Before I started writing this, I played a segment of ‘Exposure’ back to myself. Within the first few minutes I was listening to yet another lie – the story of ‘Sarah’ allegedly portrayed by an actress both on screen and in voice – because ‘none of her family knew what had happened to her’. Yet Sarah was none other than the sister of one of the original Duncroft girls; we know that because her sister told Alison Levitt QC all about her ‘and what happened to her’. Jimmy Savile allegedly kissed her! Can I not listen to five minutes of that blasted programme without uncovering another manipulation of the truth?

One of the most damning pieces of what has laughingly been referred to as ‘evidence’ in the wake of the ‘Exposure’ programme was Jimmy’s great-niece, Caroline Robinson (left), appearing on ‘This Morning’ to claim that her ‘Great Uncle Jimmy’ had abused her too, not once but twice. This allegation has been leapt upon by the armchair moralisers who are quite, quite sure that they know the truth of the matter from a few snippets of erroneous newspaper reporting, as being the ‘last piece in the jigsaw’ – “See, even his own niece, just shows you what a monster he was”.

Yet emerging evidence suggests strongly that tabloid misrepresentations of Jimmy Savile’s sex abuse ‘exploits’ are holding up the release of money he left in his Will to genuinely deserving charities. While the main stream media try to suggest that ‘Savile family avarice’ is behind the delay, in fact only one publicity hungry maverick within the family has occasioned this specific problem.

It enrages me as I watch history being rewritten, judicial protections being undercut, as the ‘Savile bandwagon’ rolls over his reputation courtesy of a media which now claims to ‘have known all along’ – except that they had no proof; at the hands of middle aged women who have lived life roughly and now seek redress for their choices; all aided and abetted by a charity industry that seeks an ever larger remit for their empire; and a police force desperate to maintain their numbers and remuneration in the face of falling ‘recorded’ crime figures. Figures which managed to fall notwithstanding the helpful addition of hundreds of ‘recorded crimes’ being chalked up in the wake of the Savile debacle!

The millions that the charities have at their disposal to help those blighted by child abuse are being dissipated. The watchful eye of parents turned outwards, away from the ‘uncles’ in their midst that are the real danger to children. Charities such as Help the Heroes – and ironically, a Northern Charity which gives practical help and support to those who suffer domestic and child abuse, have been told that there is likely to be nothing left for them to help the legless serviceman and scarred children that Savile intended his riches to go to.

The lawyers clutch their interim accounts and look forward to the final remit. Those middle aged women – the ‘vulnerable victims’ – may, if they are lucky, receive a thousand or so for a stolen kiss – but the lawyers will receive millions.

I always try to put myself in ‘both’ pairs of shoes. I have tried and, I confess, failed, to imagine what it must be like to wake up one morning and find that your Mother’s memorial stone is gleefully displayed on the front page of the Sun, smashed and discarded in the bottom of a skip, with the world at large whooping triumphantly. That is what happens when your Mother was related to Jimmy Savile and they shared a memorial stone.

These are not the only indignities that have been heaped on the near 50 people who have familial ties to Jimmy Savile. Quite right too, some would say, aren’t they related to that evil pervert? The sins of the Uncle etc., etc.,?

I have spoken at length to those related to Jimmy Savile; apparently one of the few people to give them a thought. They, of course, are not only related to Jimmy Savile – but, inevitably, to Caroline Robinson, as she is now. They have known her since she was a baby; they know the family history intimately – not through newspaper clippings.

They were not, as I imagined, a family “in blanket denial”; standing together saying “Our Jimmy wouldn’t do anything like that”.

They are a family baffled. Baffled as so many of us are, by the lack of evidence. They would like to know the truth.

And utterly incensed by the blatant lies that have emerged in what little evidence has been seen outside the hallowed corridors of Operation Yewtree.

And rendered speechless by, or at least refusing to speak to, the media who have jumped on the bandwagon with such lack of caution, sensitivity and investigation.

There are a large number of relatives. Marjory, Savile’s sister gave birth to seventeen children, 11 are still alive. They in turn gave birth to 31 children of their own.

When Caroline emerged from the shadows to say that Jimmy had abused her when she was 12, they were all on the phone to each other. “How could that be” they said, “How old was she at Vincent’s funeral”? “That was 2003” said another, “or thereabouts, she must have been near 40”. “Well, she told me that was the first time she’d met him”, “Me too” cried another, “I remember that”.

“What’s all this about him buying Marjory a house In Egypt”? “Marjory never owned a house in her life”. One of them had seen a photograph of this alleged house in Egypt. “Sort of square, and white, looks very ordinary”. ‘Not got an orange tree in front of it has it?” the others cried in unison. They all remembered the square white house with the orange tree in front of it – not owned by Marjory, in Egypt, but rented in Libya, where Caroline’s Mother, June, had sweated though the Libyan summer in RAF married quarters when she was married to her husband Nick. June had been very proud of the orange tree – one of those silly details that family members remember.

Why did Caroline feel it necessary to claim that Jimmy had bought a house for Marjory as ‘hush money’? Perhaps she felt it made her tale more credible – but it enraged a family who not only knew that Marjory had never had a house – in Egypt, Timbuktu, or anywhere else – but who held Marjory in great esteem and respect. 

Marjory never owned property – that was why Jimmy Savile bought a caravan in Gorse Hill, Conwy. As he had started to make money, whereas I am told he paid up the mortgage of Chrissie and Joan,  Marjory didn’t own a house, so he bought the caravan for her use instead. It is a matter of record.

Josephine had a house nearby, one that Caroline had visited many times. Of all the family, she is the one most hurt by Caroline’s allegations. She was very close to her, used to enjoy her visits to Llandudno. She was aware that Caroline had had a difficult childhood. As the other family members started to say ‘Why now, why would she say something now and not before,” Josephine wondered more than anyone, for it was not as though Caroline was a stranger to the process of revealing childhood abuse – just not abuse at Uncle Jimmy’s hands.

Caroline’s previous claims. 

When she was 14, she claimed that another relative had abused her whilst she was baby sitting for him – this allegation wasn’t general knowledge to all the family until very recently and needless to say, the alleged perpetrator adamantly denies it. We can’t know the truth of that, but certainly even that was not the first allegation that Caroline had felt brave enough to make.

When Marjory and her husband Bert finally separated, Bert went to live with his daughter June – Caroline’s Mother. Hey ho! There were dark suggestions from June that Caroline had told her that ‘Bert was interfering with his grand daughter’, and she needed him to move out of the house.  Again we can never know the truth of this; all it does show is that Caroline was no stranger to speaking out about alleged abuse.

Could it be that she was never believed on these occasions, except by her Mother? That is possible, although one would imagine that knowing her history, her Mother would have been only too keen to keep a close eye on her daughter and who was around her. But there’s a thing! Caroline alleges that Jimmy abused her yet again, at her ‘engagement party’ too – 15 might seem a tad young for an engagement party, but Caroline was pregnant!

Now even Caroline’s own brothers don’t remember this engagement party, still less Uncle Jimmy turning up and running a disco. As they have pointed out – Uncle Jimmy arriving in a suburban side street outside this nondescript flat roofed council house in his Gold Rolls Royce would have generated a crowd of every youngster in the area – and their parents – with their noses pressed to the windows hoping to catch a glimpse of Jimmy. So they were even more puzzled, I am told, when their Mother explained away this ‘forgetfulness’ on their part by saying “You were outside playing football”. Outside playing football in a street packed with gawkers at this unexpected celebrity in their midst for their sister getting engaged? Curiouser and curiouser.

So, there is Caroline, pregnant at 15, and no one is perturbed at this obvious sexual abuse on the part of ‘someone’ – but 40 years later, Caroline and her Mother are sufficiently outraged by the alleged wandering hands of her Uncle to be consulting lawyers and demanding compensation?

Caroline lost that baby, and the details and lies surrounding this are another kettle of fish. Needless to say, the rest of the family are not supportive of her latest allegations regarding Uncle Jimmy to the point that many family members have given official statements to the police – but more on that later.

The letter that created a family rift.

One of the reasons that the family were so disbelieving of these claims, was not a blind defence of Jimmy, but simply that they knew that Jimmy had never forgiven Caroline’s Mother June for a letter she had written to his beloved Mother, the ‘Duchess’, many years earlier. A letter which had so wounded him that it was the only item of personal correspondence that he had kept in his Scarborough home. A letter that ensured that although Jimmy took care of his family financially in that typically close knit Leeds manner – June’s home was one he simply didn’t visit.

He wasn’t a forgiving man.

This is what the letter said:

Dear Grandma!

I don’t suppose for one minute you know who I am, or that you care.  Anyway, I am one of Marjory’s daughters.

Every time you write to my mother you upset her.  You say she must come and see you alone. We all know you have no time for any of us unless you want something – you are just like Jimmy – he won’t do anything unless he gets paid for the publicity. 

You don’t seem to object to Chrissie or her cronies seeing you – its about time you realised you have a daughter and son-in-law and grandchildren and great grandchildren and a grave in Killingbeck Cemetery that looks like a rubbish tip.  It would do you the world of good to visit the cemetery one day instead of tripping off everywhere else.  Tell Jimmy if he comes to see his father’s grave, I will make sure there are plenty of press men there.

You didn’t even send my mother a Christmas card just because you had the flu is about the feeblest excuses I have ever heard.

You should have written to my Mother inviting her to your birthday party instead of writing to Joan, after all my Mother is the oldest daughter near to hand.

Chrissie and the rest of them seem to get things out of you so why don’t you send a little something to my mother.  Don’t think this begging for her because this not and she has no idea I’m writing to you but I do think under the circumstances a small gift would mean the word to her.  Just now my father is very ill and its difficult for my mother to make ends meet.  I help her all I can but with a family of my own to look after, its a bit difficult.

She was upset at Christmas because it was the anniversary of my son’s death but she was also upset because there was no greetings from you.

If you cannot write to her a decent letter that we can all read and enjoy without feeling contempt for you and your high and mighty ways (though god knows where to get them from) then don’t bother writing to her at all.

If this letter makes you angry enough to give you a conscience them I’m glad, but god help you if you write to my mother and upset her again.

If you answer this letter to me it should make interesting reading.

Yours June Perry (signed)

Grand-daughter

That letter was written on New Years Day 1969. Jimmy was used to getting letters that asked for money. It is an occupational hazard for anyone from a working class family who ‘makes it’. There is a particular viciousness, jealously and bitterness about that letter that rankled with Jimmy. He kept the letter long after his Mother had died – right up to his own death.

Yet Caroline would have you believe that six years after that letter he was giving his time to host a disco in honour of her engagement at 15!

All of this would make sense if there was money at stake; a family sticking together in the face of adverse publicity – and they are sticking together, all 40 odd of them (I confess, I have lost count for the moment).

Only June, Caroline’s Mother, writer of that letter, and Caroline’s present husband support her version of events.

Not whether Uncle Jimmy ever touched her inappropriately – they are wise enough to know that no one can pronounce comprehensively as to what goes on between two people, especially when one of them is not around to put their side of the story – but whether Caroline even met Jimmy before 2003 when she would have been 40! 

Follow the money!

The money which is at stake is NOT their money. Only two members of the family have any financial interest in the will, and they only have what is termed a ‘life interest’ in a modest amount – after their death, that money will join the millions intended for the charities that are supported in Savile’s will – and that is what the family support too. A personal interest in money is not the reason they are contesting Caroline’s version of events – contesting to the point of making statements to the police.

They are puzzled by Caroline’s abrupt about turn when the details of Jimmy’s will were known.

When Jimmy died, another niece, his next of kin, was first to be informed at 11.20am by his Cardiologist, Alistair Hall, that he had passed away. She spent the rest of the day in Jimmy’s apartment, liaising with the police and undertakers. The Police advised her to leave the phone on voicemail.  Caroline was one of those who telephoned the apartment, which was already filling with relatives – a call that created comment at the time, and was dutifully recorded on the voicemail. Those present were aware that Caroline hardly knew him and yet –

Quote: “She was crying and wailing “Please, Please Uncle Jimmy, Please answer the phone, Please tell me it isn’t true, Please, please, please, Oh god Uncle Jimmy, please tell me it isn’t true”.  Amanda couldn’t believe this reaction from someone who knew him so little, but “was obviously very upset that he had died.” That niece was one of those who had met Caroline for the first time at Vincent Savile’s funeral where Caroline had confided that it was the “first time she had met Jimmy”.

Vincent Savile died in November 2003!

Later, Caroline elected to take up a Bingo prize she had won, and go on holiday, missing Jimmy’s funeral. Then she sent a florid tribute to sit on his grave – a personalised green plastic vase bearing the legend “In loving memory of …………. love from your Great Niece Caroline and David Robinson”.

The next the family heard was in the Daily Mail – quickly followed by Caroline sitting on the breakfast TV sofas, loudly proclaiming that Jimmy had abused her – and they were advised that she was represented by the personal injury lawyer Liz Dux.

Caroline was accused by relatives on Facebook of lying and brother Martin Perry told her: “You are not right in the head. You have brought shame on all the Marsdens by lying, there will be a nice long line of people wanting to smack you. Never again will I think I have a sister.”

Jane Perry, married to Caroline’s other brother Philip, wrote: “What a load of b*******”.

Louise Perry, her niece, said: “No one in the family has a clue what you are on about. For you to paint such an awful picture of the family is beyond my belief.”

The legal outcome?

That meant that the executors of Savile’s will – the Nat West Bank, couldn’t pay his legacies to any of the charities, and had to take legal advice as to possible liability. Very expensive legal advice.

The family have made statements to the police – but it may shock you to learn, that there is little the police can do about what the family consider to be a fraudulent claim against the Savile estate. In law, it is only a fraudulent claim if there was no abuse. In order to establish whether there was abuse, an investigation would have to be carried out into Savile’s relationship with Caroline – but Savile is not alive to interview.

That small detail hasn’t prevented the police from naming Savile as a paedophile – the weight of numbers, the sheer volume of people who have come forward claiming to have been abused by him apparently ‘lends credence’ to the claims.

Yet the sheer volume of relatives of Caroline coming forward, including her own children and those who were in the past deeply fond of her, to say that this is all nonsense, she didn’t meet him until 2003, doesn’t have the same effect – and of course the effect of Savile’s own great-niece claiming to have been abused by him lends credence to everyone else’s claims.

The Trustees of Savile’s estate are in a difficult position.  The fundamental core of trusteeship is to act in good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. They must mitigate losses where they can. If that means reaching a financial settlement with Caroline’s lawyers rather than going to court, and risk wiping out the entire estate in legal costs, then that they must do.

You can only begin to imagine how the family feel at the thought of that Child Abuse charity in the north of England being starved of their expected inheritance in favour of paying the personal injury lawyers their ‘enhanced fees’ for acting on behalf of Caroline. 

Meanwhile, they continue to field phone calls from journalists asking whether it is true that they are ‘holding up payments to vulnerable victims of Britain’s most prolific paedophile in order to protect their inheritance’.

They don’t have ‘an inheritance’, and the media seem determined that they shouldn’t even have any dignified memories of a relative they were intensely proud of.

Still, the story has sold lots of newspapers for a dying media industry, so it can’t be all bad – can it?

Lexander July 28, 2013 at 13:30

Extremely thought-provoking from anna. Wish that this kind of investigation
and comment could be used by one of the National newspapers. Or even TV. Fat
chance! Well done Anna. Regards as always.

Lucozade July 27, 2013 at 14:57

“So they were even more puzzled, I am told, when their Mother explained
away this ‘forgetfulness’ on their part by saying “You were outside playing
football” ”

Lol, that is class. Did she not think of calling them in for their sisters
‘engagement party’ or to say hi to their uncle Jimmy who they probably rarely
seen (if ever)? And did they not mention the ‘engagement party’ in the run
upto it and the organising of it? Lol

How long were they out “playing football” for? lmao…

Ellen July 27, 2013 at 13:30

Just a quick addition……… the vase left on his grave said “Miss You” too –
and bearing in mind the words on this Vase were “Stencilled” by hand, they
were Caroline’s own words to her Great Uncle. How many victims would “Miss”
their abuser I wonder ????!!!!!?????

Thanks Anna, just got home from holiday to this lovely surprise – big
thumbs up as always.

E xxx

Lucozade July 27, 2013 at 14:49

Ellen,

Hope it all goes well for yous

rabbitaway July 27, 2013 at 12:03

The NSPCC has developed another string to it’s bow – the demand for
‘specialist training’ for social workers has increased ….. How will these void
be filled I wonder ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23471982

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/trainingandconsultancy/learningresources/keeping-children-safe-online_wda90164.html

Mina Field
July 27, 2013 at 12:41

@Rabbitaway.

Well, if you’re thinking MW-T, you might at least draw some small comfort
from the fact that this is unlikely. He seems to be forever getting into
twitter spats with the NSPCC., who have a relationship with the police that
he can only dream of.

Lucozade July 27, 2013 at 07:19

Extremely interesting. Funny how this side of the story hasn’t been
reported in the papers, proof of blatant propaganda going on here…

snooze July 26, 2013 at 15:19

stop whining you paedo apologists

Anna
Raccoon July 26, 2013 at 15:41

We’ll stop whining when you find yourself on a charge of having touched a
girl on the leg ‘between 2001 and 2007′.
We might even raise a cheer!

Sally Stevens
July 26, 2013 at 16:48

We’ll stop whining when real paedos are exposed and prosecuted, not a
bunch of elderly celebrities and their elderly accusers who are simply in it
for the money and/or – ahem – exposure. These sorts of stunts get in the way
of real police-work, which should go on without the need for approbation
from the gutter press.

Lucozade July 27, 2013 at 07:40

snooze,

Re: “stop whining you paedo apologists”

A person is only a ‘paedo apologist’ if the person they are speaking up
for is in fact a ‘paedo’. Everyone is entitled to a defence and Jimmy Savile
and his family have not had one. You can’t just take propaganda from the
police and the press at face value – you’d soon change your tune if you
found yourself on the receiving end.

And there is a reason to ‘whine’ – charities for good causes are loosing
out on money because of this, as is the tax payer – which might be all well
and good if the accusations were true – but they are quite clearly not.

