The Savile Affair: Did David Icke Really Blow the Whistle on Jimmy Savile?
By Will Banyan (Copyright © 06 January 2013 – Updated 29 May 2015)
Author’s note: This article was originally published on the Martin Frost website in January 2013 at a time when David Icke was making considerable mileage out of claims that he had exposed Jimmy Savile’s various misdeeds for “years”. This version includes an updated section reflecting on how Icke has sought to support his claims on being ahead of the mainstream media on this issue.
Since October 2012, David Icke has lead his coverage of the Sir Jimmy Savile scandal with the claim that since the 1990s, he had “told those who would listen” about Savile’s “paedophilia and necrophilia” (“Jimmy Savile…Doorman to the Cesspit”, David Icke Newsletter, 14 October 2012); and that he had “named” Savile as a paedophile “such a long time ago” (03 November 2012). In fact, Icke has headlined a number of pieces on his website highlighting his apparent prescience on Savile’s true nature:
- Savile the hole in the dam of ‘Elite’ paedophilia that David Icke has been exposing all these years? (05 October 2012)
- David Icke Was Right About Jimmy Savile (11 October 2012)
- Jimmy Savile now connected to necrophilia (sex with dead bodies) – precisely what David Icke has been saying for years (24 October 2012)
Icke’s campaign has been effective with numerous websites now crediting him with: “saying for years that Savile was a predatory paedophile”; “telling the world that Jimmy Savile is a Paedophile for many years…”; being “absolutely right about Savile all those years ago”; and having “claimed a long time ago that Jimmy was a paedophile and necrophilliac and all the allegations now coming to light absolutely backs up what he claimed.” Icke’s claims have not only gone largely unchallenged by so-called “alternative” blogs and news sites, but have even been reported without criticism in the mainstream media. For example, Sonia Poulton in the Sunday Express (28 October 2012) wrote:
Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.
Icke claimed Savile supplied children from Jersey’s infamous Haut de la Garenne care home to a senior British MP. Savile denied knowing the home, the scene of a police investigation in 2008 that uncovered widespread child abuse. He lied [emphasis added].
Tom Peck in The Independent (26 October 2012), reporting on Icke’s Wembley Stadium spectacular, made a similar observation, noting that Icke:
… might well feel a little vindicated. For while Jimmy Savile may have been protected by the BBC and the media establishment, Icke has been calling the former DJ a paedophile for years, to anyone who would listen. “They used to laugh at David Icke,” claims the promotional material to his Wembley show, and indeed they did [emphasis added].
Yet, amidst the belated horror about Savile’s myriad misdeeds, a few dissenting voices have queried whether Icke really had been exposing Savile’s criminal exploits “for years.” In an article at The Icke Exposed website (25 Oct 2012), for example, Simon Loveland actually accused him of complicity in the BBC’s cover-up of Savile’s crimes:
David Icke’s been boasting recently, how clever he was for revealing that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile back in 2011, and how nobody else believed him at the time. What I want to know is this—how many years ago did David Icke, really know about Jimmy Savile sexually abusing hundreds of children while working at the BBC, before finally coming forward with his story?
David Icke joined the team of Newsnight, in 1981. Esther Rantzen had known about Jimmy Savile’s sexual exploitation and abuse of children, since the 1970′s. How likely is it that in an organisation like the BBC (which is very close knit), David Icke wouldn’t have heard the rumours about Jimmy Savile as well? Not very likely. David Icke has been aware of Jimmy Savile’s child abuse activities, just like all the other prominent BBC presenters. David Icke like the rest of them, chose to say absolutely nothing.
Now this vile, cowardly man who put his own career before the safety of hundreds of children and teenagers, has the audacity to come forward and take ‘credit’ for exposing Savile as a paedophile after his death!!!
Congratulations Mr Icke—You like all the others, have shielded a monstrous serial paedophile from prosecution to save your BBC career and in doing so, you’ve made sure this appalling man was able to carry out the satanic, ritual sexual abuse of as many children as he wanted, for years and years—you should be very proud of yourself!!! [emphasis added]
Commenting on this article on the Godlike Productions forum, there was also a discouraging word from an anonymous user (10 October 2012):
[Icke] claims he only learned of Savile’s behaviours in the late 90’s, but I somehow doubt this, as Icke worked at the BBC in the early 80’s for 8 years — when Savile was there and rumours had long been circulating. And it doesn’t matter whether he knew in the 80’s or not — fact is, Icke was informed by his “unimpeachable” sources in the 90’s, but did nothing about it, yet he wrote about Ted Heath, the Royals, George Bush, Dick Cheney… but no Savile. [emphasis added]
Further challenges to Icke’s triumphant narrative included Nick Margerrison at Disinfo, who asked the question – “Did Icke Call Out the British Establishment’s Pedophile Jimmy Savile?” – but did not manage to answer it; and the Iceni Rising blog, which charged that Icke knew about Savile but had “kept it quiet for over a decade”.
This raises some very pertinent questions that Icke’s supporters, appalled by the scale of Savile scandal, have overlooked in their rush to elevate their hero into the ranks of those Cassandras who warned about the noxious DJ but who were dismissed by the ignorant and the complicit. A closer examination of Icke’s record on exposing Savile reveals a number of good reasons to be highly sceptical of his somewhat inappropriate triumphalism…
An Awkward Silence…
First, there is no evidence to support the claims of Icke and others that he had publicly named Savile as a paedophile “since the 1990s”. In fact, if you look through the full catalogue of David Icke’s conspiracy books from The Robots Rebellion (1994), through The Biggest Secret (1998) when he first began to expose the elite paedophilia networks, up to the last title published before Savile’s death on 29 October 2011, Human Race Get Off Your Knees (2010), you will not find a single word about Jimmy Savile. Nor will you find any mention in Remember Who You Are (2012) published after Savile had died on 29 October 2011.
