Pages

Tuesday 7 December 2021

Savile : Ten Years Dead, Yet Still ! Part One

 Jimmy Savile has been dead ten years now. He managed to get almost a full year resting-in-peace in his grave, before his legacy was decimated forever in October 2012, after a television programme produced women claiming to have been abused and/or assaulted by him decades before.

This was the programme broadcast on October 3rd 2012. You can watch it in the link provided. It's best you watch it alongside reading my post, that way you can judge its contents for yourself and come to whatever conclusion you do. You've got ten years worth of hindsight supporting you, go for it, listen to Fiona and the others' stories and then maybe leave me a comment. 

But only after you read the rest of my post obviously !

Those who know me have probably heard the tale of how I came to be involved in this. I had no interest at all in Jimmy Savile, I didn't even know he was dead when I, like millions of others watched this programme. But something bugged me as I watched it either the first or second time. And that something was Fiona. I didn't believe her you see. It was her manner, the casual way she described her alleged recollections. And as if by magic, within days my gut was pronounced right - in the Daily Mail of all places. 






https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217352/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Fake-letter-cast-doubt-victims-claims-played-key-role-BBC-decision.html

Ten years down the line, I asked one of the authors about that letter. Unsurprisingly I received no response ! 




I mean - why haven't the public been allowed to see this letter ? What possible reason could they have for this ? 

A few questions I would have asked back then, had I had any reasonable expectation of being taken any notice of, would have been : Why isn't anyone questioning the soundness of any of the other participants in Williams-Thomas' programme ? Remember this man was an ex-police officer who had been involved in the story for almost a year. An ex-Surrey Police officer at that. The same Police Force from whence the alleged latter was supposed to have come from. 

Nobody ! Not one person in the papers or on the television uttered one word of rebuke and if that wasn't bad enough, someone who should have known better, or paid back the salary my TV licence fee contributed to, was publicly apologising for Savile's 'criminal actions'. 'Criminal' ! This just 9 days after the ITV programme. 




https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-apology-inquiries?INTCMP=SRCH


He must have been aware of the letter ? He must have been aware of what some of those alleged 'victims' were up to online ? 

The Daily Mail for all its transgressions, gave us the fake letter story. The rest would have to wait for one of those two official Inquiries, one of which would be worth a years worth of all our licence fees, because it brought us The Pollard Report. The contents of which would lead any sensible person to conclude that something very wrong was and is - at the heart of the Savile story. 

Nine years or so ago, I went looking for an alternative to the drivel being thrown at me on a daily basis online, in the press and on the telly. This is what I found.



And while I had some disagreements with the late 'Anna Raccoon', her blogposts about the Duncroft strand of the Savile story which really began with this one - were a breath of fresh air to folk like me. We were lucky to have had her. How else would we know the other side of The Other Side of the story ? Because, this was published 3 months before The Pollard Report whose contents corroborated the dark deeds being hinted at by the incisive Raccoon. Thanks Anna !






I'm sorry if you have difficulties reading my extracts. I don't know what the problem is with blogger, but here's the link to post anyway so you can read it yourself. 


https://annaraccoon.com/2012/10/24/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/

A few decent journalists have in the last several years followed where a few intrepid bloggers have led, yet for some reason, no serious challenge has been made to ANY of the Savile claims. Let me make one thing crystal clear again. I do not know if Jimmy Savile committed any of the offences attributed to him posthumously, and thanks to ten years of regurgitating the same stories some of which have been totally debunked now, finding any semblance of truth, will feel like a task too herculean to most to even contemplate. 


Most !

Thank God for intrepid bloggers eh ?


This is just Part One !





 




5 comments:

  1. Yes! Thank God indeed...... X

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and for Sally Stevens. I have to say it was her very different approach that affected me the most. Sadly also deceased, but her blogs are still there:
      https://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2014/02/follow-the-money.html

      Delete
    2. Yes Sally Stevens is in there isn't she ? In the Raccoon comments that is. I was to include her in this. She'll be in Part 2.

      Delete
  2. As somebody with a not dissimilar view to yours about all this - I was sceptical from the start - I must say that one comment you make above touches on the central problem:

    [quote]"Why isn't anyone questioning the soundness of any of the other participants in Williams-Thomas' programme?"[unquote]

    In a nutshell: nobody has stopped to question the soundness of the evidence against Jimmy Savile. Across all media, whenever I watch or listen to something about this whole affair, it is almost-always assumed, usually a priori, that the complainants are victims telling the truth.

    The importance of the presumption of innocence, if it is mentioned at all, is treated as an aside or after-thought.

    So far as I am aware, the importance of what you mention - evaluating evidence - has never been mentioned outside this blog and a tiny few other corners of the internet.

    I think there are more of us sceptics than the media would have you believe, but there are not enough of us to have an impact. Most people are either quite cowardly or simply not very bright.
    I stress the word 'sceptic'. Personally I would never say that Jimmy Savile was actually factually innocent, as I can't be sure of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that Tom. Nice to know there's more sceptics out there.

      Delete