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.