course there were, and quite evidently continue to be other considerations. If you watched Panorama last night you may have picked up on the importance of scheduling (which the documentary didn't explicitly flag up), not to mention the ubiquitous "reputation" of Auntie Beeb. On that point there is a striking similarity with the Catholic abuse cases (and the CofE ones to some extent), where reputation found itself higher on the hierarchy of values. There we do well to ask of the culture, how is it that these things surpassed basic sexual morality?

The answer from the perspective of religious cases is probably better dealt with in a separate post, but in the case of the BBC, it is difficult to escape the point that its culture abandoned, and indeed was gleeful in abandoning and deliberately rejecting traditional sexual morality. That's not a ham-fisted argument that it was therefore a culture of nonces - it's the point that in so doing, the more immediate "material realities" of reputation, money, scandal, press coverage, and, let's not kid ourselves, a resistance to the imposition of sexual morality, got given preference over duty of care.

That's where the culture gets indicted, and rightly so, in my view.

24 October 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Old Jim

"And when we start speaking of institutional laxity and left-liberalism in the '70's and '80's, you can see why I might have to hesitate over the question of whether Savile was in communion with the Church."

Well quite. Though that would only seem to support the central point that the "unintended consequences" of "liberalism" (scare quotes to avoid conflation with political Liberalism and liberalism) creating the preconditions in which an abuser like Savile, not to mention abusive priests could flourish.

24 October 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B. Can a fellow presume that as soon as you realised the Catholic Savile was a big time serial abuser, you immediately hung out the bunting ? The glee you are displaying is indecent. Let us not forget that not all of the girls involved were underage horny minxes..

One still feels that the real culprit was the spirit of sexual licence that arose in the 1960s against the Christian tradition we had at the time. One places the blame fully with the secularists. That’s your people, old chap.

24 October 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...


Sorry there has been a misunderstanding.

I thought you were linking Savile's Catholicism to his paedophilia when you posted a propos another topic

" Or is it simply that the Catholicism of Papal Knight of Sir Jimmy Savile had nothing to do with his alleged paedophile predilictions" ( 14 Oct).

No doubt were he an Anglican you would refer to that in at least two posts.

24 October 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector. I have not displayed any "glee". You obviously have not properly read anything I have written. Mind you, you aren't alone in that.

I'm quite used to reading that the crimes of Christians are the fault of non-christians. It's absurd, of course, and it's becoming very boring.

24 October 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Tony B

I do not think that left leaning atheists as individuals have prediliction to paedophilia.

I do think there is a link between atheism and moral relativism.

I can say that Savile was a sinner( as are we all), but as that is a concept you reject you cannot concur.

24 October 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

John Knox's lovechild,

It's difficult to tell if you're simply being mischievous in taking that quote out of context, or purposely and maliciously misrepresenting what that article is actually about, in order to defame His Grace.

He is used to it, of course, especially from certain of your co-religionists, both here and in another place. But His Grace certainly doesn't have to put up with it on his own blog. Read, re-read and carefully re-read that article. And then come back and apologise, there's a good chap.

24 October 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B. It’s rather obvious you know. If you are an underage girl alone with a man, you are far safer with a man who has religion than one without. After all, as has been pointed out on this thread, we used to marry off girls at twelve. Of the two men, who is more likely to use his ‘moral relatism’ to justify a bit of fiddling with that in mind as some kind of conscience easing exercise ?

Your argument falls on it's face...

24 October 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Actually Inspector, I'd say that the lesson to learn is that paedophiles are extremely good at getting away with their abuse. In that sense, it's not the case that an underage girl is safer with a religious man - in the sense perhaps that she is with a devout Catholic who upholds sexual purity, yes, but how does one tell the difference between the man who is sexually pure and the man who masquerades as sexually pure in order to cover his sin?

The question is rhetorical: you don't go building a culture of suspicion, because that's precisely when we start getting into witch-hunting territory. The answer is to practice openness, responsibility, and accountability. All central to discipleship, so this shouldn't be a problem for Christians. That way, there won't be any underage girls being left alone with men (of either the saint or sinner prediliction) on a regular basis. That way, when an underage girl is being abused, she can approach her minister or priest in confidence that they will aid and protect her.

Live in the light (1 John 1:7). It's Scripture dude.

24 October 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. Nobody has yet mentioned the following, but it is worth bearing it in mind. Young women are not as naive as we would like to think, and yes, rather than girls, that‘s what they are. Their first period is apparently such a shock, one is told, that they will carry the memory of where and when to the grave.