You think this is ok?

rabbitaway July 26, 2013 at 09:05

@Zdjecia – Just think about this. A televison producer ‘finds’ one woman
willing to go ‘on camera’ with her tale of how the most famous man in the UK
abused her when she was a school girl. Yes, that’s ONE – see App 12 Pollard
report. They eventually manage to get ONE more willing to talk, but, she was
not abused by anyone and did not attend the school until 4 years after JS
visited. One of the women they unearth (because all the women know each other)
lies to the producers, who know that she’s dodgy but continue to ‘use’ her
because her ‘story’ is just too good an oppotunity to pass up on. Their little
venture falls through, when someone, NOT THE EX COPPER find conclusive proof
that Fiona is lying. The producer is miffed BIG TIME and continues his
determined effort to blacken Jimmy Savile’s name forever. SOMEONE leaks the
existence of HIS story to the press, who won’t touch it AT FIRST. Then they
realise they can KILL 2 birds with one stone. The Sun realises that it can get
it’s own back on the man who took alot of money off them the last time/s they
tried to blacken his name, and the BBC hater’s realise that they can twist the
sound reasons for the dropping of the Newsnight film into a cover up by a
publically owned company. Let’s skip a wee bit, but suffice to say, the police
believe the stories, and let it be known that every ‘claim’ will be accepted
because they WILL NOT investigate. Enter the ‘claim everything that’s going’
lawyers and, there you have it …… 214 potential ‘claims’ for financial
redress. The only surprise here is that there were not MORE. I guess, people
on the whole are decent and would not consider lying just to get a bit of
attention and money.

rabbitaway July 25, 2013 at 12:17

Just in case others have the same problem as Moor – here is the article
published in The Sun Newspaper on August 5th 2012

By MATT WILKINSON
Published: 05th August 2012
177
SIR Jimmy Savile
is to be accused of being a paedophile in a shocking documentary.

The programme claims the late telly legend abused his position to find
young girls while he hosted shows including Top Of The Pops and Jim’ll Fix It.
He was also well-known for the long-running road safety ad Clunk Click.

Several alleged victims speak out in the documentary, claiming Savile
abused them when they were under-age.

The show will also claim the DJ, who died in October last year, groomed
young girls as he travelled the country for his charity work.

The allegations will reportedly be screened on prime-time ITV before the
first anniversary of his death on October 29.

Criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas will present
the show after carrying out a long investigation into Savile’s past.

A source told a Sunday newspaper: “There have been rumours speculating for
years about Sir Jimmy from his days on television.

“But up until now, nobody has got any victims to speak out.”

The source added that victims and witnesses give “detailed accounts of
grooming, followed in time by assaults”.

Sir Jimmy was a larger than life television star famous for his catchphrase
“Now then, now then”, smoking cigars and running marathons for good
causes.

He never married and died at home in Leeds just before his 85th
birthday.

Last month an auction of his belongings raised £320,000 for
charity.
Back to top of page
177
Ads by Google

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4472613/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-to-be-accused-of-being-a-paedophile-in-new-documentary.html#ixzz2a3TLtRfJ

rabbitaway July 25, 2013 at 10:44

Moor – check out the comments from the folk at the end of the article –
moor support for Jimmy than anything else. My, how things change just because
a bunch of liars get together on tv with an EX cop, scam of the century or
what ?

Moor
Larkin July 25, 2013 at 11:34

@rabbitaway
I cannot. The Sun is clearly such filth it has been
blocked by my internet service…..

Sally Stevens
July 26, 2013 at 01:46

Well, there’s a relief, eh? These things tend to cut both ways.

Melanie July 25, 2013 at 10:01

Ms Raccoon, please do try and get your facts correct before you put them
into print, “told all to Alison Levitt QC” I do not recall reading that in the
report

Anna
Raccoon July 25, 2013 at 10:10

Must be your age dear, recall is a problem eventually.

Melanie July 25, 2013 at 10:46

Clearly

Sally
Stevens July 25, 2013 at 21:35

Things must be slow over at the Duncroft message board – they’re all
over here!

rabbitaway July
25, 2013 at 21:59

@Mewsical – how many of them are there, I thought there was just
one or two of them ?

Melanie
July 26, 2013 at 09:13

Why do you assume that anyone you dont recognise or dont like what
they have to say are automatically from Duncroft. Madness and surely
not the correct way to investigate things

Lucozade July 27, 2013 at 07:27

Melanie,

“Ms Raccoon, please do try and get your facts correct before you put them
into print, “told all to Alison Levitt QC” I do not recall reading that in
the report”

They told the police in 2008, so her basic point still stands – nit
picking won’t change that…

carol42 July 25, 2013 at 04:41

Please tell me at least someone in the MSM is interested in the truth! many
must be aware of your blog and the thorough investigation you have undertaken
and the truths you have uncovered. If none is then it is truly a very bad day
for the British media.

Moor
Larkin July 25, 2013 at 07:57

@ Please tell me at least someone in the MSM is interested in the truth!
@

The MSM is interested in the truth!!!

Hmm….

Is that music I hear?.

Hello darkness, my old friend,
I’ve come to talk with you
again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was
sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still
remains
Within the sound of silence.

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/we-were-all-taken-in.html
“Of
course by 1977, Jimmy Savile was beginning to forge his new career at the
BBC, in television. But this was not because he was some favoured son, some
highly-valued commercial asset. Nor was it because he made everyone at the
BBC afraid of him. It was because he had a talent of his very own and he
worked his butt off to find a way to make that talent work for him. No
thanks to the BBC, or anyone else. Now he’s dead. Now he’s the victim of
lies and downright deceit by the very bodies that we rely on to tell us the
truth: the Police, the Media and even the alternative Media, the Bloggers
and face-bookers.

None of YOU are doing your job and so we are living in the Liar and Hate
Society.

It doesn’t have to be this way.
But this is the way it will remain if
we all continue to deny Truth a voice.”

rabbitaway
July 25, 2013 at 09:54

Moor/Anna I’m not sure if either of you is aware that the press got
‘wind’ of the Expose documentary AND WERE PUBLISISING IT as early as
August 2012. The filming etc would not even have been finished by then. I
was aware of the previews a week or so before transmission, but August ?
They really had it in for Mr Savile didn’t ‘they’.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4472613/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-to-be-accused-of-being-a-paedophile-in-new-documentary.html

Moor Larkin July 25, 2013 at 09:58

Hey rabbitaway….. My works computer won’t link to that. I get this
message:

SonicWALL Network Security Appliance
Alert This site has been
blocked by the network administrator.
URL: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4472613/…
Block
reason: Forbidden Category “Intimate Apparel/Swimsuit”
If you believe
the below web site is rated incorrectly click here.

Looks like David Cameron has pushed the button………….

rabbitaway July
25, 2013 at 10:03

@Moor mine opens it ok …… the piece is dated 5th August 2012 and
mentions MWT as presenter. ‘They’ wanted maximum effect on this one –
they got it didn’t they !

Moor Larkin July 25, 2013 at 10:09

@rabbitaway
@ mine opens it ok @

The Savile Police may soon come knocking and WILL extract your
images………….

charlotte July 25, 2013 at 00:13

If Caroline Robinson has made a false account to the police regarding JS
then she should be questioned again by the police and if under further
investigation it is found she lied she should be charged. I can’t see why this
can’t be achieved, unless it is a civil matter and of course in that case the
person accused is dead and unable to challenge any spurious claims. I do
believe her account should be challenged because this investigation is costing
the tax payer lot of money and any investigation into Caroline Robinson’s
allegations would have taken a chunk of money. Conversely, if a fraudulent
claim cannot be investigated because JS is not alive to substantiate any abuse
that may have occurred then how can it be proved that any of the claims did?
Just because a lot of people have come forward proves nothing to me, in fact
in my view this is just band wagon jumping for compensation. Surely one would
imagine that a certain percentage of the alleged ‘victims’ would have come
forward prior to the Panorama programme.

Anna
Raccoon July 25, 2013 at 07:01

“If Caroline Robinson has made a false account to the police regarding
JS”

That is the nub of the matter – first you must prove that she has made a
false account regarding JS.

Since there has been no investigation into the allegations merely a
‘collation’ of them, then there is no opportunity to disprove the
allegations.

Ipso, no opportunity to take the next stage.

Doubts? I’ve had a few, or as Lord Denning once said, the doubts are
flying round like demented bats in the belfry!

charlotte
July 25, 2013 at 21:17

Well, I’m out of my depth here then. What’s a ‘collation’ mean? Either
she lied or she didn’t. If her relations are doubting her account I would
have thought that the police would have gone back to Caroline Robinson and
asked her to clarify her statement. The law’s a funny business.

Sally
Stevens July 25, 2013 at 21:32

The police are not in the business of making themselves look bad.

Sally
Stevens July 25, 2013 at 21:32

At least not intentionally!

Sally
Stevens July 25, 2013 at 21:34

Collation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collation

charlotte
July 25, 2013 at 22:53

Thank you Sally. I know what collation means I just didn’t
understand what it meant when applied to the law, but thank you
again.

rabbitaway
July 25, 2013 at 21:46

@Charlotte – the police have not ‘investigated’ ANY of the
allegations made against Jimmy Savile. They have merely ‘collated’ them
– put them in some kind of order, chronological, geographical, whatever.
In many cases they (the police and the NSPCC ) have not even bothered to
ask for details such as dates or age of the ‘victim’ at the time of the
alleged offence. Many of the ‘claimants’ were not even interviewed, the
police could not travel the length and breadth of the UK, but they could
fly to Australia as part of the Rolf Harris investigations.

rabbitaway
July 25, 2013 at 21:56

So, because they couldn’t be bothered to ask how old the person was
at the time of the offence, we are left with the ludicrous result that
two police reports, Yewtree (London Police) and Newgreen (West
Yorkshire) have the SAME ‘victims’ (the London report included claims
from Yorkshire) with different ages. An 8 year old ‘victim’ in Yewtree
became 5 years old a few months later. It’s a long story, you have to
read the reports and compare the data.

charlotte
July 25, 2013 at 22:51

@ rabbitway. That’s just awful. I can’t see how someone can be
found guilty by collation can you? I imagined that allegations were
made, the police investigated them and if necessary arrested,
questioned and charged if there was enough evidence. As JS is almost 2
years dead it bothered me that a television programme had found him
guilty on the word of a few people who, I don’t believe did
investigate this matter very much. Now I am totally concerned, I’m not
all that bright but even I can see that this is a farce. Surely with
all of the very clever people who comment on this site the truth will
come to light. This is all very, very bad. Thank you for your
help.

Chris
July 24, 2013 at 20:56

Ah yes, Jimmy will not have been a forgiving man – for he was an October
Scorpio. We don’t take kindly to liars and cheats, or unreasonable
hypocrisy.

ZeroTolerance
July 24, 2013 at 18:32

Until there is a higher Estate truly powerful enough to investigate the
deeply corrupt 3rd & 4th Estates bent-Cops/Media.

The World, like rabbits in the headlights, will continue to close-up
witness vile UK crimes, truly worthy of shock headlines and programmes:

” VICTIMS – British Justice & Journalism Serial Gang-Raped Daily – In
Plain Sight! ”

“We Are Dominated By Journalism”, Brit-victim, Oscar Wilde – Visionary,
1895.

cascadian July 24, 2013 at 16:39

If, as seems likely the estate is depleted (some would say plundered) by
claims from lawyers.

Is there a requirement of the executor(s) to publish the accounts rendered?
And is there any law that says these accounts could not be published at
intervals before the final estate accounting is rendered? A regular update by
the executors detailing who had been paid and what amounts, would I think be
in the public interest, not least because the bizarre claims have made it of
public interest.

belinus July 24,
2013 at 14:46

I quite agree the Savile saga has moved into pure fantasy to cloud the fact
the charities want all, but did not Savile himself state that he would be
known as a “bad un” when he passed?

Being involved with the royals comes at a cost, it would surprise me more
if Savile had not entered an agreement with the same at some time in his
career, whether he knew the details of its meaning or not, this is what the
deal was about to help his friends takeover the domestic realm with their own
unconstitutional and corporate empire.

The fact lawyers will get the cash has to be understood as a strategy used
all the time, and, in everything, such is the world under commercial statute
as opposed to the vocal act of communion with the heavens which freed us from
slavery to commerce.

https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/03/legal-person-nature/

Wendi July 24, 2013 at 13:11

I can only hope that some coherent amendments to the current Laws on the
‘abuse’ question eventually come about after this whole Jimmy Savile debacle.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system that does not
question the credibility of sexual abuse claims (claimed to have been made
decades before) against a defunct person, made shortly after the alleged
perpetrator has died and where financial interests are clearly in play.

