Tuesday, 22 July 2014

In plain sight of us all Part 2

Two days before Exposure - the other side of Jimmy Savile aired, the following article appeared in the Independent Newspaper. Note, Jimmy is at this point still given his proper title; 'Sir Jimmy Savile' !

We now know that that 'journalist' was Dan Davies, what I didn't understand at the time was why he and the program makers saw the need to disguise his voice !

Here is that conversation

It seems strange that, even now Davies does not admit that it was him on that tape, even though he appears in the program talking to MWT without any disguise whatsoever !

 You can scroll along to about 14 mins guys and gals, see how good I am to you !

Strangely enough, this is the ONLY part of Exposure I could find on you tube and I found it straight away. Thanks Jimmy !

I'm not listening to his crap again but be my guest ! I do recall him repeating a bit of gossip about Jimmy in his younger days and how the talk was that he would either; become famous or end up in jail. Something along those lines and I'll get to that in another post. For now, I'm concentrating on Davies and what NEITHER HE OR THOMAS MENTIONED at the time was that the conversation was NOT just about Gary Glitter, that defense, as the media have chosen to depict it, was part of a more general conversation about how celebrities and ORDINARY PEOPLE alike can be "DEMONISED" by the MEDIA !

 Naughty, very naughty Mr Davies. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jimmy was just doing what he always did; sticking up for the underdog. The actual conversation according to Davies' latest version, went as follows !

'They were trying to demonise me, ..' 

I won't speculate as to WHY neither Davies or MWT and the program makers decided to use Jimmy's words against him, but I am seeing a pattern here. After all, it's NOT the first time Jimmy's words have been misrepresented is it ?

By the time Davies was making his recorded interviews Jimmy Savile was a man who, some might describe as VULNERABLE. I'll tell you about that in my next blog post !




  1. As I have pointed out, way back when the BBC were not rewriting history just 30 months ago, 2 months after Sir Jim pegged it, *someone* kciked up a lot of fuss by starting a 'Gary Glitter' Twitter account. (coincidentally just as BBC4 boldly repeated some TOTP77's featuring a declining 'Leader'. So I don't think it unlikely that John-Thomas, Jones, possibly Dux & Co and Mr Dan "looking for an angle to rewrite my book" Davies decided to give the Twitterati a good prod - what better way to kick "The Savile Scandal" off by riling the idiot public about a disgraced glam rocker (who by then was seemingly just trying to keep his head down and live life within the law) and planning - from the off - that Glitter would be a catalyst for this contrived conspiracy.
    Now, maybe I haven't guzzled enough energy drinks & Coca-Degreaser a la every tiresome prick in the land, but I can still calculate 2+2 is 4.

    1. Cheers Chris, might be an idea to re-visit Davies' earlier tweets ! Can't think how these scumbags can repeatedly misrepresent everything Jimmy said and did and think they would get clean away with it. I guess, that's what you might call 'hiding in plain sight !' of us all !

    2. I recall that Andrew O'Hagan, who wrote a very "Intelligensia" and vaguely "anti-gay" polemic at the very start of all this crap in November 2012, quoted Davies' "yet-to-be-published" book:

      ‘Did Duncroft, a well-equipped approved school for “intelligent emotionally disturbed girls” in leafy Surrey, really require the patronage of “Uncle” Jimmy Savile?’ Dan Davies asks in his unpublished book about Savile:

      Many of the 25 or so girls in its care at any one time came from comfortable backgrounds and included the daughters of ambassadors and BBC producers. As a Home Office-approved school, funding came from Social Services. Regular guests at their parties included the actor James Robertson Justice, who was one of Britain’s leading film stars in the 1940s and 1950s and reportedly a close friend of the Duke of Edinburgh. Princesses Marina and Alexandra are said to have attended. Among the former Duncroft girls to have come forward, one has said she was put in the isolation unit for ‘two or three days’ after loudly protesting when Savile groped her in a caravan on the school grounds. ‘For years we tried to report him,’ another confided to me. ‘We even had a mass breakout to Staines police station.’

      Given that we now know the 1974 Duncroft Allegations were all a huge con-trick, it demonstrates that this bunch of journalist tossers are all as dumbass as one another, do no research and are no cleverer than my old Aunt Fanny.

    3. Date verifications are not on the top of the tick list when wanting to get an exclusive. Takes time, effort and willingness to be wrong. Sadly being wrong doesn't get you high profile TV appearances or money from publishers for selling books.

  2. Mark Williams-Thomas talking about the "Gary Glitter Twitter Social Experiment", January 2012

  3. Interesting mention of going in "public toilets". This was the old British police tradition of nicking "queers" for "cottaging". It's not hard to see that back in the day Jimmy's long and outlandishly coloured hair would have marked him out as gay so far as the vice-cops of those days were concerned. Nowadays, it marks him out as a Paedo. Times change but some things stay the same.

  4. The toilet part made me laugh. Truly shows how determined these scumbags are when it comes to dehumanising someone, especially when they said that Sir Jim was defending Gary Glitter when he said in the interview he wasn't even trying to. >_>

    Keep up the great work ! Mr Dan Davies would look his best in a straight jacket !

  5. The press are demonising a person who filled my childhood with absolute joy. This kind hearted man gave up time to visit hospitals, visit sick kids, fund raise and was an excellent peer figure. My generation know Jimmy was a kind giving man and, their obsession with tarring his reputation is not acceptable to me. I hope that his family stay strong. My thoughts are with them.