Pages

Sunday, 11 February 2018

What's the difference between Yewtree and Midland ?

Goodness Gracious guys and gals, I'll never get to retire at this rate. Or, maybe I will ! After all, surely it only has to be a matter of WHEN, not IF, the Savile accuser's will be put to the same scrutiny, as the likes of them accusing Lords and dead Prime Ministers. 

Fleet Street are out for the Operation Midland accusers, 'Nick' and Esther Baker. The articles have been coming thick and fast. Here's bits of the latest one from today's Sunday Times 

 You can pay to read the whole thing here if you like. Alternatively, you can read the bits I picked out, as of particular interest to me ! 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/role-for-psychiatric-patient-fuels-fears-over-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-ppdk36skn

I've already tweeted my interest to the author - James Gillespie. Let's see if he reads this, and responds accordingly ! 





I really shouldn't have to ask Gillespie to read my blogs, should I ? Anyone with a stem and a brain attached to it, can work out the point I'm making. Nevertheless, here goes - 

The first point I should like to make is this - 

WHY shouldn't someone in a secure psychiatric patient be granted Core Participant Status in Alexis Jay's IICSA gig ? OK, I see where he's going with this, and I agree with him. But, wasn't an ex-Broadmoor patient deemed a credible witness, when it came to Savile ? 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/convincing-bill.html 





Next, further dismantling of Esther LOL


So, one alleged victim, is attacking another ? Welcome to twitter Mr Gillespie. Where have you been this past six years ? 

Now. listen up, because JG's making sense isn't he ? The claims against the late Lord Janner in the civil courts, have been dropped. But they will be ventilated again and again in the course of the Jay IICSA charade, unless these people are removed as Core Participants, or arrested, which would be my preference, and charged with attempting to pervert ... 


Next Gillespie identifies Tom Watson's involvement in the matter. 


And, what 'evidence'  did have upon which to base his subsequent campaign ? Well, very little according to JG 




 Now, let's get to my point shall we ? It lies in the next few snippets 



 The Police adopted a flawed approach ? The same 'approach' they'd used in Operation Yewtree, as it happens ! 



Read that last paragraph again, and tell me what's wrong with it ? Hundreds of witnesses DID NOT come forward during ANY investigation. We know this, because, there was NO Police investigation. The Police merely encouraged 'victims', not 'witnesses' not complainants, but 'victims' to 'come forward'. They struggled to get very many in the first few days. Then an added incentive came along - MONEY ! Just a week after Exposure aired, the fragrant Liz appeared on our screens and across the airwaves ! 



 Strange, how that 'page' in Slater and Gordon's history appears to have been wiped !








Are you getting my drift Mr Gillespie ? 




 Another bell not ringing for you Mr Gillespie ? What evidence beyond the unsubstantiated accounts of a handful of individuals and fantasists' has anyone produced substantiating ANY of Savile claims ? 

And there's also the matter of the part you yourself played in this nonsense. Remember this ? 






 Politics ! 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/saviles-power-as-secret-king-of-broadmoor-jcsg3dgwk93








Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Not 'Special' enough

Daniel Janner's attempt to be granted Core Participant Status, as a 'special witness' has been rejected by the independent investigation into child sex abuse (IICSA). 


I do like how these last few press reports have been framed, no pun intended. They really want folk to know the caliber of the folk who've been awarded such 'status', refused to Mr Janner. The 'fantasist' and the convicted serial paedophile, oh dear





 Now, I've been pondering the reason WHY Mr Janner should need, or want such status, when he already has it. 


 Now, maybe I'm a little slow folks, because the penny has only just dropped, he wants Core Participant Status for himself, as a witness, which is what the liar and the sex offender presumably are. In other words, he wanted to be able to cross examine those who continue to maintain that his father abused them. Hard not to feel sorry for the man, he's just doing the best he can for his late father.

It's not altogether clear, as to whether his established CPS (yes really), automatically entitles him to legal expenses, the press appear to be inferring that it doesn't. It's all a tad confusing, so let's go back to the beginning shall we. Here's how Mr Janner's IICSA journey began 






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/lordjanners-family-undermine-sex-abuse-inquiry-within-given/ 

Now, folks whats really interesting about this piece, is the bit on the end, the so-called remit of this inquiry 




Hold on ! The BBC, the armed forces, mosques, immigration service ? Where the heck are these on the list of Core Participants. I see the churches, I see the Police and local authorities, but the BBC and mosques ? Nope, I don't see them. Let me know if I missed something ! 

