Tuesday, 25 January 2022

An Open Letter To The Steve Coogan's Of This World.

 Comedian and actor Steve Coogan is to play the disgraced late TV personality Jimmy Savile in a new BBC One drama.

The Reckoning, a mini-series, will tell the story of the presenter's rise and the sexual abuse scandal that emerged after his death.

The BBC said the team behind the drama had worked closely with those impacted by Savile to ensure their stories were told with "sensitivity and respect".

Coogan said he had not taken the decision to play Savile "lightly".

He said: "To play Jimmy Savile was not a decision I took lightly. Neil McKay has written an intelligent script tackling sensitively an horrific story which - however harrowing - needs to be told."

"An intelligent script" ? Well OK Mr Coogan, your audience will be the judge of that. In the meantime, I have a few things to say to you - and the any other entertainers who might consider playing the late Jimmy Savile in a fictional drama. 

My first piece of advice would be quite simply, DON'T ! Well, not just yet that is ! Wait until someone does the research this sensitive writer obviously has not. I say that because of Coogan's use of the word "horrific". I hardly think that this drama will be a balanced affair, given what I know already. 

Indeed, as I write this, the latest press offering on the subject has an interview of of one 'victim' embedded in itself. I had to watch a bit more in order to ascertain who this woman was. And it's the woman who appeared on Top Of The Pops in 1976 who may or may not have been inappropriately touched by Savile. Was she ? I have no idea ?

Now look ! With the best will in the world - How would this woman's story hold-up in a court of law ? If it got past a decent Police officer's initial inquiries that is ? It wouldn't, I hope ! Certainly not if she'd done a Carl Beech and included a few 'VIP's' in her claim. Apologies reader, I am trying to be as fair and as kind as I can, but that conviction of one of Savile's accusers in a court of law, for me, conclusively demonstrates the dangers of  accepting any accusation of this nature, about anyone. And I'm not alone in being sickened by the rank hypocrisy shown by everyone : the police, the press, the media, the courts - everyone, in their deliberate failure to apply the same presumption of innocence automatically applied to Beech's victims, to others less influential than their powerful/influential selves. 

If only he'd stuck to Jimmy !

One could almost have some sympathy for Wiltshire Police hailing Beech's claims as "credible and true". Their bosses were told to 'believe' all 'victims' of sex abuse, no matter how ridiculous those A(chieving) B(est) E(vidence) looked to another audience in a Newcastle court room in 2019. 

The policy of believing any old crap about anyone had had its cards marked by a Judge call Henriques, whose cautions in regard to applying the presumption of innocence, held my interest for as long as it took to work out that even his concept of Justice was selective. Automatically believe no-one and stop with the 'victim' already, use the word 'complainant' ! Hurrah, said everyone, cheers all round, until some of us realised that his words made not one jot of difference - the : 'guilty until proved innocent' party, continued on its merry way, and now they're writing television drama's about someone who's 'dead so he can't sue'.

What else is there to say to the likes of Steve Coogan, that doesn't involve a few course swear words ?

Nothing ! 


Tuesday, 7 December 2021

Savile : Ten Years Dead, Yet Still ! Part One

 Jimmy Savile has been dead ten years now. He managed to get almost a full year resting-in-peace in his grave, before his legacy was decimated forever in October 2012, after a television programme produced women claiming to have been abused and/or assaulted by him decades before.

This was the programme broadcast on October 3rd 2012. You can watch it in the link provided. It's best you watch it alongside reading my post, that way you can judge its contents for yourself and come to whatever conclusion you do. You've got ten years worth of hindsight supporting you, go for it, listen to Fiona and the others' stories and then maybe leave me a comment. 

But only after you read the rest of my post obviously !

Those who know me have probably heard the tale of how I came to be involved in this. I had no interest at all in Jimmy Savile, I didn't even know he was dead when I, like millions of others watched this programme. But something bugged me as I watched it either the first or second time. And that something was Fiona. I didn't believe her you see. It was her manner, the casual way she described her alleged recollections. And as if by magic, within days my gut was pronounced right - in the Daily Mail of all places.

Ten years down the line, I asked one of the authors about that letter. Unsurprisingly I received no response ! 

I mean - why haven't the public been allowed to see this letter ? What possible reason could they have for this ? 

