Sunday, 2 April 2017

Savile accuser stands trial

This one 

A little bird tipped me off a few days ago. Being a responsible blogger I wanted to be sure it was true. A contact sent me extracts from Steven George's Facebook page ! 

Goodness Gracious, yesterday I looked for Steven on twitter to make doubly sure. If he was singing on FB maybe he'd be doing the same there. No luck, then today I found this. My memory is not so hot at the moment, he uses his pen name on twitter. He has some brass neck I'll give him that 

His alleged crime ?

Strange how the MSM are NOT reporting on this 

I've done several blogs about Steven George - I knew I'd be going back to Broadmoor again and again .... 


  1. Seems like this fantasist, liar & chronic attention-seeker served the press well, providing those shameless journos with a string of daft stories which the most basic of fact-checking would have revealed to be, at best, dubious.

    Which reminds me: I've finally managed to watch our old pal Dee Coles (fantasist,
    liar & chronic attention-seeker).

    She's 14 again & was lucky to escape with her life by the sounds of things! Back to me burrow 'til her story unravels...

    TRIGGER WARNING: The above video contains Jeremy Vine.

    1. Blimey, I had no idea this Crimewatch ep even existed ! And it's from just a few weeks ago. Just skimmed it so far. I see old Ian McFadyen gets his face in

    2. I'm not convinced by Ian McFadyen and suspect he's like Tania Head.,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/catid,2/id,128628/

    3. Jo, I'm glad you've mentioned him. He seems very suspect indeed.

      btw a little while ago, I left you a link to the searchable files you were looking for over at Moor’s

  2. Bandini, are you following the latest developments regard 'Nick' vs Proctor etc?

  3. Re that link to the recent Crimewatch episode that Bandini provided.

    Two thoughts.

    Firstly, I understand that TOTP is not permitted to air any programme from their back-catalogue featuring Savile on the grounds that such footage might trigger victims, but Crimewatch is apparently exempt from this stricture and is permitted to air Savile TOTP footage (featuring of course, suitably sinister background music)? Seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

    Secondly, Chris Morris and Jeremy Vine, separated at birth? :) :)

    1. That's a good point re the inclusion of TOTP, TDF. I only skimmed through the show so maybe Vine warned the fragile beforehand (who all somehow managed to survive the relentless 'triggering' prior to 2012). Or maybe by showing Savile in his coffin they 'balanced it out'?

      Regarding Proctor I did briefly toy with the idea of setting up a website specifically to name his accuser... but as in the case of Coles it's the shits in the media & legal world who deserve all the attention really. Possibly worth contrasting their two ludicrous tales

      Dee Coles on Savile:

      "I just thought, I'm just going to die. That's how violent it was, and that's how rough it was."

      Nick the Nutter on Savile:

      "He was just sadistic in what he wanted to do and what he wanted other people to do. Yeah. Just evil and enjoyed seeing pain inflicted and humiliation I suppose."

      Here's an old clip of Dee forgetting the script (for TDF, who may not have enjoyed her voluminous output as others have): "I get me numbers mixed up because Savile's abuse led me to drop out of school a year before I met him."

      The eagle-eyed/mad/Misa may spot a new pic of the poor waif sporting that odd green highlight to her hair we see in the Savile snaps... same reel, perhaps? Anyway, back to real life.

    2. I was quite enjoying your retirement, Bandini...and then this, this, this, Crimewatch April 1st Special, which seems to have taken some people in. I must say, it's worth watching right from the beginning. They get it just right; the mood, the soundtrack, the graphics – particularly the graphics – and even the gurning presenter, are all spot on. The chatline girls trying to keep their punters from climax whilst gesticulating idiot stalks the building, balling the premium-rate phone number in their ears, the very realistic police car parked outside the sporting school of excellence (which we must point out is totally unconnected), and finally the childish psychologist…what a hoot!

      I don’t make much of the additional photo, I’m afraid, but I am experiencing flashbacks. Thanks again!

    3. The presenter fellow is surely giving the more gullible punters a nudge, when he says, "Incredible stories." I suppose they're covering themselves in case some people take it seriously.

    4. ^ Lol. It is unfortunately not a clever Chris Morris-style hoax or satire but a genuine Crimewatch transmission.

      The musician Paul Weller was once asked by an interviewer why he hadn't written anything political during his solo career. He responded saying that he'd already said everything he wanted about politics during his days with The Jam and The Style Council.

      I can only imagine that if, in a similar fashion, Chris Morris was asked why he no longer satirised paedo-panics, witch-hunts and similar moral panics and the media presentation of them, he might say that he had already said everything he wanted to say about that issue a decade and a half ago.

    5. Well may thee jest, One-eyed Misa, but what if I were to tell you that the number of paedophiles in the UK has recently been estimated at 125% of its population?

      There's no evidence for this, but nevertheless it happens to be completely true.

      See? Not so funny now, is it!

    6. To be serious for a sec, I find Dee Coles to be credible.

      I do not find it implausible that a probably relatively naive 14/15 year old might have thought she was going to die for a brief instant if she was being sexually assaulted.

      I do not find it hard to believe that Jersey was, frankly, a bit of a paedos' playground, and that Savile was well aware of this. And that he assaulted under-age females during his trips to that corrupt little island.

      If she misremembered some dates or years, I do not find that to be damning regarding her testimony. I think it would be very stupid to suggest that everyone remembers accurately all events and can place them to the exact year/month/day etc.

    7. Regardless of whether one believes or disbelieves Dee Coles' assertions, researchers may wish to note a recently published book entitled "Secrecy, Law and Society" edited by Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, Miiko Kumar.

      It includes a chapter "Secret isle? Making Sense of the Jersey child abuse scandal" (pp 251 – 272 )

    8. Oh, this is a joy! Thank you, Bandini.

      At 42.07 we have an Operation Hydrant officer tell us:
      “A good example of where corroborative evidence has been very powerful in the prosecution, is where a victim mentioned the offender had written telephone numbers on a wall. Years later, the same premises were visited, the wallpaper was removed, and those telephone numbers were still there. It’s things like that that can be very, very powerful in proving that that offence took place.”

      Haha…corroborative evidence! Does the case ring any bells? You even have a reconstruction of wallpaper being removed. I guess they had to edit out the footage of ink drying.

      And then, at 52.35 that well-meaning-but-dangerous plonker, Simon Bailey, is asked, “Chief Constable…the police have had to change as well, haven’t they?”

      Bailey, responds, “Yes, I mean there’s been a fundamental change since 2012, post Savile. There’s absolutely no doubt that we have had to come to terms with the scale of abuse, the skills that are required, and the fact that officers need particular skills to deal with the reports that you’ve heard about tonight. We’ve made significant changes. There is no doubt in my mind that the response that we’ve put in place has improved beyond all comprehension. And I am delighted with that response.”

      Invested in Savilisation? Not arf!

      And – what a line – response...improved beyond all comprehension! Your new British Police Force; their response exceeds even the brightest copper’s understanding.

    9. tdf, I don’t think Dee ever mentioned being in fear for her life before, so it’s not simply a question of dates or whatever, but also a question of how she embellishes the story.

      “I do not find it hard to believe that Jersey was, frankly, a bit of a paedos' playground, and that Savile was well aware of this. And that he assaulted under-age females during his trips to that corrupt little island.”

      Is that personal prejudice, based on your own experience with the people of Jersey, or does it come from elsewhere? Even if it was a paedos’ playground, would it be reasonable to believe Savile knew this? It seems fashionable to believe that people who do serious harm to children are everywhere (see your comment above!). It also seems common to believe that such people are possessed of preternatural cunning. And, of course, remote places provide ideal settings for ghost stories.

      I don’t think ‘not implausible’ ought to be enough evidence on which to accept a serious allegation. She has photos (corroborating evidence!) which, if they are of her, show that she really did meet JS somewhere at some time. Though they offer no evidence of any crime taking place. I believe they were sufficient to have her claim against the estate accepted.

      Assessing her credibility is difficult. We don’t know whether she has a track record of accurately describing events. We don’t know whether she has ever lied about something important. We might also want to know whether she’s any history of mental illness, heavy drinking, or drug use. It would also be highly relevant to know whether she stood to receive any benefit, material or otherwise, if one particular version of events was accepted over others. Not all Savile ‘victims’ sought compensation, but Dee certainly did, and she's been 'dining out on it' ever since. I suggest that her claim can only stand if it’s first been established that JS was a monster. It’s only been established that he was a monster because of lots of people like her made claims.

      Maybe we can eliminate known prejudices about JS from the equation (though we can’t quite eliminate the prejudices against 70s celebrities). If Dee had suddenly popped up telling her story as it is, but about a different dead celebrity, say, one of the Two Ronnies, would she have seemed more credible or less credible? Presumably her story couldn’t be disproved, but then, as it’s unprovable, surely you would have to say that it should be effectively discounted, wouldn’t you? If, then, her story was publicised, and ten more people came forward with similar stories, none more or less credible than hers, would that make her seem more credible?

      The book looks very interesting, but I’m afraid I’m unlikely to pick it up any time soon.

    10. @credibility-seeking

      Stepping away from what may or may not have been true about an island in the past, if you want to beging to see how the mentally ill have interfaced with the forces of law'n'order, I would recommened working your way through a victim's story.

      This guy ecxplains both his own mental illness and the bizarre contemporary judicial behaviour better than anyhting I have read elsewhere. He of course has no idea that this is what he is doing; that has to be the job of those who can reason - a talent the judiciary have lost or at least refuse to use.

    11. Just read the whole thing. Compelling.

  4. Friend of Prince (standing)4 April 2017 at 02:02

    Has anyone ever thought of why a super intelligent,image conscious man like SJS would have every case of "abuse" photographically recorded? On the accusers camera no less? Answers on a postcard please - as for the wallpaper incident in Manchester, both GM Police AND Yewtree confirmed to the Savile family that there was no mention nor any evidence that the writing on the wall was anything to do with SJS - total and utter bullshit lies ��

    1. I'm pleased to hear GMP confirmed that much. Sorry to hear one of their colleagues peddling the same myth on TV.

  5. Misa,

    "Is that personal prejudice, based on your own experience with the people of Jersey, or does it come from elsewhere?"

    No personal prejudice against the people of Jersey, but more a realisation that the governance of the island simply fails to meet basic and long established standards of constitutional law and governance.

    Their care inquiry has finished hearings and is due to issue its report I think quite soon, so I'll leave my comments on Jersey at that for the time being.

  6. Must... resist... temptation... aaaarggh! No!!! Too... weak!!!

    "To be serious for a sec, I find Dee Coles to be credible."

    If you find Dee Coles to be credible, TDF, then it's because you haven't put the time in checking her out. It'd be insulting your intelligence to arrive at any other conclusion. I don't ask you to 'trust me', but I do ask you to at least believe me when I say I'd bet my life ("May the Lord strike me down!") that her story (or stories) are total bunkum.

