Operation Outreach Concludes

This information is from Rabbitaway.blogspot. The blog does not in general reflect my views but I include the link as I believe it is fair to include attribution.

Operation Outreach was the police investigation into Jimmy Savile’s offending at Duncroft Approved School.

My understanding is that Jimmy Savile had not visited Duncroft until the 1970s and therefore could not have sexually abused any girl there during the 1960s. Some who have decided that Jimmy Savile has been maligned and who mistakenly, in my view, think he can be exonerated from the child abuse allegations have chosen to suggest that because allegations from Duncroft in the 1960s are untrue that all Duncroft allegations, and even all allegations against Jimmy Savile anywhere, are also untrue.

This suggestion is based on extremely flawed logic and to me demonstrates that those that hold that view have set out to defend Jimmy Savile at all costs, ignoring the evidence, rather than set out to get to the truth. In other words, these people have a pre-existing agenda.

It is interesting to note that this letter which marks the conclusion of Operation Outreach DOES NOT suggest that Savile was not a sex offender. On the contrary, it repeatedly has a clear presumption throughout that Jimmy Savile was an offender. The conclusion within this letter is only that no prosecution against former staff members from Duncroft for complicity in Savile’s crimes would likely be successful and that is an important criteria the CPS must pass before any prosecution goes ahead.




Filed under Abuse, News

8 responses to “Operation Outreach Concludes

  1. Gojam – anyone who reads on my blog that I have been ‘sent a crucifix’ by the Savile family when extremely ill, as you did, and then makes the leap of assumption that this must mean I wear said crucifix, has already ‘made up their mind’ about me and my motives for searching for the truth.
    The crucifix is five inches high and solid marble – I don’t wear it, and wouldn’t anyway – I’m a Quaker.
    I knew the original claims regarding Savile were impossible and thus had to be untrue – I have never claimed that thus all allegations have to be untrue – merely that with some untrue allegations around it was all important to subject later allegations to scrutiny and not accept them in a wave of ‘I believe her’ as some have suggested should happen.
    If the truth be that Savile was a paedophile, isn’t that bad enough without the constant gilding of the story?
    Just this evening I have been called a ‘paedo-apologist’ for pointing out that Dolphin Square was a block of council flats when offences were alleged to have happened there – why is it necessary to pretend that it was ‘a luxury block of VIP apartments’; if the story is true, then the truth should be sufficient.
    I will never understand why for some people it is necessary to accept unquestioningly ever last irrelevant details of these stories in order to be ‘on message’ – and to avoid a hail of abuse.
    So yes, I do my best to strip the media reports of the lies – it is what would happen to those stories in court anyway. Better that it happens before a court case surely – if the story still stands up without the lies then that is fair enough.
    Yes, there were five girls ‘witnesses’, prepared to say that Savile was an offender at Duncroft – ‘the evidence’ as it is referred to; as a result of all the publicity and the in depth investigation carried out by Surrey Police the CPS ended up with a conga line of 100+ girls – equally ‘witnesses’, equally prepared to share ‘evidence’ that the staff weren’t made aware that he might have been an offender at Duncroft. The CPS have very wisely decided not to proceed with an expensive court case knowing that a jury was highly likely to look at 5 people saying one thing, and 100+ saying the opposite and drawing conclusions that would make the trial a waste of money….
    The importance of Duncroft was that this was the foundation stone of all other allegations in the main stream media.
    I don’t, as you claim, make the assumption that because some Duncroft girls have lied, then this means Savile – or anyone else – is therefore innocent of any other allegations.
    I do think that all allegations should be ruthlessly investigated – truth matters.
    Unfortunately, there is an air of ‘only the truth that proves abuse’ is allowed a voice – and that is only half a truth.

    • Anna Racnut

      Ms Raccoon has eloquently defended herself, in so doing she has failed to mention that she herself has made false accusations, assumed false identities boosting her own opinions and bog (oops!) blog site. Ms Raccoon ONLY permits comments on her website that agree with her own rather one sided views. Lastly she has claimed not to be a Savile apologist…strange that nearly ALL of his victims have a very dim view of her one sided, biased view. She claims to have done research, it is a great pity that she has kept that information to herself as no officer of the crown has or requires any dealings with her. She claims to have resided in ALL of the places mentioned, as a reader I doubt rather a lot of what she eludes to and her contributors congratulate her for what exactly – lying? Claiming over a half of a million pounds from the U.K. taxpayer for having suffered PTSD? Very strange for a Quaker to require such adulation and recompense she so vehemently criticises others for.

  2. Abby

    How do you rate the blog by Anna Raccoon? She seems to have looked into this in quite some depth and was recently acknowledged in an article in the Daily Mail. A cursory glance might lead one to think that anyone questioning the Savile allegations was a Savile fan who wanted to defend him come what may, but that’s not how she comes across if you read what she writes and how she backs it up.

    • Anyone who wears Jimmy Savile’s crucifix, as she does given to her by Savile’s family, has already made up their mind to defend him regardless of the evidence.

      As I’ve acknowledged, Savile did not visit Duncroft in the 1960s however to then suggest that Jimmy Savile is not a child abuser and that every one of hundreds of complainants are liars is a judgement based on incomplete information and an insult to all of Saviles victims.

      Who was the journalist in the Mail? Spooky Rose?

      • Abby

        It’s in an article by David Rose called “Jimmy Savile’s niece’s demand for compensation led to police fraud probe”. He has also written another more recent one called “Just 22 out of 58 payout claims against Jimmy Savile have been accepted amid warnings that his estate may be swallowed up by legal fees… leaving nothing for genuine victims”.
        Why do you call him spooky?

      • hahaha! Spooky Rose has been writing dodgy articles on this topic since 2012. Check him out for yourself.

  3. Martin Smith

    The Establishment is never going to properly and genuinely investigate itself – even if it could. It’s never going to happen in this universe or any other.
    You need to have untainted and unconnected outsiders coming in to to the job thoroughly and transparently or you’ll inevitably end up with just plattitudes and whitewash.

  4. Pingback: Operation Outreach Concludes | Alternative News Network