This is a notable omission given who Icke does accuse of being a paedophile in his numerous other books. In The Biggest Secret, for example, Icke exposes in writing the alleged paedophilia, necrophilia and child-sacrificing activities of former UK Prime Minister Ted Heath (p.300), former US President George Bush Senior (pp.330, 339, 347), former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (p.331), Lord McAlpine (p.300), Bill Clinton (p.331), Dick Cheney (p.330), and a number of middling American personalities such as Boxcar Willie (p.335), Kris Kristofferson (p.336), and even some ventriloquist called Alex Houston (p.335).
But not the presenter of Jim’ll Fix It.
A Google search also fails to confirm that Icke made any statements on his website about Savile before he died in late 2011. Indeed the only mentions of note about Savile prior to his death come from contributors to the DavidIcke.com Forum site who, respectively: identified him as a mason in 2007; reported on his political connections and rumoured necrophilia in mid-2008; and noted his lawyers injunction to prevent the Murdoch press from publishing pictures of Savile visiting the notorious Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, in November 2008 (thus refuting Poulton’s claims Savile was responding to Icke).
Indeed the first significant mention about Savile that one can find by Icke in writing is a 2 November 2011 link on his website to an article by someone else (i.e. a “T Stokes”) at the Truth Seeker website making such allegations after Savile’s death. Icke tagged this article with his own contribution, which was, as far as I can see, the very first time that Icke made any allegations in writing specifically about Savile:
This is an excellent article and while I cannot verify every fact the theme is absolutely right. I know from my own unimpeachable sources that Saville was a sick abomination of a human being who not only abused children, but was a necrophiliac, which is defined as an ‘obsessive fascination with death and corpse’ and an ‘attraction to or sexual contact with corpses’ – hence his famous ‘volunteering’ to be a ‘porter’ at Leeds General Infirmary
An unimpressed Rixon Stewart cited Icke’s lifting of the T Stokes article as another example of how Icke “exploits others research for his own ends”. It also highlights the bigger problem with Icke’s claims to prescience on Savile: the lack of any written evidence that Icke himself was making such allegations before Savile’s death. It is also worth noting that Icke made no further comments about Savile, aside from linking (without comment) to a story in the Daily Mail on 5 August 2012 on the then forthcoming ITV documentary about Savile, until 1 October 2012 when he linked to another Daily Mail article just before the ITV documentary revealing the extent of Savile’s abuse was about to be aired.
That he never wrote about Savile while he was alive is tacitly conceded by Icke. His standard practice, when an allegation he has made appears to have been confirmed in the mainstream media or by current events, is to direct readers to a quotation from a relevant section from his books, newsletter or talks. Icke did this recently during the Lord McAlpine furor, quoting directly from The Biggest Secret. He has not done this in any of his pieces on Savile. Instead, in his “Doorman to the Cesspit” article, Icke creates the impression that he wrote about Savile, while at the same time conceding he did no such thing:
I have been writing since the 1990s and a book called The Biggest Secret about the royal family’s connection to Satanism and paedophilia and about paedophile Satanists like British Prime Minister Edward Heath and President ‘Father’ George Bush – just as I have told those who would listen about Jimmy Savile. But all I have had for my trouble from mainstream society is ridicule and dismissal. Their minds are too closed and too programmed to make the leap into the world as it really is [emphasis added].
The key words in this paragraph are “writing”, “told” and “listen.” As we have already reviewed, Icke did indeed write about Heath and Bush in The Biggest Secret and other books, but not Savile. Instead it seems that he merely “told” people about Savile, meaning quite simply that he spoke to them, most likely in private conversations given that we no evidence of Icke making public statements about Savile’s activities prior to the latter’s death. He did not even take the opportunity to mention Savile in his much-hyped speech at the Truth and Hope Rally Against Child Abuse held in London at Trafalgar Square on 7 August 2010. There is no information from Icke concerning to whom and when he revealed his knowledge of Savile’s criminal activities, and no actual confirmation from third parties that Icke had told them about Savile “years ago.” Without this precise information it is hard to take seriously his claims of having exposed Savile for “years.”
In short we only have Icke’s word that he had “told those who would listen”; nothing more. But this has not stopped the wave of adulation from his internet fans who accept his claims to prescience with all the slavish devotion and compliance one would expect of mainstream media hacks when they report government and corporate press releases as “news.” This mythmaking about his role in exposing Savile has spun out of control with some enthusiasts making the demonstrably false claim that Icke wrote about Savile in The Biggest Secret. Icke, presumably, is too busy to correct such falsehoods…
A Ridiculed Cassandra, or Walter Mitty?
Second, there are some problems with the claim made by Icke and others that he was subjected to “ridicule and dismissal” from “mainstream society” for going to the “trouble” of telling people about Savile. On the First Thoughts micro-blogging site, for example, one blogger claimed that Icke “was ridiculed for exposing Savile many years ago” (12 October 2012). But the evidence to support this tale of alleged persecution is thin at best. Indeed it is noteworthy that Icke’s sole example of this “ridicule and dismissal” is actually quite recent. On 6 October 2012 Icke provided a short piece headlined:
Some Internet forum comments about David Icke when he named Jimmy Savile as a paedophile long before this week’s public confirmation.
