Abuse of NHS Resources -The Yewtree Allegations (continued).
Another day, and more examples of where the NHS budget has gone to.
Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead. 17 page report by the Director of Nursing and Quality.
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation that Savile had sexually assaulted a patient on the Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (QVH) premises in the 1950’s. She specifically stated that her assailant had been named ‘Jim’ and looked like Savile. The victim said that as she recovered from her operation ‘someone wearing a green gown, cap and a mask around their neck put their hands beneath (her) gown and inappropriately squeezed and handled her chest.” At this time the patient was alone in a single room next to the operating theatre recovering from her anaesthetic. The patient’s medical records and operating theatre records confirmed that she had undergone surgery on the day she alleges the assault took place.
Archive material from the local paper at that time, hospital minutes and visitor books contained no evidence that Savile had ever been to East Grinstead during the period of the incident; evidence of one visit to the town in the 1970’s (20 years later!) was identified through the ‘Memories of East Grinstead Facebook site’ but this did not include a visit to QVH. Investigation into the QVH charitable fund and League of Friend activities found no link with Savile as a patron, visitor, volunteer or donor.
No evidence was found that Savile visited East Grinstead during 1954 or that he visited the hospital site at any time during his life. The police have confirmed that no further investigation will be undertaken.
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle. 16 page report by the Head of Nursing.
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation that a former member of staff witness A, who worked at the RVI, had reported that Savile had visited the hospital around 1991.
A full investigation was commissioned.
In addition to the allegation reported to MPS, during the course of this investigation, we were told of a further two or possibly three visits made by Savile. These visits were made to a Children’s Ward at the RVI (which has since been demolished) and the Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment (NCCT), which at the time was at Newcastle General Hospital (NGH). From witness recollections, these visits took place between 1987 and 2000. Witnesses also recalled seeing Savile in public areas. On all occasions, witnesses reported that Savile was accompanied by his entourage. Throughout the course of this investigation, no allegations were received in relation to inappropriate behaviour or abuse carried out by Savile, either in relation to patients or staff. Neither was any evidence found to suggest Savile had any on-going or regular association with any of the hospitals – or was ever unsupervised, or indeed alone with patients.
In June 2014, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) published a report which implicated Newcastle Hospitals. One of the informants suggested that Savile had unsupervised access to children, but we were unable to substantiate or indeed investigate this, as the NSPCC were unable to provide us with the contact details . Therefore, the NSPCC report does not change the conclusions of this investigation.
Queen Mary Hospital, Epsom. 26 page report by Lead Investigator. Capsticks LLP providing legal advice.
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation that Savile and three associates were denied access to a ward within Queen Mary’s by a junior nurse in the 1970s. JS allegedly threatened to stop the BBC Christmas outside broadcast which was due to be held at Queen Mary’s if access was refused. The allegation was made by an anonymous informant.
Queen Mary’s was used by the BBC for Christmas Day broadcasts from one ward only, known as D1 (the ward was also part of a larger area known as D2 and both wards were reserved for children who needed longer term nursing care) in the late 1960 and early 1970s. However JS did not host these broadcasts and there is no evidence that he was in attendance at the broadcasts.
The investigator has no contact details for the anonymous informant and therefore has not been able to discuss the allegation to establish further information. In addition, there is no documentary evidence of any sort to suggest that JS attended Queen Mary’s at any time in the 1970s or at any other time. The Metropolitan Police have been unable to provide any more information other than what it disclosed in the first place.
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation by a former member of staff at Whitby Hospital, that Jimmy Savile had touched her inappropriately but not in a sexual or intimate way whilst he was visiting a hospital ward at Whitby hospital. W said that on one occasion, Savile approached her, put his arm around her and said “Nurseynursey, I’ve made you a cup of tea”. She told Savile she did not like tea.
The incident was said to have taken place sometime between 1964 and 1968.
There is no documented chronology of Jimmy Savile’s association with Whitby Hospital. There are no Board minutes or other documentation relating to the period of time in question. The investigation team searched media archives and the internet and found no mention of Savile visiting. The only information we have been able to secure is the evidence of W who said that Savile visited occasionally at night between 1964 and 1968. We have found no record of Savile acting in any capacity as a volunteer at Whitby Hospital.
Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester. 17 page report by theDivisional Head of Nursing with a 15 strong team of investigators and legally advised by Hill Dickinson LLP
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation related to a conversation which took place in the presence of Patient A in the day room of a ward at Wythenshawe Hospital in 1962/1963, but concerned Jimmy Savile’s conduct at his home and not at Wythenshawe Hospital. During the course of a general conversation, Patient B, made a comment about Jimmy Savile. During this conversation Patient B told a group of patients, including Patient A, ‘Jimmy Savile was a dirty old man up to no good’ and that he used to hold parties at his house and very young girls were amongst the guests.
The 15 strong investigating swung into action to ‘establish the facts and chronology pertaining to the evidence provided by Patient A and offer support, if appropriate’. (Support? For having been told 50 years ago that Jimmy Savile was a dirty old man?)