    At 7'38" we see the pic she claims Savile "got her" to participate in after already being made to feel uncomfortable in a previous snap ("As soon as HE grabbed ME..." at 7'27").

    Unfortunately we see precious little of this supposed discomfiture - she's quite obviously relaxed & enjoying herself. By the way, the shirtless-Savile snap was taken some considerable time after the previous ones and/or at a different location (and we have the impressive peepers of Misa to thank for this observation). No doubt there's a perfectly rational explanation for this oddity!

    Back to her age. When first contacting ITN she claimed to have been 15. ITN and the ambitious Lucy Manning (now at the BBC off the back of her sterling work for 'the cause') produced a report having whittled her age down to 14. (The same thing happened with the almost-16 Karin Ward.)

    Coles clumsily went along with it, slipping up now and then, lying being such arduous work...

    But there really shouldn't have been any confusion over dates & ages as Coles the Scholar received the holiday - even got to choose the hotel herself! - as a direct result of her academic performance ("I'd done really well in my exams...") AND then dropped out of school as a direct result of the appalling near-death experience at the hands of Savile the Beast (and plummetted into a pit of drugs 'n' drink too, ho ho ho!).

    It's simply 'implausible' for someone to be 'confused' over the age they left school, particularly under such harrowing circumstances. I don't believe her academic career was in any way affected by Jimmy Savile, nor that she succumbed to the bottle.

    1. (continued...)

      (These vagaries - a sure-sign of bullshittery - led to inevitable hole-digging, the 'attack' bouncing around amongst "the early 1970s", presumably a different set of "early 1970s" to the one in which she was working at a wimmin's group, even getting so far as to falsely claim to be an accredited-counsellor while maintaining her secret.)

      Never seeking the limelight, never after money, she nevertheless mysteriously found herself regularly in the press and on the radio & telly and shouting from the rooftops about what a saint Liz Dux and the rest of 'em over at S&G were. (S&G handling her claims for the compo she didn't want, predictably.)

      Dux accompanied her to the theatre to be re-traumatised at the sight of a panto Savile, and she overcame her Savile-induced fear of motorised-transport to be whisked to the opera on a 'plane by the 'orrible Olly Lambert, director of the creepy "Abused: the untold story". Another to add to the list of complicit liars...

      I've lost count of the number of times she's drawn a line under things and moved on - she can't stop coming back for more! Really, what other option does she/they have, sharks swimming in their own shit?

      No time to mention the vanishing co-victim, the barbershop, Dean Coles, nor none of the rest of it. Search and ye shall find! Ripe for the plucking, a strong gust and it'll fall.


      P.S. Jersey a "paedos' playground"?!? For God's sake! And "...Savile was well aware of this. And that he assaulted under-age females during his trips..." Girls flinging themselves at him wherever he went on account of his fame, it's hard to imagine why he'd have needed a 'paedo paradise' to get his TCP-drenched rocks off. And why only females? Don't forget the little boys' botties, TDF! 'Tis all true!!

    2. Bandini, you known perfectly well that I am not asserting that 'it's all true'. Stories about Savile chanting and wearing 'satantic' robes while abusing kids are clearly ludicrous - even when I disappeared down the conspiraloon vortex which admittedly I did a few years back, I had me doubts over that one.

      I will admit I have not researched Dee Cole's story in any great depth, will check out the links.

    3. @Dee Coles

      she was Defendant Number Four in the Savile Shakedown, suggesting she was one of the first.

      Keith Rowley QC, Piers Feltham and Justin Levinson
      (instructed by Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP)for the 3rd and 4th Defendants

      I would also remind everyone that she was involved in running a womens sanctuary in the early 1970s and chair-person of one several years before Jimmy ever pegged it.

      Beats me why people so want to believe all this horseshit

  7. "I would also remind everyone that she was involved in running a womens sanctuary in the early 1970s and chair-person of one several years before Jimmy ever pegged it."

    Moor, what a thoroughly strange observation in the context of the discussion! I was in not previously aware of this, but if anything it lends credibility to her claims, rather than the opposite.

    1. @tdf re her running a woman's sanctuary 'lends credibility' No it does not ! It shows that she was powerful in her way. No way would such a woman feel unable to at the very least - expose her alleged abuser. Basically, what Bandini says, but a lot less eloquent !

  8. Sorry Rabbitaway but that's utter tosh. The idea that running a small women's charity in Brighton is in someway remotely equivalent in power to a multi-millionaire celebrity/knight of the realm/papal knight/acquaintance and confidante of royalty is simply not credible.

    Not credible to me, and frankly I'd guess not to most of the general public. Much as I've become a lot more sceptical recently, this discussion just highlights that my thinking is still very far from yourself/Bandini/Moor.

    1. @tdf
      if you believe in this tosh about Jimmy being part of the establishment, compare and contrast how the savile tales are completely believed whereas the tales about heath are constantly pooh-poohed.

      The issue about Dee being involved in the running of the charities is that she would have had the full support of that network, plus enormous credibility with the police. Please remember that Rabbit demonstrated the police were falling over themselves to prosecute Jimmy in 2007/2009 and certainly would have done so if only the witnesses had been willing to testify.

    2. @ Moor

      I'd grant that the establishment press are treating the claims about Heath with derision, by contrast to their generally more believing treatment of the claims about Savile. But there is a significant difference, which is that Savile, according to his own words in his own biography, lived a promiscuous lifestyle, whereas Heath made no effort to put himself about as a ladies' man (or for that matter a mans' man). It would have been quite easy for Heath to enter an arranged marriage with help from his Tory backers, but he didn't bother. Of the relatively small number of Heath's contemporaries who are still around, most seem to think that he was basically asexual. A smaller number think he was a closeted gay.

      I am not claiming that Savile was born into the establishment. That would be silly. My thesis is that he managed, by a combination of charm, guile and stamina, to worm his way into the establishment, during an era (perhaps the only era in history) when it was possible for a northern boy from the wrong side of the tracks to do so.

    3. @tdf
      What this particular issue of "Dee and her circumstances versus her ability to speak out" does demonstrate quite neatly is how folk can draw diametrically opposite opinions about "the truth" from exactly the same set of facts... :-)

    4. @Moor I think that is a fair observation!

    5. Former Irish PM Charles Haughey - and Sean may have read about this - certainly thought that Savile was if not part of the British establishment, then certainly well-connected enough to be useful as go-between.

      State papers released recently in Ireland revealed that Haughey had suggested to a senior civil servant that Savile might be useful as a go-between between the Irish and UK governments during a difficult time for Anglo-Irish relations.

    6. ^ Forgot to add. One of the interesting things about that link is that Haughey apparently felt that Savile also had good connections to the then opposition, being Labour and/or the SDP.

    7. "Please remember that Rabbit demonstrated the police were falling over themselves to prosecute Jimmy in 2007/2009 and certainly would have done so if only the witnesses had been willing to testify."

      If it is the case that the police were falling over themselves to get Savile in 2007-2009, then I wonder if it was partially because they had institutional knowledge of the 1998 letter?

      The anonymous letter writer did get at least one thing right:

      "When Jimmy Savile fails, and sooner or later he will, a lot of well-known personalities and past politicians are going to fall with him."

    8. @tdf & similar facts leading to opposite conclusions

      One reason this can happen is of course by focussing on single aspects of those facts. Perusing this comments thread and Misa detailing the many vicissitudes of Dee's story I notice that a very important salient facts has been apparently forgotten.

      When Dee's story first emerged she was not alone, she was assaulted along with a friend. She said Jimmy was so strong he could both subdue and assault two girls, one of whom -herself, from the evidence of her photo, were at least as big as Jimmy was.

      Dee not only was a rape crisis boss with natural connections to the police and advising lawyers but she also had a witness. Following Misa's timeline suggests this second person has entirely disappeared from the narrative.

      The very original Duncroft case was about the "Beef Biryani" touching - no heavy sex or assault at all. The police spent two years mulling over whether Jimmy should be put in court for having a teenager touch his willy under a blanket. No allegations about any other assault or crime were made at the time of "Beef Biryani" - going from the Levitt report. The only supporting evidence Levitt then used was a 21 year-old married woman from Worthing who travelled to Jimmy's caravan without telling her husband. Even believing her story leaves you with Jimmy making a clumsy pass at a mature woman who rebuffed him and he gave her a present to take away after desisting - an apology perhaps.

  9. tdf, I'd noted your increased skepticism of late, and I appreciate the chance to try to clarify my own thoughts on these matters. I’m not keen to get too personal about individual claimants, though, to be fair, this one has certainly put herself in the spotlight.

    You’ve caused me to reflect on what makes a ‘credible witness’. Perhaps you (or any legal brains reading) can help!

    The term witness itself is important. If I were mugged in the street, I might need witnesses to help identify the attacker, and to explain how the attack took place. In this sense, a witness is someone other than the person attacked. We might describe this person, with a little caution, as an ‘objective witness’. Of course, in court, the person attacked may be called to give evidence and is, as such, a witness. The evidence of the person attacked may be valuable, where they’re in a position to give it, but I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion. This person is a ‘subjective witness’.

    How good a witness might be, probably depends on:
    1) Did they clearly see, hear and comprehend the events in question?
    2) Can they clearly recall the events?
    3) Are they unbiased - objective?
    4) Can they explain events in a comprehensible way?

    Children may make poor witnesses mainly because of 4), but I would guess that 1) is also a problem; younger children, in particular, may not comprehend the events they witness in quite the same way as (we would hope) most adults do.

    A victim of a crime (a subjective witness) may also not be a very good witness. Firstly, their understanding (1) of an event may be affected by being at the centre of it – consider my mugging example, above. How the memory (2) is affected by being the subject of an attack must be debatable. One might make the case that there is a positive affect here: we have ’strong’ memories of events that are important to us, but of course what we remember is affected by 1). In the case of 3) above, we have a subjective witness who cannot, strictly speaking, be unbiased.

    Now in an ideal world, we might also hope that our witness was a mature, responsible, sober-minded individual. We might imagine that such a person would have the presence of mind to promptly record what they had witnessed (think of writing down a car registration) – preferably with a statement to the authorities. But if we ignore those further desirable qualities, and just focus on the four ‘qualifications’ above, we have serious problems with witnesses to ‘historical child sexual abuse’ in general. The witnesses are almost always about as close to the definition of ‘unreliable’ as it it possible to get. Their perception of events must be shaped by being at the centre of the events they describe. Their comprehension of events cannot have been that of an adult. However clear their memory of events soon afterwards, a delay of years or decades in reporting must surely call into question the clarity of their recollections. They are, by definition, not unbiased, even before we consider other factors, like seeking compensation. We are essentially left with only one ‘quality’ – the ability to tell a good story. One raconteur does not good evidence make.