A few questions I would have asked back then, had I had any reasonable expectation of being taken any notice of, would have been : Why isn't anyone questioning the soundness of any of the other participants in Williams-Thomas' programme ? Remember this man was an ex-police officer who had been involved in the story for almost a year. An ex-Surrey Police officer at that. The same Police Force from whence the alleged latter was supposed to have come from. 

Nobody ! Not one person in the papers or on the television uttered one word of rebuke and if that wasn't bad enough, someone who should have known better, or paid back the salary my TV licence fee contributed to, was publicly apologising for Savile's 'criminal actions'. 'Criminal' ! This just 9 days after the ITV programme.

He must have been aware of the letter ? He must have been aware of what some of those alleged 'victims' were up to online ? 

The Daily Mail for all its transgressions, gave us the fake letter story. The rest would have to wait for one of those two official Inquiries, one of which would be worth a years worth of all our licence fees, because it brought us The Pollard Report. The contents of which would lead any sensible person to conclude that something very wrong was and is - at the heart of the Savile story. 

Nine years or so ago, I went looking for an alternative to the drivel being thrown at me on a daily basis online, in the press and on the telly. This is what I found.

And while I had some disagreements with the late 'Anna Raccoon', her blogposts about the Duncroft strand of the Savile story which really began with this one - were a breath of fresh air to folk like me. We were lucky to have had her. How else would we know the other side of The Other Side of the story ? Because, this was published 3 months before The Pollard Report whose contents corroborated the dark deeds being hinted at by the incisive Raccoon. Thanks Anna !

I'm sorry if you have difficulties reading my extracts. I don't know what the problem is with blogger, but here's the link to post anyway so you can read it yourself.

A few decent journalists have in the last several years followed where a few intrepid bloggers have led, yet for some reason, no serious challenge has been made to ANY of the Savile claims. Let me make one thing crystal clear again. I do not know if Jimmy Savile committed any of the offences attributed to him posthumously, and thanks to ten years of regurgitating the same stories some of which have been totally debunked now, finding any semblance of truth, will feel like a task too herculean to most to even contemplate. 

Most !

Thank God for intrepid bloggers eh ?

This is just Part One !


Friday, 22 October 2021

Bandini's Brave Attempt To Get Some Dis(Closure).

 So this is what happened a few nights back. I had some exchange on Twitter regarding the Giving Victims A Voice Report, and afterwards I thought I'd check up on a few things. I couldn't easily locate the actual report. Instead I got this and I wondered what the hell it was.

Link here

Now, before I get into this, let me make a disclosure of my own. A few years ago I was aware that a good friend of our cause had submitted a Freedom Of Information Request (FOI) to The Metropolitan Police Force. But for some reason, I'd completely forgotten about it, so when I saw the above I did not initially, put the two together. That happened the following day. I also became aware that another good friend : the blogger known as Moor Larkin had blogged about the matter in 2019, and I didn't know that either (sorry Moor). I'll link his excellent post at the end of this so you can get his view of things. But for now, I want to keep things simple as I can. It's not easy to follow FOI requests, especially when you cannot actually find them anywhere. But I'll do my best.

This is what the MET issued. I have no idea when. The only date mentioned is the date they say they received B's request. I have to make this extra-large because neither you nor I can read it any other way.

If you're reading from the link above, you'll see there's a decision supplied at the bottom but before I tackle that, let's make sure B was right about those two official reports shall we ? 

Page 17 Giving Victims A Voice (Jan 2013) does indeed contain a 12 year old boy, 1972 etc.

Page 299 of Dame Smith's Report (20th February 2016) 

Link to Report. Apologies, I can't find the GVAV PDF that I found the other night but only via an Irish publication, because I can't find it now.

The two accounts are of the same alleged incident/s aren't they ? I'd say the Balance of Probability is quite high on that one. So, Bandini is on the money here and I for one want to know how the MPS responds to that and the one about just how many crimes this one claim amounted to in January 2013 ? Here goes :

"Duplicate and classified as no crime" ? You just know that the intrepid Bandini won't let that one lie. And what about the fact that the account of this ONE CRIME has changed significantly by the time the Dame's team here it ? Bandini won't be letting the MPS off that easily, I'm sure. And the response he gets is quite staggering. Well, it is if you believe in Justice and fairness and all that.

