And big news it is! I first heard this one thirty years ago. I also heard he was in with people who’d break your legs for sixpence.
Real question is, why are the pigs investigating? Are they proposing to dig his body up and lay charges against it? I suppose with the scumbag magistrates we have nowadays, a prosecution would sail though committal stage.
Over to Ian B….
And here he is:
Ian B
🙂
Well, I think the reason they’re investigating is the hope of snagging some other celebs who are very much alive. The whole current popular conception of El Paedo is that they always operate in “rings”; in that sense it’s a sort of conspiracy theory, hardly surprising considering its origins in the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic.
It’s always dangerous to nail one’s colours to the mast over whether one believes allegations or not. On the one hand, it’s certainly plausible. But so are lots of things. It’s plausible that I’m a fabulous tenor, unless you’ve met me, in which case you know the fact that I sound like a cat suffering a breach birth. The interesting one is this allegation about Savile, the nation’s number 1 paedo-darling Gary Glitter, and Unnamed Other (can we legally say it yet?) in a dressing room. At the BBC. Thing is, most of the allegations seem rather mild (relatively so); hand up jumper, hand down knickers, what one might call “dirty old man stuff”.
Then suddenly you’ve got this girl invited to the BBC, taken into a dressing room (by whom, where did her institutional carers disappear to?) and you’ve got Gary Giltter raping a girl in the corner. It’s like, eh? What? Where did that come from?
That’s the problem with these hunts. You never know whether Old Widow Markle really is using the powers of Satan to make the cattle ill, or whether she’s just in the dock because she looks the part, with her warty nose and mane of silver hair.
There was one interesting point I noted in the more straightforward allegations; one of the girls said she looked forward to Jimmy’s visits because it was a nice day out with good food and free cigarettes; the only downside being getting touched up and giving him a blow job once. That’s a pretty crushing indictment of institutional “care”, if sucking off Savile’s wrinkly old man is preferable.
Which okay, brings us to a serious point for Libertarians. What do all these scandals have in common? The Catholics, the Magdalene Laundries, the Children’s Homes, and now Jimmy Savile and his Dunk-Dick Every Trip[1]? All of the abused young people were in <i>institutional care</i>; the <i>very systems</i> that collectivists implement to provide, supposedly, protection. All in the bosom of the State, or State-like systems beloved of collectivists. The systems intended ostensibly to <i>provide</i> protection instead <i>remove</i> it. This is what happens when you remove peoples’ agency and hand it to somebody else, saying “you don’t need to protect yourself, others will protect you”. Whether it’s the citizen disepowered and required to rely on the police, or the child or young adult disempowered and put in the hands of “carers”.
I’ve thought for some time that there is a lot of mileage for Libertarians in the appalling mistreatment of and denial of the rights of those classed as children by State systems. We can see one of the major problems here; with the high age of definition of childhood, people who are really young women are classed as children, shoved into childish institutions, and left with no personal agency, no rights, no means to protect themself. And thus, they get harmed. One girl said she was thrown in solitary confinement for complaining about being groped. True or not, this is certainly entirely plausible because, of course, the system <i>could not cope</i> with the situation.
So this is the lesson of history. The institutional systems set up by the “Child savers” in the First Progressivist Wave ended up doing enormous harm. Some youngsters were sexually abused, others physically abused, others mentally abused, all of them denied basic rights as human beings, locked up in pseudo-prisons despite having committed no crimes, without due process, because they were not counted as human beings, but as children who are not, apparently, really human beings and thus deserve no rights.
Maybe that’s the real scandal here.
[1] Just thought this one up. I claim copyright!
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Our Enemy, the UN
The Clean Air (Human Rights) bill
How should government behave towards the governed?
Who’s a Fascist?
Powered by YARPP.
worse than you can imagine
https://www.google.com/search?q=angifran+saville&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
🙂
Well, I think the reason they’re investigating is the hope of snagging some other celebs who are very much alive. The whole current popular conception of El Paedo is that they always operate in “rings”; in that sense it’s a sort of conspiracy theory, hardly surprising considering its origins in the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic.
