Tag Archives: Jimmy Savile

The CSA Inquiry, The BBC And The Strange Case of Patrick Rock

In the last couple of weeks, the BBC and the Tory press have worked tirelessly to scupper the VIP child abuse story. In a recent edition of Panorama, the BBC poured cold water on the claims that the now deceased Leon Brittan was involved in child abuse or had raped a woman in 1967. Yesterday, Tory MP Nicholas Soames demanded that Tom Watson “apologise” for “traducing” Brittan’s good name. Watson rose to his feet in response and refused to issue an apology. Good for him. First, you can’t traduce or smear a dead person and second, Watson doesn’t need to apologise for anything.

The front page of today’s Daily Mail has this banner headline with the words “Labour’s child abuse witch hunt” in the opening paragraph. No agenda there. Right?

However, what is clear from these efforts is that the inquiry must be getting uncomfortably close to the Tories, so close that they’re now pulling out all the stops and getting their media chums to produce propaganda to counter any further accusations and smear the victims. The timing is also interesting for the fact that Harvey Proctor, a former Tory MP who’s so right-wing that he’d make a fascist blush with envy, recently appeared at a news conference to deny any allegations that he sexually abused children or witnessed any murders.

Now, before anyone reading this gets any ideas in their head that I’ve libelled Proctor, think on. I’ve done no such thing. Proctor was, however, a member of the notorious Monday Club. He apparently moved to purge the group of National Front members. So what?

Here’s the edition of Panorama in question.  The programme’s rationale is evident from the start: “It ain’t true”.

As Tom Pride observed yesterday, if Panorama’s team are so damned good at investigations, why did they fail to say anything about Jimmy Savile, who was working in the same building?

Let’s now turn to the case of Patrick Rock or to give him his full name, Patrick Robert John Rock de Besombes. Rock is the scion of an old Norman aristocratic family, a thwarted parliamentary candidate and was, until 18 months ago, a Downing Street aide. I say “was” because he was caught in possession of indecent images of children and appeared in court on those charges in July, 2014 and was bailed.  In December, 2014, Rock appeared at Southwark Crown Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then it all went quiet.

I found this letter from someone called “P. Curran” to the Cabinet Office on the What Do They Know website that makes a Freedom of Information request. P. Curran writes:

Dear Cabinet Office,

I am seeking information on Patrick Rock, a former senior aide to
David Cameron, who appeared in court over child abuse images.

According to this Guardian report of Friday 19 December 2014 12.40
GMT, he was ‘ bailed to return to Southwark crown court for a
pre-trial hearing on 27 February 2015’:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/…

Since then there has been no news whatsoever. What has happened to
Mr. Rock please? Has he had his pre-trial hearing yet? And if so
where and when?

Yours faithfully,

Thankyou.

P. Curran

The letter was written on 2 June, 2015. If the pre-trial hearing took place, then there is no record of it. This begs the question: “why”?

A follow up letter appears on the same website, dated 17 June, 2015.

Dear Cabinet Office / FOI Team Mailbox,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office’s
handling of my FOI request ‘Trial of Patrick Rock’.

Many thanks for this reply, but if you read my original question,
this is not what I asked.

I asked: “What has happened to Mr. Rock please? Has he had his
pre-trial hearing yet? And if so where and when?

I did NOT ask whether the information was held on your paper or
electronic records.

I would also draw your attention to the following:

Guardian: Possible Cabinet Office cover up re: Cyril Smith child
abuse allegations:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015…

Same story from the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-….
Indeed, from the article: “Downing Street cynically tried to
prevent the release of damaging files exposing the scale of the
cover-up over paedophile MP Cyril Smith.
The Cabinet Office repeatedly blocked The Mail on Sunday’s attempts
to see the bombshell documents – and caved in only after being
threatened with High Court action.”

Same story from Sky:
https://www.newstalk.com/Thatcher-knew-o….
From the story:
“He [Simon Danczuk] added: “(The Cabinet Office) have resisted
publishing these documents for over 12 months – that’s not
acceptable. They refused to tell the public who
nominated Cyril Smith for a knighthood. A journalist managed to get
that out of them after going to the Information Commissioner. It
was indeed David Steel.
And we now know they are resisting publishing at least four other
files relating to historic child sexual abuse. We have to ask the
question is the Cabinet Office fit for purpose?”

