Exclusive – 'Not guilty!' – Jimmy Savile's Voice Rings Out from the Grave!
Like an overflowing cess-pit, rumours bubble up from the bottom of the Internet and advertise their presence with a belch. The fertile imagination of those who create these stories knows no bounds. Invariably built around single nugget of truth, they build in size as they rise to the surface, before expiring in a cloud of flammable methane gas.
One of the more unpleasant stories that has circulated in these days of ‘say anything you like about Savile, he can’t sue’, is the notion that there may be ‘unsolved murders and rapes’ that should rightfully be laid at his door.
Why, didn’t he once exchange pleasantries with the Yorkshire Ripper? Wasn’t one of the victims found within a mile of his home in Leeds? Doesn’t that just prove that he is a murderer and serial rapist? I mean, only a mile from his house! Can’t you just smell the guilt? God knows how many unsolved murders could be laid at his feet – anybody under 75 and whose body was discovered within 250 miles of a town he once visited if we are lucky!
In the fevered atmosphere of the post-Yewtree days, as journalists and detectives rushed between TV make-up artists and collected awards for their ‘investigative skill’ – the phones were ringing at Scotland Yard.
“We’ve got an unsolved murder up here in Little-Lothian-on-Sea, Sarge; any chance of pinning it on yer man”? and “Bit of a long shot, this, and I know he was only 9 years old at the time, and my witness can’t say whether Savile ever came to Upper Stitchup, but I’ve got five bodies in the morgue from 1936 and I was wondering whether, you know, we could chuck ’em in the ‘Savile did it’ file; be ever so obliged if you could”.
So, it came to pass, that a request was made to Jimmy Savile’s nearest relatives that DNA testing be carried out to see whether there was any possibility that there was any truth to the bed-time stories that the Internet ghouls were reading to each other.
It was a massive decision for the family, one that caused much soul searching.
On the one hand, the Internet was full of stories of false readings of DNA results, of terrible miscarriages of justice where innocent men had been found guilty by the supposedly ‘infallible’ DNA testing. Then there was the issue of police probity. This was the time of the Andrew Mitchell case – if police officers would lie to promote a particular political agenda, what might they do when given the chance to ‘prove’ that Savile was guilty of something, rather than merely ‘state’ he was?
On the other hand – what would the media make of a refusal on their part? ‘Trial by Media’, as our newspaper industry is collectively known, would almost certainly see this as evidence of guilt.
‘Damned’ if they agreed, ‘damned’ if they didn’t. It was not a decision that I would have wanted to make.
They made the decision that this was the only chance Jimmy Savile would have to stand trial for any of the terrible things he has been accused of. It was a brave decision, not made merely out of a belief in his innocence, but a belief that the accused should always have the right to defend himself – and this was Savile’s only chance to even partially defend himself.
They gave their permission for DNA testing to be carried out; for Jimmy Savile’s DNA to be checked against the DNA held as a result of investigations into some of the most heinous crimes ever committed in the UK, both solved and unsolved.
Jimmy Savile’s DNA is not a match for any DNA collected from any crime scene in the UK. REPEAT. Not a match.
Tough luck, rumour-mongers!
- Moor larkin
February 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm -
No News is Good News
- rabbitaway
February 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm -
Hurrah – Jimmy’s DNA is not guilty but HE STILL is
- Moor larkin
February 3, 2014 at 5:25 pm -
Being not guilty doesn’t mean you’re innocent.
Sir Keir Starmer could have told you that.- Ho Hum
February 4, 2014 at 9:07 am -
The Vetting & Barring Board’s published assessment guidelines said that very explicitly. I’m not sure what status they still have after the amalgamations that took place. They may still live on, in whatever part of the bureaucracy they found themselves reincarnated
- John Galt
February 4, 2014 at 12:20 pm -
“Being not guilty doesn’t mean you’re innocent.”
In which case, we might as well go back to the medieval ways of doing things and dig Jimmy up, cut off his head and stick a wooden stake through his heart and bugger the renaissance, 250 years of jurisprudence and all the rest of the legal hierarchy that we pay billions a year in taxes to support.
Better still and more English at heart, why not go the whole hog and subject Jimmy to posthumous execution like they did with the Lord Protector (damnatio memoriae! ימח שמו וזכרו) and various other members of the regicides of Charles the First.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution
Bloody pathetic. William Garrow is probably spinning in his grave.
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 12:51 pm -
No need of Civil Rights when you have shiny new Human ones, as dictated by a cabal of shiny-suited lawyers, some wearing JimmyShoos presumably.
- Mike
February 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm -
Anna, only just discovered you are back! Excellent.
Actually, things have gone one further. As with Lord Rennard, even if something cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is after all the test for criminal conviction, you still should apologize for your actions, and if you suggest that perhaps one of the witnesses/complainants has something to hide, you are even more guilty. Just like Stalin et al used to practice, if we say you are guilty, you are guilty, never mind the evidence.
- Mike
- Ian B
February 4, 2014 at 3:04 pm -
A Cadaver Synod is clearly in order.
- Moor Larkin
- Ho Hum
- Moor larkin
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm -
Is there a quotable source for the fact of no DNA match. I think we should get this fact established here and now. I would like to quote the fact in a news story I am planning.
- rabbitaway
February 3, 2014 at 5:42 pm -
A great big well done to the Savile family xx
- GildasTheMonk
February 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm -
Good to have you back with your finger on the pulse…
- Carol42
February 3, 2014 at 6:22 pm -
Good news and all credit to the family. It’s great to have you back Anna, it is high time reporters did some investigating instead of repeating the lies and exaggerations of fantasists and bounty hunters. Much as I didn’t care for Jimmy Savile I hate the total assumption of guilt, it is unfair on him and especially on his family. While some might be true, I find most stories utterly ridiculous. I don’t know what the police are doing bringing elderly actors etc. to court on impossible to prove allegations, anyone would think there was no crimes going on. They must know all the things you have found out about the people concerned.
- cesmac
February 3, 2014 at 6:29 pm -
Pity it’s left to everyone except the police to investigate – I refer to time travelling cars and buildings too!!
- S
February 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm -
Much love x
- sally stevens
February 3, 2014 at 7:32 pm -
Or as we say in the States, the press can sit on it and spin.
Thanks to the Savile family for cooperating, and maybe to the police for doing the right thing. Finally.
Can’t wait to see the feathers flying!
- Myk-the-PUNK
February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm -
Think they’re starting to approach the event horizon of the completely fucking insane now. Lol.
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm -
Jesus. How did we get from “a bit odd- Mummy’s boy?” to “definitely a closet case” to “destroyer of female virtue” to “kiddie-fiddler” to “boys, too, you know”, to “but he was really into the disabled” to “necrophile, as well” to Greatest Serial Killer You Have Never Heard of?
Can we all join in? No one has mentioned bestiality yet
Jimmy Savile – He Groomed a Nation of Pets. Now you know.
- Mr Ecks
February 5, 2014 at 2:12 pm -
You forget alleged Satanist.
- Mr Ecks
- Frankie
February 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm -
Isn’t this kind of… exactly what you have been saying about the whole sorry Savile/Duncroft saga all along?
Whether you liked him or not, believed him to be a genuine old school pervert or not, Savile has been pilloried in death to extreme levels – cast as a modern day bogeyman who escaped justice, but without any actual factual evidence to back up the claims.
I consider it more disgraceful still, that a woman stubbornly battling her way against cancer has more grasp on the minutae of such matters than the entire TV national press… Way to to Anna.
- Bill Sticker
February 4, 2014 at 12:35 am -
Indeed. Way to go Anna. You have my utmost admiration.
- Bill Sticker
- Moor Larkin
February 3, 2014 at 10:12 pm - wichfinder
February 3, 2014 at 10:44 pm -
well i don’t they need evidence for i mean he looks guilty that’s good enough for me.