Icke, unhelpfully, did not link to the source of the comments he cited and then mocked as “bile and bullshit from such intellectual giants.” But a search soon reveals these comments were from a thread on the Godlike Productions forum started on 6 November 2011 by an anonymous user in response to Icke’s link to the Truth Seeker article. Thus the “long before” was actually just eleven months before Icke complained of being ridiculed and just days after Savile’s death. Icke’s selection of the “ridicule” is also somewhat limited and gives a misleading impression of the discussion of his claims or the reasons for rejecting them, including his poor track record of making such allegations. Other comments made were more varied, querying why Icke waited until Savile’s death to make these allegations, while others agreed with the allegations against Savile:
‘Typical…start the accusations when the person being slandered is dead.’
‘[Savile] was a sinister thug in the club world, a bouncer and a wrestler who loved fighting and getting his bones broken. Bit of a Norman Bates, if you ask me. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he was a pedo and a necro.’
‘Well the guy is no longer here to defend himself. I doubt Icke would have been so quick to have posted those things on his website if Savile was still alive, hence giving him the opportunity to take legal action against Icke.’
‘But if Icke only says this after Saville’s death, then perhaps his life could have been in danger had he said it before. Then I say, Icke has not the courage of his convictions.’
Icke also missed the mea culpa from one user on 27 October 2012:
‘Have to say i thought icke was full of s h it about this before. I have been proved wrong on this now. There has been other issues hes been right on that i thought were to far fetched to be true. Maybe im going to try to read some more of his speil.’
Make no mistake, Icke was widely pilloried in the mainstream media about the themes of his books, particularly the reptilian theory in The Biggest Secret. But he was never subjected to ridicule about his allegations about Savile because he did not make any at the time. We might contrast this with the recent articles in the Sunday Express and The Independent inaccurately crediting Icke with revealing Savile’s paedophilia “in the Nineties” and “for years.”
So the actual chain of revelation and ridicule is somewhat less impressive than the version promoted by Icke and countless others on the internet. To sum up, Icke never wrote about Savile in any of his books and did not make any public comment about him until just a week after his death when he linked to a scathing article on the Truth Seeker website. His comments about Savile were then criticised, not by the London Times, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the BBC or any of the other pillars of the British media establishment, but by an obscure forum, Godlike Productions. Nevertheless, eleven months later, following an ITV documentary about Savile, Icke implied that he had publicly named Savile as a paedophile possibly as far back as the 1990s and had been widely vilified for doing so.
The Dog That Didn’t Bark
Third, there is the small matter of when Icke may have actually known about Savile’s child abuse. According to Wikipedia, Jimmy Savile joined the BBC in 1964, presenting Top of the Pops and a range of other radio and television programs before presenting Jim’ll Fix It from 1975 through to 1994. David Icke joined the BBC in the late 1970s as a sports presenter on its Midlands Today program. From 1981 he worked as a sports presenter on BBC’s national news program Newsnight, and subsequently on Breakfast Time, Pot Black and Grandstand, until his contract was terminated over his political activities in August 1990.
That Icke and Savile were at the same organisation together is significant because, in theory, Icke would have been in the unique position, as a former “BBC insider” of being able to cite his own extensive experience at the BBC in support of any allegation he made. After all, much of the media reporting has focussed on how knowledge of Savile’s sexual deviancy was widespread within the BBC. According to former BBC presenter Bill Oddie, for example, Savile’s activities were a “running sick joke” at the BBC, “The idea that youngsters were prey – everybody knew that.” A somewhat contrite long-time BBC Radio presenter Tony Blackburn, as reported in the Herald Scotland (14 October 2012), admitted, “There were always rumours circulating about [Savile], the problem at the time was that rumour was always hard to translate in to fact.” Likewise former BBC Radio 1 presenter Pete Murray, claimed that “absolutely everyone knew about” Savile’s rumoured behaviour (ITV, 13 November 2012). Janet Street-Porter, who first joined the BBC in 1987 recently told Sky News that in regards to Savile, “A lot of people in the BBC knew what was going on.”
But not David Icke, who has never admitted to hearing anything adverse about Savile while working at the BBC. Instead he has consistently cited non-BBC sources:
I know from my own unimpeachable sources that Saville was a sick abomination of a human being who not only abused children, but was a necrophiliac… (2 November 2011).
I have been aware of Savile’s activities since a number of people with insider knowledge gave me the background in the 1990s (1 October 2012).
I was told the extraordinary background to Jimmy Savile by insiders in the late 1990s, including his connections into the royal family and the British establishment in general, and it is far worse than even what is coming out now (4 October 2012).
I was first told about the real Jimmy Savile in the late 1990s in conversations with people who had serious insider knowledge about the British royal family and they said that Savile had been a close friend of Prince Philip until they had fallen out after a ‘big row’ (14 October 2012).
I never met Jimmy Savile at the BBC, but I was told all about his paedophilia and necrophilia by a royal insider in the 1990s (02 November 2012) [emphasis added].
Given that Icke, according to his own account, “worked at the BBC for twelve years, mainly through the entire 1980s, in current affairs, news and sport” (The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy, p.370), it seems inconceivable and quite unbelievable that he did not hear the rumours about Savile. Even Britain’s tabloids were well aware of the rumours – but had not run a story for fear losing a libel action from the “litigious Savile”. Yet, acting on information from the tabloids, Lynn Barber from the Independent on Sunday actually asked Savile in 1990 about rumours that he “like[d] little girls”. But short of an outright denial, that he heard nothing adverse about Savile while at the BBC is exactly what Icke implies with his references to receiving “royal insider” information about Savile in the 1990s.
