CNN Shows Thatcher Accepting Donation From Jimmy Saville for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Maybe look at it from a different angle? Maybe it's not sloppy journalism. Maybe it's not them playing with us. (I know this a stretch but bear with me) Maybe it was good journalism. Maybe it was CNN showing a reality that is a taboo subject right now (given her funeral isn't until Wednesday) and ensuring that Thatcher's astoundingly poor judgement of character, and its implications, is not forgotten.

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Sorry OP but this obvious hatred of her is clouding your mind, Maggie was not perfect but I tell you what she has more balls than any PM before or since, she put the UK first every time and that is a rare quality.

More cojones than any PM before or since, huh? Thanks for undercutting your own claims. Ever heard of Winston Churchill? You're the one with a clouded mind -- and that's a terribly nice way of putting it.

Thatcher never did a ballsy thing in her life. All she did was send off young British soldiers and sailors to die for a pointless war and order a British submarine to torpedo an Argentine cruiser that was outside of the disputed zone, resulting in hundreds of Argentine sailors also dying.

But back to Jimmy Savile and Maggie Thatcher. If she or any of her staff had read his 1974 biography, they would have had a good idea of what he is about.

Savile's own words

Then there is also the matter of Jimmy Savile’s autobiography that he wrote in 1974 and reading it now it seems astonishing that nobody saw any clues of his behaviour after reading this book. Only now is it being highlighted that during the 1950’s Jimmy Savile was working as a DJ in the Mecca Locarno ballroom in Leeds. One night a female police officer came into the club and showed him a picture of an attractive young girl who had just run away from a remand home.

In the book Jimmy Savile actually writes ‘ Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward.”

Jimmy Savile then goes on to write that this girl did in fact come into the club and he told her that she could stay for the night and dance and then go home with him and she could stay with him until the next morning and then he would take her back to the remand home.

Then he did take her to the female police officer the next day who was appalled when she heard the full story. She wanted to press charges against Jimmy Savile but he then goes on to write in his autobiography

…..the “lady of the law…[who] was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me….”

So I suspect the authorities knew all about Sir Jimmy, and so I doubt Thatcher and her circle were clueless on this account.

But again, she called Pinochet and Suharto, murderous dictators, her friends. She supported Apartheid South Africa. Hobnobbing with a serial molester/paedophile/necrophiliac is just gravy on top for the likes of Thatcher.

Amongst Thatcher's legacies are the destruction of various unions in the UK and the deregulation/privatization and coddling of the banking establishment, which has done England no good. One can argue that England had economic problems in the 70's and 80's, but what about now? She, like Reagan, helped to bring about the neo-liberal policies that have ruined the middle class in the UK, the US and a host of other countries. There's no way to put lipstick on that pig (I'm talking here about their acts; not calling anyone a pig -- in case any of you easily offended ATS members are reading this).

reply to post by MrInquisitive

..the “lady of the law…[who] was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me….”

wow...that's pretty informative and pertinent to the subject at hand.

So, was Jimmy the one who came up with all those dirty names for 007's girls?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Are you saying with 100% certainty that thet "elite" of the UK were unaware of this man's actions?

Please don't try to change the meaning of my words, you know exactly what I am saying.

You stated that it has been "established" and you are factually incorrect. You are lying in your post, making up history, fictionalizing, to support your own argument. That is what I am saying.

I was not trying to change the meaning of your words, that is another assumption on your behalf. Perhaps we have had a misunderstanding and you can elaborate for me.

From what I have come across since the Saville saga became public, it is very safe to say that various circles among the elite were in fact very aware of his perversions. I am not even from the UK and am aware of this, I am assuming you are from the UK (please forgive my assumption if it is incorrect) so perhaps you can set me straight because it seems to me you that are afraid to admit that your elected officials among other people that were in the "in crowd" are a bunch of greedy psychopaths who have a taste for children.

edit on 4/10/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

You asserted that it was established that the government (and presumably the PM) were aware of Jimmy Saville and his sick abuse of others. But that's not the case.

I am in the UK, and there has been no evidence at all that this was "established". This is the point I was arguing. You've asserted something that simply isn't fact.