It’s always dangerous to nail one’s colours to the mast over whether one believes allegations or not. On the one hand, it’s certainly plausible. But so are lots of things. It’s plausible that I’m a fabulous tenor, unless you’ve met me, in which case you know the fact that I sound like a cat suffering a breach birth. The interesting one is this allegation about Savile, the nation’s number 1 paedo-darling Gary Glitter, and Unnamed Other (can we legally say it yet?) in a dressing room. At the BBC. Thing is, most of the allegations seem rather mild (relatively so); hand up jumper, hand down knickers, what one might call “dirty old man stuff”.
Then suddenly you’ve got this girl invited to the BBC, taken into a dressing room (by whom, where did her institutional carers disappear to?) and you’ve got Gary Giltter raping a girl in the corner. It’s like, eh? What? Where did that come from?
That’s the problem with these hunts. You never know whether Old Widow Markle really is using the powers of Satan to make the cattle ill, or whether she’s just in the dock because she looks the part, with her warty nose and mane of silver hair.
There was one interesting point I noted in the more straightforward allegations; one of the girls said she looked forward to Jimmy’s visits because it was a nice day out with good food and free cigarettes; the only downside being getting touched up and giving him a blow job once. That’s a pretty crushing indictment of institutional “care”, if sucking off Savile’s wrinkly old man is preferable.
Which okay, brings us to a serious point for Libertarians. What do all these scandals have in common? The Catholics, the Magdalene Laundries, the Children’s Homes, and now Jimmy Savile and his Dunk-Dick Every Trip[1]? All of the abused young people were in institutional care; the very systems that collectivists implement to provide, supposedly, protection. All in the bosom of the State, or State-like systems beloved of collectivists. The systems intended ostensibly to provide protection instead remove it. This is what happens when you remove peoples’ agency and hand it to somebody else, saying “you don’t need to protect yourself, others will protect you”. Whether it’s the citizen disepowered and required to rely on the police, or the child or young adult disempowered and put in the hands of “carers”.
I’ve thought for some time that there is a lot of mileage for Libertarians in the appalling mistreatment of and denial of the rights of those classed as children by State systems. We can see one of the major problems here; with the high age of definition of childhood, people who are really young women are classed as children, shoved into childish institutions, and left with no personal agency, no rights, no means to protect themself. And thus, they get harmed. One girl said she was thrown in solitary confinement for complaining about being groped. True or not, this is certainly entirely plausible because, of course, the system could not cope with the situation.
So this is the lesson of history. The institutional systems set up by the “Child Savers” in the First Progressivist Wave ended up doing enormous harm. Some youngsters were sexually abused, others physically abused, others mentally abused, all of them denied basic rights as human beings, locked up in pseudo-prisons despite having committed no crimes, without due process, because they were not counted as human beings, but as children who are not, apparently, really human beings and thus deserve no rights.
Maybe that’s the real scandal here.
[1] Just thought this one up. I claim copyright!
Edward Heath? Alan Freeman? Oh my, Peter.
This seems to be a rich brew of the usual shite. The ” purveyor of kiddies to Ted Heath” has already been dismissed (was it on this blog or elsewhere?–I can’t remember) for the simple reason that Heath (although a secret homosexual) was not a kiddie-fiddler.I say this as one who despises the euro-sucking scumbag Also the “Morning Cloud” was a racing yacht–Heath apparantly had all the internal doors removed to save weight-so there hardly would be room or privacy for child molesting.
“What do all these scandals have in common? The Catholics, the Magdalene Laundries, the Children’s Homes, and now Jimmy Savile and his Dunk-Dick Every Trip[1]? All of the abused young people were in institutional care; the very systems that collectivists implement to provide, supposedly, protection. All in the bosom of the State, or State-like systems beloved of collectivists. The systems intended ostensibly to provide protection instead remove it. ”
Was the same not true of some or all of the victims in the various muslim grooming and abuse scandals? I haven’t paid much attention, but I seem to remember that reported as one aspect of the vulnerability of the girls in question.