It’s appalling to realize that most of the money Jimmy Savile left to these
Charities will likely end up in the hands of lawyers willing to represent and
take advantage of peculiar existing laws, unsubstantiated abuse claims by a
bunch of whackos. Thanks only to the Anna Raccoon and Moor Larkin blogs, every
single claim and detail of this whole media saga has been IRREFUTABLY PROVEN
TO BE UNTRUE, IMPOSSIBLE AND A LOAD OF BS! How cool would be for the BBC
itself to have the balls to produce and air a documentary with the truth on
this whole saga – ha!

Mark Williams Thomas, Meirion Jones and the MSM should feel deeply ashamed
when contemplating the long-term repercussions of their actions on those
patients who would have benefited from Sir Jim’s inheritance. Sadly, I doubt
they will!

rabbitaway
July 24, 2013 at 13:23

@Wendi, try looking at that photo that included Jones and Thomas after
winning their ‘scoop of the year award’ – not exactly a happy pair are they
?

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/spiked-newsnight-savile-story-named-joint-winner-london-press-club-scoop-prize

Sally Stevens
July 24, 2013 at 17:28

“Mark Williams-Thomas paid tribute to the BBC journalists. He said:
“These are two of the best journalists this country has. For them, the
most important thing was for the truth to be out there.”

Well, yes, Mark, it is, unfortunately you and your little crew were
about 1000 light years away from it.

suspicious July 24, 2013 at 13:11

What gobsmacks me more than anything is the power of the MSM, since this
whole story about Saville couldn’t have grown to such monumental proportions
without it. Talk about the power of advertising! The general public largely
seem to believe anything that is printed by the mainstream press. And I’m
shocked about this. Shocked to think that they can’t think for themselves. Am
I the only one who thinks what the MSM prints is largely a load of lies?

But I’m still perplexed as to who is going to gain from all this. Yes,
indeed, it is ‘follow the money’! It is obviously about his estate and who can
get their greedy grabbing paws on it. But I’m shocked that the Carolines of
this world can so easily manipulate the truth to get what they want. Or is it
that there are so many others behind the scenes who are so eager to jump on
the bandwagon to help her (and get something for themselves).

I note that Paul Gambocine was quick to get in there. Quick to slag Saville
off. Quick to say he knew it all along! Now, he’s slagging off the beeb for
labelling him as gay all those years ago. So he has an axe to grind
then???

Jonathan
July 24, 2013 at 13:05

Superb… and the frightening answer to a question above… “who gains from
this?’… is “It’s a great story”. Media gain, police gain (doing their job so
well without lifting a finger), lawyers gain (cash for media fees and compo),
liars (or exaggerators) gain – media fees and compo and that much cherished
asset – sympathy, politicians gain “we must stamp out this filth”, conspiracy
theorists gain (“where were the Royals in all this?”), but what is always true
is… the opposite will soon become “a great story”.
Just watch the hacks
pounce on this and start their “wicked liars kill innocent children by
with-holding cash from needy hospitals” stories.
Only the little people
lose out big time.

suspicious
July 24, 2013 at 13:12

Yes, I’m afraid you are right.

JohnS July 24, 2013 at 15:12

Jonathan, to add to your list of who gains:
– people who wish the ill
BBC for numerous reasons – in some cases to damage a competitor,.
– the
NSPCC (how the hell does an organization with vested – including financial –
interest get to work with the police on an equal footing on a so-called
inquiry which asserts the guilt of a citizen?) and other charities.
–
people who have been, rightly or otherwise, claiming that paedophilia/sexual
assaults are epidemic
and one group rarely mentioned – those who would
like the rules of evidence weakened in rape cases. They would love the
accusation=guilt idea to be extended to trials of the living.
I am sure
there are many others.

Anna
Raccoon July 24, 2013 at 15:29

Excellent list Sir!

Moor Larkin July 24, 2013 at 15:54

@ how the hell does an organization with vested – including financial –
interest get to work with the police on an equal footing on a so-called
inquiry which asserts the guilt of a citizen? @

“The continued presence of senior child protection and social work
professionals embedded within all faculties is central to CEOP’s success.
At a practical level, the child protection professionals – seconded to
CEOP from the NSPCC – undertake risk assessments which fundamentally
inform and guide the decision-making process within ongoing operations.
They also provide critical advice and guidance to case workers and
investigating officers, support interviews with victims and recommend
therapeutic and aftercare programmes – all alongside supporting the
investigation and prosecution of offenders.”
http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/CEOP_Annual_Review_2008-09.pdf

Ergathones the
Philosopher July 24, 2013 at 12:55

Another thorough investigation Anna – hearty thanks – what a shame that the
police and mainstream media haven’t applied the same diligence, at least as
far as the published cases are concerned.

I’m put in mind of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer is accused of
molesting the babysitter – I know such a comparison probably sounds flippant,
but there’s so much in that tale that’s relevant to the Savile story, almost
twenty years on. The media circus, former colleagues dishing the dirt, “Your
tears say more than real evidence ever could”, etc. And of course, Homer’s
impassioned plea when he goes on Public Access Television to say his
piece:

“You know, everybody believed the worst about me right away… Nobody cares
that I didn’t do it.”

After all, as I may have mentioned on Moor’s blog recently, we seem to live
in a society today that finds it easier to hate than to stop and think for a
moment about what’s actually being told. The “Exposure” documentary that set
the ball rolling has more or less been wholly dismantled by those of us who
prefer to think… but will the general public have ears to hear? I hope against
hope that the Man In The Street will soon come to realise the truth about the
very shaky foundation on which the present vilification is built, and give
more heed to the truths that are known than to the fabrications that keep
selling papers and keep Sir Jim’s money from worthy causes.

Woodsy42 July 24,
2013 at 12:50

I am surprised there isn’t a legal way out of the mess. They can’t try
saville but surely if there is a move to change his will and use that money as
compensation to the supposed victims there has to be a proper legal process
whereby the victims have to prove their case and only after which the will can
be altered or nullified?

rabbitaway July 24, 2013 at 12:45

@Suspicious …. no one will ‘gain’ from this. There are no winner’s here
only a few losers whose material gain is nothing beside that which they have
lost, assuming they had any (self respect) in the first place.

josie July 25, 2013 at 04:22

oh but the lawyers will gain. Savile’s estate will be eaten up by
lawyer’s fees. We the public will be paying endlessly via our taxes should
claims against the BBC etc succeed.

