The Reckoning - When It Comes, Won't Be Televised.

 OK, let's get this done. Next week the BBC* are finally going to Broadcast what they describe as a "factual drama" on the life of Sir Jimmy Savile called : "The Reckoning". Apparently the writer started writing it in 2013 or 14, I forget, filming completed in 2022, but transmission was delayed for various reasons, none of which interest me.

What does very much interest me is this :

I haven't been able to find a full cast list for TR, but apparently this is Steve Coogan (Jimmy Savile) and Gemma Jones (Agnes his mother). 

His mother - whom millions of people knew as 'The Duchess' J.S's pet name for her back then and who had not just one child, but seven*. Those children had children themselves, as did JS's siblings and many of these people are still alive and apparently, not ONE of them was contacted by ITV, save an email that ended thus :

I had to make the image extra large so you could read it. 

Read it and try to imagine yourself in the position of the recipient of this - someone who knew SJS all their life, ran marathons with him, appeared beside him in many press photographs, someone who loved him and - more importantly, someone who still loves him, whose voice has been silenced as have all but one or two of JS's friends and family. Those who knew him best, not some hack, nonentity, who latched onto the man whilst he was alive, hero-worshipped him (he was desperate to get an invite to the funeral), only to jump on the first bandwagon that came along a year later, writing a book full of the nonsense peddled by the media posthumously, now being regurgitated in this factual drama.

Here's one of my reviews of Mr Dan Davies' work.

https://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2014/07/just-plain-shite.html

But back to the factual drama : as mentioned earlier, I don't have a complete cast list for TR. I suspect IMDB has this wrong - who the hell are any of these people after Steve Coogan ?

The next lot include one BBC bod, so maybe there's mileage in this (I doubt it).

'BBC worker' ? Really ?

I'm going with the wiki effort for the time being. Ray Teret and Bill Cotton is in it, so that might take care of the factual bit. These men did exist after all.

 But, what the hell is this ? Is this alleged incident really featured ? 

 My source for these photos, is an article published two years ago, which - despite getting the BBC and ITV (as the makers of TR) mixed up, provide a useful link to the alleged source of the scenes depicted : a newspaper article from 2016. The contents of which (per the alleged attacks on two teenage girls) sound about as believable as Carl Beech's wasps !

Here's both of them, so you can read it yourselves. It sounds like lies to me. Has ITV really used this in TR ? Is this the standard of their research ?

http://www.scoopyweb.com/2021/11/steve-coogans-eerie-transformation-into.html

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/665990/Girls-told-toddle-off-reporting-Jimmy-Savile-Scarborough-police

The photos though ! 

She looks nothing like The Duchess. Even I can see that.

No sign of any photos of Gemma Jones in a more recent article, but the few commentators' comments did make me smile.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10195283/Steve-Coogan-transforms-old-Jimmy-Savile-set-Reckoning.html#comments

Toddling off for some tea now. I'm not finished yet ! 

Jimmy Savile had a family who still love him. I dedicate this to them ! 

Addendum 4/10/23

*Many thanks to the anonymous commentator who, quite rightly, corrected me. I have my first sentence to read that the BBC are broadcasting this miniseries, not ITV. 

How strange :The BBC commissions ITV to make a programme  so that they can broadcast it ? Only in this day and age folks. Only in this one ! I'd laugh, but there's nothing funny about it.

How  appropriate are the words SJS gave to Mensa Magazine in 1992. 

"Corruption spreads.  If the boss is corrupt then the deputy boss is corrupt.  And so is the deputy's deputy and so on and so forth, right down as far as it can possibly reach.  If one poses the question, 'Will you ever eradicate corruption', the answer is 'No'.  Because the resolution of the vast majority of things in the world is attempted by debate.  But very few bring into the frame the thing called human nature.  CORRUPTION IN ALL IT's FORMS, IS THE BEDEVILMENT OF THE WORLD (My emphasis) .

https://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2014/06/business-as-usual.html

Another addendum 05/10/23 :

*Correction from first draft : Agnes Savile had seven children, not eleven.

The Sun : Part 2 : The Public Interest

 On the 15th October 2015 'Two Sun Journalists' were found 'not guilty in what ITV News labelled : the "final 'cash for stories' trial'.

The two men along with hundreds of their peers were delighted with the verdict in the two men's retrial. The first Jury failed to reach a decision after nine days of deliberation, making their delight all the more poignant. And with joy came anger - anger that they'd been made to go through this in the first place. After all, as Pyatt said in his defence : the stories he purchased were 'trivial' and publication of the same was 'in the public's interest' (my words paraphrasing) etc etc etc.

Try as I might, I have so far, not been able to find any reference to Jimmy Savile during the first trial. I've scrolled through Twitter for any mention in the rough time frame he was on the stand. If it's there, I'll happily stand corrected. But, if it isn't, I for one, want to know why ? 

He'd claimed to have been ready and willing to have exposed Jimmy Savile whilst he was still alive. He had, he claimed - four women ready to go on record to say JS had abused them, but he didn't because, and I paraphrase again Surrey Police, 'blocked him'. In other words ; Surrey Police would NOT confirm that JS was being investigated, when Pyatt says he asked in 2008 or thereabouts. So the story didn't make the presses and the Police were left to do their job without some journalist naming their 'suspect' and potentially ruining their investigation.

Let me remind you of the reportage of Pyatt's testimony on 2nd October 2015. 

Did this revelation assist Pyatt's case ? His barrister must have thought so, he certainly pushed it going so far as this exchange.