Private Eye story on Cabinet Office cover-up:
https://twitter.com/privateeyenews/statu…

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w…

So, given Mr Patrick Robert John Rock was deputy head of David
Cameron’s policy unit at the time of his arrest and has known him
since the late 1990s (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28054433 /
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics…),
I would be extremely grateful if you cold please tell me about the
trial / pre-trial hearings of Patrick Rock, supposedly held at
Southwark Crown Court , case number T20140498 (not whether the
information is stored on your paper or electronic records) .

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t…

Yours faithfully,

P. Curran

The exchange between P. Curran and the FOI team continues for the next few weeks until, finally, there’s a reply from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

REVIEW OF REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
Cabinet Office Internal Review Reference: IR 321173
(Original Case Reference: Fol 321173)
Thank you for your email of 17 June 2015. You asked for an internal review of our response to
your request for information of 8 June 2015. In your request you asked for information about the
trial of Patrick Rock.
It may be helpful if I start by explaining that the Freedom of Information Act provides a right of
access, subject to exemptions, to information held in a recorded format by a public authority.
Public authorities are specifically scheduled under the Act and the Cabinet Office (including No1 O
Downing Street) is one of those scheduled authorities. Each government department and agency
is separately listed under the Act.
As such, the Cabinet Office can only respond in terms of information we hold in a recorded format.
I have reviewed your request and have concluded that the Cabinet Office does not hold any
recorded information, which would answer your question. I recognise your interest in this case but
I regret that we do not hold the information to be able to answer your question.
The substance of your request is a matter for the criminal justice system, which is outside the remit
of the Cabinet Office. The only advice and assistance I am able to offer is to suggest that you write
to the Crown Prosecution Service or Her Majesty’s Court Service. I should also explain that even if
they hold any information in a recorded format in scope of your request, one or more exemptions
under the Act might apply.
If you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information you, have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

It turns out that that Rock is due to appear in court in the next three days. However, there is nothing in papers about it, nor have the television news providers mentioned it.

Don’t you find that a little odd? I know I do.

4 Comments

Filed under Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry

Corruption Rules UK

Yesterday, Radio 4’s Today programme told its listeners that David Cameron was going to urge the leaders at the G7 beano summit that they must do more to stamp out corruption. The FIFA corruption scandal seems to have acted as a spur for him to cast himself as the world’s anti-corruption champion. As we all know, this is all an act with Dave, the flim-flam man. Look, the guy wants to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a cheap imitation. Doesn’t that seem like an excuse to further legitimize other forms of corruption?

It’s tempting to think that corruption is the sort of thing that only happens in other countries like Egypt, Zimbabwe and Guatemala, where human rights abuses are an everyday occurrence. Corruption goes against the British ‘sense of fair play’. It simply isn’t cricket.  After all, we’re told by mainstream politicians and our [less than] free press that Britain, unlike some other countries, has something called ‘the rule of law’. And that makes everything just peachy and kopesetic. I mean, so what if free speech isn’t enshrined in statute or The Daily Mail traduces your name on its pages? You can always sue them for libel. Can’t you? Well, the best you can hope for is some mealy-mouthed apology buried on page 45. That’s it. Only those with substantial sums of money can sue someone for defamation in this country. That’s how satirists in this country are silenced. Not through violence and intimidation but through the courts. It’s the rule of law. It’s so terribly English. No one cracked George Cruikshank’s skull for painting immoral caricatures of the George VI, he was given a hundred nicker and told never to do it again. So civilized.

People will often say that politicians are corrupt. I wouldn’t go that far. However I would say that some politicians are certainly corrupt and that Tory governments, in particular, tend to abuse their power. Remember, this is the party that abolished the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council because the people didn’t vote the way they wanted them to. Now apparently unrestrained by the Liberal Democrats, the Toerags want to impose a 50% turnout threshold on strike ballots with 40% of eligible members supporting strike action. This is from a party, when it was in coalition, that allowed many Police and Crime Commissioners to be elected to office on an overall national turnout of 15.1%. Dude, where’s your mandate?