No evidence was identified by the investigation team to suggest that Jimmy Savile was ever present on the Wythenshawe Hospital site. There was no incident and no victim was identified.
But that didn’t stop them chuntering on for another 11 pages dutifully read by Ms Raccoon, still searching for the ‘truly awful, dreadful’ abuse of ‘young children in the care of the NHS…….’
Roecliffe Manor, Woodhouse Eaves, 49 page (this had better be good!) report by Lead Investigator
Operation Yewtree recorded an allegation had been subject to abuse by JS. Subsequently, Leicestershire Police interviewed the Informant in February 2013 to obtain further information relating to the allegation.
- When he was 3 or 4 years old, he was placed at the “Woodhouse Eaves Children’s Convalescent Home”3 in Leicestershire. He remained there until he was 9 years old, at which point he then returned to his family.
- Between the ages of 7-9 years old, he was abused sexually by JS who would visit the home. The Informant could not provide details of the abuse at the time of the police interview.
- JS was between the ages of 26-30 years old at the time of the abuse and he was on the radio.
- He came into contact with JS on 4 occasions.
- He recalls being taken out by JS, with a girl from the children’s home. They were taken in the rear of a white/greyish van which the Informant described as “an old style butcher’s van”4. They sat in the back on a thick sponge and were taken to another hospital. They were also taken to two other places, although these locations were not named.
- JS had a friend who had a Scottish or Irish accent.
- In February 2013, the Informant placed an advert in the Leicester Mercury, a local newspaper, asking if anyone was a survivor of the “Woodhouse Eaves Children’s Convalescent Homes” from the 1950s onwards. According to the Police note of the interview with the Informant, this advert elicited 47 responses, although no detail was provided of what these responses were. According to the note, the Informant had also received a threatening telephone call from someone accusing him of stirring up trouble.
As part of the investigation, the Informant was interviewed on a number of occasions. The interviews were clearly distressing to him, and often had to be cut short. The Lead Investigator adopted an approach to interviewing the Informant recommended by the National Association of People Abused in Childhood (“NAPAC”) to ensure he was fully supported in the disclosures he wished to make.
The report concludes:
That sexual abuse of children is likely to have taken place at Roecliffe Manor, although the extent of such abuse is unknown. This conclusion is reached on the basis of two witnesses who provided convincing evidence that they had been abused whilst at Roecliffe Manor by a man.
That despite the finding that sexual abuse of children is likely to have taken place at Roecliffe Manor, it has not been possible to associate JS with such abuse. Other than the Informant, no other individual interviewed, or record read, made reference to JS being present at Roecliffe Manor. Further, whilst some corroborative evidence to potentially link the individual who abused the Informant with JS was found, this was not of sufficient strength in nature to enable the Lead Investigator to conclude that the man who abused the Informant was in fact JS.
- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 10:12 am -
Abuse of Intelligence.
I applaud your patience and forbearance in the face of such appalling idiocy.
Please pour yourself the largest gin and tonic the bar commands and chalk it up to me.- Joe Public
July 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm -
Seconded. And add ‘perseverance’ & ‘tenacity’.
- Oi you
July 8, 2014 at 8:15 pm -
Thirded.
- Rightwinggit
July 9, 2014 at 1:25 pm
- Rightwinggit
- Oi you
- Joe Public
- Fat Steve
July 8, 2014 at 10:49 am -
in the 1950’s. She specifically stated that her assailant had been named ‘Jim’ and looked like Savile. The victim said that as she recovered from her operation ‘someone wearing a green gown, cap and a mask around their neck put their hands beneath (her) gown and inappropriately squeezed and handled her chest.” As a basis for an investigation against Savile?…….Seriously ….I mean Seriously—-C’mon
- GildasTheMonk
July 8, 2014 at 10:53 am -
Given the consummate forensic analysis or Madam. I wonder if our landlady will be invited to sit on the soon to be initiated public inquiry (I have lost track of who is inquiring into what, I am afraid – perhaps there should be an inquiry into that?). If so, please can I have a job making tea and fetching the biscuits? At just £350 per hour? Much cheaper than most lawyers and “professionals” (an over used word) will be charging for their invaluable services, I am sure.
Meanwhile my investigation into a child abuse ring run by “celebrity” animated creatures such as Morph and involving sinister figures on Tracy Island (“Operation Gravy Train”) continues apace. - FrankH
July 8, 2014 at 10:55 am -
Thank you for taking the time to read these reports, the main stream media seem to have ignored them, still telling us that Jimmy Savile was a monster who was the most prolific sex offender in the history of the world. I suppose heavyweights such as the Daily Mail take a long time to turn around.
As for “Roecliffe Manor sounds as though it was a throughly unpleasant place – as were many children’s homes of that time” I must have been lucky. I was in care for just over two years, from Spring 1963 to Summer 1965 and had first hand experience of two of Cumberland’s children’s homes. I have happy memories of both of them. Maybe Cumberland was the exception, I’d like to think that the thoroughly unpleasant places were the exception. I doubt if we’ll ever know.
- ivan
July 8, 2014 at 11:12 am -
If that is the state of the Yewtree police ‘investigation’ I think we can all now understand why crime is so high in the UK – they couldn’t investigate their way out of a wet paper bag with any certainty.
- Engineer
July 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm -
Given the number of ‘complaints’ recorded above, and in previous posts on the same subject, that have ended up effectivly ‘NFA’d’, one suspects that the police officers involved are well aware that most of what they’re doing is a wild goose chase. However, given the media and political brou-ha-ha surrounding previous police investigations into Savile’s activities (which at the time found nothing prosecutable), the senior ranks in the police force are acutely aware that everything they do and every decision they make to NFA conplaints must be very fully and publicly supported with very good written evidence that every complaint NFA’d, however wild, has been very fully investigated.
When sections of the media and certain political campaigning groups are calling for a witch-hunt, and there aren’t any witches, those charged with finding the witches that don’t exist have to prove they’ve tried very hard, even if they know they’re on a wild goose chase.
One hopes that in due course, some of the self-appointed witch-finder generals are held to, if not public account, at least public ridicule.
- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 12:38 pm -
Public ridicule would be the job of the Fourth Estate. The Journalists are wretched failures.
Far worse than the Politicians who necessarily are terrified of alienating the police any further after the Summer Riot [lack of] Response in 2010 almost left the country in the hands of the Bonfire Society. - Gil
July 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm -
“well aware that most of what they’re doing is a wild goose chase”
The genuine victims seem to be the ones held hostage in all this. If not all complaints are taken seriously and seen to be taken seriously, genuine victims of crime might be discouraged from reporting it. If not all stories are believed, genuine victims might also be disbelieved.
If this is all shown to be built on sand, where will it leave genuine victims?
- Ian B
July 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm -
Unfortunately this is what happens when you get a collective version of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
The damage this is doing, in all sorts of areas and ways, is monumental.
- Engineer
July 8, 2014 at 10:01 pm -
Yep. One also fears that any legislation or measures introduced (however well-meaning) will have similar unintended consequences for society as the need for criminal record checks on anybody having official contact with children has had – raising suspicion about any adult not having been so checked who exercises their normal societal duties to protect and be kind to any children. That warps a proper, strong society; one in which it’s the duty of all adults to look out for all children.
- CF
July 9, 2014 at 11:09 am -
The new disclosure regime in England and Wales that replaced CRB checks is interesting as regards creating new bureaucracy and unintended effects: a fairly broad range of activities demands checks, but only certain organisations can request them, presumably those with supposedly verified internal security to handle the confidential information they obtain. Local authorities, for instance, can request checks. Individuals cannot initiate checks on themselves to support an application to undertake sensitive activities, for instance child-minding, because “they cannot ask an exempted question of themselves” (ie, a question exempted from the data protection acts and other legislation such as that on spent convictions). (Curiously, they can apply for basic criminal record disclosure through a government agency in Scotland, even for convictions in England and Wales.) There are therefore so-called umbrella organisations that do checks on behalf of those who cannot directly request the checks, for instance parents hiring nannies and child-minders. Large associations such as the Scouts act as umbrella organisations for their local groups. For some other categories there might not be umbrella organisations, or they will only do checks for those closely connected to them (as with Scout groups), and it is therefore difficult to obtain the certification required to carry out the activity. This would seem to make it difficult for individuals or new small organisations to start new types of programmes for children, unless they can find sponsors that can make the checks and are willing to do so.
It is hard to overestimate the ability of well-meaning legislation to make a tricky situation worse. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it!” [Yes Minister]
- CF
- Engineer
- Ian B
- Moor Larkin
- Engineer
- Jonathan
July 8, 2014 at 11:35 am -
How long before a defendant in a sex abuse case produces these readings, plus the actual reports, for jurors to read in order to illustrate the reality of allegations against both the dead and the living? And gets his or her barrister to read them out in court? Someone, somewhere, at some time is going to put forward the ghastly truth that many “victims” suffer from confusion, delusion, inflation and invention of memories, many of which they firmly believe are true and accurate. Yet modern media appears totally unable or unwilling to suggest such a thing.
- Gil
July 8, 2014 at 4:03 pm -
“the main stream media seem to have ignored them” “The Journalists are wretched failures.” “Yet modern media appears totally unable or unwilling to suggest such a thing.”
Perhaps journalists outside the UK would be capable:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/world/europe/sex-inquiry-operation-yewtree-nabs-british-stars-of-yesteryear.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 8:06 pm -
@Gil
Not with the ex-DG of the BBC running the ‘paper they won’t…..