So, with this in mind, the question is not how we protect these youngsters from abuse, but how we protect them from themselves. For when they voluntarily go to see a man, one cannot quite believe that sexual attraction is not in their minds, along with curiosity. They are, you could say, feeling the parameters of adulthood...

24 October 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...


You left yourself open to that rope-a-dope from JKL because you fancy yourself too much. Try writing simpler sentences which are not open to misinterpretation (assuming he did misinterpret, of course) - at least until you have command of the language.

Oh, and if you can't go the full fifteen with the Papists, then throw in the towel and come on home. Be it ever so humble, there's no place like Rome.

24 October 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Eminence, can’t fault Corrigan on that, what !

24 October 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Tony B said...

John Knox's - I don't think I've said I reject the concept of sin. At least, not within the last 5 years or so.

I do think many have a problem with it though, since they seem to want to say that we are all sinners, but also want to deny that particular sinners are Christians. See above.

24 October 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector : I don't know which argument of mine you are referring to, but if the religious person you're referring to happened to be Jimmy Savile...

24 October 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

"Come home to a real fire". A famous fossil fuel advert. Though might be a bit upsetting for you, one supposes {AHEM}

24 October 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Now you know I am obtuse and for the life of me I cannot fathom the point you were making with the comment:

"Why is the issue of gang-rape committed by young men identified as belonging to a particular minority background consistently suppressed? Are there reporting restrictions? Infringement of their human rights? A conspiracy of silence?

Or is it simply that the Roman Catholicism of Papal Knight Sir Jimmy Savile had nothing to do with his alleged paedophile predilection?

Funny, isn't it, how the latter question is undoubtedly bigotry while the former are enlightened, reasoned and wholly justified."

Why would it be bigotry to acknowledge the professed Catholicism of Savile had nothing to do with him committing acts of child sexual abuse?"JK'sLC too as well as some who commented on the article.

24 October 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

... Too nuanced for me and JK'sLC yoo ...

24 October 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, it’s your outrageous attempt to shift our moral decline away from liberal secularism. Feast on Savile’s fall, if you will, but to most of the blog, the words Wool, Eyes and Pulling come to mind. And yes, the Inspector does read your posts in full, and even goes one step further. He reads them in the context of your previous posts. And you sir, have previous form, so you do.

24 October 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Possibly there will be young men and women (and some not so young ones) who actively seek out what is inappropriate. But what about that is not answered by openness, accountability and responsibility? Indeed, if one has not been persistently alone with young people, there is little room for anyone to try anything, let alone make a malicious accusation.

24 October 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector. I have not made any such attempt.

24 October 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger OldJim said...

Tony B

No one is denying that Savile was a sinner. And no-one, by discussing the culture of the BBC at the time, seeks, I hope, to suggest that this would detract from the gravity of or otherwise mitigate his crime.

As for his being Christian, and specifically Catholic, I, a Catholic, began splitting hairs with AiB over the question in order to try to insist that he WAS or could fairly be considered a Catholic.

You might ask whether his Catholicism influenced or fed into his predilections, as you might imagine they did in the case of the paedophile priests. I staunchly deny it. There is no evidence that Catholics sexually prey on children as a demography with any greater statistical frequency than the population in general.

So the remaining question is the official silence in both the case of the BBC and the Catholic Church. In both cases, the causes are complex, but you can go for one of three explanations:

(i)it was always this way until recently, when, in the '90's and '00's, our culture of deference to authority broke up and those still alive who had been abused earlier came forward.

(ii) it was always and still is this way, and it just happens that those being molested now are too young to come forward and so we will continue to see a statistically steady stream of abuses indefinitely into the future

(iii) the '70's and '80's were uniquely bad.

I think only the third works, because cases from earlier and later are much more statistically infrequent. So what in the culture precipitated this crisis? I think the permissive society coming out of the '60's offers a cogent though incomplete explanation. It needs to be accompanied by an analysis of the institutional pressures of the BBC and RCC to offer a complete account, but it's a good start.

And the standard bearers of the permissive society? Left-liberalism, moral relativists, rock stars and radicals. Harriet Harman, Roy Jenkins and Peter Tatchell. This is undeniable. In fact, it is trivially true. That is the specific thing we are discussing.

Not whether Savile is a "sinner". Of course he is.

24 October 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Given Old Jim's post, I'll clarify what I thought I'd made clear: I haven't argued that Savile was not a Catholic, only that he could not have been, by definition, an observant conservative Catholic, nor could he have been in full communication with the Church had it been fully aware of the extent of his sin and his failure to provide restitution and penance.

