Two emails sent on exactly the same day, two days after Savile’s death, which highlight how the BBC were not communicating.
Monthly Archives: February 2013
OK, I think I know now after reading this below. I won’t say because obviously the BBC legal team have decided to redact.
But Frankly as both have been arrested already…………..
If you find anything interesting then please post it in the comments.
Let’s see if we can beat the MSM to the dirt.
Less than a year ago the assumption of the majority of people in the UK would have been that this was about Catholic priests and Catholic institutions.
We are all a great deal wiser now.
How long before we see posters like this across the UK ?
The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry in Northern Ireland is to launch a promotional campaign later in an attempt to get more victims to come forward.
Advertising space on 80 bus shelters will be used in a bid to engage survivors.
Posters and literature will also be distributed to organisations in the UK and Ireland,
The campaign will be launched in Belfast on Thursday.
Lord McAlpine has dropped defamation claims against some Twitter users who wrongly named him as a paedophile.
He will not pursue action against those with fewer than 500 followers, but will instead ask for a donation to the BBC’s Children In Need, he has said.
Today, those with fewer than 500 followers, tomorrow ………?
Caroline Hess Comments:
“This has been the case since November. It was in the paperwork available from the RMPI website for three months. So why is it today being reported by the BBC as breaking news?”
1. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
This is one of the questions a juror asked the judge in the trial of Vicky Pryce for perverting the course of Justice, her defence was marital coercion. The jury couldn’t come to a verdict.
More at – The Guardian
I think the question I’ve quoted above is related to this other question
“8. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?”
The judge said the question was not for this case. And Pryce had not suggested any such reasoning was behind her decision to take the points
So, Vicky Pryce didn’t try to use this as a defence.and presented no evidence to support such a defence but there were 8 women on the jury, perhaps some married with religious conviction.
Someone has suggested that the person who asked the question may have been clarifying the point for other jury members that felt that way.
In that case I apologise to that juror but really the question shouldn’t have needed to be asked, so I think the point still holds.
If anyone has good video editing skills and would like to work with me and make youtube video, then please email me – firstname.lastname@example.org
It’s funny how these things happen, this morning I actually visited the Fighting Back blog but I only read the last story, and I couldn’t reblog it because it’s not a wordpress blog. Kaz, who runs the blog, posted a link to a different article on her blog here. I thought…….”that looks familiar”. Anyway, I’ve explored a little and I’d like to recommend others do the same. I was struck by the maps Kaz is creating (I won’t tell you, you’ll have to visit yourself and find them.)
But Kaz has commented here asking for help.
“everyone known to have attended a lecture by Peter Righton, mainly his Birmingham course.
Oh and a Full P.I.E members list.
i also need the name of a Manchester Social Services manager that veto’d a report into sexual abuse at bryn alyn. the report was made by a student social worker who had been on placement within Bryn Alyn.
If anyone feels they can help on any of these matters, please contact me via email@example.com “
could you possibly please highlighthttp://brynalynvictims.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/final-month-for-macur-submitals.html
all the contact info is there for the Macur Review.
I feel the more ppl respond, the less they can hide. This is also why i took the extra measure of
well, the Issues Paper from the review Does state that ALL submissions will be made public. ;)
So if you can help Kaz then I hope you will but if you can’t you should check out Fighting Back for yourself
Although I’ve already posted a link to the full Operation Ornament Report, which can also be found here, I’ve created this chronological edited version (without all the lessons learnt and diversions) which details why the now retired ‘Inspector 5’ is being investigated and also sheds light on Savile’s behaviour.
7.9 On 6th December 2007 DI3 informs a different senior manager that Police do not want to hold a senior strategy meeting for the reasons described in the investigation policy book. It is recorded in DI3’s electronic diary that this manager from Children’s Services expressed concern that Leeds Police (West Yorkshire) had not been informed. Savile owned a property in Leeds at the time.
7.18 On 29th April 2008 Surrey Police sent an email to West Yorkshire Police advising them of the investigation into Savile. This was sent via the anticorruption team in Surrey to West Yorkshire anti-corruption. There was no suggestion that Surrey were in receipt of any information or intelligence that there were any corruption issues at West Yorkshire, or that Savile had any contact or relationships with West Yorkshire officers. The reason for advising West Yorkshire via Professional Standards Department appears to be Surrey’s concern that the investigation remained confidential and the SIO (DCI4) had a background in anti-corruption and therefore knew that this was a secure route to pass information and gather any intelligence that they had that would not have been disclosed from an INI check.
7.19 An intelligence report was received from West Yorkshire Police indicating that the only records they held were of Savile as a victim of theft of his spectacles in November 2007.
3.18 On 2nd June 2009 DI3 sent Savile a recorded delivery letter to his home address requesting that he make contact. Savile telephoned the following day and has a brief conversation with DI3 who advised him of the nature of the allegation and made an arrangement that they would meet when Savile was next in the area as he often attended Broadmoor.
