Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Radicalised British jihadists

With the military success of Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) British politicians are increasingly concerned that young British Muslims are becoming radicalised. The atrocities carried out by ISIL in Iraq and Syria are clearly horrific, disgusting and barbaric. However there is no evidence that ISIL poses a threat to Britain. So the recent decision in parliament to bomb ISIL forces in Iraq is questionable as it drags us into a conflict which is none of our concern. The motivation for this decision appears to be revenge for the beheading of British and American hostages shown in the ISIL propaganda videos.

For decades politicians from the main political parties have been self righteously lecturing the British public on the supposed enrichment and diversity that open ended third world immigration has brought to this country. Through the promotion of multiculturalism this has contributed to the creation of innumerable Muslim enclaves in British cities that are isolated and separated from mainstream British society. Many of these 'British' Muslims repudiate any allegiance to this country and are openly hostile and contemptuous of what they see as our decadent Western lifestyles. Unfortunately, it has to be conceded that they may have a point given the sometimes degraded behaviour of certain elements in our society.

Many politicians seem to have a strange predilection for setting themselves up as Islamic scholars by pronouncing that ISIL (and the Taliban, al-Queda, Boko Haram etc) are 'perversions' of Islam. There are absolutely no grounds for this viewpoint which appears to be a consequence of decades of delusional self inflicted brainwashing that Islam and western society are somehow compatible. In fact ISIL is no more a perversion of Islam than Methodists or Seventh Day Adventists are perversions of Christianity. If sufficient adherents of a religion consider their own sect to be the only true interpretation of their faith who is to tell them that they are wrong?

Although ISIL itself poses no threat to Britain, separated Muslim communities here do constitute a serious threat to our country as they provide a haven for religious fanatics who want to destroy a society and way of life that they hate, and which is a continuing affront to their strict Islamic values. Such people may not be large in numbers as yet, but they could still create havoc if they chose to do so. It should be remembered that a few hundred IRA terrorists kept Northern Ireland and parts of the British mainland in thrall for decades. Radicalised British jihadists could do the same. Although Enoch Powell spelt out the madness and folly of large scale third world immigration, even he failed to spot the deadly danger which we could now all face from this quarter. This is what worries politicians who have yet to face up to the fact that this is a problem entirely of their own making.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

An answer to the West Lothian question

Since the Scots have decided to remain in the United Kingdom (for now) the West Lothian question has re-emerged as a subject of topical debate. The question raised is one of parliamentary fairness, namely, why should Scottish MPs be able to vote on purely English matters when English MPs (or even Scottish MPs) have no say on corresponding Scottish matters which have been devolved to the Scottish parliament.

Three main suggestions have been made to overcome this problem, none of them very convincing. Some have proposed the creation of a purely English parliament, deciding solely English matters. However this would fatally balkanise Britain, would lead to conflict between the two parliaments, and would undermine the historic traditional role of the British parliament. Another suggestion is to confine voting on English matters to English MPs in the British parliament. However this would create two classes of MPs and would lead to a conflict of power if the majority of English MPs belonged to a different political party to the one with an overall majority in the parliament. Since the English MPs would not be able to form a government to deliver a political programme, this suggestion appears both impractical and unworkable. The least bad option currently being touted would be to reduce the number of Scottish MPs drastically to about 30 or even lower. However this would again lead to two classes of MPs and would be unfair to Scottish MPs whose votes would count for less than English MPs, for example in instances such as the recent debate on bombing Iraq.

The heart of the problem is that unwisely both Scotland and Wales are currently treated more favourably and differently by having devolved powers not available to England. Thus the only answer to the West Lothian question is to abandon the devolution experiment, which is of relatively recent creation, and abolish both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. The argument put forward at the time of devolution was that granting devolved powers would nip in the bud any demands for independence. But the reverse has happened; devolution has only increased the sense of separation and in so doing fuelled demands for independence. The British government should take the initiative and provide genuine in/out referendums for both Scotland and Wales. The choice would be either complete independence or membership of the United Kingdom on the same terms as England, without any powers devolved to a separate parliament.

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Some dissident thoughts on Rotherham

The recent report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham has unleashed a storm of anger in the mainstream media. In truth no one emerges unscathed from this report not the police, not Rotherham council, not the local Muslim community, not the teenage girls, not even the report itself or the way it has been commented on in the media. One revealing factor is that concern over 'child sexual abuse' now appears to override concern over 'racism' in the politically correct establishment's scale of priorities.

It is clearly outrageous that fathers who raise concerns about their daughters to the police are themselves arrested, or that teenage girls are doused with petrol, threatened with violence and passed around as sexual playthings by gangs of men. This blog has been vociferous in its condemnation of the sheer madness of allowing unlimited open ended immigration of large numbers of people who, through cultural and racial differences, can never be properly assimilated into mainstream British society. However, this does not mean that the Muslim community should be vilified for the clearly criminal actions of a relatively small number of their men, as many in the media are now doing. There is nothing in the Muslim religion which justifies or condones the worst kind of behaviour contained in this report.

