The Dame Janet Smith whitewash

After the scandal about Savile ‘burst into the open’ the BBC set up an inquiry into itself. The BBC appointed senior High Court Judge Dame Janet Smith to conduct the inquiry.

Dame Janet Smith is a High Court judge. She has already conducted an other important inquiry (into the mass murderer Harold Shipman). She is a Dame – the female equivalent of a Knighthood.

Her inquiry found that Savile committed abuse and that opportunities were missed to stop him. No. Really? She found that senior management did not know and could not have known about this endless abuse taking place on their premises. This, of course, was the key finding of the inquiry and why it was set up. This means that a charge of corporate negligence against the BBC is now unlikely. The BBC paid for a whitewash while pretending to be soul-searching. How unlike a UK public sector body.

This finding of senior management innocence is wholly implausible.

Recall how the BBC scuppered a NewsNight report into Savile after his death. [1] Recall that after his death senior managers exchanged emails talking about Savile’s “dark side” and “the truth about Saville”. [2] And just think about it – ‘rumours’ were swirling around Savile. Such that after his death one BBC investigative reporter after another had to line up and explain why they hadn’t done anything about it. [3] As one former BBC entertainer commented it is simply inherently unlikely that senior management had not heard these rumours. [4]

But the Dame Janet Smith inquiry whitewashes all this.

These British establishment inquiries operate according to a template. The template is: the inquiry can find that wrongs were committed by officials. It can make even quite scathing criticisms of these officials – though typically no one individual is named. But it has to exonerate the top echelons of the establishment. It can then happily conclude that lessons need to be learned and the people to provide management oversight of creating the new policies and procedures are.. the same top management who were in charge when the wrongdoing took place.

The people at the top of the BBC, for example members of the BBC Trust, who will be relieved (but not surprised) by Dame Janet Smith’s finding that the buck stopped at a middle-management level belong to the club of a few thousand people in the UK who are sometimes known as the ‘great and the good’ – people who run things, chair inquiries, are always ready to help out, and who are in line for medals and honours. The same small network of which Dame Janet Smith herself is a member. The ‘great and the good’, not surprisingly, act like a kind of mafia. No doubt there is their own omerta.

And this is why you know that nothing has really changed.

Now. If the BBC had really wanted the truth about Savile to come out they could have set up an inquiry run by, say, an investigative journalist, a good human rights lawyer and two sharp young barristers. Why didn’t they?




3.; Also see:



To be accused is to be guilty

In the new world of ‘Safeguarding’ the authorities – and those who like to align themselves with power – take the line that to be accused of child abuse is to be guilty.

Lord Bramhall, a distinguished military figure, aged 92 was accused by the obvious phantasist ‘Nick’ of child abuse. A lengthy investigation was only recently dropped. As reported in theGuardian, Lord Bramhall was quite witty about it:

Bramall said questioning over whether he had attended pool parties had veered into absurd territory when an officer asked him whether he could swim. He said: ȼWell, I said, yes I can swim, and I saw his face light up: Ah, so you can swim, you must be halfway to a sex pool party.

Notice how the Guardian follows the trend. Even though there is clearly no case for Lord Bramhall to answer the story is peppered with hints that he might be guilty. He was interviewed under ”criminal caution”. And then this sentence:

In a separate allegation against Bramall, the man claimed he was raped and indecently assaulted by the peer between 1976 and 1984 at a military base in the West Country.

is an attempt to create the impression that there are other complainants than the obvious phantasist ”Nick”. But this is not the case. These claims too originate from ”Nick”. So. This is it. Absurd and totally implausible sexual phantasies translate into long-drawn out police inquiries with the police announcing in advance that the allegations are ”credible and true”. In the end a grudging admission by the police that there is nothing here – but still presented in a way as to leave a lingering doubt. And some papers – the Guardian for example – promote the idea that to be accused is to be guilty.

The purpose of all this to Safeguard the police and authorities from the taint of association with child sexual abuse – after it emerged in public from the 90”s onwards that the police and the authorities were absolutely complicit in child sexual abuse at every level – from tolerating abuse in childrens” homes to covering up the offences of people like Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville.

Update 6/12/16

This is a brief summary of the Operation Midland fiasco in the Telegraph. Calls for an apology for Lord Bramhall are unlikely to get very far. The golden rule practised by all UK local authorities and public bodies is ”lie and lie and lie until presented with absolutely irrefutable evidence. Then say that someone will be sent for re-training.” If they don”t have to apologize they won’t. In the UK ”public servants” – with some exceptions at senior levels in the civil service -serve exclusively themselves.

Pants propaganda (2)

This is a report about a member of the Labour shadow cabinet who is calling for young people to be ‘taught about sex abuse’ from the age of 5.

Sarah Champion is a menace to the welfare of young people. She should be locked up.

Ms Champion has 100% bought into the NSPCC’s disturbing ‘underpants rule’. She is reported as saying:

You are not teaching them about sex. It is teaching children what’s in their pants is private to them and if anyone tells you otherwise, you need to tell someone about it. If your uncle is telling you he is doing this because he loves you and it is your little secret, how are you as a six-year-old meant to know that is not appropriate behaviour

This is the standard nonsense that these disturbed people trot out.

The people who want to teach 5 year olds the details of what a sexual molestation means are depraved. They think in

Safeguarding: promoting paedophilia.

Previously sex with children was unthinkable. The vast majority of people never thought about it. A few paedophiles operated – in childrens’ homes, prep-schools, foster care etc.

Now; anyone working with young people is enjoined to think about sex all the time. Sex with young people is pushed to the forefront of everything. Only – just remember not to actually do it. Paedophiles still operate and are now indistinguishable from those who promote and those who fully accept “Child Protection”. It is the same mentality.

Some paedophiles no doubt are put off by the increased risk of being caught. No doubt there are a few cases of convicted child molesters being prevented from getting work with young people by the barring lists. As well as plenty of people with minor criminal records who would pose no threat to young people. (Actually the barring lists are a very good and reasonable idea. They existed long before “Safeguarding”. But somehow this has been deliberately tangled up with the criminal records check – which is something else again. The government does this by making the way to check the barring lists go through the criminal records check system even though there is in most cases no law requiring a criminal records check). On the other hand the whole culture and atmosphere is poisoned. Sex is everywhere. All young people are taught to think of themselves as sex objects and to view all adults (apart from, guess who, social workers and NSPCC officials) as potential perverts. And indeed some people who would not have molested young people otherwise no doubt are given ideas and try it…

This could only happened in a culture which is degenerate and in which sex has become a commodity. A society in which all decent boundaries around sex are dissolved.