"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones"
to quote Lord Tebbit in one of the few things said on the subject that that doesn't have a whiff of witchburner's hysteria.
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA much prefers a simple story of goodies and baddies to the complexities of real life. Also, not everything published is true. When the press ganged up on David Mellor with a story about him having an affair while wearing a Chelsea strip it was later said "the true bits weren't interesting and the interesting bits weren't true".
That this famous 1970s disc jockey had sex with an inordinate number of consenting girls below the age of consent and that he made little attempt to conceal it seems beyond dispute. That he also did an immense amount of genuine work for charity. not just raising £40 million pounds but also doing very useful work that the authorities simply weren't able to, is also beyond dispute.
How much his motivation for the latter was getting access to young women, pure altruism, or the desire of an ageing celebrity to remain in the limelight is unprovable. With the exception of George Washington, who could not tell a lie, how many have motivations beyond question?
Clearly anybody interested in knowing at the BBC would have known. And as with most scandals that come out (and presumably more that don't). Fleet Street is full of people saying they knew all along.
The notorious British laws of libel matter here and the legal maxim is that the dead can't sue. So Savile became fair game as soon as he died. Once the media hunted for their own scoops. Now they run in packs after carrion.
If you google "high profile soap star" + BBC + Savile you will see no name. But it can hardly be coincidence that so many different parts of the media have used that exact phrase. Clearly they all know who they are talking about, but they are waiting till he is dead.
Compare this with the North Wales child care scandal, between 1974 and 1990. With massive abuse in dozens of homes, in which a whole range of "the great and good" were named, a report in 1990 seemed to tie up the thirty per cent of the case they were asked to investigate. That one is now unravelling.
Then we have the Kincora Boys Home in Northern Ireland where it is alleged by Private Eye, high-ranking members of the Whitehall Civil Service and senior officers of the UK military were involved in the sexual abuse of boys. But not mentioned by the BBC or rest of the British press.
Or the more recent Rochdale case where the "professional carers" and apparently the police, decided the girls had made a "lifestyle choice".
But bigger than any individual is the fact that, as David Cameron told parliament "While those in the care system account for just one per cent of children, a quarter of those in prison were in care as children."
Similar figures apply to the numbers of illiterates, drug addicts, alcoholics and just about every measure of human failure.
All beneficiaries of our "professional carers". We wouldn't treat dogs as our "care " system treats nearly 100,000 children (and rising).
Yet, as Christopher Booker, and he alone in the British media, has been trying to report for years, at least tens of thousands of decent chidren, with loving parents have been seized by "social workers". Children damned to the abuse and hell of "care"; not allowed to testify in the courts which damn them; hidden from public view by the decision of these same "courts" that the press must censor any reporting; None of this habeus corpus stuff for kids.
This scandal has become so outrageous that the governments of India and Slovenia are taking legal action against our own to defend the human rights of kids here.
After all, the purpose of social work is to pay government employees not the nominal one of helping kids.
But if this is how our government treats children in Britain how about overseas?
Kathryn Bolkovac, working for the British controlled High Commission in Bosnia was fired because she had raised objections to western officials of that entity buying girls, as young as 11, from our freedom and democracy loving Moslem hirelings there, to keep as sex slaves. In a British court she charged her employers with unfair dismissal and won, but fortunately for her employers, this was not considered newsworthy by our broadcasters and following their lead, almost all of our press.
And then a few years later we occupied Kosovo where, in flagrant breach of the occupation agreement we appointed the KLA as police. Among numerous atrocities our "police" were assisted in was, according to Major Plummer, of the Royal Greenjackets, that what must amount over time to thousands of children, mostly but not all, girls being kidnapped and sold to brothels both in Kosovo and across the western countries.
It would be little short of treason to hide this from seniors so we must assume that this and worse was done with the full knowledge and support of everybody in the line of command up to and including Mr Blair. The BBC and other reporters can hardly have been ignorant either but whether it was their duty to report it, or otherwise, must depend on one's view of what journalistic ethics consists of.
A few weeks ago the BBC broadcast Question Time just after the Savile story broke. One guest, Janet Street Porter said she had known about Savile for decades but, being the delicate helpless flower she is, she had been afraid to speak out. In that spirit she then said she knew of a number of serving Beeboids who were similarly guilty but still alive and being a delicate and helpless flower she wasn't going to name them.
The other non-party guest Benjamin Zephaniah said that when he had been young and in "care" but fortunately not young enough, the "carers" had abused mercilessly and gave as an example a boy he had tried to protect but who had been so scared of the social worker's anger that he had begged to go to him when he called.
The other guests then all spent their time agreeing with Janet how dreadful Savile had been.