However, the report itself and its presentation in the mainstream media also raise serious concerns about objectivity, balance and fairness. Leaving aside the widespread uncritical acceptance of the curious arithmetic on how the number of 1400 victims has been calculated, the reporting has exaggerated the extent of the extreme events outlined in the previous paragraph by confusing and conflating them with what has mostly been occurring, consensual foolhardy sexual activity by teenage girls. It heaps blame on the local authority child protection managers without any critical examination of the behaviour, outlook and attitude of the teenage girls. What has been happening here is that teenage girls have exchanged sexual favours for drink, drugs, cigarettes, money, attention, affection (mostly bogus) and an invitation into a more glamorous adult world. According to numerous surveys a third of teenagers below the age of consent are sexually active. So these teenage girls are behaving no differently in this respect from large numbers of their peers.

As a result of this furore calls are now being made that it should be a criminal offence not to report suspicions of 'child sexual abuse'. However, this much overused term is now routinely assumed by the authorities to cover any sexual or 'grooming' activity by, or with, a person under the age of consent. If this is brought into law, and includes young teenagers, it will keep our legal system very busy indeed, require the building of vast number of prisons and tie down much police time at the expense of pursuing other crimes of greater concern to the public. It will also put an end to the 'Gillick competence' which allows doctors and nurses to provide contraceptives to teenage girls below the age of consent, without their parents' knowledge. This was a safeguard against unwanted pregnancy which liberals in the 1980s fought hard to retain against a legal challenge. They even produced a badge with the message 'under16's are people not property', a viewpoint that is not much heard these days. As the Rotherham report makes clear young teenagers are now assumed to be the property of the state, and can be controlled accordingly.

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

A history of body guilt

There have been recent media reports about the case of two young men who Northern Ireland police threatened to place on the sex offenders register for bathing on a beach in the nude. This incident illustrates a long standing tradition of the police who have always derived great satisfaction in harassing otherwise law abiding men with minor infractions of our burgeoning sex offences laws. Both the BBC and the Guardian have questioned the appropriateness of the police action in this case, a highly unusual move for these two 'progressive' media outlets who are normally supportive of men being on the receiving end of increasingly harsh jail sentences for an ever greater number of sex crimes, mostly introduced as a result of an agenda pursued by feminist and child protection activists. Despite its general sexual licentiousness, Britain is one of the most uptight countries in Europe in its fear of nudity. However, the European leader in this field is undoubtedly Ireland, with Northern Ireland the most backward of all in its repressed attitude towards the naturalness of the human body. This benighted outlook is shared by both the Catholic and Protestant communities in equal measure.

Currently public attitudes towards nudity are not particularly encouraging, but it has been a lot worse in the past. At the beginning of the 20th century in Britain both sexes were expected to cover virtually the whole of their body at all times when in public. This extended to both sea bathing and in swimming pools. There was of course no such pastime as sunbathing during this period. Any person seeking to change this outlook would likely be accused of trying to undermine public 'decency'.

Gradually during the 20th century matters started to loosen up. From the 1920s onwards women could reveal their legs. From the late 1930s men were able to go topless. From the 1950s women could wear bikinis which became more revealing in the 1960s and 1970s. From the 1980s onwards some women went topless on beaches at popular resorts such as Brighton and Bournemouth, although the practice never became widespread. Strangely, this increased permissiveness did not appear to destroy the fabric of society, disproving the fears of those promoting 'modesty'. It also demonstrated that there is no natural or normal level of body exposure, since this is culturally determined according to the prevailing outlook at any given time.

The past thirty years have unfortunately shown no real advance in body acceptance, and there have been some setbacks. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, probably as a response to feminism, the majority of women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools, although less so on beaches. During the past twenty years the number of men wearing long baggy 'shorts' both in swimming pools and on the beach has continued to increase. This change appears to have been prompted by the fear of being considered homosexual. The current position is that there is still a significant amount of body guilt amongst the general public. Mild exhibitionism of the kind described above is regarded as uncool, particularly for men and especially for younger men. This has not always been the case.

British society seems confused about the human body. The tabloids endlessly display near naked pictures of identikit models, their bodies invariably mutilated to pander to the porn fetish of their more degenerate male readers. Even the supposedly conservative Daily Mail, on its website, publishes each day photos of female celebrities on the beach with 'revealing' bikinis, usually with highly personal comments about their physical attributes. At the same time the tabloids get into hysterics over the 'sexualisation' of children, for instance the absurd furore over padded bras for girls. In truth, we live in a highly sexualised, but mixed up, society where casual fornication is seen as normal, but public nudity is considered disturbing.

Naturism is another topic which brings out the worst in the British media, and the public too. Whilst no longer condemned outright on 'decency' grounds it is often mocked as a strange eccentricity, which no 'normal' person would ever admit to, whilst also being the butt of tired jokes which are at best adolescent. This general immaturity contrasts with the more positive and grown up acceptance in many other European countries, particularly Germany.