But this still does not explain why, even after supposedly only learning about Savile’s offences in the 1990s, Icke never wrote about him in any of his books. There is a clue, though, in his “Doorman to the Cesspit” article, where in his discussion about why he named former UK Prime Minister Edward Heath as a paedophile in The Biggest Secret, he effectively concedes that he never named Savile in that book, or any other:
I had spoken to many people who said they had been abused by Heath and witnessed his sexual abuses and satanic child murders, while I was told about Savile by those who knew from having access to the ‘inside’. I was therefore confident enough, with direct contact with the abused themselves, to name Heath in the book and defend any libel action. But that never came because what I said was true (14 October 2012) [emphasis added].
Thus Icke tacitly admits that he did not write about Savile because of the libel risk. But he justifies that by drawing a distinction between the evidence had for Heath as opposed to that for Savile: he had “direct contact” with those allegedly abused by Heath but only information from those with “access to the ‘inside’” about Savile. But this distinction collapses under scrutiny for two reasons.
First, Icke’s claim that his allegations about Heath were immune to libel because they were “true” is ludicrous. Icke alleged that Heath, apparently a “shape-shifting reptilian” (p.277), had participated in horrific Satanic rituals involving the “sex, torture and murder” of children (p.299). Icke cited two anonymous female witnesses as the source of these lurid tales. One witness claimed that Heath, considered by some to have been a closeted homosexual, raped her at the age of six (pp.299-300), while the other claimed to have seen Heath transform into a “full-bodied Reptiloid” (p.300).
Rather than being “true”, Icke’s allegations about Heath did not attract libel action because they were too utterly preposterous and fantastic, as well as devoid of any credible incriminating details, to be taken seriously by Heath as a threat to his reputation. The page and a half in The Biggest Secret (pp.299-300) about Heath’s crimes not only lack precise details on where the alleged offences occurred (not being illegal, the “early 1970s” sighting of Heath’s “Reptiloid” transformation at Burnham Beeches in Buckinghamshire does not count), but show few, if any, signs of having been independently verified by Icke in any way.
Second, Icke’s apparent concern for not having sufficient evidence about Savile also lacks credibility given his long history of making defamatory claims with little or no substantive evidence. This ranges from his evidence-free assertion that George W. Bush and Tony Blair were “Rothschild assets” who ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq at the behest of their “hidden masters” (Human Race Get Off Your Knees, p.131); through to his allegations of paedophilia in The Biggest Secret against former Canadian Prime Ministers Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau, former US Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan (p.326), then US President Bill Clinton (p.331), and a number of minor American celebrities, including Boxcar Willie (p.335), all based on the “evidence” of a single highly unreliable source, Cathy O’Brien.
Instead Icke’s peculiar sensitivity about the libel risk in exposing Savile suggests that the lack of evidence was not the obstacle, but rather because he was aware that he was at greater risk of being sued by Savile because he was a former BBC employee. This was in fact a very rare instance where Icke had sufficient credibility to really damage someone’s reputation. Had Icke framed his allegations against Savile in terms of information that was widely known at the BBC, Savile would have seen him, not as a harmless formerly turquoise shell-suited reptoid man, but as a more dangerous former BBC presenter with “insider” knowledge of his reputation in the BBC. In this light Icke’s caution and silence are what we would expect from a former BBC employee who knew the score: who was well aware of the rumours about Savile’s criminal behaviour, specifically his preference for underage girls, but who also knew that Savile was an aggressive litigant against anyone who sought to publicise that behaviour.
In short Icke was the dog that didn’t bark: he knew that Savile would sue him, because Savile would have assumed as a BBC insider that Icke had heard about his criminal exploits, and because he did know Icke said nothing.
Well, that is how it looks…
It cannot be proven definitively that Icke was aware of Savile’s misdeeds during his near-decade at the BBC, it just seems highly unlikely that he did not know. Moreover his unusual caution around Savile is highly suggestive of an individual who through his work at the BBC had become well aware of the dangers of attempting to expose Savile.
Icke’s peculiar sensitivity towards Savile – not a single word about him through nearly a dozen books – also stands in stark contrast to his almost reckless torrent of allegations of child abuse and murder against the British Royal family, and a host of world leaders and other notables and celebrities great and small. As yet, none of these claims have been substantiated. But the one person Icke never mentioned appears at the centre of a grubby enterprise that has damaged the reputation of the BBC and is likely to embroil the organisation in further legal action for years to come, and has been the subject of an intensive police investigation leading to a number of arrests. On 11 December 2012 UK police revealed they had received 199 complaints about sex attacks against Savile, including 31 allegations of rape.
The well–connected Savile, though, died a free man.
The Icke Exposed website dismisses Icke as a “vile, cowardly man” for allegedly knowing about Savile but suppressing any discussion of his behaviour in his numerous books. Without coming to a firm conclusion on whether or not Icke definitely knew about Savile at the BBC, or did name him in the 1990s, the behaviour of a person in his position can be explained in a number of ways. In the first place the libel risk was real. Even the UK tabloids with their deep pockets were reluctant to take on Savile. For someone who defames the rich and powerful as child-abusing shape-shifting reptilians to sell books because the libel risk is so low, it would not be in their interest to make a high-risk allegation. It is also the case that a person in the process of building a reputation as a fearless exposer of elite paedophile networks, reaching right to the top of the British state, would have a vested interested in denying that while at the BBC that he had heard the rumours about Savile’s abusive behaviour, but like so many others, shrugged and did nothing…
The Savile affair is awkward for many BBC employees past and present. Many prefer silence, others deny knowledge of Savile’s activities while at the BBC, or admit knowing but doing nothing. Others prefer a more heroic path and claim to have reported their concerns to no effect. Icke, though, seems to adopted a more unusual route of denying hearing about Savile during his time at the BBC, but of still being an ignored and ridiculed whistleblower. To be sure, he deserves credit for drawing attention to Savile’s unsavoury character when he linked to the Truth Seeker article well before the media really ran with the story. But when the evidence for his claim that he had been exposing Savile “for years” verges on the non-existent, Icke should not be surprised that some would accuse him of opportunistic myth-making or worse…
* * * * *
Postscript: The Case of Icke’s ‘Underserved Credit’
The above article was written towards the end of 2012 when the Savile scandal was at its height and when David Icke was making an impressive effort to claim some sort of prescience. Since then a number of other commentators have queried the extent of Icke’s claims to foreknowledge, particularly given the paucity of any evidence that Icke had exposed Savile’s misdeeds, prior to his death. A couple of web commentators, some of whom have question the narrative against Savile, have also found Icke’s claims hard to believe.