Surely the "decision" they're referring to is the initial decision of the Savile Police to NOT investigate the Savile claims at at all ? I find it hard to believe that they identified any "discrepencies" circa January 2013, although to be fair, there was the matter of that "duplicate". 

Now folks, that's enough disclosure from the MPS for this FOI Request. But, of course there's more and if they won't disclose it, then I jolly well will ! For Bandini if for no one else ! Here goes, the stuff he sent me.

Read that last paragraph which is supposed to explain why the MPS cannot supply a descriptions of the 214 alleged 'victims' recorded in GVAV January 2013. They cannot supply this information because they are STILL receiving allegations about Savile ! I'm sorry I don't think I have the documents they refer to including the one : "SAVILLE Allegations". If I do find them I shall update this post to included them.

Slippery aren't they ? Operation Yewtree - the bit featuring Savile, officially ended in December 2012/January 2013. Someone tell the BBC and the Huffington Post that that was NOT the case.

Not sure how I'd feel if I'd been one of those 300 that even the MET Police didn't believe ! Maybe some of them were "duplicates" ? Who knows ? Who has a right to know ? Not us, by the looks of things. Which leads me into that blog post by Moor Larkin who, like Bandini, struggles to make sense of things that simply don't make any sense. Read what he has to say about the FOI Request here. Makes one wonder why anyone bothers submitting such a thing in the first place.

One final point to make about that last paragraph of their decision. WHY the rush to produce and publish a report about Jimmy Savile's alleged "Crimes" when those involved had to know that more alleged victims had to be out there ? All those voices left unheard ? Indeed !

Or maybe not ? The NSPCC you see, have continued their trawl for alleged victims. But that's another story for another day. I need a rest. Thank you for reading !

Bless you Bandini. You tried and for that you did your bit in the struggle of Right against Wrong. I hope you are well and happy. 




Thursday, 7 October 2021

Another Ex-Copper For Hire

 Ahead of tonight's instalment of : Savile was guilty - I know because I investigated him when he was dead. I thought I'd avail my readership of a few facts about ex-D.S Gary Pankhurst. I'll listen to what comes out of his mouth later, for now I'm only interested in his credentials, his background and his mindset as reflected in what he's already told us about himself. 

Here's his online CV.

Gary is now a PH.D student and runs his own consultancy business. Nothing wrong with that and at least he was a real detective for some years, unlike the one ITV hired nine years ago. But burrow down just a little, and ominous signs present themselves. Just how many minutes of police detective school must one endure in order to know that the word here. should be   complainants ?

In summary, the adherence to basic principles is not only fairer but leads to a more effective investigation and clearer outcomes. Officers valued and displayed the principles of good practice, yet this was not consistent across all interviews analysed.  Sexual offences are emotive and difficult allegations to investigate. Interviewers feel a clear responsibility to investigate thoroughly and effectively but to also provide a good response to victims. This work shows the relevance of exploring issues around the wellbeing and mental health of those tasked with interviewing in such investigations given the emotional content described by officers.

To be fair suspect vulnerability at least, considered !

There are potential gaps within the extant literature including: interviewer behaviours within a sexual offence interview, the impact of suspect vulnerability, the effect of personality and trait empathy levels on interview behaviour, and the impact of emotional valence and arousal on the parties within suspect interviews and any influence on interview outcomes. The purpose of the following study was to understand behaviours that were occurring within the interview rooms of sexual offence investigations and how congruent these behaviours are with research findings and practice recommendations.

I wonder if Gary will consider the vulnerability of the dead, when he delivers his opinions about Savile tonight ? Let's see if we can gauge the chances of that, pre-watershed, shall we ?

What he said to the press.

Oh dear ! Not looking good is it ? A 'terrorist' ? 

Obviously ex-police officer's have to eat out, get their children through school, as well as themselves through a post-graduate University degree. They have to somehow scratch a living on their 30-year Police pension. But, do they really have to take part in television shows like this ? Had the subject been fairly and conclusively been convicted of a crime, I might applaud their input into my night's entertainment. But Sir Jimmy Savile was not even arrested by the Police during Gary's tenure as a D.S in South London (2007-11). 

Rolf Harris on the other hand, was arrested, charged and convicted of a series of offences and Gary was up to his eyes in that case. He was one of two Police officer's sent to Australia as part of the investigation prior to a charging decision. He gave evidence at the eventual trial. What exactly did he do in Operation Yewtree ? 