    If I’m anywhere near the right ballpark with this (and I’m very happy to be corrected), there must be a serious question as to whether ‘historical child sexual abuse’ cases can ever stand up. There may be cases where credible witnesses can be found, but these may be few and far between. There may be cases where forensic evidence can come in. There may also be cases where the perpetrator incriminates himself with, say, a diary or photographs. In the case (or non-case) of Savile, if there were one or two credible witnesses, whose stories stood up to robust examination, I’d be willing to accept that others may also be true and, indeed, supported the main allegations. But when allegation after allegation is no more solid than Dee’s, I’m unwilling to accept that volume is relevant. A mountain of shit is still just shit from top to bottom.

    1. The volume is not relevant. Carlos Cruz was convicted on a concept made up for the Casa Pia case 'a resonancia da verdade' (resonance of truth), which seems to mean 'they can't all be wrong'. And isn't that the essence of a witch hunt? People believe the most far-fetched things because everyone else seems to as well.

      As for memory, I am reading a book by German-Canadian criminologist Julia Shaw, who apparently conducted an experiment that convinced 60% of her subjects that they remembered committing a crime that her team made up. (I haven't got that far yet and am still wading reluctantly through a load of research and neuroscience.)

    2. In the internet age, the thesis that allegations of 'similar fact' are more likely to be true if there are lots and lots of them doesn't look too good right now. Some (e.g., the late Richard Webster) would say it always had dubious validity.

    3. Sean, I like the sound of that experiment. Do tell us if you think it's true !!

    4. Sean, 'resonance of truth' has a truly terrifying resonance to it...a sort of post-truth resonance, if you'll forgive the expression. I've read about Julia Shaw's work and will be very interested to hear what you make of it.

      tdf, I think there's a big difference between the admission of proven facts that are strikingly similar, and the use of vaguely similar allegations. The latter was dangerous even before the internet had reached so deeply into our lives; now it appears lethal.

      For anyone not familiar with the late Richard Webster's work, this Richard Webster’s memorandum to the Home Affairs Committe covers developments in the admissibility of similar fact evidence.

    5. English law uses "corroboration by volume". It's the same principle and what led to the Trawling campaigns. These were sort of outlawed because of the intellectual misgivings but the direct trawling the police used to do themselves has merely been outsourced to the internet via forums and then if it goes mainstream, via the mass media. Operation Yewtree is nothing if it is not the biggest ever Trawl. Of Jimmy's sixty million friends, it's not that surprising that two or three hundred wanted to give themselves a voice.

    6. Rabbit and Moor...this article is basically rubbish as regards the references to Jimmy Savile, right?

    7. "In 2008, police unearthed the remains of at least 10 children, ages 6 to 12 years old, under a shuttered residential care home, on the island of Jersey"

      Does the opening line not suggest that the whole article's rubbish, tdf?

    8. Looking forward to the next piece from Leah McGrath Goodman:

      "Mensa monster Savile revealed as evil genius behind crypto-currency..."

      And here's some
      more rubbish from the Jersey Inquiry:

      "Madam Chair, you may remember that at the time it was suggested that Jimmy Savile had been to the Island there were strong denials by Jimmy Savile that he had ever been on the Island. This is a document, if you need confirmation of the fact that he had been to the Island..."

      From Mr Sadd (!). Invent a denial that was never made & then prove it to be false with a 'document' - bingo! Guilty!!!

      Thank God we've got the BBC to pick up on these mistakes & correct 'em. Oh, hang on...

      "Patrick Sadd, counsel to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI), said Savile had previously denied being in Jersey in the 1970s."

      And lo, another factoid is born!

      If TDF holds his nose & goes a-delving he will of course 'discover' that "Ms Coles was a resident at the now infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home on Jersey."

      I'd always put this down to slack journalism, though who knows if it wasn't quite deliberate? Sowing seeds...

      The ocean is calling. Ta-ra!

    9. "I'd always put this down to slack journalism, though who knows if it wasn't quite deliberate? Sowing seeds..."

      McGrath-Goodman's latest effort is so hyperbolic, so over-the-top, so downright inaccurate that I am beginning to wonder!

      From the article:

      "In 2008, police unearthed the remains of at least 10 children, ages 6 to 12 years old, under a shuttered residential care home, on the island of Jersey—a territory of the British Crown, off the coast of France."

      Nobody, not even Lenny Harper, has ever made such an assertion before. Indeed, Harper acknowledged before his retirement that there was insufficient evidence to pursue any homicide investigation.

      "Those accused include British disc jockey Jimmy Savile and, more recently, former U.K. Prime Minister Ted Heath. Both men, now deceased, were fond of traveling to Jersey and inviting orphaned children on sailboat rides. A few of the island’s residents who witnessed these rides have reported some of the children never returned."

      We know that JS was interested in jogging, cycling and mountaineering, I have never seen any evidence that he had any particular interest in sailing. One complaint was regarding Jersey while Savile was still alive. However, according to Harper, there was insufficient evidence to pursue it. No complaints were ever made against Heath in Jersey during his lifetime, or even during the HDLG investigations during 2006-2009 (at which point Heath was dead).

      These are just the most obvious and glaring errors in the article. There may be others.

      @Bandini "The ocean is calling. Ta-ra!"

      Don't be throwing any little kiddies overboard, you reprobate! :)


      ^ The claims made in this article regarding Coles conflict with other claims she has made that she was abused by Savile on Jersey, because in the other claims she indicated that she was on holidays with her mother. No mention of being a resident in HDLG.

      Either the Telegraph journalist has misquoted her or she's been telling porkies.

    11. ^ I'd have to accept and acknowledge, that's significant. It's not a simple error to do with misremembering precise dates/times, it's a very significant inconsistency, equivalent to an 'error of fact' in the legal sense, if Savile was on trial.

    12. Rabbit, I believe Shaw's account about her experiment in implanting false memories. I think it is a 70% not 60% success rate. She used student volunteers and found out personal information from friends and families, which she used to convince her volunteers that they had done or experienced things that never happened. As she says, she is not the first to do this but fair play to her anyway.

      Shaw is aware of the implications of this in criminal investigations and she in fact devotes a whole chapter to it ("Tooky Pulled My Pants Down"). She is even aware of Richard Webster and refers to his book debunking Freud.

      So it is all good really. Yet she seems to miss the essential nature of what is happening (or at least as I understand it). I think, for example, she says that, of course, most allegations about sexual abuse are true, and her observations relate to unreliable memories rather than mad delusions, mass delusions, a tsunami of deceit and our alarming world of mass fantasies. (That's *my* view, at least!)

      For example, I was astonished by Trump's recent missile attack on Syria, which earned him praise from the hitherto critical Irish press. You can't explain irrational behaviour rationally.

    13. "For example, I was astonished by Trump's recent missile attack on Syria, which earned him praise from the hitherto critical Irish press. You can't explain irrational behaviour rationally."

      Not just from the Irish press. In fact, the contortions of the Democratic media commentariat and blogopshere in general were hilarious to behold. Initially, they grudgingly approved of the attack. Then, when it became clear that Trump had forewarned Russia (in the full knowledge that the forewarning would be passed onto Russia's Syrian allies), they reverted to 'Trump is a Putin puppet!!' mode - so they found themselves in the rather odd ethical position of disapproving of because it didn't kill enough people!

    14. Sean - must be Julia Shaw 'the memory illusion' you are reading. Must check it out. Thank you for that !

    15. Rabbitaway

      I wouldn't recommend buying it, as I did, unless you are interested in "the research" in the field of memory. I skipped a lot of it because I am more interested in the bizarre human behaviour that now passes for normal and which "the research" doesn't seem to have noticed, although she does discuss the famous Solomon Asch experiment on peer pressure.

      You can probably get a good summary for free on YouTube. I came across her on a German video but I noticed English language ones in passing. Opinion there is split between those smitten by her beauty and those who dismiss her for the same reason.

  10. ^ Well, yes, pretty much!

  11. Throw her in jail and swallow the key right in front of her, yuck.

  12. tdf, and anyone else who's interested - below are proven media/police lies but they won't believe us or just downright refuse to acknowledge the truth.........are you sitting comfortably?

    20 assaulted in his Glencoe home - false and confirmed by Yewtree

    He chose his final resting place opposite a school - bollocks, because I said so

    Never been to Jersey? - went most years with his Mum, he never denied it

    Was never a Bevin Boy (according to Dan Davies) - registration papers available

    Thrown off Cruise ship for salacious behaviour - lies, confirmed by Cunard and P&O

    Children underwear left on his grave by the public - gardeners at the cemetery saw a journalist put them there then take a photo

    Journalists paid to have the graffiti sprayed in his Glencoe home

    Didn't stay with him Mum after she died - because I say so

    There are so many PROVEN fraudulent claims - because I say so

    The scrutinisers ate not allowed to report the frauds to the Police

    The Police DID take his diaries and only took it seriously when a journo got involved - 20 years worth are missing - because I said so


    I could go on, and on, and on.

    1. Anonymous, if you're in the mood to vent, please do. The more of these the better. This is one of the best:

      "Thrown off Cruise ship for salacious behaviour - lies, confirmed by Cunard and P&O"

      But I've no objection to, "bollocks - because I said so"

      Where you're free to report, please let rip.

  13. "Journalists paid to have the graffiti sprayed in his Glencoe home"

    Can this be validated? The graffiti doesn't prove anything of course, as it was placed there after the claims started being made in the media, but it would prove something about the media's lack of integrity.

    1. "Didn't stay with him Mum after she died - because I say so"

      He said he did himself! In the original Louis Theroux programme. But in any case, there's nothing illegal about this behaviour, it's just a bit odd.

    2. tdf, I’m afraid, despite a good chunk of When Louis Met Jimmy being devoted to the Duchess, there doesn’t appear to be any mention of his spending time with her after she died.

      The Lynn Barber interview in the Independent, refers to Joan Bakewell's 1974 interview. (Did either Moor or Rabbit track down the original? I'm not sure that one journalist quoting another journalist quoting JS is quite what we're looking for.)

      ‘He once told Joan Bakewell: “We were together all her life and there was nothing we couldn’t do. I got an audience with the Pope. Everything. But then, I was sharing her. When she died she was all mine. The best five days of my life were spent with the Duchess when she was dead. She looked marvellous. She belonged to me. It’s wonderful, is death.”

      ‘(Incidentally, he has an enthusiasm for dead bodies in general, which can be quite unnerving. The first time I ever met him, eight years ago, he raved on about all the bodies that came his way in the mortuary at Leeds Infirmary and how he wished he could take the healthy eyes from one and the good bones from another to repair his living patients at Stoke Mandeville. He sounded like Dr Frankenstein.)'

      Reading that second paragraph now, it suddenly hits home...'take the healthy eyes from one'. "If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."

      Anthony Clare, In the Psychiatrist’s Chair (courtesy of Moor Larkin) touches on the subject.

      On his mother dying:
      ‘she happened to be at one of my sister’s house for the weekend…

      ‘Clare: There was an interesting reference to you and the death of your mother I saw somewhere. You said the five days you spent with her after she was dead were the happiest days of your life. That may have been a misquote, I don’t know.

