Jimmy Savile accused in ITV documentary

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/10/jimmy-savile-abuse-inquiry-published

The 30-page report, Giving Victims a Voice, will describe how the celebrity abused up to 500 children and young people, and may have raped more than 30.

30 pages? Bennett's written longer letters that that.

Live reports here:

http://news.sky.com/story/1036610/jimmy-savile-abuse-report-live-updates

#savile DPP says its wrong to avoid prosecuting "where it's one person's word against another."

Is setting the tone for the whole thing. As suspected, so far it doesn't appear to be anything resembling an investigation.

A couple of telling phrases:

"Professor Liz Kelly of London Metropolitan university, an academic who has extensively researched violence against young people and women, said: "The publicity all around this created a space in which a lot of survivors chose to disclose things that had happened a long time ago … They saw connections and we got an outpouring, and that has allowed the survivors to come forward and tell their stories and be believed.""

and

Many victims are now suing Savile's estate, estimated to be worth more than £4m, for damages for the abuse they suffered at the presenter's hands.

I cannot believe what I am seeing, J-P.

: The locations of his alleged abuse include 14 medical establishments, hospitals, mental care establishments and a hospice.

It's still all 'alleged', and is being presented as proven. Which explains why the police managed to 'investigate' so many allegations so quickly.

So far, all this is is a list of allegations, which have been all over the media anyway.

They saw connections and we got an outpouring

I'll bet they did, and the lawyers advertising for 'victims' will have helped all that disclosing no end.

Reaction to Savile catalogue of alleged abuse is beginning to come in.

Here's mine - this is bullsh*t. They wouldn't churn out nonsense like this about someone living - the accused's lawyers would bankrupt them.

The police don't seem to have even attempted an actual investigation. What a waste of money.

Though no doubt MWT's halo is dazzling onlookers.

Cliche alert!

#savile Cmdr Spindler: What happens when vulnerability collides with power. JS alone was responsible for his actions. He groomed the nation.

Thank you, Esther.

...And the Department of Health is going to Learn Lessons. Have we had closure yet?

This is so rich in politically correct cliches, it's hard to keep track.

#savile Police don't believe Savile was part of Paedo ring, more of a loose network.

That'll upset Gollum and the Munterbeast, and the rest of the peedo-freaks.

You couldn't make it up...

Surrey Police received an allegation in May 2007 that Savile had sexually assaulted a teenage girl at Duncroft Children's Home in the late 1970s.

Surrey Police received an allegation in May 2007 that Savile had sexually assaulted a teenage girl at Duncroft Children's Home in the late 1970s.

The second was that in the 1970s Jimmy Savile had suggested to a girl aged about 17, again at Duncroft, that she perform oral sex on him.

Surrey Police consulted with the CPS about all four allegations, and in October 2009 it was decided that no prosecution could be brought because the alleged victims would not support police action.

Ms Levitt found that Surrey Police did not tell each alleged victim that other complaints had been made, Sussex told the complainant that corroboration was needed and the prosecutor did not question why victims would not support court action or seek to build a case.

===========

Oh, I can't think why it was decided not to prosecute Savile for having sexual relations with an adult. And Surrey police didn't need to tell the 'victims' - if the 'Savile police' had bothered to actually INVESTIGATE, they would have found out that the 'Duncroft victims' had been in contact all along, and the 'Stoke Mandeville victim' was the sister of one of them.

I give up, I really do. I have no doubt Guardianistas, professional victim-finders, hand-wringers, compo-lawyers and ambulance-chasers will love this.

The full thing is now online here:

http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3D%22294%2F278%2Fgiving+victims+a+voice+FINAL.pdf%22&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283597099119&ssbinary=true

with woeful, right-on, 70's artwork and the promise from the Met of TOTAL POLICING.

Whatever that is.

1.6 An issue that has understandably been raised is that as Jimmy Savile is dead
there can be no criminal prosecutions against him and the testimony of his victims
cannot be challenged in the courts.

That must be a relief to MWT and others!

Liz Dux, from Slater and Gordon Solicitors, who is representing many of the victims, told BBC News: 'Operation Yewtree has given them validity.
'For many of them they have been able to give their statement for the first time in circumstances where they have been dealt with sensitively and they have been believed.
'This has been a very cathartic process for them. Now that the report is out they hope that they can move on to the inquiries, hope that the inquiries are dealt with as swiftly as possible, and that the civil claims will be concluded and that they can get on with the rest of their lives.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260589/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Details-abuse-revealed-police-publish-inquiry-report.html#ixzz2HfQgTGYj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

My friends, this was taken from Sky News:

http://news.sky.com/story/1036598/savile-report-reveals-full-scale-of-sex-abuse

http://news.sky.com/story/1036619/jimmy-savile-abuse-scandal-report-timeline

http://news.sky.com/story/1036610/jimmy-savile-abuse-report-live-updates

This is stunning, but no more than we expected. And The Investigation is still suggesting that Jimmy Savile abused girls at Duncroft in 1971, 1972 and 1973, despite being in possession of proof that Jimmy Savile didn't visit Duncroft until 1974.

Uproar beginning about glaring inaccuracies in report in comments:

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/who-let-the-dogs-out/#comments

Sabot wrote:
This is stunning, but no more than we expected. And The Investigation is still suggesting that Jimmy Savile abused girls at Duncroft in 1971, 1972 and 1973, despite being in possession of proof that Jimmy Savile didn't visit Duncroft until 1974.

