The Inside story of tomorrow's High Court 'Savile' hearing.

by Anna Raccoon on February 23, 2014

snake-v-mongoose-webI should have been, and have been for some time, respecting an embargo on what I am about to describe. But it seems that others involved in what was supposed to be a ‘private case’ listed for hearing at the High Court tomorrow have decided to break rank and give – or even sell? – their version of events to the downmarket Daily Star and Daily Record this morning. So no reason for me to keep quiet any longer.

I am not surprised. The amount of skullduggery that has surrounded the issue of ‘compensation’ to the ‘alleged victims’ of a man who has never stood trial or had the chance to defend himself is extraordinary.

Human beings come with many different personalities. Some fiery and challenging like the Cobra, some as meek and retiring as a Mongoose. It may surprise you to learn that lawyers are human beings too.

Some, those with street fighter instincts, choose the hurly-burly of the legal chaise-longue – the ‘no-holds barred’ areas of personal injury and negligence litigation. They are happy in the public eye, at ease with their intimidating reputation that sees less than 10% of torts ever reaching the judicial bench. They raise their heads and hiss – and mostly accept battle honours with no battle.

Other personalities head for the legal equivalent of the marital bed – a post-menopausal marital bed at that. ‘Trusts and Probate’ – that arcane area of English Law where an unhealthy proportion of your clients are not even sentient and ‘battles’ mostly consist of firing ‘paper aeroplanes’ at your opponent, there is rarely any hand-to-hand fighting.

Each to its own. The two legal personalities rarely meet.

Tomorrow in the Chancery Division, ‘Personal Injury meets Probate’ in a grim battle over Claim No:HC13F00335.

Those who have been at pains not to publicise the forthcoming case between ‘Luke Lucas and Roger Bodley v. National Westminster Bank’ did so because what is at stake is essentially the reputation of the Nat West bank as executors of estates. They have a large probate division, which brings a healthy income to the bank. They are trusted by many people to carry out their wishes after their death. Whether their behaviour has been totally above board, reflecting the trust placed upon them by a testator to carry out his/her wishes, or whether they have allowed themselves to become too close to those who would wish to see the testators wishes frustrated, for whatever reason, is what is at stake tomorrow.

Who is Luke Lucas? Who is Roger Bodley? Why should we take an interest?

Well, Luke Lucas is a reclusive Swiss resident who used to have a bird’s eye view of the English Channel, and Roger Bodley is a man building a house of hemp overlooking the Tasmanian Bass Straight. No obvious connection yet? Let’s dig a little deeper? Pretend we are old style journalists, shall we?

Luke lives in Switzerland and here is Roger speaking at the 3rd International Hemp Building Symposium – in Switzerland. Give in yet?

OK, both Luke and Roger were long time friends and trusted confidantes of Jimmy Savile and they are the named trustees of  the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Charitable Trust. They are the people who were burdened with the task of ensuring that Jimmy’s assets were distributed to “provide funds for the relief of poverty and sickness and other charitable purposes beneficial to the community”, as well as “provision of recreational and other facilities for disabled persons”.

The 2013 accounts for the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust showed a shade over three and a half million pounds in hand. Three and a half million pounds that should be working hard for disabled and underprivileged people. People like Help For Heroes, or even victims of abuse through the many charities set up to advise and support such victims. It should be supporting Leeds University undergraduate medical students, funding – among other things – a bursary for the students to conduct research during the holidays.

It isn’t. It isn’t, because within weeks of Jimmy”s death, a woman called Georgina Reay decided that she looked so much like Jimmy Savile that she ‘must be’ his secret love child. She dismissed the idea of DNA tests, ‘forget about DNA’ she said, – just give us a slice of his assets. A year later when it had been comprehensively proven that she categorically wasn’t Jimmy’s child – she decided that actually, since there was no money on offer, she no longer wanted to be associated with ‘that’ Monster.

Meanwhile the dispersal of funds to good causes had been held up as the Executors, the National Westminster Bank, waited to see whether Jimmy really did have a daughter who might be entitled to claim on his estate. Held up just long enough to allow the ‘fearless crusader’ on child protection matters, Mark Williams-Thomas, to take the story that he had been hired for as a £500 researcher on by the BBC, over the road to ITV and turn it into the pot-boiler that he apparently ‘risked his career’ to produce. Quite how you ‘risk’ a career cleaning chewing-gum off Westminster streets by labelling a dead man who cannot defend himself in court as ‘a paedophile’ is a mystery to me. Nor whether you can really call ‘stringing’ stories to the local papers, whilst employed as a police constable, much of a career? In some quarters, like Operation Elvedon, such antics are described as being a possibly criminal career.

By the time that the NSPCC had jumped on the bandwagon, the lawyers were encircling the Savile Trust on behalf of unnamed clients who had just remembered how deeply traumatised they were since 40 years before when their path had crossed Jimmy Savile’s.

Not traumatised in the manner of the severely disabled clients of ‘Help for Heroes’, you understand – missing arms or legs in the service of their country.

Just traumatised in a manner that required, if the Nat West bank as executors of the Estate would be so kind, quickly mind you, to divide up Jimmy’s assets between all of them (after their legal fees had been paid, naturally). As the months rolled by, the legal fees mounted, and the remaining pool to be potentially divided between these new and far more ‘deserving’ clients than mere legless veterans, shrunk. Legless veterans can provide unequivocal proof that they are indeed legless veterans. The clients of these lawyers merely ‘allege’; un-investigated, unproven allegations, that  they are more deserving of Jimmy’s assets.

I said ‘clients’ because we are not talking about all Jimmy’s ‘alleged victims’, no, no. This pot had just been ear marked for the ‘use’ of the clients of just two firms of personal injury lawyers. Or should I say, just one, since one firm seems to have eaten the other firm whilst marking time….