- Moor Larkin
- Gil
- Ms Mildred
July 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm -
What I found so annoying is the proliferation of highly paid jobs with fancy titles in the NHS. The lawyers have an expensive finger in most pies as well. These people are like leeches, taking money away from patient care. Wasting their time investigating these ridiculous accusations by people who may be damaged by someone, most likely their own parenting, but not by JS. I suppose it is useful to illustrate what expensive nonsense most of these fanciful tales are. I just hope someone with position and common sense has the courage to speak up against all this mad talk. That there are people poised to take money off NHS and local authorities, encouraged by avaricious lawyers is a disgrace to this country. We have already had this with cash for crash and cash for whiplash. Now we have a deal for a feel…which may not have happened in the year or place alleged! Still people insist that little of this ME TOO lark is possible….really?
- Carol42
July 8, 2014 at 2:06 pm -
Thank you for all the stellar work you have done Anna. Sadly it is unlikely that any of this will ever appear in the MSM, or not in my lifetime! Such a waste of time and money for all concerned.
- Eric
July 8, 2014 at 3:04 pm -
“In February 2013, the Informant placed an advert in the Leicester Mercury, a local newspaper, asking if anyone was a survivor of the “Woodhouse Eaves Children’s Convalescent Homes” from the 1950s onwards”
i.e. this person is almost certainly after money.
- Joe Public
July 8, 2014 at 4:17 pm -
Pity the poor police & NHS managers.
They have to be seen to be ‘doing something’.
It’d be a brave officer/administrator who’d put their career & pension on the line by turning-away even one of the more-blatant opportunists.
This corporate cowardice is also evident from the resources the individual hospitals have thrown at the ‘issue’.
A few minds in both organisations would be concentrated if an FOI request was made for their particular costs.
- Moley
July 8, 2014 at 4:28 pm -
Off topic a bit, but can any barristers/solicitors on here tell me if Rolf Harris has any grounds for appeal? Do you have to come up with completely new evidence? I find it very troubling that the prosecution was allowed to blindside the defense with the video footage from Cambridge. Don’t you have to show all the evidence to the defense beforehand? I find it entirely convincing that you wouldn’t remember being somewhere that long ago; I went on an architectural field trip in the late 70s and thought we had been to Peterborough when it was in fact Norwich (UK geography not my strong suit!).
- Jonathan Mason
July 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm -
I am not a lawyer, but in the US I think he would have multiple grounds for appeal, for example the introduction of evidence of alleged sexual activity outside the jurisdiction of the court, for example in Hawaii or Australia. However this apparently does not apply in British law in which anyone who has anything bad to say about a defendant is allowed to say their piece in court.
Apparently the Cambridge video evidence was OK, because the prosecution is allowed to bring in new evidence for rebuttal purposes. I think the Harris defense was incredibly unwise to use the “I was never there” defense when Harris apparently often didn’t know where he was. Did Harris know where the other four episodes of Star Games he took part in were filmed? It is like Gordon Brown saying “I was never in Rochdale.”
Personally I would have thought that remarks made by the judge at sentencing showed bias, but I suppose that since the jury had already judged him guilty, he had carte blanche. Probably he had two speeches prepared:
1. My dear Harris. You have been subjected to a campaign of pernicious lies that the members of the jury have seen right through. You are now free to leave the court without a stain on your underwear… oops, character. And if you don’t mind, my two little boys would love an autograph and a photo sitting on your face. And now how about a song and dance to celebrate this happy day in British justice? Rule Britannia!
2. Harris, you unmitigated blackguard and bastard son of Botany Bay. You came to this country decades ago with the sole intention of practicing your Antipodean perversions and didgeridoo on British children under the disguise of a hairy cornflake in NHS glasses. You will be taken from this place and tied down like a kangaroo for the rest of your sodomistic life. Guards, seize the rascal. God save the Queen!
- Peter Raite
July 8, 2014 at 5:52 pm -
The Daily Mirror has claimed they found the evidence that neither the prosecution nor the defence could:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-guilty-how-mirror-3791281
- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 8:13 pm -
re. “it was the Mirroe wot won it”
They have competition, but she was claiming 1977, this report says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28156387
She is a TV reporter, or was one at some stage in her life. She describes in this clip, Harris ‘cupping’ her breast but a friend told me they saw her on a TV News for another Broadcaster and she described Harris touching her inner thigh – so who knows which story is the one presented to the court, alhtough she wasn’t a witness it says. No wonder Tonya the Aussie wanted a Transcript; she probably wanted to make sure she knew which story she had told…- Gil
July 9, 2014 at 2:54 pm -
“who works for BBC Wiltshire, said that she was assaulted by the star in 1977 at a TV event in Cambridge when she was 16”
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/11321463.Wiltshire_victim_of_jailed_Rolf_Harris_speaks_out/
A lot of the women claiming groping seem to be broadcasters and alleging it in that context. I wonder what the atmosphere of that context was.