Ecks, there’s a fairly (relatively) popular folk legend that goes that the entire ruling class are a giant paedophile ring; it’s a spin-off from Satanic Ritual Abuse again. Another thing specific to that article; the “human remains” found at the Jersey Children’s Home was a piece of coconut shell.
to Ian B
“Evidence found at Haut de la Garenne – including bones that were “fresh and fleshed” before being burned and dozens of children’s teeth with the roots still on them in the furnace area – was turned over to a new police chief who downplayed its significance but also admitted to throwing some of it out.”
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2012/09/leah-goodman-on-jersey-child-abuse.html
Date – September 11, 2012
You are reading the wrong blogs Peter. The whole Jersey mess was a crock of confabulated shite.
Evidence please.
Another piece which also advertise that working-class white English Christians also abuse white children. Muslim gangs are not the only ones you see m’dear. I suppose they’ll be levelling his view out to sea now. Good old beeb… they never miss a trick…
At the time of the scare about Satanic child abuse in Orkney, I knew a senior social worker well. She was convinced it was going on. Most of her friends were also social workers.
“Recovered Memory Syndrome” was very fashionable at the time – rather like a craze going round a girls’ school. From what later came to light, it appeared that the high pressure interrogation of suspected young victims was geared towards this.
“All my friends were abused” she confided “I am sure that I was but I just can’t remember it”.
Now this was a highly qualified, very conscientious social worker in a position of considerable influence. She might have been right. If so it says something about the sort of people attracted to that profession. On the other hand, each scare of this sort leads to the demand for “more resources” and hence greater career opportunities. Now I am sure that wasn’t part of her motivation but it is a consideration whenever a profession takes a corporate view.
From Christopher Booker’s detailed reports, we are entitled to ask
Quis custodet ipsos custodes?
The courts are secret and therefore as unaccountable as the “caring professionals”.
Edward – A scary anecdote. What is most scary is the view of personal identity it reveals. I remember many things from my childhood. Many things I have forgotten. But I have never doubted that the things I’ve forgotten were very like the things remembered, and that they have just happened not to survive.
Or perhaps they have survived. Every so often, observing my daughter, an old memory is jogged out. This says much about memory as a complete archive with a defective index. But, if I can often now understand the implications of what was said or done before I was three, nothing ever changes my overall perception of who I am.
Someone who forgets that he was molested as a child is deranged on the face of it. Someone who only claims to have forgotten such a thing needs help or punishment. Yet these people are in positions of great authority.
On the whole, I’d rather have the Marxists running child welfare.
Well, the therapy movement are still alive and well and entrenched in the State and Institutions. There’s one interesting problem, which is that many people believe that the Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic is over, debunked, whereas it really turned into the Paedohysteria and continues on, having merely dropped (although some Femnist Groups and Church Groups are still pushing it) the obviously batshit stuff about Satanism. The language and paradigm of it is all alive and well; for instance that word “grooming” we hear so much about was, in SRA, the induction of youngsters into the Satanic cult, keeping of them for pregnancies to be sacrificed, etc. Having taken a keen interest in SRA (which is one reason I remain so interested in the Paedohysteria), I remember the sense of horror I felt, years ago now, when I heard Jack Straw use the word in the Commons, and the realisation that SRA was far from over.
The standard modus operandi of the therapist/activists is to get a “victim” in their clutches and keep on at them until they agree that they are a victim. This was well documented with the SRA therapists. Of course, this kind of pressure would be unacceptable if it were interrogation of a crime suspect, but since these people are “victims” being “helped”, no such restraint is required nor rights considered necessary; the same thought process that the Child Savers used to justify denying juveniles Constitutional Rights (in the USA) in their new “child courts”; since it was about help, supposedly, not “punishment” under the law. Rothbard wrote well on this, noting that juveniles incarcerated for “delinquency” suffered far longer imprisonment in institutions than actual perpetrators of crimes did. Because the institutions were not legally “prisons” but were “corrective” and “helping” their inmates. When is a prison not a prison? When a social worker puts you in it, that’s when.
