By: Baxter Dmitry
Disturbing documents revealing close ties between Prince Charles and an elite pedophile network including prolific pedophile Sir Jimmy Savile have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Originally the documents contained redacted paragraphs, designed to hide the names and identities of the elite players involved with known pedophiles. However The Star on Sunday launched an appeal, insisting it was in the public interest to know the identity of the elites and what they were discussing.
After a seven month legal battle, the truth was finally revealed.
When investigations into Savile began in 2012, a huge cover-up by the British establishment was blown wide open. Savile was revealed to be not only abusing children himself but also procuring children for elite pedophile rings.
The Star reports: The new documents show Savile claimed Prince Charles had agreed to be a patron of one of his charities – and, crucially, last year someone in power had decided we shouldn’t know that fact, despite it being common knowledge that the Prince and weirdo Savile were close friends.
The cover-up concerned Savile asking Prince Charles to be patron of his Stoke Mandeville appeal.
The letter to Thatcher from one of her aides reads: “Even more encouraging, though again confidential at this stage, Jimmy Savile tells me that the Prince of Wales has agreed to be Patron of the Appeal.”
The nugget was contained in a one page letter headed PRIME MINISTER dated March 6, 1980, and initialled G.V.
The letter was part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew, southwest London. It included pervert Savile declaring his love for the former PM, showing how well connected he was to establishment figures.
A National Archives official explained the Charles paragraph was excluded under sections 40 and 41.
Section 40 refers to information that it would breach the Data Protection Act to reveal that that person would have a “legitimate expectation” that the information would remain private.
Section 41 covers information that was given in confidence. Two documents in the dossier are still being covered up and will stay secret for 40 years after a ruling when claims about Savile began to emerge.
One, misspelling Savile’s name, is described as “Letter from Jimmy Saville to Prime Minister (undated).”
The other is “Telephone message from Jimmy Savile” dated February 5, 1980. It was still unclear whose blushes were being spared by those sections remaining blanked out.
Freedom of information campaigners have criticized officials for misusing the rules to keep information secret. Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign For Freedom Of Information, said: “They often use these sections to protect the identity of people who are actually players in the decision-making process who ought to be identified.”
“Sometimes people haven’t behaved properly and shouldn’t have any expectation of having their identity protected. If you persist, you can succeed in overturning these decisions.“
Former Top Of The Pops presenter Savile was a fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville hospital in Buckinghamshire, where he also preyed on young patients.
One paralyzed woman said Savile abused her when she was 13 and recovering in the children’s ward in 1971. Nurses even warned youngsters “pretend to be asleep” when he visited.
The hospital launched its own inquiry after a catalog of attacks was revealed across the country, dating back to 1955.
Savile was also allowed in and out of Charles’ residence St James’ Palace when he acted as a marriage guidance counselor for Charles and Diana.
Charles, who led tributes when Savile died, aged 84, in October 2011, had sent him cigars and gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday. A note with the gifts read: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.“
A spokeswoman for Charles said the redaction was nothing to do with his office. It was public knowledge that he was a patron of that appeal, she said.
And the Cabinet Office added: “As a result of the review of the FOI request, the Cabinet Office decided a small amount of information may be released.”
“The reason it was originally redacted is quoted in section 40 and 41. A review decided that a small extract could be released.”
http://yournewswire.com/prince-charles-pedophile-ring/