VF is shown reclining on a bed with RH. Compare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3idQ04g3OzA (esp. 4:00; the audience also seem to be entertainers)
“said she “laughed off” the incident when it happened… referred to him as “The Octopus”….said hearing about the legal action….was a “game changer””
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/second-female-radio-host-says-rolf-harris-acted-inappropriately-20140526-zrotf.html#ixzz36yQxSQrj“when she told other staff what had happened they thought it funny…When I told the staff afterwards what had happened, everybody thought it was amusing…”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/07/sandi-toksvig-i-was-groped-on-airIs it fair to wonder how they took it at the time? Why laugh off something inappropriate and why give a predator what sounds like a jokey nickname? Was it a context where predators preyed on women or where men and women horsed around and/or where women were groped as a joke to put them off their stride?
- Gil
- Moor Larkin
- Gil
July 8, 2014 at 6:03 pm -
The jury having five days to mull over the prosecution summation? But maybe that’s not unusual. Also why were the jury’s questions to the judge on the Friday before their second weekend off published? It showed they were split and confused. The public/interweb surely didn’t need to know that. There was a unanimous verdict on the Monday at lunchtime.
Harris’s name being Tweeted on 29 Nov 2012 following the recent broadcasting of the Tweeter’s Savile documentaries in the UK (ITV, 3 Oct, 21 Nov) and Australia (ABC with apparent schedule change, 19/20 Nov) also seems curious. Only charged nine months later, more charges added four months after that.
Pre October 2012 Harris was already very similar to Savile: octogenarian, TV star, light entertainment, apparently funny and affable, children’s programmes, catchphrases, music. The verdict seems to confirm he was actually identical.
- Ian B
July 8, 2014 at 11:20 pm -
I’ve never understood why the judge does that speech at the end. The defendant is guilty, just read out the sentence and everyone goes home. Why the judge gets to do some moral pontification at the end when it’s all done and dusted; I suppose it’s just to give them some fun.
But then I’m not entirely clear why the judge does a summing up either. Everyone’s heard the case. Who cares what the judge thinks? Isn’t it an automatic bias, one way or another? What’s the point of it?
- Jonathan Mason
July 9, 2014 at 6:40 am -
Yes, the judge would have to be superhuman to give no hint of his bias in the matter.
- Jonathan Mason
- Peter Raite
- Jonathan Mason
July 8, 2014 at 6:22 pm -
One of the oddest things is the absence of Harris’s defense counsel Sonia Woodley for over a week and her not being able to deliver the final summing up on behalf of the defense. This might have affected his ability to have competent counsel.
But what happened to her? I can’t find any kind of description as to what kind of illness she had, or if she had surgery, or what. If this was a stress-related complaint, you have to think it might have been related to extreme dissent within the defense camp over the course of the trial and the approach used, and especially the whole Cambridge issue that may have completely turned the case around. Up to that point Harris seemed to me to be winning handily. It was an absolute disaster. Or was she so angry about decisions made by the judge in the day of closed court argument before the Cambridge rebuttal or after that she didn’t want to appear, or wanted to reserve grounds for appeal later.
There is so much that we don’t know about what went on behind the scenes at this trial.
- Duncan Disorderly
July 8, 2014 at 6:32 pm -
I am confused about why Harris ever suggested he had never been to Cambridge, when what he should have said was that he had been to many places around the country for various reasons and could not remember where he had been. Unless, of course, he was lying (but surely his defence read him the riot act about lying in the witness box?), or simply genuinely believed he had never been to Cambridge. But is it not normal for defence lawyers to check out the story of their client?
I suggest the Cambridge issue shat away all credibility Harris had.
- Peter Raite
July 8, 2014 at 7:53 pm -
That’s the part that really doesn’t make sense. Considering the resources now available, the defence should have been able to work out which programme it was before the trial, and could have used the to undermine the witness’s clearly very shaky recollection. It’s entirely possible that Harris did recall trying it on with someone he assume was aged 16-18 in Cambridge in the 1970s, but faced with a prosecution insisting it was a 14 year old in 1975, what options did he have? Claim he thought she was older, or simply deny everything? Had the defence know it was actually 1978 and she was 17, they could have countered it much more effectively.
- Ian B
July 8, 2014 at 10:40 pm -
Presumably they didn’t think to look at other programmes than It’s A Knockout. When that was a blank, maybe they figured she’d said that because of Stuart Hall, was therefore a chancer making it all up, and failed to look for an alternative programme.
Who the hell remembers “Star Games” after all?
- Peter Raite
July 8, 2014 at 11:14 pm -
The thing is, there was an non-celebrity ‘It’s a Knockout’ in Cambridge in July 1975, and that what the police/prosecution went with, even though there was no evidence Harris was there. Had he been a special guest, it would have been documented in the ‘Radio Times’ and documentation almost certainly held at the BBC’s Written Archive Centre. Obviously you can’t prove a negative, but it could have been shown fairly conclusively that Harris wasn’t listed in any such documentation. The mystery is that they still went into court even in the absence of such corroboration.
- Jonathan Mason
July 9, 2014 at 6:46 am -
I remember Star Games and I have been away from the UK for thirty-five years and haven’t watched TV for years. I remember actor Robert Lindsay competing with grim determination in some kind of sprint relay. And Lisa Goddard. Not sure what I remember her for but remember her I do. I must admit that I did not remember that the show was called Star Games, and perhaps I only watched a couple of episodes, but do remember it, so I expect there are hundreds of thousands of people who remember it much better than me who watched every episode. Back in those days there were only two or three TV stations and lots of people watched ITV continuously and never turned the set off at home.
- Ian B
July 9, 2014 at 10:32 am -
Well, I was a kid in the 70s and thus watching a lot of TV. I don’t remember it at all. I remember that dreary We Are The Champions thing with kids in tee shirts running about, on a budget of about 50p per show. Surprised there haven’t been any allegations about that yet.
- Moor Larkin
July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am -
Lost memory? Perhaps not. It was ITV and possibly not shown in your region.
- Peter Raite
July 9, 2014 at 4:47 pm -
Looking at the Guardian TV listings, it was networked across all ITV regions at 19:30. For the final on 26 September – the only one Harris appeared in – there’s a massive photo of him.
- Jonathan Mason
July 9, 2014 at 5:14 pm -
IMDb indicates that Harris was a “team captain” and appeared in 5 episodes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1574511/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
- Jonathan Mason
- Peter Raite
- Moor Larkin
- Strange World
July 9, 2014 at 11:30 am -
I believe the Harris defense once the Star Games footage was produced was simply that he didn’t remember. This slip up probably didn’t help either with his claim that he wasn’t in Portsmouth in 1969 despite the fact that there is no other evidence that he was there at all. One can see from the Portsmouth verdict that no supporting evidence of possibly ever having been to a place doesn’t mean much if the jury decides to believe that the victim sounds convincing enough.
Harris said that they were taken to the event, one assumes by car, mini bus or coach, and the place where it was filmed was irrelevant. The presenter Sue Cook seemed to back this up when she said that she didn’t remember the Star Games she was in and that they were picked up and taken to the event. It sounds as if their visit to wherever a Star Games was held was fleeting, in and out, not a sightseeing visit. Other than Michael Aspel who presented it and as part of the script would announce “here in Cambridge”, I suppose it is possible that the celebrities taking part might not discuss much as to where they were, they would just get on with the job. It’s easy to see how on a busy schedule a place would be forgotten. After all, how many touring celebrities, in the music world for instance, would remember every date, stopover, gig on say a 50 or 100 date tour? Might be relevant when a certain glam rock star from the 70’s takes the stand soon.
What is questionable about the Star Games footage turning up when it did, is that it seems no further investigation was undertaken to interview or call for witnesses in the light of this new evidence. I did read in one live newsfeed at the time that the former Doctor Who Colin Baker was going to appear in court after Sue Cook, but I don’t think he ever took the stand. Was any attempt made to interview the other celebrities from that day with Harris to see if they knew or remembered anything? There didn’t seem to be any call for witnesses from the crowd to come forward, when according to the victim Harris was playing up to the crowd before he assaulted her. Sue Cook only came forward because she thought that it was unfair to call Harris a liar when she didn’t remember either. Other than her coming forward voluntarily, there doesn’t seem to have been any effort to investigate or speak to potential witnesses after the Star Games film was produced which is surely unusual.
Interesting that the Mirror which claims to have exposed the Harris not being in Cambridge lie still reports post verdict the assault as being against a 14yo, although the Star Games date of 78 would make her 16/17 at the time. ITV do the same in the report below, still calling the show “It’s A Celebrity Knockout”. She couldn’t be both 14 in 1975 when she thought it happened and 1978 when apparently it did.
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-07-01/victim-calls-on-rolf-harris-to-apologise-for-attacks/
- Moor Larkin
July 9, 2014 at 11:36 am -
That last remains the case in the Savile Hysteria. The Duncroft girls were all said to be 14, but birth records confirm they were 16. The problem with this “detail” is that folk tend to assume you are agreeing that the “assaults” may have taken place but it doesn’t matter because the women were over the age of consent. So folk tend to just ignore it because nobody is actually saying, “IT NEVER HAPPENED” …………
- Moor Larkin
- Ian B
- Peter Raite
- Ian B
- Peter Raite
- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 8:00 pm -
Didn’t a nother Brief in one of these high-profile pull a sickie at the end? DLT? Or Clifford. I’m sure there’s form on this. I think in the other one the case actually got delayed while the judge waited, but she (it was a woman too) never did come back and her deputy did the summing-up in the end. No idea what this could mean though… … Just random dots I suppose.
- Duncan Disorderly
- Fat Steve
July 8, 2014 at 9:39 pm -
@Moley Any successful appeal will turn the judges directions to the jury and any procedural defect during trial. I hazard a guess but the Judge in the Harris case liked him as much as the Judge in the Clifford case liked Clifford.
From experience (not unsurprisingly) since the legal process (whilst drawing on theatre at the level of appealing to the Jury on fact) is sniffy (once the theatre is over) and issues of law (sentencing) have to be considered.
Guilty is Guilty is Guilty —theatre end at that point and the law kicks in —mind you quite a wacking in my opinion —I had a recidivist armed robber who pulled 6 (years) at the Bailey.
