How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[nino_savatte]

Larry O'Hara said on a previous thread on U75 that he has access to copies of Scallywag!

As it happens, I possess one copy of Scallywag. It has Portillo on the cover.

 

[happie chappie]

I have a complete set of Scallywags in the loft kindly given to me by Angus in a Camden pub as an apology for not sending me an issue I had ordered. I’ll have to dig them out and re-read them.

The identity of the construction fusilier mentioned in Post 187 is very well known (I’m not too sure if I can name him as I think he’s still alive). I’m not even sure if I’m allowed to post links to the various allegations.

But he was very close to Mrs Thatcher, was a Tory (very) big-wig and a Member of the House of Lords. It is not Morrison, btw. The internet is full of allegations of child abuse against him and various associates.

As far as I know, he was never convicted of any offence, but he never sued about the allegations.

 

[elbows]

I'd also suspect that the scallywag article will have been sourced from that shelved cook report investigation, but as it's not available online it can only remain a suspicion unless someone can come up with a copy of the article.

I already posted something where the Scallywag man spoke of interviewing people who were apparently victims of the North Wales care home abuse, suggesting these were his source.

 

[free spirit]

I already posted something where the Scallywag man spoke of interviewing people who were apparently victims of the North Wales care home abuse, suggesting these were his source.

oh. I thought there were 2 articles being referred to, one about the welsh situation and another referring to the cash for questions investigation.

 

[happie chappie]

I'd also suspect that the scallywag article will have been sourced from that shelved cook report investigation, but as it's not available online it can only remain a suspicion unless someone can come up with a copy of the article.

If I do have a copy of the relevant article/s and had them scanned and put up on this thread would it cause a problem for the Mods as, IIRC, it names several prominent people who are likely to be alive, and not convicted of any relevant offences?

BTW, while Scallywag carried a lot of allegations regarding the sexual preferences of a number of high-profile people (including politicians) most of the magazine was actually quite turgid and boring.

 

[elbows]

oh. I thought there were 2 articles being referred to, one about the welsh situation and another referring to the cash for questions investigation.

As best I can tell they ran more than a couple of stories, but the stuff I was reading about didnt actually suggest cash for questions itself was directly linked, just a person.

 

[free spirit]

As best I can tell they ran more than a couple of stories, but the stuff I was reading about didnt actually suggest cash for questions itself was directly linked, just a person.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick then.

The fact that scallywag was publishing this stuff in London around this time though would still support the idea that there could have been justification for the cook report to think that employing a 15 year old actor as an undercover reporter as part of the investigation was likely to be worth doing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick then.

The fact that scallywag was publishing this stuff in London around this time though would still support the idea that there could have been justification for the cook report to think that employing a 15 year old actor as an undercover reporter as part of the investigation was likely to be worth doing.

given that teenage police cadets have for some years been used to catch out shopkeepers selling booze to underage drinkers it is no surprise that the cook report would at least consider employing a 15 year old.

 

[free spirit]

If I do have a copy of the relevant article/s and had them scanned and put up on this thread would it cause a problem for the Mods as, IIRC, it names several prominent people who are likely to be alive, and not convicted of any relevant offences?

BTW, while Scallywag carried a lot of allegations regarding the sexual preferences of a number of high-profile people (including politicians) most of the magazine was actually quite turgid and boring.

I'd expect it would get the board in trouble if it were actually hosted on the boards.

 

[free spirit]

given that teenage police cadets have for some years been used to catch out shopkeepers selling booze to underage drinkers it is no surprise that the cook report would at least consider employing a 15 year old.

Yes, but only if they were investigating something where the use of a 15 year old would be needed.

ie not just for investigating the cash for questions allegations that the Guardian published.

 

[happie chappie]

I'd expect it would get the board in trouble if it were actually hosted on the boards.

In that case I certainly won't do it. But if I can lay my hands on it and scan it people can PM me with their email address and I'll gladly send them copies of the relevant articles.

 

[happie chappie]

In that case I certainly won't do it. But if I can lay my hands on it and scan it people can PM me with their email address and I'll gladly send them copies of the relevant articles.

