Sunday, 28 February 2016

Remember member member - it was Xmas !

The dame's ditty has helped expose another lie guys and gals. In a story so unlikely to be believed by anyone with a brain and a stem attached to it, comes the claim that Jimmy Savile dressed as a womble raped children in his dressing room after an episode of TOTP in 1973. Yes, really, here's how the Times reports this 
 Now, see if you guys can spot what's wrong with this next bit !
Mmm, now a lot of men folk have queried the logistics of being able to perform such feats as the above, but me being me, noticed something else ! Thanks to an earlier post of mine that is, I mean there couldn't have been that many times Jimmy wore a womble costume on the show in 1973 could there ?
Yes, it's December 20th 1973 and it's a Xmas edition of TOTP ! Xmas ? the 'victims' don't mention this. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you'd been raped by some geezer in a womble outfit, you'd absolutely remember if you were 9,10,11 and it was Xmas. You would definitely include this detail as opposed to your bloody 11+ exams ! 
Of course, there could well have been other times Savile wore this costume, I'll leave that to my TOTP's experts to figure out. In the meantime, lets watch that great episode again, the bit we can watch that is ! By the way, the link on my original blog does not work tsk

But this does

Remember, the gals ran away from Jimmy at the end. They were more interested in Slade than him. As was I as I recall !! 

December 20th 2013 was a good night as I recall pals ! 


  1. The Wombles - the band, men in Womble outfits led by Mike Batt - launched their first single in January 1974, so this show preceded that single, and was probably part of some BBC inter-promotion.
    Footage exists, mainly thanks to early home video recordings, from every edition of TOTP Jimmy presented in 1974, and most of the 1975 editions. No Womble outfit on those...

    1. That corresponds with what I've seen since Chris cheers

  2. So we have three/four victims of the same Womble on the same day; C10 and (possibly) her friend (both 15-year-old girls) during afternoon rehearsals, C9 (a ten-year-old boy) and C46 (a 12-year-old girl) after the evening show.

    All three witnesses remember which Womble it was - Orinoco! Well, you would, wouldn't you.

    C10 mentions Savile taking his Womble head off (he can be seen without it in the video) and latching onto a girl in pink (who can be seen in the video). During a break in afternoon rehearsals, whilst the bands are rehearsing their 'mimes' (they don't really play live on the show, you know), Savile is out of his suit (phew) in time for some fumbling.

    @ Chris Retro - would you expect bands to have done an afternoon rehearsal before miming on the show?

    Then C9 (boy, 10) who remembers C46 (girl, 12) because she had such an unusual name. Their stories have virtually nothing in common, and their descriptions of the occasion bare virtually no resemblance to TOTP. He says there was no queue; she remembers a long queue. He goes in the afternoon; she says it was getting dark. He says JS had taken off the Womble suit; she says he was wearing it throughout. He says she was wearing a knee length skirt revealing her knees, she says she wore jeans. He sees her being raped; she doesn’t recall this detail. He says he can remember most of the names of the acts; she remembers acts that weren’t even there.

    And C46, apparently, lives beyond reach of the internet. I wonder how many days DJS’s team member had to travel by boat/camel/donkey to reach the victim.

    Both ‘guardians’ (grandfather and aunt) stood on the street, in December, whilst all of this was taking place. Perhaps they knew what time it would be over and went to warm their cockles, having allowed their wards to go off through the gate with a strange man.

    @ Chris Retro (again, sorry!) any idea of typical timings for this sort of event? I imagine recordings usually began at the same time, and could be expected to take…what an hour, or rather longer?

    DJS reports, that she initially had some problems with, the boy, C9’s evidence, but that C46’s evidence helped reassure her. ”In the circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of some obvious mistakes in their evidence, I think they, in effect, corroborate each other and I accept their accounts as true."

    I’d say, you’d have to be pretty well convinced of Savile’s guilt to accept accounts as being more likely than not to be true. But even with her threshold of credibility set this low, DJS is unable to form a conclusion about events at Duncroft. Oh, my.

    1. LOL Misa you're a star ! Note, it was Dec 20th so it could have been 'getting dark' *smiles knowingly*

    2. Misa, I found the way C9 had incorporated something he could not have witnessed (a band playing, complete with detailed descriptions of the audience in wooly-hats) particularly, er, interesting.

      I'd put a link to what I wrote but it might get taken down - as a bloke I know better than to intervene in a cat-fight! I'll have to cut 'n' paste 'n' scarper...

    3. Bandini, I really do struggle to keep up, but I must have read at least one of your comments (below) before looking at the report. Long live internet plagiarism! Er, sorry. The following note comment in reply to Rabbit was written before (no, honest) I read most of what you've added further down. Maybe I should stop following you around.

      @ Rabbitaway Yes, fair point (even without knowing smile) about getting dark, though my memory of school years is that things are pretty clear cut - after school is evening/night, especially in winter. But I actually feel a bit bad about laughing at all this nonsense. I mean, after forty years, how could we expect anyone to remember any verifiable details of events which occurred when they were ten or twelve years old? If you just forget the womble costumes and the supposed involvement of JS for a moment and consider two people who really had been abused all that time ago, how could their stories possibly match up, unless they had put their heads together at a much later date?

      I have to say, I just don't think this sort of 'evidence' has much of a place in a legal (or in this case, pseudo-legal) setting. It's not just unreliable, it's utterly meaningless and, as such, 1000 witnesses whose testimonies were scattered with common elements would still be meaningless. Unless there were medical records, contemporaneous police reports, or some other kind of reliable corroborating evidence, I just don't see how you could form any sensible judgement.

    4. Sorry, folks, that's me, ham-fisted, again.

    5. Misa/Sima (!), I'm finding it hard to keep up myself at the moment... but surely there'll be others tempted to have a closer look at what Rabbitaway & Moor especially have been beavering away at (for years!), given this latest crap?

      Can we look forward to the day when the phrase 'jumping the shark' is replaced by 'donning the Womble suit' to refer to the point at which 'they' pushed it just a bit too far & people finally woke up to the crap being served? Let's hope so!

  3. Part 1 (in response to the Womble incident being raised):

    Not just any Womble, either – Orinoco. And not just a boy but a girl, too. At the same time.

    To be fair to The Mail, they are reporting allegations about which DJS says: “I accept their accounts as true.”
    I recommend a full read of this – pages 319 to 325. The allegations are very serious, but in order for DJS to accept them as being true she must overcome several inconsistencies/improbabilities:

    – the state of undress of the children (C9, boy of 10 & C46, girl of 12) and Savile himself during the attack varies greatly.
    – the nature of the attack (they are both penetrated in one account, in the other only one is).
    – the unlikely idea of a boy of 10 appearing in the audience of TOTP (“… I found it initially improbable… [but] …I think the floor staff on duty would probably not have noticed the presence of C9 and C46…”).
    – the bizarre fact that although the date/recording could be precisely identified, C9 has a memory of one of the bands performing which he could not have witnessed, as it was actually pre-recorded two-weeks previously.
    – C46 was, in DJS’ view, “mistaken” in her description of how “it was like a concert, with bands on the stage and when each band finished the curtain came down.”

    There are other interesting points, and we at least know where a part of that £6.5 million went as C46 was living in an unidentified country where “video meeting facilities are not available” and a senior member of the Review team “travelled out to meet her” to hear her story. (Fortunately, a video link WAS available in the case of C9, who also lives abroad).
    Parts of the accounts are very convincing – how they gained entrance, for example, although how they managed the reunion with their guardians after being abused is less so; I certainly wouldn’t place these allegations in the same basket as the ‘he touched my bum!’ rubbish, but the killer paragraph for this old cynic is the following:

    “In April 2014, C46 saw an advertisement in a UK paper, placed by a firm of solicitors, inviting victims of Savile to come forward for advice.
    She contacted them and it transpired that C9 had instructed the same firm.
    Their cases were linked together.
    She was interviewed by the Savile investigation in July 2014.”

    Nevertheless, DJS is convinced:

    “In the circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of some obvious mistakes in their evidence, I think they, in effect, corroborate each other and I accept their accounts as true.”

    P.S. For any Womble fans: there are further incidents in the review!

    1. Part 2:

      Bloody hell, the man had some energy!

      He went a Wombling with two 15 year old girls on what was obviously the same show, but was interrupted first by a knock on the door & then later when a radio presenter barged into the room where he’d secreted his victims… and proceeded to record an interview with Savile (and the gals got to say “hello” into the mic). When that was over, it was straight back to the studio floor & they melted into the ‘participating audience’. Savile forgot about them & seemed more interested in a girl in pink on the podium (which you can watch on YouTube!).

      I can’t find the Dame’s ‘finding of fact’ on these allegations, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t knock off a quick half-marathon while Slade sang:
      LINK: Pretty in pink...

    2. Part 3:

      Hang on a second!

      Savile arranges for two kids to be given entrance, and has one of his entourage take care of them while the spectacle of TOTP takes place.
      During that spectacle, he cops off with a couple of 15-year-olds and leads them to a room. The interruptions prevent much from happening – that and the recorded radio-interview – but, back on the studio floor, the girls think he’s taken an interest in ANOTHER girl.
      Nevertheless, after what must have been only about 10-minutes the show is over – and that ‘entourage member’ is now leading those two original kids to Savile’s dressing-room. Were they his ‘back-up’ victims, ‘just in case’? Savile the chess-master, thinking several moves ahead…

      My mind is truly boggled.

    3. Part 4 (in reply to 'Owen', a 'believer':

      Owen, I’m going to refer to the Womble incident mentioned above to highlight why the conclusions of DJS are, for myself, ‘opinions’ and not statements of fact (although some may be true, others may not).

      The incredibly long gestation period of the Review – coupled with the case of C9 and C46 – allows us to make some observations about what OTHER conclusions might have been arrived at. C9 was interviewed long before C46 made contact with the Review (through the same P.I. firm representing C9). His allegation was of a double rape, of both himself and an (at that time) unknown girl.

      The allegation had a number of curious inconsistencies, some of which I’ve covered above. DJS accepts that she had concerns about his evidence, but when C46 came forward much later these concerns were allayed (or ‘pushed to one side’, depending on your personal view).

      Imagine for a minute that the Review had been completed earlier – prior to C46 making contact – let’s say in March of 2014. What conclusion would she have reached? She would have had two main choices:

      Option 1: two children were raped.
      Option 2: the incident did not take place.

      I would guess that the second option would have been more likely (I’ll return to this later) but as C46 came forward DJS was able to ‘believe’ in PART of the allegation of C9, and disregard discrepancies: the second child did not claim to have been raped, but by ‘linking’ & combining the two complainants, she arrived at her conclusion –

      Option 3: one child was raped, one was not (although she WAS, in the opinion of DJS, assaulted).

      Any of the above three options could reasonably have been chosen as ‘the conclusion’ – dependent on WHEN the conclusion was made. If either 1 or 2 had been published, would you have as much certainty in THAT conclusion as you apparently have in the conclusion NOW presented to us? I think so, as you seem to think that the opinion of DJS is the ‘true version’ of what happened (in the early 1970s). It may well be. Or it may well be wrong.

      And why do I think that Option 2 would have been chosen in March 2014? Well, principally because of the impossibility of the complainant, C9, having witnessed PART of what he claimed to recall – the live performance of a band with which did not take place.
      However, I’m not now raising this to to ‘knock’ the allegation – instead I’d like to suggest that this raises some interesting insights into how memory works. Let us imagine that the conclusion of DJS is, indeed, the correct one & see what this means:

      – both complainants had confabulated REAL events in which they took part – their abuse – with IMAGINED (curtains coming down after each group finished their song – like in a theatre – in the case of C46) or VIEWED events in which they were passive participants (watching TOTP on the telly, seeing a song performed, and incorporating this memory seamlessly into the allegation). For the complainants, these events took place; the truth is, they did not, at least not as described.

      It highlights how necessary corroboration is, particularly when dealing with such long-ago memories, and shows how even WITH that corroboration any conclusion one can reasonably reach can only ever be an opinion, not a factual ‘record of what took place’.
      The trust we can place in those conclusions is reduced considerably by two things: the accused was never given a chance to defend himself against the charges, and the evidence was never rigorously tested as it ought to be.

  4. A little off topic, but has everyone noted the various versions of the TOTP Samantha/Claire pictures that have been published again? The Mail, I think, ran the one covered in glue.

  5. I raised the matter with Mike Batt, who at first took the silly story at face value. Then he thought about it:
    (from Twitter)
    "You had to remove the costume, put on a dressing gown and go down the corridor to take a pee."
    "The opportunity for Savile to be in a Womble costume unattended by my Mum (who made them and guarded them like a lioness) is unthinkable."
    "She personally dressed all of us and wld have isiisted on dressing Savile, brushing the fur, etc,taking it straight back afterwards"
    "No (not a cheap copy) it was one of ours. That's why I know my Mum wld have clung to it like glue til she got it back! She wld have chaperoned him"

    1. well done Chris. Incredible that even with what is now happening to Blackburn and what has already happened to DLT, the rest of these folk cannot see that it'll be them next.

      Brilliant Blog Rabbit

    2. Yes, well done from me too, Chris.
      And it´s a sign of how cracked things have become that I have to consider Mike Batt´s speaking out an action of bravery... there will no doubt be nutters now trying to place his mother at the centre of a ´ring´or summat.

    3. In a courtroom, the demonstration would have out-OJed the Americans. It's staggering to realise how idiotic a judge can be. Frightening in fact, but it explains a lot about what has been going on too.

    4. Ditto from me too Chris you don't get enough praise for what you do. Love Batt's story about him mam and them suits. Amazingly, folk still believe it ! Big smiley face pals

  6. I see that Brian Neill has told the Mail: 'Of course I can remember [interviewing Blackburn] … It is written in my report.'

    If accurately quoted, it appears the former judge has an interesting notion of 'memory'.

    "Of course I can remember having breakfast...I'm not even slightly hungry!"

    1. Pontious Pilate washing his hands.

    2. Why don't they release the un-edited version of his report ?

    3. I think it's a close call between John Henshall's theory that Bill Cotton had a 'quiet word' with Tony in the BBC bar or on set, was satisfied he was innocent of any naughtiness with the demented dancer, considered the matter dealt with & satisfied and then logged a memo solely to satisfy his bosses - or Tony's theory that his agent Harold Davison was spoken to on his behalf by Bill Cotton, the matter considered dealt with and recorded by Cotton as a 'meeting', and TB never really put in the big picture other than being told to steer clear of the gutter press for a while.
      Brian Neil is trying to distance himself from slack practice 45 years ago - not that it was 'slack' as such, Cotton and that whole generation worked on instinct and intuition which is why he commissioned so much great broadcasting in his time.
      Unlike the box-ticking arseholes of today.

    4. The mother says the BBC told her they had spoken to the man, but then advised her to get intouch with him or his agent...

      Watching Tony on Man Alive from the time, he refers to his only friends being his "Agency". I do wonder if he was insulated from the whole thing by them.

    5. Good point I'm starting to wonder IF he was even questioned by any of them BEFORE Claire died ? Why tell VB to contact his agent ?