atypical_boro
Well-known member
Sort of starts off quite interesting, but then he goes right off on one….and sort of loses me when he starts talking about frequencies and what not.
Last edited:
David Icke on Jimmy Savile
- Thread starter atypical_boro
- Start date
TheYorkshireTerrier
Well-known member
Surprised this has had no replies yet.
Should probably put his name in the thread title…
Should probably put his name in the thread title…
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Good idea. I must have been in a quirky mood.
Lady Felicia
Well-known member
For feks sake, is this idiot still doing the rounds?
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
Crikey. You can go down rabbit holes online with this - Id rather not have wasted my time doing so.
youallloveit
Active member
Yet Icke worked at the BBC at the same time when Saville was at his peak and remained silent..
He's in Boro this month, pop along and see him!
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
A former colleague of mine and his brothers were raped by their father many, many years ago. None were aware that each other had been raped until one of them opened up to the other, they talked to the other brother who said the same happened to him. Once out if the bag more came forward from the extended family.
When the police were approached nothing was done initially, they tried to brush it under the carpet, which included a 5 hour drive by our chief constable to talk to one of the brothers in an attempt to hush it up.
It was taken up by a newspaper not controlled by the right, taken up by the local MP and was quashed by the Lord Chancellor (Hailsham). It's there in Hansard. The perpetrator has since died but he was protected by those at the top in the same way that Saville was.
The perpetrator, a freemason, has since died without having to face arrest or the courts.
Icke may be considered mad as a box of frogs but not everything he says is wrong.
When the police were approached nothing was done initially, they tried to brush it under the carpet, which included a 5 hour drive by our chief constable to talk to one of the brothers in an attempt to hush it up.
It was taken up by a newspaper not controlled by the right, taken up by the local MP and was quashed by the Lord Chancellor (Hailsham). It's there in Hansard. The perpetrator has since died but he was protected by those at the top in the same way that Saville was.
The perpetrator, a freemason, has since died without having to face arrest or the courts.
Icke may be considered mad as a box of frogs but not everything he says is wrong.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I don't know the answer to this, but its a pretty big organisation. Its not as if they all share a dressing room and know what everyone else is doing?
BoroMart
Well-known member
He might be right, almost certainly is. But types like him, take some already known truth and attach mysticism to it. They don't do the cause much good by adding a layer of bollox on top.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Yes, this is exactly what I meant in OP. He starts off saying stuff that is probably a little controversial but perfectly believable and maybe commendable, and then seems to use that as a vehicle to try and get his bolloxy nutcase views across as well, almost like people won't stop listening after the first bit. It won't work on most people.
I know people who worked there at the time
Some people did report it, but nothing seemed to done. It wasn’t exactly a secret there, or Stoke Mandeville.
He was protected.
youallloveit
Active member
It is a big organisation, which would make it so difficult to carry out his nefarious activity, so often.
The Coogan show was an absolute whitewash, made to try and extinguish the BBC from any blame.
He got away with it because he was allowed to.
John Lyndon outed him around 1980, he was ignored, the likes of Frank Skinner joking about how Saville liked little girls.
Numerous allegations which came to nothing, because he was protected by people in high places.
The press should have been all over it, like the recent Russell Brand circus, but they weren't, for reasons stared earlier.
Ranzten came out and said ' we all knew' and that she had tremendous guilt about it.
The rabbit hole is deep indeed, and few want to venture towards it.
These people all have agents, personal assistants, managers, colleagues, it's an industry that's impossible to hide in.
The BBC sports and news departments weren't located in the Antarctic.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
But are you saying Icke had evidence and chose not to report it? Because the very point he is making is that everyone had heard the rumours, but it wasn't so easy to nail him with hard evidence as he was mostly able to scare the victims enough to live with it. The BBC drama did show examples of people who reported him, and were ignored, wrongly. Not sure it was an attempted 'whitewash', as much as the Daily Mail would like to think though.
People did make jokes and make throwaway comments on telly, but the extent of it wasn't known at the time and largely based on the 'creepy' vibe he gave off. Skinner also joked about Matthew Kelly on air and was humiliated about it later by Kelly himself. Should we still suspect Kelly then? If something came out about him now, folk would say 'See, Frank Skinner knew'.
Not easy to do without hard evidence or formal complaints. If everyone who suffered at the hands of Savile had complained he wouldn't have got away with it all, but of course he chose his victims very carefully and made it virtually impossible for them to formally complain and be taken seriously, and it wasn't their fault that they couldn't/didn't.
Savile was extremely good at what he did. Everyone has the answers in hindsight.
Last edited:
Lady Felicia
Well-known member
I wouldn't cross the road to see him.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
How do you know he didn't report it, as with the case I highlighted and many others, reports have been brushed under the carpet by police and politicians to protect the hypocritical Daily Mail's pin up boys
indeedido
Well-known member
That really is a horrific tale Corcaigh. I totally believe you, but at the same time it seems unimaginable that a father would do that - and then be protected.
People really can be the most wonderful and yet also the most despicable things.
My Mam passed on monday - it hurts but is also a blessing, as she has been existing blind, with major dementia and bed ridden for the last six years in a nursing dementia home.
I realise just how lucky I have been to have had parents who only every showed me love and support.
I wish everyone was as fortunate as I was with them.
Muttley
Well-known member
I didn't watch the Coogan thing, so I won't judge it, but it seems that it has achieved nothing apart from stir up the same entrenched beliefs that people held before it was made/aired. So I stand by my initial feelings about it as "voyeuristic".
I think he "got away" with it because times were different and people didn't want to believe he was anything other than a "bit odd". And he wasn't the only one. Have a read of the Wiki page for Cyril Smith the former MP for Rochdale and you will get an inkling perhaps of the way things were done back then even when there was direct evidence from serving police officers. So I don't think it is fair to wholly blame the BBC or any employee thereof.
The whole issue of Child abuse was not discussed openly as it is today. You had the whole "rent boy" thing (remember the songs) it was sort of viewed as something that went on but not "round here". Arms distance. We, as kids, had stories about creeps in the park bushes and toilets and we were "street smart" I guess. It was largely, and with hindsight unfairly, linked to homosexuality which I think muddied the waters somewhat. There was definitely a link to something higher up which I suspect we will never find out about. There were rumours about members of the Aristocracy and even the Royal Family
Or they couldn't prove it and knew that allegations would not be investigated by a Police Force that may have been "influenced" not to?
atypical_boro
Well-known member
You're right, I don't, but he didn't say he did either. My guess is that he knew the rumours but didn't think anything could be done about it. Which is often the case with these professional nonces. Its only afterwards everyone can see how it could have been stopped.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Sorry to hear that fella. Sounds like you're dealing with it in the best way though.
newusername
Well-known member
Through work I met a researcher that has worked in the area of child sex abuse within organisations and they said the first people the abuser grooms are the people in control, the people with power to stop it. They cultivate relationships with them, warn them of the duplicitious nature of children & that they make things up for attention, so that when a child eventually complains the person in authority is faced with a 'he said she said' situation in which one of the parties is someone they like & respect and the complainent is a disgruntled child making a scene that they'd already been warned to expect.
Saville was like that but on steroids. He had a very high public profile was photographed with the PM, the Prince of Wales, Chief Constables, the head of the hospitals. If he turns up asking for the keys to the morgue, saying 'the bossman said it is ok', it would be very hard for a lowly member of staff to decline whatever misgivings they had.