Should the Nat West pay these claimants without investigating? Should they have paid Georgina Reay without a DNA test? Obviously not! How many other confabulatory Georgina Reay’s are there in the pool of remaining clients?

Will this battle between dry and dusty ‘Trust and Probate’ lawyers (Jo Summers of PWT Advice, on behalf of the Trustees) who are possibly not best equipped to handle the sort of media bunfight that this case has elicited and the Nat West Bank under pressure from media savvy ‘Personal Injury’ lawyers throw any light on this matter?

Not many Chancery cases are worth watching – but this one is. The application is for nothing more than the replacement of the National Westminster lawyers as executors of the Savile estate – by an executor who will ensure the claims are investigated before any charity is deprived of money in favour of ‘alleged’ and un-investigated claimants.

I’ll leave you to judge who might have had a vested interest in deciding to help the Daily Star run a story headlined: “Jimmy Savile’s victims fear his charity wants to block a proposed compensation scheme.”

The Cobra may have a fearsome reputation – but the Mongoose can surprise.

{ 143 comments… read them below or add one }

Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Good work, Anna. I never get tired of that old saw from Watergate: “Follow the money.” When you’ve hewn through all the bushes and the brambles and the thickets of the zeitgeist, there’s usually a pot of gold in there somewhere. Human nature isn’t as complicated as we like to believe it is 🙂


Ho Hum February 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Wasn’t it Solomon who wrote all those years ago that ‘the love of money is the root of all evil’


Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 1:04 pm

He knew a thing or two did old Solomon. He had 600 concubines. 🙂


Ho Hum February 23, 2014 at 1:08 pm

My recollection is that an excess of women was his downfall 🙂


Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Can you imagine how much they cost him? 🙂 Even wholesale, so to speak?


Ho Hum February 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm

In fact, in keeping with the land lady’s post of yesterday, he was known to communicate intimately with Egyptian Pussy. A reprehensible App-lickation in the modern world, I would guess

Terrible pun, but irresistible 🙂


Frankie February 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm

…Just as an excess of teenyboppers and young, vulnerable and trusting persons in care has been the downfall of Sir James ‘Jimmy’ Savile KBE.


No proof needed to remove the ‘Sir’ ‘James’ ‘KBE’ or even the ‘Jimmy’ in some accounts.

Trial by media. The way forward. Interesting stuff Anna. “Where there’s a will etc.”…


Michael February 28, 2014 at 12:26 am

600 concubines.

Wouldn’t they have been rather prickly?

(I’ll get me coat)


Anna Raccoon February 23, 2014 at 1:44 pm

The media seem to be working on the basis that ‘love of evil is the root of all money’……


Ho Hum February 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm

Yep. Fully signed up members of the group that St Paul described as reprehensible for saying something along the lines of ‘let us do evil that good may come’


Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 5:08 pm

“Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks”. 🙂


johnS February 23, 2014 at 2:54 pm

Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 12:55 pm
“I never get tired of that old saw from Watergate: “Follow the money.” ”

I do, because not all actions or beliefs are motivated by money.
Too many people who, rightly, question the global warming scam trot out the “Follow the money” line. All anyone who wants to dismiss sceptics then has to do is point to the many people who are true global warming believers and activists who get no financial benefit, indeed might well be financially worse off.

Just become many people falsely or mistakenly accusing Savile may be motivated, at least partly, by money it doesn’t mean that this is true of all of them and it weakens the defence of truth if we ignore other reasons.


Eyes Wide Shut February 23, 2014 at 5:07 pm

I don’t doubt that people do have other motivations. After all Nixon wanted to get re-elected. Not to cream off the proceeds from CREEP to buy himself a condominium in Florida. 🙂

But money will always feature somewhere.

And as Woodward and Bernstein discovered, following the money is often the best way to get to the bottom of it. Whatever it is.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 12:47 pm

This is very important. The belief that money is automatically a motivation is a curse.


Dunstan February 24, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Rather than “follow the money”, I always ask the question “Whose vanity is being stroked by this”.

There is a halo surrounding those who have given the victims their voice. This may not be their primary motivation, but as long as they are being feted for standing for the downtrodden, doubts have been pushed to one side. They have, perhaps, believed what has been written about them and their clients. It will be interesting to see if the halo slips, and they and others will behave if it turns out they’ve been over-zealous in their endeavours (even though they believe they are acting from the purest motives).


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm

That’s an interesting one, Dunstan. My own experience of really nasty people is that they tended to be motivated by power. Pretty exclusively, actually. A sub-set are motivated by status, which may or not involve actual power. And there are as you say people who are very bound up with projecting a false identity: not necessarily a powerful one, though power is often a concomitant of the persona they adopt. These people can be desperately dangerous precisely because they will fight so hard to maintain that public image and if they suspect that you see through it, it’s not necessary for you to challenge them in any way: the simple fact that they can tell you’re not buying it will make them move heaven and earth to punish you 🙂

However, these things may be conjectured, but they are very difficult to prove. A money-trail on the other hand or the existence of a financial incentive (even if it is not the incentive at all) is sometimes the best way of finding out what is going on.


La Bendita February 24, 2014 at 9:03 pm

I strongly suspect a dose of what Nietsche called lebensneid is part of the alleged victims’ motivational mix – sad in a way as they must be a little long in the tooth to benefit from a good shrink, if there be such a beast.
Have a good trip with Ryanair Anna and have a good break, if you can allow yourself to!


Mr Ecks February 26, 2014 at 1:25 pm

As long ago as the 50s Ayn Rand (whatever you may think of her) correctly pointed out that the aim of the feminist arm of the “New Left” as it then was , was to poison relationships between men and women–which are fraught enough to begin with. In order to undermine the family and all affection/love based relationships that form the basis of society. Undermining those would make society vulnerable to the overthrow the left seek. Styles and rhethoric have changed but the aim is the same and has been achieved, at least in part.

