What would we think if Westminster child abuse scandal was in another country?
The full scale of the Westminster child abuse network is not yet entirely known. In the wake of the revelations over once-loved national treasure, now disgraced celebrity Jimmy Savile, more and more high-profile figures have been named as part of several ongoing police investigations.
Allegations stretching back for many decades right through to the present day involve senior political figures, high ranking police officers and TV personalities.
The late Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith MP are among those so far named and shamed, the full extent of their behaviour finally coming to light only now, many years and after many of the assaults on children took place. The fact that these predators picked on some of the most vulnerable, defenceless people in society, children living in children’s homes, only compounds the magnitude of the crimes committed and highlights just how vile the political establishment in the UK really is.
And let’s not delude ourselves: While many in the media are portraying these crimes as so-called “historic” child abuse, there is every reason to think that the same sordid network still exists.
Margaret Thatcher, who was good friends with Jimmy Savile, tried her best to keep a lid on the scandal which allegedly involved many key figures of the Conservative Party. In the run-up to this year’s general election David Cameron did the same thing.
Nevertheless, one senses the dam of lies built up to protect these high-ranking abusers, from some of the most powerful positions in society, is about to break.
The latest political figure to be named in investigations is Ted Heath. The former PM was once very good friends with Jimmy Savile, who had access to children’s homes due to his prestige as a trusted charity worker and celebrity. Savile also used to accompany Heath on yachting excursions.
While we cannot be sure yet whether Ted Heath was guilty of child abuse or not, the public can hardly be forgiven for reacting to the news that Heath has been named with mortification and disgust.
Were there no backdrop to this news, it might seem unreasonable for people to assume guilt.
But there is a backdrop. We’ve learned just how close the UK royal family are to the political establishment. This might seem like an obvious observation, but when we start to understand the closeness, for example, between Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile, Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile, Ted Heath and Jimmy Savile, Prince Andrew’s close relationship to convicted rapist Jeffrey Epstein and allegations that he slept with underage girls – it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. It hardly inspires confidence.
Heath recommended Savile for a royal honour, and Thatcher recommended Smith for a knighthood. The queen awarded both with honours. Presumably we are expected to smile politely while the nature of these relationships and what was actually known and by whom is revealed.
Apologists (however tacitly) for the royals, politicians and their friends in the media happily point out that a widespread general culture of predatory misogyny existed decades ago within politics and the media. It was the norm, they say, everyone was a pervert back then in those circles. That may well be the case, but it does not justify or excuse any behaviour of this sort, nor does it sweep it under the rug. Why should the victims give a hoot about whatever the common culture was that used to exist (and maybe still does) among powerful people who never hesitated to use their power for their own gain.
One suspects that some in the media still have a cosy relationship to the political elite, royals and all the rest. Perhaps that’s also why it is the deceased perpetrators of abuse which are being focused on. Better to vilify the dead than focus on those alive who may be guilty.
In one article recently, a well-known commentator, while rightly stating that Heath should be considered innocent until proven otherwise, described the current police “obsession” with “historic abuse” claims as “bizarre.”
This view effectively seeks to distract attention away from the establishment.
When gangs of men, God forbid, with brown faces and Muslim names, are guilty of such crimes, their names and faces are paraded across the newspapers as they are named and shamed. Some newspapers gleefully point out of course, that this is to do with ethnicity or religion. This rule does not apparently extend to everybody.
Claims into child abuse involving figures from Westminster and the elite are treated as less important, the emphasis placed on the fact they are “historic” – although to the victims, their harrowing experiences probably feel more like yesterday than “historic.”
The reality is that this is one of the biggest scandals of our times, and perhaps if it was treated as such, in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, with characters like Lord Sewel acting as they act, the reputation of Westminster and its credibility would be further diminished.
If the full nature and scope of the Westminster child abuse ring does surface, one suspects it would be the final nail in the coffin, creating a gulf of mistrust between the public and the political class which would be beyond repair.
And let’s just flip the dynamics for a second, and play by our own rules to see the absurdity of all this and the double standards that we, the British people, accept for ourselves: If we were to hear that the Syrian or Iranian government, for example, had leading members of government, parliament, media and police involved in child abuse, and then it was covered up by heads of state and powerful political figures, as is the case here in Britain, I wonder what the reaction would be.
We’d all probably be calling for some sort of “humanitarian” campaign to invade them and restore justice to the victims of abuse. The bombs would already be falling.
Should Britain now expect to be invaded by say France or Germany to depose our government and install a new regime capable of delivering justice?
Should we, as a nation, now expect economic sanctions as a result of the British establishment’s penchant for maintaining a culture of child abuse, which allows and then covers up some of the most reprehensible behaviour imaginable?
I’m not suggesting or calling for this to happen, of course, but the same level of shock and indignation that we would feel if this was happening anywhere else should be the reaction we have toward our own “leaders.” Sadly, it is not.
The human rights of the British people are being trampled on by a corrupt establishment, more people are remaining poor while working longer hours, hunger is becoming more commonplace – but there will likely be no humanitarian mission to rescue us here in Britain.
ISIS and Cecil the lion seem more pressing issues than the welfare of our own children.
This scandal should be driving people in their droves, in their thousands, to demonstrate outside parliament. People should be incensed.
Ted Heath may or may not be guilty of the rumours circulating through the media at the moment, after it was made public that he was named by several police forces as being part of those investigations into child abuse. Whether or not Heath himself is guilty, it’s clear that the British establishment most certainly is. Those guilty of child abuse need to pay, for the sake of justice and for the sake of preventing further abuse in the future.
Rather than shift the blame and responsibility of this onto the media and a confused and bewildered public, the focus should be squarely on the political establishment, which is a playground for corruption, and utterly rotten to the core. This is a fact and everyone now knows it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
