THE SAVILE SILENCE NETWORK

ALL QUIET

Chain of Fools or House of Cowards?

I think a house of cowards is going to come tumbling down; 

Those who knew of Mr Savile's proclivities, witnessed them, failed to act and did nothing because those young women and children Mr Savile preyed upon were  not valued and objectified as "scruffy girls" - less value, damaged goods, easy picking, nobody interested enough to believe them and responsible for their "fate" because of their own behaviour, not deserving of concern or care.  In fact many were impressionable young people dazzled by celebrity and appearing on TV; this long before social media, the internet and easier access to the “stars”.  Others in hospital or mental health and institutional child care settings were a captive audience for an abuse of trust at a level and frequency that is yet to emerge as the web of silence unravels.

Mr Savile is dead, unable to be brought to account for his alleged proclivities and currently a useful vessel for anger, revulsion and blame; no matter how we feel about Mr Savile, there is no process in law at our disposal to try him in absentia or post mortem or provide him with the opportunity to engage counsel for his defence.   Accordingly, his behaviour and the antecedents which supported it must become the forensic evidence to bring those across and between institutions to be made accountable for their failure to act with decency and with a duty of care.

Those who fawned over,  gave, awarded and pressed upon  Mr Savile unlimited, unquestioned,  power and authority while overlooking the vetting required to be given an “appropriate adult” determination while it appears   knowing that his behaviour was at the very least questionable, are guilty of enabling his behaviour and sense of power to corrupt without fear of the consequences. 

 

If those with authority in the BBC in hospitals, in healthcare settings in mental institutions in care homes didn't challenge Mr Savile knowing of the risk he presented to the vulnerable, then they are guilty of collusion and of abusing the trust placed in their position; Those who deny the rights of others by saying nothing when they know those rights have been abused, are the “silent partners” of predators.

If there was a "trade-off" between his fund raising and sexually aggressive behaviour the cost has been borne by the victims who were in the care of those benefiting institutions.   They are not just victims of Mr Savile they are victims of institutional negligence and failure to protect children and young people and of course the desire to fill their charity boxes to carry out their good work.  It then seems that silence is indeed golden,  if you are not a victim of that silence. 

 

Institutions, must account for their failing to protect the vulnerable from a  known predator  and  must account for the collusion and the trade-off  for  both funds and viewing figures, and also for any personal gain financial or otherwise individuals working in or connected with these institutions derived from their connection in creating  pathways for Mr Savile and any others involved in his proclivities to sexually abuse children, vulnerable young people and others.  

Jimmy very definitely held all the cowards. 

The sound of Institutional silence

I don't propose to speculate on the alleged sexually aggressive behaviour of a deceased television presenter, marathon runner and champion of charities.  Clearly there isn't much speaking well of the dead right now as alleged victims, witnesses and others populate the airwaves and column inches; and some of the living might well be feeling a tad uncomfortable - guilty by association is a strong flavour.

Guilty by institutional blind eye turning might just turn out to be a dirty rotten stink that no amount of bleach, cleaning and steaming the carpets in the corridors of the BBC will clear.

If Top of the Pops was in fact 'Pick of the Tots' for a sexual predator, questions need to be asked not least about how young people  attending the recordings of the programme were  'picked' and how they were chaperoned while at these recordings.

What child protection policies and procedures did the BBC have in place and just how did presenters (if they in fact did) invite young people into their dressing rooms?  Were presenters and other employees ever given any rules on behaviour regarding minors?

Where there ever any complaints made by young people to BBC personnel or to the police? If yes, how were these investigated?

Where there ever any complaints made by employees or associates of the BBC regarding the conduct of TOTP presenters? if yes how were these investigated? 

Did the police ever interview BBC personnel regarding any allegations or concerns regarding the behaviour of TOTP presenters? 

If there was knowledge  "open secret' about alleged predatory behaviour of TOTP presenters, how high up the chain if command did this go?  Who was aware of the allegations or the rumours and where did any recording of concerns and actions go?

Was any TOTP presenter, production team member or any BBC employee or associate ever interviewed regarding allegations?

Was there ever a whistleblower or whistleblowers? If so was any action taken?

Is there any evidence of payments made to alleged victims or BBC 
employees or associates to prevent legal/criminal proceedings  or buy silence?


Is there any evidence of  collusion among a number of key individuals to "enable" predatory behaviour and or to cover it up?

Is there any evidence of a paedophile "ring" or multiple abuses of vulnerable children by multiple adults?

Clearly, the BBC has a lot to think about and ultimately a lot to answer - even providing the conditions which enable adults  to have unsupervised access to children and young people  without those adults being screened as to the appropriateness  of such contact, is totally wrong, unconscionable in fact.

The BBC  is proud of its investigative journalism, leaving no stone unturned in exposing corruption in all its guises. Perhaps it should examine its own conduct - whilst the named individual cannot be called to challenge his accusers, there are many questions for the BBC to answer that can't be buried and may very well haunt it for years.  

Meeting post

Now I don't mean to be cynical
But the advice I give to others in spoonfuls of positivity
whilst not quite clinical
To me  there is not a wisp of recipricrocity
 Charity does not begin on this home page
And I find myself in a sea of animosity
In an over worked under played kind of rage
Not I may add at the insitution
As I am the victim of my own excess
And the master of my own absolution
The creator of this fine mess
What I need is a personal revolution
For the record
Or a similar veneer
Create my own accord
Be self sincere
Slow down, back up relax
Learn to listen to my inner ear
Give my self some personal voice
Remove that  sense  of fail by fear
I really have to make the choice and not keep faking
That all is fine despite the stresses and  turmoils
And understand that if it all about giving
There is nothing left for the taking
No perfect solutions just the spoils

Blog a Job day

I haven't blogged for a long time; thinking about it, I blame the IPad and other frippery thathas distracted me from putting fingers to the computer keyboard. I had started with the idea that I would spend 30 minutes of my lunchtime writing about things that came to my mind.  

I had set up the blog here after deciding that MySpace was not my space any longer after blogging there for over three years - I kept the blogs and looking back they document the highs, lows and middles of my life, the funny bits and the more serious side to me.  I have kept in touch with the wonderful people I met via MySpace and added more along the way via FaceBook (which I despair of but keep a work front and a me warts and all under a exhumed name - dead to the world but with the wit not to stiffen.

The lunch time blogging idea didn't work; ostensibly because in the world of the over-worked (well maybe juggling act)  me in the not for profit sector there is no such thing as a free lunch break.  In fact that space between 12.30pm and 1.30pm is often taken up with trying to start or finish (usually both) stuff in between jamming a slice of toast or a banana in the old pie-hole and or depending on the kindness of colleagues to bring sustenance in the form of tea and whatever they happen to have that I may happen to eat.  I call that happen-chance others might call it food for thoughtless..  

Somedays I am good and have healthy delights such as dried fruit and hummus but left to my own devices, it tends to be something borrowed, something toasted and something that doesn't require me to al but momentarily lift my gaze from whatever is on the screen in front of me or miss the ping of the next email,.  Speaking of those tantalising morsels of fear and loathing  which I just have to open even though the little notification tells me who it is from and the subject line. I confess sometimes I leave them marked as unread as it is my only aide memoire that my inner goldfish has , the bold typeface helps my plan, do check act, act.

 My concentration only wavers as I glance at my phone to ensure synchronised pinging, I have a new android phone and getting to grips with it involves the anxiety trail which comes from not trusting it to do what the old blackberry did.  It is performing well and doesn't seem to suffer from the egg-bound egg-timer that plagued that bold little number I trusted to look after my diary and away from the desk emails. 

Anyway, why am I back?  Ego of course.  Well something like that, one of my twitterati had a decko at my blog and liked it. Accordingly, I feel that I must muster my bluster and end this blog-jam.