Pages

Sunday, 8 October 2017

A grotesque racket !

Phew, the puppets in Fleet Street are getting mighty miffed about Operation Conifer the soon to be - infamous police investigation into a dead prime minister. Infamous because - if the mainstream media has anything to do with it (a given), then we'll all be NOT BELIEVING anything anyone says apropos child sex abuse. Unless, of course, it relates to Sir Jimmy Savile that is. 


Say what ? The cops are being chastised for recording 26 claims of abuse as crimes ? But, read on folks, it gets better, in the very next sentence no less 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4953690/Now-Ted-Heath-s-victims-want-payouts.html


Now, those of you who are new to the Justice for Jimmy campaign, may or may not be aware of what happened in January 2013. The police had spent a few months not investigating the claims made against Savile. The findings of their non-investigation resulted in a report called Giving victims a voice. And, if anyone who bothers to read it can point me to any proof of Savile's guilt, then please do because then I can stop doing this ! Hurrah ! 

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/yewtree-report-giving-victims-voice-jimmy-savile.pdf 

Remember, many of these 'victims', as they were called then (they are now 'alleged victims') were not even interviewed by the police. Much of the evidence being gathered by NSPCC call handlers - I kid you not ! 

 




Read that last sentence again - Further investigation seeking corroboration .... is basically, a waste of time because, after all, there's no prospect of a trial ... of the dead man.

Now, remember this guys - it was just FIVE women who had made claims about Savile. And, any of you who can find anything even resembling proof in their tales, again, please come forward ! Those five claims led to ten more, then more, and more. And, all at the behest of a TV show. Yes, really 


No investigation folks, no, just collated, analysed and summarised



Let's remind ourselves of the press reportage back then shall we ?






 Those words came from the mouth of ex-commander Spindler of Scotland Yard by the way, just to keep the records straight !

Compare this with how the media responded to the Heath accusations, police investigation, and - wait for it, the racket in sex abuse claims ! WTAF ?



Now, there is innocent and there is innocent. And Jimmy Savile is not among Mr Parris's innocent ! That would be too much to hope for 



And, it's not just the high-brows who are miffed with the 'racket' - going back to the mail article cited above.


You really have to hand it to these people. They even mention Savile, but they just don't get it, do they ?


Oh, and, them with influence are having a field day with Wiltshire's claim that Heath would have been interviewed had he still been alive 


They even report the existence of malicious claims and police action taken against the same

 Now, best bit of all - the fact that the police actually scrutinised the Heath claims. No assessment, collation job on the ex-PM oh no ! 


Blimey, I could go on and on and I could drive myself half mad ! Yet, there are lighter moments folks. Because, did you know that there's such a thing as a sex abuse compo calculator ? I kid you not. Even the hacks are reporting on this evil. Try not to laugh at this by our old friend Gillespie ! 







Here's the link to them abuse lawyers and their calculator. I can get £22,000 for the lies I fed into it ! 



See what your lies could get you 

https://abuseandassaultclaims.co.uk/sexual-abuse-compensation-calculator/ 

I couldn't read the much lauded Parris article. But I did catch these words. And, yes, I thought about her, the queen of claim trawlers  

 How many of her claimants passed muster in the end ? Will we ever be told ? And, if we're not ? Well, I for one think that is truly grotesque ! 


Friday, 6 October 2017

Pendulums a swinging - but not far enough !

There appears to be, in some quarters at least, a semi revolt against the - getting thinner by the minute, thin blue line, that all victims must be believed. I've deliberately left on the inverted commas I usually include around the word 'victims'. Call it a semi-protest of my own, if you will, as a respsonse to this little beauty of a headline in the telegraph rag.


I somehow managed to miss this when it was published a month ago. I've been busy with other things. But, my word, if one article could accurately sum up why so many became convinced of Savile's guilt, this is it ! It was the numbers that did for Jim. That and the fact that the media peddled the idea in the first place, and the police followed through ! 

 Here's the telegraph thing for those that want to read it. Alleged victims indeed ! No such words were used by many, when it was Jimmy's good name being destroyed. After all, that's where the you will be believed narrative caught on. Around the same time the then DPP, now politician Starmer was apologising for his crew NOT believing 'Susie' and the other helpless youngsters being used by creeps in Rochdale. 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-puppets-on-string.html

And now, irony of ironies - that just last night, the same BBC news show that spawned Savile, presented this mini-debate. Has the pendulum swung too far ? 


 The clip on twitter from where I sourced this, begins 

we're all aware of the missed opportunity with Jimmy Savile  to which Proctor (bless him) interjects 
It's the pendulum swung too far, and it's still too far

The eschelons of the police have not followed the independent advice of Sir Richard Henriques with regards to calling complainants, not victims and survivors. And making sure that the allegations are fully investigated. 

