The Queen runs the BBC. Jimmy Savile ran the Royal family.

www.hangthebankers.com writes


This comes as the Queen has kept silent about the recent child abuse scandal around former BBC star Jimmy Savile that is described as the worst crisis to hit the corporation in 50 years.
She has refused to comment on the subject despite the fact that the scandal is a moral issue of public interest and that she is directly involved in the matter: the BBC is run by 12 trustees appointed by the Queen in person while she granted Savile knighthood in 1990.
Indeed, Savile was knighted when his abuse was well underway and the Queen should have distanced herself and the royal family from the pedophile immediately after allegations of his pervert activities to ward off unwanted speculation.
However, there has been no comment by the Queen herself, her office or the royal family as if she knew of the Savile’s scandalous behaviour and decided to decorate him regardless.
As for the BBC, it runs under a Royal Charter, the present one having come into force in 2007 and running until the end of 2016.
The corporation is also ruled and supervised by the BBC Trust, which is a board of 21 trustees directly appointed by the Queen to set “the strategic objectives of the BBC” and chooses the broadcaster’s director general who heads its Executive Board in charge of its services and output.
The magnitude of the Savile scandal and the unfolding drama including comments by Tom Watson MP who openly suggested in parliament that there may be a pedophile ring going right to the British Prime Minister’s office at No 10 Downing Street raise more questions.
Is the Queen aware of the true scale of the scandal that is currently unknown to much of the public and even investigators and wants to keep herself out of any inquiries?
Or probably she is keeping a low profile to evade responsibility for knighting a former employee of an organization where its sovereign body members she directly appointed.
What is clear is that her silence remains problematic and begs more questions still less answers.

Today David Icke asks how the hell did Jimmy Savile end up running the Royal family, negotiating between Diana and Charles, advising Charles which officials to employ, ans socialising with them all.  He was knighted despite everyone in the entertainments business knowing him to be an active pedophile – or worse.  How did this all happen?

Savile receives his knighthood in 1996
Savile receives his knighthood in 1996.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

13 Responses to “The Queen runs the BBC. Jimmy Savile ran the Royal family.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Actor Ian Mc Kelern is said to be the next one in trouble.
    My pal at the BBC says they will protect him as he is a “flagship” actor for the gay movement.
    ( homosexuals ) but why should some get punished and some let off ?
    margaret simms
    school teacher retired

  2. Anonymous says:

    Actor Ian Mc Kelern is said to be the next one in trouble.
    My pal at the BBC says they will protect him as he is a “flagship” actor for the gay movement.
    ( homosexuals ) but why should some get punished and some let off ?
    margaret simms
    school teacher retired

  3. Anonymous says:

    ‘TV Licensing’ more or less funds the BBC and ‘TV Licensing’ is a trademark owned by the BBC and the ‘TM’ logo was dropped a few years ago.

    An interesting thread here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licensing_logo_lacks_the_trad

    The ‘TV License’ was long ago officially classified as a tax. The ‘TV Licensing’ operation is run by Capita PLC. It’s all about the pyramid structure with each upper level distancing itself from the lower level… compartmentalisation.

    Some of the ‘TV Licence’ money does go to other channels as part of the Public Service Broadcasting remit, to be fair.

    The point of the matter is the BBC is a state run organisation and look what we get for our tax ‘TV Licence’ money.

    Beggars belief.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Looking forward to the upcoming “Queens Speech” soon

    Ha

    HETT

  5. Anonymous says:

    Don’t watch T(almud) V(ision) anymore.

    If push came to shove though, then I’d rather watch the 1000th repeat of Only Fools And Horses than the Lizard Queen dressed up in a dress trying to talk posh with her ‘Queens Speech’.

    What a joke.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Earlier tonight I listened to BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby. One of the questions was should those accused of child abuse be afforded the same anonymity as the alleged victims until they are convicted. The audience questions on these panel discussion shows are often planted and always vetted beforehand, so we can be fairly sure that this question was part of a BBC strategy to generate an artificial clamour for the names of celebrities accused of paedophilia to be kept secret. In his line of questioning of the panellists, Dimbleby strongly implied that all of this hounding of celebrities and establishment figures was most unseemly. He even wrongly reinterpreted the question to make it seem like the questioner was only calling for anonymity for those questioned, when in fact the question suggested that even those officially charged should be shielded from public view. The audience (packed?) also seemed very sympathetic to the idea that accusations of celebrity paedophilia should not be made public. It seems there is a massive media mindscaping going on right now to paint those accusing bigwigs and celebs of paedophilia as deluded, hysterical and unjust. To amplify this further: just now on BBC TV’s Have I Got News For You, David Mitchell, the BBC’s in house satirist who was chairing the show made a nasty jibe about Philip Schofield. As with 9/11 truthers, the line coming from the mainstream media is that those who talk of establishment paedophile rings are not to be taken seriously.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I could be crazy but.

    the latest drive/push for cloud storage of our private info.

    or online storage options?

    if the USA’s NSA have major storage solutions for global data.

    yep I mean spying on everybody keeping all data for their future plans to trace all comms etc.

    then is there a connection with NSA’s excess of data space due to trillions of dollars invested by the Gov’t

    getting folk to use these data storage option for free or low rates is probably doubling up on data held?