. The green stuff might be a useful tool to pay useful idiots but overall, it ain’t about money.


Jim February 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm

I don’t understand. If there are charitable trusts set up by JS while he was alive, and provided with assets by him, again while alive, are these trusts not separate from his personal estate? They obviously have independent trustees, and presumably charitable aims that lay down rules on who may benefit from the assets. Why would anyone wishing to claim ‘compensation’ from his personal estate have any claim whatsoever on these charitable trusts, unless they met the particular aims of the trust as it was set up?


Acoustic Village February 23, 2014 at 8:43 pm

That’s exactly what I was thinking. I’m a bit puzzled by this aspect. They may as well seek compensation from ANY charitable trust….
For the rest, Anna Raccoon is just such a breath of fresh air…serious journalism, integrity, a genuine interest in the factual truth and the experience of life to understand the motives of people behind their actions.


Ergathones the Philosopher February 23, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Fascinating stuff as usual, Anna. Legal scrutiny about to be applied to what had hitherto been accepted by the Great British Public as a foregone conclusion.

Between this, the recent celebrity trials, and the Freddie Starr happenings (also covered by your good self!) it seems that the other side of the story finally has a chance to be heard by a wider range of ears.

I wonder what conclusions will be reached when all this is done?


Atticus Flinch February 23, 2014 at 2:15 pm

As clear and fair account of what has been going on as I have seen. I spy “ambulance chasers,” and worse. Come on, mongoose!


ALD February 23, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Looked more like a racoon!


Anna Raccoon February 23, 2014 at 2:26 pm

Not enough ‘claws’ – Raccoons have five – and use ’em.


Carol42 February 23, 2014 at 2:59 pm

I just wish there was a lot more publicity about these vultures trying to rob real charities. I am sure the public would be dismayed and just maybe start to ask the questions the MSM should have been asking all along. I don’t know enough about the law but am still puzzled how complainants can seek compensation for unproven allegations that can never be tested.


Johnny Monroe February 23, 2014 at 4:06 pm

When I hear the word ‘chancery’, I think of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, which is just plain foolish. The legal profession has clearly moved on in 160 years.


Eddy February 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm

Thanks for that info Anna. I hope the good guys can take over while there is still something to take over.


Mudplugger February 23, 2014 at 5:22 pm

I fear that Johnny Monroe (above) points the way and Jarndyce & Jarndyce will out, whether the good guys are involved or not.


Joe Public February 23, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Thanks Anna, for explaining facts we’re unlikely to read/view from the MSM.


sally stevens February 23, 2014 at 6:18 pm

My mother’s family spent about 35 years in India. There were always mongooses in the household, whose sole purpose was the keep the snake population away. They were very, very good at it. Never doubt the outcome between the mongoose and the snake. And they made pretty good pets, too, if family oral history is to be believed.

I work with trust, estate and probate lawyers, btw. It gets pretty interesting at times – not as dull as one might imagine.


Margaret Jervis February 23, 2014 at 8:12 pm

Rikki-tivi-tavi – always wondered why the event of this being read by the headmistress in a Victorian schoolroom when I was seven has stayed with me. Obviously captured my imagination. But until now – didn’t know why!


sally stevens February 23, 2014 at 11:28 pm

In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (Agatha Christie) it is suggested that Caroline Sheppard – the original character on whom Miss Marple was based – should adopt as her crest a mongoose rampant. “Run and find out!”


Wellwisher February 24, 2014 at 8:23 am

So apparently according to a focus group of 28 ‘alleged victims’ we are now being told to believe that they were ‘humiliated, accused of lying and disbelieved’. Then you get the infamous Liz Dux speaking out saying the police were unapproachable and the ‘victim’ believed they would not be believed…and we are expected to now believe ANYTHING they say because they are a ‘VICTIM’ ….BULL. It gets me so angry how the media ‘spin’ anything unproven for a ’cause’. In this case after all there is a lot of money on the line….these so called ‘victims’ honestly believe that their interests are at the forefront of importance…I think not! It’s more like the pockets of greedy compensation lawyers…’if you’ve not made a stake in Jimmy Savile’s estate for compensation we urge you to come forward’ according to Alan Collins from Pannone law firm.

This is all propaganda to win the ‘war’! Throughout history propaganda has been the difference between winning and losing a war, the same reason why we are now sensitised against what is actually shown to us as not to lose support for a ’cause’/ war! The Vietnam war was lost due to the ‘propaganda’, the British and Germans both used ‘propaganda’ to influence public opinion for their ’cause’. The same way these compensation lawyers are using ‘propaganda’ for large payday! I may not be putting this too eloquently but I hope you understand what I’m trying to get at? Weare now supposed to believe anything these ‘victims’ say because they said so! I want to know WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Where is the investigation and where is JS’s right to a fair and unbiased investigation?


Ho Hum February 24, 2014 at 9:02 am

Not disputing what you are saying but arguably this whole jamboree is, for the personal injury and compensation legal leeches, more like a marketing pitch:

‘Win this, and we can win you anything’.

If I were an insurer, I’d now be praying that they get a drubbing, so that many potential claimants might end up thinking:

‘If they can’t win that, what chance have I got?’


Duncan Disorderly February 24, 2014 at 9:29 am

Does anyone know where this report can be found? I scoured the NSPCC and HMIC websites but neither even mention this report in a press release.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm

I think you have put it more than eloquently Wellwisher – and passionately too.
Well said!


