Wednesday, 1 August 2018

PC establishment Savile group-think

The foremost authority on the fallout from the 2012 hoax ITV Exposure programme, which lit the fuse for the orgy of denunciation that engulfed the nation’s newly discovered favourite bogeyman Jimmy Savile, is the blogger known as Moor Larkin. He has has coined the word ‘Savilisation’ to describe the national hysteria over paedophilia and ‘inappropriate’ sexual behaviour which the Exposure programme triggered. A summary of his (and other investigative bloggers) main findings about the Savile scare is contained in this previous post

Moor Larkin is scathing in his scorn for the credulousness of the mainstream media, including the BBC, over the lies they have swallowed, and contemptuous of their wilful refusal to accept that they have been duped, even when presented with the true facts. He asks ‘why does pretty much everyone believe in the Savile myth? Well, like most things people believe in, it is because they have been told stories about it, and more especially, all the people they usually rely on to tell them true stories have lied to them. The police have lied, the mass media has lied, the CPS has lied, the BBC has lied and so has the NHS and throughout the years since 2012 politicians have intermittently joined in too. In other words, pretty much the entire establishment has lied. Why would “they” do this? Probably because a few key people in positions of authority believed a story too and failed to fact-check a single thing. Once they had announced their belief in that story and committed huge resources to it, in the form of Operation Yewtree, they became prisoners of their own presumptions and in the face of any doubt they have then had to move heaven and earth to make their truth remain the same. For them to now admit they were wrong - would utterly discredit them at every level and in every corner.’

Every word of Moor Larkin’s account is spot on, the establishment, including the Metropolitan Police, has been a willing promoter of group-think, a herd mentality to uncritically accept whatever modish agenda or belief is in vogue, which currently is to automatically ‘believe the victim’. Unlike today, in times past such people were rightly described as accusers or claimants, but cheap emotionalism now trumps sober analysis.

In an attempt to ensure that the Exposure programme was properly investigated a complaint has recently been submitted to the media regulator Ofcom. It was hoped that this would prompt them to fulfil their statutory duty and start to make a long overdue thorough investigation of the allegations against Savile, and thus end the credulous and uncritical mainstream media acceptance of the deceits arising from this mendacious broadcast. Exposure contained numerous fabrications against Jimmy Savile contrary to Section 5.1 of the Ofcom Broadcasting code on due accuracy, and Sections 7.1, 7.9 and 7.11 relating to unjust and unfair treatment of individuals.

Evidence contained in the earlier blog post on Exposure was provided to Ofcom. Also supplied was the response from ITV Exposure producer Andrew Gardiner who claimed that ‘the subsequent independent investigations (by the police and by the BBC’s Smith report) have categorically established the truth of the central revelation in the programme, namely that Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile’. This was his full response. It should be noted that Mr Gardiner made absolutely no attempt to challenge or refute the findings and evidence of the investigative bloggers which had been presented to him, since to do so would, of course, have been impossible. However, he was certainly correct in pointing out that the intention of the programme was to brand Savile as a ‘predatory paedophile’, but this objective was based on smears and fabrications, not facts and evidence.

Ofcom responded to the complaint as follows ‘Ofcom’s procedures for investigating content standards breaches for television and radio require complaints to be submitted within 20 days of the relevant broadcast. While this can be extended in certain circumstances, given the length of time since the broadcast of this programme, we do not consider it appropriate to pursue your complaint’.

Anticipating this kind of evasive response the complaint contained the following request. ‘Although the Exposure programme was broadcast over five years ago, I hope that Ofcom will not use this delay as an excuse to evade their statutory responsibility to investigate this deceitful programme. To do so would be gratuitously negligent and a travesty of justice given that the accusations in the programme were based on events claimed to have occurred as long ago as four decades earlier. Unfortunately it has not been possible to provide Ofcom with the full evidence and facts until recently’.

The Ofcom response is both contemptuous and facile, as well as a total abdication of their statutory responsibilities. It is contemptuous, because it casually dismisses a complaint on a matter which has aroused an intense public debate that has continued up to the present time. It is also facile in that Ofcom inexplicably failed to recognise that it would have been completely impossible to gather the evidence to refute the claims in the Exposure programme within 20 days. In practice it has taken many years for a true picture to emerge.

Ofcom’s pathetic response has nothing to do with their 20 days target period, which in any case can be waived. So, given the national importance of the issues raised, an exception could easily have been made. As matters currently stand any broadcaster who generates fake news can now get away with their deceit, if the evidence to refute it cannot be provided within the 20 days deadline, which will often be the case. So this policy, both undermines Ofcom’s ability to undertake their statutory responsibilities effectively, and thus gives carte blanche to rogue broadcasters to engage in open deceit and more likely than not get away with it.

However, there must be a deep suspicion that the real reason for Ofcom’s decision is that, instead of being an independent regulator, they are clandestinely part of an establishment network tasked with promoting a pre-agreed PC viewpoint whilst ignoring any representations that might challenge this agenda. This network appears to be engaged in a determined conspiracy to cover up and conceal the truth about Savile because revealing the falsehoods would undermine their cherished mantra of ‘believe the victim’ for which the Savile hoax is the cornerstone. If the true facts became more widely known in the public domain, the whole house of cards promoting ‘believe the victim’ would come crashing down, resulting in untold damage to the credibility of the carefully crafted establishment PC narrative on this subject. It would also reveal their utter credulity in swallowing so uncritically the deceits in the Exposure hoax. Consequently, establishment group-think on this matter, which Savilisation has allowed to flourish unchecked, has now enmeshed the Metropolitan Police, the CPS, mainstream media journalists, virtue seeking celebrities, attention seeking politicians, ITV, the BBC and now Ofcom, all because, to repeat Moor Larkin’s words ‘a few key people in positions of authority… failed to fact-check a single thing’.

1 comment: