Following last night’s episode of ‘Exposure’, the prosecution’s case for the demonisation of Jimmy Savile was completed in the sense that the audience have been invited to give their verdict. No doubt if we fail to give the required verdict, the ‘Ireland v EU’ solution will be applied and we will be given a further installment to wet our appetite for the correct answer.  There has been no case for the defence, so all we can do is look at the evidence laid out for us by the televisual prosecutors and see what it amounts to.

The programme opened with the powerful statement ‘We now know that Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile for more than 40 years’.

Not so fast Mr Williams-Thomas! We know that there have been possibly hundreds of allegations that he was – but for those of us looking for facts as opposed to innuendo, we are sitting down waiting for you to make the case to us that he was…

We continued with a brief re-run of Williams-Thomas’ previous ‘witnesses’ – the Duncroft girls. First off, Charlotte, the girl who claimed that she was sexually assaulted by Savile in a caravan and subsequently disbelieved by staff when she became hysterical at this trauma, and ‘thrown into the isolation unit as punishment’. Whether or not Charlotte was sexually assaulted in the caravan by Savile, only Charlotte and Savile know the truth. We can but examine the available evidence as to which of them is likely to be telling the truth. So I look at the claim that Charlotte was ‘thrown into the ICU unit’ as a result of her claim that she complained of sexual abuse. I am aware of Charlotte’s full identity, and of the record of the one and only time she was ever put in the isolation unit, and the reason for her being there. That record will be made available to the police or formal inquiry. Charlotte of course, is fully able to apply for her own records from Barnardos and prove to the world that she was in the ICU unit for whatever reason at any time near to or even in the vicinity of Savile’s known presence at Duncroft. Thus I am confidently claiming that ‘Charlotte’ is lying on the specific question of whether she informed staff of this alleged abuse and whether she was punished for any event (I am charitably allowing for further allegations that the records might be claimed to have been falsified in respect of the reason for punishment) that could conceivably be linked to any visit to Duncroft by Savile. I do not lightly lay myself open to allegations of defamation, I do so confient that I can defend my words.

Then we heard again the clip of ‘Fiona’, the ‘Fiona’ who produced a forged letter allegedly from Surrey police saying that the 2007 Surrey police investigation was prematurely concluded because Savile ‘was old and frail’. A piece of evidence that I charitably assume she failed to show Williams-Thomas, for even had he never discussed the Savile case with his old colleagues on the Surrey force where he was based for 12 years – he would surely have picked up on the fact that the letter heading was false, as Surrey police did once they were shown a photocopy of it.

Despite the many clues available on the Internet that I would have expected any investigator to pick up on regarding ’Fiona’s’ manipulative nature and propensity for outright lies, Williams-Thomas was prepared to run with a clip of Fiona claiming that she had performed a sexual act on Savile whilst under the age of 16. That is, legally and morally, child abuse. Whatever your views on ‘willing girls’ aged 14, I do not ignore the fact that in law, if the allegation was accepted by a jury, Savile would certainly have been convicted of child abuse on this count alone. However, given that Savile is not able to defend himself, I would expect, in the name of balanced reporting, that Williams-Thomas would have inserted into the piece at this stage something he alluded to at a later date – that all 20 girls who were at Duncroft during this specific period were interviewed by police during the 2007 investigation – and not one of them gave any evidence which gave credence to Fiona’s claim. Not one of the ‘other girls’ who was outside the car according to Fiona whilst she was performing this act, not one of the other girls sharing her dormitory?

We can say, truthfully, that child abuse victims are afraid to ‘come forward’, but these girls would not have been coming forward – Surrey police had gone to the trouble of tracing all 20 of them, 40 years after the event, no mean feat in itself, and invited them to assist with their inquiries. Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions has made a statement on this specific allegation:

“Whilst it is sometimes possible to prosecute cases where the victim does not support a prosecution, there are obvious problems in proceeding with a case where the victim does not support a police investigation, where there is no forensic evidence and only very limited, or even in some instances no, witness evidence, particularly in relation to allegations which date back a number of years. […]

The first allegation against Savile was from a woman who reported to Surrey Police in 2007 that she had witnessed a historic indecent assault on a girl aged under 16 at Duncroft in the late 1970s.

Surrey Police said: “Officers carried out enquiries to locate the victim who did not wish to support a criminal prosecution.”

The CPS said the file then submitted by the force in 2009 included evidence of “three further potential offences” by Savile, who was interviewed under caution by officers.

These were an alleged indecent assault on a girl under 16 at Stoke Mandeville hospital in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, in or around 1973; the alleged incitement of a girl under 16 to engage in a sexual act at Duncroft in the late 1970s; and an alleged indecent assault on an adult in Sussex in 1970.

“However, the evidence showed that none of the alleged victims would support a prosecution,” the CPS added.

“In these circumstances the CPS concluded that it was not possible to bring a prosecution in this matter.

“Prosecutors have to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in order to be able to take a case to court, and it was concluded that no further action could be taken in this case.”

So we can whittle down William-Thomas’s ‘five Duncroft victims’, who had been let down by Surrey police when they made their claims….Five victims who incidentally, only the sharp eyed would have noticed in the original programme, included ‘Rochelle’, a girl who was never at Duncroft as a resident, but is the daughter of a former resident; an inconvenient fact that was not explained in the programme, to:

One girl who alleged she had witnessed a sexual assault on a victim at Duncroft who declined to support the allegation to the police.

One allegation of ‘an incitement to engage in a sexual act with a child’.

Two other allegations of assault that were nothing to do with Duncroft.

Quite what the police were supposed to do with these historic allegations given that none of the victims were prepared to support the allegations, there was of course no forensic evidence to support them, and ‘very limited’ witness support I do not know. That they were prepared to trace and interview the 20 other girls present at the time, 40 years later, and interview Savile under caution is to their credit. Mr Williams-Thomas appears very taken with the idea that on the basis of what must have been many hours of what proved to be fruitless police work they should then have gone on to interview the elderly and retired staff at the time, so much so that he has repeatedly telephoned the 91 year old headmistress of the school, recording her endlessly polite statements that she did not wish to appear on his programme nor make any comment, and gleefully including this recording in his programme. To what end? Has the idea of trial by television taken such hold that he expected her to produce the confidential records of the named girls and display them for public entertainment? He has another ‘think’ coming. The records are in safe hands and will be produced for the benefit of the real police, not the media police.

We then moved onto perhaps William-Thomas’s most impressive witness. ‘Denise’, not an old Duncroft girl, but, in the 1960s, the 10 year old daughter of ‘family friend’ Uncle Jimmy, who credibly described a scenario all too many people will have recognised; the pervy ‘Uncle’ with the roving hands who she says sexually assaulted her. Had Denise been aware of the law at 10 years old, she would have recognised that this was an offence for which Savile could, if proven, been convicted, and the poor woman is now beating herself up for not having spoken up at the time and potentially have stopped him in his tracks. Any fault or blame here, lies not with the authorities, not even with the BBC – but fairly and squarely with parents. The law has always protected 10 year old girls from sexual abuse, both major and minor – no change in the law will take the place of parents educating their children in the matter of appropriate physical boundaries; nor will any number of weeping Ester Rantzen’s and their telephone lines take the place of  parents imbuing their children with the love and trust that would allow them to discuss such matters with the family members who would surely have delivered a hefty punch on the nose or elsewhere to any ‘family friend’ who behaved in such a manner. I’m not normally one to suggest side stepping the law, but on these specific types of allegations, I would wholeheartedly support direct family action rather than hauling a 10 year old child through the unpleasant process of adversarial law in order to ‘punish’ the perpetrator.

Next up was William-Thomas’s potentially most valuable witness. Janet Cope, who had ‘been by Savile’s side for 30 years as his personal assistant and secretary’. Surely now we would hear some real evidence? Sadly not – even though Ms Cope belatedly informed the world that she had been most discourteously sacked by Savile for reasons undisclosed, even she was not minded to admit to any knowledge whatsoever, or even suspicion, that Savile was this ‘known predatory paedophile’. She would, she said, have challenged him had she ever had reason to suspect this of him. She stated that he was ‘controlling and manipulative’ – just the sort of attributes I would expect of someone who had pushed himself from obscurity to world wide fame.  Quite how Ms Cope was supposed to be making the case for the prosecution of Savile as paedophile defeats me, but she was able to add colour to the programme by showing photographs of Savile with various other celebrities, and thus linking his name to everyone from the Queen, to the Pope to Princess Diana. Scarcely surprising for a serious fund raiser and celebrity in his own right. This presumably and charitably, was supposed to make the case of people being ‘too scared’ of Savile to challenge him with allegations of sexual abuse – but where were the allegations? The result of these hundreds of phone calls from scared victims too frightened to come forward before? Nobody has ever doubted that Savile was incredibly important to Stoke Mandeville hospital, he raised millions of pounds for them, but they themselves or rather Buckinghamshire Health Trust, have denied that any rumours or allegations ever came to their attention, so what is William-Thomas saying here?  That one girl of indeterminate age claims that Savile ‘stuck his tongue down her throat’ at a concert in 1973? Possibly he did, and if so it would have been at a minimum (given the indeterminate age) sexual harassment – but where was the claim that Buckinghamshire Health Trust are in anyway responsible for the fact that she failed to tell anyone?

Finally we were onto Broadmoor, where incredibly, after 20 years as an unpaid prison visitor, and a major figure in the entertainment world, Savile was appointed ‘Honorary assistant entertainment officer’. Frankly I’d have been more gobsmacked if he hadn’t been, with that track record. I doubt that the corridors of Broadmoor are thronged with worthy citizens who wish to give their time putting on entertainment for some of the most dangerous people in the British Isles. Why only ‘assistant‘ – who was it that was better qualified? We weren’t told. But giving up his time as a volunteer, we were told by no less figure than Edwina Currie, was evidence that he had both access, and opportunity for abuse. Indeed, and that applies to each and every person who does volunteer for unpaid work in such places – is it evidence that they are all paedophiles?

We were shown ’Kate’, a resident of Broadmoor, who claimed that Savile, an honorary member of staff, came into the bathroom whilst she was naked in the bath and ‘joked with other male members of staff”. I don’t think anyone would dispute that the multiple bathing arrangements common in mental hospitals at that time, which involved male and female patients being naked together and attended by male and female members of staff was wholly inappropriate. It is something I have attested to myself. I don’t find the fact that an ‘honorary member of staff’ was given this access any more or less despicable than the fact that it was common for male members of staff to have such access to naked females residents. I condemn it, but I cannot include it as proof that Williams-Thomas has proven his case regarding paedophilia.

Kate’s later testimony that Savile ‘put his arm round her and touched her breast’ and later tried to put his hand between her legs, may well be true. How can we know? It is an allegation. She says as a result of this allegation ‘she was put in solitary confinement for several months‘. Even in the allegedly lawless atmosphere of a 1970s mental hospital, and incidentally Duncroft, there are very strict rules regarding solitary confinement. It has to be a matter of record, for it is one of the first things that prison visitors and Home Officer inspectors check on. We can argue that the log book records could be falsified to give a spurious reason for such solitary confinement, but I cannot accept that the dozens of staff who would have been on duty during those months, day and night, would all have been prepared to risk their jobs and pensions and accept someone being in solitary confinement and that not being noted in the record books. Ipso, Broadmoor, like Duncroft, will have an official record of this confinement. Something else to be produced to the police, methinks? The real police.

Much was made of the fact that Savile had a set of keys to Broadmoor. We are invited to deduce that he had free run of the entire hospital, but were told that he specifically didn’t have a set of keys to the bedrooms, only to the communal areas where there were staff on duty. I am not in the slightest surprised. My own experience of visiting such establishments, of which I have seen more than my fair share as a Visitor, is that the staff are extremely concerned to make sure that you do not manage to wander to any area that is not monitored by the staff for your own safety. I’ve certainly never been offered a set of keys to wander between staffed communal areas, but then I’ve never been appointed an honorary assistant entertainment officer either – merely an occasional visitor. There would undoubtedly be a dearth of individuals volunteering to become a prison visitor if Savile or anyone else had been allowed unsupervised access to some exceedingly dangerous people who would cheerfully – and have done – chop you into small pieces! Not even the regular staff do that, never mind honorary staff or visitors.  He came and went through the staff entrance. So what?

There was considerable time devoted to the allegations that Savile was invited to ‘head’ the task force put in place when the hospital was in crisis. Ms Cope, his personal assistant told us that Savile ‘believed himself to be ‘top dog’. The Broadmoor authorities have denied this. Edwina Currie says his role ‘was never defined’. What are we left with? That Savile believed himself to be in charge? He may well have done so, that doesn’t make it fact that ‘he was in charge of the task force’ as has been claimed. To me, that leaves me with the impression that here was a man with 20 years experience who was invited to join the task force committee – and why not. He had a point of view. Part of that point of view Ms Currie tells us, was that he believed that staff had been fiddling overtime, that some had allocated accommodation to family members etc. This was portrayed as evidence that he ‘could’ have blackmailed staff into ignoring his abuse of vulnerable victims. Yes, OK, he could have done – even Ms Currie didn’t go so far as to claim that she knew whether he had ever done so. It ‘could’ also be evidence that here was an outsider who was prepared to tell the authorities the truth about some of the goings on in a hospital in crisis. It depends whether you watched this programme having already made your mind up that Savile was a predatory paedophiliac or whether you had an open mind waiting to hear the evidence…

Last night Roy Rowden, a former senior NHS executive supervising Britain’s three high security prisons proclaimed himself ‘shocked’ at the access Savile was given to inmates. Remembering that Savile was a prison visitor long before he became an ‘honorary assistant entertainment officer’, perhaps Rowden would care to enlarge on his views as to how exactly prison visitors are supposed to act as a watchdog to ensure that proper standards of care and decency are maintained if they don’t have access in supervised areas to inmates?

Every prison and immigration removal centre has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), formerly known as a Board of Visitors. Members of the IMB, who are volunteers, are appointed by the Home Secretary and act as ‘watchdogs’ for both the Minister of Prisons and the general public, to ensure that proper standards of care and decency are maintained.

Now onto the matter of Alan Franey, who was invited to join first the task force, then applied for – and got in open competition – the job of General Manager of Broadmoor and later Chief Executive. Alan Franey was previously head of Leeds Infirmary, whence he knew Jimmy Savile, a long time voluntary porter there. It was portrayed as somehow sinister that Savile should suggest a man who had successfully headed up a major hospital trust to join the task force trying to sort out the problems in a hospital – on the grounds that this hospital was high security and covered mental health. Now if you are trying to prove that Savile was a man with sinister intentions, you can make something of him suggesting that the Department of Health assess his old friend Alan Franey to take up this position – however, if you have an open mind, you might querulously wonder what William-Thomas’s point here was? Does he believe that Savile shouldn’t have made any suggestions even though on the task force as an undoubtedly interested party? Should only have made suggestions that involved people he had no connection with and thus couldn’t possibly recommend? The civil servants in the Department of Health certainly did assess Alan Franey and considered him quite up to the job of managing a hospital. So what are we suggesting here? That the civil servants were so blinded by Savile’s celebrity that they gave Franey the job for no reason? Should they have ignored the fact that he had already proved himself competent to manage a major hospital? Should they have disbarred him on the grounds that he was friends with someone on the task force? I’m left looking at a mass of innuendo and totally unsure of what I should be deducing from it.

Finally, we had the ‘grilling’ of Sir Roger Jones. Roger Jones was discussing in his office possible contributors to a forthcoming ‘Children in Need’ programme. Savile’s name was mentioned, and ‘several of his staff showed by their body language that they were uncomfortable with this suggestion’. Why were they uncomfortable? Roger didn’t know, since none of them actually voiced any complaints, allegations or offered any explanation for their ‘uncomfortable body language’. That didn’t save Roger from trial by innuendo – shouldn’t he have immediately run round the BBC building warning all and sundry that Savile was a predatory paedophiliac? Hmmn, so the next time someone suggests the geriatric Cliff Richards for the ‘Christmas Special’ and the staff all roll their eyes and look at the floor, the producer should immediately go round the BBC denouncing him as a predatory paedophile? Welcome to the biggest defamation claim the BBC has ever had to defend, if so!

I watched last night with an open mind, quite prepared to believe that Savile was a dangerous paedophile that various authorities should have suspected and thus protected children against. Williams-Thomas has had publicity that others could only dream of, ‘hundreds’ of victims coming forward in the wake of his previous programme, hours of television time to develops his theory, and last night was the final result. Along with the rest of the general public, I am invited to draw my own conclusions. The case for the prosecution rests.

Er, that was it? Really? Where’s the Beef? 

Anna Raccoon-still-with-her-head-defiantly-above-the-parapet.

Updated to add:

‘Those who watched this programme will recall MWT citing an apparently independent witness, a member of a girls choir who claimed that Savile walked up to her at Stoke Mandeville Hospital and ‘stuck his tongue down her throat without warning’. 

Overnight I have been contacted by someone who is aware of the Girls Choir to which she belonged, and also aware that the girl’s sister was at Duncroft…as were the group of original ‘complainants’. 

Would anybody care to calculate the odds for me on Savile managing to walk into a crowded venue and ‘hitting on’ what could be the one and only person there with a connection to Duncroft and the original group of Duncroft girls? 

Travlinman November 29, 2012 at 18:44

Anna – I would like to correct part of your article as it relates to Alan
Franey, Specifically……
“Now onto the matter of Alan Franey, who was invited
to join first the task force, then applied for – and got in open competition –
the job of General Manager of Broadmoor and later Chief Executive. Alan Franey
was previously head of Leeds Infirmary, whence he knew Jimmy Savile, a long
time voluntary porter there. It was portrayed as somehow sinister that Savile
should suggest a man who had successfully headed up a major hospital trust to
join the task force trying to sort out the problems in a hospital – on the
grounds that this hospital was high security and covered mental health.”
In
1975, Alan Franey was appointed to the post of Deputy House Governor at the
Leeds General Infirmary. This was a middle management post subordinate to the
House Governor (Hospital Secretary) within the Infirmary, and subordinate to,
the Leeds West Health District Management Team and the District Administrator.
He was categorically not the ‘Head of the Infirmary’, nor at any time did he
“successfully head up (this) major hospital trust…”.
For the record, Trust
Status for Hospital Authorities were not conferred until 1989 – 4 years after
Franey left the General Infirmary. I have no knowledge and cannot comment on
your assertion regarding his appointment to the Task Force at Broadmoor, viz
Savile’s influence, but I can speak with personal knowledge of Mr Franey at
the Infirmary in 1975 – I worked directly with him, as one of the four
Assistant House Governors responsible for specific clinical and operational
areas of this large hospital. It was clear in our view, that Franey was in
thrall of Savile and soon became deeply involved in that person’s coterie – in
Savile’s own words – as ‘…my business Manager’. Given Mr Franey’s more recent
assertions, both to the BBC and to local newspapers, that he met Savile for
the first time in 1984 and had only met him ‘informally’, one has to wonder at
the accuracy of his responses and the reasons for those inaccuracies – which
can very easily be checked, as can the above information.
I witnessed
Savile with two very young girls near the General Infirmary but, like so many
others, I am sorry to say that I took no action nor made an issue at the
time.
He also made an inappropriate innuendo to my future wife, who had the
good sense to give him an appropriate reply. We simply regarded him as
nuisance in the Hospital and a deeply unpleasant little creep.
I think
accuracy is important, as you obviously do.

Anna
Raccoon November 29, 2012 at
19:01

I am grateful to you for your detailed information Travlinman. Thank-
you.

I had taken my information on his status from the newspapers, I really
should know better! I stand corrected. I shan’t correct the post because as
I have explained many times, it has now been downloaded several thousand
times, and if I change it, some people will have one version and some
another, so I prefer to let corrections stand in the comments.

You say you witnessed Savile ‘with two young girls near the General
Infirmary’ – doing what? Something that made you suspicious of him at the
time, and in which case, why did you say nothing, or just ‘with’ two young
girls, in which case, what makes you suspicious of this now?

Can I ask how old your wife was at the time of the ‘inappropriate
innuendo’? Everything we have heard so far points to an interest in under
age girls, but I imagine your wife was on the nursing staff, in which case
not under-age? It would be interesting to learn if Savile made any attempts
to form relationships, however fleeting, or however inappropriately
suggested, with women above the age of consent.

Mewsical
November 30, 2012 at 01:37

That would have been my question also, vis a vis ‘the two young girls.’
Is it possible that they actually approached him first? Were they just
fans? He had a lot of fans under the age of consent, but that doesn’t mean
he did anything inappropriate with any or all of them by a long shot. I’ve
made this analogy before, but seeing a pair of shoes under the bed doesn’t
necessarily mean there’s a burglar under there. I believe the reason you
said nothing at the time was because there was no need to be suspicious of
him. He was on television every week, surrounded by attractive young
women, of indeterminate age. Nobody was wearing a badge reading, “Hello,
my name is ____, and I’m only 14.” That was the way it was in those days.
So, should we be up on our hind legs now? Well, yes, if it was happening
now, of course. But hindsight is always 20/20.

I was always of the impression that Savile was a lecher, who took
advantage of his position to make a nuisance of himself. However, Dee
Cogger, one of the alleged Duncroft victims, said in an interview that he
tried it on with her, she pushed him away and told him to leave her alone,
and, miracle of miracles, he did. Just walked away.

Moor Larkin November 27, 2012 at 16:48

This phrase is interesting:

“Alan Collins from law firm Pannone …………… There was certainly a danger that
recent false accusations might have made genuine abuse victims frightened of
coming forward.”
http://www.pannone.com/media/press-releases/2012/fresh-abuse-allegations-highlight-scale-of-problem

So at least SOME allegations have already been deemed false?
Nothing
about this has been made known by the media yet so far as I am aware. This
article is dated 16th November.

Mewsical November 27, 2012 at 16:59

Hm, that IS interesting. Well, we know of at least one. With M Jones
showing that signature in the Duncroft visitors’ book dated February 1974,
took care of any silly stories about Savile stalking the halls in the 60s. I
don’t think ‘the media’ want TOO much egg on their collective faces, so
they’re likely to ignore this sort of comment – don’t expect blazing
headlines admitting they participated in disseminating these falsehoods.

Moor Larkin November 27, 2012 at 17:33

I suppose it may just be deemed to have been referring to the Messham
fiasco. Interesting website though. Another “press release”:

“Richard Scorer, a Partner at Manchester solicitors, Pannone, said, “Mr
Clifford has evidently had several admissions from fearful celebrities who
want his advice re their sexual misconduct. I would urge the police to
interview him; Max Clifford is not a lawyer so his clients do not have
legal privilege protection in conversations with him. Consequently he
cannot refuse to tell the police what he has been told. If the information
he has received from showbiz celebrities, has included examples of
possible abuse, it needs to be investigated by the police for the sake of
the victims.”

Always good for the raccoons, when the vultures are squabbling…….

Mina Field
November 27, 2012 at 18:22

I’m sure Richard Scorer is well aware that its only when the police
have received a complaint that they will go evidence gathering, and its
a bit silly of him to suggest that they go and get some tittle tattle
without any victims. Thats MWT’s job !

Moor Larkin November 27, 2012 at 23:16

Surprise! Surprise!
“Manchester-based solicitors Pannone
confirmed it was currently dealing with an allegation of abuse against
Sir Cyril, who died in 2010″
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20303606

Dai
Brainbocs November 28, 2012 at
09:29

There was a report on the Smith thing on R4 “Today” this morning,
two talking heads interviewed. I was driving so I can’t say I
concentrated on every word, but a couple of things struck me. They
discussed the allegations in terms of them being ones the CPS would
act on today, but the worrying trend of the police seeming again to
be pronouncing guilt in advance didn’t seem to get an airing.
Because this could be the thin end of the wedge across the whole of
criminal law, it’s actually more worrying for society as a whole (or
should be) than isolated offences against children 40 years ago
about which little can now be done. And beyond the generic idea that
multiple complaints can prompt claims of a conspiracy, it seemed to
be taken as read that all the complaints were valid

Personally I’m much more inclined to believe complaints made 40
years ago than those made now about events 40 years ago. However, I
can’t help thinking it’s a coincidence that it centres round
Rochdale. Is it intended to deflect attention from more recent cases
there – spread the load of guilt, so to speak?

Thor2Hammer November 26, 2012 at 14:21

IMO-a very reasonable opinion here- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/jimmy-savile-child-abuse_b_2017326.html?ncid=edlinkukhpmg00000084
\\
If
you were abused by Jimmy Savile 30 or 40 years ago, is it really wise to
reveal all now, or would it be better to keep it to yourself?
I think it’s
the latter. I think there is more virtue in keeping the abuse as a firm part
of your past, rather than offering it up to a scandal-hungry media and
abuse-obsessed society that are desperate for more episodes of perversion to
pore over.\\

Mewsical November 26, 2012 at 15:51

Tell that to the Duncroft crowd. I have yet to figure out exactly what
they hoped to achieve here, because now they’re being held up to ridicule
and doubt. Once that stupid Bebe Roberts lied, the wheels came off. Now they
all look dodgy. Nice work, Fiona.

C G Welburn
November 27, 2012 at 15:52

I would like to be able to believe that any of the people making these
claims could be prosecuted if their claims are proved to be false. In the
case of police involvement, surely ‘wasting police time’ would be an
appropriate charge (in view of the cost to taxpayers, etc). Or does that
only apply in fictional cases?

Mewsical
November 27, 2012 at 16:07

They already had an investigation involving Duncroft in 2007 and the
police couldn’t a) substantiate any claims and, b) nobody wanted to
appear in court. Though the Duncroft women claimed on line that the
police told them they weren’t going to bother with it because Savile was
‘old and in ill health’ that appears to be more poppycock, as the letter
from the Surrey police, forged or not, indicates that they couldn’t
substantiate the complaint, even after apparently speaking with Savile.
So why the police are bothering with Duncroft now is beyond me. Just
because they were involved in a television show?? Does that somehow
validate anything? I’m just sorry that the person who made threats over
here regarding Margaret Jones’ whereabouts wasn’t hauled off for
questioning myself. Hope she keeps her head down is all. We at least
know exactly who and where she is.

Dai
Brainbocs November 27, 2012 at
18:53

But might there be a Catch 22? If you waste police time because you
are emotionally/psychiatrically disturbed, presumably that gets you off
because you need treatment rather than punishment, but you may well be
receiving treatment anyway or you wouldn’t have made the false
complaint, etc etc.

I love the BBC
November 25, 2012 at 23:09

Has anyone tried Googling the latest person to have made claims about
Savile? Beverli Rhodes. What a very strange lady.

I love the BBC
November 25, 2012 at 23:15

Sorry, managed to ask this question twice as not all the comments were
showing. She is an interesting person isn’t she? She graduated in 2004 in
some kind of business study in South Africa but by 2005 was working as a
security expert specialising in terrorism. Seems like a meteoric rise to me.
And the meeting which was to be held in Tavistock Square to discuss security
for the Olympics may have been the true target of the bus bomb, according to
her. But she has later specialised in nothing much except motivational
speaking and horse whispering. She lists acting and modelling work in SA
too.

Mewsical
November 26, 2012 at 01:57

My niece was on the tube train hit that was aborted at Shepherd’s Bush.
She was born when I was at Duncroft. I’m sure there’s a connection.
LOL!

I love the BBC
November 25, 2012 at 16:44

This person claiming in the Mirror toady they were abused by Savile at
‘paedo parties’ – Beverli Rhodes – google her. She claims to have been ”A
security consultant specialising in counter-terrorism” when she got caught up
in the 7/7 bombings, but her linkedin profile mentions nothing of that, or her
psychic abilities. I smell a giant rattus….

Mina Field
November 25, 2012 at 17:57

The only reference that I can find to this is a post on the Ickey forum,
saying that said article seems to be untraceable, which it is to me too.
However the Rhodes woman’s twitter feed indicates she does feature in page 6
or 7 of the Mirror. Doesn’t say why. An earlier tweet of hers says something
like ‘my dad was a paedo ring fixer’.
She was indeed a 7/7 victim. Worked
for a firm involved in the Olympics. Apparently claimed to have developed
second sight after 7/7 but in a comments section a poster states that she
was claiming to be psychic 20 years earlier whilst residing in South Africa.
She lived in SA with 2nd husband, hotel chain owner, then later began living
with partner, Tina. Also was in papers claiming poverty, down to last £11.
Not sure why that would be, as she keeps a horse and presumably had divorce
settlement.
Another serial ‘get me in the papers please’ merchant I am
sad to say.
ps. She greatly admires Kerry Katona.

Moor Larkin November 25, 2012 at 19:58

She’s a Blogger, so can’t be all bad…….
http://shaman-beverli-rhodes.blogspot.co.uk/

Moor Larkin November 25, 2012 at 20:21

@Mina
Partner Tina? What happened to Crystyn from July 2010?

“Beverli, now 49, went on to have several lesbian relationships
before meeting her current female partner Crystyn Day, 50, a
photographer with whom she lives in Ashford, Kent.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1296628/Scientists-say-more-women-changing-sexuality-mid-life-Can-really-true-And-whats-emotional-cost.html#ixzz2DGf2DRiC

Mina Field November 25, 2012 at 10:50

I think that it is unlikely that there will be payouts from the estate. I
read a piece written by a lawyer on the subject, and he basically said that it
would be in the ‘too difficult’ box, and that the easier option will be
attempted claims against the organisations. I did try to make sense of the
position myself under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, and
whilst its all rather over my head the principle appears to be that ‘death
draws a line under any wrongs’ except that a claim subsisting before death can
be dealt with. I wouldn’t think that a claim which is over 40 years past its
limitation date and when the ‘date of knowledge’ seems to be the date that MWT
had a tv show will be viewed too favourably.
On a happy note, for all
claims, including those against the organisations, I think that the court
would wish to ‘test’ the veracity, contents and concept of the tv program,
given that is the foundation of any said claim.
Another point regarding the
claims – many of them will be people who have had psychiatric treatment and
assessments over the years and will have talked at length about their
childhood and formative years. Their case will be weakened considerably if
abuse by JS doesn’t feature in such records.

Zaphod November 24, 2012 at 22:15

I continue to be stunned by Anna’s analytical thoroughness.
I’ve been
reading this blog for quite a few years, I knew she was good, and courageous,
but not this good!
I note that she doesn’t have a shred of respect or
liking for Savile, but she sure values the truth.
What can you possibly
follow this with, Anna?

Anna
Raccoon November 24, 2012 at
22:37

Pudsey Bear the Father of twins?

Elena ‘andcart
November 24, 2012 at 12:45

These thoughts have crossed my mind. And if they sue his Estate, who is
going to pay when it runs out?
Actually The BBC and The NHS seem like
better bets, but that’s against Duty of Care, and who is going to prove that
they knew? Who is going to come forward and say that they knew about it and
did nothing when they could get sued themselves?
But since most of them
don’t want any money, but just to be heard, perhaps they should have a TV
Programme, Sky, natch, where they can all stand up and tell their story, and
then we can all Vote on who’s telling the truth to whatever varying degrees.
Thumbs Down for anyone deemed to be lying, and then thrown to the lions. That
should separate the men from the boys, and save Longleat a few bob.

Mina Field
November 24, 2012 at 12:56

Loving your idea Elena. And MWT gets a custard pie in the face for each
one that is voted liar.

Mewsical
November 24, 2012 at 17:26

He’d better show up in a mac and wellies, he’s going to get seriously
‘pied.’

Observor November 25, 2012 at 08:04

as I said previously : the minute Savile died does his estate not belong
to the beneficiaries ?

If not then when probate is granted which takes about 6/8 months it most
certainly belongs to the beneficiaries.

My prediction : Nat West will soon be forced to release Savile’s estate
or face a lawsuit. At which time the tabloid media will ruthlessly attack
those who received something in Savile’s will. Just as his family had to
back pedal and release a statement/

Elena
‘andcart November 25, 2012 at 08:31

Who is going to force Nat West to release The Estate to any one other
than The Beneficiaries? Surely The Law Suit must come first.

Mina Field
November 25, 2012 at 10:51

Yes Elena, it would need a court order.

Observor
November 25, 2012 at 22:46

or the threat of a lawsuit :
as a trustee Nat West would have to
have very serious reasons for with-holding a legacy from a
beneficiary.
Once probate is granted (and I feel it would have been
by now) the legacy most definitely belongs to the beneficiary and I
doubt threats to sue Savile’s estate would be one.

If trustees do not carry out the wishes of Savile they could face a
serious lawsuit which they couldn’t win. Nat West have no say in where
the money goes-it goes where Savile said it should. A trustee’s job is
to guide the estate through the legal process.

Moor Larkin November 24, 2012 at 10:32

@ he had oceans of willing young women who were not runaways from a ‘reform
school,’ who now have various axes to grind, in hopes of – well, what exactly?
@

Savile was, going from his own 70′s account, anything but celibate in his
younger days. There may be some who encountered him who are now feeling
somehow guilty because they have become convinced that, ‘We now know that
Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile for more than 40 years’, and are
wondering how it could have ben that they *did not know*. His supposed
daughter dropped her paternity claims on the basis she did not want him to be
her father – as if her not knowing would make it not so. In that Exposure Pt2,
the woman remembering childhood abuse from “Uncle” Jimmy in the Sixties seemed
to become most upset at the idea that “if only I had spoken up, so many
children would have been saved”.

There are 36 victims being represented by “Liz Dux” but exactly what their
stories are is not clear. This link covers both Dux and another possible child
and an affir Savile conducted with a 17 year-old woman.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4627229/Jimmy-Savile-victim-aged-EIGHT-is-youngest-to-emerge-so-far.html

This story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19925372 reminds me of
how Miss Jones herself found Savile made her uncomfortable because he “pawed
her”. Being overly tactile perhaps is something Savile does seem to have been
guilty of. He must have touched possibly tens of thousands of people in his
forty years of celebrity. I mentioned Old Duncroftian Jenni Hooker in another
blogpage, who was actually at the same [Duncroft]Clunk Click recording and how
she now believes the stories even though she was there and nothing happened
and she knew nothing about anything happening!! Guilt can have a big influence
on people, and ridding themselves of it is a big motivator.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 24, 2012 at 11:31

‘She saw no paedophilia but said: “He wasn’t a nice person. I can’t think
of a likeable thing about him.” ‘

Yet managed a 6 month sexual liason with Savile and the mother doesn’t
know if Savile is the father or not?

And we now have the modern twist on someone claiming to be the child of
someone so the story can run and run, refusing a DNA test.

Jonathan
Mason November 24, 2012 at 13:29

Interesting that since she is not sure who is the father of her son,
she must have been having unprotected sex with 2 or more men during the
month in which she conceived and yet she doesn’t seem to recall who the
others were. At the time the baby was born, this must have been a matter
of great concern for the family. (Or maybe she is just lying.) How many
other feckless teenage girls like this would Savile have had his pick
of?

Mewsical November 24, 2012 at 01:52

[i]Interestingly, when he discusses a female “reform-school” fugitive in
that book he describes how he befriends her and “keeps her overnight” and
persuades her to go back to school the next day. I recall Miss Jones saying
that Savile was introduced to Duncroft by a mother whose daughter had somehow
become very friendly with Savile. Coincidence? “Keeping the girl” overnight of
course has recently been MWT-ed into sexually abusing her. As my granny used
to say, “Dirty minds……”. It could not possibly be that Savile just befriended
a “kid” and realised he had such an influence over young people, because he
was *cool*, and then decided to use that, to help – just as he had been
helping in hospitals for years before. He was 35 by 1972 – old enough to begin
to miss the fact he was never going to be a father.[/i]

And let alone as someone has already observed, he had oceans of willing
young women who were not runaways from a ‘reform school,’ who now have various
axes to grind, in hopes of – well, what exactly?

Mewsical November 24, 2012 at 00:51

J Mason said he hadn’t seen the Newsnight piece, which of course was
incorporated into the Panorama show in October. It’s here on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmflEBrHoEs

Elena ‘andcart
November 23, 2012 at 22:23

Sorry, I forgot. I can’t help wondering what will happen if any of these
dreadful fibbers finally get to Court. But I suspect that someone has already
thought of that, if anyone is daft enough to try it on.

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 23:34

I presume you mean the civil courts, Elena, and it would be my hope that
the lawyers acting for the Defendants – be they the BBC, Stoke M. or
wherever, will defend robustly and actually let a case or two go to trial
rather than settling. For all that these organisations are putting a
concerned and politically correct PR face on I am sure that behind the
scenes the lawyers will be gathering their own evidence. You know, like the
‘inconvenient facts’ that Anna has already so eloquently highlighted.
My
fear is about the way that the police and CPS handle their side of it. With
no live suspect’s defence to worry about I’m extremely concerned after
hearing them pronounce JS guilty on the strength of the number of (at the
date they spoke) yet to be investigated allegations received. After reading
up lately on the works of Richard Webster and others I am appalled at the
way historic ‘trawling’ investigations work and the lack of evidence
required for a conviction. The title of this blog says it all really.

Elena
‘andcart November 23, 2012 at 23:53

I am a teensy bit worried about these things myself. Not that it will
affect me personally. But I do have an over active sense of Justice, so I
am going to be decidedly pissed orf if Jimmy Savile is in anyway convicted
on the current lack of evidence.
I don’t know if it will be in a Civil
Court, but it is going to have to be ruled on somewhere a trifle better
than the Kangaroo Court going on at the moment. Will The CPS be allowed to
get away with “Insufficient Evidence”, despite being almost certainly
true?
Will any Lawyer for the “Victims” dare to test a Civil Claim
against anyone? And what on earth will they do with Witnesses like Anna
Raccoon? I shall be riveted whatever happens.

Observor November 24, 2012 at 06:23

You can bet insurance companies for all these entities will fight like
mad as is their wont. As they do in the Catholic Church.

My prediction : any claims on Savile’s estate will be bitterly fought
over and I see no settlement before about a decade by which time his estate
will have been reduced to little by legal fees.

Elena
‘andcart November 24, 2012 at 11:00

I don’t think they can touch Jimmy Savile’s Estate unless they prove
him Guilty first, and I don’t think there is much chance of that. So they
will just have to fund it up front themselves. But I agree that this will
run on for a long time

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 24, 2012 at
11:21

But if you are an astute PR conscious lawyer, wouldn’t you run to the
media with tales of the estate (Nat West Bank) refusing to pay
legitamate claims, in the hope of forcing a settlement not through the
courts but through the shame of bad publicity?

Elena
‘andcart November 24, 2012 at
11:48

As far as I understand, not actually being a Lawyer, I think that
someone has to get a Court Order to release the Estate, and for that
the claim has to be proven. And in the unlikely event of several
claims being proven, this could run into millions. But then Nat West
wouldn’t need to care about bad publicity. They would just do as they
were told. They cannot release the Estate just because they feel like
it, and neither can they be forced to settle anything without a Court
Order. And I can’t imagine that any of their customers would be very
happy if they did.
It all hinges on what can be proven in a Court,
and while I accept that some claims might be proven, they are going to
have to do a bit better than they are at the moment. Witnesses will
appear to defend against some of these claims. I can think of a couple
on this Blog Site, although I’m not sure who will pay for this,
probably The Institutions like The NHS and The BBC.
This to me is a
matter of Basic Law. Innocent until Proven Guilty, even if you are
dead. So let’s see a bit of Proving.

Dai
Brainbocs November 24, 2012 at
12:02

As far as claims for compensation on Savile’s estate are
concerned, what would be the burden of proof? I assume balance of
probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt? And assuming (if
proven) some victims have been more badly damaged than others, how
ever can this be quantified in cash terms? The estate is a finite
sum and presumably these people would in effect be fighting over the
spoils and Peter trying to rob Paul. So to speak.

Mina
Field November 24, 2012 at
12:53

The claimants have many legal hurdles I believe; the statute of
limitations for a start; then the knotty issue of who was liable
or vicariously liable? if an organisation, then can the claimants
prove that the organisations failed in their duties?
Proving
that the act happened? The more serious the allegation the more
weight of evidence required as proof.
Damages? Depends upon the
suffering incurred and the effects. Claimant’s pet psychologist
will say claimant would have been the prime minister by now if not
for the wrongful act. Defendant’s psychiatrist will say, no they
show no sign of harm and keeping a photo in an album is not
consistent with alleged suffering.
Police and criminal injuries
compensation appears to me to be the winner for these claimants.
Police are (unless they have changed their minds now they have
actually looked at the complaints) apparently willing to decide
the allegations are true purely because of the numbers.

AndrewWS November 24, 2012 at 22:43

Surely the estate will have been distributed by now?

Rocky
Raccoon (no relation) November
24, 2012 at 23:25

The estate was initially put on hold soon after Savile’s
death because a woman claimed to be Jimmy Savile’s daughter,
despite DNA tests proving negative she persisted with her claim.
Following the Exposure programme she announced she longer
desired to be Savile’s daughter. If the woman hadn’t claimed she
was his daughter the estate may well have been distributed by
the time the TV programme aired.

Jonathan
Mason November 26, 2012 at
12:39

I know I am slow, but it has just occurred to me that
perhaps one of the reasons why the BBC didn’t broadcast the
original Savile investigations was that lawyers warned the BBC
that it might open itself to being sued. Of course the BBC
would not be able to make this fact public, which might
explain a lot about why the new Director General got his
knickers in such a twist and pretended he didn’t know anything
about anything.

Moor Larkin November 24, 2012 at 22:42

Speak to our specialist Child Abuse Lawyer Liz Dux about bringing a
Sexual, Physical Child Abuse Claim

Please call 0800 916 9046, or email enquiries@rjwslatergordon.co.uk
with your contact details. Our dedicated solicitors will be then able
to offer you a free initial consultation and answer any questions that
you have.

To see more visit: http://www.rjw.co.uk/latest-news/article/child-abuse-lawyer-liz-dux-on-the-legal-issues-at-stake-in-the-savile-case/3929/#ixzz2DBOHW9Ju

Observor
November 25, 2012 at 07:53

Having twice been a trustee of estates where wills were challenged
by family members I’ve some experience although none with outside
litigants.

As a trustee- as the Nat West is, you are governed by strict rules
(which apply to any trustee no matter who they are). The main problem
is trustees tend to tread very warily when a claim is made but you can
also be found legally responsible and face penalties if you stuff up.

I cannot imagine Nat West would have much legal ability to ‘freeze’
an estate for long once probate has been done. Trustees have a legal
responsibility to distribute an estate asap. The problem for a
beneficiary is do they take expensive legal action to force a trustee
to do the right thing.

I would venture an opinion (although not legal) that once Savile
had died his estate basically belonged to the beneficiaries. I believe
shyster lawyers though will attempt to embarass beneficiaries to come
to a settlement but there is a problem there : if a beneficiary is a
charity does the charity have the right to give money to claimants ? :
hence the endless legal battles that will consume the funds. It isn’t
a lot in the scheme of things- around $3.6M ?.

Personally I think suing Savile’s estate – even if they are genuine
victims -is an extremely low act. It punishes charities and Savile’s
friends and there is ample government compensation available.

Elena ‘andcart
November 23, 2012 at 22:20

I have wondered why The Media aren’t picking up on all of the
discrepancies, but I suppose that there is a danger that they could get sued
if they aren’t awfully careful. While there is absolutely no danger of being
sued by Jimmy Savile. It’s all the same story in the end, so why not go for
the easy option, as they do only cate about selling stories and
newspapers.
Me? I’m still waiting for some proof that Jimmy Savile was even
a groper, or that Mark Williams Thomas actually knows what he is talking
about. But I doubt that I am going to get either.

Observor November 24, 2012 at 06:18

ahhh but the media wins both ways doesn’t and a future controversy is
like manna from Heaven

They rise on the strength of the original tale and beat it up as much as
possible. If it all comes undone : as say the Haute de la Garenne scandal
did (ie dead children’s skulls turn out to be coconut shell) it’s like a
second bite of the cherry and they can hammer away about it all being a
fantasy, who is to blame and ‘heads should roll etc etc.

Now they are munching on the roots of the cherry tree as new life is
breathed into the joint by Savile. It’s a win win situation for the media
!!

JohnS November 25, 2012 at 04:29

One inconsistency I noticed was that one of the original accusers said
that “Jimmy didn’t do kissing” and she was adamant that this was the case
throughout a relatively lengthy relationship. Everyone else seems to say
that he kissed with tongues (the “bad breath” meme has grown
exponentially) including many girls he was only just that second
meeting.
If I recall correctly the “no kissing” interview was in the
first ITV doc and was contradicted in the same programme by the assistant
who said she walked in on Savile kissing a girl on his knee. To emphasize
that this wasn’t innocent she insisted that he was kissing the girl using
his tongue.

I haven’t seen any “journalist” dare to point this out.

Pete November 23, 2012 at 20:34

THanks for your painstaking detailed analysis of this subject Anna. This is
what blogging should be all about- facts derived from personal experience and
expert knowledge, rather than opinions.

It’s a pity there’s no one at Broadmoor who’s willing to set the record
straight on what did or didn’t happen there, as you’ve done with regard to
Duncroft. I was a mental health nurse for many years and have visited
Broadmoor during the period when JS was there. I also worked in high security
wards in ordinary psychiatric hospitals and units. The most important rule in
these places is that no one goes out of sight. Not only are patients
constantly observed, but staff do not go out of sight of one another. It’s
been alleged by an unnamed ex-patient that JS touched her up while they were
sat in a sofa- the sofa was turned so that nurses couldn’t see what was going
on from where they sat. I find that extremely improbable. If the sofa was
arranged thus, patients could have passed drugs, improvised weapons, or other
contraband to one another. In most mental wards at that time, even in ordinary
local psychiatric units, all chairs were arranged with their backs to the
wall, as both patients and staff felt more comfortable that way. Occasionally
well meaning students nurses would rearrange them in a more “informal”
pattern, but the patients would soon put them back where they were before!

The allegation about Leeds Royal Infirmary also seems improbable to me. A
woman- now elderly, claims that JS sexually abused a brain-damaged girl in the
next bed, in the children’s ward. Is it beleivable that he didn’t even pull
the curtains round the bed? Paedophiles are expert at concealing their
activities- they have to be! And if JS was “Britain’s most prolific sex
offender,” yet was never caught, then he must surely have taken great care to
conceal his crimes. He would have had no idea who the other kid (the alleged
witness) was, not (more important) who her parents were. He would not have
risked it.

As to the few ex-Broadmoor nurses who have now stated that “they always
thought he was a paedo”- how could they possibly make this assessment when
they would never have seen him interacting with children? One I heard
interviewed stated that paedophile patients told the nurses that JS was one of
them. But they would say that wouldn;t they? Psychopaths, especially those who
know they will be spending many years in a high security hospital, often amuse
themselves by trying to “split” the staff. It would doubtless be especially
amusing to spread such insinuations about the Chair of the management
board.

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 21:18

@Pete

Before the shit had fully hit the fan, I listened to an ex (or even
current)-Broadmoor warder guy interviewed on Radio 5. I think he had a
Scottish accent – anyhow he scoffed at the then-emerging Broadmoor stuff,
saying the whole thing was ludicrous (good word for a Scots voice). He
pointed out much of what you just said, that Savile would have never had
single access to patients because they were often very dangerous people.
Futhermore he also said that male warders were always accompanied by a
female, in female areas, because otherwise the women would almost certainly
make “accusations” against those male warders. Needless to say, I’ve never
heard that warder quoted since.

Mewsical
November 24, 2012 at 00:11

Along the same lines, the idea of Savile taking a few Duncroft girls
out in his Rolls (or was it a low-slung sports car? Can we make up our
minds, please, ladies?) and having some of them sit at a picnic table in a
lay-by while whatever went on in the back seat went on, I had to laugh.
That lot would have taken off running at the first opportunity.

C G Welburn
November 27, 2012 at 15:42

That last line really made me laugh, Mewsical. Captured the average
Duncroft girls’ mentality perfectly. Take every chance to leg it. Made
me smile whilst reading a very serious debate.
Well done yet again,
Anna.

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 21:25

Pete,
I’m sure you are correct in your opinion. In the early days of
this fiasco an ex Broadmoor staff member spoke to 5 Live and explained how
heavily chaperoned Savile and any other volunteer workers needed to be, for
their own safety, and frankly what a nuisance that was. He also asserted
that the idea that he had keys was ludicrous. I’ve just tried to google to
find his name but his account has got lost in obscurity, what with being
‘off-message’ and all! I too wish more would dare come forward – or that the
media would allow them to.
I agree with you about the paedo bit – I also
wondered how that was supposed to be apparent in Broadmoor.
I’ve seen one
ex male nurse in particular, who they kept dragging onto our screens for a
while, opining that JS seemed to him to be a psychopath. Not only did the ex
nurse appear to be a strange and unprepossessing character to me but I find
it insulting in the extreme that a lay diagnosis is put out there that we’re
supposed to fall for.
Sadly, the one voice of reason I’ve heard in this
was that of Peter Sutcliffe in that telephone recording. And thats something
I never expected to hear myself saying. Just shows how mad this business
actually is.

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 21:27

Ah, Moor has just beaten me to it, I see. Thats the same chap I was
referring to.

Observor November 24, 2012 at 06:03

Pete as someone who visited a relative in security psychiatric centre I
casually observed much of what you say. My relative was dangerous but also a
timid and shy person who warders took a special interest in as she was very
pretty and they deemed her vunerable to other patients.

I used to sit and chat to one particular nurse who I got on well with and
she would relate snippets about how psycopaths and dangerous sex offenders
would always attempt to snare you into their world of thought : try to
convince you that you alos shared their desires and qualities.

She would laugh it ioff but said it took around 2 years for her to
realise how cunning they were.

I find the Broadmoor claims about Savile the most unusual and difficult
to believe. Dealing with people who were volatile and subject to fantasies
doesn’t make a very willing victim to my mind- more like dealing with fire
especially for someone as clever as Savile who surely would understand
that.

Obviously dealing with children in a home : a pedophile believes the age
and innocence of the child will cover their tracks. Adults and one with
mental problems would be about as dicey as they come I would think.

Of course the media gives us an impression of Savile, tracksuited and
a’jangling with gold jewelry fiddling his way through a ward of drugged
humans whereas from my very limited observations, most of the patients were
wide awake and looked as normal as me !

Bored.com November 24, 2012 at 09:43

Extremely Improbable NOT impossible.

Matt November 23, 2012 at 20:16

To Ivan—webpage layout.

Well that is goodby to Mrs Raccoon’s blog because it is un-readable in its
current format on my PC and I cannot find the cure. The lines of text are 34
to 40 words long.Zooming in under “View” obviously increases the font size but
pushes 15 to 20 words off the right side of my monitor.
No other blog or
webpage on my PC has this problem.

Thanks for your interest. If you or anyone else can think of anything I
will lokk in from time to time to check.

Mewsical November 23, 2012 at 21:09

Matt – have you tried reinstsalling whatever you’re using, IE, Firefox
etc.? I’ve found that helpful. Or switch to another browser altogether?

Michael November 24, 2012 at 00:06

I think it’s an issue with the site. The #container element on line 21 of
layout.css should maybe be “width : 100%;” rather than “width : 100em;”

Observor November 24, 2012 at 06:28

been there and done that Matt- have had the same problem as you. Sadly-
it’s your PC not the blog.
Get advise on how to re-set various functions
and keep reading. (don;t get a Mac)

Elena
‘andcart November 24, 2012 at 11:05

I’ve got a Mac, and apart from the very occasional Email Reply, I am
not having any problems, and certainly not On Site. I am using Safari.

ivan November 24, 2012 at 11:04

Matt, I am sure it is your end unless you are using a tablet in
portrait mode – that is the only time I have to scroll sideways.

As Mewsical says, have you tried another browser? Also have you
tried clearing the browser cache, that very often clears up problems like
yours.

Another thing, if you are using windows get a copy of CCleaner – the free
version is adequate – and run that your computer will appreciate it. It will
remove a vast amount of junk that builds up over time. A couple of days ago
I used it on a friends PC and removed over 6 GB of junk files and 587 unused
registry entries in the register. Her comment when I gave it back ‘it works
like it did when I first got it’, nuf said.

Mewsical
November 24, 2012 at 17:23

I second that. CCleaner is really a help.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 23, 2012 at 19:59

The link to the Surrey Police statement…
http://www.surrey.police.uk/news/online-media-centre/statements/article/1824/statement-regarding-surrey-polices-investigation-into-jimmy-savile

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 23, 2012 at 19:57

“‘Those who watched this programme will recall MWT citing an apparently
independent witness, a member of a girls choir who claimed that Savile walked
up to her at Stoke Mandeville Hospital and ‘stuck his tongue down her throat
without warning’”

Ah that might explain how the Surrey investigation of Duncroft ended up
including an incident at Stoke Mandeville.

Here’s the Surrey Police Statement issued on 24 October 2012…

Statement regarding Surrey Police’s investigation into Jimmy Savile

In 2007 Surrey Police was contacted by a member of the public who reported
witnessing a historic indecent assault at Duncroft Children’s Home in Staines
in the late 1970s. Allegations of this nature are taken seriously and officers
carried out enquiries to locate the victim who, when interviewed, did not wish
to support any criminal prosecution.

As part our investigation, a number of former residents from the late 1970s
were traced to ascertain if there were any witnesses. Due to the historic
nature of the allegation, enquires to trace individuals who were at Duncroft
30 years previously were lengthy and continued for over a year during which
officers contacted 22 former residents.

Of those spoken to, we received two further reports – one relating to the
use of inappropriate sexual language at Duncroft, and one of being kissed at
the age of 14 whilst attending a concert being held at Stoke Mandeville
Hospital. The victim was not a patient. Neither of these victims were willing
to support a criminal prosecution.

No further allegations of sexual abuse were received by Surrey Police
during the course of these enquiries.

Investigating officers met with representatives from Barnardo’s, which
managed Duncroft during this period, who stated they had no reports to staff
of any sexual incidents by staff or visitors.

Jimmy Savile was interviewed under caution in relation to these matters in
2009 and the case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service who advised
there was insufficient evidence to charge.

At the start of the enquiry in 2007, Surrey Police conducted a check via
INI (Impact Nominal Index) – a system designed to share intelligence between
forces. A request was sent to every police force in the country to check their
records for information relating to Savile. This returned no trace of similar
allegations.

Sussex Police then received an allegation in 2008 and, as a result of them
conducting an INI check, they liaised with Surrey Police. This fourth
allegation was referenced in Surrey’s submission to the Crown Prosecution
Service.

During our investigation, Surrey Police made contact with and briefed
Surrey Social Services. They then linked in with Social Services in West
Yorkshire where Savile was then residing.

Officers also contacted and briefed West Yorkshire Police about the nature
of our investigation. The Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust were
also aware of the details of our investigation and subsequent interview with
Savile in 2009.

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 20:15

Very well spotted, Rocky.
Wonder if Stoke M and Broadmoor could ever
potentially contemplate suing over all this – and I don’t mean against JS’s
estate.

Mewsical November 24, 2012 at 17:49

Why are they investigating incidents occurring at Duncroft in the ‘late
70s?” Savile was there in the mid-70s, i.e. first visit February 1974, and
doesn’t seem to have come around much after Barnardo’s took over in October
1976. There are too many inconsistencies, different cars are described by
Fiona et al, and Karin Ward, who mentions only a low-slung sports car, while
the rest of them go on about a Rolls. If I was on a jury at this point, and
the case was rested, I’d go for ‘not guilty’ based on reasonable doubt.

Mark in Mayenne
November 23, 2012 at 18:26

Sooooo…….. What are they trying to distract us from?

Bill
Sticker November 24, 2012 at
00:19

An excellent question. The more Anna digs, the more one smells an expired
Rattus Norvegicus.

Still have plenty of popcorn.

ivan November 24, 2012 at 10:44

Most probably the Pakistani male gangs passing young girls round.

According to the official report they are responsible for 25% of all
child rapes which doesn’t look much until you look at how small a proportion
of the population they are THEN you see the massive scale of it.

Mina Field November 23, 2012 at 17:42

What an interesting update Anna, if true (and I aren’t doubting it
is).
MWT himself will surely be The News one of these days.

Carol42 November 23, 2012 at 17:07

As I have said before I never liked Savile but the more I read and hear
about all this the more I think he wasn’t that bad. None of the wittnesses
seem credible and the reactions of the media are a disgrace. Thank you for
keeping us all straight Anna, someday soon I hope someone, a real
investigative journalist, will take it up and end all this hysteria.

Mewsical November 23, 2012 at 19:01

I think this blog is doing an excellent job of investigative journalism
myself.

guthrie November 23, 2012 at 16:09

I understand that the term for what Saville appears to be guilty of is
“ephebophilia”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Still breaking the law of course, but the problem is getting the evidence,
especially if the partners were willing.

Span
Ows November 23, 2012 at 16:14

guthrie, Anna mentioned ephebophilia in a few earlier posts. If you
follow Thor’s link (in the comment above yours) and read Steve Moxon’s Oct
16th post you’ll see it is a very normal state for most males…I’m certainly
guilty m’lud.

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 17:50

@ it is a very normal state for most males…I’m certainly guilty m’lud.
@

You might be, but don’t include the rest of us please.

One of the things that I did notice about the appalling programme was
that MWT spent a lot of time building up how Savile wormed his way into
powerful positions after the 1980′s – rebuilding hospitals and mental
institutions – all in order to grope some vulnerable people. Apart from
being the most ludicrously complex method of “copping a feel” imaginable,
it also struck me that there didn’t seem to be a single allegation that
was not based before this period. Ms. Raccoon’s update may go some way to
explain why, and makes me wonder if this was why bebe pushed her age back
a decade or so – simply in order to spread Saviles’ crimes wider than the
two years it would otherwise have touched upon originally. By doing so of
course she brought the wrath of the Raccoon upon them all. It’s often
remarked that con-artists only get caught because they over-reach
themselves.

Span
Ows November 23, 2012 at
18:26

You might be, but don’t include the rest of us please.

Oh dear. Did you read the blog-post I was referring to? Certainly
doesn’t sound like it.

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 21:09

@ Oh dear. Did you read the blog-post I was referring to? @

Yes, I read it at the time and made more then one comment:
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/news-shite-and-the-perfect-storm/

The notion of Savile having any especial “philia” just feeds into
the modern obsession that everything is purely sexual in motivation
and everyone must have an “orientation”. If Savile wanted to ‘cop a
feel’ why on earth need he go to a strictly-controlled reform school?
All he had to do was hang about after the Top of the Pops shows and
there would be girls aplenty, virtually throwing themselves at him,
not to mention some of their mothers probably – such is the
aphrodisiac of fame and, back then, he wasn’t a bad physical specimen
for a time when wild straggly hair was fashionable and at the BBC his
caravanette was waiting outside. If you can tolerate his prolix 70′s
autobiography he gives you a blow by blow description of a lot of what
he got up to.

Interestingly, when he discusses a female “reform-school” fugitive
in that book he describes how he befriends her and “keeps her
overnight” and persuades her to go back to school the next day. I
recall Miss Jones saying that Savile was introduced to Duncroft by a
mother whose daughter had somehow become very friendly with Savile.
Coincidence? “Keeping the girl” overnight of course has recently been
MWT-ed into sexually abusing her. As my granny used to say, “Dirty
minds……”. It could not possibly be that Savile just befriended a “kid”
and realised he had such an influence over young people, because he
was *cool*, and then decided to use that, to help – just as he had
been helping in hospitals for years before. He was 35 by 1972 – old
enough to begin to miss the fact he was never going to be a
father.

Make of it what you will.

Thor2Hammer November 23, 2012 at 13:38

Large Hat-tip @Johnathan Mason ^^^ -for the link – http://stevemoxon.blogspot.com/

Span
Ows November 23, 2012 at 16:11

thanks for the link Thor2Hammer to that very good blog. October 16th
Steve has a very sensible post which the hysterical media don’t want to
admit.

Observor November 23, 2012 at 10:43

A superb analysis of the program. I thought all the same things but Ms
Raccoon puts it so succinctly.

I’ve been emailed by some ex-pat Brit friends in Australia who were alarmed
that MWT’s first program was shown this week on their highly respected ABC
(government network) station and program 4 Corners. They are alarmed-not at
the Savile allegations as they think it’s all a hoot that possibly one of the
most popular and recognised TV presenters has been transformed in to the Devil
Incarnate who apparently hypnotised a nation : but their alarm is that a
reputable state funded TV network has purchased a trashy tabloid style program
full of innuendo and claims and broadcast it on a great investigative
show.

They see it as , irrespective of the truth about Savile, a portent of doom
and gloom for quality TV.

More evidence of society madness in the Independent and the exclusive
interview with Paul McCartney who has cleverly slid around comment on Savile
by claiming they thought he was ‘odd’ because he didn’t invite them all in for
a cup of tea one day !, Fancy being in the company of the most famous pop band
in all of history and turning them down when they requested a cuppa!.

But it’s the comments section that is illuminating..people go off half
cocked and read everything into Paul’s statement.

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 10:24

Looks like somebody was twittering about the paedo-cop back in August, when
he involved himself in the Tia Sharp murder case.
http://twitter.com/LifeInCustody/status/234214061221498880
The
twitterer, who appears to be a Guradian journalist says: “I smelt a rat very
early on and simply unfollowed. I note from linked in he was a policeDetective
for only one year”

I noticed on the web that this Kim Evans also made an FOI request:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discipline_record

Not quite sure what it all means, but I reckon I could drag it out for an
hour – all accompanied by spooky music……

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 13:21

I liked this one myself
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8233636.stm

Anna
Raccoon November 23, 2012 at
13:46

And right on cue, within minutes of you posting that – guess what?

http://order-order.com/2012/11/23/friday-caption-contest-whitehall-edition/

Where’s MWT when you need to make a complaint!!!!!!

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 13:56

Oh heavens, I do hope nobody’s teenaged children don’t accidentally
open that webpage, they could be traumatised.

Mina
Field November 23, 2012 at
13:57

Sorr, shouldn’t have had a ‘don’t’ in that sentence. My shocking
grammar.