    Are these storage companies connected with any secret services?

    crazy i know

    Ha

    HETT

  8. Anonymous says:

    @ HETT

    Microsoft has, shall we say, a “lengthy history” with the NSA…

    How NSA access was built into Windows (1999):
    http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html

    The NSA worked on Windows 7 security:
    http://gawker.com/5409368/microsoft-let-nsa-spooks-enhance-windows-7
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/nsa_microsoft_windows_7.html

    The NSA wanted to break Skype’s encryption but couldn’t:
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/expert-skype-calls-nearly-impossible-for-nsa-to-intercept/919
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_for_skype_pwnage/

    So then MS hove into view with beaming smiles and a check for $8.5 billion and made a few “tweaks”. Job’s a goodun.
    http://techrights.org/2012/06/20/skype-and-nsa/
    http://techrights.org/2011/09/08/microsoft-spying/
    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132935-microsoft-tweaking-skype-to-facilitate-wiretapping

    Skype claims the changes were made to “improve the experience”; well, of course they would…

    It doesn’t matter if cloud providers are connected to the alphabet agencies or not. If the servers are US based or the companies are US companies, the Patriot Act kicks in and ALL YOUR DATA ARE BELONG TO US(A):
    http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/the-usa-patriot-act-and-the-privacy-of-data-stored-in-the-cloud-01-18-2012/

    It’s a long article, read in full for totality but here’s extracts from the start and end:

    “For many, these fears were exacerbated by an announcement by Gordon Frazer, the managing director of Microsoft UK, that he could not guarantee that data stored on Microsoft servers, wherever located, would not end up in the hands of the US government, because Microsoft, a company based in the United States, is subject to US laws, including the Patriot Act.”

    […]

    “Consumers of cloud services are wise to consider all types of risk to their data, whether from their home country’s government or another country’s government. Merely avoiding US cloud service providers based on concerns about the Patriot Act does not solve the problem. That choice alone provides no assurance that cloud data is beyond the reach of the Patriot Act, nor does it provide protection against the risk that non-US governments will access the cloud-stored data, either on their own initiative or in response to a MLAT request from the United States.”

    “Rather than making a selection based solely on the home country of competing cloud providers, informed consumers of cloud services should (i) consult legal counsel in their home country, in any jurisdiction where their data may be stored, and in any jurisdiction where their cloud service provider does business; (ii) closely review their cloud services contracts and ask their providers questions; and (iii) carefully consider all the relevant risks before making a decision.”

    This issue arose during the UK census in 2010 because of Lockheed Martin.

    The aim of the tech corporations, with or without the connivance of the security apparatus (it is naive in the extreme to assume they have no interest, imo), is to move everyone to devices that rely almost wholly upon the cloud. Local storage is deprecated; devices get locked down at both the hardware and software levels, especially the cheap ones which are just “shop windows” for the ecosystems of the cloud providers – the walled gardens of Google, Apple, Amazon and now MS.

    The cloud’s marketing blurb is also intended to increase this shift, cloaked as it is in a miasma of ease and convenience designed to appeal to the majority of consumers – the “average computer user” who is by and large technologically illiterate.

    Anything stored in the cloud should be encrypted first, even if the cloud provider claims to offer encryption on their end.

    Anon, obviously 😀

  9. Anonymous says:

    “Anon D:) @12:01 “

    well put & great info

    consider this see:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04s1UU_gsd0

    09.16.12 – NSA WhistleBlower Talks

    ConspiracyDebates

    Your opinion please Sir?

    HETT

  10. Anonymous says:

    i heard one guy say that back in the thirties, the BBC employed all the homosexual cambridge traitors, and the BBC would cover up for them every time they were arrested
    Guy Burgess was caught on schoolground witha boy bent overa bench, and the BBC got him off,
    so this is nothing new
    freda harris

  11. Tapestry says:

    Videos need time to watch HETT. Books are easier to fit into a busy life.

  12. Julia says:

    I have almost stopped watching videos too! Prefer books. Less EMF.

    Jimmy Savile was knighted for services to the Queens Agenda. That’s what all these awards are for. Part of the Queens agenda is paedophilia, so of course the Knighthood makes sense. People like Caeucescu, Mussolini get knighthoods too. See what I mean? The knighthoods sometimes get taken away if there is a sufficiently large outcry.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.