'If a source had stood that up ...' ?

What hypothetical 'source' is Kovalevsky Q,C on about here - that old catch-all : a police source' which, by the way, would appear to be anyone from the chief constable at Scotland Yard down to the woman who cleaned the Bow Street bogs ! Pyatt and his mates had a police source who could indeed 'stand that up', as much as his criteria for publishing generally replied : the public had a right to know etc etc.

You see folks, not only did Pyatt have officer 2004 a (at that time a serving) Surrey Police officer, that Police officer Simon Quinn, was feeding information to the hacks directly from the police national computer : HOLMES. Old hands of this blog, and my rants over the last ten years, might recall me mentioning HOLMES a few times, because in 2008 when Pyatt's police source was digging up all sorts of dirt on other famous people, Sir Jimmy Savile was being - and I recall the words quite clearly from the various official reports that I've poured over 'created as a suspect on HOLMES',

It gets better - or worse if your name happens to be Simon Quinn, because - not only was Quinn convicted for his part in this 'cash for stories' case, he was in the same year convicted of something else. This :

The Jury in Pyatt's retrial were not told about Quinn's convictions - either of them.

I guess the information was deemed not relevant to the case. Or maybe the CPS along with everyone else involved, wanted the Sun Men to get as fair a retrial as possible. The Police did not name Pyatt when he was arrested in November 2011 by the way. 

His nightmare ended in October 2015. He was lucky wasn't he ?

By the way, I checked - double and treble checked to make sure that the ex Police officer convicted in both these cases, were one and the same Simon Quinn. Until I found the article above. I made sure it 'stood up'.

Meanwhile : 

Onwards !

https://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2015/10/over-exposure-to-sun.html

The Sun : 'Corruption 'On A Grand Scale'.

 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. 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/six-sun-journalists-trial-corrupted-public-officials-grand-scale-court-hears/

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/four-sun-journalists-accused-corrupt-payments-retrial

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 ! 

Writing A Wrong Part Three : The Painted Boys

 Last year I wrote the first two 'parts' (more accurately : drafts) of what I hope someday will form a book of some sort. This part will, I hope interest even you sceptics out there. 

Here goes : 

First I have to take you back to 2014. August 16th to be precise. On that day Mark Williams-Thomas tweeted this :

I remember this like it was yesterday. I remember I couldn't wait to tell my main contact in Jimmy Savile's family, about the strange coincidence that was playing out before my very eyes. I must have told her about it on the phone because - for some reason I didn't get any further than a 'draft' of an email I called 'Spooky dooky' !

Here's how I know it was just a draft !

And what was it I had 'just received yesterday' but this ! 

Yes, I had just received a newspaper I'd bought online dated 21st August 1977. And no ! I hadn't bought it to read about Diana's Dors' alleged affair with Elvis. I bought it because it contained an article about Elvis ( who had just died) written by a regular Sunday People pundit : Jimmy Savile. The knives were out for the newly dead king of rock and roll and Jimmy was out to counter some of the gossip with : 'The Elvis I knew Was Never A Junkie' on page 20 of the paper. 

I very much doubt Jimmy 'knew' Elvis at all but it was nice of him just the same.

Thirty-Six years later one might say : 'so what' ? 'Who cares' ? or words to that effect, but I do remember thinking, that me getting that newspaper just a day before 'mouthwash' tweeted about Elvis' was a sign of something. You see, there I was - almost a year into my Jimmy Savile campaign, still feeling very vulnerable in terms of other people's attacks on anyone who dared challenge the narrative. If just ONE person had come to me with something even approaching proof that JS had abused anyone, I would be out of there, adios, so long pals, I need to be doing this like I need a two holes in my arse.

But they didn't ! 

Which brings me to yesterday ! 

Yesterday I was sorting out some stuff in my spare room when I once again, came across that newspaper. There was, as usual - nothing worth watching on the television, so I decided to read the whole thing probably for the first time. I do like old newspapers. Suffice to say my eyes immediately alighted on this. What on earth ? 

A teacher, painted boys ? Could this be a story of child sex abuse ? It certainly sounded like it. Let's read a bit of it shall we ?

'He agreed that he might have been "unwise" in taking the pictures'. "Unwise" ? Blimey, where have I heard such a word used in such an inappropriate way recently ? 

Naturally, I wondered : what happened next ? How many years did this guy get following his trial ? I mean, you would wouldn't you ? You would think that there might have been some law broken here ? 

There wasn't !

I've checked up on Mr Ackers and it wasn't until 1991 that he was tried, convicted and jailed for offences against boys. And that was not to be his last sojourn at Her Majesties pleasure.

https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/109178.was-paedophiles-sentence-too-short/

Why did it take 14 years for someone to put an end to this man's antics ? Were newspapers kinder, more understanding of such proclivities in 1977 ? Not if the credentials and subsequent history of the writer of the painted boys piece, is anything to go by. For it was Mr Harry Warschauer who went on to expose the  first alleged paedophile ring. Heck, he even got Scotland Yard Commanders (plural) jailed ! Yes, that's right ! I think. That's what the papers tell me anyway.

And if all that wasn't enough. Harry was Jewish and just happened to be on one of the great Nicholas Winterton's kinder transport ! Bless him !

 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/archive-content/harry-warschauer/

But what about the painted boys ? Who knows. Who cares ? They don't appear to have minded back then, do they ?

I may continue this. It certainly going in the book ! 

© Rabbitaway