DtP July 24, 2013 at 12:45

As always Anna, muchos gracias.

suspicious July 24, 2013 at 12:33

So let me ask a silly question (sorry, I’m a bit slow on the uptake), who
is to gain from this general dissing of Saville? Is it Caroline? And is this
why she has done this? So that she can gain a fortune from Saville’s estate?
How clever of her? Who’d have thunk it?

Anna
Raccoon July 24, 2013 at 12:45

Lots of people gain. I don’t hold with conspiracy theories – but I think
this has been a prime example of a ‘perfect storm’. The vested interests of
lots of people coming together at just the right moment.

Moor Larkin July 24, 2013 at 15:23

@ I think this has been a prime example of a ‘perfect storm’. The
vested interests of lots of people coming together at just the right
moment. @

Including the blogosphere. Check out the comments on this blog, the day
Jimmy died:
http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/10/jimmy-savile-dead-disturbing/#comments
They
are the Savile Revelations in the process of creation.

“Clever pedophiles always put themselves in positions where kids and
their parents ‘trust’ them. How many scout leaders, children’s charity
leaders, police child crimes officers etc. Plenty been caught out for
noncing. Just watch how he is with the 14 year old Collen Nolan on TOTP.
If that ain’t a nonce, I don’t know what is.”

“He was basically a gangster when he ran clubs in Manchester and Leeds
and Bradford in the 60s and not someone to be crossed even by the police
who up north were corrupt then.”

“there is a lot of evidence . Many under age girls from children’s
homes have made statements against Savile even as recently as two years
ago. The police wouldn’t prosecute as he was to old. The newspapers have a
lot of written statements but were to scared to publish but I have to say
that they were trying to out him right up to his death. savile did visit
many children’s homes, rich pickings for him , vulnerable young girls ,
many of whose lives he has ruined .”

“And let’s not forget that while Savile was doing all his fantastic
fund raising at Stoke Mandavile he was abusing young underage girls in his
so called porters room”

and so on, ad nauseum.

Anna
Raccoon July 24, 2013 at
15:30

“The police wouldn’t prosecute as he was to old.”

*waves* Hello Fiona! *waves again*

God they are transparent…

Sally
Stevens July 24, 2013 at 18:27

Hello Fiona! You know that’s a load of cobblers and the police
declined to bring charges because there was no evidence to take such
an action, and that they reached this conclusion after speaking with
Jimmy in person.

Moor Larkin July 24, 2013 at 23:51

And, if the CPS report is to be believed, there was no “evidence”
because none of the victims would agree to appear in court and swear
to their testimony, which was the only evidence there could be. They
were listened to, but refused to use their voice.

RDC July 24, 2013
at 12:21

I follow the thread of all you say, and I live in the world requiring of a
questioning mind….. A question.

In spite of what you say above – Do you say JS committed no crime* of a
sexual misdemeanor against any under aged person ?

* by crime I mean one of punishment by law were he still alive today

Anna
Raccoon July 24, 2013 at 12:27

I have no more idea than you do!

All I know is that in each of the published cases that have been offered
to us by the media there are gaping holes that you could drive a
double-decker bus through.

Quite what that means in terms of the other allegations is anybodies
guess.

What it does mean, since the media have no more access to the
‘unpublished cases’ than we do – is that they haven’t done their homework
before rushing to the conclusion that he is guilty. Maybe he is, maybe he
isn’t – but on what the media know and what we know – he isn’t so far!

RDC July 24,
2013 at 13:17

The truth is Anna, I have no idea.

The only way to have the idea is a) access to evidence b) access to
witness c) the desire to act with an impartial mind

And I agree “published” cases supplied to us by the media is no way
evidence, no more than any of the other crap that is often offered to us
by certain journalists dressed up as the truth.

The reason why I ask the question is because of course it is correct to
dismiss and expose those who do not tell the truth, whichever the side of
the good / evil debate they sit upon.

But there is the danger, in that we have the law of unintended
consequences…… by exposing the injustice and untruth of one side of the
debate, we seemingly run the risk of giving credence to the other side. By
this I mean, by showing that the accuser is wrong is there the risk that
the accused is therefore promoted as not guilty. What makes this case so
impossible to read correctly though, is that there are so many accusers
and only one accused.

Of course there are many who say that a dead man can not defend himself
[although the Russians might dispute that] but this is not about saying
the default position is that JS WAS/IS guilty but given the level of
debate one might say that at the same time it does not follow he was
innocent.

I freely admit when I heard that Stuart Hall had been charged of
certain offences, I did not believe they would be true…. how wrong my
initial assessment could be.

So for JS I suspect the jury will still be debating this one, long long
after he is dead…… no matter how many cheats and liars seek to take a
slice of his ….. Jim Fixed it for me Cake

Moor Larkin July 24, 2013 at 13:29

@ What makes this case so impossible to read correctly though, is
that there are so many accusers and only one accused. @

As I understand it, there are approximately 200 crimes the police
have “recorded”. Take them one by one. As I understand it one of them
includes the boy standing in front of a 1977 Rolls Royce in 1972. We’re
down to 199 already.

What about Glitter and Starr? They were part of the original
shenanigan. Nine months later – no charge. How many of those allegations
became Savile crimes? Yewtree is an insult to British Law.

People are criticising the MSM, the police are far more culpable for
giving the MSM gravitas. If it had not been for the appalling
allegations made by Operation Yewtree about grooming the nation, the MSM
stories would be just another fad, and Savile’s bequests would have been
made.

RDC July
24, 2013 at 13:59

To be fair Moor Larkin, I speak only of one accused that is JS, in
response to today’s post. As for Glitter, Starr, et al they are
another story for another day.

As for whether it is press or police who have fed this so called
frenzy* well that leads in to the moral maze of just how inept have
certain members of our police and certain members of the press become
…. who knows perhaps they have always been that way, but now the
internet has turned us all into arm chair detectives ? The reality is
that truth can usually be established and lies can be exposed, it all
boils down to the desire for truth and lies.