Wellwisher February 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Lucozade February 27, 2014 at 6:21 am


Re: “This is all propaganda to win the ‘war’! Throughout history propaganda has been the difference between winning and losing a war, the same reason why we are now sensitised against what is actually shown to us as not to lose support for a ’cause’/ war! The Vietnam war was lost due to the ‘propaganda’, the British and Germans both used ‘propaganda’ to influence public opinion for their ’cause’. The same way these compensation lawyers are using ‘propaganda’ for large payday! I may not be putting this too eloquently but I hope you understand what I’m trying to get at? Weare now supposed to believe anything these ‘victims’ say because they said so! I want to know WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Where is the investigation and where is JS’s right to a fair and unbiased investigation?”

Spot on 😉


Ho Hum February 24, 2014 at 9:19 am

BTW, while we’re also following the money, who’s funding the ‘NSPCC report’ that is being trawled through the press this morning and, one might assume, its PR coverage of that? I wonder if the average punter who gives them money realises that it might be them.


Duncan Disorderly February 24, 2014 at 9:32 am

“The report was commissioned by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to find out why so many victims stayed silent for so long.”

As I note above, neither the NSPCC or HMIC websites even allude to the report.


Ho Hum February 24, 2014 at 9:38 am

That’s odd. Both the SKY and BBC news Apps refer to an ‘NSPCC’ report. I wonder whose press release they’re copying? 🙂


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 9:54 am

Spindler works for HMIC now


Ho Hum February 24, 2014 at 9:34 am

And Alison Saunders is on the Beeb saying victims must be encouraged to come forward and trust the criminal justice system to deal with things

We could be being too hard on her. She’s probably on a hiding to nothing, isn’t she? She needs people who have been subject to real abuse to come forward, something that everyone here would support her in. And, frankly, if we were in her shoes, doing her job, we’d publicly be saying exactly the same thing, even if we, privately, didn’t believe a word that some of the present rash of victims were saying, despised how they were screwing up the prosecution and court services with cases that can’t be won, and consequently saw them as possibly more damaging to what we were trying to achieve than we could ever let on.

Maybe she deserves the benefit of the doubt too?


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 9:43 am

… there is one man who Yewtree has been successful with so far, and he was the so-called BBC Driver committed to prosecution by none other than Alison Saunders, the successor to the rotting CPS head that was Keir Starmer. David Smith seems to represent the one successful outcome for Operation Yewtree. He killed himself… British justice system just now, at it’s most successful.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 10:46 am

DLT going for retrial. The madness, it does not end.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 10:52 am

A decision that tends to suggest blind justice is in charge rather than blind fate


Chris February 24, 2014 at 11:09 am

The time has come for consequence to start travelling in both directions.


SpectrumIsGreen February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am

This possibly works in DLT’s favour to some extent. Better to have a proper not guilty verdict than to have the question marks of the outstanding allegations hanging over him for the rest of his life. It is prolonging the agony though and increasing his legal bill.


Ergathones the Philosopher February 24, 2014 at 3:44 pm

To an extent, perhaps, but some people are never satisfied… Look at the abuse that Michael Le Vell’s girlfriend has come in for recently, for no other reason than her association with him. What was the verdict in his trial again…?


Mr Ecks February 26, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Which is why Bliar was dead keen to do away with double jeopardy–can’t have alleged bum touchers escaping justice.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 11:00 am

According to the NSPCC report, Savile’s “victims” made complaints at the time but were disbelieved and in some cases told they should be flattered by his attentions. By whom? Who told them this? Who disbelieved them? I’m finding it difficult to locate the answers to this. Reading between the lines in the press, it would appear that some of the complainants were in hospital at the time of the alleged assaults. So is the inference that nurses or doctors ignored them or told them they were lucky to be assaulted by Savile? Have I got this right?


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 11:01 am

It doesn’t matter what you think. Just believe.


Chris February 24, 2014 at 11:10 am

It’s a fake report about nothing, made up by the NSPCL and Slater & Moron’s “media team”. 100% Bullshit.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 11:21 am

It has to be. I write reports in my job, as I expect we’ve all done or do, and if I put my name to something which omitted the basics like “Who, when, where, what”, I’d have it thrown right back in my face.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 11:26 am

You’re evidently not a UK journalist then………… 😀


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 11:44 am

Somehow I don’t think I’d make the grade… 🙂


Dim Spark February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm

I’ve read but I still don’t see any reference to who was told at the time of the offences and their reactions, especially the statement that the victims should feel lucky. There is one mention of a contemporaneous report to police by a complainant in the 1980s which wasn’t acted on – but they also say they can find no record of the complaint despite extensive searches. So to all intents and purposes we don’t know if the report was ever made.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Par for the course.
“A RETIRED police officer who claims to have been ignored when raising concerns about Sir Jimmy Savile in the 70s has refused to co-operate with police. John Lindsay claimed, in an interview with the BBC, that while he was working with the TVP in the 70s nurses at Stoke Mandeville hospital raised concerns with him about Mr Savile’s behaviour, which were then ‘ignored’ when he passed them on to senior officers. However, a Thames Valley Police spokesman said: “Officers from Thames Valley Police met with John Lindsay on Friday about his allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile. “Mr Lindsay was unwilling to provide a statement. He was unable to provide any evidence or identify any senior officers he may have briefed about his concerns. We have updated the Metropolitan Police about Mr Lindsay’s allegations.”


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 12:34 pm

Nearly as good as the West Yorkshire policeman ‘who provided valuable information to Yewtree’ (hence is one of the fabled 640) of the times he had seen Savile taking ‘under age girls’ on board a boat which had sunk 10 years beforehand ”for parties’ – and it was another ten years afterwards that the boat was salvaged when the canal was cleared….
Only ask a copper the time if you have your own watch to check his answer….


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 12:30 pm

That is the original 2013 ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ report – we are all searching for todays NSPCC report which is apparently the result of taking down the words of a focus group comprised of 28 of the ‘victims’ from the 2013 report….
Only the media have seen this new report.
Only the NSPCC have conducted these interviews.
Nobody is in a position to say if these ‘alleged victims’ ever even met Savile.
We simply don’t know.
The press release is designed to encourage the media to continue the ‘its a done deal’ farrago.
When were the Police (or the NSPCC) mandated to pronounce guilt?