The present Tory regime intends to redraw the electoral boundaries because it claims that it’s fair (sic). Their chief complaint is that the electoral boundaries “work against” them. Yet, they managed to win in the 1980s with more or less the same electoral boundaries, albeit with some modifications. There were no complaints back then. So what’s changed? Nothing. They want all the power. They will not stop until they have created a one-party state modelled along the lines of Pinochet-era Chile. Any change in the electoral boundaries will be categorically unfair, since such changes will effectively ensure the Tories hold power indefinitely. Redrawing electoral boundaries without including the necessary reform to the antiquated voting system amounts to little more than gerrymandering. But the Tóraís also want to reduce the number of Commons seats from 650 to 600. Guess which constituencies won’t disappear? Uh huh. Not many Tory seats. Remember this is the party that benefited from the Rotten Boroughs. Therefore the very idea of playing fairly and according the rules (as opposed to the rules they’ve rigged or reinterpreted) is alien to them. It’s like a foreign lingo.

Consider also the change in the voting rules the took place under the Coalition regime: around one million voters (many of them students) were simply erased from the electoral registers, ostensibly in a move to prevent voting fraud. This had the intended or unintended effect (depending upon your perspective) of helping to provide the Tories with an admittedly slender majority. It was a victory that apparently had surprised them as much as those of us hoping for something better than five more years of cuts and wanton cruelty. Would you like another shit sandwich, sir/madam?

Corruption in Britain isn’t confined to governments and political parties. Consider the close relationship between the state and private capital. Britain’s privatized railways are an instructive example of a form of licensed corporate corruption, and the government will bend over backwards to keep them sweet. According to Channel 4’s Dispatches, the train operating companies are legally permitted to bend the rules of time (and possibly physics) to avoid claims for compensation. There are apparently two different timetables: one is called the public timetable to which the public has access, and there’s the working timetables that the train companies use. If this sounds confusing, then you should have look at the fares: it is often more expensive to buy a ticket from a machine than a ticket office and even if you purchase a ticket from a ticket office, you may not get the cheapest deal. Split-ticketing in another peculiarity of the privatized system. Buying singles in stages to your destination is sometimes cheaper than buying a single or a return, but booking offices often keep this secret. The Dispatches documentary is worth watching. Just click on this link. Sadly, you may have to register to watch it (available for 26 days).

Corruption, far from being something that happens in other countries, is alive and well in the United Kingdom. Sustained and protected by the law and the institutions of the state, corruption perverts democracy and impedes justice. Corruption is what allowed Jimmy Savile and his gang groom and rape children with impunity. Corruption is what allows privatized companies to slip out of their obligations to provide a service. Corruption is the glue that holds the union together and keeps the people subjugated.

So Dave, before you lecture others on the subject of corruption, how about you deal with it closer to home?

You can visit Transparency International UK’s website for more information.

2 Comments

Filed under Corruption

Savile, Sutcliffe and the Broadmoor task force

Savile pictured with Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno at Broadmoor Hospital

For me there is one nagging question about the whole Savile business. Why was Savile, who had no healthcare qualifications (he appears to have left school without any qualifications), allowed to chair a task force to take over Broadmoor Hospital? It simply doesn’t make sense. Yet whenever Edwina Currie, the health minister under Thatcher, is interviewed on television, she dances around the issue. Surely Currie should take some of the responsibility for allowing Savile to practically take over the running of Broadmoor, which not only contains some of Britain’s most dangerous psychiatric inmates but many vulnerable patients too.

Currie claims to have been “hoodwinked” and says that she has “nothing to hide”. But people without suitable qualifications or expertise should not be given such sensitive roles.  Currie made a colossal error of judgement and it would seem that she wasn’t the only one. Indeed, as we all know, Savile spent 11 Christmases at Chequers with Thatcher. He supported the Tory Party and thus became part of the machinery of political power. The reports, which were published yesterday claim that there was no clear evidence that Savile was involved in a high level paedophile ring. But given the litany of cover ups surrounding this case, I have my doubts.