There is non so blind than those who do not want to see…. not my
quote I know… but today I shall fall back upon it.

* For the record I have no frenzy or 10 months of hate about JS, I
am just simply an interested bystander who’s formative years were
forged by such TV programs as Jim’ll Fix it….. and now as a grown up
middle aged boy I just happen to have a more questioning mind, which
ever side of the divide I choose to sit upon today.

josie
July 25, 2013 at 04:17

It is with thanks that a principled few like Ms Raccoon have chosen
to create a permanent record for the truth that in years to come will
be aknowledged by the good and great. It is vital that Britain’s
corrupt tabloid culture not be the ones who decide what is ‘history’
because sensationalism is more profitable than fact.

Jonathan
Mason July 24, 2013 at 16:12

I think the same. Since there are several hundred people who have
made allegations about Savile, why are the only ones in the public
domain from people of dubious character such as Old Duncroftians, their
families, and a relative of Savile who may have never met him. Surely
out of hundreds of victims, there will be a reasonable number who have
grown up to be solid citizens and respected members of their communities
who are willing to speak out and put credible accounts in the public
domain simply out of a sense of duty to see the truth told.

Or maybe there aren’t?

Anna
Raccoon July 24, 2013 at
16:26

“people of dubious character such as Old Duncroftians”

*coughs*

Discretely spikes Jonathan’s drink….

Duncan
Disorderly July 24, 2013 at
16:45

Why do aliens only abduct lunatics?

Moor Larkin July 24, 2013 at 17:05

@Jonathan Mason
I think “credible” is far more important than
“reputable”.
One of the most credible to be given a voice last
October was Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper…..

Jonathan
Mason July 24, 2013 at 18:37

Sorry, Anna, but I am just making the point that if you wanted to
take a sampling of complaints to prove a point out of hundreds of
complaints, surely Old Duncroftians would not be the first people you
would turn to, especially Old Duncroftians who had not made much out
of their lives, and especially not an Old Duncroftian who had served a
prison sentence for a crime of dishonesty.

If you want to bring down a major public figure, you need
unimpeachable witnesses so as to override the perception that you are
dealing with losers looking to the exploit the compensation culture
for their own gain.

Well, “as it happens” you don’t, so long as the person is already
dead, but you would if they were alive. Can you imagine the
distinguished authoress Ms. Keri Karin under cross examination by a
competent barrister?

And Anna, don’t you think that the fact that the many world-class
scoops in your blog get little to no attention in the mainstream press
has something to do with the ties to the old school?

Anna Raccoon July 24, 2013 at 20:05

“world-class scoops in your blog get little to no attention in
the mainstream press has something to do with the ties to the old
school?”

No, I think its to do with the fact that I never suffered sexual
abuse as a child….

It seems that if you claim to have done so, you can write any old
rubbish and not only be believed but acclaimed for it!

Jonathan
Mason July 26, 2013 at
01:22

It is never to late to report your sexual abuse as a child, so
that healing and compensation process can start. Preferably if you
can think of a public figure associated with pop music. David
Jacobs, perhaps, given your vintage. It helps if it is someone you
have met, but not absolutely essential.

Duncan
Disorderly July 24, 2013 at 13:10

If Savile was indeed guilty of sex crime(s), and we do not know what the
unpublished allegations amount to, it wouldn’t necessarily make him the
monster worthy of the ’10 months of hate’ by the press.

Sally Stevens
July 25, 2013 at 15:52

@ Jonathan Mason “and especially not an Old Duncroftian who had served
a prison sentence for a crime of dishonesty.” Meant to ask you to whom
this specifically applies.

rabbitaway July 24, 2013 at 12:21

Anna – thank you and Jimmy’s family for this eye opener. It IS truly
shocking that :

‘there is little the police can do about what the family consider to be a
fraudulent claim against the Savile estate. In law, it is only a fraudulent
claim if there was no abuse. In order to establish whether there was abuse, an
investigation would have to be carried out into Savile’s relationship with
Caroline – but Savile is not alive to interview.’

The law needs to change. In the meantime, some of us go on doing our bit,
investigating the ‘claims’ made against Jimmy. We have unearthed some very
interesting FACTS, now there’s a word you don’t here much of here. My very
best wishes to all Jimmy’s friends and family and indeed fans and my very best
wishes to you Anna Raccoon for helping them.

Ted Treen July 24, 2013 at 15:49

Indeed: the more cynical amongst us (or the more experienced, depending
on your viewpoint) used to say “Where there’s a will, there’s a
relative”.

That should now be changed forthwith to “Where there’s a will, there’s a
lawyer”.

Chris
July 24, 2013 at 12:07

The whole saga of the Vilification of Jimmy Savile shows UK society,
2013-style, has become a vile twisted morass of immoral idiocy.
It must be
terrible for his family and friends – I know for a fact Operation Yewtree has
effectively gagged his former colleagues and professional friends preventing
them from speaking the truth.
The dedication to the truth demonstrated by
Anna, Moor and a few others should be saluted – it confirms what most
intelligent people are thinking, but dare not – in this age of braindead
hysteria and highly contrived hackery masquerading as journalism – speak out
in case the Met hires a couple more of Z-listers to make false allegations

Moor
Larkin July 25, 2013 at 09:42

@ a few others should be saluted @

If it had not been for this Blog
http://rookphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2012/10/duncroft-jimmy-savile-and-i.html
I
might never have come to the bar

Moor
Larkin July 24, 2013 at 11:55

That Ms Raccoon is so trusted by those who knew Sir Jimmy speaks
volumes.

My most recent blogpost uses BBC Archive material to demonstrate that the
story told by Wilfred De’Ath could NOT have been true.

I sub-title my Blog, A Search For Reason.
Reading this, a little
‘reason’ left me and I was holding back tears of utter sadness for everyone
who has been sucked into this vicious vortex of lies.

Moor
Larkin July 24, 2013 at 22:56

Time waits for no man, so I’d best clarify that the “most recent blog”
referred to above was this one
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/staring-death-in-face.html
because
it is no longer the most recent.

Now….. Does this bar have any Mackeson?………..

Joe Public July 24, 2013 at 11:47

Another story of attention to detail and amazing detective-work.

You seem to be the only person in the world with a handle on (probably) all
of the threads of this saga.