Naturism in Britain has for decades been poorly represented by a body known as British Naturism (BN). It has achieved little except a few ghettoised naturist beaches, nearly all of which are virtually inaccessible. The best known are Brighton, which has been hijacked by the sizeable local gay community, and the much better Studland Bay in Dorset which is a model of what British beaches could aspire to. BN has always quite rightly promoted naturism as a healthy family activity. It has also rightly condemned any overt sexual activity at nudist beaches, events or clubs. However, BN's attempt to completely desexualise naturism, stressing instead the undoubted freedom, satisfaction and enjoyment of being without clothes, is both misguided and naive as it does not fully address human nature. It is natural and normal for people to be physically attracted to others and this attraction is enhanced if they are nude. This visual stimulus is usually stronger in men than in women, but is likely to exist to some extent in most people of both sexes. Slightly more controversially it is also normal (or should be) for people to be sensually aroused when nude or nearly nude in the company of others to whom they are attracted. Since the overwhelming majority are heterosexual this means in the company of the opposite sex. This sense of arousal is known as exhibitionism, and since it is normal it must be healthy. Therefore there is no need to apologise for it or for anyone to condemn it. For this reason BN's claim that naturism in not exhibitionist is unrealistic and damaging since it can prompt guilt in people over what is a natural, normal and healthy feeling. Although exhibitionism should be normal for both sexes, women are generally more comfortable with it than men, since they have been less culturally brainwashed against it. However, psychologists define exhibitionism as a sexual disorder. They seem to be particularly concerned about men who expose their genitals in public to unsuspecting females with the intention of shocking them, or to gain sexual satisfaction, or both. Regrettably, this clearly anti social and threatening behaviour has had the effect of branding those men who enjoying being without any, or with little, clothing in public as potentially deviant and possibly dangerous. On this matter a strange double standard exists. If a man catches sight of a naked woman he is a voyeur and thus a 'pervert'. However, if a woman sees a man without clothes he is an exhibitionist and thus also a 'pervert'.

So if it is the case that mild exhibitionism is normal, natural and healthy why is it that most of the public are not exhibitionist and society is generally disapproving? There are a number of reasons for this, the most basic being that most people are highly conformist and do not think too deeply about issues. They accept the prevailing ethos of their peer group with relatively little thought as to why they hold the views they do. Some people may privately not fully accept the prevailing viewpoint, but they keep quiet and do not openly challenge it for fear of being considered different, or even 'weird', by those they socialise with. Since most people in society are sheep-like it takes a brave person to openly defy the prevailing consensus. But because such people do fight for what they believe, often in the face of ridicule, abuse, condemnation and legal harassment, their achievements can benefit society. Two examples relevant to this blog are topless swimming costumes for men, and bikinis for women.

Until the late 1930s all men were expected to cover their chest when on the beach or in swimming pools. The reason for this was to preserve 'public decency', which the majority of people if asked would most likely have supported because it was the established custom for as long as they could remember. In the USA many men were fined for being topless and as a result a now largely forgotten campaign, the 'No Shirt Movement' was created. Through legal challenges, resolute action and persuasive arguments the fines were overturned and as a result men could go topless without fear of harassment from the authorities. Because the USA was a cultural trendsetter the practice spread to Britain. Within a very few years virtually all men started to wear swimming trunks and hardly anyone today considers this to be wrong or 'indecent'.

The bikini was created in 1946 and was named after Bikini atoll in the Pacific where an early atomic bomb had been tested. The French designer considered that his two piece women's swimsuit would be potentially explosive, and he was proved right since it predictably provoked the ire of the 'public decency' brigade. At the time such a costume was considered by the majority of British women to be completely unacceptable in a public place. A version, that was expected to cover the navel, was slowly taken up by women on the continent during the 1950s and gradually this spread to British beaches. By the 1960s, without any fanfare, the bikini had shrunk to expose the navel, and by the 1970s the briefest of bikinis was commonplace both on beaches and in swimming pools. Once again the fears of the 'decency' scaremongers were proved to have been unfounded. These two examples show that a relatively small number of determined individuals can be more in tune with people's real feelings than a submissive public are themselves. Although significant factors causing exhibitionism and naturism to be currently unfashionable are submission to peer pressure and cultural conformity, there are other issues militating against greater acceptance. Traditionally, the most vocal opponents of body acceptance were the Christian churches, which considered the unclad body to be fundamentally indecent and likely to give rise to the sin of lust. This viewpoint was particularly prevalent during the Victorian era which saw the introduction of voluminous swimming costumes. In earlier periods, men at least, were able to swim naked without harassment. The influence of the churches has been significantly reduced in recent decades with the rise of secular values. The notion that the nude human body is inherently 'indecent' is less openly stated these days although it has not gone away completely, and it is disturbing to note that legislation is still on the statute book using this term for which men are currently in jail.

Unfortunately, the gap caused by the loss of influence of the churches has been filled by a new secular religion comprising the cult of the celebrity and its associated idealised notions of bodily perfection. People not living up to this ideal (which includes most of us) become anxious about their perceived bodily imperfections. Because of this many women these days openly declare that they hate the way their bodies look, which previous generations would have accepted as perfectly normal. Thus if they are uncomfortable with their bodies they will be unwilling to reveal them in public.

