Operation Ornament Revisited Again.

January 2013 was the month of the Savile Reports. We had Giving Victims A Voice wherein the Met Police and NSPCC decided that Jimmy Savile had committed 214 crimes. We had Det Supt Jon Savell's Report Into Operation Ornament and we had Alison Levitt Q.C's In The Matter  Of  The Late Jimmy Savile. 

All three were published on the same day : 11th January 2013. Alongside these the CPS released this statement.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/

In October 2012 Keir Starmer made a number of announcements per his office's handling of Operation Ornament, a two year Police investigation of claims made against Sir Jimmy Savile (2007-2009). One being that he'd already had the Chief Prosecutor for the South-East (his 'Chief  Legal Advisor'), reviewing the CPS decision making, and concluding that it was correct,, but he was going to ask his 'Principal Legal Advisor' Alison Levitt also look at the case, just in case he'd missed something or 'out of an abundance of caution' as he described it.

Anyone knowing nothing about how criminal prosecutions happen might forgiven for thinking that the fact there'd been an almost three-year investigation of the most famous man in the country, had come as a shock, to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2012, that this had been a revelation to him and the Chief Prosecutor. 

Of course they knew. They may not have had any direct involvement - none that anyone will ever find an evidence of, that is. But they would have been aware of the case. 

But never mind who knew what. What I'd like to know is exactly WHAT was it that Salazar and Levitt had go on in 2012 ? The Files they reviewed apparently didn't exist. Yes really ! Levitt actually had the front to include this startling admission in her report.

Read that last sentence again. She hadn't seen what the reviewing officer had seen, and he couldn't remember what he'd seen, yet she had seen 'more' than he had. 

Yes Alison. Anything you say Alison.

To be continued !

PART TWO 

13th February 2022. 

" A Prosecution Might Have been Possible".

I decided to update this post rather than starting another, because I wanted all the evidence to be in one place and easily accessible. 

In January 2013 Keir Starmer said that he agreed with Alison Levitt whose extraordinary findings included the following.

In short : the police in 2007-9 had not the benefit of her 2012 'objectivity'. There was -  according to her , nothing to suggest (to the investigating officers) that the complainants had colluded in their accounts, nor that they were in any way, inherently less reliable than complainants in other cases. 

Notice their crafty use of words ? They're both careful not to explicitly accuse the officers of 'consciously' misleading the women. 

 

2022 me : 

A work in progress - To be continued

Two serving police officers were referred to the IPCC as a result of the above findings. Guardian 7th November 2013.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/07/jimmy-savile-police-referred-ipcc-abuse

Their supervisors suffered a similar fate. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-29282731.amp

The IPCC published its findings in May 2015. 

In short, the complainant should have been encouraged to pursue her complaint. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/sussex-police-missed-chance-jimmy-savile-ipcc

Thankfully, all four got to keep their jobs. 

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/update-sussex-police-responds-to-jimmy-savile-ipcc-findings-2226686

Time to read Miss A's story yet again. This woman claims that Savile had assaulted her, she had emigrated soon after and on returning to England in 2007 decided to write to the sun about it. In November a reporter showed up and tried to get her to file a police report. She initially refused, but succumbed on the next visit in March 2008 and phoned Sussex Police the same day (3rd March 2008). 

"Had he asked to see them" ? Did you ask him about that Ms Levitt ? Whatever ! Moving on.

"Any more hassle". Hassle as in the possibility that her ex-husband might not corroborate her story ? He was. after all, in the house when she went out in a chaffeur-driven car to meet Jimmy Savile, and he was there when she came back. She even told him what has happened, why wouldn't the police want to speak to him as part of their inquiries ? 

And for this, two police officers were subjected to a lengthy disciplinary process. The fact that they told a complainant what a police investigation involved. Not a prosecution, but a police investigation. The fact that they didn't tell her something they themselves weren't aware of at the time (the other 3, at least two of whom were adamant they would NOT go to court). 

No disciplinary for the Senior Prosecutor, as far as I'm aware.

To be continued !

In January 2013 Levitt and Starmer told the rest of us, that they believed that the 2007/9 Savile complainants might have proceeded with their cases, had the police taken a different approach. The : no corroboration necessary approach to criminal prosecutions. The : Don't worry, you won't be named whatever the outcome. 

'she might' !

Reader, have you ever heard anything so ridiculos as what Levitt a Q.C mind you, told Miss A during their meeting ? There were three people in that room and by far the most clued-up was Miss A. She had to know that in the real world, one had to at least offer some credible evidence in a 2007/9 courtroom. Maybe not so much now, (thanks to the Levitt's and Starmer's etc) but certainly back then. The Police officers were right. Any barrister would make 'mincemeat' of her and anyone else stupid enough to support such nonsense ! 

It's Levitt and Starmer who should face some sort of proceedings. 

NEXT : Surrey ! But in the meantime, you might want to read this. Thank you Moor. Then and now ! 

https://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2013/05/beauty-queens.html?zx=e5bd11345c8a947d

We continue because we must. 

 

 

An Open Letter To The Steve Coogan's Of This World.

 Comedian and actor Steve Coogan is to play the disgraced late TV personality Jimmy Savile in a new BBC One drama.

The Reckoning, a mini-series, will tell the story of the presenter's rise and the sexual abuse scandal that emerged after his death.

The BBC said the team behind the drama had worked closely with those impacted by Savile to ensure their stories were told with "sensitivity and respect".

Coogan said he had not taken the decision to play Savile "lightly".

He said: "To play Jimmy Savile was not a decision I took lightly. Neil McKay has written an intelligent script tackling sensitively an horrific story which - however harrowing - needs to be told."

"An intelligent script" ? Well OK Mr Coogan, your audience will be the judge of that. In the meantime, I have a few things to say to you - and the any other entertainers who might consider playing the late Jimmy Savile in a fictional drama. 

My first piece of advice would be quite simply, DON'T ! Well, not just yet that is ! Wait until someone does the research this sensitive writer obviously has not. I say that because of Coogan's use of the word "horrific". I hardly think that this drama will be a balanced affair, given what I know already. 

Indeed, as I write this, the latest press offering on the subject has an interview of of one 'victim' embedded in itself. I had to watch a bit more in order to ascertain who this woman was. And it's the woman who appeared on Top Of The Pops in 1976 who may or may not have been inappropriately touched by Savile. Was she ? I have no idea ?

Now look ! With the best will in the world - How would this woman's story hold-up in a court of law ? If it got past a decent Police officer's initial inquiries that is ? It wouldn't, I hope ! Certainly not if she'd done a Carl Beech and included a few 'VIP's' in her claim. Apologies reader, I am trying to be as fair and as kind as I can, but that conviction of one of Savile's accusers in a court of law, for me, conclusively demonstrates the dangers of  accepting any accusation of this nature, about anyone. And I'm not alone in being sickened by the rank hypocrisy shown by everyone : the police, the press, the media, the courts - everyone, in their deliberate failure to apply the same presumption of innocence automatically applied to Beech's victims, to others less influential than their powerful/influential selves. 

If only he'd stuck to Jimmy !

One could almost have some sympathy for Wiltshire Police hailing Beech's claims as "credible and true". Their bosses were told to 'believe' all 'victims' of sex abuse, no matter how ridiculous those A(chieving) B(est) E(vidence) looked to another audience in a Newcastle court room in 2019. 

The policy of believing any old crap about anyone had had its cards marked by a Judge call Henriques, whose cautions in regard to applying the presumption of innocence, held my interest for as long as it took to work out that even his concept of Justice was selective. Automatically believe no-one and stop with the 'victim' already, use the word 'complainant' ! Hurrah, said everyone, cheers all round, until some of us realised that his words made not one jot of difference - the : 'guilty until proved innocent' party, continued on its merry way, and now they're writing television drama's about someone who's 'dead so he can't sue'.

What else is there to say to the likes of Steve Coogan, that doesn't involve a few course swear words ?

Nothing ! 

vvvv

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 !