Tomorrow night’s documentary takes a fresh look at the sickening story of Savile who, from 1955 up to his death in 2011, had sexually abused at least 72 people, raping eight including an eight-year-old.

A total of 450 claims of abuse and rape were made to 13 police forces — but with the passing of time and Savile’s death, not all of them could be proved.

The press/media don't have to count on ALL of us being thick. They know that a fair proportion of our population is. The same idiots who think doctors deserve to be attacked, will lap up the drivel handed to them by the likes of  the scum. 

Ten years ago the idea of accusing Jimmy Savile of being anything other than a much-loved television star, without good solid evidence, was dismissed by sensible heads at the BBC. How Meirion Jones must have felt when his little project was scuttled and replaced with this ! LOL ! As I generally say on Twitter. 

"Onwards" !



Saturday, 10 July 2021


The great thing about keeping a blog going over a period of years is that it's there whenever you need to check something you think you might have written about already. Something that no one else might have bothered with. Certainly, no one - save me, and a few others - were daring to suggest that all those victims of Jimmy Savile might actually NOT BE ! In my case it was a gut-feeling that bothered me, call it my inner voice if you will. Something was NOT right about this, and that feeling just hasn't let me go. 

I started out seeking Justice For Jimmy Savile, but it's gone beyond that. For the Police (and others) back in November 2012, it had already gone beyond Savile. Indeed, I and a few others began to believe that none of it was about Savile to begin with. If it had been, surely they'd have actually investigated the claims ? No ! It was - straight to a guilty verdict for the dead, and a trawl amongst the living and the dead. The older, frailer and deader - the better !

So, here I am eight years after I began this blog, thinking about victims. Not those people described thus, by Policemen, who - haven't even bothered to establish, whether any claimed incident might have even have taken place, but the likes of Lady Lavinia Nourse who now has to live - not only with the knowledge of the ghastly things she was accused of, but also the fact that her accuser -  has gotten away with his evil deed ! Such injustice beggars belief, doesn't it ? Where's what some of us used to refer to as the concept of natural justice ? Presumably languishing in the same cell as the right to the presumption of innocence !

A victim who had to endure headlines such as these, before she was eventually cleared by a jury. How does anyone cope with this crap ?

I almost want to apologise for publishing the above. But, to not publish and comment on such testimony, would be aiding and abetting a crime that was repeatedly every time such utterances were and are made, against an innocent person, be they a Lady or a tramp !

“What’s been said, what’s been written will live with me forever. And yet the person who has made these accusations walks free, and can continue to say whatever he likes for the rest of his life,” she said.

I don't care who you are. You are entitled to protection from malicious people be their crimes verbal, physical or psychological ! The very least that should now happen is that her accuser be named. No - ifs, but's or why's. Fairness and Natural Justice demand this, and when nature is ignored it fights back, sooner or later.

You see - we are ALL OF US victims when such crimes are exposed, then ignored as though nothing had happened. The Police know they are victimising all of us They cannot be as dense as to think that subjecting the innocent to injustice and then compounding that injustice by not punishing those responsible, earns respect. But who punishes them when they do not ? Nobody, by the looks of it !

What a cesspit these people inhabit ! They know it, we know it and the press - when they're allowed to publish something challenging the malfeasance, know it too !

They press knew in 2017 that those who accused the late Edward Heath, were submitting compensation claims before the Police investigation had even been concluded.

 They had to have suspected the same about the Savile compensation compensation claims, hadn't they ? Whether they did or didn't, the Judiciary saw to it that Savile claimants would be paid. They even set up a 'scheme' specifically for the purpose. One that provided little or no checks into the claimants or their stories. One that pushed Natural Justice almost to breaking point, by threatening the token few scrutineer's of the claims, with prosecution should they dare discuss the claims allotted to them with another person doing exactly the same thing, rather - trying too !

The Savile thing was a crock of shit wasn't it ?

I tweeted those words a few days ago, and a fair few people agreed with me !

My blogs will continue, until Natural Justice is restored in this country. I'm not holding my breath but I'm optimistic ! 

Onwards !


Friday, 9 July 2021

"Because you're innocent, Jimmy"

 Hello again. No I haven't given up on this. I have other things to do, but - now and again, something interesting either happens, or comes my way, and what happened a few days ago, actually blew me away. 