The Life and Death of Jimmy Savile website, for example, asked:
We all know about David Icke…
He talked the talk after Jimmy Savile was dead:
I know from my own unimpeachable sources that Saville was a sick abomination of a human being who not only abused children, but was a necrophiliac, which is defined as an ‘obsessive fascination with death and corpse’ and an ‘attraction to or sexual contact with corpses’ – hence his famous ‘volunteering’ to be a ‘porter’ at Leeds General Infirmary.
But what did he say when Jimmy was alive?
Absolutely Nothing [emphasis added].
Anna Raccoon was also extremely sceptical about Icke’s claims:
What of the BBC journalists who ‘knew’ of Savile’s alleged offending? Probably the most famous is David Icke. Sports commentator turned Lizard spotter. Now David is a ‘proper’ journalist – started life on the old Leicester Mercury, where he shared a desk with Tom O’ Carroll of Paedophile Information Exchange fame. David is fearless and brave – doesn’t mind accusing the Duke of Edinburgh of murder, or Ted Heath of illegal homosexual activity. Surely David Icke would have been exposing this alleged wrong doing so ‘widely known’ in journalistic sources?
Erm, in the interests of research, I have painstakingly ploughed through all 300+ articles David Icke has written about Savile – not even confining my search to ‘Jimmy Savile’ – and the only time the word Savile has flowed from his keyboard, before the lurid Exposure programme, was in respect of a 23 year old graffiti artist called Paul Savile, and a murder suspect wearing a Savile Row suit. Once the programme had been broadcast, Icke was straight out of the blocks with a deluge of ‘I was right about Savile after all, I’ve been telling people he was a paedophile for years’ articles.
Who on earth had he been telling? Not his own readers, that is for sure. Surely the Police or Childline was who he should have been telling – but no evidence that he did that either. His old colleagues at the BBC maybe? [emphasis added]
More direct was Lee Ryan, a former supporter of Icke’s The People’s Voice project, who used his lengthy rebuttal to Icke’s charge that he was a “numbskull” intent on “hurling libelous abuse at decent human beings who are working to make a difference in the world for the greater good took”, to highlight Icke’s apparent dishonesty about Savile:
I am not the one who had to have known all about Jimmy Savile’s evil lust for sex with children, both alive and dead…BUT SAID NOTHING WHILST THE BEAST WAS ALIVE! Everyone else at the BBC seems to have known, but like you, they remained silent! You claim to have outed him long before he died but again that is one of your many lies, you utter coward! Please do point out where, in your many interminable pages in your books, you outed him. Many children have suffered horribly because you were not man enough to speak out at the time but would rather try to hold on to a career as a broadcaster in which you had shot your best bolt anyway [emphasis added].
Perhaps, more amusing, were the heroic efforts of various contributors on the David Icke Forum in mid-2014, after a thread was started linking to my article, to prove that their idol had exposed Savile. This effort soon degenerated into farce as the posters realised they could not prove that Icke had made any public allegations about Savile whilst he was alive, but they could not let go of the idea that Icke was somehow still in the right:
17-07-2014, 09:37 AM #41 Senior MemberJoin Date: Nov 2007Posts: 478
I think the fact is in this matter, very few people outside the conspiracy/alternative world will ever realise or believe Icke exposed Saville before they knew about his activities; If I asked someone about Savile and mentioned David Icke exposed him as a pedophile and necrophiliac years ago, people will just roll their eyes at the mere thought of David Icke and will just say “did he hell expose Savile, he’s just saying that..noone knew about it until recently, people will say anything”. I haven’t seen every David Icke talk he has given (nor read many of the books), but I can’t recall ever hearing him mention Savile in any context prior to the recent mainstream accusations, not that I’m saying he didn’t mention Savile, just that I never heard him mention him.
19-07-2014, 10:57 PM #45 Premier SubscribersJoin Date: Jan 2009Posts: 53
He said it’s in one of his books from 1998. Why doesn’t he just say which one?
Seriously, Icke is really dopey when it comes to this sort of thing.__________________
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” – Aristotle
It took a Senior Member of the Forum to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that in regards to Icke actually mentioning Savile there was “Not a single reference before his death” in any of his books. This poster also concluded that to be “honest with ourselves” Icke had “taken a lot of undeserved credit for this”:
20-07-2014, 10:53 AM #47 Senior MemberJoin Date: May 2007Location: UKPosts: 513
Not a single reference to Saville in a single one of Icke’s books (a quick search on Kindle versions). Not a single reference before his death. Icke hasn’t been saying this for years at all, unless it’s been in private circles because he was afraid of litigation, in which case it’s simply his word. The details of his ‘activities’ were coming out only days after his death but the MSM had to carefully consider their angle and reporting whereas Icke just says it. But no if we’re being honest with ourselves he’s taken a lot of undeserved credit for this, and taken it happily. The wider child abuse implications though, he HAS been talking about.