Mewsical
November 23, 2012 at 18:13

MWT is becoming the self-appointed moral arbiter of the UK it appears.
Really, why do we care what he thinks about a naked guy? So far, apart
from a lot of speculation and hearsay, I am STILL not getting any solid
proof of anything about Savile. And if MWT has such a narrow moral view,
then surely anything he has to say must be viewed through that
spy-glass.

Jonathan
Mason November 25, 2012 at 02:04

Interesting. Seems like he is a bit of a self-publicity hound!

Elena
‘andcart November 25, 2012 at
03:58

At least that Sky Article stated that Mark Williams Thomas was only a
Detective Constable. Over the last five years I had somehow formed the
erroneous opinion that he was a seasoned expert who knew what he was
talking about, until I recently began to question some of his more
bizarre and obviously ignorant statements.. He is a self serving
publicity hound and is beginning to do some serious damage as far as I
can see.

Mewsical
November 25, 2012 at 15:26

He was only a detective constable for one year and then was off the
force. For the preceding years he was a constable. For someone who has
very little experience he has been elevated (or elevated himself) to a
position of authority which his professional experience does not
warrant. He takes credit for the arrest and imprisonment of Jonathan
King, and now wants to make his career with this Jimmy Savile thing.
This could backfire in the long run. He decided to believe – or it was
convenient to believe – liars.

Mina
Field November 25, 2012 at
16:37

He doesn’t sound too knowledgeable at all judging by his tweets.
Lately he has been making a bit of a fool of himself by railing
against the Nightingale sentence, clearly not having a clue as to what
the facts are;having not been bothered enough to read the transcript;
and not knowing it is military court marshall rather than civilian
court and prison thats involved. Some barrister and solicitor
twitterers have tried to set him straight. When that first Exposure
program was aired there were barristers on twitter asking him what
steps he’d taken to check the veracity of the accusers, but he
wouldn’t answer them.
I presume you already know that he was tried
on blackmail charges – although found not guilty? And then there was
that furore when Facebook were going to take action after he’d
appeared on tv and stated that he’d posed as a child and had a
‘grooming hit’ within minutes. Only it wasn’t Facebook at all?
My
old mum if still alive would have called him a menace.

I love the BBC
November 23, 2012 at 20:36

Kim Evans, the twitterer you mention in regard to MWT, is linked to this
website http://thejusticegap.com/News/savile-bryn-estyn-and-the-danger-of-modern-witch-hunts/

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 22:02

Thats interesting. I’ve only learned of the work of the late Richard
Webster’s work, and of those others also concerned with the victims of
false allegations of child abuse and FACT etc, in the last few weeks
because of the Messham business.They are the investigators/journalists who
rightly abhor publicity seeking self styled ‘paedo-finders like MWT and
the damage that they can do to innocent men and to real but forgotten
abuse victims alike.
Nice to know they are on the case.

Dai Brainbocs
November 23, 2012 at 10:14

I’ve just watched the programme on the ITV player. The woman who claims she
was abused by JS as a family friend in Leeds is convincing, but so is his
long-term PA when she says she had no inkling he was an abuser. Her
description of him as manipulative and ruthless must surely apply to most
people who ever climb the showbiz ladder to the rung he did.

The smearing of Cardinal Home by association simply on the basis of his
appearing in a photo of Savile with the pope – cardinal photographed with
pope, how shocking! – and recommending membership of the Athaeneum is frankly
shameful. Later the club is described as “a haunt” – that’s its precise
purpose for all its members, it’s what clubs do! The whole church thing seems
to be there just as a Catholic = paedophile dog whistle. (And my background is
South Wales non-conformist.)

The Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor allegations are far more serious than
any relating to the BBC and more convincing than anything relating to
Duncroft, but not helped by Edwina Currie’s oddall invention of conversations
between Savile and members of staff he could have been blackmailing to ensure
their silence. I’m puzzled by the notion of there being “a set of keys” for
Broadmoor, surely there must have been multiple levels of security?

The Children in Need thing relates to staff (i.e. adults) feeling
uncomfortable around him, which no doubt they would around many showbiz types.
The way the former BBC governor who wanted Savile well away from CiN has moved
from being a tabloid hero a few weeks ago to villain here shows how the witch
hunt is developing.

Esther Rantzen’s bandwagon-jumping “if only someone had phoned Childline,
we could have stopped it” (paraphrase) is frankly nauseating.

Observor November 23, 2012 at 11:17

Poor Esther seems to be digging a deeper and deeper hole of
irrelevancy.

But her admission that no-one rang Childline is an amazing admission that
seems to have slipped by almost everyone.

Maybe no-one phoned because there was no reason to.

Dai Brainbocs
November 23, 2012 at 11:28

Rantzen’s cameo is a perfect snapshot of the witch hunt mentality.
Savile never got involved with them but this can only be because he had
something to hide related to their specific area of interest; he would
have been exposed if he had and some of this stuff would never have
happened. Rantzen as the public face of Childline would have saved the
day. One more massive showbiz ego on parade, someone you get a distinct
impression you’d dislike intensely if you ever got to meet them –
ironically, exactly my reaction to Savile.

Mina Field
November 23, 2012 at 13:34

To me, frankly, MWT sounded a touch jealous of the contacts that JS had.
And the way he tried to impugn the Franey chap’s abilities and position was
offensive. Why do these people even agree to be interviewed and appear on
his show, anyway?

Mewsical
November 23, 2012 at 16:08

I thought Franey was going to hit him. And deservedly.

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 17:27

There’s an interesting libel case from 1999 here, which involved
Franey and Broadmoor.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/may/22/davidbrindle
The
fascinating thing is that it was a Broadmoor patient being maligned by
the Mirror. The guy won the case but only got 1p because the newspaper
said he had no reputation to lose. Nothing like the morals of an
alley-cat huh?…..

“Alan Franey, Broadmoor’s chief executive at the time, told the court
that for many years stories had been published about patients, and he
had continually tried to find who was responsible. No pornographic tapes
had been found in Mr Oates’s room, he said, and further checks on all
tapes used by patients revealed nothing more pornographic than the type
of late-night film broadcast on Channel 4 or Channel 5.”

And so the wheel turns.

Mewsical
November 23, 2012 at 18:17

Right along with the stomach.

Doug Young November 23, 2012 at 09:54

A very necessary and coherent questioning of the evidence that is being
used to condemn Savile, both in this piece and your previous. Respect.

I have an issue with ‘…take the place of parents imbuing their children
with the love and trust that would allow them to discuss such matters with the
family members’ and similar perceptions. It doesn’t necessarily work that way,
for similar (and different) reasons as why adult rape victims don’t
necessarily immediately speak out, or adult PTSD sufferers often can not talk
about their experiences with loved ones. To expect children to be able to talk
about their experience of sexual abuse when adults can not talk about their
own experiences is unhelpful and doesn’t recognise the nature of real clinical
trauma, PTSD or severe psychological damage sexual abuse often does to
children.

Putting the responsibility on the parents not imbuing their children with
enough love and trust is grossly inaccurate. Your questioning of the
‘evidence’ used against Savile to justify the tsunami of prejudice and instant
judgement is admirable, but you seem to be guilty of a similar (though much
lesser) offence by stating your own prejudices about the nature of the
victim’s silence without bothering to look at the evidence.

It’s not a lack of love and trust that causes silence, it’s the nature of
the crime.

Francoise November 24, 2012 at 02:19

Totally agree and additionally children are confused because an adult,
often a trusted one, has done things and they believe it must be OK cos
adults know what is right – also many children do not have the language they
require, or not sure if they have done something they may be in trouble for
or they manage it by making sure they are never alone with that person again
if they can – there are so many reasons why kids don’t tell – the best that
parents can do, other than having conversations about the fact that some
adults sometimes do wrong things and the private parts body talks is to
observe any changes in the children’s behaviour as this is the best
indicator that something may have happened and ask simple questions such as
‘I notice you …….. Did something happen that worried or confused you?’
Rather than what has happened to many children in these situations who
suddenly become behavioral problems requiring drugs! No No No.

Span
Ows November 23, 2012 at 09:38

He was a witch! (dig him up and) burn him!

john warren November 23, 2012 at 08:55

Robb. Well put. A KISS question in fact; keep it simple stupid; the old
journalists’ mantra.

The other thing that occurs to me Anna, is the way that all this dead-man
bashing pushed the scandal of the Muslim grooming gangs right off the radar.
In a recent BBC news report on the conclusion of a study done on the grooming
of young white girls for sex, the word ‘Muslim’ was very carefully avoided
throughout. They’d also lumped in all white on white attacks to make it sound
like the Muslim attitude toward young white girls is no big deal and no
different to white Christian attitudes. Jimmy Savile being used of course to
convince people how sexually perverse we white men also are.

Thy did seem to suddenly rush those enquiry findings through at the end.
Timing it to nicely fit in with the anti-JS debate maybe? Is it all a pc
conspiracy by the BBC in order to divert their own short-comings with regard
to the worsening lack of morals within the UK?

David
Duff November 23, 2012 at 08:53

Thank you, Ms. Raccoon, you do a public service in the very best sense of
that phrase. Based on your forensic examination I have described the programme
over ‘at my place’ as: ‘a TV “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
and signifying nothing”.’

heydj48 November
23, 2012 at 01:45

Brilliant post. Anna

Robb November 23, 2012 at 01:12

On a Guardian CiF piece today (principally about Benjamin Britten), Martin
Kettle, an experienced and well regarded journalist claimed:

‘Collusive cultures allowed Savile to sexually assault and exploit hundreds
of young people in homes and hospitals, and through his BBC opportunities.’

It took me a while to come up with a simple way to show the idiocy of
this:

How’s about (as Jimmy might say): what, roughly, are the proportions of
those sexually assaulted or exploited in ‘homes’, ‘hospitals’ or ‘through his
BBC opportunities’–whatever that means.

Kettle has no idea. Nor how serious or credible those claims are. None of
us do. The Guardian printed it anyway. It’s libel-free.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/britten-boys-obsession-cannot-ignore?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

Observor November 24, 2012 at 06:40

Kettle’s piece was one of those “there are questions that need answers”
type of pieces but concluded in the end, there were no answers required.

He also pondered why people keep bringing up claims about Brittens’s
taste for boys which is of course , exactly what he did and apparently for
no reason as he concluded. Very odd.

Wellwisher November 23, 2012 at 00:32

I have been following your coverage on this subject and I too search for
the truth. Let’s look at the facts;

Jimmy Savile is no longer here to defend himself against any
allegations
Jimmy Savile is unable to sue for libel or defamation of
character

When did we turn into a society where over night an alleged peodophile is
called ‘the most prolific sex offender’ without a shred of evidence, without a
court hearing, no trial, no jury, no evidence….I agree that victims of abuse
should be heard and encouraged to come forward but there should be a fair
balance that if you make up allegations then you should be outed as doing so.
The hysteria surrounding the whole Jimmy Savile scandal has got everyone
scared of saying otherwise even when the facts are staring them in the face.
The media are scared to print the facts in case they are seen to be either 1.
Vilifying the victim or 2. Seen to be supporting an allegded peodophile. Now
it seems that anyone can come forward regarding an alleged assault and be
believed on their word only regardless of whether the EVIDENCE states
otherwise. You have the media fighting against regulations that may be put
forward from the Leveson enquiries yet do not have the guts to print the facts
and the evidence, they want the freedom to print the stories that cause
controversy but are unwilling to print the whole story in an unbiased point of
view…it seems like double standards to me and I wish they would grow a
backbone and print the truth. It is in the publics interest to do so but
unfortunately they are too cowardly to do so.

Unfortunately society has changed, we are living in a compensation nation,
morals and principles are gone and nobody is willing apart from you Anna to
speak the truth and ask the questions that need to be asked. The Great in
Great Britain has gone and I feel ashamed to think that we live in a society
where principals have changed and some people would rather earn a bent tenner
than a straight fiver.

Frankie November 22, 2012 at 23:22

I thought that Anna’s analysis of the programme was extremely fair and
accurate.

I utterly hate this ‘Trial by Innuendo and Selective Journalism’. It
offends me and should offend anyone who has been accused of anything – any
little to large crime because it is an established legal principle that a
defendant should know the quality and extent of the evidence set against him
and in this case… ‘he’ can’t. Where is the EVIDENCE?

I have to say that none of the accounts I have heard thus far convince me,
but I am equally certain that by modern 2012 standards, Sir James Wilson
Vincent “Jimmy” Savile, OBE, KCSG was a very strange man, definitely a man
who, possibly, made full use of his opportunities, a man who possibly, had
improper relationships with young women and, possibly, young men, but also a
man who did a great deal of good.