Another group more openly promoting body guilt are the feminists. The more militant members of this movement are undoubtedly anti men and are keen to ferret out opportunities to exercise control over them. Once such method has been to claim that male admiration for the female body 'objectifies' women. Therefore women should cover themselves up to prevent this happening. This attitude, which reached its peak during the 1980s, may have caused the return to fashion of the one piece swimsuit during this period. With the rise of a more 'in your face' femininity typified by the Spice Girls in the mid 1990s this viewpoint has been in retreat but again has not completely gone away, and may now be undergoing a revival.

Another interest group which provokes trouble and paranoia is the child protection industry as exemplified by the Mumsnet brigade and so called 'charities' such as the NSPCC, which has now become an agent of the state. They are on the lookout for paedophiles around every corner and are happy to assume that nudity equates to a form of sexual deviancy which threatens their little ones. In fact naturism on the continent has demonstrated that children are very comfortable in a nude environment which includes adults. They become acquainted from an early age with the human body and it has no fear for them, unlike many of those who have led a more sheltered existence in this respect. These then are some of the wowsers who promote bodily guilt and paranoia to the detriment of natural, normal and healthy behaviour. Back in the 1970s some naturists predicted that swimwear would gradually fall out of use as it gradually became skimpier and eventually it would be discarded altogether. Sadly, this has not happened, the easy going 1970s have been replaced by the anxious 21st century. On a more positive note once a year hundreds of cyclists are allowed to parade in the nude through London and other towns in support of a liberal approved environmental cause. Hypocritically, they are widely cheered and supported by an amused watching British public, and even photographed in the company of the police. If a single cyclist tried this on there would be a very different outcome. There is clearly safety in numbers and having the right politically approved cause.

In the 1980s many women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools whilst for men 'speedo' style swimming briefs were still commonplace. Thus during that decade men demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace body freedom whilst swimming than women. This has now changed, many more women are now wearing bikinis, some very skimpy. On the other hand the large majority of men have taken to wearing long baggy shorts often below the knee. So currently, women are more likely than men to enjoy the freedom of wearing as little as currently possible whilst swimming or sunbathing. From a practical viewpoint for swimming there appears to be no particular advantage either way between one piece swimsuits for women and bikinis. From this it can be deduced that many women like to wear more revealing swimwear for its own sake. In other words they are exhibitionist. For men however, swimming in baggy shorts is far less practical than in swimming briefs as the water drag is much greater. For this reason they have never been worn in swimming competitions. From this it could be concluded that many men are suffering from body guilt. However, the real reason is more likely to be their fear of being considered homosexual since it is a commonly held, but false, view that speedos are more popular with the gay community.

On the beach bikinis never went out of fashion. If you are trying to acquire a tan they are more practical than a one piece swimsuit. A small number of women go topless on popular beaches, but the practice has never really taken off as much as it has on some continental beaches. For men long baggy shorts are just as prevalent as in swimming pools. Here the impracticality is compounded since they are less practical for sunbathing and are more uncomfortable when wet. Swimming costumes of whatever type are unnecessary for both swimming and sunbathing. They can more accurately be described as decency costumes since this is the only purpose they serve. Regrettably, in the current climate of conformity and orthodoxy they are here to stay, for the foreseeable future at least. So the public are denied the right to practice an enjoyable and harmless activity in an appropriate setting such as swimming and sunbathing

Friday, 20 June 2014

Where now for UKIP?

UKIP are to be congratulated on their strong showing in the euro elections, topping the poll with nearly 27% of the vote, pushing the Conservatives into third place. They also polled well in the Newark by election coming second, as they have done in several other by elections which they have fought. Some pundits are suggesting that UKIP are no more than a protest vote, or that they are just a one issue party. So it is important that in the coming year, before the general election, they present themselves to the electorate as a serious political party with attractive policies on a wide range of issues.

So what should these polices be? Firstly, of course, is withdrawal from the European Union and the European Court Of Human Rights, allowing us to reclaim our national sovereignty, return the country to parliamentary democracy and restore the right to run our own affairs as a nation. Secondly, there will need to be severe restrictions on immigration, particularly of unskilled labour which has prevented the lowest paid workers from increasing their living standards. This is the true reason for the 'cost of living crisis' about which we have heard so much recently. Thirdly, UKIP will need to promote more vigorously their policy of reintroducing grammar schools, since they will enable intelligent children from disadvantaged backgrounds to better themselves, both culturally and through enhanced employment opportunities.

