Pendulums a swinging - but not far enough !

There appears to be, in some quarters at least, a semi revolt against the - getting thinner by the minute, thin blue line, that all victims must be believed. I've deliberately left on the inverted commas I usually include around the word 'victims'. Call it a semi-protest of my own, if you will, as a respsonse to this little beauty of a headline in the telegraph rag.

I somehow managed to miss this when it was published a month ago. I've been busy with other things. But, my word, if one article could accurately sum up why so many became convinced of Savile's guilt, this is it ! It was the numbers that did for Jim. That and the fact that the media peddled the idea in the first place, and the police followed through ! 

 Here's the telegraph thing for those that want to read it. Alleged victims indeed ! No such words were used by many, when it was Jimmy's good name being destroyed. After all, that's where the you will be believed narrative caught on. Around the same time the then DPP, now politician Starmer was apologising for his crew NOT believing 'Susie' and the other helpless youngsters being used by creeps in Rochdale. 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-puppets-on-string.html

And now, irony of ironies - that just last night, the same BBC news show that spawned Savile, presented this mini-debate. Has the pendulum swung too far ? 

 The clip on twitter from where I sourced this, begins 

we're all aware of the missed opportunity with Jimmy Savile  to which Proctor (bless him) interjects 
It's the pendulum swung too far, and it's still too far

The eschelons of the police have not followed the independent advice of Sir Richard Henriques with regards to calling complainants, not victims and survivors. And making sure that the allegations are fully investigated. 

I have nothing but respect for Mr Proctor. He didn't just lie down when he was accused. He fought back, and eventually his voice was heard. The upper eschelon of the media agreed. Especially when the statistics basically spoke for themselves 

One could have almost felt sorry for that one dissenting voice on the - the pendulum's swung too far, show, almost ! Ms Shaw is not best pleased with a former DPP's admonishment of the police operation either.

 It was all happening yesterday as Witless Wilting Wiltshire police attempted to justify their expensive, resource draining investigation into Heath

 You can't read Fiona Hamilton's article unless you pay or register for 2 free articles a week. But you can read her twitter reportage of the event here  

https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edward-heath-wiltshire-police-defend-two-year-project-costing-1-5m-as-proportionate-vchsgrvrl 

So, what are we to make of all this ? Is there any chance that the same dissenting voices will ever be raised, and, more importantly, given a platform so that enough people know of our existence ? The short answer of course is NO ! Because, as my fellow blogger and pal Moor Larking keeps repeating, without Savile, they have nothing. Forget Operation conifer, midland, etc etc etc. If the Savile scam was ever revealed, they's be ... well there's only one word for it so forgive me folks - FUCKED ! 

Fear not pals, we may not have friends in high places, but we have real ones. I'll take real friends any day ! 

Onwards ! 

Addendum 

Ooops forgot to link the Newsnight episode - via BBCiplayer 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0978t5p/newsnight-05102017 

They can't all be wrong (lying)

Goodness Gracious - thanks to one of our lot for bringing this wee gem to my attention ! Get watching folks, at least the first seven minutes 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLWetY9_VHg&t=7s 

For the last two years he's spent his life going through case by case, accusation by accusation ...resulted in Rolf being free two and a half years early.

My oh my, we knew Rolf had hired investigators, but to hear just how easy it was for them to get MOST of the claims chucked out, well now, this is interesting ! Mr M had worked on the DLT claims before he started on Rolf's, and had noticed 'similarities'. He decided that they warranted full investigation something the police hadn't bothered to do. In fact, they hadn't even covered first base !


'The first thing you'd do as a detective is check the credibility of your witnesses' The Met hadn't bothered with the most ' basic checks to see if they might be telling the truth'  and not just complainants, but the 'witnesses' whose stories they used to add weight to the claims. A 'number' of people whose stories sounded similar, they weren't witnesses as you and I would understand the term, but the ballast in the empty CPS cargo holds, keeping their Yewtree ship afloat - until it sank, by which time the rats who manufactured and carried the 'witch-hunt' virus were long gone. 

Thanks Mr M but some of us were onto this game a years before you were hired, your input is still useful though, at least you're there on you tube chatting away to a radio presenter who just happened to record one of, if not the LAST ever interview with Sir Jimmy Savile ! I've long since giving up hoping that just one of these former Savile admirer's would see past their next pay-packet and notice what's right there in front of their own faces. If only Mr Merritt would do some pro-bono work on the Savile claims. If only Alex Belfield would ask the same questions for him ! 

 Savile's 'last interview' in 2011, became his 'last confession' just a year later. Sir Jimmy - the gift that just kept giving - here's the full version, not just that bit where he says 

'I was lucky insofar as I got away with it' Jimmy really should have had his Miranda rights read to him before any of these interviews ! LOL (just an aside folks) 

Anyways, the idea was to go through the whole Merritt thing picking out all the bits about Rolf that could just as easily apply to Savile, but you already all that don't you ? However, I will pick up on one VERY important point and thank both Mr M and Mr B for the following Q and A.

B - Why someone would make make an accusation that isn't true - that can easily be proven to be not true, that's what we can't understand. Why would they ? 

M - They did not realise that this was going to go before a criminal court - they thought all they had to do was come forward 

Not quite sure what M means when he says that hundreds came forward but the police ? just picked a number, presumably he means to try in court whilst the others provided the corroboration by number.

'and that's the tactic they used .. they cannot all be wrong (read lying). All they had to do was come forward and they'd get a payment or whatever else they were looking for. It wasn't just  money involved' 

Apologies if I misquoted any of that, I've done my nearly best for you guys and I'm tired now. So you have a watch and see what you think of this. By way of Rabbit warning though I will warn all the Evil Ones reading this, that the inevitable occurs at about 6.56 mins in. Because, all is apparently a lot better now justice-wise - the courts have sharpened their act, the police no longer need convictions so much that they work hand in hand with no-win-nowt-for-you-but-thousands-for us lousy firms. Everything is OK now because they no longer need 

To Make up for what had they missed out with Savile 

Onwards ! 

  
Anyone know if Osborne Clark solicitors use Private Investigators ? They didn't want me .... for free ! Thank God more and more folk are opening their eyes, read between the lines of what M and B are saying. Surely they are not thickos are they ? 

 









 


 






 

My Dad knew Jimmy Savile - but I didn't !

A great big thanks to Bandini who provided the link to this gem. ! George Carman's son, didn't know Jimmy Savile, neither did Jeremy Paxman. Nevertheless, the media wanted their take on his crimes. Anyone, worth talking to, that is, the folk who knew Savile best, either ignored or too frightened to continue their brave defence of their mate, forced into silence or a reluctant, public (but not private) acceptance of the narrative.

Now, I've seen this before, there aren't many articles I didn't read at the time. Especially, any that held out some hope that someone, anyone would have anything good to say about the dead guy in October 2012. Unfortunately, Jacobson's taxi-driver dad was presumably no longer around, so the reader had to settle for his son's opinions.

You see Jacobson's dad was a kind soul, by the sounds of it.  Taking disabled kids on trips, encouraging others to do the same. Not everyone is good at charity - not Jacobson, which, to be fair he freely admits

No, apparently his dad was completely unaware of Savile's hidden proclivities . After all, taxi drivers never speak to anyone in their cabs, especially in a big Northern City like Manchester ! They never hear any gossip, and if they did, and it involved the abuse of children, they'd still happily allow the accused to associate with them, take the kids on trips. Are you with me ?

 Jacobson does make one good point, yet fails to take it to it's logical conclusion. Why didn't the papers expose Savile if they knew ? 

 Indeed ! 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/my-father-knew-jimmy-savile-see-the-good-in-him-he-told-me-that-was-the-mistake-we-all-made-8209640.html 

Here's the man himself taking part another annual taxi-drivers  jaunt. (Black cab drivers being even less likely to talk to anyone in their cabs LOL) Note this one is dated August 1978. The Queen's jubilee was in 1977 but hey ho ! Are these the same glasses Jimmy is wearing in that HDLG image ? 

No date given for this one but I daresay you guys will figure it out !  

Jersey faked

Photos can be faked, people who aren't in a chair can be photo-shopped into that chair. We know this - we can see it. But for most of us, we aren't really aware that the image is false until someone proves it. Here's an easy one 

Sorry guys and gals but I'm headed back to Jersey again. Haut de la Garenne to be specific and I'm looking at that photo said to be of Jimmy Savile in the grounds of the home in 1976 or thereabouts ! 

You see, one of the claims made by a hack in October 2012 was that, Sir Jimmy rescinded his denial of ever having visited the home. 

 
The source of this alleged admission ?

Now, folks what's really annoying about the above is that, for the life of me, I cannot find any trace of the source of this admission. I did manage to unearth a few clues such as this published by The Lawyer in March 2008

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/17-march-2008/jimmy-savile-turns-to-fox-hayes-for-action-against-the-sun/ 

But, where is this series of articles ? Naturally, they would have been removed from re-publication once JS threatened to sue. But, where are they now ? Why haven't the press re-released these articles ? Maybe they have and someone will be kind enough to post a link.

In the meantime, here's what Jimmy told the Police himself in 2009. Curiously, Jimmy seems to be unaware of that image of him allegedly on the grounds of the home. The photo he's thinking about involves him and a bunch of local councilors !

I know we've been here many times, but let's take a look at that much publicised photo again. Do you think it's real ? I don't but I can't prove it because I don't have access to the original image. Even the Putin/Trump de-buggers had an original press photo to work. I don't, and neither does the sun, by the looks of it ?

For a start, look how big that kid is on the far right 

Big when you compare him to the older boy/teenager, on Savile's left. And, is that a microphone around Jimmy's neck ? Never noticed that until I enlarged the image. Was he recording a TV program ?

A lot of  alleged victims did a hell of a lot of talking to the Police in 2008 when the Jersey investigation got underway. But, none of them, not ONE of them appear to have implicated Jimmy. How likely is it that these rags would not squeeze one tiny claim out of someone, especially when you KNOW, as we do now, that the same chaps who willingly gave him £200,000 were encouraging Ms A to go Sussex Police with her Savile yarn. 

No mention of  Savile here 

Pamela had apparently been blowing the Jersey whistle since 1974. Yet, still no mention of Jimmy or any other celebrity/vip abuser

 No, it was just the male staff who were implicated. Even when the lawyers were involved, still, not a trace of Savile 

 Many of the more sinister claims - involving buried hman remains etc were de-bunked fairly quickly. Strangely enough, David Rose was right in the thick of it at the time ! 

So, I guess Mr Rose would know if any credible claims had been made about Savile at the time ! My money's on NO ! 

Back to fake photos - always a good idea to look at some examples of those that are NOT fake. One can get mightily sick of dishonesty in print or out of someone's mouth. You can see the difference can't you ? 

People look so much more natural. Their bodies don't appear out of whack 

Another LIE exposed ... well, almost Jim 

 

£20,000,000 and counting

Goodness Gracious - just when you think you've been force-fed enough bullshit about so-called 'child sex abuse' - you read this

'Dark Forces' ? Well, you've said it now Ms Jay. You've officially delved into conspiracy  theorists territory. The least you could do is tell us WHO these dark forces are. Of course, she doesn't, she's too busy bigging up an assignment that has, so far cost the British taxpayer twenty big ones. 

Not so sure about them 'strong vested interests' but certainly, I for one would like to see this so-called 'inquiry implode', indeed, most folk were under the impression that it already had. But no, Ms Jay a woman who no doubt has good intentions, is determined that it will not, and we shall reap the rewards sometime in the 2020's ! 

Now, the prudent, sane among us might celebrate Ms Jay's dogged determination to expose the scale and incidence of the heinous  crime of child sex abuse, if only she didn't exaggerate the numbers so much. Again with the number 14 -

At least 14,000 girls abused - yet just 24 'eventually convicted' - give me a break ! 

And then there's the falsely accused, those rare instances generally involving important folks 

These include the supposed Westminster VIP paedophile ring, where the key witness in a now-aborted police inquiry, known as ‘Nick’, has been discredited – having falsely accused figures such as the late former Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, former Tory MP Harvey Proctor, and Field Marshal Lord Bramall.

Then there's the dodgy compensation claims, dismissed by the very ordinary Professor Jay, as not a real motivation beings as though the 'average' amount to be gained by such dishonesty is a mere £14,000 ! Goodness Gracious, this Jay-bird needs to follow some of the people I follow on twitter. The instances of these rare false claims appears to multiply on an almost daily basis.

I guess £14K is modest to someone whose salary if half of £355,000 - Is this per annum ? 

Well, at least the lawyers and the (some) journalists are happy. The rest of us are none the wiser who them dark forces, vested interests might actually be. Those, oh so powerful folk who want to see this inquiry fail ! The list of suspects is infinite - and at £20,000,000 per year, their exposure better be bloody worth it !