      ‘Savile: Well, yes, yes, words are clumsy things, as you well know.’

      It's worth reading the rest of that page. But it's not going to provide quite what you're looking for.

    3. Misa - the Lyn Barber interview was published in full in a book called 'Great Interviews of our time' There were two anthologies published. Jimmy's is in book one. I have this somewhere, packed away in boxes. IF I can find it I will publish. Or u can buy it yourself on Amazon

    4. Thanks, Rabbit. Lynn Barber's interview appears to be published in full at the link I gave, but she quote's Joan Bakewell's interview from 1974 which is where the apparently 'incriminatory' lines come from. Of course, even if quoted accurately, they mean little...unless you have a filthy mind.

      That seems to be the problem - filthy-minded fuckwittery seems to be accepted as the proof, or troof.

    5. Sorry, Misa I shudda known you'd have already been aware of that book. Mmmm, Joan Bakewell - maybe have a burrow. Moor might know more !!

    6. I'd just a feeling we'd discussed this before, but I can't find it. Moor may have some ideas.

      Don't you think the line about taking eyes out of corpses is a great one?

    7. all I recall about Bakewell is

      1) she was shagging Harold Pinter for years on the QT

      1a) she was generally known as, "the thinking man's crumpet"

      2) she thinks modern women have too much sex

      3) she said Jimmy made a pass at her once, so presumably that was when they did the interview. Presumably she din't complain because

      1) she was flattered
      2) she was a grown woman and as such, men often made passes at her, unlike nowadays when she is an old Dame.

    8. @misa

      You are correct. It appears I have fallen victim to false memory syndrome. Could have sworn the 'Savile spent 5 days with his mum's dead body' story came from the Theroux documentary.

    9. tdf, funny thing is I really thought there was some mention in there of something similar. I had to go and check. My memory plays tricks too.

  14. No he bloody well didn't tdf - do you make things up to antagonise? He never said it because she died at his sisters house then the wake was at another sisters house - if you are going to comment, get your facts for "just a bit odd" It's that kind of comment that has lead to people believing ridiculous stories about him - I don't need to prove Glencoe, believe me or don't - your choice.

  15. Poor Steven George who is having nightmares over his treatment by police when they nabbed her for arson must have been arrested by a Time Traveling cop brandishing a taser not yet invented at the time.

    1. So when was George supposed to have been tasered? Modern electric tasers were introduced in the US in 1994, but the British police didn't get them until 2003, and weren't allowed to use them against unarmed suspects until 2008.
      Did she ever claim to have been tasered in real life, or was she careful to say that it only happened "in nightmares"?

  16. In any case, for someone that is a great researcher and reads this forum.

  17. Misa, that quote is hilarious:

    "The first time I ever met him, eight years ago, he raved on about all the bodies that came his way in the mortuary at Leeds Infirmary and how he wished he could take the healthy eyes from one and the good bones from another to repair his living patients at Stoke Mandeville. He sounded like Dr Frankenstein."

    Er, sounds more like someone who recognized the benefits of organ donorship! Is Barber a bloody witness of Jehovah or summat?!?

    I assume the Bakewell interview came from this tv programme; no sign of it on YouTube though there is an unconnected video from earlier (1970, nothing to do with Savile) "made available for use by the MLJ Trust by the king permission of Dame Joan Bakewell" so wouldn't be surprised if it still exists.

    1. (Ignore the above re the 1970 programme. I got hold of the wrong end of the stick.)

    2. Good 'eavens, Bandini. Never mind the 1970 thing, just finding the 1974 programme is splendid surfing. All this time by the ocean is doing you no harm.

      Now I wonder whether anyone might know anyone who can find such a programme, if it still exists? Is Chris Retro about?

      If these 'quotes' come from an interview for TV, I wonder whether Ms Barber was working from memory, or working from Joan Bakewell's memory, or there was a transcript, or...well, even if the programme was recorded, it wouldn't have been a strightforward thing to just pop into the Beeb and ask to see it as background for an upcoming interview in 1990, would it?

      There's a further 'quotation' here, attributed to the interview with Bakewell, which sounds unlikely to have been broadcast.

    3. Whilst I'm stinking up this thread, I hope Rabbit will forgive me adding this about Bandini's TV series:

      There have been several different programmes with the name ‘What’s It All About?” according to BBC Genome (see below).

      The one involving Jimmy Savile and Joan Bakewell, appears to have begun life as a Christmas special, with Jim, but without Joan. It was broadcast on Christmas Eve 1972:

      31 Dec 1972
      Christmas! What's It All About?
      A Quiz for Christmas Eve in which you are invited to compete against:
      Jimmy Savile OBE , Tania Mallett, The Rev David Martin
      Questionmaster Brian Redhead with an audience of schoolchildren
      Director ROBERT TONER Producer CECIL KORER

      Then from 30 December 1973 began a series which ran every Sunday evening at 6.50pm (35mins) until 7 April 1974.

      30 Dec 1973
      What's It All About?
      What do you know about Religion? Not just the Bible and Christianity, but Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, the Jewish faith?
      Teams from schools all over the country compete against each other helped by this week's guests:
      Liz Fraser, Jimmy Savile , OBE
      In the chair Joan Bakewell
      Director ROBERT TONER
      Associate producer CLEM VALLANCE
      Executive producer CECIL KORER

      Jimmy Savile appeared as one of two guests on each of the first four programmes. The other guest was Liz Frazer or Marjorie Proops (alternating). Joan Bakewell chaired all four shows. Guests in later shows (not featuring JS) were: John Bluthal & Joe Lynch, Ester Rantzen & Peter Maloney, Una Stubbs & Lance Percival, Stacey Doming & John Junkin, Alex Dolphin & Alastair Pirrie, Cind Kent & Peter Maloney. The last few shows were chaired by Michael Flanders.

      There was a further series in March and April 1975, with guests Dana & Peter Moloney, chaired again by Joan Bakewell, produced by Robert Toner.

      So, this was a schools quiz show on the theme of religion(s). It may well have offered the chance for the guests to expound, and perhaps could have featured some interrogation by the chair, but it doesn’t appear to be an interview programme. Presumably, over the course of four shows, JS would have had time to offer a number of ‘pearls of wisdom’, and would have had chance to get to know the chairwoman at more than one session in the studio.

      It’s my impression that Joan Bakewell was primarily a TV person during this period. Does anyone know of her having a newspaper column, or even doing TV interviews, which might have featured JS?

      BBC Shows called ‘What’s at all About?’
      A panel game on the Light Programme in 1954
      A panel show on BBC TV in 1960
      *A religious quiz show for schools, on BBC2, in 1972 to 1975
      A panel show on Radio 4 in 1976
      A Cilla Black retrospective on Radio 2, in 2003

    4. In 1974 Jimmy was being touted to appear in a show called "In My Opinion", which was to be recorded in front of school audiences around the country. Much of this no doubt relates back to Jimmy doing Speakeasy with the BBC vicars.

      So far as Joanie is concerned, she seems to have been knee-deep in savilisation.

      "‘These men, people like Jimmy Savile, were treated like rock stars,’ Joan Bakewell said when I asked her about him. ‘And sexually many of those men lived in a self-contained culture.’ Bakewell was working as a studio manager in those days and she saw how available and how willing many of the young people were. ‘People were at the top of their form and many were jubilantly having affairs,’ she says. ‘The homosexual element was murkier. You just didn’t hear about it. We’d drink in the George, round the corner from Broadcasting House. Sensuality lay in drink – those men with red faces... "

    5. ""The first time I ever met him, eight years ago, he raved on about all the bodies that came his way in the mortuary at Leeds Infirmary and how he wished he could take the healthy eyes from one and the good bones from another to repair his living patients at Stoke Mandeville. He sounded like Dr Frankenstein."

      Er, sounds more like someone who recognized the benefits of organ donorship! Is Barber a bloody witness of Jehovah or summat?!?"

      I wonder if this quote was the origin of the 'Savile took glass eyes from corpses and made a necklace out of them' tale?

      It's funny how these tales gain currency and become more lurid after each re-telling over the passing decades, like a rolling stone gathers moss.

    6. Quite, tdf. I do suspect that all these things feed into the cultural memory and, assuming it wasn't a case of some hack going through every old article and finding stuff they could twist to incriminate him (something I'm no longer willing to rule out), they at least leave little impressions which come to mean something at a later date.

      'Feared in every girls school in the land,' obviously tied perfectly with the Duncroft claims. Jokes about being a mafioso feed into claims about his behaviour in his nightclub days. And on, and on, and on.

      We seem to have become a feeble-mined society in which kids who spent their days reading Viz magaine, instead of listening in class, now rule the roost, and our press, police, and even lawyers and judges reason at the same level as Finbarr Saunders. Fnarr fnarr.

      If you watched the whole of the link Bandini provided at the top of this thread (content seems to have been removed now), you might have noticed that Crimewatch didn't use the word arsonist to describe someone who had deliberately set fire to property, oh no! Presumably that's too difficult/legalistic/uncool. No, they had to use the expression 'Firestarter', ain't that cool, Keef?

      Heaven help us.

    7. Misa - re the Crimewatch vid now unavailable on Bandini's link. Here's link to the iplayer !! Just make sure u confirm ur over 15 and take parental child locks off etc etc. Give me fucking strength !!

    8. Now then, now then, now then! Let´s not sink into paranoia & wonder what led a long-standing (I think) YouTube account to be wiped - coincidences DO happen!

      Instead let's heed Vine's wise words ("It's time to fight back!") and include a new link to another old account & see it this upload fares any better, though video downloaders are available 'just in case'!

      BBC drama 'Crimewatch' - get it while it's hot!

    9. Thanks Bandini - BBC iplayer links are unfortunately no good to those of us who live outside the UK (except for those clever enough to fake IP addresses, which I'm not).

    10. Now then now then! Which of you wits (aside from myself) has been commenting on a certain 'offshore' blog of late? :)


    12. No takers, so far, for my post on the offshore blog - either from the blog owner, the former minister, or the Irish retired civil servant/historian with strong views about allegations of CSA in Jersey (but, oddly, remarkably little to say about CSA in his own country.)

      Given that the Heath bullshit is back in the media, I've been sniffing around Ian Pace's blog and revisited a thread that Mr Pace put up shortly after the press conference of the falsely accused former MP Harvey Proctor.

      Looking through the comments, I was embarassed to see that I'd been very rude to Bandini for no good reason - so, for what it's worth, apologies to Bandini for that.

    13. Apology accepted & appreciated, TDF. Water under the bridge and all that... onwards!

    14. ^ Cheers, Bandini.

      Do you mind if I ask you a question....I'm trying to get my own thoughts together in my own mind, your view, was the PMQ of the current deputy head of the Labour Party badly worded, or deliberately cynical?

  18. Our favourite fantasist, liar & chronic attention seeker is celebrating another milestone in her made-up life: the acquisition of her Senior Railcard (for the over 60s). It's the age of the train!