The above appear the only policies to which UKIP are currently committed. It is to be hoped that in addition they will support the repeal of the so called equality laws, which in practice compel employers to discriminate in favour of vocal minorities, against their better judgement. Similarly there should be a speedy removal of recent "hate speech" legislation which is nothing more that a mechanism to stifle political debate, and which is incompatible with a nation founded on the liberty of the individual and free speech. There should also be an end to the obsession with meeting 'climate change' targets since they are based on nothing more than the leftist political hoax promoting non-existent global warming. UKIP should also distance themselves from the current nanny state outlook which attempts to micro manage citizens lifestyle choices on matters such as alcohol and supposedly unhealthy foods, which these days seems to include just about everything except vegetables. They should introduce marriage reform, by making divorce more difficult for couples with young children and end the meaningless yet pernicious 'marriage' between people of the same sex. Finally measures should be taken to reign in the campaign by strident feminists (who are unrepresentative of most women) to use the law to stigmatise all men as potential sex offenders, rapists and/or paedophiles.

Taken together these policies should attract a significant proportion of the electorate, to at least ensure that UKIP holds the balance of power after the next general election.

Saturday, 3 May 2014

Time to kill off the zombie party

A recent opinion poll has shown support for UKIP to be at 38%, almost double that of the Tories. This is enormously encouraging as it demonstrates that the UKIP bandwagon has finally begun to roll. The electorate has clearly become disenchanted with the main political parties whose views on most issues have become almost indistinguishable from one another. These regime parties compete by focussing on managerial competence, with all of them attempting to occupy the mythical centre ground.

UKIP are correct in claiming that they take votes from all the major parties. They can take protest votes from the Liberal Democrats, a party that is clearly part of the political establishment, as it has been for the last forty years, albeit without direct power until relatively recently. UKIP can tap into the concerns of traditional Labour supporters, who are increasing alienated by the promotion of the sectional interests of cultural minorities, and the encouragement of open ended immigration, which lowers wages and increases pressure on housing and public services. However, it is clear that UKIP takes the most votes from the Conservative party.

It is now difficult to understand what the purpose of the Conservative party is under David Cameron's leadership. It wants to keep Britain in the European Union despite the loss of sovereignty and the large influx of workers from Eastern Europe who depress wages amongst the lower skilled. It has failed to control immigration as promised. It is fully signed up to a politically correct agenda that is indistinguishable from Ken Livingstone's GLC which at the time was branded as extremist. It has failed to stand up for the institution of marriage, indeed it has demonstrated its contempt by introducing so called same sex marriage. It has failed to support the reintroduction of grammar schools, thereby preventing intelligent children from poorer families achieving their full potential. Finally it has embraced the delusional belief in the global warming hoax, which increases fuel costs for every household and puts our energy supply at risk with its dependence on unreliable sources of energy.

For all the above reasons the Conservative party is now an empty husk, filleted of all the qualities that made it conservative in the first place. It has become a zombie party and should be put out of its misery. In the coming Euro elections UKIP can deliver the coup de grace that will finally finish off the useless and unprincipled Tories. Pathetic attempts to smear UKIP are clearly backfiring. A convincing vote for UKIP may also render the Labour party's refusal to hold a referendum on EU membership untenable. All right minded people should thus vote for UKIP and reclaim our country.

Friday, 28 March 2014

Was Jimmy Savile really a beast?

The former DJ and national celebrity Sir Jimmy Savile died in October 2011. Tens of thousands of people turned out to watch his funeral procession in Leeds. He was hailed as the person who had raised tens of millions of pounds for charity, most particularly the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital. However, a year later he had become the most reviled man in British history. He was demonised as a paedophile who had sexually assaulted countless children and vulnerable people. Politicians and journalists of left, right and centre tripped over themselves in their eagerness to denounce this incarnation of evil. According to the police he had “groomed the nation in full sight”. In reality, the nation does indeed appear to have been groomed, not by Jimmy Savile but instead by a conspiracy of child protection racketeers.

The story began in the 1970s when a young boy, Meirion Jones, witnessed visits of Jimmy Savile to Duncroft School in Staines, Surrey. The boy’s aunt, Margaret Jones, was the headmistress of this approved school. At the time of Savile’s death Meirion Jones was a producer with the BBC Newsnight current affairs TV programme. For some years he had been in contact with former Duncroft pupils on the Friends Reunited website where he had picked up on chatter that Savile had sexually assaulted Duncroft girls during his visits. For some time he had wanted to expose what he considered to be the darker side of Savile, and within a few days of his death Jones was given the green light to put together an expose by Newsnight editor Peter Rippon.

Newsnight does not normally deal in celebrity revelations, but on this occasion Peter Rippon was persuaded that there was a public policy interest, as the former Duncroft pupils were claiming that Surrey Police had refused to investigate their claims of sexual assault because Savile was “too old and infirm.” One of the former pupils, known as Karin, was prepared to go on air with detailed revelations about how she had been sexually assaulted by Savile. Karin had already published an e-book which included veiled accusations against Savile. Peter Rippon was looking for corroboration from other Duncroft pupils (the BBC contacted 60 former pupils for evidence), but he was more concerned about getting confirmation that the police had ended their investigation because Savile was too old to be prosecuted. Eventually Surrey Police revealed that they had investigated the allegations against Savile but no further action was taken because the CPS had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. (It was subsequently discovered that the “too old and infirm” police letter was a forgery). On hearing this Peter Rippon decided that there was no longer any justification for going ahead with the expose. He also had some concerns about the credibility of Karin, and the apparent collusion between ex-Duncroft pupils on Friends Reunited. Meirion Jones strongly disagreed with this decision believing that Karin was a sufficiently credible witness to justify broadcasting her allegations. However, the decision of Peter Rippon prevailed and the Newsnight Savile feature was shelved.