Tony B seems to be bouncing off the idea that people have been identifying Savile as a liberal or an atheist. Nobody has. What Cranmer's post outlines (and which in general I agree with), is that the culture at the BBC (which I'll shy away from specifically identifying as left-liberal-Marxist-etc.) is not irrelevant to Savile's persistent abuse, inasmuch as it enabled him and others to thrive as abusers. Not because it inspired him to be a paedophile (again, an accusation that nobody has made).

Old Jim

I'd not rely on the assumption that the 70s and 80s were uniquely bad. By all accounts, there's a degree of literature suggesting that abuse rates in Western Europe are substantially higher than we often perceive them to be.

24 October 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector I have made no such attempt

24 October 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger John Magee said...


How dare you tell the truth here!

You know what that will get you in the form of name calling and personal insults from certain parties who hate the truth don't you?

24 October 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B. Exhibit A. The other typical response is the same as His Grace's. It's the fault of atheistic Liberal lefties

Do you take this man for a fool, Sir ?

24 October 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector : frankly, yes. The subject of this post and subsequent comments including my own has never been "our moral decline" as you put it.

24 October 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Tony B said...

And I might add that the Savile affair itself indicates moral advancement rather than decline, as we are now universally condemning behavior that we apparently agree was accepted back then.

24 October 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...


Nope, I am not seeking mischief or seeking same.

The thrust of your argument in that article was that there was no reason to suppress the fact that the French gang rapists were Muslims. Am I right?

De deux choses une

1 Their Islamic faith should be in the public domain,as should Savile's Catholicism ( which you chose to use in that article). Or at least should not be regarded as non-discussable in the context of aforesaid rape(s).


2 Neither their Islamic faith or Savile's Catholicism are relevant.

I thought your position was 1 above.

Am I wrong?

If, let us imagine, four youths gang rape someone in Edinburgh, would the Scotsman lead with "McTaggart, McDonald, McLean and Urquhart, all Episcopalians with Edinburgh addresses, entered no plea or declaration before Sherriff Johnstone etc"?

Of course not.

24 October 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tony B

Are we universally doing so? Isn't that the point about the BBC emails, including those censored on the Panorama programme. That in fact, we are not universally leaping to condemn it, but are remarkably cavalier about the abuse.

In fact, I'd say that the same culture of valuing reputation above duty of care that enabled Savile to go unchecked in the 1970s is not merely alive but positively blooming at the modern BBC.

24 October 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger OldJim said...


I'm sorry, I should have added some form of postscript.

I didn't mean to imply to those reading that your position had been that Savile was not a Catholic, and to leave that interpretation open was a failure of mine.

Given Tony B's insinuation, all I meant to show was that, far from it being the case that I, as one representative of Catholic opinion on this blog, was trying to blame Savile's sins on atheism, or make Savile out to be some crypto-atheist by virtue of his crimes, I was actually splitting hairs on the subject with you in order to clarify such that neither of us should so much as seem to countenance that possibility. In other words, I was actually pushing the conversation in precisely the opposite direction.

I did not mean to misrepresent your views, only to use the evidence of the position I adopted in our discussion in order to demonstrate with clarity my motives and objectives in making the analysis that I have.

25 October 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Old Jim

No worries - didn't imagine for a moment that you were being anything other than thorough. Given the misunderstanding which so easily arises I figured it was best to concisely make a similar point myself.

25 October 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger OldJim said...

Anonymous in Belfast:

With the '70's and '80's thing, I took the impression that that was the worst time for it from the John Jay report into sex abuse in the Catholic Church. It may well be that that was to do with factors quite specific to the institution, though.

I suppose when I saw the Savile accusations my mind went back to that timeframe in the report and I thought "that figures".

I will have to look into year-by-year nationwide figures on non-familial child abuse soon. The grouping in my mind of the John Jay report, the timespan of the Savile case, anecdotes of the clinical psychological practice of the time, the advocacy of figures like Harman and the victory of the permissive society have formed a narrative in my mind which may well be too cheap and simple.

I might well need to fill my head with some unfiltered, non-anecdotal statistics to dispel this easy explanation.

25 October 2012 at 01:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 October 2012 at 03:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Savile's sins are his own. Perhaps his RCism was nominal. Perhaps he believed sacramentalism covered a multitude of sins. Perhaps he was an eclectic RC who chose which bits and pieces to receive and which to reject. Or perhaps he was nothing more complicated than a flaming hypocrite. Who knows why he did what he did? All we know is that he rejected Christian sexual morality in its totality. He is dead, so we can't ask the obvious questions.