Amazed this thread hasn’t been deleted yet frankly, I’ve been systematically shut down whenever I’ve asked similar questions.
But even these unconformable facts were ignored as one of the final posters, in a bid to rescue Icke’s reputation, resorted to making the demonstrably false claim that Savile’s name “is mentioned, in more than one place” in The Biggest Secret:
20-07-2014, 06:18 PM #51 Join Date: Jul 2014Posts: 11
The Biggest Secret, 1998:
“”Another famous paedophile … in Britain is Lord McAlpine, the former treasurer of Heath’s Conservative Party, and
executive of the McAlpine Construction empire. He also followed the late Jimmy Goldsmith as head of the Referendum
Party in Britain which was created to hijack the groups opposing the European Union and lead them to glorious failure.
McAlpine, who is heavily involved in a network of Brotherhood secret societies, including the Freemasons, has been
publicly named as a paedophile by the investigative magazine, Scallywag … McAlpine was also named by one of the
former residents at the Bryn Alyn Children’s Home in North Wales who said he was forced to have oral sex with him …
… A close friend of the McAlpines is Willie Whitelaw, a chairman of the Conservative Party. He was also Deputy Prime
Minister to Margaret Thatcher, who was ‘minded’ by Whitelaw, the McAlpines, and Sir Geoffrey Howe, during her years as Prime Minister.’
[Years in which Margaret Thatcher was a close friend of Jimmy Savile (‘more turkey, Jim?’) and years in which he had
positioned himself among those at the highest levels of the Conservative Party and government.]
Let’s stop pissing about shall we?
If the real and full truth comes out about what really goes on away from the public eye it will bring down the British political
establishment across all parties and make the monarchy history.””
Doesn’t directly name Savile as a pedo, but his name is mentioned, in more than one place. If he didn’t want to name he wouldn’t have though. So the fact that he did and in the context above, would suggest he was at least intimating it.
Yet this poster failed to consult the book directly or acknowledge that the source of his quote was a piece on David Icke’s website, opportunistically promoting The Biggest Secret back in 2012. The section that actually mentioned Savile – in the square brackets – was just commentary Icke had added as part of the promotion; it was not a quote from the book.
It is noteworthy that in the précis for this ad Icke does not claim Savile was exposed in The Biggest Secret. More tellingly is that Icke had missed the opportunity, provided in his massive self-indulgent tome The Perception Deception (2013), to clarify his alleged efforts to warn others about Savile’s various crimes. Instead Icke continues his evasions by simultaneously claiming credit for having exposed Savile, yet providing no evidence of ever having done so before Savile’s death. Icke does reveal his source to be Christine Fitzgerald, the alleged friend of the late Princess Diana, who was quoted in The Biggest Secret claiming that Diana did not consider the royals to be human (p.451). According to Icke, it was back in the “late 1990s” that Fitzgerald had told him that “Savile was a peadeophile and necrophiliac.” This is what he did next:
I did what I could to circulate this information but I was still being dismissed as usual when I repeated these facts at the time of his death, aged 84, in 2011 (Perception Deception, p.282; emphasis added).
Later on we have the same formulation he used back in 2012: “I told those who would listen about Jimmy Savile” (ibid, p.284). It is of course unclear what Icke actually did to “circulate this information” or who listened to his disturbing tale; he provides no additional detail. In fact over the entire 29 pages of the chapter entitled “Archon Paedophilia”, Icke never explains even once to whom he spoke to or exactly what he did to “circulate” the allegations against Savile; or why he never mentioned Savile in any of his books published before his death; or why he never went to the police with these allegations.
All Icke can to do is maintain his evasions, seeking to smear others for their alleged complicity in Savile’s crimes, whilst failing to explain the reasons behind his extended silence. For example, Icke takes the current Prime Minister David Cameron to task for being seemingly unaware of Savile’s reputation as a “paedophile and child procurer”, despite his key role in the Conservative Party, during the end of Margaret Thatcher’s period in office. Asks Icke: “Did not current Prime Minister David Cameron know when he worked for the Conservative Research Department at Conservative headquarters between 1988 and 1993, or during his subsequent rise to the leadership? I don’t believe it” (Perception Deception, p.297). This is a remarkable act of hypocrisy, given that Icke and Savile both worked for the BBC and Icke would have us believe he knew nothing of the latter’s reputation. Thus the same accusation can be directed at him: “Did not David Icke know what was going with Savile when he spent twelve years in the BBC? I don’t believe it.”
Given the scale of child sexual abuse in the UK, now reportedly involving “1,433 suspects in over 100,000 cases”, with the suspects including “76 politicians and almost 250 ‘persons of public prominence’” (Daily Beast, May 20, 2015), Icke could easily be forgiven for his flight of fancy about exposing Savile as he spent large sections of his books alleging systematic and organised child sexual abuse by members of the British elite. Except, that it is questionable that Icke’s contributions in anyway helped precipitate the police investigations now underway. Indeed, the credibility of Icke’s lurid and disturbing stories was arguably undermined by his insistence that the perpetrators of these deeds – now labelled as “Demiurge-Archons” but previously as “reptilian shape-shifters” – are involved in child abuse and sacrifice because they “want the energy of children more than anything.” But Icke is not suggesting these abusers are driven by some religious delusion, he clearly believes that these “other-dimensional Archontic vampires” are “absorbing the energy” of the children they abuse and sacrifice (Perception Deception, p.280). In much the same way that Icke’s earlier belief in “reptilian shape-shifters” has tainted analysis of the Bilderbergers as the product of the deranged; the same approach has arguably ensured that the allegations he made were not treated seriously. In light of this, Icke’s inability to prove that he had exposed Savile before it was fashionable and legally safe to do so is just the tip of the ice-berg when considering his supposedly crucial role in revealing the crimes now coming to light.
