[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-made-repeated-attempts-to-get-jimmy-savile-knighted--despite-pleas-from-concerned-aides-8713407.htmlAccording to Cabinet Office papers, Margaret Thatcher was warned about Jimmy Savile, but still kept pushing him for a knighthood.[/url



So, his behaviour was known about at the very top of the tree.



And who did anything about it (apart from inviting him to Chequers for Christmas)?

What an absolute scandal. The Prime Minister was aware of newspaper reports that Jimmy Saville had sexual intercourse with women and still felt his raising of millions of pounds for hospitals was worthy of a knighthood. Raising money for hospitals is all well and good, but how can Thatcher ever condone the practice of a man having sex with women?

The report you link to indicates only that there were reports of him "sleeping with women". Is there a fundamental problem with this behaviour?



Or have you somehow imposed a link with the benefit of hindsight that, because he "slept with women", he should not have been honoured as this meant he was a paedophile?



I believe that Maggie herself must have slept with Denis at least twice, as they had children. Things might have turned out differently had that shameful behaviour barred her from high public office, but I don't think it really does.

I doubt very much that "complex" was meant as an indicator of 'sleeping with women'.



Whether that was code for 'oh, we daren't tell her the real truth' or whether it is simply indicative of one explanation she was given by senior civil servants (there were four rebuttals, apparently) is obviously unclear.



I would, however, very much doubt that there was a tendency of rejecting anyone (male, certainly) for a gong on the basis of heterosexual promiscuity. After all, the English upper classes have hardly been paragons of abstinence and monogamy - or even heterosexual exploring a, if we take into account public schools etc.



I doubt that Mrs T herself was particularly naive.



It has been pointed out a number of times that for someone to have spent so many holidays at Chequers, he must have been vetted by the security services. His own 1974 autobiography made entirely clear that he was abusing his position for sex (and that he was not arrested because the polices were doing the same).



The mainstream media knew - and chose to nothing.



Now, Jerry has previously made some excellent comments on the change in culture in this respect, and I think he's essentially correct.



The point is that the BBC has been made a scapegoat - largely for reason of political agenda - but it is increasingly clear that a great many people, including some in positions of great influence, knew that Savile was "complex", and did nothing. The point is not that 'Thatcher was to blame', or anything as crass as that, but that people in very senior positions knew that something was amiss. And goodness, it's fairly widespread knowledge that Phil the Greek worked his way through the lady's maids and that Andy is not exactly 100% hetero. So again I'd suggest that, unless the 1980s were a sudden time of sexual Puritanism, it was not about consensual sex between adults.

Apart from a few sportsmen and lollipop ladies it seems to me that it is almost a requirement to be unethical or corrupt on some level to get an award these days. I say that based on numerous examples appearing in the press.

Carol and Mark were/are twins, so once would suffice.





Also bear in mind that Thatcher refused to promote Jonathan Aitken because of his shameful behaviour in having "made Carol cry" after their relationship ended.

Once was more than enough considering what was spawned!

So are we suggesting that the UK's first femal PM ushered in (or just happened to be around during) a 1980s sexual Puritanism, as I suggested earlier?

It was actually The Sun wot did it. And it was The Sun's article about him picking up chicks while running marathons which was causing the delay in him being honoured. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... eport.html Personally I think Mintball should be embarrassed by this thread. But I think she's so far over the edge with her bias she won't be.

It was actually The Sun wot did it. And it was The Sun's article about him picking up chicks while running marathons which was causing the delay in him being honoured. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... eport.html Personally I think Mintball should be embarrassed by this thread. But I think she's so far over the edge with her bias she won't be.

Coming from you that's hilarious.

Just make sure you don't attack any paediatricians next time The Sun lead you into a rage about paedophiles.



Am I embarrassed about some of the things I've done on rlfans? Yes. One example specifically I was completely out of order about. I can admit when I'm wrong.



But you should be embarrassed as a professional journalist by reading that story and coming to that conclusion.

There was at least 4 paedophiles in thatchers government, 1 is still very much politically active.