The above photograph tells an interesting story. It suggests a strong link between Savile and Broadmoor’s most infamous resident, Peter Sutcliffe.  Savile was questioned by detectives investigating the Yorkshire Ripper killings. Sutcliffe has also claimed that Savile was “innocent” of any crimes.  But let’s not get carried away, Savile was not the Yorkshire Ripper but his closeness to Sutcliffe is disturbing to say the least. Did Savile do any favours for Sutcliffe? It’s an interesting question. No?

Leave a comment

Filed under News/Current Affairs

Savile and the dark heart of British politics

The shit has really hit the fan over, what is now being called, “The Savile scandal”.

Like many interested commentators, The Cat believes the Savile Scandal goes beyond the BBC and into the heart of political power.

I’d seen the pictures and the video of Savile with Thatcher and I’d heard the rumours about Ted Heath (he of the biggest sulk in history), his yacht and the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey.

Today as I watched Prime Minister’s Question Time, you could have heard a pin drop as Labour MP, Tom Watson, suggested that there was a “powerful paedophile network” that may have had links to a former Prime Minister.

Watson told Cameron,

“The evidence file used to convict Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring,” he told MPs.

“One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

“The leads were not followed up, but if the files still exist, I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10.”

Cameron, who hadn’t been doing well at the despatch box was stunned.  He replied by saying it was a “difficult and complex case” and pledged to help in any way he could. Well, he has no choice.

Tom Watson’s blog has more.

4 Comments

Filed under Savile Scandal

Savile and Thatcher

I’d always known that Jimmy Savile was sympathetic to the Tories but in this video from 1976, we see that he was best pals with the Auld Witch before she became Prime Minister.

Edited to add: Savile and his “love” for Thatcher. 26/12/17@ 1424

1 Comment

Filed under Child sex abuse, Society & culture

Jimmy SaVILE, patriarchy and cultural relativism

The news that Jimmy Savile had sexually abused teenage girls for the better part of 40 years, has shocked and disgusted many people who held him in great esteem because of his charidee work. Personally speaking, I wasn’t shocked and I always thought that his charity work was a convenient and clever cover for his creepiness; a means of diverting media attention from his predatory behaviour. Indeed,  I’d always thought there was something creepy about him: the shell suits, the jewellery, the bizarre turns of phrase all pointed to something rather disturbing that lay just beneath the surface. Louis Theroux’s encounter with him in 2002 was certainly illuminating for the fact that Savile tried to deny all knowledge of his ugly sexual predation and unwittingly  revealed his true self.

Here’s When Louis Met Jimmy.

Savile comes across as intimidating and arrogant as well as deliberately obtuse. One line that stands out is, “You’ll find out how tricky I am”. But the most telling admission comes at 14.46 when Theroux asks him about being a wrestler,  he replies, “I’m feared in every girl’s school in Britain”. This line is probably the most revelatory of the entire programme; it’s coughed up like a cat that coughs up a fur ball. When I heard him say that, my suspicions seemed to be confirmed but what a weird thing to say – even in jest.

But what I am certainly intrigued by is the silence of the EDL and the BNP about this scandal. Jack Straw hasn’t said anything either. Why should I mention the EDL, the BNP and Straw in the same breath? Surely there’s no connection between them? Ah, but there is. Rochdale.

Straw was quoted in the Telegraph as saying,

“It is true to say … that overall if you go into the sex offenders wings of prisons there are proportionally more white offenders than Asian offenders or black and we have got to deal with that separately.

“But it is also correct that in terms of group grooming there is an ethnic dimension which typically is of Asian men on white girls.

“And that is an issue which has to be faced and addressed within the Asian community about what’s going on there.

“That kind of leads to a sense of denial by them that all this is going on.

“These are small communities so people will have a rough idea that people are abusing white girls in this way.

“That has to be dealt with there as well as obviously with much more effective police and social services action.”