The trouble with many of those who have come forward to make allegations is
that they do not appear to make very credible witnesses, for various reasons.
Many of these accounts have already been tested against a criminal burden of
proof and have been found wanting, so what new EVIDENCE will come forward now…
now that the object of all these inquiries is no longer alive and able either
to defend himself or to face punishment. If there is real and incontravertible
EVIDENCE against Mr. Savile then let it be heard.

Another excellent post Anna…

Jonathan Mason
November 22, 2012 at 23:31

I agree. Surely out of these 400 or so complainants they should be able
to find a few girls who were under 16, spent the night with Jimmy Savile on
a one night stand, had full sex with him and went on to lead normal and
unspectacular lives without legal problems. It is difficult to produce
EVIDENCE, but surely there must be some CREDIBLE TESTIMONY (if indeed he had
illegal sex with so many underage women).

English Pensioner November 22, 2012 at 23:21

I never did like Jimmy Savile, not because I had anything specific against
him, to me he was just weird. I certainly didn’t think he was a paedophile and
my usual reaction was “what on earth do all those people see in him?”.
I
always dislike the situation when a person is subjected to allegations after
his death, when he can’t answer back (or sue for libel). There have been quite
a number of cases over the years, although nothing of this magnitude. If one
looks critically at the claims in many cases, the answer is invariably
“money”, where an author has written a book and needs to “spice it up” somehow
or a “victim” is hoping to get money from the estate.
I haven’t been
sufficiently interested to listen to or read all the media allegations in
detail and had tended to accept their conclusions, so I am very glad to have
been able to read your analysis of the evidence which has certainly shown me
that one can’t believe all you see on television or read in the newspapers.
(Although I knew that already from personal experience in a totally different
field).
What I do know, is that it is going to cost the taxpayers a fortune
to pay for all the enquiries that are now being carried out by the BBC, the
NHS and the police, and to what real purpose, the man’s dead!
Thank you for
your analysis.

Observor November 23, 2012 at 11:20

I actually like him but never wondered about his sex life .
I may have
been the only British resident to have liked him if I believe the
tabloids.
And I didn’t even think he was weird !

Chris
Barratt November 22, 2012 at 23:20

Agree with every word – there’s not a shard of credibility in any of this,
and the assertions of “fact” are way off the mark.
It’s not really
“protecting Savile” as protecting truth, there’s some alarming hidden agenda’s
coming together in this utterly preposterous debacle

Mina Field November 22, 2012 at 22:05

Anna, apologies for going slightly O/T and taking advantage of your blog,
but, given that it might just be read by some in the journalism profession,
then:

Calling Investigative Journalists –
Here’s an investigation and scoop
for you: find the source of that recording of JS ‘defending’ Gary Glitter. The
alleged ’2009 interview’, because I simply do not believe it can be genuine
and I can’t believe the world has lost its head so much that nobody has
thought to question it.
If genuine, then whose was the interview? Why
didn’t the interviewer publish it, even waiting until after JS’s death if
necessary? Why didn’t MWT say whose interview it was? It would have fetched a
fair old price if it was genuine, surely more than MWT was willing or able to
pay. How did MWT know it existed? Why isn’t someone jumping up and down and
saying, ‘hey that was my material’.

Mewsical November 23, 2012 at 17:19

Very good question – I can’t find anything other than “a television
interview from 2009″ never before aired. No indication of what television
outlet, who conducted the interview, etc.

Matt November 22, 2012 at 21:05

Dear Mrs Raccoon.
Sorry to be totally off topic but your Blog,one of my
firmest favourites, has gone very wrong. Have you fiddled with summat?
Your
heading with its cosy pub is fine and normal but the text is now massively
wide and very tiny. I’ve tried all the tricks I know to correct it but getting
the correct size font causes scrolling right for many inches to be needed and
I have to use the edge of a sheet of paper to guide me to the next line. This
is a real embuggerance. Or it may be my rotten PC. Do you have any ideas
Madam? Regards and respect.

ivan November 22, 2012 at 21:39

Matt, from what I see here there is no change to the page layout,
even if I make the browser window wider or narrower the layout follows
keeping within the margins. I say this because I’m the one that usually sees
any changes because of my usage of OS/2 and not windows, linux or the mac
os.

If you are using windows try rebooting as a font may have been corrupted
in memory or another site could have changed something in your browser –
some sites like to set their own fonts and font sizes which don’t get reset
when you leave that site. Other than that I can’t say without knowing the
operating system and browser you are using.

john warren November 22, 2012 at 20:49

I second Robb’s comment.

The only other thing I want to mention, is to ask Ivan to ‘never’ to
mention age again when he’s writing in support of anything he cares about. If
they pick up on your age it’s assumed by the modern powers that be that your
too young to understand if under 15, too senile to think properly if over 70.
If they don’t know how old you are Ivan, then your comment can’t be dismissed
for being worthless.

If making a complaint of any kind to the dreadful BBC they will ask for
your age – why? If you’re too young you wont be writing and if too old you’re
already dead. They also need to know if you’ve ever complained before. Again –
why? Are we only allowed to complain a set number of times by those pc
tyrants? I change email address’s regularly when writing to them and always
lie (because I have to) about my age.

Once again, well done Anna – right or wrong, we should never let the
bastards grind us down. You know it.

ivan November 22, 2012 at 21:23

Sorry john, but I am at an age where I can look back and shake my
head over what I see happening compared to what could have happened.

I do agree with you about the ‘not wanting to listen to anything from
those that are too old’, not so sure about the too young though. The main
reason they don’t want to listen to the older generation is, I think, two
fold, we had a good education and now have a lifetime of experience to back
us up – those are the things the present indoctrinated generation can not
stand.

Robb November 22, 2012 at 23:20

Hi john warren–Disagree the BBC is dreadful. In the round, over the vast
panoply of its output, who worldwide is better? Flaws, certainly, like the
NHS. But really want to do away with it?

On the ‘dreadful’ BBC complaints system I’d entirely agree. It is clearly
designed to put complainers off. Initially you get a response from some poor
lowly young thing who is not authorised ever to admit the BBC may be wrong.
So you get: ‘Dear Robb, I am sorry you feel X.’ Feelings, of course, are
beside the point. The point is: is X wrong? So you have to have another go,
again through ‘dreadful’ system. (Can’t respond directly to the idiotic
email. It makes it clear no one is listening.)

If you persevere, you may get an actual letter. I did, once, three pages
of it, clearly written by some one of some seniority who had actually
investigated. He still found my complaints baseless. But in some detail,
which had equally clearly taken some time!

On the other hand, I once kicked up a fuss about a minor matter on a
daytime auction programme. It represented that the presenter visited a house
before auction and sought the opinion of an ‘expert’ as to what it would
achieve. The auction. Then the presenter ‘revisited’ the house with the new
owner. It was clear from internal evidence that the presenter was only there
once–after the auction. The weather, presenter’s clothes, etc, were always
identical. (From a budget viewpoint is made no sense either. What film the
expensive presenter visiting a bunch of houses–whose future owners then
declined to take part in the programme.? Cheaper and more reliable to select
houses at auction, get owner on board, THEN visit the house once. ‘Before’
and ‘after’ the auction on the same day.)

On the scale of things it didn’t matter much more than a damn. But as an
old filmmaker the deceit irritated me. So I complained. The BBC never did
admit to anything wrong. Still, today the programme has subtly changed. No
longer is it implied, suggested, stated that the first visit is prior to the
auction (mostly through a simple change of tense).

I got no credit and perhaps I am due none. But a tiny bit of television
is more honest than it was, and I have a quiet sense of
self-satisfaction!

Robb November 22, 2012 at 23:33

One more detail on my minor non-triumph. The expert asked to evaluate
the house ‘before’ auction was not infrequently the auctioneer who had in
reality already sold the house. Nor suprisingly his ‘estimates’ were
usually spot-on.

The more serious point is that if the BBC found it acceptable to cheat
on minor programmes where even an armchair critic like me could spot it,
what chance did we have with serious issues where we had to rely on them
to be honest? It was this apparent culture of deceit–a lowering of
standards–that bothered me most. That and inability of the BBC–like a
small child–to admit any mistake.

Robb November 22, 2012 at 19:58

Anna–Another terrific analysis. Thanks.

The Filthy
Engineer November 22, 2012 at 19:33

“Any fault or blame here, lies not with the authorities, not even with the
BBC – but fairly and squarely with parents.”

As a parent (And now grandparent), I always felt it was my duty and Mrs FE
to teach our children what they could and couldn’t do. That is the major
responsibility of a parent, and we have done our best. In fact I think we have
done damned well barring a few minor mistakes. All three are well balanced
adults, who I hope will pass on a common sense morality so lacking in these
troubling times.

Mina Field November 22, 2012 at 19:07

This link is to an interview with the PA, Janet Cope, shortly after
Savile’s death. It goes nearer to explaining their parting of the ways: she
said, ‘in 1999 he decided he had to cut the running costs of his charity
work’.
This sounds to me to be consistent with the scaling back that was
evident in the last decade of his life, compared with the heady amounts of
publicity and fund raising of the 70s and 80s.

[url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+REAL+JIMMY+SAVILE%3B+BY+THE+WOMAN+WHO+KNEW+HIM+BEST.-a0271687611[/url]

Clearly they didn’t fall out, as she wouldn’t have had all his paperwork in
her garage if they had.

Joe Public November 22, 2012 at 18:36

As a resident in Britain reading our ‘free’ press, & and, watching our
domestic television reports & programmes, I’m amazed that a lady from
across the channel can offer the most-balanced observations &
comments.

Thank you Anna.

In the absence of hard evidence (c.f. Lewinsky’s “Blue Dress”), Savile has
yet to be proven to be a paedophile.

Elena ‘andcart
November 22, 2012 at 19:17

The worst Jimmy Savile ever was, and still not proven, was a groper. And
oh my God, what fun I have had with gropers. Haven’t we all? Poor sad sacks.
There are a lot of them about. Not nearly enough of them raised 6 Million
for Charity, so I am not about to go off on a Hate Fest because he might
have groped someone or another. And No, I don’t actually care if he did.

Robb November 22, 2012 at 20:07

Hi Elena ‘andcart–’The worst Jimmy Savile ever was, and still not
proven, was a groper.’

That is not clear. Unproven, certainly. Of the 400+ accusation (or
whatever it is) we have details of a handful. Some evidently dubious or
entirely wrong.

But all theevidence–if you care about that and I do–isn’t in. Let alone
open to assessment. Which is why those who have decided he is the
‘Greatest Paedophile Ever’ are also wrong.

Elena
‘andcart November 22, 2012 at
20:28

Not sure what you mean, Robb. I have so far seen no evidence that
Jimmy Savile was anything other than a good man who raised loads a money
for Charity. The worst that has been levelled at him is that he was a
groper. And I am not frightfully sorry if I can’t go off in high dudgeon
about that. Presuming if he is ever proven to have done anything quite
so ordinary, when he could at least have eaten one of them in two goes
when he said that he loved children but couldn’t eat a whole one. I
thought that remark was hilarious, but no doubt some would find it
otherwise.
For the moment absolutely nothing has been proven against
him, and I much doubt that anything ever will be. But if the worst thing
that ever happened to anyone was a quick grope then most of us could
count ourselves lucky.

Robb
November 22, 2012 at 21:05

Elena ‘andcart–Let me clarify.
‘The worst Jimmy Savile ever was,
and still not proven, was a groper.’

I agree that nothing has been proven against him. But ‘groper’ is
not all he has been accused of. There are the accusations of a 9
year-old boy. If true they probably count as (attempted?) assault on a
child. Those of a young (19+) woman who Savile tried to grab, so she
said–possibly sexual assault or attempted rape, depending on the
details. Oral sex in the back of a car. Etc.

The point isn’t whether these allegations and others can be proven,
or even have credibility. Rather that the accusations (such as we know
of them) encompass more than ‘grope’.

Mudplugger
November 22, 2012 at 20:53

It probably comes down to your personal definition of
‘paedophile’.

From my own knowledge of Jimmy Savile in Leeds in the 1960s, he
always focused on young teenaged girls, usually between 14 and 16,
taking one or two back to his place after a city-centre disco session.
They all appeared to be post-puberty and accompanied him willingly,
although most were below the British legal age of consent. He just liked
‘fresh flesh’. In my book, that is not a paedophile – perhaps a tad
inappropriate for a man in his thirties, but that’s all.

I have no knowledge of his other alleged activities at various
institutions. I am, however, very suspicious of the small number of
alleged offences against boys – from my own observations in Leeds at
that time he never gave any indication of interests in that direction.
As a ‘pretty youth’ at the time, I may have expected some attention if
that was where his interest lay.