It remains to be seen of course if Savile really was a paedophile, considering the claims – nebulous and fantastic – made about him in equal measure.
Indeed, Mr Baron, that argument can be made, though it is a risky one in an atmosphere of shock and distrust and in the midst of a moral panic that has yet to run its course. Though the plethora of reports from various UK Government agencies suggest a very strong case that even the most “ordinary” of allegations against Savile are credible and horrible enough. A posthumous trial, however, would serve no practical purpose other than to the give the public some Government-approved “Months of Hate”.
I note, though, reading Icke’s “Perception Deception” that the Oracle of the Isle of Wight is less interested in Savile’s allleged sexual assaults on underaged girls than proving that Savile was procurer of children for various elite personages. As always, for Mr Icke, only the biggest fish will do…
Who gives a damn who exposes these satanic criminals first…. the protected scum who prey on our young children…. the BBC knew long time about this scumbag but in their perversion protected him.
The Police also knew and responded from higher pressures that seem to lead to the pretend royals and that needs some real time whistle blowers.
Instead of bagging Icke why don’t you put your ass on the line and expose some of these satanic criminals?…. there are heaps out there…… Gus
Perhaps you don’t give a damn but others might when Icke crows about having “exposed” Savile “for years”, as a sign of his credibility on this issue but cannot prove that he ever did. It’s up to Icke to really prove his claims, otherwise his accusations against others, and his obsession with proving that was a wide-ranging satanic paedophile conspiracy, look suspect, if not completely unreliable. Why would Icke accuse Ted Heath of child sexual abuse and murder, but not touch Savile? Something is amiss; it is hard not come to conclusion that Icke is more interested in selling books with sensational claims than risking his neck in the courts or going to the authorities. But I would suggest that if Icke did know about Savile for as long as he claims, his public silence makes him complicit in the cover-up of Savile’s alleged crimes, so any “bagging” of Icke is justified. Will
The whole David Icke thing really baffles me full stop. One minute he’s anchoring the snooker for the BBC, the next he is telling Wogan that he is the son of God. I’m not sure if he’s a snake oil con man, a bizarre psyop, the unfortunate victim of a breakdown, or something weirder. He’s also watched way too much Bill Hicks.
He’s aware that if he makes correct claims 100% of the time that the vast majority of the public will eventually realise he is likely not batshit crazy and all eyes will be on him, thus rendering him a nice little target for the CIA’s heart attack gun.
Do you seriously believe that? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything so unlikely.
When the Saville scandal broke I remember thinking David Icke had said things about him being a peodophile and necrophiliac. I’m not sure where, I would say one of his books or perhaps at one of his talks I attended? I’ve been to several. Anyway it’s really petty of you to go to such a long winded, spiteful attempt to malign David Icke. Got an agenda at all?
I’d say his ‘agenda’ is to not let someone get away with BS. No one likes a liar, and no one likes to be hoodwinked. Will has looked through all his books, to no avail; and if Icke had said such a thing at one of his talks then Icke would have been shouting THAT from the rooftops. And if he did know, he didn’t say – and for good reason: he would have been sued into oblivion.
If conspiracy theorists would check things for accuracy once in a while, then an article like this would not be necessary. There’s standards that everyone should follow. No one gets a free pass.
Malign? Spare me your pity and admiration for David Icke!
He claimed to be ahead of the curve on a major scandal, not by months, but by more than a decade. He has failed to produce any evidence to support his claims. Nor can I find any in his books or elsewhere. Even more incredibly he worked for the BBC for over a decade yet claims to have heard nothing about Savile during that time. No part of Icke’s story adds up – that’s the problem.
There’s no spite in my analysis, just exasperation that people don’t subject some of Icke’s utterances to the same level of skepticism they would rightly direct at official pronouncements. Especially in this case where he seems to have avoided being asked pointed questions about what he really knew about Savile while at the BBC.
when i came out of the army in the early 60s i did a bit of bouncing and door work for mecca ballrooms
where jimmy saville worked and often acted as driver minder for him. mecca told me to watch him with the young boys, at that time he was not into girls, and several times i had to gently push him away
from starry eyed teenage boys. i later heard from one of the other security men we knew that saville was having weekends at a large 4 storey georgian house in long sutton lincs, where homosexuals would dress as women for the weekend and come with their boyfreinds.
saville went througha whole range of sexual experimentation but the BBC wanted to keep quiet about his homosexual side, not sure why
Can I just note for the record that this article has been ripped off without attribution at this website:
While the webpage is loading it shows that there are 31 comments for the article. By the time it finishes, however,the number switches abruptly to 25. Is this because they censored some and the newly calculated number only shows when the page is fully loaded?
At any rate, I left a comment a few days ago. It’s still there but no reply.
They erased my comment and stole my photocomp at the top of this page. Baxter Dmitry probably stole more of your work too after the latest erasing/updating/pic-stealing.