There have been suspicions, and people on the net have released lists of names of politicians and celebrities of the era who have been retrospectively accused of such things, but those on that list are in many respects innocent of what they are being accused.

For example, there were people on that list who were arrested for "gross indecency" when the age of consent for gay men was far higher (and unfairly so) than that of straight people. The list makes no assertion about that age and legal clarification, those people are just labelled as "child molesters".

A gay man at that time could have been in a loving and committed relationship with another gay man of 18, and he could now be called a child abuser, simply because the law was wrong, and even politicians of today respect and understand this. That is what Cameron stated on TV when the list was brought up in front of him unexpectedly.

Believe me, I have followed this, and I have been calling for wider investigation into the connection between the child abuse cases in the US political classes at the same period of those happening in the UK. I also believe that there WERE politicians involved in this across the world. There is evidence that politicians from several countries attended gatherings on embassy row in the US where victims have said they were abused.

I am well aware of the probabilities and the obvious connections between historic child abuse cases around the world and the massive cover up of it in the USA. And I actually find it unlikely that UK politicians were not involved.

But, that doesn't change the fact that you have asserted in your post that Thatcher (the first female PM, a mother herself, and a person who would not have been accepted into any male dominated group without a fight) somehow "knew" that Saville was abusing children.

I understand that there are a lot of people who hated her for her decisions (as a gay man I despise the fact that she supported Section 28, but I also know that this was public sentiment, and leaders are actually supposed to follow public sentiment where possible. I also know that she voted FOR the decriminalization of homosexuality) but there is absolutely no evidence at all - and you haven't even added any - that she "knew" of any of the sexual abuse allegations of the time.

I am not arguing against the idea that there were abusers in government, there is far too much accusation and evidence to simply dismiss that. I do believe it is connected to the scandal in the US at the same time. My argument is that you are stating in this thread that it was "established" that the entire political class knew of it, that the highest ranking FEMALE politician the country has ever seen was aware of it, and there is no evidence that she was at all, none.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
More cojones than any PM before or since, huh? Thanks for undercutting your own claims. Ever heard of Winston Churchill? You're the one with a clouded mind -- and that's a terribly nice way of putting it.

Thatcher never did a ballsy thing in her life. All she did was send off young British soldiers and sailors to die for a pointless war and order a British submarine to torpedo an Argentine cruiser that was outside of the disputed zone, resulting in hundreds of Argentine sailors also dying.

I know this is slightly off topic, but we are talking about Thatcher, and I know why she has made an appearance as an "accused". So in that way it's right to talk about these things too.

To start with, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, those islands are British territory, by the CHOICE of the people inhabiting them. She was right to defend British citizens against an aggressor.

Whether you agree that the Falkland Islands should be Argentinian or not, international law dictates the right to self determination of a people. If those people identify as British, there is nothing anyone can do about it, and they are to be defended by the British military forces.

The public was also overwhelmingly on the side of Thatcher on this issue, and when those brave serving military returned they came back to a heroes welcome, rightly so.

Thatcher did indeed order the attack on the Belgrano, and rightly so. It was a part of a planned attack on UK forces in the area and we had intercepted that command. War is not fair, it's tragic that so many died, but welcome to war. Don't like it? Don't invade.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Amongst Thatcher's legacies are the destruction of various unions in the UK

Oh, you mean the unions of failed undustries that were holding the nation to ransom? People who scream about "evil Thatcher" always forget the history just before her arrival. Let me inform you a little...

Before Thatcher was elected, the unions were demanding 30% pay rises. And this was for industries that had already failed and were being subsidized to the tune of £1 bil a year in todays money. Those industries were already bloated, there was not a demand for their services, we were bailing them out year after year and the unions were STILL not happy and were demanding more.

The people of the UK had to endure power cuts regularly, the dead were left unburied, there were mountains of rubbish rotting on the streets, inflation was sky rocketing, poverty was widespread across the entire country, and the UK had no income. We had to be bailed out by the IMF, and the UK was described as the "sick man of Europe", suggesting Euthanasia was the solution.