3.19 On 8th June contact was received in the Surrey Police Control Room from Inspector 5 who stated he was from West Yorkshire Police and known personally to Savile. He explained that Savile had lost the contact details of DI3 and was passing on a telephone number for Surrey Police to contact Savile again. A further telephone conversation took place with Savile but by September he had failed to provide any arrangements to meet. Consequently DC1 wrote again and on 24th September telephone arrangements are made for an interview with Savile at Stoke Mandeville Hospital on 1st October 2009.
7.25 On 8th June 2009 Surrey Police received a phone call from Inspector 5 from West Yorkshire Police. He stated that he was the Force Incident Manager based in the control room. He was spoken to directly by Surrey Control Room Inspector 12. It is recorded that Inspector 5 states that he was known personally to Savile and had been told by Savile that he had lost the letter that was sent to him by DI3. Inspector 5 then passed a telephone number to Inspector 12 advising that Savile can be contacted and possibly seen tomorrow at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
7.26 The call from Inspector 5 initiated Inspector 12 to contact DI3 via email. Inspector 12 outlined the conversation with Inspector 5 and made reference to the fact that he was known personally to Savile and that Savile gets many of these complaints.
7.27 On 10th June DI3 contacts DCI11 by email and sends her the intelligence reports regarding the progress of the investigation as agreed on 3rd June. In the email DI3 also makes reference to the call received from Inspector 5. DI3 states “…there may be nothing in this but if there have been other allegations against him then they should really be recorded to build up an intelligence picture”.
7.28 The same day DCI11 replies and states that she has brought the matter to the attention of the Head of Inspector 5’s department in relation to the telephone call he made on behalf of Savile. DCI11 also stated that the Head of Crime in West Yorkshire Police was also notified of the Savile investigation so
to the attention of the Head of Inspector 5’s department in relation to the the command team may be briefed.
3.21 DC1 and DS6 interviewed Savile on tape under caution at his private office at Stoke Mandeville Hospital on 1st October 2009. Present with Savile was a ‘friend’ who was a trustee of the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Charitable Trust. It is not clear in what capacity this male was present as there is no indication that Savile required an appropriate adult and he was not acting as a legal representative.
3.22 The interview lasted 56 minutes. In interview Savile denies all allegations. He cannot remember when he visited Duncroft other than the first time was with Princess Alexandria for a garden party and overall, at the invite of the matron he believed he visited a total of three or four times. He denies being alone with any of the girls or ever going upstairs into dormitories. He states there were always lots of people about, maybe thirty or forty. He stated that he never brought gifts for the girls as that was against the rules and he never gave any of them a lift in his car.
3.24 He continues to explain that he believes these allegations are simply people trying to get money from him and are unfounded. He explained that he has contacts within the police at Leeds and whenever he receives letters alleging that he has done something he gives them to his contacts who ‘get rid’ of them.
3.25 Savile concludes by explaining that he often gets these types of letters and his ‘policy’ is to get his lawyers to take these people to court and sue them. He has been successful on number of occasions and been awarded several hundred thousand pounds as a result.
7.29 When Savile was interviewed by Surrey Police on 1st October 2009 he made various comments about knowing senior police officers from Leeds and seeing them socially. He stated that he gets a number of letters from people trying to blackmail him and he gives these to the police as a matter of course. He also commented on how he deals with these with his legal team as it was a hazard of being a well-known celebrity. He gave the impression that he was often harassed by people with an ulterior motive. Savile named an Inspector and stated that officers come to his home and have tea. Savile also stated that the officers read and destroyed the letters. If one of the letters concerned him then he could have it forensically examined as a ‘favour’ if he needed. Savile was questioned if any of these allegations or blackmail letters were investigated by West Yorkshire Police and he responded that they were kept for a short time by the police in case something happened to him.
Harry Kasir, the former co manager of Elm Guest House in Barnes, appears to be on the verge of leaving the country.
Mr Kasir, a central figure in the scandal involving investigations into child sex abuse at the guest house, was convicted with his wife, Carole, of running a gay brothel after the police raid on the place in 1982.
The full story by my Exaro colleague Fiona O’Cleirigh and myself (http://bit.ly/YA42MS) reveals that Kasir has recently sought to raise nearly £60,000 from his ex-partner – part of his share of their house. He wants the money under a legal agreement by next Monday. The story also appeared in the Sunday People in a more shortened form.(http://bit.ly/11V6sMC)
He is also thought to have applied for a residential visa to move to the United States so he can live with his 40-year-old son. Kasir has two passports – a UK and…
View original post 116 more words
An ex-policeman is being investigated over claims he “acted on behalf” of Jimmy Savile before the TV presenter was interviewed by officers.
The former police inspector is accused of contacting Surrey Police in 2009 during an inquiry into historical sex abuse allegations against Savile.