But let's say Bob walks in on Mr Savile while Mr Savile is 'otherwise engaged' with a 15-year old girl? How Bob reacts to that circumstance is going to be determined by Bob's moral judgments about sex. Different populations will each produce a different statistical distribution of reactions to this event. But one doesn't have to be a statistician to know that a population with liberal views of sexual morality is going to produce a much different distribution than a population with a conservative view of sexual morality. Now you may quibble about the age of the girl. But if you think it quite alright for an adolescent girl of sufficient age to consent to sex with a man 40 years her senior, then you are likely to smile and retreat in embarrassment and say nothing more.

And that I think is the point.


25 October 2012 at 03:51  
Blogger len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 October 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger len said...

Surely the point here is that 'religion' changes no one..whether that be Catholic , Protestant Islamic or whatever other sort of religion.ALL these religions have people within them who who practice sin and crimes against Society.

So if you think belonging to a religion can impart some sort of 'goodness'then you are mistaken.There are those who think that they can balance out their evil by some some sort of 'good works'this also is a fallacy.God does not judge on some sort of 'sliding scale'.
Repentance maeans a 'turning away from sin' not some sort of 'get out of jail free card' which some seem to think.
'Pergatory' is also an unbiblical fabrication so there are no 'second chances'"It is up to man to die once and then the Judgement".
Only God throujgh the Power of His Holy Spirit can change a man and unless He has done so 'Good works 'as a cover for one sins are futile.
Savile and others will be judged according to what lies within their hearts and the motives for their actions will be exposed at the Judgement.

25 October 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

John Knox's lovechild,

Yes, you were quite wrong. But you weren't alone in misunderstanding the point. His Grace thought he had made it clear with: 'Funny, isn't it, how the latter question is undoubtedly bigotry, while the former are enlightened, reasoned and wholly justified.'

Evidently, he must try harder.

25 October 2012 at 08:36  
Blogger Tony B said...

>That in fact, we are not universally leaping to condemn it, but are remarkably cavalier about the abuse.

I think people may well be trying hard to cover their own arses, as it were. But that's a slightly different thing. I certainly don't think we belong to society that condones paedophilia, and I think if we did, this kerfuffle would not be happening. I come from a culture which apparently administers beatings to Paediatricians, which might indicate that it condones a very poor level of education, poorer even than mine, but certainly not that it condones paedophilia. I think it would be surprising indeed if the BBC had a very different culture to the rest of society.

25 October 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger Tony B said...

>Surely the point here is that 'religion' changes no one..whether that be Catholic , Protestant Islamic or whatever other sort of religion.ALL these religions have people within them who who practice sin and crimes against Society.

Thats' pretty much the point I was trying to make, thank you.

25 October 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Tony B said...

Old Jim - no, I never said that anyone else had asserted that Savile wasn't a sinner, not at all. This post seems to have generated a remarkable number of misunderstandings.

25 October 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger JohnPD said...

Child abuse is evil.
Abused kids grow up to become drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes, suicides & abusers themselves, thus perpetuating the evil down the generations.
Between 10% & 30% of abused will become abusers: Lancet magazine 8 Feb 2003.
I think of it as a rock of evil thrown in the pond of life, with ripples of misery through the years.
If Savile has abused say 200 kids, he may have created between 20 to 60 abusers.
If any institution knowingly shelters abusers, then it is an evil institution.
The BBC certainly qualifies.
If a director can go to senior managers & report that he has seen Jimmy Savile "having sex with a very young girl in a BBC dressing room", & be laughed at & ridiculed, then an evil ( & illegal) culture has been established at the BBC.
I would like to see a full public inquiry, with prosecutions & convictions as appropriate.
The BBC must not be allowed to investigate itself.
I regard the Roman Catholic Church as evil for the same reason.
For too many years Bishops would move predatory priests on to fresh parishes & fresh victims, instead of disciplining them.
The RC Church has suffered a huge loss of reputation in recent years, particularly in the US & Ireland, & massive financial penalties as courts have awarded victims compensation. Fine, the RC Church is rich beyond belief.
Some parishes in the US have filed for bankruptcy to avoid further claims, proving I suppose that the Church runs individual parishes as separate limited liability companies.
Child abuse seems to be a "bete noire" for his Grace. I recall his blog on the vile mother & stepfather of poor baby P, who died with over 90 separate injuries sustained over a prolonged period of abuse, neglect & torture.
This diabolical pair may be living next to you in a dozen years, with new identities provided by our amoral state, unlike Brady & Hindley.