Ahh - it has been pointed out that, for legal reasons, I should withdraw this offer and I have agreed to do so.

 

[1%er]

edit: I read the rest of the posts before I ask that

 

[ska invita]

Ian Bone has posted this (apologies if this has been gone over before)

HERE’S HOW AN ESTABLISHMENT COVER UP WORKS
Lord ‘Bob’ Boothby was a tory MP and cabinet minister in the 1950s with a well known (among the political class) liking for young boys – oh yes he was also having a long standing affair with Dorothy Macmillan the prime minister’s wife. In the 1960s the Krays provided orgies and young boys for him. the daily miror carried a story making these allegations which also included the Labour MP Tom Driberg. So it was in neither the Tory or Labour partys interest to have this exposed.

Harold Wilson’s enforcer Arnold Goodman put heavy pressure on Cecil King the Mirror’s owner to retract the piece. Boothby won big libel damages and all the journalists and editor were sacked and boothby given an apology. The other papers were too scared ever to investigate Boothby again. the bulk of the population remained in ignorance of the whole affair which remained within the political elites. That’s how cover ups work.
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/heres-how-an-establishment-cover-up-works/

 

[1%er]

who is fronting sky TV Christmas schedule? They are mentioned in a link in post 210

 

[free spirit]

As names aren't named as such, I'm hoping this is ok to copy to here. It's an article written by Simon Regan, the editor of scallywag, prior to his death, which gives a good overview of their investigations, and the subsequent conservative party cover up operation.

In the early nineties, in the now defunct Scallywag magazine, which I founded, we interviewed in some depth twelve former inmates at Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring, which the tribunal acknowledges existed. Most of these interviews were extremely harrowing and disturbing, but were gently and sensitively conducted over pub lunches where the victim could relax. We subsequently persuaded ten of them to make sworn affidavits which we proposed to use as back up to half a dozen paedophile stories we later published.

Two of these young men, who had been 14-years-old at the time, swore they had been not only introduced to the paedophile ring operating in the Crest Hotel in Wrexham but had later been escorted on three or four occasions to an address in Pimlico where they were further abused.

We took them separately to Pimlico and asked them to point out the building where this had taken place. They were both positive in their identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the 'cash for questions' scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled 'Boys for Questions' and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious 'Queen' who specialised in gay parties with a 'political mix' in the Pimlico area - most convenient to the Commons - and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children's homes other than North Wales.

There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names.

So these are the accusations.

And this is what can only be described as a successful cover up operation in which the head of research at the conservative party central office is able to buy their entire office with contents, and remove those contents following a rent dispute (which a cter would point out would be fairly simple to manufacture as a pretext for the court action) .

Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.html

 

[elbows]

Ian Bone has posted this (apologies if this has been gone over before)

HERE’S HOW AN ESTABLISHMENT COVER UP WORKS
Lord ‘Bob’ Boothby was a tory MP and cabinet minister in the 1950s with a well known (among the political class) liking for young boys – oh yes he was also having a long standing affair with Dorothy Macmillan the prime minister’s wife. In the 1960s the Krays provided orgies and young boys for him. the daily miror carried a story making these allegations which also included the Labour MP Tom Driberg. So it was in neither the Tory or Labour partys interest to have this exposed.

Harold Wilson’s enforcer Arnold Goodman put heavy pressure on Cecil King the Mirror’s owner to retract the piece. Boothby won big libel damages and all the journalists and editor were sacked and boothby given an apology. The other papers were too scared ever to investigate Boothby again. the bulk of the population remained in ignorance of the whole affair which remained within the political elites. That’s how cover ups work.
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/heres-how-an-establishment-cover-up-works/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ers-shed-new-light-on-Kray-twins-scandal.html

Yet a newly-uncovered letter sent by Boothby to Kray shows that the two men were friends, and were making social arrangements, more than a year before the peer won his payout.
On notepaper carrying his address in Eaton Square, Belgravia, Boothby wrote to Kray on June 6, 1963: "Thank you for your postcard. I very nearly went to Jersey myself, as I have never been there, and hear from so many people that it is quite delightful.
"If you are free tomorrow evening between six and seven, do come round for a drink and a chat."
The brief note is signed: "Ever sincerely, Boothby."