The Surrey Police investigation took place during the 2007-9 period and covered three allegations. The first was that Savile had forced a Duncroft pupil to place her hand on his groin in the TV room, the second that Savile had kissed a choir girl visiting Stoke Mandeville hospital and put his tongue in her mouth, and the third that Savile had engaged in sexual activity with a pupil in a building known as Norman Lodge located in the grounds of Duncroft. Savile denied all the allegations. In the case of the Norman Lodge incident the police accepted that even if the allegation was true the girl was over 16 and the activity was consensual so no offence had been committed. Savile however said that he had never set foot in Norman Lodge and was unaware of its existence. The choir girl at Stoke Mandeville was the sister of one of the Duncroft girls. She refused to co-operate with the police investigation. Savile denied that the incident had ever taken place pointing out that in any case such behaviour would be reckless with so many witnesses. With regard to the TV room allegation Savile denied that this had ever happened, again pointing out that it would have been impossible with so many witnesses present. The complainant in this case was not the ex-pupil alleged to have been the victim, who did not want any police action, but instead an ex-Duncroft pupil who claimed to have witnessed the event. Margaret Jones, the headmistress confirmed that neither she, nor any of her staff, had received any complaints about Savile arising from his visits. Ten former Duncroft residents were also contacted by Surrey police but none witnessed anything untoward during his visits. Savile was interviewed under caution about the allegations by two police officers. In the interview he is confident and relaxed, stating he had nothing to hide fully co-operating with the officers, and repeatedly claiming that it would have been impossible to carry out the acts he was accused of as there were always 30-40 other people present. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Savile comes across as credible and truthful in this interview. The CPS was clearly correct in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to back up the allegations.

During the assembly of the Newsnight feature Meirion Jones hired as a consultant Mark Williams-Thomas, who promotes himself as a child protection expert. Williams-Thomas agreed with Meirion Jones that the allegations against Savile were credible and he set about gathering the material that would be shown in the ITV Exposure programme broadcast in October 2012. He was provided with details of the former Duncroft pupils and others who had contacted Meirion Jones. In the Exposure programme seven witnesses made allegations against Savile namely Sue Thompson, a former BBC newsroom assistant, Wilfred De’Ath, a former BBC producer, Sarah the Stoke Mandeville choir girl, Val and Angie from Top of the Pops, and two former Duncroft pupils, Fiona and Charlotte. Some others were featured but they were not witnesses and were probably only included to undermine the reputation of Savile. Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile was probably the most deceitful, dishonest and disreputable programme ever to have been broadcast by a mainstream TV company. Two of the witnesses appear to be completely fictitious, four more appear to be voicing demonstrable fabrications and one was an allegation already investigated by Surrey police. It is worth examining in detail how this programme was constructed and why, from beginning to end, it lacks any credibility or honesty

First up was a former BBC newsroom assistant Sue Thompson who claimed that she stumbled upon Savile in a dressing room at BBC Leeds with what she thought was a 14 year old girl on his knee whom he was kissing. The programme was Yorkshire Speakeasy of 10 February 1978 fronted by Jimmy Savile. From Sue Thompson’s viewpoint, through the opened door, Savile was seen right side on, with the girl on his knee, who thus must have had her back to the door since “Savile had his left arm up her skirt”. Yet in answer to a later question from Williams-Thomas, Sue Thompson states that she could “still see the girl’s face”. This would be impossible, the girl cannot be both facing, and have her back to the door, at the same time (gentlemen you can try this experiment at home with your wife on your knee). Sue Thompson also mentioned that she spoke to a male colleague about the incident but he “just laughed”, although later (and also in an email to Meiron Jones) she claims she never had to courage to mention the incident because of Savile’s fame.

Sue Thompson was discovered by Williams-Thomas because she had sent an email that Meirion Jones received about this alleged incident. What was omitted from the programme, but mentioned in the email, was that this girl was blind. It is difficult to explain how this blind girl managed to find her way to Savile’s dressing room and return to her party without anybody noticing. This girl has never been traced, and there is no record that she ever mentioned the incident to those who accompanied her. The male colleague of Sue Thompson has never been contacted for corroboration. It must be asked why Savile would take this kind of risk with a young teenager when anyone could enter his dressing room. The incident could have lasted no longer than a few seconds yet Sue Thompson is apparently able to give a detailed, albeit contradictory account, of an event that occurred 35 years earlier. Williams-Thomas claimed that as records were destroyed it would not be possible to identify the girl, but failed to mention that he had already discovered the date of the programme, and as the girl was blind identification would be a lot easier. The producer of Yorkshire Speakeasy, Nick Vaughan-Barratt, in evidence to the Pollard Review, stated that he had never heard any rumours or complaints about Savile when he worked with him in Leeds during the period 1971-1980. All the evidence suggests that this testimony must be treated with extreme caution.