Do I feel bad for those who lost their jobs? Yes, of course. But should we have just let the unions hold the country to ransom and sink us all entirely? Hell no!

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
and the deregulation/privatization and coddling of the banking establishment, which has done England no good.

It's done England "no good" huh? So why is London the banking capital of the world?
When she came to power there was no national industry bringing in money. We were a bankrupt nation supporting failed blackmailing industries. Sure it's sad that we had to give up our manufacturing base in favour of this new banking and service industry, but we have the benefit of hindsight, back then it was the sensible solution to the economic collapse of the country.

It worked. Whether you hate capitalism or not, and whether you agree that things spiralled out of control or not, she made the right decision to put London at the front of that business.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
One can argue that England had economic problems in the 70's and 80's, but what about now? She, like Reagan, helped to bring about the neo-liberal policies that have ruined the middle class in the UK, the US and a host of other countries.

And that's all the fault of one woman? How about the politicians since who now sit on privte corporate boards and earn six-figures for a days "work"? Why are you totally forgiving of all governments since who failed to stop the greed? She created the boom, but every government since has created the bust through their own corruption and their own greed and ineptitude.

I am a liberal, I'm left-leaning. I know that Thatcher made some bad choices, but I also understand the bigger picture and that she had to fix this country. If she had not done what she did, and made some extremely difficult choices, someone else would have had to. It might be shocking, but even as a dedicated lefty I can see that she fixed this country.

Saville was a sick bastard who needed to put down like a rabid dog. Did Thatcher know about his crimes when they happened? I don't know. Are there any reports of what Thatcher thought after Saville's crimes were brought to see the light of day? I haven't seen any....

I don't know but if any decent person who saw what happened at Penn State would have gotten a baseball bat and knee capped Sandusky right there in the shower!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


That is Margaret Thatcher isn't it? So what? It's a file photo and are people trying to pretend the woman never DID accept a check from this child molester? I think maybe they were trying to associate her with him. Perhaps showing a vulnerable underbelly to the Iron Lady. I believe she, along with everyone but the kids, were fooled by Saville.

If Britain keeps sticking their heads in the sand about this paedo ring, they're on their way to being known as the country with the most sex abuse victims who never got to see justice

reply to post by Afterthought


Come now, the country with the most? Good old British cynicism seems to be getting in the way of statistical fact there...

I see the issue here as did Thatcher know or not? We may not have concrete proof either way but there are a number of pointers;

Revealed: how the BBC used MI5 to vet thousands of staff BBC staff in 1979 Some of the biggest names were probably vetted It is a tale of secret agents and surveillance that could have come straight out the BBC's classic spy drama Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. But the difference is that genuine spies were involved and they were operating behind the scenes at Broadcasting House rather than on the small screen.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So the BBC had their own branch of MI5 vetting employees in the 70s/80s but they failed to notice anything weird about Savile?!

Jimmy Savile invited guests to royal party on Prince Charles's behalf TV executive says colleagues thought it was 'weird' that Savile was involved in organising royal engagements.........Charles reportedly sent him a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday with a note that read: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy

www.guardian.co.uk...

We have Savile on first name terms with The queen Mother, Louis Mountbatten (Queen's Father), Prince Charles and Diana. So if we add that to the BBC and Thatcher that's 3 major opportunities in which this man was seemingly un-noticed by British inteligence. Could anyone seriously believe he was not vetted by the security services? Logically I would say no. If the answer is no, then you have to ask WHY was he allowed to go about his dealings with the Royals and Prime ministers?

Maybe his association with Louis Mountbatten has something to do with it.

Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family “for a million years.” In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten........So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him. .................. Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, “The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.”

Mountbatten was up to all kinds of shady things with MI5:

On the BBC television programme The Plot Against Harold Wilson, broadcast on March 16, 2006 on BBC2, it was claimed there were threats of a coup d'état against the Wilson government, which was corroborated by leading figures of the time on both the left and the right. Wilson told two BBC journalists, Roger Courtiour and Barrie Penrose, that he feared he was being undermined by MI5. ........There was again talk of a military coup, with rumours of Lord Mountbatten as head of an interregnal administration after Wilson had been deposed.

It may be that Mountbatten and Savile didn't just meet by chance but that Savile was involved in the same shady intelligence agencies as Mountbatten. There are pointers with Saviles life story;

- Savile hints he was involved in black market and criminal activities as a youth.

- Savile says he was conscripted to work as a coal miner in ww2, He said he was involved in an explosion in the mines and had a back injury, The years he says he was a miner don't add up with what is recorded.

- In 1944 Savile said he was cycling in Glencoe Scotland when he saw a cottage he would later buy. Oddly this is very soon after his 'spinal injury'.

- in 1945, within a year of the war ending Savile was cycling around France. What possible reason would a 19 year old go off cycling around war torn France?!

- By 1950 Savile is back in England and has his first Rolls Royce complete with personalised number plate. He calls himself 'the Duke'.

- In (edit) 1966 Savile is rewarded a green beret after a gruelling test by the Royal Marines, an unprecedented award to any civilian.

Interestingly enough near Savile's cottage in glencoe was near a set of houses that trained elite secret forces in ww2.

secret SOE training schools, where carefully selected and groomed trainee saboteurs were taught to create chaos in Occupied Europe and the Far East. There was a four-stage plan in the training of prospective agents of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE). At Preliminary school the agents' character and potential were assessed, ....those who passed the preliminary stage were sent to paramilitary schools, known as the group A schools. These were based mainly in Scotland, where the courses were as gruelling as the terrain.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Maybe this is why Savile was allowed to mix with Thatcher and others, he had an official role to play, one which was condoned by security service

edit on 11-4-2013 by DrHammondStoat because: (no reason given)

(the last bit of my post, sorry!)

Maybe this is why Savile was allowed to mix with Thatcher and others, he had an official role to play, one which was condoned by and protected by the security services?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Raxoxane
In all fairness,how could she possibly have known?

My response to your question will come in the form of another question, please forgive me if it seems like I am being a "smart ass" as it's not my intention, but how could they not have known?

edit on 4/10/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Why? Believe it or not, he had not been questioned by police at any point. It's true allegations had been made and IF (that's a very big if) the various authorities had been more of a cohesive, national unit then maybe the dots would have been joined a long long time ago and things may have ended a lot differently.

On a very relevant side note, I'm currently reading Little Man in a Book, the autobiography of Comedian, writer and actor Rob Brydon. The book was first published in 2011 and I think it's safe to say that Mr Brydon is fairly much part of the big names in the (at least) UK entertainment social circles. In the book he describes attending an event where Savile was the MC and expressing his admiration for how Savile worked the crowd and even includes pictures of the two together at the event. Now, considering he moved in the same social circles you coulds ask how he could have not known? The truth was maybe that although Savile was seen (or rumoured) to be unsavoury, unfortunately actual proof or knowledge of the worst of his crimes maybe wasn't as widespread as it now appears to have been.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Amen and well said! Thatcher was a horrifying figure in the world. She was a cruel tyrant. Be gone Thatcher, you will not be missed.

Where have all the missing children gone?

Anybody thought about that?

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Raxoxane
In all fairness,how could she possibly have known?

My response to your question will come in the form of another question, please forgive me if it seems like I am being a "smart ass" as it's not my intention, but how could they not have known?

edit on 4/10/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Why? Believe it or not, he had not been questioned by police at any point. It's true allegations had been made and IF (that's a very big if) the various authorities had been more of a cohesive, national unit then maybe the dots would have been joined a long long time ago and things may have ended a lot differently.

I think you are wrong there, Savile was questioned and nothing was done. I wonder if it had anything to do with his connections (rhetorical question!) The guy was even questioned about the yorkshire ripper murders, one of which happened outside his house I'm sure I've seen more tales of him being questioned prior to 1963 but can't find them just now.