 

[ska invita]

That must be the delightful Haut de la Garenne...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Presumably though he would have been in a position to influence or close down any internal inquiries, arrange for staff members who were asking awkward questions to be re-allocated and particularly to appoint people in management positions both within the institutions themselves, and within any bodies charged with investigating any abuse internally./

Ie he was in a position which would have specifically enabled him to construct and protect such a network if he wanted to do so.

He'd have been unlikely to have been in such a position unless he'd suborned not only his departmental HR depth, but that of every hospital in his remit. Senior Civil Servants facilitate policy, they don't engage with middle management minutiae, and any senior CS that did would be very noticeable.

 

[free spirit]

He'd have been unlikely to have been in such a position unless he'd suborned not only his departmental HR depth, but that of every hospital in his remit. Senior Civil Servants facilitate policy, they don't engage with middle management minutiae, and any senior CS that did would be very noticeable.

minutiae like the appointment of savile? that sort of thing?

I'll admit to not knowing exactly what he could and couldn't influence, but given that one key question in all this is exactly how Savile ended up being put in charge of Broadmoor, and how come he was allowed to have a flat there etc. and the references to saville having high up friends able to quash any complaints that were made, it'd seem fairly relevant that the person at the top of the civil service in charge of running the places later turns out to have allegations against him so serious that he's banned from working with children by 2 councils.

In doing a bit of digging on this, I stumbled upon 2 reports in the archives that were apparently sealed for 75 years on his watch in 1988 (I think).

Ill treatment and sexual offences against mental patients under Sections 126-128 of Act, 1959-1963
Reports on alleged incidents of illtreatment 1961-1962
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C209968
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C209969


I don't know if this would be standard practice or not, but this would presumably be the sort of thing that a head of department could influence if they wanted to.

I'd assume they could also have influence over such things as whether or not to launch an internal inquiry to find out if there was any child abuse going on in homes it ran.

Also the idea that it would stand out if the head did take a particular interest in a certain facility, or instructed the personnel department to put someone in charge of a certain facility is only really a problem for someone if they're scared of being found out / if there's a risk that someone's going to report them. If they're the head of department, would juniors really consider risking their jobs to report them because they'd taken an unusual level of interest in one of the facilities the department managed?

If the guy were operating alone, or he was the most powerful involved, then maybe they would. If on the other hand he wasn't operating alone, and wasn't the most powerful person involved then he'd be much more free to act with relative impunity.

It certainly goes some way to explain the feelings that there would be no point in anyone complaining because nothing ever got done about any complaints / they were hushed up, that run through a lot of the statements made by staff from some of these places that I've read in various articles following the savile revelations.

 

[nino_savatte]

As names aren't named as such, I'm hoping this is ok to copy to here. It's an article written by Simon Regan, the editor of scallywag, prior to his death, which gives a good overview of their investigations, and the subsequent conservative party cover up operation.



So these are the accusations.

And this is what can only be described as a successful cover up operation in which the head of research at the conservative party central office is able to buy their entire office with contents, and remove those contents following a rent dispute (which a cter would point out would be fairly simple to manufacture as a pretext for the court action) .

Ah, Dolphin Square, where a lot of dodginess took place that often involved "Polly" and his pal, Pete.

 

[Idris2002]

I suspect that as more and more of this comes out, the grim spectre of Lord Tom Denning will arise from his grave. . . 'twas Denning, you'll remember, who said it was better that the Birmingham Six remain in jail, even if they were innocent, if the alternative was that the "appalling vista" of a sea of bent coppers be confirmed as truth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

minutiae like the appointment of savile? that sort of thing?

Savile's appointment is more likely to have come from above his pay grade, i.e. from a ministerial office (which would mean a very senior Civil Servant or a Minister pulling the strings).

