How far does political bias cloud the Savile case?

As it says in the heading – the theme in this post is political bias but the story and its authors revolve around Savile. I am in no way arguing to exonerate Savile, nor to further damn him. I’m interested, not in him but in the authors of articles.

I’ll approach this in the order in which it was looked at by me in the wee hours this morning.

My own bias is well known – non-party political, I am radical centre-right and as such, can collaborate with the likes of Robin Ramsay or the John Birch Society if necessary, it’s a big tent as far as I’m concerned. Never have collaborated with either but I have Ramsay’s JFK book and it puts a good case that LBJ dun it.

My investigative bias can be found in my approach to this post now.

In the googling of RR, this came up:

An investigator will note that and file the screenshot in its appropriate folder for later retrieval.

Sackerson [libertarian economist with a more left than right bias] sent me this pdf and I’ll come back to the content further down.  It is an article for Lobster magazine by one Andrew Rosthorn:

Open Democracy is one of those fuzzy names which often disguises bias and once you get past the upfront guff, you get to this:

Prominent contributors have included Yanis VaroufakisCaroline Lucas MPPeter ObornePaul MasonOwen JonesJohn BergerChantal MouffeÉtienne BalibarChuka UmunnaKofi AnnanGeorge Soros (through his Open Society Foundation he is one of their largest funders), Ayaan Hirsi AliShirin EbadiSidney BlumenthalPeter HainPierre BourdieuManuel CastellsFred Halliday, and David Blunkett.

… and:

It has been funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation among other organisations including the Open Society Foundation the National Endowment for Democracy, the Ford Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.[1]

… and:

Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] 

There was also an ad for one of the various globalist organizations.

Now clearly I’m not saying that Robin Ramsay is part of all that, nor this Andrew Rosthorn.  Yet the main subject of that article from Sackerson concerned Anna Raccoon who, if you look at the Martin Scriblerus blogroll, is seen to be a member. Chief stirrers of that group were James Higham and Sackerson.

Lesson 1

Do your research more thoroughly than usual.

Lesson 2

Investigate all journalistic bias before deciding something is true, partially true, largely wrong or false.

Lesson 3

Do not assume that just because a view is highly politically biased, it does not contain any truth at all in it.

You see, if you want to know the dark side of Thatcher, you won’t find it at Conservative Home.  Similarly, if you wish to find the dirt on Labour, you wouldn’t go this route via Lobster, Open Democracy and so on.  You have to actually go to both and then piece it all together.

Also, if you want anything pro-Leave, you won’t find it at ConHome, you’ll find it at LeaveEU and Better Off Out, plus the Bruges Group.

Conspiracy

Conspiracy “theory” is the charge made against anyone investigating anything when there is something to cover up. For example, the Whitehall mandarins, inc. Robbins, plus their May, are very much in the news for their betrayal of Brexit at this time.

It is not “theory”, it’s actual conspiracy, different other animal.  Tacking “theory” on the end actually reveals the bias of the utterer of that phrase.

And utterers of that phrase include those who would seek to cover up.  And in Savile’s case, look at the years involved – look at who the government was. Look at the names at Open Democracy.

Join obvious dots but not non-obvious ones..

The Savile article

The premise was that there was a wonkiness to the girls’ evidence [and I do not pooh-pooh that] and while it did not say that Savile did not do those things in other places, he did not do them at this home.

He was being careful but the bias was still towards Savile innocence.  Now, cui bono?

Any parallels?

Very much so – the Franklin and McMartin cases and the eventually debunked False Memory Syndrome – but that’s in other posts long ago at this site.  Once again, it’s essential to know who is actually saying it and then actually explore each person involved.

If you’re not prepared to do that, then I’d posit that your testimony is hardly going to be credible, unless you openly state your biases upfront.

5 comments for “How far does political bias cloud the Savile case?

  1. December 7, 2018 at 14:41

    Sackerson, undeterred, advises that the latest edition is out:

    https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue76.php

  2. The Blocked Dwarf
    December 7, 2018 at 16:37

    Did I muck up and post my comment on the wrong thread ? You might thank Sackerson from me (and my thanks to you for posting about it), I hadn’t seen the article before and neither had any of the ‘interested parties’ (including Anna’s ‘Mr G’ and ‘Grandad’, both named in the article!) that I have now passed it on to.

  3. dearieme
    December 7, 2018 at 16:50

    Anna Racoon was an interesting one. I remember pointing out to her that a claim she made about the IQs of the girls in that home was arithmetically exceedingly unlikely to be true. Rather than engaging with the arithmetic she just got huffy-puffy. Now that I know she was a lawyer, it’s a bit clearer – she may have been innumerate.

    But her blog was a Good Thing; well done to her for pursuing this Savile business. I don’t assume that just because I found him a repulsive creep he must have been molesting girls on an industrial scale.

    Once it’s been demonstrated that the origin of a witch-hunt is false, should the rest of the accusations be rejected? Probably, in most instances.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      December 7, 2018 at 18:33

      I have, sad lonely man with nothing better to do that I am, scanned through the post in question https://annaraccoon.com/2012/10/24/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/

      Where you and she disagree somewhat about IQs. Having read enough of your comments here and elsewhere over the years since then I can see ,and agree with, the point you were trying to make- the external fact checking. But by the same token I don’t see her getting particularly huffy and puffy either (and she could , and then some, when the fancy took her), I think she just thought (as others did) you were looking for an argument for an argument’s sake about something relatively unimportant . Shame really, if she’d engaged a bit more with you on the subject it could have gone interesting places I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.