@TigerO@14:09 23 Oct.
It's not that care home workers dont care. These people have very few powers, & the girls have very many rights, a recipe for disaster.


25 October 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger OldJim said...

Tony B,
in your comments of
24 October 2012 19:36 and
24 October 2012 20:35

you say that Christians want to make "the crimes of Christians... the fault of non-Christians"

and that Christians insist on general sinfulness whilst denying that "particular sinners are Christians"

In light of this I tried to show that
(i)everyone holds Savile responsible for his sins
(ii)we are not denying that Savile is a Christian

ergo, the crimes of this Christian are accepted to be the crimes of a Christian.

There is then the question of to what extent Christian belief and Christian practice are necessary for someone to be properly a Christian, and whether Savile met that standard, sure.

But if we say that "what Savile did violates Christian ethics. If he did not believe it to be wrong he was not a Christian in belief, if he did not confess it, feeling full contrition and a genuine resolution to amend his life he was not in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church, insofar as he did it he violated Christian moral theology" I hope you can be adult enough to see that we are not thereby saying that he was not a Christian by affiliation, or somehow a crypto-atheist, or that we're implying "because Christians are saints and atheists are paedophiles".

It's simply about the standards necessary to properly be a disciple to Christ, about the meaning and purpose intrinsic to Christianity as it is lived. If you like, it's a discussion about norms within our group, it is emphatically not about pinning the blame elsewhere.

There is then the quite separate question of whether the culture of the BBC influenced the silence over his sins, and, as a part of that, whether left-liberalism contributed to that culture.

You know my position there.

I felt the need to clarify because I can see how "Savile wasn't a conservative Catholic!" from one poster and "left-liberal atheism at the BBC led to a warped set of institutional norms and priorities!" from another might well lead you to get the impression that we were insisting that Christians are by nature perfect and that all atheists condoned paedophilia.

It's just that no one is saying anything like that. When you break down the separate components, the discussion is a lot more modest, and I don't see, by and large, that you can fairly accuse us of the things you have.

25 October 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger John Chater said...

It may be of interest to know that Broadcasting House, which is the BBC's corporate headquarters, has, over its rather impressive entrance, a statue of Prospero and Ariel by renowned sculptor Eric Gill.

In his Wiki entry Gill is described as: 'A deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.' This is a glorious understatement as Gill recorded in his diaries that he sexually abused his own children, had an incestuous relationship with his sister and performed sexual acts on his dog.

A few years ago, there was a call that the statue be removed, as the perversions of the artist were so ghastly (not something I agreed with). Now, it stands as a fitting tribute to what went on inside – a case of life imitation art, if ever there were one.

25 October 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger John Chater said...

For those who haven't seen it, I should have said that the statue shows Prospero, sporting a rather impressive beard,standin behind and holding a naked Ariel, depicted as a boy of perhaps nine or ten.

You can see it here:


25 October 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger Tony B said...

OldJim: "you say that Christians want to make "the crimes of Christians... the fault of non-Christians"

and that Christians insist on general sinfulness whilst denying that "particular sinners are Christians""

Well, as it happens I wasn't necessarily accusing anyone here of promulgating those ideas, it's just that it has become a very familiar theme over the years, and I've encountered it often elsewhere. Perhaps this has led me to see the same arguments repeated when they aren't actually there.

25 October 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger Ashley R Lister said...

Many of the comments here seem to be blaming the BBC, the Catholic church, the liberal culture of the day etc.

Call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't someone be blaming the pervert who was committing the crimes?

25 October 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ashley, dear fellow. We are well aware there is an elephant in the room...

25 October 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


For the crimes he committed, yes. For the unwillingness to do anything about allegations, the general culture that Savile exploited, and the recent attempt to mitigate the seriousness of the abuse, no.

25 October 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Phil Marlow said...

'Was there no due diligence? Did no-one bother to Google? Did they not even think to read Jimmy Savile's own autobiography, in which he brazenly boasts of his sexual conquests and speaks of a compliant BBC culture? How could this have gone on for 40 years without anyone at the BBC lifting a finger to prevent a predatory paedophile from raping girls and torturing boys?'

What about you, did you google before you wrote your 'God bless you, Jimmy Savile' obit piece in 2011?

18 January 2013 at 22:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older