I'll admit to not knowing exactly what he could and couldn't influence, but given that one key question in all this is exactly how Savile ended up being put in charge of Broadmoor, and how come he was allowed to have a flat there etc. and the references to saville having high up friends able to quash any complaints that were made, it'd seem fairly relevant that the person at the top of the civil service in charge of running the places later turns out to have allegations against him so serious that he's banned from working with children by 2 councils.

You're doing it again. Rather than dispassionately assessing the evidence and finding out the responsibilities of a Civil Servant of that grade, you're just sticking things together and seeing if the glue takes.
A few problems with your thesis, from the POV of the Civil Service and generally are:
Areas of responsibility: Acting by fiat to impose personnel or even instructions is exceedingly difficult. The Civil Service, then as now, runs on paper, and on a chain of command. Stepping outside the chain of command and/or not committing actions to paper would place anyone, from an Executive Officer to a Permanent Secretary in a situation where they couldn't cover their arses from fallout, and Civil Servants learn very early to be arse-coverers par excellence.
Savile put in charge: This would have needed to come from a minister's office, not from a departmental head. Departmental heads facilitate and execute policy, they're not allowed to make it or break it.
Allegations so serious: While it's entirely possible that Savile and the Civil Servant knew each other as fellow paedophiles, what interest would it serve to facilitate Savile molesting adults and corpses in Broadmoor? Wouldn't it actually open the Civil Servant to unwanted scrutiny?

In doing a bit of digging on this, I stumbled upon 2 reports in the archives that were apparently sealed for 75 years on his watch in 1988 (I think).

Ill treatment and sexual offences against mental patients under Sections 126-128 of Act, 1959-1963
Reports on alleged incidents of illtreatment 1961-1962
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C209968
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C209969


I don't know if this would be standard practice or not, but this would presumably be the sort of thing that a head of department could influence if they wanted to.

Again, that's ministerial, not departmental.

I'd assume they could also have influence over such things as whether or not to launch an internal inquiry to find out if there was any child abuse going on in homes it ran.

DoH didn't, as far as I recall, run childrens' homes. That's always been the responsibility of local authorities and (unfortunately) charities, right from the days of the workhouse (which was also used to house older orphans).
As to influence over internal inquiries, yes, a departmental head could influence them, from selection of the inquiry team right through to the editing of the final report.

Also the idea that it would stand out if the head did take a particular interest in a certain facility, or instructed the personnel department to put someone in charge of a certain facility is only really a problem for someone if they're scared of being found out / if there's a risk that someone's going to report them. If they're the head of department, would juniors really consider risking their jobs to report them because they'd taken an unusual level of interest in one of the facilities the department managed?

From my own experience in the Civil Service, I'd say yes. First thing you learn is cover your arse. That doesn't mean necessarily reporting the person to a superior, but it does mean filing memoranda/leaving a paper trail. I know of plenty of instances from my own dept where people not only expressed concerns about our minister, but also about senior Civil Servants stepping outside the ambit of their role to facilitate demands she made (no, it wasn't Edwina Currie, and the demands weren't sexual!).

If the guy were operating alone, or he was the most powerful involved, then maybe they would. If on the other hand he wasn't operating alone, and wasn't the most powerful person involved then he'd be much more free to act with relative impunity.

It certainly goes some way to explain the feelings that there would be no point in anyone complaining because nothing ever got done about any complaints / they were hushed up, that run through a lot of the statements made by staff from some of these places that I've read in various articles following the savile revelations.

But so does local management hushing up porblems because of the funds Savile raised. Occam's Razor.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Jimmy Savile caused concern with behaviour on visits to Prince Charles

Former royal aide says TV presenter would greet young female assistants at St James's Palace by 'rubbing lips up their arms'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/29/jimmy-savile-behaviour-prince-charles?CMP=twt_gu

 

[elbows]

From that article.

Charles reportedly sent him a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday with a note that read: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that."

 

[butchersapron]

_____________________________________________________________________________

There are other hints coming out at the moment, such as an aside in the Panorama report on Savile last night by Merion Jones who's Aunt ran Duncroft girls school, which he apparently visited as a kid, describing it as.

‘a very strange place, full of celebrities and minor members of the Royal family

wtf were celebrities and minor royals doing hanging around at an institutional residential girls school, particularly one where it now turns out that Savile was routinely abusing probably dozens of underage girls in the same time period.

The Telegraph is now reporting that girls at Dunford now claim that he had his own rooms on site.

 

[elbows]

The police explanation for why the headmistress was never questioned is just great

​

A spokeswoman for Surrey Police said officers had spoken to 22 former residents of the home, and the charity Barnado's that ran the home at the time of the allegations.​

She said: "Barnardo's informed us they had no record of any allegations of sexual abuse reported to staff during this period.​

"A decision was made not to interview former staff unless there was evidence to suggest they witnessed abuse or were made aware of abuse at the time.​

"None of the former residents spoken to during the course of the investigation indicated staff witnessed abuse and stated they had not reported abuse to any staff at the time."​

​

​

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/chance-to-catch-savile-was-missed-16231814.html

 

[free spirit]

Savile's appointment is more likely to have come from above his pay grade, i.e. from a ministerial office (which would mean a very senior Civil Servant or a Minister pulling the strings).

As I say, I'm not particularly up on civil service grades etc. but from the telegraph article, I thought this guy was supposed to have headed up that division, and I find it a bit hard to believe that the head of division has no say over the make up of a task force to take over his divisions most high profile facility. I'm sure the minister would then have had to sign off on it.. though maybe it was just curry.

You're doing it again. Rather than dispassionately assessing the evidence and finding out the responsibilities of a Civil Servant of that grade, you're just sticking things together and seeing if the glue takes.

tbh, I have tried to find out, but the division doesn't seem to still exist, neither does the department, and I couldn't find anything that told me what the structure of the department was back then, so I'm left with throwing shit at it and seeing what sticks.

As you seem to have insider knowledge from your career, if you can post up a synosis of what you think this guys actual role and responsibility and powers would be then it's assist my understanding, otherwise I'm going to be left with the impression that the head of division would have a reasonable amount of influence over the activities of that division (eta which I see you've started below thanks).

A few problems with your thesis, from the POV of the Civil Service and generally are:
Areas of responsibility: Acting by fiat to impose personnel or even instructions is exceedingly difficult. The Civil Service, then as now, runs on paper, and on a chain of command. Stepping outside the chain of command and/or not committing actions to paper would place anyone, from an Executive Officer to a Permanent Secretary in a situation where they couldn't cover their arses from fallout, and Civil Servants learn very early to be arse-coverers par excellence.
Savile put in charge: This would have needed to come from a minister's office, not from a departmental head. Departmental heads facilitate and execute policy, they're not allowed to make it or break it.

ok that helps a bit, but would the views of the head of division seriously not be taken into account at all in this process? I'd have thought the division head would have been making suggestions for the minister to rubber stamp rather than the minister actually coming up with the name themselves. TBH though whether he was the one making the suggestion or just the one accepting the suggestion without going 'hold on, you want Jimmy Saville to run broadmoor?' or the more civil service version of that.

Allegations so serious: While it's entirely possible that Savile and the Civil Servant knew each other as fellow paedophiles, what interest would it serve to facilitate Savile molesting adults and corpses in Broadmoor? Wouldn't it actually open the Civil Servant to unwanted scrutiny?

dunno, but there are a fair few possibilities. I doubt it would have just been about helping Jimmy molest more of them for the sake of it. Maybe Savile had something on him, maybe there's more to it, or I guess, maybe if he was into this sort of thing himself he was just happy enough to turn a blind eye where others would have maybe asked some more serious questions.

DoH didn't, as far as I recall, run childrens' homes. That's always been the responsibility of local authorities and (unfortunately) charities, right from the days of the workhouse (which was also used to house older orphans).

I might have been getting a bit mixed up, I thought some of the child abuse allegations were coming from broadmoor.

As to influence over internal inquiries, yes, a departmental head could influence them, from selection of the inquiry team right through to the editing of the final report.

bingo - so some of the shit has stuck.

But so does local management hushing up porblems because of the funds Savile raised. Occam's Razor.

maybe - I'd think that certainly would have helped provide cover.

I could see occam's razor coming down on that side in one place, one situation, but just have problems with the fact that it takes him across multiple facilities, in multiple organisations, and gave him cover from apparently up to 7 police investigations that got dropped over several decades.

I could see that sort of thing possibly happening, but then I come back to the fact that he was one of the highest profile BBC presenters at a time when the Telegraph has reported that MI5 were carrying out background checks on up to 1/3 of BBC staff, and was regularly mixing with the prime minister, and royal family, so I just can't see anyway at all that he wouldn't have been given a proper security check or several, and that these wouldn't have at least thrown up the multiple police investigations into him if not other allegations. This was the sort of stuff MI5 were supposed to be looking for (as I understand things) - anything that would make people easily blackmailable (along with political leanings etc).

Put that into the equation, and my occams razor comes back to the idea that at the very least, the BBC should have been warned by MI5 when they did their checks and found that a childrens TV presenter had multiple child abuse accusations against him. I view the fact that they apparently told nobody about this officially as fairly good evidence that MI5 at least had some sort of ulterior motive for not revealing this information.

 

[elbows]

Anyone here familiar with the history of covert video footage of Max Clifford? There was a clip on youtube of him saying things about Alan Clark but its been made private since I first saw it. I was wondering what the origins of the clip were and whether this part was was known already.

Here is a different clip which also features some undercover video at points, including him going on about a groper and charity.

 

[butchersapron]

As I say, I'm not particularly up on civil service grades etc. but from the telegraph article, I thought this guy was supposed to have headed up that division, and I find it a bit hard to believe that the head of division has no say over the make up of a task force to take over his divisions most high profile facility. I'm sure the minister would then have had to sign off on it.. though maybe it was just curry.


tbh, I have tried to find out, but the division doesn't seem to still exist, neither does the department, and I couldn't find anything that told me what the structure of the department was back then, so I'm left with throwing shit at it and seeing what sticks.

As you seem to have insider knowledge from your career, if you can post up a synosis of what you think this guys actual role and responsibility and powers would be then it's assist my understanding, otherwise I'm going to be left with the impression that the head of division would have a reasonable amount of influence over the activities of that division (eta which I see you've started below thanks).


ok that helps a bit, but would the views of the head of division seriously not be taken into account at all in this process? I'd have thought the division head would have been making suggestions for the minister to rubber stamp rather than the minister actually coming up with the name themselves. TBH though whether he was the one making the suggestion or just the one accepting the suggestion without going 'hold on, you want Jimmy Saville to run broadmoor?' or the more civil service version of that.


dunno, but there are a fair few possibilities. I doubt it would have just been about helping Jimmy molest more of them for the sake of it. Maybe Savile had something on him, maybe there's more to it, or I guess, maybe if he was into this sort of thing himself he was just happy enough to turn a blind eye where others would have maybe asked some more serious questions.


I might have been getting a bit mixed up, I thought some of the child abuse allegations were coming from broadmoor.


bingo - so some of the shit has stuck.


maybe - I'd think that certainly would have helped provide cover.

I could see occam's razor coming down on that side in one place, one situation, but just have problems with the fact that it takes him across multiple facilities, in multiple organisations, and gave him cover from apparently up to 7 police investigations that got dropped over several decades.

I could see that sort of thing possibly happening, but then I come back to the fact that he was one of the highest profile BBC presenters at a time when the Telegraph has reported that MI5 were carrying out background checks on up to 1/3 of BBC staff, and was regularly mixing with the prime minister, and royal family, so I just can't see anyway at all that he wouldn't have been given a proper security check or several, and that these wouldn't have at least thrown up the multiple police investigations into him if not other allegations. This was the sort of stuff MI5 were supposed to be looking for (as I understand things) - anything that would make people easily blackmailable (along with political leanings etc).

Put that into the equation, and my occams razor comes back to the idea that at the very least, the BBC should have been warned by MI5 when they did their checks and found that a childrens TV presenter had multiple child abuse accusations against him. I view the fact that they apparently told nobody about this officially as fairly good evidence that MI5 at least had some sort of ulterior motive for not revealing this information.

You're doing occam's projection. Connect all these dots properly.