This report is commissioned by Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby and undertaken by Detective Superintendent Jon Savell, current Head of Public Protection in Surrey Police to examine and comment on the investigation that was launched on 13th
May 2007 under the name of Operation Ornament. This was an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse committed by Jimmy Savile on teenage girls in the late 1970s. It is not a formal review in terms of those undertaken by a Major Crime Review Team but is intended to establish all the information known about what Surrey Police uncovered and did during the life of the investigation.
Hames retired from the force in August 1994, after suffering a mild heart attack the year before and undergoing angioplasty. His first book, The Dirty Squad, is an account of his career that includes supervision of the aftermath of the 1983 Harrods bombing and a raid on a brothel during which a man in pinstriped suit announced that he was not only an MP, but a minister.
“That was before the end of Communism and, through a politician friend, I informed the PM, Mrs Thatcher,” Hames recalls. “I noticed that the man, a junior minister, was quietly dropped later in a reshuffle.”
Other than the lead that this highlights about a junior minister it also throws light on how Margaret Thatcher chose to deal with criminal behaviour within her government (It’s not as though it was shoplifting). It’s very damaging to her reputation in my opinion.
Note: This is not the senior Ex-Minister who later went on to get a promotion and who would not have been described as a junior minister even at that time.
Peter Cook’s excellent satirical sketch about the judge’s summing up in the Jeremy Thorpe murder trial.
[Jeremy] Thorpe was put on trial at Number One Court at the Old Bailey on 8 May 1979, a week after losing his seat. He was charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to murder. One of the chief prosecution witnesses was former Liberal MP and failed businessman Peter Bessell, who claimed to have been present while the murder plot was discussed within the Liberal Party. According to Bessell, poison had been rejected as a method of killing Scott because “it would raise too many questions if he fell dead off a barstool.” One alleged plan had been to shoot Scott in Cornwall and dispose of the body down a disused tin mine.
Bessell agreed to appear as a witness in exchange for immunity from prosecution. His credibility was damaged, however, because he had sold his story to The Sunday Telegraph for a fee that would double from £25,000 to £50,000 if the prosecution was successful. Thorpe did not testify in the case, but his counsel, led by George Carman QC, argued that although he and Scott had been friends, there had been no sexual relationship. Carman claimed that Scott had sought to blackmail Thorpe, and that although Thorpe and his friends had discussed “frightening” Scott into silence, they had never conspired to kill him.
Summing up the case, Mr Justice Cantley was widely criticised for showing a nakedly pro-establishment bias, in which he described Scott as “a crook, an accomplished liar… a fraud.” In spite of the judge’s direction, the jury were at first split 6–6, but, after 15 hours of deliberation, they finally reached a verdict of Not Guilty. The four defendants were all acquitted on 22 June 1979.
I’d like to draw your attention to the latest comment on this blog from Tom Watson’s source for his PMQ about “a powerful political paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10“.
Thank you murun for correction on my last comment. I fully appreciate how important it is to be 100% accurate with our facts.
It was already a very long comment and I was trying to bring it to a close.
I have been researching the facts for many years and knew that John Whittingdale became Brittan’s special adviser for the first time in 1985 a few months after Brittan was moved from the Home Office ( interesting political manoeuvre in its self given what he had been presented with ).
I should have stated that but the point I was making that given their combined knowledge and political/ personal awareness of the seriousness of the
View original post 267 more words
People need to start to come to terms with the fact that a large proportion of the children’s home system in the UK during the 1970s, 1980s, and perhaps before and beyond that time period may have been infiltrated by paedophiles.
The point about paedophiles is that they will always try to seek out opportunities to abuse children. For example, it is not that Catholics priests, per se, are more likely to be child abusers, it is that if you are a paedophile and a Catholic then becoming a priest would offer you the community trust and the opportunities to engage in that kind of behaviour.
In a very similar way, working in the UK children home system would offer a paedophile the best opportunities to abuse children, vulnerable children without parents or guardians and almost unlimited access.
Someone once left a comment on this blog (I’m sorry I can’t remember who) which I thought shone a good light on how this can escalate. Imagine a scout troop with 3 child abusers in control. The scout troop needs a forth adult. The original adults are simply not going to employ someone who isn’t a paedophile because they don’t want to run the risk that they will be exposed. Far better to employ another paedophile that they have ‘networked’ with. OK, it’s a simplistic example but imagine that in social services and specifically within the children’s home system.
Though Grafton Close children’s home has been mentioned, I’ve seen it referred that there were 3 or 4 other children’s homes in Richmond implicated. In Islington I believe even more. North Wales, South Wales, The Channel Islands, East Anglia, Yorkshire, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and it is only an indication of the scale.
I struggle to understand how the disparate investigations are ever going to get to the bottom of all this. PIE had 10 years operating legally, from 1974-84, 10 years to organise a network which enabled paedophiles to abuse children.