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.