Basically, I was contacted by someone a complete stranger, who'd seen my blog and asked me if I had any clips of Pans People's attendance on Clunk Click the BBC's precursor to Jim'll Fix it.

To cut a not long story short, I managed to dig out the recordings I have and - after some consideration - wondering whether if I should share even respond to the request, I decided - why not ? What harm could be done ? If anything, It would make someone happy, so why not ? Wasn't that what those TV shows were all about ?

So, off went a few clips from the show, after which I removed the disc so I could watch Dance with a Stranger again. There was nothing on TV and I needed a good film.

The person who received the clips was so happy, I decided I'd send more of the footage. I wanted to do as good a job possible, and make sure the clips joined together ( I had sent them in one minute or so bits, because I thought the uploading of 3 or 4 minutes would either - take forever or not send at all !

So - in goes the disc and what the first words I hear is "you're innocent, Jimmy" Not believing my ears, I scrolled back a few seconds, because the disc had started at the exact point I'd last viewed it at, and I wasn't expecting that to happen. I must have stopped the recording on my phone before pausing the video, if that makes sense !

Anyway - the Pans People fan was going to have to wait for those next few clips, while I took in what had just happened. What are the chances of any of this folks ?

1) Someone quite out of the blue, asking if I even had any clips of that show, then me actually being willing to send them ? 

2) The disc starting at that moment ? Of course, this might be perfectly normal in recordings made privately. Normal discs only resume so long as you don't remove them from the player, but I'll not go there, the important thing is the dialogue. Yes, it was probably scripted, but what cannot be scripted is a person's non-verbal behaviour, and let me tell you, those ladies looked pretty relaxed and OK with their host, to me ! 

Here's the dialogue. I've posted this clip to my twitter account, so you can view it here :

"Because you're innocent, Jimmy" 

Was Jimmy more surprised than me, I wonder ?

Jimmy also mentions that it's three days after Valentine's Day. Clunk Click was broadcast on a Saturday night. The nearest applicable Saturday in 1974 would have been the 23rd February. Someone remind me when this episode actually aired. I've looked on the Radio Times Genome but I don't see any mention of PP as guests. I'll leave that with you guys to sort out !

Onwards !


Tuesday, 4 May 2021

My Line in Duty : Part Two

 I was going to write more about the programme - Line of Duty, but in all honesty, what is there to say but - it's not true, it's a BBC Television programme. It wouldn't be fair of me to say, it's shit, I haven't watched enough of it to come to any conclusion as to its merits creatively and dramatically. But, here's what I'd like to say to Jed Mercurio : Mr Mercurio, you should not have brought Jimmy Savile into your story about corrupt police officers. 

I see your latest episode drew record-breaking audience viewing figures and I congratulate you on that, I really do. But you should NOT have portrayed an innocent real person as a convicted felon. 

Jimmy Savile's family reached out to you via social media about this and you snubbed her. All she wanted was for you to engage with her and you refused. What's done is done. You cannot remove her uncle from you television programme, but you could if you are a decent man - consider adding a note at the end of the episode in question. Nothing controversial - just a FACT !

That FACT being that Sir Jimmy Savile was NOT arrested or charged with any offence during his lifetime. Had he been, he'd have had the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. It's what's commonly known as Natural Justice. 

I invite you to contact me should you wish to discuss the Savile claims in any depth. I have spent almost eight years examining the facts, so I claim some authority on the subject.

In the meantime - let me remind you of the reaction to Jimmy Savile's death almost ten years ago. The press and the media published such articles, would that really have happened if Savile had been half the monster we've been told to believe he was ? Wouldn't the press know ? The same press and media did an about turn on the strength of a television programme full of lies, and presented by a lying ex-police constable - FACT !

Perhaps you should make series 7, 8 or 9 about that ? I'd be more than happy to help you write it !

In 1971, he was awarded an OBE, and, in 1990, he received two knighthoods. The first was from the Queen in her birthday list, and the other from the Pope, who made him a Knight Commander of St Gregory The Great. Only last year, he committed half a million pounds of his own money to students at the University of Leeds, for medical research.

 I'll leave you with something Jimmy Savile said about corruption. I understood it the first time I read it, I hope you do too !

Oh and this is just one of the hundreds of blog posts I have done.