Currently a BBC Television presenter is on trial. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged by the police and he isn't as yet, (as I'm typing) suspected of any specific crime. Why would he be no one has filed a police report. But, on trial he has been - all week. He hasn't been named by the press, or the BBC, so naturally, no one can know who he (who was on telly last night but isn't on tonight), is. No one who hasn't been on Twitter for the past week that is. So whether the claims - first published in the sun 'newspaper', be true or not, his life will never be the same again and I for one am angry.
Because it's not the first time these rats have decided to ruin a man's life is it, and for what ? What possible motive could the sun have for attacking someone employed by the BBC ? What ?
This article is really worth a read folks. The prosecution covered their bases with aplomb ! Peter Wright Q.C was having none of their : but it was in the public interest bullshit. No, this was about one thing and one thing only : greed !
And there they were those six 'journalists', in the dock where they belonged because this wasn't something that went on for a few months or even a few years. They were at it for at least TEN YEARS, and they only stopped in 2011 !
Shocking isn't it ? No wonder their victims including Prince Harry (well done Sir !) still hate them.
And what happened ? The Jury couldn't agree in January 2015 so a retrial was heard later that year, for four of them, including Jamie Pyatt.
And so they were. And at least one journalist was live tweeting the trial, so here's where my trip down sun-seeking memory lane began again. Because during that retrial Jamie Pyatt came out with some very interesting claims. Claims that, as far as I'm concerned don't stand up to much scrutiny. I said so at the time but next to nobody seemed to care about inconsistencies back then. Even when those inconsistencies were being coming from someone speaking on oath, in a court of law.
In what was clearly an effort to portray himself in the best light possible - remember the last Jury weren't convinced either way in January, Pyatt came out with the astonishing claim that, had it not been for Surrey Police, he could and WOULD have exposed Sir Jimmy Savile. He had his witnesses, the story was all but writ, but the Police would NOT confirm the existence of a Police Investigation of the same.
Martin Hickman was live tweeted from court :
Now read what he says during cross examination on the 6th.
Spot the anomaly anyone ?
He was access to a serving Police officer or officers in 2004 or 2012 but he couldn't get information about Jimmy Savile in 2008/9 whatever ? Yes, I checked up when this Imiela horror was on trial !
And, to top it off there's press reporting of Pyatt's October 2nd 2015 revelation.
And, here's the best bit ! Surrey Police he says, interviewed Jimmy Savile in 2007 and 2009. They did not !
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police
He's full of it, isn't he ?
And he's not alone.
Right, I need a cup of tea. I have more to tell so do keep 'em peeled folks !
Well done, Rabbit. They're full of it, indeed!
ReplyDelete