The far-right hold similar views to this. Racializing the Rochdale incident, in my view, was Jack Straw’s biggest mistake (he’s made plenty of others). His thesis that grooming gangs are a unique feature of Muslim culture has been comprehensively blown out of the water by the Savile Scandal. The thing that Straw cannot or will not come to grips with is the Patriarchy. I will return to this later.

The British Resistance, a far-right site, which I will not link to for obvious reasons, spins this as another piece of anti-Semitism dressed up as anti-Zionism,

It is also my experience, that birds of a feather tend to flock together and that is why there should be a public enquiry into this affair and also into other individuals both alive and dead who were known associates of him.

Interesting, for me at least, is the number of Jewish “celebrities” whose names I have found linked to Jimmy Savile.  Truth is not many people in the general public at large knew of Savile’s love for Israel, his grasp of the Yiddish language and the large numbers of Jewish friends that he made over his long life.

He was a rabid Zionist who disapproved of Israel sharing any land with the Palestinian people and an active supporter of the Leeds Kosher School Meals service and the Vilna Synagogue and a regular at the Leed’s In Time Club where the local Jewish community would go.

So pro Zionist was Savile that he described himself as “the most Jewish Catholic you will ever meet” and given that the entertainments business is dominated by Jews, that statement would most certainly have helped his career and leant weight towards the suppression of the truth about his paedophile tendencies being exposed.

I did in my research read that Savile was in fact Jewish but could not verify this piece of information.

It’s the last paragraph that gets me. He “did” his “research” but his information could not be verified. Pretty sloppy, if you ask me. The rest of this paragraph repeats, the by now, familiar lines that fash trot out at each and every opportunity. The usual stuff about the media and all the rest.  But linking Savile to Zionism and Jews generally is pretty desperate stuff. One thing that we can be sure of, however, is that he was close to the Conservative Party and Thatcher.

Casuals United, which is closely associated with the EDL attempts to deflect attention away from its own penchant for underage girls and boys. Here is a broken link: http://casualsunited.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/we-think-the-jimmy-saville-affair-is-the-tip-of-a-massive-iceberg-edl-evf-mfe/

We think the Jimmy Saville affair is the tip of a massive iceberg #edl #evf #mfe

7102012

Check out this site about Pedophiles in the Labour Party. Saville had friends in high places including the Thatchers and the Blairs

They offer a link to another site which claims to “expose” paedophiles in the Labour Party. But it is largely a smear job. The fact that they refuse to even mention their members who have been charged with possessing child pornography tells us a lot about the EDL and those who support them.

There is a mindset among many men that thinks it is perfectly natural for them to sexually harass women in the workplace and rub themselves up against women on public transport and no, this is not a natural way for men to behave. “What’s the matter, love? You a lesbian or somefink”? This demonstrates both a lack of respect for women and a lack of control over themselves. Sexual incontinence seems to be an accepted practise in some male circles. Then there’s the banter and the sexually explicit gestures, which when challenged, provoke the classic, “It’s just a joke, love”.

The BBC is a patriarchal institution that is run by men and is dominated by men. It would seem that there has been a cover-up going on for many years. I would also suggest that there was a culture of this sort of thing in the BBC.  In the coming months I expect more women to come forward with the sorts of stories that the BBC tried to sweep under its carpet or wave it away with a curt, “Get over it”.

Let’s be blunt: this culture has nothing at all to do with sexual attraction or masculinity, it’s about power. The men who run the BBC have often gone to single sex public schools, so their attitude to women tends to contain knowledge of the Other. They see women as exotic creatures, foreigners or objects, not as people.

Savile used his power and influence to deceive others for 40 years. He bought the silence of the press through his charitable works.  Paedophilia and the grooming of young girls for the sexual pleasure of men is not unique to Muslims, it transcends ethnic and religious boundaries – whether or not the far right or Jack Straw care to admit this. But the EDL and BNP are deeply patriarchal institutions, in which gross masculinity is celebrated. Straw’s playing to the gallery of racists cranks was deeply misguided.

The patriarchy damages women and men.

UPDATE: 12/10/10@ 1830

Changed title to better reflect content

5 Comments

Filed under Child sex abuse, Society & culture