But the ‘paedophile’ label is one used with abandon in the tabloid
world so, whether Savile was one or not, will not prevent it being
attached to him post mortem.

Mina
Field November 22, 2012 at
21:13

It makes me laugh that on the DS forum and elsewhere there are some
who happily believe that he went for young women, legal aged girls,
under-age girls, small children of either sex, corpses, and the
occasional adult male. Talk about catholic taste in sexual
partners!
Personally I always thought he was either a closet gay or
truly not that bothered about having a sex life (something I can
identify with), as there has almost never been any women revealing
that they once had a fling, a one night stand – and I say almost never
because I discount the one that went on This Morning as a
wannabe.
If he did have such extreme urges as the media would like
us to believe he had, then I don’t think that a grope of someone’s bum
every year or three would have been meeting his needs really.

Robb
November 22, 2012 at 21:19

Hi Mudplugger–you entirely correct. ‘Paedophile’ should be
restricted to those who have an interest in or sexual activity with
the pre-pubescent. And it is a losing battle to hope the press–tabloid
or broadsheet–will fall in line.

On another thread many are (rightly) insistent that homosexual does
not mean paedophile. What’s indisputable–and a bit inconvenient–is
that many prominent homosexuals have expressed an interest in (and
activity with) very young boys. If post pubescent. You could do worse
than start with Joe Orton.

In my view this is exploitative and abusive behaviour,
nevertheless.

Elena ‘andcart
November 22, 2012 at 17:47

I am seriously upset by this all, and I do mean seriously. What good person
in their right mind will ever want to help disadvantaged people in future, or
ever again?
Women can be child abusers, so who is to be in charge of
Institutions for emotionally or physically damaged children?
The Children’s
Home that I had the good fortune to be placed in was managed by a husband and
wife team, but even they who never did anything beyond caring for our small
community, were eventually deposed because there was a man around small girls.
Not sure about how the powers that were felt about a woman being around small
boys.
But these lovely people were sacked, and a lone woman took over.
After that everything became utter chaos. And the beautiful house that we
lived in was wrecked, trashed and set fire to because The Lone Woman couldn’t
actually cope with the seriously damaged children that came into the house
after my sister and I were sent back “Home”, and Mhari and Alan were deemed
unsuitable. What a tragedy that was. It was such a nice place to be in my days
there. Three years of being made to feel important. And all lost for other
children because of politcal correctness.

Bunny November 22, 2012 at 17:13

Thanks for the post Anna a measured debate on the subject, he may or may
have not been a paedophile and the chances are we will never know, a
manipulative rogue, a walter mitty character definitely but anymore than that
and we do not know. Yet again another example of ‘trial by public
opinion.’

Humble Observer
November 22, 2012 at 16:59

“Wear’s the soap?” God Bless Kenny Everett. May he, at least, rest in
peace.

JuliaM November
22, 2012 at 16:42

/applause

Wendi November 22, 2012 at 14:41

In total agreement with the points except that I was not at all convinced
by Denise, daughter of the ‘family friends,’ story and won’t be surprised to
see another ‘Bella’ (or similar) story coming out in the near future ‘a la
Duncroft’ women who went for the filthy lucre and their fifteen minutes of
glorious fame – only to be uncovered as shameless liars and opportunists!

I also believe children should feel free to tell their parents or older
family members if they feel an adult has touched or caressed them
inappropriately, something that most child will innately sense, as children
do, is not quite right and that the logical/human reaction of the
parent/family member should be to dot the perpetrator firmly on the nose and
ban this person from ever stepping into their home again and ‘finito.’ This
saves the child from the trauma of having to repeat the story to the police,
social services and thus blowing the whole incident into a major event that
will stay with them for many years. Not to imply that it wouldn’t be a major
event in itself but there are major difference between ‘inappropriate’
touching and blatant sexual acts with a minor, the latter definitely being
worthy of police and Court intervention.

It is by nature parents’ duty to protect and nurture and educate their
children to their best ability. Unfortunately, not all children are born into
caring and responsible families and distrust the adult world from a very early
age, these are the ones prone to carry an added trauma throughout their lives
if they are sexually abused and the ones that need to know it is their right
to be protected from the abuse of adults and where to go when they are.

ivan November 22, 2012 at 16:26

Wendi, how dare you use common sense when the MSM, social
services, government quangos and the left want to push an agenda of the
state being the be all and end all of our lives.

Way back in my youth, 50s, such things as you mention were dealt with by
the family or the local bobby and it was only if they persisted was
authority brought to bear. It worked then but then came the swinging 60s and
everything went to pot, literally, and has been going downhill ever
since.

Today, most parents are quite willing for the state to take over their
responsibilities, in fact most seem to want just that. Gone are the days
where people had personnel responsibility and integrity, just look at the
political classes. It is only us old fogies that remember how it could be
and the freedom it gave.

Maybe the film ‘Idiocracy’ and the book ‘Marching Morons’ by C. M.
Kornbluth will turn out to be prophetic after all.

ToastandMarmite
November 22, 2012 at 14:36

Brilliant as usual Anna – ‘facts’ seem to have become an inconvenience that
get in the way of the ‘truth.’

Members of the MSM read this and other blogs – is there not one of them out
there prepared to take a risk and potentially make a name for
themselves….?

Mina Field
November 22, 2012 at 16:52

ToastandMarmite,

I feel sure that one or two will be quietly working away right now, ready
to launch the ‘Exposure of The Exposure’ when the time is right. At the
moment its virtually impossible because to speak out is to be branded a
supporter of paedophiles. But when the hysteria subsides the media will want
the next big selling story, and there can be almost nothing bigger and
better than ‘ We were all fooled by false allegations – Disgrace that
gravestones and inquiries commissioned, etc, etc.

Anna
Raccoon November 22, 2012 at
17:02

I don’t doubt it, nor do I doubt that they will quote liberally from
this blog especially the comments section.

I can almost guarantee you that they will never admit that they relied
on my readers to do all their investigative work for them…..

Meanwhile they cower behind the modern version of the linotype cabinet.
They remind me of the little boy who lit the catherine wheel – whilst it
was still in the box with the other fireworks……

Joe Public
November 22, 2012 at 18:22

Like this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-20220853

Moor Larkin November 23, 2012 at 11:48

@ I don’t doubt it, nor do I doubt that they will quote liberally
from this blog especially the comments section. @

It would be nice to think the BBC might do so and inform their
“Inquiry Reports” accordingly. They could spark a quantum-shift in the
approach of the rest of the sheep-like meeja. If they don’t, it’s
difficult to see who else has any interest in doing so, I’m sorry to
say.

Dai
Brainbocs November 23, 2012 at
12:02

Who in the BBC would now dare go on the front foot and say loud and
clear that hangers-on, many of them psychologically disturbed, are
damaging the interests of the genuinely abused? Or even in parliament?
If the select committee’s beat-up of Entwistle is anything to go by,
they’d be denounced by MPs scared of the tabloids and shouty
constituents. ITV has franchised its coverage out to Williams-Thomas,
for whom it’s a meal ticket. Channel 4, maybe Dispatches, is probably
the only outlet left with the balls to say it.

Ho Hum November 22, 2012 at 14:07

Maybe we should dig up Matthew Hopkins and start testing to see who carries
his DNA. We really should check that any link made, or any similarity at all
between the current media circus and (albeit Wikipedia’s description of) the
events of the 17th century, is false. We can’t really believe in any parallel
being drawn with the heroes of those times, can we? – such as is described by
‘Hopkins (and Stearne), accompanied by the women who performed the pricking,
were soon travelling over eastern England, claiming to be officially
commissioned by Parliament to uncover and prosecute witches. Together with
their female assistants, they were well paid for their work’. These people had
fascinating means of obtaining evidence, apparently. If they were on to
something that we have forgotten, maybe the police should be setting up
budgets for hatpins, chairs and paddling pools

Jonathan Mason
November 22, 2012 at 13:47

I also agree that so far there is only very scanty evidence available in
the public sphere that Savile was a pedophile. I didn’t see Newsnight as I
live overseas, but it sounds very much like typical tabloid television.

Here is a good assessment of the case for and against Savile.

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Mason
November 22, 2012 at 13:42

Excellent article. I don’t know what I can add to this. I think Anna is
right that the keys issue is a red herring. When I worked at a large mental
hospital in the US, all staff had a key called the #1 key, that opened the
doors to all resident care buildings, staff toilets and break rooms, office
buildings, etc. And then employees would have additional keys that permitted
access to specialist areas such as offices, medical treatment rooms, the
pharmacy, the petrol pump, vehicles, store rooms and so on, according to their
qualifications and need for access.

Without knowing what keys were given to Savile, the whole thing is
meaningless. He may have been given the same set of keys as student nurses or
medical students on assignment.

Mina Field November 22, 2012 at 13:42

Brilliant summing up Anna, thank you.

Ted Treen November 22, 2012 at 13:32

Anna, I respect and admire your honesty, integrity & courage.

There are many who will read your writings and come entirely to the wrong
conclusion, namely, that you are defending Jimmy Savile and attempting to
prove him innocent, rather than to condemn the MSM-led hysterical condemnation
based on ‘evidence’ which wouldn’t stand up in court or anywhere else for that
matter. Since those lovely people, Balls, Mandelson, Campbell (et al) followed
a pattern of smearing by innuendo those who had the temerity to disagree with
them, it has increasingly become an unsavoury part of modern life.

Too many in the MSM these days have an unjustified sense of their own
importance and brilliance: this arrogance leads the press to frequently
appoint themselves as police, prosecutor, jury and judge – as Christopher
Jefferies discovered not very long ago. That episode cost them dearly, but
they are unrepentant and incorrigible.

I hope that they do not turn on you, but affirm that you have many friends,
many who have never met you, but would back you to the hilt and stand up to be
counted with you.

Anna
Raccoon November 22, 2012 at
13:46

“There are many who will read your writings and come entirely to the
wrong conclusion, namely, that you are defending Jimmy Savile and attempting
to prove him innocent, rather than to condemn the MSM-led hysterical
condemnation based on ‘evidence’ which wouldn’t stand up in court or
anywhere else for that matter.”

Thank you Ted – you are absolutely right, and it is happening on a daily
basis, but then I always knew that it would. You cannot go against the
conspirloons demanding facts when they are in full flood, as they are at the
moment. It took two years before the main stream media caught up with me on
the Hollie Grieg affair – two long years when I was subjected to every vile
slur going.

I wouldn’t mind so much if they condemned me for printing things which
they claimed were untrue – that is debate. But they condemn me for demanding
facts, and that demand is utterly abhorrent to them!

I just continue on my merry way, considerably comforted by the fact that
I have the blogospheres best readers. Not because they always agree with me
– in fact they often violently disagree – but because they are intelligent
people who do have the nerve to ask inconvenient questions and do their own
research, not run with the knee jerk mob opinion.

I have also been told on several occasions over this whole affair – ”yes,
some of the allegations, in fact all of them, might well be untrue – but
look how much good it has done, all these genuine abuse victims feeling
brave enough to speak out’. Its the ‘ends justifies the means’ argument,
that ignores all the distress and collateral damage that has been caused
along the way.

Every time I hear it, I am reminded of the fact that Hitler made the
trains run on time….

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 22, 2012 at
14:47

As a result of one complaint relating to Duncroft Surrey Police over a
year interviewed 22 former residents and the result was one additional
complaint of the use of inappropriate sexual language at Duncroft.

Immediately after Edwina Currie spoke the programme felt obliged to
announce no former staff members have indicated they’d been under
threat.

If it was an investigative programme would it not have sought to speak
to the others who were in the room when Savile’s PA was fired, also the
‘fake’ letter was worth a mention as it undermined one of the programmes
witnesses.

On 5 November I contacted Panorama querying who Rochelle Shephered is
and why she was involved with the programme, I’m still awaiting a
reply.

Brian November
22, 2012 at 16:31

I thought it was Mussolini wot did that, and even then most of the
refurbishment work on the Italian railways (needed after they were worn
out in WWI) had already been planned and begun by the time he came to
power in 1922, and only express trains rain on time because local trains
were put into sidings until the priority trains had passed and the line
was clear. As for German railways needing someone to tell them to be
punctual, it’s like telling Germans to like wurst. Moreover, crucial to
the success of the Schlieffen Plan of WWI was the accuracy of German
railway timetables.
I wear my Order of the Exasperated Raccoon for
Pedantry, 4th Class with honour.

Moor Larkin November 22, 2012 at 13:16

We used to have a riddle about who was the strongest man in the
world?
The answer was, a policeman.
The explanation was that he could
stop a bus with just one raised hand.

Sadly, nobody even seems to have the will to lift a finger nowadays..