Oh, and by the way, I have double checked - the IICSA itself does actually stipulate the above. Yes, really 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/about-us 

Here's that list again 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/797/view/List%20of%20Core%20Participants%20November%202017.pdf 

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

Core participants - Cor Blimey

Well, would you believe it folks ? The IICSA have granted what they refer to a 'Core Participant' status to quite a few folk as it happens. Here's the rather long list ! 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/797/view/List%20of%20Core%20Participants%20November%202017.pdf 

As you can see, most of the core participants are represented by one solicitor or another. We start with 'complainants' - a result in itself for them that aren't being consulted, let alone granted any form of 'status'). There's 233 of these, then come the 'group core participants' 'survivor' groups totaling just seven. Then fourteen other individual core participants including Daniel Janner QC, who's described as not currently legally represented'. 


Mr Janner and other Janner family members had asked to be included in the proceedings, and their application was granted in January 2017 

Remember how we applauded when Daniel Janner threw his hat in the ring, in order to defend his late father ? Smart man, he knew this  'inquiry' would be a farce, but - you gotta be in it, as they saying goes !

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/janners-son-to-join-abuse-inquiry-xcv5jffr6 

Now- exactly a year later, news about another Core Status Participant. 





 Yes really ! This is a woman whose ridiculous tales kept a Police force busy for TWO YEARS ! Here's an article you don't have to pay to read. Yes, it's the mail folks 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5290691/Esther-Baker-named-special-witness-sex-abuse-inquiry.html#comments 

Bravo Mr Hemming this spiteful woman and her 'followers' has been attacking you and various other decent folks on twitter for what seems like forever. I hope she is prosecuted, but, in the meantime, I wonder : Does she still retain 'Core Participant Status' ? Why on earth was she given any kind of status in the first place. Just google her name - here's one of the news articles linked to her



 Mr Hemming, like Daniel Janner QC, didn't lie down and let this liar destroy him ! No, he went to the Police voluntarily, and made a 'formal declaration' against HER ! 







Her status as a core participant entitles her to fully funded legal representation ! I'd laugh, but it's not funny, it's not funny at all. Even our old adversaries - the mail comment posters now agree !



I'm a bit confused as to Daniels Janner's status in the core participant status hierachy after reading the latest 







 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5294009/Daniel-Janner-applies-witnesses-child-sex-probe.html#comments


This is going to be fun ! Go Daniel Janner QC. Go John Hemming MP. Go, all those falsely accused by liars ! And, jolly well GO ALL of us, because we must support them. Because they are us, if we're unlucky enough to be targeted by liars and their low-life buddies ! 

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

Duncroft Detectives criticised AGAIN ?

Happy New Year All - here we go ! Just this minute, I decided to google 'Jimmy Savile' - as you do. And it turns out that the Detective Inspector, who can only be the one referenced as DI 3, faces possible disciplinary action. Yes REALLY ! 


I had to check I had the right year ! Yes, this came out just a few days ago, when I certainly wasn't looking. Strangely enough, we were tweeting about DI 3 last night ! Here's some background for any newcomers 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-inspector-calls.html 

https://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/surrey-with-whingers-on-top.html 

I've done several (at least) blogs involving DI 3 and the investigation he headed up. I remember suggesting my surprise at how little we'd heard of him, up until now that is ! What the hell is the IPPC up to now ? 


I know it's DI 3 because I remember reading how he'd so conveniently, retired. OK, it's almost ten years since Operation whatever it was, but it was only about four years when I first started my burrowing into it ! It ran from 2007 until late 2009.

Oh, and he's not the only one in the frame, for a bit of Savile scapegoating. Oh no, it seems that one of the two female Police officers (so that makes 2/3 of those working on it) also comes in for criticism. Her days of being portrayed as a potential victim of Sir Jimmy's threats to see her in court, are no longer of interest to the media. 

 
 Let's cover DI 3 first shall we ? Again, off the top of my head, it was him who pushed the investigation despite being advised by the CPS not to pursue it. The BBC really should read my blogs before they publish any further distorted articles. 


 DI B ? Who the hell is DI B - has the BBC looked at DI 3 and seen B instead ? 

And, as for this latest alleged report. Is this the final findings of a complaint that began in 2014 ? 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820310/Two-detectives-Surrey-Police-investigation-dealt-sex-abuse-allegations-against-Jimmy-Savile.html

Poor DC whoever she is. Imagine having this crap hanging over you for God knows how many years. Have the BBC just regurgitated earlier findings ? I see no recent reports being issued.

No, it's just another of those : woulds, coulda, shoulda - media distortions of the truth ? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong ! 

Link to our twitter exchange last night ! 

https://twitter.com/moor_facts/status/947888296675495937 

 
If anyone wants the facts about the Jimmy Savile story (for want of a better word) they should steer well clear of the Plymouth Herald that's for sure. The amount of people who might actually believe that Savile was actually prosecuted. Scary isn't it ?