Return to Home Page
Further information on viewing conditions, site index and the site Google search facility
Animation of Frost's
              Meditations template
The Savile Affair

Did David Icke Really Blow the Whistle on Jimmy Savile?

By Will Banyan

Copyright © 06 January 2013

Since October last year, 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:

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. I have not checked Remember Who You Are, Icke’s most recent book, but it would not count as it was published in February 2012, 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 Ted Heath (p.300), 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 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 an 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 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’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 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 new 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 “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 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…

Vile, Cowardly”?

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. 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 this account of having exposed Savile “for years” verges on the non-existent, Icke should not be surprised that some would accuse him of opportunistic myth-making or worse…

Note: contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Readers please email comments to: editorial AT including full name

Valid HTML 4.1

You can Google's search function to examine this site and the internet


Valid CSS!

Return to home page top