The next witness was the former BBC producer Wilfred De’ath who claimed he met up with Savile in a Chinese restaurant in central London with a girl of about 12 years old who he had met at a recording of Top of the Pops the previous day. De’ath also claimed that he phoned Savile at The Mascot Hotel in London the following day and Savile volunteered the information that he was in bed with the same 12 year old girl. According to De’ath these events took place in 1965. However at that time Top of the Pops was recorded in Manchester, not London. Savile did appear on De’ath’s radio programme Teen Scene in 1965 but that was also recorded in Manchester. Although Jimmy Savile would have visited London at that time for his Radio Luxembourg radio show he would have had no occasion to meet up with De’ath who worked for the BBC. The programme did fairly point out that De’ath had been imprisoned for fraud, so he was clearly not the most reliable of witnesses. De’ath came to the attention of Exposure through an item in The Oldie published in early 2012 in which he anonymously made the claims that were subsequently repeated in the Exposure programme. Given that it was clearly impossible for the incidents he described to have taken place the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are a complete invention on the part of De’ath.

We now come to the most outrageous part of the Exposure programme, the testimony of Val and Angie. Val claimed to be 15 in 1969 when she was introduced to Savile and she met up with him several times during recordings of Top of the Pops, when she alleged they engaged in sexual activity in his dressing room and his camper van parked outside Kings Cross station. Val claimed that the relationship with Savile lasted until 1974.and that she became overawed by his celebrity status and through meeting many famous people. Angie claimed that she met Savile for the first time at Radio Luxembourg in 1968. She alleged that she had sexual intercourse with him when she was still 15 years old, and claimed to have been swept away by his celebrity status. To support her testimony viewers were shown a photo of Savile with a blurred out image of Angie outside Radio Luxembourg’s London office, plus other photos of Savile in indoor settings claimed to be from Angie’s “private photos”, together with an inscription on Savile’s biography allegedly given to her in 1974.

There is no evidence that Val and Angie ever existed, or how the producers came to discover them. On Twitter Williams-Thomas claims to have “identified a separate group of women who got to know Savile through visiting Top of the Pops.” It is not known how he found “this group of women” nearly 45 years after the events. Williams-Thomas declares that “what I won’t do is give away exactly how I tracked down the women and witnesses because this would expose the very people I said I would protect.” In other words he is refusing point blank to provide evidence to anybody who might challenge their existence. The faces of Val and Angie are never shown, only back views after they had been provided with wigs. Their comments are voiced over. Both claim to have had a five year relationship with Savile, so it is highly improbable that this could have been kept a secret from their relatives, the supposed reason for the disguise. As teenagers it is difficult to believe that they would not have been eager to boast about their relationship with a national celebrity. It is also difficult to accept that, after such a length of time, both women would coincidently be so fearful to reveal their identities that they had to resort to wigs and a voiceover.

At the time that Val and Angie were supposedly having a relationship with Savile he was living in Leeds. He only appears to have come to London once a month to record Top of the Pops, and BBC invoices show that he came by train. According to a Daily Mail article published on 3 December 2011 during these visits to London in 1968 and 1969 he was accompanied by his regular Leeds girlfriend Sue Hymns and they both stayed together in hotels. The photo taken outside the Radio Luxembourg office could have been taken no later than June 1967 when he left the station to join Radio One in 1968. The inscription in the biography would have been from a copy that he handed out to the Duncroft girls when he visited the school during the 1974 period. Angie mentions Savile wearing a shell suit in 1969 but neither Savile (nor anyone else) wore such a garment in 1969. The BBC found no evidence in their records of allegation of misconduct against Savile. In an interview for the Daily Mail Margaret Jones stated that she had been advised that four Duncroft pupils would appear in the Exposure programme, but only two were shown as such. Could Val and Angie be ex Duncroft pupils in disguise? The inescapable conclusion, given the complete lack of evidence of their existence, is that Val and Angie appear to be a fabrication, included to both discredit the BBC and to fraudulently bolster the case against Savile.

The next witness was Sarah, the choir girl who it was alleged that Savile put his tongue in her mouth when she approached him at Stoke Mandeville hospital in 1973. It is worth remembering that she is the sister of one a former Duncroft pupil. It is most likely that she actually played no part in the programme since she had already refused to cooperate with the police. Her testimony was voiced over and the nature of the complaint would have been provided to Williams-Thomas by her Duncroft sister. In the programme Sarah said she wrote to Savile telling him that she was in a choir that would be performing at Stoke Mandeville hospital. She went on to claim that Savile phoned her at home several times to say he would be in the audience. After the show Sarah ran up to him as she was about to enter the coach for home to let him know that she was the girl who had written to him. Savile then put his tongue in her mouth which shocked her. In the programme Sarah claimed that Savile’s telephone calls were evidence that he was grooming her. This must be a very strange form of “grooming” since it overlooks the fact that it was Sarah who wrote to Savile in the first place and it was she who ran up to him at the coach. From her own account he appears not to have made any contact with her during the show. There was no mention in the programme that she was part of the Surrey police investigation and that she refused to co-operate with it. The details given to Surrey Police were very different to the account on Exposure, there being no reference to Savile ringing her home or her writing to him. It must be concluded that the inclusion of this witness was an attempt to mislead the viewers. There was also a failure to mention that Savile had denied this allegation when interviewed by Surrey Police.

The final witnesses were two former Duncroft pupils Fiona and Charlotte who both appeared as themselves without disguise. Charlotte claimed that Savile assaulted her in his caravan during the recording of a radio show. However, such an assault would have taken place in front of the producer and sound engineer, together with the two teachers who were supposed to have pulled Charlotte outside the caravan after she complained, plus several other pupils who were also described as being present. She then claims to have been placed in an isolation unit for “two or three days”. There is nothing in the school records to confirm this and such action would have been contrary to the school’s policy on isolation which in any case required approval by the headmistress and agreement from the school’s psychiatrist. Margaret Jones, the headmistress, denies any knowledge of this event.

Fiona alleged that at the age of 14 Savile carried out various sex acts in the back of his Rolls-Royce in a car park whilst the other girls were sitting at tables having a picnic. She claims that she would never have been believed despite several other girls being in the vicinity who could act as witnesses. Fiona goes on to claim that Savile assaulted her in a dressing room at BBC Television Centre after the recording of the Clunk-Click TV programme. This appears impossible as Duncroft pupils were always accompanied and strictly supervised by a member of staff during visits to the show, and according to reports the programme was actually recorded at the BBC Theatre in Shepherds Bush. However Fiona could not have been at Duncroft in April 1974 when Clunk Click was last broadcast. During the Exposure programme there is a shot of Savile, Fiona and another girl in a photo in Fiona’s photograph album. This photo later appeared in the Daily Mail described as “Duncroft summer fete June 1979”. No girl was ever at Duncroft for five years until they reached 19, so Fiona’s visits to Clunk Click must be fiction. It should be remembered that neither Fiona nor Charlotte made their allegations to the police when Savile was alive despite being contacted by Surrey police during their investigation. Moreover, they never raised the matter with school staff at the time, and neither were willing to appear on BBC Newnight to corroborate Karin’s testimony. The conclusion can only be reached that the testimonies of Fiona and Charlotte appear to be fabrications, probably scripted from beginning to end, with the sole intention of destroying the reputation of Jimmy Savile.

Despite all the falsehoods the programme created a sensation when broadcast. Not a single journalist from the mainstream media questioned the veracity of the allegations, taking them on trust, probably due to the involvement of the police and the support of the NSPCC. Instead media attention focused on whether the BBC had pulled the Newsnight story to protect the BBC1 Christmas Savile tribute programmes, and the ongoing furore eventually resulted in the resignation of the BBC director-general.

Within days Operation Yewtree began investigations into several aging celebrities, some of whom have been charged with sexual offences dating back over many decades. The NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police jointly produced the report Giving Victims A Voice which accepted as factual claims that several hundred people had been sexually assaulted by Savile. The title says it all, as all the accusers are openly described as victims, despite no investigation of their claims ever having been carried out. Both the Exposure TV programme and the Yewtree investigation were part of an ongoing feminist agenda, sponsored by children’s charities, to demonise men and portray women and children as their helpless victims. It must have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

The Exposure programme ended with Esther Rantzen tearfully proclaiming that the jury was no longer out on Savile as she gullibly swallowed the account she had just been presented with. What she failed to see about the Exposure programme was that it provided seven witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence, with no defence counsel cross-examination, just Mark Williams-Thomas apparently spoon-feeding the witnesses with his scripted responses. During the programme we saw no children or any evidence of paedophilia. Just some middle aged women who now regret how free and easy they were with their sexual favours with a national celebrity when they were teenagers. The result of this charade is that hundreds of women have now come out of the woodwork claiming that they were “abused” by a safely dead TV star who must have met hundreds of thousands of people during his lifetime. They know they will face little challenge to their allegations, aided and abetted by a charity which promotes the belief that accusers would never lie, a corrupted police leadership that fails to question this viewpoint, a compliant media that does nothing to challenge these assumptions and lawyers who will provide these likely compensation chasers with all the legal and professional assistance they require.

The above summary of events has been compiled with the help of information provided from the blogs of Anna Raccoon, Jim Cannot Fix This, Sally Stevens, Justice for Jimmy Savile and Hardcastle who, between them, have painstakingly carried out a thorough investigation into the ITV Exposure programme. They are to be congratulated for their tenacity in bringing the truth to light. In contrast the mainstream media has credulously swallowed the apparent falsehoods spun by Williams-Thomas, without carrying out any checking or investigation whatsoever.