Would you trust Ken Clarke with Ben Fellowes, Jimmy Savile with a policeman, or Bradford Council with anything?

benfAs to whether Ben Fellowes (left) is mad or a double-agent, the case continues. His latest posting about Kennneth Clarke is a stream of consciousness, alleged victimisation, and largely evidence-free accusation. As he’s been at this lark now for over two years, Plod has somewhat impolitely asked ‘im to cease an’ desist Squire, uvvawise we might ‘ave to feel your collar, chummy. So Ben’s answer is to immediately post more of the same. Such modi operandi are bound to bring consequences, which one suspects is what Mr Fellowes wants. The question remains, “Why?”

There isn’t too much to Ben’s history, really. He has scored two own-goals against serious observers of inequality before the law when it comes to paedophile tendencies: first, branding the BBC a den of pervs – which is utter tosh. And second, insisting that Clarke is a paedofile. As everyone I know who knows him plus three journalists close to the matter all tell me he is a largely misguided chap with no such proclivity, as I’ve already suggested you have to wonder what his motives are.

Put it like this: if he set out to provide the media, cops and Establishment with an ongoing basis for credible denial, then he’s so far made a pretty good fist of it. But let’s not get onto fisting, it’s far too early in the day.

Let us move on instead to that evergreen hook upon which to hang the luvvies and protect the sadists, Jimmy Savile. I no longer know where to go on this one. He was very clearly a corrupt, manipulative bully who protected himself in a million different ways, and so for that reason alone he remains a worthy topic of study. After three months of 24/7 media braindeath during which one hack after another has asked ‘How did he get away with it?” the answer – which was there all the time – still seems to elude them: corrupt coppers, hacks scared of celebrity lawyers, and an image carefully nurtured over 35 years.

The corrupt Plod part of the equation is back in the news….and for all the wrong reasons. Why anyone still thinks it a good idea to let the Boys in Blue investigate themselves any more eludes me, but anyway in an outcome that brings no surprises at all, the report into the contact between West Yorkshire Police officers and Jimmy Savile has concluded there was “no evidence he was protected from arrest”.

savshushThe faintly amusing thing here (I know paedophilia isn’t a subject for humour, but police whitewashes can be hysterically funny) is that, having reached that conclusion, the report itself goes on to sow more doubt in the functioning mind than there was before. Savile (left) stands, over three decades, accused of 76 crimes in the West Yorkshire area involving 68 victims….the vast majority of which took place from around 1962 to 1977. During that period he was an active supporter of the Yorkshire Force, but the Report is ‘satisfied that the work undertaken by Savile in support of local and force campaigns and events was entirely appropriate at the time’.

I suppose my next question has to be, given the prolific nature of his crimes, “What on earth led you to think that?”, and the Retort of the Report is of great Import in that it offers negative Support for the conclusion quoted above. Indeed, it notes:

“The review team have concerns regarding the absence of a process to secure Savile’s services for some of these events and also the over-reliance on personal friendships that developed between Savile and some officers over a number of years to secure that support.”

And it adds:

“Of greater concern is that even after the force received the request from Surrey Police in 2007 to check what records WYP held that related to Savile in relation to their investigation at Duncroft School, WYP continued to use him as part of local crime prevention campaigns.”

Er, right. But never fear because:

“There is no evidence that he was protected from arrest or prosecution for any offences as a result of his relationship with WYP, or individual friendships with officers.”

Well that’s another mystery cleared up – thank Heavens for that. And it really is a great relief, given that:

‘…up to eight officers attended “Friday Morning Clubs” at Savile’s flat in Leeds’. Hmm. And one officer – approached by a complainant – told her he was “a personal friend of Savile’s and that Jimmy gets so many of these type of complaints”. Right….and, um, getting so many complaints might mean….you know, maybe there was some truth in it? Not a bit of it:

‘Investigation has shown that much of the available information during Savile’s lifetime was never shared with WYP and, when it was, WYP did not connect the events to recognise a potential pattern of offending’.

Ah well – you always know where you are with West Yorkshire Police. Say n’more.

And finally, what are those upstanding members of Britain’s local government child protection cadres up to in order to change the mindset when it comes to buggering vulnerable kids? Well, chances are that – if you live in Bradford – you already have the answer….even though it’s no answer at all. Under the encouraging heading ‘New Solutions’, the Council there tells us that:

‘In Bradford’s redesigned service for families with young children, parent
peer supporters called Community Ambassadors will work to build
trust and rapport with local families, be trained to offer continuous, low-
level support to families and make connections with professionals when
needed. Community Ambassadors will not come from ‘perfect’ families;
they’ll be real people from the community who have the capacity to
manage, who struggle and survive difficult times and who can then share
their real life experiences with others.

Oh dear. Oh very, very dear. No: excuse me while I have a rare lapse, and conclude “Oh for fuck’s sake”. There they are again, those telltale signs of fluffy delusion: the syntax, the enthusiastic drivel, the Nanny tone – and of course, the Titles: why do ‘parent peer supporters’ need this silly name, and isn’t one silly name enough without calling them ‘Community Ambassadors’ as well? Also, if they’re taxpayers, what are the social workers doing?

I’ll tell you: they’re changing their name to Support Ambassadors, with the following function:

‘Support Ambassadors will provide an initial training programme and
ongoing support for Community Ambassadors – for example advising
parents on how to brush children’s teeth. The advice has to be what
a dentist would recommend, but a parent who has been taught to do
this can pass this on.’
Et voila! Everyone will live happily ever after:
‘At the moment we have neighbourhoods, in three years we will have communities.’
“Don’t worry darling, that nice man from the Council took you to the bathroom and removed your clothing in order to teach you how to clean your teeth because I’m far too stupid to do that and so there’s nothing to worry about”.
Parallels involving fiddling and burning simple will not suffice in this case. Britain is become a nation advised by muddled morons unfit to give advice to lollipop ladies about how to cross the road. My Kingdom for a grounded, competent and humble civil servant.