I have nothing but respect for Mr Proctor. He didn't just lie down when he was accused. He fought back, and eventually his voice was heard. The upper eschelon of the media agreed. Especially when the statistics basically spoke for themselves 


One could have almost felt sorry for that one dissenting voice on the - the pendulum's swung too far, show, almost ! Ms Shaw is not best pleased with a former DPP's admonishment of the police operation either.

 It was all happening yesterday as Witless Wilting Wiltshire police attempted to justify their expensive, resource draining investigation into Heath


 You can't read Fiona Hamilton's article unless you pay or register for 2 free articles a week. But you can read her twitter reportage of the event here  

https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edward-heath-wiltshire-police-defend-two-year-project-costing-1-5m-as-proportionate-vchsgrvrl 

So, what are we to make of all this ? Is there any chance that the same dissenting voices will ever be raised, and, more importantly, given a platform so that enough people know of our existence ? The short answer of course is NO ! Because, as my fellow blogger and pal Moor Larking keeps repeating, without Savile, they have nothing. Forget Operation conifer, midland, etc etc etc. If the Savile scam was ever revealed, they's be ... well there's only one word for it so forgive me folks - FUCKED ! 

Fear not pals, we may not have friends in high places, but we have real ones. I'll take real friends any day ! 

Onwards ! 







Addendum 

Ooops forgot to link the Newsnight episode - via BBCiplayer 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0978t5p/newsnight-05102017 

Monday, 14 August 2017

They can't all be wrong (lying)

Goodness Gracious - thanks to one of our lot for bringing this wee gem to my attention ! Get watching folks, at least the first seven minutes 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLWetY9_VHg&t=7s 

For the last two years he's spent his life going through case by case, accusation by accusation ...resulted in Rolf being free two and a half years early.

My oh my, we knew Rolf had hired investigators, but to hear just how easy it was for them to get MOST of the claims chucked out, well now, this is interesting ! Mr M had worked on the DLT claims before he started on Rolf's, and had noticed 'similarities'. He decided that they warranted full investigation something the police hadn't bothered to do. In fact, they hadn't even covered first base !


'The first thing you'd do as a detective is check the credibility of your witnesses' The Met hadn't bothered with the most ' basic checks to see if they might be telling the truth'  and not just complainants, but the 'witnesses' whose stories they used to add weight to the claims. A 'number' of people whose stories sounded similar, they weren't witnesses as you and I would understand the term, but the ballast in the empty CPS cargo holds, keeping their Yewtree ship afloat - until it sank, by which time the rats who manufactured and carried the 'witch-hunt' virus were long gone. 

Thanks Mr M but some of us were onto this game a years before you were hired, your input is still useful though, at least you're there on you tube chatting away to a radio presenter who just happened to record one of, if not the LAST ever interview with Sir Jimmy Savile ! I've long since giving up hoping that just one of these former Savile admirer's would see past their next pay-packet and notice what's right there in front of their own faces. If only Mr Merritt would do some pro-bono work on the Savile claims. If only Alex Belfield would ask the same questions for him ! 


 Savile's 'last interview' in 2011, became his 'last confession' just a year later. Sir Jimmy - the gift that just kept giving - here's the full version, not just that bit where he says 

'I was lucky insofar as I got away with it' Jimmy really should have had his Miranda rights read to him before any of these interviews ! LOL (just an aside folks) 

Anyways, the idea was to go through the whole Merritt thing picking out all the bits about Rolf that could just as easily apply to Savile, but you already all that don't you ? However, I will pick up on one VERY important point and thank both Mr M and Mr B for the following Q and A.

B - Why someone would make make an accusation that isn't true - that can easily be proven to be not true, that's what we can't understand. Why would they ? 

M - They did not realise that this was going to go before a criminal court - they thought all they had to do was come forward 

Not quite sure what M means when he says that hundreds came forward but the police ? just picked a number, presumably he means to try in court whilst the others provided the corroboration by number.

'and that's the tactic they used .. they cannot all be wrong (read lying). All they had to do was come forward and they'd get a payment or whatever else they were looking for. It wasn't just  money involved' 

Apologies if I misquoted any of that, I've done my nearly best for you guys and I'm tired now. So you have a watch and see what you think of this. By way of Rabbit warning though I will warn all the Evil Ones reading this, that the inevitable occurs at about 6.56 mins in. Because, all is apparently a lot better now justice-wise - the courts have sharpened their act, the police no longer need convictions so much that they work hand in hand with no-win-nowt-for-you-but-thousands-for us lousy firms. Everything is OK now because they no longer need 

To Make up for what had they missed out with Savile 

Onwards ! 

  
Anyone know if Osborne Clark solicitors use Private Investigators ? They didn't want me .... for free ! Thank God more and more folk are opening their eyes, read between the lines of what M and B are saying. Surely they are not thickos are they ? 





 









 


 






 

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

My Dad knew Jimmy Savile - but I didn't !

A great big thanks to Bandini who provided the link to this gem. ! George Carman's son, didn't know Jimmy Savile, neither did Jeremy Paxman. Nevertheless, the media wanted their take on his crimes. Anyone, worth talking to, that is, the folk who knew Savile best, either ignored or too frightened to continue their brave defence of their mate, forced into silence or a reluctant, public (but not private) acceptance of the narrative.


Now, I've seen this before, there aren't many articles I didn't read at the time. Especially, any that held out some hope that someone, anyone would have anything good to say about the dead guy in October 2012. Unfortunately, Jacobson's taxi-driver dad was presumably no longer around, so the reader had to settle for his son's opinions.



You see Jacobson's dad was a kind soul, by the sounds of it.  Taking disabled kids on trips, encouraging others to do the same. Not everyone is good at charity - not Jacobson, which, to be fair he freely admits



No, apparently his dad was completely unaware of Savile's hidden proclivities . After all, taxi drivers never speak to anyone in their cabs, especially in a big Northern City like Manchester ! They never hear any gossip, and if they did, and it involved the abuse of children, they'd still happily allow the accused to associate with them, take the kids on trips. Are you with me ?


 Jacobson does make one good point, yet fails to take it to it's logical conclusion. Why didn't the papers expose Savile if they knew


 Indeed ! 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/my-father-knew-jimmy-savile-see-the-good-in-him-he-told-me-that-was-the-mistake-we-all-made-8209640.html 



Here's the man himself taking part another annual taxi-drivers  jaunt. (Black cab drivers being even less likely to talk to anyone in their cabs LOL) Note this one is dated August 1978. The Queen's jubilee was in 1977 but hey ho ! Are these the same glasses Jimmy is wearing in that HDLG image ? 



No date given for this one but I daresay you guys will figure it out !  

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Jersey faked

Photos can be faked, people who aren't in a chair can be photo-shopped into that chair. We know this - we can see it. But for most of us, we aren't really aware that the image is false until someone proves it. Here's an easy one 


Sorry guys and gals but I'm headed back to Jersey again. Haut de la Garenne to be specific and I'm looking at that photo said to be of Jimmy Savile in the grounds of the home in 1976 or thereabouts ! 


You see, one of the claims made by a hack in October 2012 was that, Sir Jimmy rescinded his denial of ever having visited the home. 

 
The source of this alleged admission ?







Now, folks what's really annoying about the above is that, for the life of me, I cannot find any trace of the source of this admission. I did manage to unearth a few clues such as this published by The Lawyer in March 2008






https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/17-march-2008/jimmy-savile-turns-to-fox-hayes-for-action-against-the-sun/ 

But, where is this series of articles ? Naturally, they would have been removed from re-publication once JS threatened to sue. But, where are they now ? Why haven't the press re-released these articles ? Maybe they have and someone will be kind enough to post a link.

In the meantime, here's what Jimmy told the Police himself in 2009. Curiously, Jimmy seems to be unaware of that image of him allegedly on the grounds of the home. The photo he's thinking about involves him and a bunch of local councilors !




I know we've been here many times, but let's take a look at that much publicised photo again. Do you think it's real ? I don't but I can't prove it because I don't have access to the original image. Even the Putin/Trump de-buggers had an original press photo to work. I don't, and neither does the sun, by the looks of it ?

For a start, look how big that kid is on the far right 





Big when you compare him to the older boy/teenager, on Savile's left. And, is that a microphone around Jimmy's neck ? Never noticed that until I enlarged the image. Was he recording a TV program ?




A lot of  alleged victims did a hell of a lot of talking to the Police in 2008 when the Jersey investigation got underway. But, none of them, not ONE of them appear to have implicated Jimmy. How likely is it that these rags would not squeeze one tiny claim out of someone, especially when you KNOW, as we do now, that the same chaps who willingly gave him £200,000 were encouraging Ms A to go Sussex Police with her Savile yarn. 



No mention of  Savile here 


Pamela had apparently been blowing the Jersey whistle since 1974. Yet, still no mention of Jimmy or any other celebrity/vip abuser

 No, it was just the male staff who were implicated. Even when the lawyers were involved, still, not a trace of Savile 

 Many of the more sinister claims - involving buried hman remains etc were de-bunked fairly quickly. Strangely enough, David Rose was right in the thick of it at the time ! 



So, I guess Mr Rose would know if any credible claims had been made about Savile at the time ! My money's on NO ! 

Back to fake photos - always a good idea to look at some examples of those that are NOT fake. One can get mightily sick of dishonesty in print or out of someone's mouth. You can see the difference can't you ? 


People look so much more natural. Their bodies don't appear out of whack 




Another LIE exposed ... well, almost Jim