New Year Honours Dec 2020

[thirdcrank]

.. As a copper in Leeds I'd have thought you'd have been well aware of his activities.

Well, I wasn't.

As a member of the public, I first remember seeing him at York Rally in the late 1950s. He was just sitting quietly in the back of one of the trade stands in a marquee. The only noticeable thing was his brightly dyed hair. I cannot remember how I knew it was him - my dear old dad had probably ridden over with me. I must have posted before I took my family around 1980 to see the Milk Race near Stump Cross Caverns. There was a big mix-up over the timings and the race arrived much later than expected. By the time the sag wagon arrived - much later still - my family and JS were just about the only people still there. Both my young sons approached him to autograph their programmes and he made a bit of an issue about saying "please" but nothing more. I used to have an 8mm cine camera in those days and I took quite a bit of footage of the race but it never occurred to me to film him.

Around that time my elder son who was about six took up charity fun running and I remember there was one sponsored by Leads and Holbeck BS starting in Morley and JS was a last-minute star attraction.

He regularly used to hold court for some years on Thursday (?) afternoons in the Bridge Café in Otley which was a popular café for cyclists. I always used the outside seats - but only because I don't like to be a hanger-on. I've done the same elsewhere with other celebs.

I'd still be interested to know why his knighthood was repeatedly rejected. It's hard to imagine that the members of the relevant committee knew of his offending but decided not to tell Margaret Thatcher. Even harder to believe that they told her and were overruled. Perhaps the committee didn't like the bangles, baubles and beads hinted at by mikeymo.

[Ride-sleep-repeat]

Wasn't there a Documentary on Saville a few years ago revealing that it was common knowledge amongst not only the Police but high ranking Politicians,the BBC management and even Hospital management?
I find it hard to believe that Thatcher wouldn't know about it if her peers did!

[mikeymo]

.. libellous accusation redacted .

Well, I wasn't.

Yes. When his behaviour was revealed, after his death, there was all sorts of accusations of "everybody must have known, they're all complicit, blah blah, blah". The usual 20-20 hindsight. People round here either thought he was bit of eccentric showbiz celebrity to add to things, or an oddball creep/nutter. He was actually loathed by some of the older local musicians, because they blamed DJs for the death of live music. I think he DJ'd at the Mecca in one of the arcades (ThirdCrank might know).

Interesting story I read somewhere or other, and won't bother trying to find it now. Something like he was in his car late one night and a police officer found him, knocked on the window, and said something like - "everything OK Mr Savile?" He had a teenage girl with him. Savile replied "fine thanks, we're waiting till midnight, when she's sixteen". If it's true it tells us that yes, he liked teenage girls, but also that he had enough sense not to break the law, at least on that occasion.

[pete75]

I'd still be interested to know why his knighthood was repeatedly rejected. It's hard to imagine that the members of the relevant committee knew of his offending but decided not to tell Margaret Thatcher. Even harder to believe that they told her and were overruled. Perhaps the committee didn't like the bangles, baubles and beads hinted at by mikeymo.

Thatchers own father had a reputation in Grantham for Savile like activities.

[Jdsk]

I'd still be interested to know why his knighthood was repeatedly rejected. It's hard to imagine that the members of the relevant committee knew of his offending but decided not to tell Margaret Thatcher. Even harder to believe that they told her and were overruled. Perhaps the committee didn't like the bangles, baubles and beads hinted at by mikeymo.

I think that the best account of what happened is in the evidence to The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I haven't looked there directly, but it's reported contemporaneously here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47576543

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Re the Mecca Ballroom, the Leodis archive has this

http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?reso ... SPLAY=FULL

"Search on page" has 21 hits for "Saville" and there may be other misspelt references.

FWIW, I've never been in there, on or off duty.

[mikeymo]

I'd still be interested to know why his knighthood was repeatedly rejected. It's hard to imagine that the members of the relevant committee knew of his offending but decided not to tell Margaret Thatcher. Even harder to believe that they told her and were overruled. Perhaps the committee didn't like the bangles, baubles and beads hinted at by mikeymo.

I think that the best account of what happened is in the evidence to The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I haven't looked there directly, but it's reported contemporaneously here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47576543

Jonathan

"Those who were aware of specific complaints about Savile should have reported them to line managers. None did so"

The advantage of working in education is that we have frequent safeguarding training (inset should have been a refresher today, as it happens, but Covid has postponed that). We have a printed, and relatively concise (for this sort of document) policy document, for which we have to sign that we have both received and read it. And the protocol for communicating concerns is crystal clear - who we go to first, their deputy if they are not available, or who else if the concern is actually about them. The safeguarding leads are named, rather that stated by position. In my situation there is not a scintilla of doubt about my responsibilities and what steps to take if an allegation is received, or if I have any concerns or doubts about a student's welfare.

It sounds as though there was no such clarity or established procedure at the BBC.

[pete75]

I'd still be interested to know why his knighthood was repeatedly rejected. It's hard to imagine that the members of the relevant committee knew of his offending but decided not to tell Margaret Thatcher. Even harder to believe that they told her and were overruled. Perhaps the committee didn't like the bangles, baubles and beads hinted at by mikeymo.

I think that the best account of what happened is in the evidence to The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I haven't looked there directly, but it's reported contemporaneously here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47576543

Jonathan

"Those who were aware of specific complaints about Savile should have reported them to line managers. None did so"

The advantage of working in education is that we have frequent safeguarding training (inset should have been a refresher today, as it happens, but Covid has postponed that). We have a printed, and relatively concise (for this sort of document) policy document, for which we have to sign that we have both received and read it. And the protocol for communicating concerns is crystal clear - who we go to first, their deputy if they are not available, or who else if the concern is actually about them. The safeguarding leads are named, rather that stated by position. In my situation there is not a scintilla of doubt about my responsibilities and what steps to take if an allegation is received, or if I have any concerns or doubts about a student's welfare.

It sounds as though there was no such clarity or established procedure at the BBC.

I doubt there was at many other places back then.

[mikeymo]

I think that the best account of what happened is in the evidence to The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I haven't looked there directly, but it's reported contemporaneously here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47576543

Jonathan

"Those who were aware of specific complaints about Savile should have reported them to line managers. None did so"

The advantage of working in education is that we have frequent safeguarding training (inset should have been a refresher today, as it happens, but Covid has postponed that). We have a printed, and relatively concise (for this sort of document) policy document, for which we have to sign that we have both received and read it. And the protocol for communicating concerns is crystal clear - who we go to first, their deputy if they are not available, or who else if the concern is actually about them. The safeguarding leads are named, rather that stated by position. In my situation there is not a scintilla of doubt about my responsibilities and what steps to take if an allegation is received, or if I have any concerns or doubts about a student's welfare.

It sounds as though there was no such clarity or established procedure at the BBC.

I doubt there was at many other places back then.

Possibly.

My mother was a field child care social worker at that time. I don't remember her expressing any concerns about particular organisations or areas of work. But of course she didn't discuss cases in any detail with me.

It sounds as though you have some knowledge or experience of the subject, perhaps?

[Tangled Metal]

TBH back in the 70s allegations made against teachers got closed ranks and threats about kids being tagged as a problem child which would go in their record that follows through school life. That I know because I know kids who went through that and parents too. Us kids knew which teachers were a danger and which kids were being abused. There was a clear pattern and in modern times such things happened there would be root and branch change throughout the school. Including prosecutions. Indeed it probably couldn't happen. I'm talking institutional abuse of covering up of abuse. It simply wasn't considered abuse by teachers in those days.

Those times were not good for child abuse. It's not simply about finding cover ups it's about what's acceptable in society I reckon. We're talking about a time where there was a paedophiles Union lobbying for sexual relations with juveniles to be made legal to a young age. Indeed some of you could find photographs online of a certain MP standing on the same platform as that vile body complete with their banner behind said MP.

It's different times and your simply can't view things with modern eyes. As bad as that sounds.

[Jdsk]

Those times were not good for child abuse. It's not simply about finding cover ups it's about what's acceptable in society I reckon. We're talking about a time where there was a paedophiles Union lobbying for sexual relations with juveniles to be made legal to a young age. Indeed some of you could find photographs online of a certain MP standing on the same platform as that vile body complete with their banner behind said MP.

Do you mean Harman? She never supported decriminalising sexual abuse of children. A poorly informed reader might misunderstand your post as implying that she did or that she found it acceptable.

Her statement:
https://www.harrietharman.org/nccl-statement---24022014

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

I can't remember the name but if you say it was her then I'll believe it. In my mind it was one of two female MPs who both had women's and family rights as there pet areas of interest.

No I doubt she supported them but they were often involved with mainstream politics I believe back then. As well as paedophilic tendencies I believe that body also had more left wing political views so it's not unusual that they appeared at similar events. I was only making the point that back then they were not considered as unacceptable as now. Such that MPs were not avoiding events at which they were present. If such a body could exist now you bet no MP would get caught out on the same platform as them. Not even the more dodgy of our MPs.

There was no intention to imply Harmon supported them.

[Jdsk]

Thank you.

The other one you might have been remembering was Hewitt. Dromey was also accused.

There was no intention to imply Harmon supported them.

Thank you for saying that so clearly.

I was only making the point that back then they were not considered as unacceptable as now.

But that complicates the issue again... who considered the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange as acceptable then? Anyone in public life?

Thanks

Jonathan

[mikeymo]

Thank you.

The other one you might have been remembering was Hewitt. Dromey was also accused.

There was no intention to imply Harmon supported them.

Thank you for saying that so clearly.

You are too generous.

We're talking about a time where there was a paedophiles Union lobbying for sexual relations with juveniles to be made legal to a young age. Indeed some of you could find photographs online of a certain MP standing on the same platform as that vile body complete with their banner behind said MP.

[pete75]

"Those who were aware of specific complaints about Savile should have reported them to line managers. None did so"

The advantage of working in education is that we have frequent safeguarding training (inset should have been a refresher today, as it happens, but Covid has postponed that). We have a printed, and relatively concise (for this sort of document) policy document, for which we have to sign that we have both received and read it. And the protocol for communicating concerns is crystal clear - who we go to first, their deputy if they are not available, or who else if the concern is actually about them. The safeguarding leads are named, rather that stated by position. In my situation there is not a scintilla of doubt about my responsibilities and what steps to take if an allegation is received, or if I have any concerns or doubts about a student's welfare.

It sounds as though there was no such clarity or established procedure at the BBC.

I doubt there was at many other places back then.

Possibly.

My mother was a field child care social worker at that time. I don't remember her expressing any concerns about particular organisations or areas of work. But of course she didn't discuss cases in any detail with me.

It sounds as though you have some knowledge or experience of the subject, perhaps?

Only to the extent my wife was county prosecutor in the eighties and handled quite a few child abuse, sexual assault and incest cases. Later on she ended up defending the same in private practice before becoming a specialist child care lawyer. So yes she has a fair bit of knowledge and experience of these matters and I've learnt a bit about it from her.