Anyhoo, back to the point. Last year (maybe the year before, time flies) I downloaded a report on “sex trafficking” by the Met and read through it. It had been launched with great hoopla and, not surprisingly, the actual statistics in small print in it bore little relation to the newspaper headlines describing the mythical hordes of women being “trafficked”. In fact what one saw in the actual statistics was illegal immigrants working in prostitution, sometimes in less than ideal conditions- the answer to which of course would be to get the State out of the way.
But anyway, one little phrase chilled me. The report remarked how (I am paraphrasing here, didn’t keep a local copy) “many sex-trafficked women do not feel able to admit to [being trafficking victims] until they have undergone many months of therapy and counselling”; a sentence that anyone with some knowledge of how the therapist-activists operate will recognise that same pressure-therapy being used on these women, as it was on the imaginary victims of imaginary Satanic Ritual Abuse, and which it undoubtedly is on anyone they want to break down until they see themselves as a Survivor-Victim.
(That term “survivor” by the way, now commonplace as in “I am a rape survivor” came from the Survivor movement in America, one of the primary formations pushing the whole recovered-memory nonsense).
I suspect this is a matter in which libertarians should be rather more interested than in regurgitating Austrian economics. The problem is that we already know the economic arguments and literature, and there is no chance the more despotic arms of the British State will make a grab at us.
Bill Thompson of Reading University did much good work on the Orkneys child-stealing case. His punishment was to be done over by the pigs and hounded from his job.
As a father, I just don’t dare go where libertarians ought to be.
Well that’s the problem Sean; they’ve effectively put themselves off-limits, because everyone’s scared to get involved for fear of smear. I worry about merely writing about it myself. And, it’s very much Mencken’s “defending scoundrels” problem.
But really it is symptomatic of a wider issue, which is (in my oft-repeated view) the continued (and indeed increasing) hegemony over our society by the Victorian paradigm. While it continues to dominate, our polity will be ruled by moral panic. I’ve said plenty of times, we’re currently plunging into a “Second Progressive Era” (I tend to define the First Progressive Era more broadly than most, covering the period from Victorianism through to the end of the Progressive Era proper). At this stage, there is probably not much that can be done anyway.
Sex trafficking is also a crock of lying, confabulated shite. Go to the “The Honest Courtesan” (I know this the second time I’ve mentioned this site but it is very good on sexual matters and has the goods to destroy the entire feminista trafficking hysteria in one go).
Peter–I’m out of town til Monday. When I come back I’ll dig out the Jersey info.
Abuse against someone is normally used to mean that something was done to someone without their consent, and or their ability to know it is wrong or lacking in the ability to fight back – for whatever reason, Most people, except SM adherents, do not consent to being abused.
The question is, is the abused understanding they are being abused, used, coerced?
Force and subtle coercion and not the same. Thus one of the the differences between rape and pressurised but not forced seduction.
I read somewhere, from Eleanor Roosevelt, that “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent” & “You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, ‘I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.’
I believe such victims and those that get out of a coercive situation must do the thing they think they cannot do.” For me this is good advice. Something wrong happened. Report it, if the law lets you down there is little you can do about it, But you must not become a victim. You must get on with your life, take the next thing that comes along, which is normally better – those reporting against JS got on with their lives and do not see themselves as victims did they?
I am not saying that those who acted abusively or indecently against the other should not be brought to justice and or penalised but society is creating the culture of the victim as someone who needs state help to get better. I think ER’s comments are more helpful.
Ecks-
Sex trafficking is also a crock of lying, confabulated shite
Certainly is. It’s just the old White Slave Pani, rebranded. They don’t have many new ideas, but then they don’t need many; the old ones keep working so depressingly well.
Here are the latest accounts of the JS charitable trust:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends70/0000326970_ac_20120331_e_c.pdf
He may have exploited young girls in various ways. But he doesn’t seem to have had his lips clamped to the public udder.
Probably the worst thing about him was his seatbelt campaign. But justice where due.
Jimmy Savile had an Edinburgh connection in Jan Duffy-King, another very strange person.
To deny sex trafficking is going on is ignorant and obtuse. Shame on you.