- SamBest
February 4, 2014 at 12:44 am -
But, but dearest Anna Racoon- surely this is just part of the cover-up and Tory/Freemason conspiracy. Perhaps a gun was held to the head of the lab attendants by an MI5 officer. If they can do to silly old Chris Fay (not many brains there to blow out) what would they do to prevent exposure of the Savile/ted Heath/Blunt/Rothschild/Thatcher murder mob ?.
- JuliaM
February 4, 2014 at 5:41 am -
Sam knows too much….
- JuliaM
- Dr Cromarty
February 4, 2014 at 8:31 am -
- Bless’im
February 6, 2014 at 1:40 pm -
After knowing Jimmy very well for 40 years, the DNA situation is a glimmer of hope and the proving of William Roach’s innocence also gave me the feeling that one of these days we who knew and loved Jimmy Savile might be able to stand up and be counted on his behalf.
- Moor Larkin
February 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm -
Just someone saying in public that there was anyone knew and loved him is a brave step in the right direction.
Bless you.
- Moor Larkin
- Bless’im
- Ed P
February 4, 2014 at 9:25 am -
But his name backwards is Evil as …(fill in with any suitable word), so he MUST be guilty of something; stands to reason, dunnit?
- sally stevens
February 6, 2014 at 8:01 pm -
Actually, his name backwards is Elivas.
- sally stevens
- rabbitaway
February 4, 2014 at 11:44 am -
And the prize goes to : Lancashire and North West Magazine ! Anna gets a mention as does Miss Jones
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 12:16 pm -
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Presumably his DNA never matched with that woman who claimed to be his daughter shortly after he died in 2011 either? Whatever happened to her I wonder. I did read at the time that under UK law her claim would have held up disbursement of his Estate. There were several millions destined for the likes of “Help for Heroes” it has been suggested over the time since. Her intervention was darn lucky for the lawyers since I gather that estate is now being gobbled up by the guys’n’gals who wear wigs. I wonder what would have happened if the money had not been there? I think we should be told.
Moor Larkin February 4, 2014 at 12:14 pm
- Duncan Disorderly
February 4, 2014 at 2:09 pm -
Apart from this publication I hadn’t heard of until today, Google News suggests there is not a peep from the press about this news.
- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 9:52 pm -
Here in the good ol’ USA the forgiving thing usually occurs after the bastard has been tried, convicted and imprisoned. You can be very forgiving at that point. Doesn’t mean you want them to get out of prison.
- sally stevens
February 6, 2014 at 8:01 pm -
and some former Duncroft girls who discovered the forged letter!
- Moor Larkin
- Ellen
February 4, 2014 at 12:39 pm -
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 12:46 pm -
Both been cleared and published Ellen….
- Moor Larkin
- rabbitaway
February 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm -
The more ridiculous stories about Sir Jimmy have now been shown to be false. The initial claims made in ‘Exposure’ were debunked shortly after they were allowed airspace in October 2012. It’s not rocket science is it folks ?, it’s just a question of right and wrong, innocent until PROVEN guilty. The Savile family are one step closer to to reclaiming Jimmy’s good name. No monies should be paid out to ANYONE by ANYONE relating to unproven claims made against Sir Jimmy !
Rabbit Away February 4, 2014 at 1:29 pm - Ian B
February 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm -
Slightly off topic, but I still want somebody to tell me at what point in history did we assign the police the right to declare persons posthumously guilty of crimes?
- John Galt
February 4, 2014 at 3:28 pm -
We haven’t. All of this media bullshit is just distraction. Easier than starting a war though, so at least they’ve got that going for them, but a bit harsh on Jimmy’s shade and the family that are still living. Whatever Jimmy did or didn’t do in life, his death has made legal options moot.
The fact that people like Keir Starmer are deliberately issuing misleading statements to press their own political and legislative agendas is quite repellent. Not exactly news though Ian, it’s a story as old as politics itself.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 3:48 pm -
Starmer has form on that. In 2009 he shifted the onus on assisted suicide by issuing guidelines about when he might prosecute and when he might not (depending on how tight his underpants were that day I imagine). There was squealing that he was undermining Parliament by basically “legalising” euthanasia, but the MP piggies were so busy extricating themselves from the Telegraph trough at the time, they evidently decided that now was not the time to do any actual representative politics on behalf of the sheep (just to keep it Orwellian)
- John Galt
- rabbitaway
February 4, 2014 at 3:22 pm -
Not ‘off topic’ at all – WE didn’t !
- The Blocked Dwarf
February 4, 2014 at 4:01 pm -
Even with her body a Roquefort of metastasi , they can’t keep a raccoon down…she will just keep gnawing and sniffing (they say Raccoons have a great sense of smell…able to detect bullshit at mile down wind) . Well done Anna!
- Ian B
February 4, 2014 at 4:52 pm -
Has anyone actually informed the rest of the media?
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm -
Why?
Is the Media not positively oozing with brilliant and brave Investigative Journalists?
- Moor Larkin
- Johnny Monroe
February 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm -
I don’t buy a paper, but I have a strong suspicion this remarkable revelation won’t grab many front pages. Might make Fleet Street look silly, after all, and why would the Great British Public want to be told everything they’ve had drilled into their heads re Sir Jim over the past couple of years wasn’t necessarily true? It’d only confuse them. By the way, I live 200 yards from where the body of the Ripper’s last victim was discovered. Should I be worried?
- Moor Larkin
February 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm -
Only if you’ve got foxes
- Johnny Monroe
February 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm -
Best ask Anna if she knows any affordable properties to rent in France!
- johnnyrvf
February 5, 2014 at 11:58 am -
I have an unfurnished flat coming free for rent at the end of the month in Bergerac…….
- johnnyrvf
- Johnny Monroe
- Moor Larkin
- Bunny
February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm -
Good to see you back Anna
- Bob J
February 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm -
I can understand the likes of The Mail not picking the story up, but I would have expected the Beeb and the more intelligent Press to do so.
- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 6:45 pm -
The Mail was running about with this nonsense this morning http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550472/Police-cover-Saviles-claims-friends-Queens-cousin-Paedophile-claimed-visited-school-Princess-Alexandra.html – well hardly a cover-up, I have a photo of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, at Duncroft up on my blog and it’s been there for a while. Margaret Jones told me the story of Jimmy’s first visit, in May 1974, for a fund-raiser, at which Princess Alexandra was also in attendance and very happy to see Jimmy. Jimmy also doesn’t have much familiarity with the way the school was run, which indicates that he was not there much, i.e. “a term-time boyfriend,” as if he thinks Duncroft was run like a boarding school, and the girls went home for the holidays. If only! This association between Princess A and Jimmy has been discussed many times on the various websites concerned with this situation.
I went over to the comments section and as many times as I could I posted the link to the Lancashire News report re. the DNA. If any of you feel like it, it might at least bring it to the attention of the Daily Mail. I wouldn’t give you tuppence ha’penny for what their mostly loony readers think, but the Mail might not know this has happened, or conversely don’t want it out there. If they don’t publish my comments, we’ll know what their attitude is.
- Moley
February 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm -
Nothing showing yet. What a surprise!
- Moley
- Margaret Jervis
February 4, 2014 at 7:00 pm -
@sallstevens I’m sure ‘they know’ – but it’s not news they care to print , yet. Would rather have stories of a complainant jumping to her death following an acquittal at two trials and rehashing the Andraade suicide. And the jury in the Roache trial goes out tomorrow. It is msm news – they reported calls for exhumation previously. Saw your blog re Princess A and the fact is was P Marina who was the longstanding royal visitor and patron – – so nothing to do with JS ‘manipulation’.
- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 7:14 pm -
I didn’t do a blog on Princess A but on Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent, with accompanying photo, with me in it, taken in 1963. Princess A was a patron of MIND (she still might be), who of course were involved in the administration of Duncroft at the time of JS’s visits (I think MIND also was involved with Broadmoor), so she was there on legit business. It was the snide remark by Meirion Jones that Duncroft was visited by “minor royals” that caused me to make this post initially. During the time I was there, Princess Marina came exactly once. http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2012/10/duncroft-jimmy-savile-and-i.html
- Margaret Jervis
February 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm -
Sorry Sally but have misremembered something – this was the one I was looking at. 09/14/2013
WHO ARE YOU? on the blog.- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 7:42 pm -
Hi Margaret – glad you pointed out the Who Are You? post. Since then, Amazon UK have changed their policies, and you are NOT allowed to comment or engage in discussions unless you have actually purchased something from Amazon UK. It does seem to have kept things to a dull roar. There was a ‘victim’ called ‘Lorna Davies’ who was engaged in one of those whining arguments with an individual called Honrus Publicus who didn’t believe a word she was saying. That went on for a while, with nobody else bothering to join in, Honrus got bored recently and disappeared, whereupon the whole dreary discussion has presumably ended. I have never purchased anything from Amazon UK of course, as I live in the States and use that Amazon.
- Margaret Jervis
February 4, 2014 at 8:05 pm -
Yes the internet and Twitter is a gift for ‘victim imposters’ and MPD types. Was wondering about ‘Karin’ in the pic. She seemed a little apart and insulated by staff from the others – and was wondering why. Idle thought of course.
- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm -
She seems to be standing close to a woman I think is Theo (Janet Figgins, then). If you bothered to read any of the book, you’ll remember that she favored Theo. She’s also wearing a long-sleeved dress, which makes me wonder if she was a ‘cutter.’ Some of the girls I was there with also did that, but it was more like scratching than cutting.
- Moor Larkin
February 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm -
The Daily Mail did a good demolition on these sorts of fantasists in the case of Minty Challis.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051282/Dale-Farm-The-truth-Minty-crucifix-waving-rebel-cause-like.html
What they have since failed to tell us is that she was the first accuser of Graham Ovenden.
The Met first “crashed” Ovenden’s house on the basis of her “evidence”.
The CPS made sure she was never seen inside a court-room. Join your own dots.
- sally stevens
- Margaret Jervis
- sally stevens
- Margaret Jervis
- rabbitaway
February 4, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
From a ‘junior’ defence barrister !
http://forthedefence.org/2014/02/03/the-criminal-justice-victims-act-2015/
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 4, 2014 at 9:36 pm -
That’s a good blog – s/he is obviously at the sharp end. They started this nonsense of Victim Impact Statements and Victims’ Right to Witness Executions in the USA about 20-odd years ago – where DAs get elected, you understand, unlike the CPS. It’s exactly the sort of thing that goes down a bomb with the fearful public. Except in practice, it amounts to a complete mess.
No two “victims” are alike. Some folk bear up after the grossest violence, the mere reporting of which in cold, matter-of-fact terms would send someone else under the duvet for six weeks, some want purse-snatchers to have their paws cut off, and some – yes, even in the USA – go totally Christian and forgive the b@stards everything.
That’s why you can’t base a criminal legal system on how badly the victims “feel” about what happened. Eventually it ends up with “Well you should feel a lot worse/a lot less/ something else entirely” – according to the Arbitrators of Feelings,the Court against which there is no appeal.
But you sure can base a media/political career on being the Feelings Czar.
- sally stevens
February 4, 2014 at 9:56 pm -
I replied to this directly, Eyes, but you’re going to have to scroll back up!
- Eyes Wide Shut
February 4, 2014 at 10:35 pm -
Lol, see what you mean re forgiveness, but it doesn’t alter my point: we’re going down a strange, strange path when we base our criminal justice system on notions like:
(1) Certain complainants must always be believed. The right sort of complainants, obviously. Flip-side of that is certain other complainants (let alone defendants) are never to be believed. Once you throw the concept of evidence out the window, well then, who is to be automatically believed and who is automatically not to be believed end up being pretty interchangeable. All depends on who gets to decide. As George Bush said “Being President means, I’m the decider – so I get to decide.” Keir Starmer seems to have taken a leaf out of this book
(2) The idea that criminal penalties are adjusted according to how much emotional damage a victim experiences is also bollix. What it comes down to is “the deciders” decide what is the appropriate level of emotional pain a “victim” should feel, and god help that victim if they say anything different. So all the nonsense about “we are here to help the forgotten victim” amounts to “you are going to play by our rules, Mr/Ms Victim, ‘cos we are the people who know just what you should be experiencing.” And if you say anything different, well then you’re not a proper victim, are you?
So all the old rubbish about ” We are acting for you – we are your champion” amounts to nothing more than “Get in line behind us”. Talk about being screwed over twice.
- Moor Larkin
February 5, 2014 at 11:45 am -
re. American Victims
On the wireless today there was a big report about a guy who has served 20 years for killing his parents. He confessed.
Turns out the guy was actually in police custody at the time they were murdered.
How can that EVIDENCE not have been noted at the time?
I guess this sort of thing will be over here in 5 years or so, as the mill-stones of the law grind us small and take our lives and treasure. - Ian B
February 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm -
@Moor Larkin
The American legal system is hopelessly corrupt, under a veneer of following the rules. We’ve been heading in the same direction for some time. It’s very depressing.
- Moor Larkin
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Fat Steve
February 5, 2014 at 3:08 pm -
No two victims are alike @ Eyes Wide Shut —you are on the button. Depending on whether the action of a misfeasor sounds in Criminal law and/or Tort—– the law —in theory—-provides the appropriate remedies —-in tort the tortfeasor finds the victim as he is –if the victim has an eggshell skull and it fractures with the tap of a tortious finger then damages —and thet can only be monetary—- are assessed on the basis of the fracture not the tap —-a tap might not be a criminal act since there might be no intent. Criminal law has always been about the Protection of Society and less about the victim —-but now??? Well we seem to be venturing on to hopelessly muddled ground —some sort of quest for ‘justice’ in a society that has increasingly muddled views about what ‘justice’ means. I am not sure one can differentiate ‘justice’ from moral concepts or law from acheiving ‘justice’ ……and yet some months ago the eagle eyed Anna referred to a quote by the President of the Family Division when it was said the time had passed when the Courts enforced morality. The one constant in all this mess is (or should that be was) is evidence —but don’t expect me to cheer the way the evidence was challenged in the Andrade case —-that sort of crass behaviour just adds to the pyrotechnics of the present hysteria —–frankly for all the cheers for the way the defence counsel acted I would willingly have seen the abuser in the Andrade case locked up for good for allowing —yes ‘instructing’ is the correct word —-Counsel to frame the questions in the waythey were—oh yes and as Anna points out to her critics which they tend to ignore whilst all this is going on children are still being abused —and as the spotlight focuses on overt sexual exploitation by ‘celebs’ (well perhaps these icons of modern day society and their victims constitute society or what matters to Society so it seems fullfilling all vicarious wishes ) so other forms of abuse become the abuse of (less risk) choice —the issue is I rather think a matter of addressing the abusers and why they abuse—-the cause and not the effects —probably an impossibility in a fragmented society where everyone ‘knows their rights’ about themselves as parents but where issues of responsibility are rarely mentioned —–but the present increasingly confused legal system having the ‘stamp’ of definitive authority on the issue might have even less chance of satisfactorily addressing the issue—-coatailing behind ‘justice’ as a branch of reality T.V. —in fact as all on this blog seem to some greater or lesser extent concur it just all spinning more and more out of control—-and not doing much good for the legal system let alone the problem.
- sally stevens
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Ho Hum
February 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm -
Look, if you were marketing a tabloid, would you print all the juicy stuff on the same day? They are in the business of milking every penny they can get out of the impressionables, the naive, and the downright idiots, so their strategy may well be one of saving this sort of gem up for the next grab at the punters’ pennies – well, ok, 50p coins
- Moor Larkin
February 5, 2014 at 11:38 am -
Finger-clickin’ good news
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/uk-dailymail-q-idUKBREA140B620140205
- Moor Larkin
- Bob J
February 5, 2014 at 1:34 am -
Odd coincidence, or not? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/bill-roaches-magazine-looses-more-1779789
- sally stevens
February 5, 2014 at 3:29 am -
Well, he’s got nothing to lose at this point, so why not print the truth?
- Duncan Disorderly
February 5, 2014 at 8:04 am -
Look at the way they spelt the word ‘loses’ in the URL. Bless.
- Ho Hum
February 5, 2014 at 2:51 pm -
Terible, I no. But I try not too loose sleep a bout it any moore
- Moor Larkin
February 5, 2014 at 3:31 pm -
Just leaf me out off it
- Moor Larkin
- Ho Hum
- Duncan Disorderly
- sally stevens
- Ellen
February 5, 2014 at 9:24 am -
E xxx
- Ellen
February 5, 2014 at 9:35 am -
ps – have you noticed that they have called him “Leeds Star” – yes, I think it is beginning to feel like its worth it!
E xxx
- Ellen
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 6, 2014 at 11:36 am -
William Roache not guilty.
- Ellen
February 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm -
Can we speak Andrew? How do I get in touch?
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm -
I’m in the phone book: +44 1254 705225.
- Andrew Rosthorn
- Ellen
- Miss Mildred
February 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm -
The DM has, at last, put up the DNA findings on Mr Savile. The commenteers still come up with the same old drivel about the boggle eyed photos that always accompany any items about ‘this vile man’. They wish the DM would stop publishing articles about a dead man who cannot defend his touchy feely exploits back in the mists of time, in an era when touching up young ladies was standard practice. I don’t feel damaged by my touch up gentlemen……so why should they, after they chased around after him anyway? I suppose I am a ‘victim’. It is forbidden to ask what did they expect? Why did some of them chase after such men? My touch ups were totally uninvited whilst just minding my own business. At least this might give the twitter ghouls a bit of a rest before they have a go at some other rich old celeb. A share in the spoils, after the lawyer vultures have picked over the remains might buy a few new lipsticks another set of decorated talons.
- Bless’im
February 6, 2014 at 2:14 pm -
Happy news on William Roach. How can we who do not believe that Jimmy was bad in any way at all find a way to defent him.
- John Galt
February 6, 2014 at 2:50 pm -
- Bless’im
February 11, 2014 at 3:31 pm -
I wish I knew how to defend him – I just live in the hope that one day the truth will out
- Moor Larkin
February 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm -
Tell people. One at a time.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/- Carol42
February 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm -
When I go to your blog all I get is pictures , how do I find the blog and comments?
- Moor Larkin
February 11, 2014 at 4:01 pm -
@CAROL42
Move mouse over picture and as the image flips around [automatically] , click on the “tile” and that post should open up.
Every picture tells a story….
- Carol42
- Moor Larkin
- Bless’im
- John Galt
- Andrew Rosthorn
February 12, 2014 at 9:37 am -
Business Desk report: Slater & Gordon is set to complete its tie-up with Manchester firm Pannone in the next week – a deal which has not been without difficulties, and will spark up to 100 job losses.
One area of discord was in Pannone’s regulatory team, where the three partners are going their separate ways. High profile white collar crime expert Anthony Barnfather – who successfully defended former iSoft finance director John Whelan and whose clients include ex-JJB Sports chief executive Chris Ronnie is moving over to Slater & Gordon.
Soon-to-be former colleagues Zia Ullah and Sara Teasdale are leaving though, with Mr Ullah expected to join national firm Eversheds’ fraud and investigations unit based in Manchester as a partner and London-based Miss Teasdale reportedly joining Byrne & Partners in the capital. Australia-based Slater & Gordon is paying £33m for Pannone’s consumer law divisions, and taking with it 400 staff and £34.5m in revenues.
A further 50 staff will move over to a new stand-alone firm, Pannone Corporate, led by partners Paul Jonson and Steven Grant, leaving up to 100 fee earners and and support staff facing redundancy. Meanwhile Melbourne-based S&G, which is listed on the Australian ASX stock market said its UK growth drive had helped it report a 21% hike in half year net profit to AUS $22.9m.
Managing director Andrew Grech said: “The performance of the UK business demonstrates that our strategic rationale for entering the UK market is sound, and that whilst still early days, is being executed effectively.
“With the completion of the Pannone transaction later this month, we will have secured approximately 5% market share in the UK claimant personal injury market and have built a strong base for future growth and development.”
{ 103 comments… read them below or add one }