I am far from certain that any jury member quite appreciates quite what is at stake or for that matter any Judge when following sentencing guidelines fully appreciates how the public view a matter such as Harris or Clifford —-Its all a mess in all senses of that word.
The whole offence is chopped down into constituent parts —-Pre Trial Media opinion –Legal argument —Theatre —-Guilt/Innocence — Sentencing and Post trial media debate —-all are separate and perhaps a recipe for disaster
- Jonathan Mason
- GD
July 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm -
Just a thought to throw into the pot, but there is a phenomenon whereby childhood sexual (or other) abuse can become retrospectively transferred to a third party, sometimes a public figure. Having to reach back in memory here but I think there is a connection to the work of Bruce D Perry of Child Trauma Academy Texas who had an early overdose of the worst kind of false allegation in his only right and is unlikely to “go in for that sort of thing” towards others.
Could that be happening here some of the time?
Real child abuse is often buried under deep sophisticated layers of denial and shot through with various kinds of guilt and shame EVEN BEFORE the actually perp tries to play on any of that (as they often do). Whole families become lifelong conspiracies to conceal a single abuser, ready to turn on any dissenter.
Bottom line, it is not necessarily easy to allow yourself to look at memories of childhood abuse, let alone assert them.
The nonsense about Duncroft (I lately saw a blog referring to Saville “abusing little children” at Duncroft *shakes head to clear it*) was almost certainly venal and self serving in it’s motivation, but I am inclined to believe those responsible we aiming to be paid off handsomely to go away and stay quiet, not this massed hysteria. When he stirred it all up did Mark Williams Thomas effectively create a sense of “general absolution” conditional upon attribution to Saville and/or affiliates for those who dared recall and relate real sexual abuse?
If that were so a lot of these claims *WOULD* be convincing to hear or read, because they are, essentially, true and deeply traumatic, even if they have bog all to do with Saville and are often only attributed to the locations they are to establish some kind of tenuous link?
It is also possible that the misattribution happens on an unconscious level so that the victim, essentially, believes every word they are saying.
Apart from that, if Saville had done everything attributed to him I feel certain he would have been thinner.
- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm -
Regardless of all these strangely contradictory strands of history, the facts seem to remain sufficient to have at least merited the allegations against Peter Righton. Compare that to the situation with Jimmy Savile. We have hundreds of people claiming to be his victims, but all the objective factual evidence suggests these stories are false. Indeed, wherever these stories are known in any detail, I have unpicked their details to reveal that they are certainly false.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/righton-wrong.html
Sometimes the falsity seem to lie in the possibility that the person has transmuted a possibly genuine personal trauma of their past, onto a handily-hated celebrity, thus ensuring the sympathy of the press and public when they tell their story. They give themselves a voice by proxy and since their own nemeses are as beyond their reach as Jimmy Savile is, he’ll do as well as any body to make them able to “get their story out”.
- Moor Larkin
- Jonathan Mason
July 8, 2014 at 5:00 pm -
I would like to add a complaint to the Yewtree files. When I worked at a Leeds hospital in the 1970s, I heard that Savile worked as a voluntary porter at Leeds General Infirmary. If this is the case, he would have had opportunities to transport patients in hospital gowns to X-ray and other destinations within the building. Since he was a compulsive molester, paedophile, and rapist, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he will have sexually assaulted hundreds of victims and I am willing to testify to that fact in open court for nothing more than a round-trip ticket to Leeds for two, a week in a luxury hotel with full board, and the use of a rental car for the period, plus a petrol allowance, and the cost of admission to Wetherby races. I do not want any money. I just want my voice to be heard.
- Duncan Disorderly
July 8, 2014 at 6:42 pm -
Playing devil’s advocate:
– the Leeds General Infirmary report does seem the most credible in terms of the allegations. For example, allegations are first hand and tend to be to be more ‘banal’ as opposed to phantasmagorical like those in the Prestwich report.
– most of the reports were not afraid to say abuse did not happen if that is the conclusion they reached. Imagine the sheer stupidity of these reports if that was not the case.- Moor Larkin
July 8, 2014 at 8:20 pm -
Check out Hitchcock’s 1945 Spellbound about five minutes in. A male colleague of Ingrid Bergman’s icy head-doctor pulls a succession of uninvited moves on her, culminating in a full-on mouth kiss. She was consistently saying NO. He’d be jailed for about 3 years, on this evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw0H48BSZ4A
The earlier analysis of the neurotic man-eating woman is quite interesting too. The film was “advised” by a psychiatrist of the day.
- Moor Larkin
- Johnny Monroe
July 8, 2014 at 8:21 pm -
It was quite refreshing to hear an alternate opinion for once on this morning’s ‘Today’ – listen from 02:53:57
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b048l0g1- Engineer
July 8, 2014 at 9:46 pm -
Leading on from that – and more in reference to recent events concerning allegations of organised child abuse rings at Westminster than Salive’s alleged activities – some applied common sense from Iain Martin writing in the Telegraph – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100279067/prosecute-paedophiles-where-there-is-evidence-follow-due-process-and-beware-the-witch-hunt/
- Johnny Monroe
July 8, 2014 at 10:13 pm -
Interesting that anti-consensus opinions appear to be slowly creeping into the media, though perhaps Westminster is prepared to stand up for itself in a way the BBC seems incapable of doing anymore.