1963 A man in Cheshire reported a rape by Savile to a local police officer but he told him to "forget about it". 1964 The Metropolitan Police's paedophile unit recorded intelligence about Savile but did not investigate.
1998 The Met's vice squad received an anonymous letter alleging that Savile was involved with "paedophilia." Police did not investigate.
2003 A woman told the Met that Savile had indecently assaulted her in the 1970s, when she was 15, at a recording of Top of the Pops. She was content to provide a witness statement but she did not wish to support a prosecution. Her case was not revealed to Surrey Police.
2007 Three former pupils at Duncroft Approved School told Surrey Police that they had been indecently assaulted by Savile in the 1970s. Savile was interviewed but made unchallenged assertions about his innocence
A woman told Sussex police she had been indecently assaulted by Savile in 1970. Sussex police did not seek to interview or arrest Savile.
2009 At least four other victims recounted making complaints to police forces but these were not acted on.

www.independent.co.uk...

Ok here's what he was up to in the 50s;

Just how many opportunities did the police fail to take? In the late 1950s, Jimmy Savile was the manager of the Locarno Ballroom in Leeds. Dennis Lemmon was one of the bouncers at the night club. Lemmon told the Sunday Telegraph that as early as 1958 Savile was suspected of child sexual assaults.
Lemmon said: "He came in and just ignored us all, walked straight past us. I remember saying: 'what’s up with him?’ and someone in the club replied: 'He’s up in court tomorrow – interfering with young girls. He’s worried’."

Three days later Savile was back to his usual self. Lemmon explained the change: "He was really worried but everything was dropped. I was told he had paid them [the police] off. And apparently that wasn’t the first time either but I don’t know about that. He had a lot of friends though." Lemmon told the Sunday Telegraph that everyone at the club knew about Savile's preference for young girls. When asked why no one did anything about it, he said: "I suppose because it was Jimmy."

digitaljournal.com...

He 'had a lot of friends' and managed to pay the police off on more than one occassion, he said he 'could take the police with him' in one interview and he had a 'Friday club' at his house with police bigwigs every week of his life. How could a PM's security, The police, BBC security and Royal security not know about him?

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Thanks for bringing forward the additional info. I don't understand how people can rationalize that Savile's close friends weren't aware of his activities and sexual appetites, but there is more than enough evidence available indicating that many of them should have been on trial by now or be awaiting trial.
So many people are so convinced that nothing was going on, but nobody declared them to be judge and jury.
What about the nurses who knew about Savile's sick activities?
"Jimmy Savile scandal: doctors were afraid to tackle BBC star over access"
www.guardian.co.uk...
"Jimmy Savile 'Molested Brain-Damaged Patient': More Claims Of Abuse As BBC Announces Child Protection Review"
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
"Jimmy Savile: nurse's Broadmoor claim adds to 'cascade' of abuse allegations"
www.guardian.co.uk...

Keep sticking your head in the sand, folks. Whatever makes you feel warm and cozy about those running your country.
Numerous people came forward about Savile, yet the reports always got buried or went nowhere.
Ask yourself "Why?" Because those at the top are also involved. If you can stomach reading the Dutroux Affair, you will discover that police, judges, politicians, and all other sorts of people who are supposed to be protecting us were all involved and not nearly the majority of them were even brought to trial.

If you aren't even interested in having the suspects put on trial, you're part of the problem.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Rocker, thanks for your eloquent posts in this thread - you put what I wanted to say in a much, much clearer manner.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Hi there, I won't do a quote as the post will become very long, but I wasn't aware he had ever been officialy questioned but I am more than happy to be proved wrong. I'm also not aware of if at that period of time, if he was questioned by one force or even by one station in that force, it would have been fed into a national database which would have perhaps started to see the number of times an individual had been questioned. The Rob Brydon point still stands, although I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent reprints of the book may carry a footnote about it.

reply to post by Afterthought


I know, I find the 'It was the 70s' excuse really odd. I was a kid in the 80s so honestly I couldn't say what it was like to be an adult in the 70s and what people's attitude to child abuse would be but honestly if I judge it by my grandparents and parents they would have been disgusted and appalled. There are people like Edwina Currie and Esther Rantzen that said they were aware of various rumours of Savile and Edwina Currie wrote about Thatcher's aide Peter Morrison having sex with underage boys in her autobiography, yet she never told police at the time?!, They just carried on as if nothing was wrong. They were most likely concerned about keeping on the gravy train and that would be the least disturbing explanantion.