Wednesday, 16 July 2014

Just Plain Shite !

I'm can't know what great revelations Dan Davies will bestow on us when his book finally hits the bookshelves, but I do have access to articles he wrote about his 'friend' on and before, October 31st 2011. Here's the first !

Goodness, was/is he really Jimmy's 'official biographer'. One thing he can certainly NOT call himself is a 'friend'. 

You can read the rest of the DMail tribute here I'm not copying it although one paragraph stood out for me. He's referring to the cruise Jimmy took him on.

He was quick to associate himself with Jimmy the same day his death was announced. Three days after Exposure, he tied himself to a very different mast.

But what is the truth behind Davies relationship with Jimmy ? How many times did they actually meet ? Let's hear his version first and then ask the folks who really did know Jimmy best.

In his post-exposure Esquire article (feb 2013) Davies describes interviewing Jimmy for the first time in 2004. That would be for Jack Magazine published in May of that year and even includes part of the earlier piece as an insert. But, this was not his first sight of Savile. No that happened when Davies was a 9 year old boy (in this article that is). He had been in the audience of Jim'll Fix it where Savile had apparently gave him 'the creeps'.

This creepy encounter had apparently kicked started a life long obsession with the man 'scutinising his every move and pronouncement'. He goes on to cite 'THREE big magazine pieces' up to and including 2008. And he maintains that he continued interviewing him right up until his death 'even joining him on a short cruise in on the QE2' (summer 2008). 

Reader, are you like me, starting to wonder WHO is the creepy one here especially when you read the following, again in the post exposure Esquire ! 'Having spent my youth telling anyone who listened he was evil incarnate, he succeeded in persuading me away from the belligerence of my younger self'

Let's compare Davies with his younger SELVES shall we ? It's not easy but you can get hold of the 2004 Jack Magazine and June 2008 Esquire. Let's start with the earliest. For some strange reason, Davies' piece DOES NOT include ANY reference to his 9 year old 'self'

Now, bear in mind this is supposed to be a man, a journalist indeed who has poured over everything he has been able to find about JS since the age of ten. It's 2004 that's four years after 'When Louis met Jimmy' famous film was aired on British television. Surely Davies could not have forgotten 'Jim the pill' ?

 Davies' 2008 'self' recalls the JFI visit but as a ten year old 

Perhaps it was the title of his 2008 Esquire piece that caused his sudden recall of his boyhood brush with Mr Fixer who knows but one thing is definitely NOT TRUE. He definitely did NOT spend a month with Jimmy.

Nice photos though starting with this one of Jim outside the Athenaem Club 25th march 2008

 This article is the most useful of the trio because of the facts it relates about the association between the two men. Their first meeting is five years before (actually it was 2004 but hey ... )

 Next meeting TWO YEARS later !

The third meeting is, again two years later 

He doesn't say WHEN this third meeting took place but it must be 2008 because he says that their fourth meeting takes place in the Athenaeum Club in Pall Mall London (see date on top of photo above).

Their fifth meeting involves a stop over 

So here we are up to FIVE meetings between the two men, three within the space of as many months. Did they meet again after the summer of 2008 (the cruise) who knows. 

Davies maintains that the Gary Glitter recording was made during a visit to Scarborough in 2009. We have only his word for that. I thought it sounded like a telephone call myself, who knows.

Something I DO KNOW is that whoever else Davies may have spoken to he DID NOT speak to the people CLOSEST to Jimmy Savile. He did NOT contact his two CLOSEST family members or any of his CLOSEST friends. He was certainly NOT Jimmy's 'official biographer' and he is certainly NOT 'the man who knew him BEST'

Dan Davies is the latest in a long line of devious opportunists who have chosen to sabotage our memories of a great man. But that's what he and his kind do isn't it ?

 QE2 Cadiz 2008



  1. Dan Dan the Fantasy Man
    Run as hard and fast as you can
    But be ye alive or be ye dead
    It's only the stories in your head....

    Great work Rabbitaway. Shown him up as a four-flusher.
    As the trendy young things say, "You punked him GOOD dude!!"

  2. Cheers maybe I'll publish the rest of those two articles in the next few days. Call it a compare/contrast exercise !

  3. A brilliant analysis and exposure of the worst style of modern "journalism" and a thoroughly despicable parasite. There is a special place in hell (I like to think) for a person who steals a man's good name.
    Davies' ghastly hypocrisy is so evident : "the man who dressed like a paedophile was a paedophile"- yet Savile wore suits and ordinary clothes like everyone else and shell suits "because he was lazy". And how does a pedo dress exactly?
    And his other fraudulent claim : that Scarborough Council were forced to tear down Jimmy's headstone. A blatant lie as they have no authority to do so. The family took the decision to avoid nearby headstones being defiled by nutters.
    If Davies makes such simple mistake just in his media releases, what else is fabricated?

  4. Nicely done girl! As you say - a devious opportunist. Basically a piece of shit with an overactive imagination who decided he could decimate Savile based on a few personal encounters and the odd photo to prove his in-depth knowledge of the evil Savile!

  5. Another wonderful article. That guy is some fantasist !


  6. Dan Davies was just one of the journalists scouring amongst others for stories before and after the Exposure programme. They were all like hyenas scrapping for anything they could manipulate and enhance to make a story into an exclusive. He was probably one of the lowest of the low because it seems as if way trying to portray himself as a friend to all and sundry, then at the drop of a hat turn into another amoeba. Nice!

  7. Watch this space ! I will be reviewing the slug's book by blog in the next few days. Suffice to say, he joined his chums Jones, Thomas and Dux in their dance on Jimmy's grave and cites them in his acknowledgements Not a nice man !

    1. Do you really think Jimmy Savile was innocent?

      Is that what you honestly believe in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary. Is it not just the case that you have taken up this position just to be different. You think it makes you superior to the rest of us & we have all fallen into some sort of media trap. Jimmy Savile was a vile dirty little man who abused countless men, women & children over a 50 year period. He even defiled the dead. It is not big or clever to defend such a man shame on you & your supporters.

    2. @ You think it makes you superior to the rest of us & we have all fallen into some sort of media trap @

      That would be the same Media that never told you about Jimmy Savile while he was alive, yet now tells you that "everyone knew" all the time? The same Media that David Icke has been claiming is a Conspiracy for the last ten years, yet who now believes every word they print? The same David Icke who worked for the BBC for a decade yet never once mentioned Jimmy Savile in his conspiranoid ramblings until 2012 [despite his lying claims to the contrary].

      Is there to be no end to your gullibility?

    3. The media comprises good, bad & average elements.

      David Icke expresses many daft opinions & theories.

      However neither of these should detract from the fact that Jimmy Savile raped children.

      He raped children do you not understand??????

    4. Anonymous whoever you are ! You obviously believe the stories you have heard on the news and in the press. I do NOT and that is why is do what i do. Raping children ? please cite me ONE piece of credible evidence that supports that statement. I've blogged on more than one instance my feelings and thoughts about that alleged 'rape' by a 'porter' in a smoking room in Stoke Mandeville Hospital. It does not have one ring of truth about it but it's obvious that these anonymous participants in these gross documentaries have been schooled, 'groomed' to coin a phrase.
      Do you really believe that happened ? If I did I wouldn't be writing a blog called Justice For Jimmy Savile now would I ?

    5. God only knows why you are writing a blog called Justice For Jimmy Savile. Do you honestly believe that hundreds of people up and down the country have decided to defamed Jimmy Savile & make up that they have been assaulted by the man. The sheer weight of numbers makes you & your supporters look massively foolish in defending him. The stories are frightening & the number of years he got away with it is scary. This blog seems to smear the victims & those helping them speak out. If you want to believe other crackpot theories about little green men & Elvis still been alive that is fine. This crap about Jimmy Savile been innocent is way beyond the pale however. Have Gary Glitter, Peter Sutcliffe, Adolf Hitler & Pol Pot also been hard done by ?

    6. Anonymous, please feel free to NOT read my blog if it offends you so. Don't insult my intelligence with your analogy about 'little green men'. I don't care how many CLAIMANT'S come forward. Who defended the Birmingham Six in December 1974 ? Remember, they are being paid for their stories some via compensation others via the media, some possibly twice over.
      So, off you go and stop bothering sensible people with your crap !

    7. Anonymous-

      The problem with the "sheer weight of numbers" argument is this: we already have a precedent of a situation in which hundreds and thousands of claims of extreme and bizarre sexual abuse are made, and every single one is known to be false: the Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic.

      That does not prove that other claims are false; but it does mean that we cannot say "such flurries of claims cannot plausibly arise"- because we already have that example where it did happen. When you then look at how the same social formation is involved in both phenomena, it is reasonable to be sceptical without further, reliable evidence.

    8. Good point Ian ! There's also the FACT that NO formal complaints were made against JS in his lifetime. Yes, there was that investigation in 2007-2009, but that's it, just the Duncroft liars, end of !

    9. poor point Ian ! the satanic abuse panic did not relate solely to one individual. The stories in the Savile case come from a number of different people up & down the land giving similar stories about this awful man. The abuse panic was a mishmash of different allegations about different people. Please stop defending child rape.

    10. Further to the "numbers" schtick. This is something of a chimera. The number of reports didn't really alter significantly from when the so-called "revelations" began in October 2012 even until now. By the 25th October 2012, Spindler was already referring to 400 lines of enquiry. I don't think the numbers, however massaged, have ever got much above 500. Spindler later tried to parlay it up to 3,500 at a talk to NSPCC or somesuch, but he was just making it up (on the premise of "under-reporting") - that didn't stop the papers printing it as if it were true somehow.

      I strongly suspect that all of the 400-500 were put in place in the 12 months between Savile's death and the Media explosion in just the same sort of covert manner as the Duncroft stories were built up and then just released on cue by calls to the "NSPCC Helpline".

      Bear in mind too, that the Yewtree Allegations are now public, via the various NHS Reports and I have yet to read one that is in any way persuasive. A number of them have even been rebutted completely by just a small amount of research by the relevant Health Authorities. Savile was never there seems to be a frequent proof. A bit like the original Exposure allegations about crimes in TV Centre.. Jimmy wasn't there. The whole thing is a chimera really.

  8. Nowt to do with the story, but how is it that a guy who can afford to go on the QE2 still wears socks with his sandals while sunbathing? (see over Dan the Man's left shoulder).

    Or am I just a snob?....... :-D

    1. It's not David Cameron is it ? :-)

    2. I'm sure Dan the Man would have got the scoop if it had been... ;-D

  9. Wow, this is all beyond idiotic. I had no idea this misogynistic misanthropic nonsense was a thing. Are you all former members of PIE by any chance?

    1. LOL ! I am rather partial to a frey bentos pie myself. Do stop by again !