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 12:32 pm

When were the Police (or the NSPCC) mandated to pronounce guilt?

when ACPO and the CPS gave them the nod.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm

Well, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament is shortly to be tried on historic sex abuse charges under this new regime – maybe parliament will take an interest in the way their legislature has been man handled out of the way then.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Is that before or after the Plebgate liars at the Met are tried in secret…. by the Met……… 😀


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Here is a link to the actual report today.

Q:At the time of the abuse, how aware were you that what had happened to you was abusive?

A:“I knew within two minutes of meeting him…”

From which we must construe that this ‘victim’ was abused within two minutes of meeting Savile? No evidence is offered to allow us to decide whether this was realistic.

“Other examples included officers refusing to close the door of an interview room” – they are no fools, the old Bill…..

“It was suggested that a specific reporting helpline would perhaps reassure victims, and enable them to feel more confident in picking up the telephone and speaking about their experiences.” – What, like Childline that the NSPCC very expensively bought off Esther Rantzen and co?

A number of participants indicated that, although their abuse was traumatic, they had been able to “push it away” and did not feel that they suffered any significant long-term effects from it. However, this was not the experience of the majority of this sample of victims. – Perhaps because the sample, as stated, was of those who were prepared to go on talking about their ‘abuse’?

“It was clear throughout the groups that none of the participants in this sample would have been likely to come forward had it not been for the media focus on the crimes committed by Jimmy Savile.”

Other suggestions included the Police becoming actively involved in educating children about abuse from an early age, for example, by reading age-appropriate storybooks with children….

I would go further into the report – but I am having a week off from this saga – flying to the UK tomorrow morning.



Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 3:14 pm

Nothing in the report can be relied on as to what what was thought/said/told at the time of the alleged offences.
It’s all anonymous uncorroborated retro claims open to infinite memory revision. Still amazing that only 26 wanted ‘a voice’ out the 150.
Question not asked – have you made a claim for criminal injuries compensation or a civil claim in relation to the alleged offences?


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:19 pm

Perhaps the ‘other 125’ were worried that that very question might be asked if they turned up to take part……


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:23 pm

It’s joke, Maggie. I could have come up with something like that all on my ownty-tone if required to produce a creative writing essay on “What it would be like to be molested by a famous person at a young age – and not be believed”. It’s one thing to take this nonsense down without any demur, but to publish it to great fanfare as the NSPCC Report into Savile and Lessons Learned is simply shameful. There are no lessons to be learned from encouraging weak-minded people to bask in a sense of unearned importance. The only lesson is – don’t be so foolish as to base any kind of public policy on such foundations.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 8:06 pm

The interesting thing is it barely quotes all these focus group sessions at all; just a quote here and there. Otherwise it’s really as you say just a standard retelling of an abuse essay. I honestly can’t see why they even bothered with the focus groups.

Lucozade February 27, 2014 at 6:03 am

Eyes Wide Shut,

Re: “There are no lessons to be learned from encouraging weak-minded people to bask in a sense of unearned importance. The only lesson is – don’t be so foolish as to base any kind of public policy on such foundations”

Exactly. That’s exactly what it is…. 😉

Atticus Flinch February 24, 2014 at 11:32 am

A re trial of DLT. In the public interest? Proportionate? Safe? Or a crusade, disproportionate, wasteful, and even cruel.
You the jury must decide (but if you get it “wrong” we will ask you to do it all over again until you get it “right”)


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 11:36 am

Best that we the people stop prevaricating then, and stop compromising with all these lying, scheming, money-grabbing lawyer types and their criminally-inclined clients, and make our public declaration of independence from the machinations of “the Law”.

Not Guilty.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 11:52 am

It’s frankly appalling that the Crown is prepared to re-try DLT on two such pitiful charges – because that is what they were in essence. I can only imagine the prosecution is motivated by spite or some silly idea that they must WIN to prove they haven’t been wasting their time on a wild-goose chase. They must have taken leave of their senses. It is simply to being the whole justice system into disrepute and if they can’t see that, they are not fit to be in their positions.


Carol42 February 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm

I am going to have to stop watching the news, it’s sending my blood pressure through the roof. I can’t believe they are going to re try DLT it is unbelievably cruel. As for the man from the NSPCC , words fail me, you would think they were all little kids and we should just accept anything he says. Any faith I had in British justice is fading rapidly, this is criminal, will no one speak up and as for at least some evidence, I despair.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 12:17 pm

I admit, I haven’t even read Anna’s article today, for fear of what it’ll do to my cortisol level.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 12:24 pm

This is a whole new ball-game, really. In the past, miscarriages of justice usually came down to tainted evidence of some kind or other, whether deliberate or as a result of incompetence. What we have here is basically unsupported evidence and we are required to accept it, simply on the say so of the witnesses. It’s mad.


Lucozade February 27, 2014 at 6:29 am

Eyes Wide Shut,

Re: “This is a whole new ball-game, really. In the past, miscarriages of justice usually came down to tainted evidence of some kind or other, whether deliberate or as a result of incompetence. What we have here is basically unsupported evidence and we are required to accept it, simply on the say so of the witnesses. It’s mad”

Is it just me or have the vast majority of ‘victims’ in these celebrity/Yewtree/Coronation street etc cases that have come about lately been, erm, lying…? :/


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 1:00 pm

@Anna, re the Deputy-Speaker: it had occurred to me, as I am sure it has to others, that we will only see an end to this farrago when they go after the legislators themselves. It’s OK to throw retired teachers, carers, “BBC” drivers and assorted soap actors to the wolves, but they don’t like it when they start prowling Parliament itself. One can but hope.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm

10.3 Many people expressed their shock that the Police had listened to them, and had taken what they had to say so seriously.

