The head of the Honours Committee resisted attempts by Margaret Thatcher to award Savile a knighthood in the 1980s, due to concerns about his private life.
An anonymous letter in 1998 said that "reports of a paedophilia nature" could emerge about Savile
In letters exchanged with Thatcher's secretary in 1983, committee head Lord Robert Armstrong cited interviews with Savile published in the Sun in 1982 in which Savile boasted about sleeping with hundreds of girls, & having people assaulted.
In the 1990 Queen's Birthday Honours Savile was made a Knight Bachelor "for charitable services", entitled to use the honorific prefix "Sir".
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had made four attempts to have him knighted before succeeding in her final year in office.
Why drag this up now?
To emphasise the importance of holding those in positions of great power or authority to the highest possible standards of behaviour, & to emphasise that scrutiny of their activities is of the utmost importance, & should thus be taken extremely seriously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A #THREAD on some lessons for @Keir_Starmer & @UKLabour from when John Smith became Labour leader back in 1992, after another humiliating defeat.
How does Labour become electable again?
When John Smith became leader of the Labour Party in July 1992 he introduced the ‘one member one vote’ system for electing the Party leader but otherwise wanted to minimise conflict within the Labour Party, which was still smarting from the general election defeat under Kinnock.
He wanted to heal divisions and focus instead on the unpopularity of the Tory Government.
Blair's henchman John McTernan stated John Smith and Labour were heading for “certain victory” in the 1997 general election.
How might we account for the highly disproportionate amount of anti-environmentalism among conservative white males, compared to any other group?
And might this help understand white conservative male opposition to lockdowns?
For many years now, risk perception scholars have found plenty of evidence to suggest a white male (WM) effect, whereby WMs are more accepting of a range of environmental, public health & technological risks than are other adults.
How do we account for this?
The ‘identity-protective cognition thesis’ is useful.
Much of this THREAD is based on Aaron McCright's 2013 research paper: ‘Bringing Ideology In: The Conservative White Male Effect on Worry about Environmental Problems in the USA'.
Fewer than 3 in 10 of the electorate voted Tory in #GE2019.
Of the 30 lowest constituency turnouts, all bar one were in the north of England. In 287 constituencies (44%), turnout was less than two-thirds of the electorate.
The turnout in #Hartlepool was just 42.3%, but this is still a significant increase on the 2018 local elections, when the percentage of registered voters who returned a ballot in Hartlepool was the lowest in the country, at just 24.2%
In #GE2019, turnout tended to be higher than average in constituencies with a larger proportion of older residents.
Also, 26 seats were won with majorities of less than 2%, 141 seats out of 650 were won by a margin of less than 10%, within an overall average turnout of 67.3%.
Despite today's ridiculous rhetoric & preposterous punditry, know that fewer than 3 in 10 of the UK *electorate* voted for the #sociopathic Tories in 2019, & just 22% voted Tory in the #HartlepoolByElection.
But 'what's the difference between a sociopath & a psychopath' you say?
Why would I say Tories are 'sociopathic'?
Psychopaths & sociopaths share a similar set of traits: they both have a poor inner sense of right & wrong, & they both lack empathy - they can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.
One difference between psychopaths & sociopaths is psychopaths don’t have a conscience. If they lie to you in order to steal your money, they won’t feel any moral qualms, though they may pretend to. They may observe others & then act in a way that ensures they're not “found out".
The corrupt authoritarian philistine Tory Govt wants to impose a catastrophic 50% cuts to our genuinely world-beating Creative Arts subjects, Media Studies & Archeology at higher education level in England.
Imposing a catastrophic 50% funding cut to our genuinely world-beating Creative Arts subjects, Media Studies & Archeology at higher education level in England is a philistine act of purely ideologically motivated vandalism that makes zero economic sense.
In January, Gavin Williamson announced that our increasingly authoritarian Govt of philistines intends to cut University funding by 50% to performing & creative arts, media studies & archaeology, with further reductions sought in future years.
Unlike our corrupt Government of liars, bankers, lobbyists & charlatans, Britain's cultural, communication & creative industries are genuinely world beating, & among the fastest growing sectors of our struggling economy.
It makes *zero* economic sense.
So why are they doing it?
The importance of communications & media in the lives of British citizens has never been greater, with an epidemic of disinformation & misleading, deeply polarizing, & ideological #propaganda passed off as news - much of it emanating from Downing Street via the billionaire press.