OK so he’s a windbag. He also exposed elite pedophile rings pretty much before everybody else so why waste this much space trashing him
I’m suggesting that he’s a lot more than a windbag…
David Icke is a filthy vile man and parents should be every bit as concerned about allowing themselves to get brainwashed by his crowd over at DavidIcke.com as they should about them speaking to the stranger in the street. At least with the stranger in the street he is probably not going to try convince you to convince others to give up their meds if they have HIV. He is not going to try convince you to give up your Chemo and try sell you Gerson, if you have cancer. Infact, David Icke and his Cult followers are dangerous madmen, and if you truelly hate children being abused, then stay well away from that lot. One of their “messiahs” is practically a self confessed Paedo and sicko. Credo Mutwa, a man David Icke hails as a “great man” is interviewed by David Icke, and during the interview Credo admits to (a) Having committed Beastiality, Zoophilia, Necrophilia, Homosexuality and an act so sordid it can never be repeated..Now considering Credo made those claims by claiming this is what elders of a Satanic secret society made him do before becoming initiated as a Sanusi/Zulu Shaman (a title he still claims to hold, may i add, and a title David Icke awards him with like it is something to be proud of) and considering what David Icke teaches about Satanic initiations and what goes on, what then could an act so sordid it can never be repeated be, when he claims to have had sex with dead bodies, animals, people his own sex, and an old fat lady with no teeth? can only be paedophilia..Yet, is David Icke bothered about this? NO, right after this he makes a video doing an appeal for donations from his followers to help Credo Mutwa, HIV denialist build a clinic to look after HIV infected children and this clinic will be about healing them using ancient african traditional remedies, such as olive oil.. This is frankly disgusting, over 300,000 Africans went on to die of Aids before Africa finally called for an end to the ban on HIV treatments..David Icke and his paedo chum Credo Mutwa were just another pair of scum making a fast buck out of the HIV denialist theory.
Now neither David Icke, nor his followers have any isssues with weirdo and dirty paedo Credo Mutwa, and both source him as a reliable source and hail him highly as a Zulu Shaman, therefor, if you are against Paedos, have nothing to do with David Icke or his Cult brainwashed followers.
Here are links to my claims – Do you think a man that admits to having committed an act of necrophilia, zoophilia, beastiality and an act so sordid can never be repeated, in order to become initiated as a Zulu Shaman, is the right man to be in charge of a hospital looking after sick children?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apWOUNOx64 (The video where Credo admits to having committed sick acts and an act so sordid can never be repeated)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FLF5YdJWc (David Icke begging donations to help this paedophile build a hospital for children)
Just like to add a few things about my above post. The impression i get about David Icke from this video, is that while he has a certain amount of wit about him, just enough to forge a living as a celebrity conspiracy theorist, this man is not really very bright, and has a few things missing. He is definitely a burger short of a big mac.. I think during this interview, with Credo Mutwa making the sick revelations that he did, a man that is truelly against child abuse would probably be a little shocked and would at least treat this person with a degree of caution. But he doesn’t, he does not seem concerned in the least. Not bothered one iota. He is merely excited that he has a man willing to confess on camera to all the things David Icke says goes on during Satanic inituiations. David Icke is just glad to have someone give validation to his claims..I genuinely believe it has not occured to David Icke that he is really showing himself up here and showing the true nature of his motives. He does not care about abused children at-all, he merely cares about being proven right. He has not thought it through so much as to realise, that while during his appeal video for money, he uses Credo’s standing as a “great Sanusi and LAST zulu shaman” as advertising for his appeal. He has forgot, or not realised the evil implications of this title, given that he got this title through committing acts of Necrophilia, Zoophilia, Homosexuality and undoubted Child abuse and Paedophilia..This means if they were decent people, being a ZULU SHAMAN, would not be something to brag about. However, Icke does not seem to think this deeply and just dives head first off the cliff and takes his brainwashed Cult followers with him.
Either Icke didn’t know, or he did know, but didn’t say anything.
I had a girlfriend in the 1980s who worked for the BBC – she told me at the time there were very unpleasant stories about what Savile was guilty of (but as a junior could do nothing about..)
There are various hints that other media-connected people did too -eg that interview with John Lydon, a Baddiel and Skinner show, Not The Nine O’Clock News, Iain Sinclair and Bill Drummond in ‘London Orbital’.
But not Icke, who was at the thick of it back then.
What a lot of uninformed, on the bandwagon, sheep you lot are! David Icke has exposed these paedophiles, rapists and reptilians for years. He has told “anyone who would listen”. Obviously, you choose to go the way of vaccines and chemo, adore the royals and politicians, ignore the fact that you are slaves of a system that is finally now being exposed. David Icke has dedicated his life to the truth.
There’s a lot going on in your comments, but you evade the simple fact that Icke implied that he been aware of the allegations against Savile and perhaps had even publicised them, but in truth he uttered nary a discouraging word about Saville in any of his speeches or books until well after his death and reported nothing to the authorities. I suggest Icke probably did know about some of the allegations about Savile, that he most likely heard rumours whilst working at the BBC, and aware of the litigation risk (i.e. in this case, unlike with some others he did name in his books, the claims were true), kept his mouth shut. The problem is that Icke was suggesting he was ahead of the curve, and even managed to convince a few journalists that he was. But there is no evidence to support his claims.
pretty sure there was no evidence that he knew what was going off either, just assumptions that he must of known ,as he worked there for 8 years ? maybe he heard rumors but nothing concrete ,and spoke out when he could substantiate the rumors? isn’t it enough that MSM try to silence and discredit icke ? now the people have to trash him as well without evidence? He just trying to inform folk of what’s happening ,he tells you to do your own research ,you don’t have to listen to him ,everyone’s got a choice ffs
Well for some reason David Icke, who has supposedly dedicated his life to telling the truth about such things, who made a series of serious allegations along similar lines against numerous public personages in a number of his books, was too scared to call out Jimmy Saville while he was still alive.