- Ergathones the Philosopher
July 8, 2014 at 10:42 pm -
Last night’s Newsnight was a bit of a mess though… another Child Protection Expert assuring that “only solid allegations” would be considered while using the word “survivors” three times per sentence as though talking about the Holocaust (sorry, Godwin’s Law), and a Telegraph journalist telling Frank Furedi that it’s pretty much better to keep children locked out of harm’s way 24/7 rather than “having them pawed by Rolf Harris”. Mr Furedi is most definitely of the anti-consensus opinion but he was somewhat outnumbered…
- Ian B
July 8, 2014 at 10:46 pm -
I said over at the Libertarian Alliance blog, that this is going to be interesting now the flames are licking around the feet of the government.
The problem they have is that now they’ve let this run out of control and been bullied into this NSPCC enquiry, any attempt to douse the flames will be denounced as a cover up.
- Ergathones the Philosopher
- Johnny Monroe
- Engineer
- Oi you
July 8, 2014 at 8:47 pm -
What’s happening to Rolf’s millions? Will the government take the lot?
- Ancient+Tattered Airman
July 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm -
No. I expect the lawyers to do that…………
- Ancient+Tattered Airman
- Ms Mildred
July 9, 2014 at 10:53 am -
Strange how a society that considers itself sophisticated can be side lined by this complete nonsense that is now taking place. . Whole forests will be felled to supply the paper for the reports on multiple inquiries. Only keen analysts such as Anna will ever have the will to read these papers and try and make sense out of them. The MSM will cherry pick the bits to prove whatever they like. Still the young children will be killed by drug addicts and other monster parents and we do nothing to address this problem, apart from to demonise a head of department or two. What took place 50, 40, 30 years ago that killed no one and maybe
traumatised some, is much less important than addressing our present problems of the way young children are treated within the family by feckless parents, who have no guidance whatsoever to do the most important job in human society. All those would be helpers are ‘pushing pens’ doing child protection, desperately hoping they won’t be hunted down for getting it wrong when a child is killed on their patch. Paper will not help, but practical help and support may stop some of these deaths.- Moor Larkin
July 9, 2014 at 10:59 am -
@ our present problems of the way young children are treated within the family by feckless parents @
Is there such a problem though? I see almost no real evidence of it, any more than I saw any evidence of it thirty or forty years ago. In my line of work I see hordes of children and they seem nothing but blissfully happy and often somewhat spoiled. Given that the “Family Courts” are a closed legal system, I may be missing something of course.
- Ian B
July 9, 2014 at 2:59 pm -
There is a generalised belief that the lower orders are in a state of moral collapse and incapable of running their own lives, or bringing up their children. It’s this belief- which again stretches back to the Victorian Era- that got us into this mess by degrees. Many people believe that there are only two classes- a middle class the holds society together, and a heaving, feckless mass of untermenschen. The relatively small number of abusive parents of the lower class are held as exemplary of their class. The reality is that most are just ordinary people bringing up kids in ordinary ways like they always have.
- Ian B
- Moor Larkin
- Ms Mildred
July 9, 2014 at 11:41 am -
@ Is there such a problem…..Well I see mums pushing buggies with the happy child facing away from them and constantly on the phone…good parenting?I see happy children stuffing themselves with crisps and fizzy drinks. Happy children hurtling around on leg breaking little scooters. One was killed recently. Happy children dressed as miniature adults. Happy overweight children. I can understand tantrums as a childhood phase. No wonder they are happy when every whim is catered to, whether it is beneficial or not in the longrun. These parents are not even the feckless ones! I wonder why there are so many children in care if everyone is so happy?
- Opus
July 13, 2014 at 9:31 pm -
Heterosexuality is now, effectively, illegal. Even if the woman is, shall we say thirty-five, just to be on the safe side, any move may be interpreted or re-interpreted as unwanted. Fitness tests which one fails (as with the unfortunate Angus Diggle) are attempted Rape, those which succeed (perhaps Assange) can be reinvented as Rape. No man is safe to woo for even a look or a word, never mind a touch is enough to bring a call to the police – even fifty years later. Only Homosexual activity is safe (because men never say no and would never dream of reporting unwanted attention to the police and as the Police are now in bed -so to speak – prosecuting Homosexual activity is Homophobic).
We have gone in just over forty years from a situation where everything was to be permitted to one where none is to be permitted save on the say-so of a Feminist Women’s Studies Professor. It is not really wise to place that much pressure on human nature.
- IlovetheBBC
July 13, 2014 at 9:43 pm -
Anna, have you yet found a sound, believable or provable accusation in the NHS report???
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }