Prince Charles and Jimmy Saville

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/savile-hides-beebs-other-crimes-against-journalism-16229405.html#ixzz2AOqdXWDR
Gardner recalled on Radio 4's Today programme that the Queen had told him some years previously that she had asked the Home Secretary why the Muslim cleric and notorious homophobe Abu Hamza was still on the loose: "Surely this man must have broken some laws? Why is he still at large?"

By lunchtime the same day - September 25 - Beeb bosses were beating their breasts and crying contrition.

"This morning on the Today programme our correspondent Frank Gardner revealed details of a private conversation which took place some years ago with the Queen... The BBC and Frank deeply regret this breach of confidence. It was wholly inappropriate. Frank is extremely sorry for the embarrassment caused and has apologised to the palace."

Nothing like this would ever happen again, the corporation promised.
That is, if a similar story were to come their way in future, they'd suppress it.

In contrast, in relation to the Savile affair, the line is that no similar story will ever be suppressed again.

The fact that the Queen had pushed a politician to explain why a named person was not behind bars was a significant story. This was the key characteristic which it shared - even if it differed in all other respects - with Jimmy Savile's brute behaviour.

The BBC had ditched principle in deference to the Royals. And there's hardly a word about it.

The reason for the silence is that the practice of keeping the people in ignorance of the real views of the Royals has been in place for so long that it's widely assumed to be a legal, or constitutional, imperative. But it's nothing of the sort.

It is a 20th-century conceit and amounts to a conspiracy of silence.

The timidity with which it's accepted testifies to the role of the mainstream media in shoring up the existing order.

Last week, the Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve, intervened to overturn a ruling by an Information Tribunal that the people have the right to know what pressure Prince Charles has been bringing on Government ministers and towards what end.

Mr Grieve explained that giving the public access to this information might jeopardise Charles's ability to perform the role of King; the implication being that, if the detail of his political lobbying were generally known, he'd find it harder to win acceptance as ruler.

It is difficult to think of a better, or more compelling, reason to publish the information as speedily and widely as modern technology allows.

But in the stupefied world where Royals are revered, it's regarded as a reason for squashing the truth.

The tribunal ruling referred to 27 letters sent to seven ministers over a seven-month period.

The Attorney General told the Commons that these contain "particularly frank" expressions of Charles' "most deeply-held personal views and beliefs".

We know some of Charles' beliefs: he's in favour of fox hunting, has dreadful taste in architecture and regards homeopathy as a branch of medical science.

In what way and in what terms has he been pressing ministers to reflect these beliefs in policy decisions?

Has he lobbied against the Freedom of Information Act? Was Mr Grieve's action in removing the Royals from the remit of the Act the result of a demand from Charles?

The British people are not allowed to know. This isn't democracy. This is feudalism.

And most of the media appear to have no problem with it.

http://www.themortonreport.com/celebrity/royals/were-charles-and-diana-taken-in-by-sir-jimmy-savile/
In his famous biography Diana: Her True Story, Andrew Morton wrote that in 1987, "Jimmy Savile, who often acts as a high-powered go-between in royal circles, offered his services. "

DIANA: "Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said, 'I'm just ringing up, my girl, to tell you that His Nibs [Charles] has asked me to come and help out the redhead, and I'm just letting you know, so that you don't find out through her or him; and I hope it's all right by you.' And I said, 'Jimmy, you do what you like.'"

Inside the paedophile's lair: Chilling pics of bunk beds at Savile's Highlands cottage raided by police where 'up to 20 suffered abuse'
Number of Savile's victims now 'fast approaching' 300, it was revealed today
All but two are women and Scotland Yard also chasing 400 lines of inquiry
Police raid his cottage in Glencoe, Scotland, looking for forensic evidence to help UK-wide investigation
It has been untouched since his death last year and is strewn with his belongings
The DJ bought remote home in 1998 and entertained guests including Prince Charles


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222878/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Inside-paedophiles-Glencoe-lair-20-suffered-abuse.html#ixzz2AP4x21wA

Savile police to arrest up to a dozen 'household name' celebrities within days as it's revealed officers blew SEVEN chances to trap him
Scotland Yard reveals that TV stars may have helped Savile or abused children themselves, adding: 'we will come for them'
Team of 30 officers from Scotland Yard have 'arrest strategy' and will act 'within days'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223400/Savile-police-arrest-household-celebrities-days-revealed-officers-blew-SEVEN-chances-trap-him.html#ixzz2AP5a7qZv

The End Is Nigh wrote:Charles may seem to be away with the Fairies much of the time, but I suspect he is guilty of little more than poor judgement (Reason enough for him never to become King).

Sir Jimmy Savile: Prince Charles’s love for Savile's 'ladies’
The Prince of Wales sent Sir Jimmy Savile a Christmas card in which he asked him to 'Give my love to your ladies in Scotland'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9584755/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charless-love-for-Saviles-ladies.html