That is a real shocker, Sabot. Did the police check ANYTHING?

bb1 wrote:

Sabot wrote:
This is stunning, but no more than we expected. And The Investigation is still suggesting that Jimmy Savile abused girls at Duncroft in 1971, 1972 and 1973, despite being in possession of proof that Jimmy Savile didn't visit Duncroft until 1974.

That is a real shocker, Sabot. Did the police check ANYTHING?

This is not going to help any future claims against Jimmy Savile's Estate. Not any of them, even at other times. The Investigation is clearly flawed, and what else is there to go on?

The second was that in the 1970s Jimmy Savile had suggested to a girl aged about 17, again at Duncroft, that she perform oral sex on him.

Now I may be wrong, but is 17 legal age for sex? Now do not get me wrong, I do believe he used his position and status to have sex with underage girls, but how many actually lied about their age to get with a celebrity...However Savile i doubt they lied to get with him.

The word SUGGESTED......not that she did, or didn't

IMO, it has to cast doubts on the whole thing, Sabot. We have no information about the other allegations, but on these particular ones we do.

And they simply are not true. They are demonstrably and provably untrue - and they are the allegations which kicked the whole thing off.

What the Hell are the police playing at? If all they were ever going to produce was a list of allegations, then any of us could have done that from the media and internet.

I had hoped that there would be some kind of sense and discipline to this report - that the fanciful allegations would be named as such, while allegations which could be shown to have substance and foundation would also be named.

Instead, there seems to have been no attempt at investigation, everything has been lumped in together, along with weasel words and PC nonsense.

Never mind, the tabloids and lawyers will be happy - this is going to run and run. Who needs truth when there is money to be made?

Now I may be wrong, but is 17 legal age for sex?

Yes, it is - 16 is the age of consent.

The whole exchange is sordid, tacky, squalid and nasty - but it isn't actually illegal. Unless the police are thinking of charging the 'victim' with prostitution, as she exchanged sex for favours.

But supposing The Criminal Injuries Board has to pay out? They have already paid Holly Greig in excess of £13,000 for a very dodgy complaint which had more holes in it than a Cullendar. It doesn't matter if some of these accusations are true if they don't know which ones.
This is just not funny. People being accused left, right and centre on some obviously flawed evidence. The only consolation is that no one in their right mind is going to believe any of it. So the likes of Jim Davidson and Max Clifford can relax on that score.

I think someone has put something in the water. Could it be The Bottled Water Industry?

I have no idea, Sabot. I do know I am never, ever going to donate to the NSPCC again after this, especially given their lack of interest in current, truly horrible, but non-glamorous, child abuse cases.

And as a licence and taxpayer, I object to a single penny of my money being paid out purely because of 'allegations' and 'reports'.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that in the middle of the rubbish, there are allegations which DO have foundation, and IMO the police should have attempted to sort the chaff from the wheat.

And then concentrated on those. But churning out this nonsense...it may make good tabloid headlines, but sooner or later, those same tabloids are going to be reporting that the Duncroft allegations are bogus.

AND THAT THE POLICE HAD PROOF THEY WERE BOGUS.

IMO, by making no attempt to discriminate, the police have made a huge blunder.

The Media and The Police are currently totally ignoring what has been said on The Anna Raccoon Blog for several weeks now. And they do know about it. But ignoring it won't make it go away. This is going to jump up and bite them before much longer because certain interested Lawyers also know about it. Not least that one of the first Stoke Mandeville "Victims" had a sister at Duncroft at the time.
Thank God for the courage of Anna Raccoon. We all might not have liked what was going on, but there wouldn't have been much we could say about it.

Sabot, yes it is thank God for the courage of Anna and what a gal she is. So proud of her.

Just look at what the police have done:

http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3D%22294%2F278%2Fgiving+victims+a+voice+FINAL.pdf%22&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283597099119&ssbinary=true



They've put the Duncroft allegations in there with the others - even though the 'incidents' supposedly occurred years before Savile had been near the place.

You know what the police have done? They've covered their own ar@ses whatever happens next.

If all this falls apart under legal challenge, they can say that by listing the allegations, they Gave Victims A Voice - no-one asked them to find out if said allegations were true or not.

I'm not getting into the pros and cons of the other allegations - that should have been the job of the police - but the Duncroft ones are unfounded. The police have proof that they are unfounded.

I don't know - have they done this because the Duncroft allegations are what the whole thing is based on?

I've just seen this in the report:

1.9 Not all the victims who have come forward have been interviewed by police.
However the patterns and similarities of the offences and behaviours that have come
to light so far have given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people
have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them.

FFS!

Of course the 'patterns' are the same, the original allegations were all over the tabloids for weeks. And that's before we even start on the internet.

How on earth could any police officer put their name to this?

Oh, it gets worse:

1.10 We therefore consider it pragmatic to present this report in as factual a way as
possible given that the information provided has not been corroborated. Further
investigation seeking corroboration of individual allegations, the majority dating back
many years, is considered disproportionate when there is no prospect of criminal
proceedings.

I really don't know what to say. That 'report' has as much evidential value as the Sun; indeed, a lot of money would have been saved if the allegers had simply gone to the Sun and let them print an Allegation Supplement.

There is actually MORE chance of the Sun investigating and seeking corroboration.