tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026409546307773708.post8260461128160347671..comments2024-03-13T21:05:01.752+00:00Comments on Justice For Jimmy Savile: "There is clearly, insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence" Part 4Rabbitawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07481932585279733096noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026409546307773708.post-6004981284591574512014-01-11T11:15:58.408+00:002014-01-11T11:15:58.408+00:00Why did the Police acquiesce so quickly and so eas...Why did the Police acquiesce so quickly and so easily ? Simples, Sir Jimmy's death and the subsequent media interest sparked by Meirion Jones et al, gave Police chiefs etc the golden egg of a scapegoat - Have a look at my post Puppets on a string - it's all there !!<br />http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-puppets-on-string.htmlRabbitawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07481932585279733096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026409546307773708.post-13729131341494498872014-01-11T10:21:14.244+00:002014-01-11T10:21:14.244+00:00Commented earlier this am on Moor's Jan 13 pos...Commented earlier this am on Moor's Jan 13 post: still trying to get my head round the details. One point that bothers me greatly is the role of the police in all this: I raised it with Moor, also. In my view, the current attempts to blackmail public bodies into out of court settlements based on allegations of historical abuse by deceased individuals would have less chance of succeeding if the police investigating did not seem to automatically support them. However, as regards Savile, the police did investigate him while he was alive and decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed.<br /><br />So why not simply say that? Are they genuinely scared that they will be accused of not trawling widely enough in their investigation? Meaning, that they handled the allegations they knew about in the correct manner but and came to the correct conclusion, but didn't go out beating the bushes for allegations they didn't know about which might have been more substantive? We truly are in the realms of Donald Rumsfeld's "known knowns and known unknowns and unknown knowns and unknown unknowns" if that is so. The police cannot be expected to actively solicit allegations against someone unless they have very good grounds for suspecting that person is guilty of a crime, and if they don't have such grounds having investigated the specific allegations against him/her, to keep digging in the hopes of finding something, anything, constitutes harassment.<br /><br />So why don't the police just make that clear? God knows they've stuck to their guns in cases where they really were incompetent/corrupt/malicious and continued to deny it right up to the point where the courts/Parliament ruled that they were. And sometimes after (!). So what makes this case different? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10414331811283042896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026409546307773708.post-69924880065140897432013-10-27T12:30:19.543+00:002013-10-27T12:30:19.543+00:00Funnily enough, I was going to add that Peter Watt...Funnily enough, I was going to add that Peter Watt para from your blog into my post !! You said everything I have back then in April, but now we have the benefit of the transcripts of Jimmy's interview - 'policy' indeed - the bloody cheek of these people !Rabbitawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07481932585279733096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026409546307773708.post-90565233740256687802013-10-27T12:06:10.292+00:002013-10-27T12:06:10.292+00:00ACPO arse-covering? Interesting points. I must adm...ACPO arse-covering? Interesting points. I must admit that I had given them the benefit of the doubt and thought it just that they were maybe victims of their own political correctness.<br /><br />"Most people seem to believe that the process of the stories about Jimmy Savile breaking into the mainstream press is a tale of brave Investigative Journalists battling against the oppressive barriers of the BBC. But it turns out that this is not really the case. Not only was the process of revealing Savile to be a paedophile nothing of the sort, it was actually a Conspiracy!!<br /><br />It's okay - no need for Tin hats, it was a good Conspiracy.<br /><br />I don't need to make the case for this, the partners in this are quite happy to tell you all about it themselves."<br />http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/is-that-tin-hat.htmlMoor Larkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05275057917684784541noreply@blogger.com