They wouldn’t be the only ones.


Duncan Disorderly February 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm

By the grace of God, I have found the report!

The link downloads an MS word document to your computer.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm

Drusilla Sharpling of HMIC said: ‘I am deeply grateful to the victims who contributed to this powerful and moving report. It vividly portrays the pain and anguish suffered by Savile’s victims, which was often made worse by the way they were treated.

Read more:

That wouldn’t be the same Drusilla Sharpling who was in charge of the CPS when they made the decision not to charge Savile would it?


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 1:54 pm

So you told us not so long ago. I believe you…… 😉


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm

That document at Anna and Duncan’s link is simply absurd. It’s proof of nothing except the ability of individuals to free-associate when asked leading questions.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Quite! Don’t these journalists even read the press reports they recycle?


ivan February 24, 2014 at 5:40 pm



Jonathan February 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm

So a Judge finds it legal that a dead person can be presumed guilty without trial and that therefore executors can give all their money to claimants instead of benefactors in their will. We shall be seeing a lot of claims against dead men in wigs, in that case, and many widows and children of Judges ending up in poor houses.


Carol42 February 24, 2014 at 3:20 pm

This is being reported as almost a done deal, I really hope they are all wrong. I did hear one female Sky reporter use the term alleged victims, first time I think. If this is agreed no one dead or alive, if they have any money, will be safe from allegations without any evidence .


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 3:23 pm

From the report-

“his was particularly true for those who were abused during the 1960s and 1970s, who said that abuse was not openly acknowledged or discussed. They had never heard the word ‘paedophile’”

Well, that’s because nobody had, beyond a few pederasts at PIE who thought that “paedophile” was a more scientific soundng and neutral term that would detoxify the pederast brand, in possibly the worst PR misstep in modern history. They’d probably have heard “molester” though, and “dirty old man” and so on. That last one was even a Monkees song.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm

There’s a contemporary belief, and it is shared by many commentators on the boards of the Daily Mail, that until roughly the 1990s, the general public was so naive they hardly knew dirty old men existed 🙂

Well, tell that to the Marines. I was a kid in the 70s. Our parents had firmly instilled it into our heads that we should steer well clear of any adult showing more than a passing interest in us. And they told us why, too. Of course, in those days adults didn’t feel under any obligation to feign interest in our activities anyway – it might have been post-60s, but the older generation was most definitely not “down with the kidz.” The vast majority usually told us to “clear off out of it”, whatever it was, as soon as we hoved into their general view.

Yes – we knew about incest, we knew about molestation, we knew all about it. Never heard the word paedophile used though, I’ll grant then that 🙂


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 3:42 pm

Whatever happened to the flashers, frottage on the tube, peeping Toms, people stealing knickers — are they all on the internet now? Maybe kids are no longer exposed to the casual dangers of the everyday that they learn to negotiate – there was a wonderful story from Dubliners on the radio last week – it was so real -An Encounter – two boys playing truant. They don’t write them like that any more.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 3:47 pm

@Margaret Jervis
I was watching an old episode of Man in a Suitcase the other evening and a woman was being terrorised by a “heavy breather”.

My old dad used to remark about such plots, “Stop answering the phone…..”…….. 😀


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Mon Papa would have said “Get a whistle and the next time he calls up, blow it down the receiver.”


sally stevens February 24, 2014 at 9:43 pm

I was told by the police here that if someone called who was a ‘heavy breather,’ I was to tap the hook switch and say ‘operator, this is the call I want traced.’ Worked like a charm.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:51 pm

Yup. Part of the territory. We were basically out all day from breakfast to tea, and were in some ways probably more street-wise than the hot-house flowers nowadays. We didn’t have a clue about porn (other than Page 3) which I imagine the bedroom-bound sprogs of today are well into, but we knew what a perve looked like. Including school caretakers, and that ilk 🙂


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:57 pm

“We didn’t have a clue about porn”.
Did no one ever share their copy of Nature magazine with you? – it used to be very popular, and dog eared.


Jonathan Mason February 24, 2014 at 8:12 pm

There used to be Health and Efficiency magazines on news stands showing happy naturist families sunbathing in abandoned World War II army camps with Nissen huts. The photographs had the genital areas wiped out to remove pubic hair or organs so the happy campers looked like Greek statues, but you could get the general idea. Very educational it was too.


Carol42 February 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm

I remember that magazine, we were always trying to get hold of it, such innocent curiosity in these far off days.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:44 pm

Agreed – same thing applies to the 50s and 60s. We knew, we were warned. I was about 8 when a ‘dirty old man’ on a bike exposed himself to me on the pretext of asking directions – I told the first available adult and can still remember being interviewed by the Police. It never crossed my mind not to tell anyone, nor occur to me that I wouldn’t be believed. It must have been what is politely described as being a ‘discrete penis’ – my new favourite phrase – for I have no memory of what I saw, just the Police talking to me, and have never felt in the slightest traumatised by it.
In fact, now I think of it – the first time in my life I have suffered from ‘not being believed’ was when I owned up on this blog to having been in Duncroft and never being abused by Savile or anyone else… I seriously had people telling me I must have been abused by my Father and was in denial….!


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:57 pm

LOL!!! I’ve learned a new term – a “discrete penis” 🙂

I was told if anyone touched me, I was to leg it shouting and inform the first Grown-Up I encountered. There was not a hint in all this that I had to feel ashamed or guilty if a “perve” went after me. The message was “Tell, always tell.”


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 4:00 pm

I discovered the term when reading an article entitled ‘The difficulties of castrating a hippopotamus’- I tell you, the documents I plough through in order to entertain you!

Here you go – since I am on holiday from tomorrow, it will never get written…


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm

I remember once walking home in the dark and a man jumping out for behind a bush – I gasped and he fled. When I told people about it I thought it sounded a bit lame so I said he grabbed hold of me. He may have been flashing but I didn’t know where to look.
Thing is some decades later I remembered this incident, I remembered being grabbed hold of by a man who came from behind a bush. And then I thought there was something not quite right about this memory – at which point I remembered how I’d embellished it.

So this was a genuine recovered false memory – of no traumatic significance – in retrieving I remembered the embellished version I hold told friends about – and only then the pathetic truth. I’ve a pretty good memory as it happens. Why did I forget it? Because of was insignificant – but unusual enough to be able to remember it through some accidental cue decades later. the ‘false memories’ of horrific narratives are not like this – they are imaginative constructs pieced together as narratives drawn from dreams, visions and hallucinations.


Carol42 February 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Same here, we were perfectly aware of the dirty old men, mostly giggled and ran away if we came across a flasher, there was a sort of childhood grapevine . Of course we were warned by parents but can’t say it ever worried us. One of my friends father liked young teenage girls but never went near any of her friends and somehow we all knew about him but never said anything. He worked in a cinema so plenty of opportunity and eventually he lost his job over it. I don’t know if we were just more streetwise and accepted these odd people as part of life, they always hung around the parks and we were not scared of them.


sam February 25, 2014 at 9:53 am

I recall being flashed by a man in a park when I was about 8 and I found it hugely hilarious as did the other 2 kids with me. We laughed uproariously all the way home and I’m sure we shattered the poor chap’s ego.
On the other hand I had an uncle who was married to my favourite aunt – they were childless 9 after she had a backyard abortion) and I became a sort of defacto son to her. the uncle used to do all sorts of awful things to em physically- he would squeeze my arm until it was bruised and bleeding..push doors in my face. Obviously insanely jealous but as a child- his actions haunted me into teenage years and I cut off contact with them because of it.

mental and physical abuse to me is much much more damaging.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

Here you go – The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Viennese psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.

It wasn’t until 1952 that it made it into the DSM-II and onto general usage.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 4:01 pm

In 1965 they were called the Moors Murderers though, not the Moors Paedophiles.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 4:10 pm

Well in those days people knew what the worst possible crime was. Whatever else you did in the course of committing the offence could serve to aggravate it, but there was a general belief that murder was as bad as it got.


Lucozade February 27, 2014 at 6:14 am

Eyes Wide Shut,

Re: “Well in those days people knew what the worst possible crime was. Whatever else you did in the course of committing the offence could serve to aggravate it, but there was a general belief that murder was as bad as it got”

There are some situations that are so awful, people probably do just find themselves relived that they managed to escape with their lives – whatever happened….


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 4:26 pm

I always thought that to be a paedophile according to the DSM, you had to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children aged 11 or younger. Seemingly they’ve now pushed that up to 13.

Until quite recently in Scotland, the age of consent for females was 13.

There’s always an uncomfortable interface between the law and medical definitions. The law would say you’re guilty of an offence against the criminal code tout court if you have sex with someone under the current age of consent. The psychiatrists would say you had a syndrome. They might even take a morally neutral line on it – this person is sick.

It’s a bit like the term psychopath. Wasn’t it Hervey Cleckley who coined the term (we’ve since replaced it with sociopath)? Old wine, new bottles.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm

In tabloid speak and general parlance, “paedophile” now means anyone under the age of consent, whatever it may be where one is.


Ian B February 24, 2014 at 5:17 pm

If I had access to a good library with newspapers on microfilm (or whatever they do these days, I’ve only seen that on the telly), I’d go through old copies of the Mail, Sun etc and see when the term starts appearing regularly. The firt time I remember hearing the word was during a child abduction/murder case whose victim escapes me, with a report on the news that the police had been working with the “Paedophile Information Exchange”. Dunno what year, but I’m sure I hadn’t left home yet, so before september 1984. I’m pretty certain the word didn’t enter the general parlance until much later than that though.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 5:31 pm

That would be very interesting: to do a concordance search on when the term began to be used in the media. I confess to a degree of suspicion about the intrusion of medical and psychiatric terms into everyday language: we seem to have a profusion of narcissists nowadays, whereas in the past we had selfish people. 🙂

I always liked Gore Vidal’s definition of narcissist: “Anyone who is better-looking than you,” but it doesn’t work so well recently. Gore was using an older definition of narcisssist. 🙂


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 5:33 pm

Vidal was a paedo anyway, so best not to quote him.


Moor Larkin February 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm

Got it down to under 140 characters inclusive of spaces………. 😀

Paedophile – a scientific and neutral-sounding word that hoped to detoxify the Pederast Brand. Possibly the worst PR in modern history.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm

Dear God after reading that hippo article, I sure am glad no one ever shared a copy of a publication called “Nature” with me. 🙂

I passed out when dissecting a bulls eye in Biology.


Duncan Disorderly February 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm

Moor in his blog found a news story about the PIE from 1975 in which the word ‘paedophile’ had to be explained to readers:

The picture is here:


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm

@ Moor Larkin Gore Vidal =Paedo. Where there’s a will, there’s a nephew 😉


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 3:28 pm

Some have apparently completely disappeared – others too traumatised to speak!

I’m really warming to the mass collective delusion ‘#Savile memory syndrome’ hypothesis
I like this 1841 construct because it predates Freudian presumptions
hardwired into cultural expectations now.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Great book! Re-read it about a year ago and was struck by just how similar the Credit Crisis was to the South Sea Bubble. Different times, same racket.

If it weren’t for the reprehensible role played by police, lawyers , media and so-called experts in all this, you could very easily put The Great Savile Delusion down to a passing fad, a sort of blast from the collective id, but this one is being actively promoted. By folk with careers to make, scores to settle, money to grab at, political opponents to smear. The “allegators” , whatever their own personal motives, are being as thoroughly exploited as any real child victim of abuse.


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Did you notice the date – September 2013 – wonder why publication was delayed until today…and why today?


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:36 pm

No, I didn’t spot that Margaret – well done.
It only serves to increase my suspicions behind today being picked as release date. Today is also the day that Slater and Gordon were due to put a ‘tariff’ in front of the same judge so that they could get on with paying ‘victims’, well giving them the ‘penny in the pound’ that is likely to be left after their fees. S & G would like the matter settled at the earliest date – ostensibly to save the victims further trauma, but handily, a speedy resolution would also serve to bounce the BBC into payment, and the NHS – all before the public wake up to what is happening.


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Not exactly helpful to Natwest as an executor is it? Would you trust this state-rescued omnishambles of a bank to administer your will and testament?


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 3:56 pm

I think their problem is that an executor can be liable for more than the value of the estate – you can see how ‘settle now and quickly’ could be attractive to them.


Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm

Blackmail. They must be panicking.


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 4:05 pm

One for your reference library Margaret, an interesting discussion on the nature and meaning of compensation.


Margaret Jervis February 24, 2014 at 4:33 pm

@Anna thank you. Maybe this is why the term of choice for compo is now ‘reconciliation’.


Anon (;) February 24, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Eyes Wide Shut February 24, 2014 at 6:56 pm

You cannot pull the wool over a Yorkie’s eyes, can you? 🙂


Anon (;) February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm

NSPCC ‏@NSPCC · 3 hrs
@tedditwit We are guided by police, who deem evidence overwhelming and are confident using the term ‘victims’. See p4

REALLY?????????? Since when did the Police have that power?



charlotte walters February 24, 2014 at 8:57 pm

Maybe the man on the phone had asthma!


Dick Puddlecote February 24, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Now THIS is why we need Court TV! Top stuff, Anna.

Who owns NatWest at the moment? It was hinted at today that it might be the state. 😉


Anna Raccoon February 24, 2014 at 11:27 pm

Ditto the BBC and the NHS, all of whom have a Cobra curled up under the front doorstep…..


rabbitaway February 24, 2014 at 11:14 pm
sally stevens February 25, 2014 at 12:46 am
Anna Raccoon February 25, 2014 at 7:15 am

Funny, I could have sworn that I broke it….!


Miss Mildred February 25, 2014 at 10:29 am

This is the first time on any blog I have read, to read talk about our childhood experiences of some of the oddballs we met as young kids roving from dawn to dusk. We ranged freely in town and countryside. Our mums shooed us out the door, and got on with cleaning the next lot soot off the net curtains, polishing the brasses/ bannisters etc or feeding the chickens. We passed first world war veterans shouting at the sky and walking the lanes. We were exposed at. In one case, in my space as you might say. Not a pleasant memory, but I fled and said nothing. We were told to run away from ‘strange men’…… not paedophiles. We all heard about choirmasters and scoutmasters and ‘cruel’ schoolmasters in Dickens who beat their charges. I had a whole row of Dickens on the sitting room mantelpiece to peruse on rainy days. When words come into common parlance is an interesting study. I never remember the F word ever when a young kid. The big difference in my childhood time was NO CARS. Few private telephones. The hysteria of the crowd can be a nastily potent force indeed. This can be fed currently by internet sites that are supposed to foster connection and friendship. Also internet MSM can now target the ‘news’ in any way they want, by sitting at a keyboard constantly updating their latest historical scandal…..political or otherwise….hoping the sheep will follow avidly, which they often do. A very potent weapon has been placed in the hands of those who want force an issue under our noses We must learn not to be gullible sheep.


Royal February 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm

How do these claim lawyers make money when there is no pot of gold, or don’t they touch such cases unless there is money to grab?

Am I correct in thinking these law firms don’t check any allegations they just make a record of them, it is the police and CPS who take the case to court? The law firms just sit back and wait for a guilty verdict without spending a penny?

In a case where someone is facing multiple charges and is only found guilty of one offence, could the law firms still make claims on behalf of those who lost their cases?


Jacqu1999 February 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm
rabbitaway February 26, 2014 at 6:22 pm

I heard no fat lady singing !


sally stevens February 26, 2014 at 6:25 pm

I hear the sound of keyboards as the Trust prepares its appeal against this ruling. That should hold things up for a good long time and cost the sleazy claimants’ lawyers even more money.


Carol42 February 26, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Have they said they will appeal? I didn’t see that but sure hope they do.


sally stevens February 26, 2014 at 6:57 pm

I’ll be surprised if they don’t. They need to wait for the judge’s written opinion so they can attack the ruling on the points of law, but that’s pretty standard over here at least.


Corevalue February 27, 2014 at 12:10 am

I used to hitch-hike all over the country starting when I was 15. It was truly a very good education into people, some good, some neutral, and the occasional deviant – the bad were the ones who didn’t pick you up (in the hitch-hiker mindset). The deviants would often start with odd conversation, such as “Do you have a girlfriend?”. Sometimes, it would be the gentle brush of his hand against your knee whilst changing gears, to see if you reacted. My standard defence line was to wait a while, but before he made his next move, to ask to be let out because I was feeling travel sick. I think I must have been “groomed” about four times. In each case, I was dropped off promptly.

Now, we have allegations that DLT ruined peoples lives with such small gestures.


sally stevens February 27, 2014 at 2:03 am

I’ve posted this link in the Reflections blog post, but want to post it again here. I don’t know Eric Hardcastle, but as a former PI investigator from the UK and a security consultant now based in Melbourne, he got right to the heart of the matter. I’m not going to make you read my blog post along the same lines if you don’t want to, but scroll to the end of the post, and you’ll find Eric’s comments from July 2013. A true mongoose.


Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: