www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savi...rged-serious-2594874

Jimmy Savile's chauffeur charged with serious sex offences against 15 young girls between 1962 and 1996
25 Oct 2013 23:30
Source: Mirror

Jimmy Savile's former flatmate and chauffeur has been charged with a series of serious sex offences against young girls, it has emerged.

Ray Teret, 72, is charged with a total of 32 offences involving 15 different victims who accuse him of sexual abuse between 1962 and 1996.

The alleged offences were committed primarily in the Greater Manchester area.

Teret, of Altrincham, Greater Manchester was charged with 15 counts of rape of a female under 16, one count of rape, one count of attempted rape of a female under 16, six counts of indecent assault of a female under 16, three counts of indecent assault of a female under 14 and one count of gross indecency with a child under 13.

He also faces two counts of conspiracy to rape a girl under 16, one count of possession of extreme pornography, one count of possession of prohibited images and one count of possession of an indecent image of a child.

He is due to appear at Manchester City Magistrates Court on Saturday morning.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: "A 71 year-old-man was re-arrested in connection with historic sexual offences against children when he answered his bail on Wednesday October 23.

"He was also further arrested in connection with a number of other historic sex offences against children.

"He remains in police custody for questioning."

DCI Graham Brock of Greater Manchester Police said: “This has been a complex investigation that was originally launched in October 2012 when an initial complaint was made to Greater Manchester Police.

“Since that time, we have carried out extensive and wide-ranging inquiries and interviewed a number of people as part of that investigation.

“It has been important those inquiries were carried out thoroughly so that, in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, we have been able to secure a number of charges.

“We will continue to support all those women who have come forward and offer them whatever welfare they need through the use of specially-trained officers.”

As part of the investigation into Teret, William Harper, 65, of Stretford, Greater Manchester was charged with conspiracy to rape a girl under 16 and attempt rape of a female under the age of 16 and Alan Ledger, 62, of of Altrincham was charged with indecent assault of a female under 16 and aiding and abetting the rape of a female under 16.

Both Harper and Ledger are due to appear before Manchester City Magistrates' Court on 30 October.

Teret was arrested and bailed in November last year with another man on suspicion of historic rape following an investigation into three separate claims of sexual abuse.

Police emphasised that the accusations were not linked to the national inquiry into abuse by disgraced TV presenter Savile, with whom Teret worked and once shared a flat.

Suffice to say this is all complete balderdash - and that the only "conspiracy" going on is Greater Manchester Police conspiring with a bent media (press release issued the minute RT answered bail) and utterly corrupt CPS.
Hitler would be extremely envious of the current witch hunt - if only his Nazi's had thought of this, we'd all be speaking German now. Instead we're blabbering mid-Atlantic nonsense into "devices" and pretending things are alright.

Chris Retro wrote:
Suffice to say this is all complete balderdash - and that the only "conspiracy" going on is Greater Manchester Police conspiring with a bent media (press release issued the minute RT answered bail) and utterly corrupt CPS.
Hitler would be extremely envious of the current witch hunt - if only his Nazi's had thought of this, we'd all be speaking German now. Instead we're blabbering mid-Atlantic nonsense into "devices" and pretending things are alright.

How do you know that this is balderdash. We can't disbelieve all accusations anymore than we can believe all accusations. As for the images, either they were found on his computer or not. You can argue forever about whether looking at pictures should be a crime in itself, however the fact is that it is illegal.

Robbie - as to 'images' I refer you to the other thread on here. An "image" need not be in any way illegal as they are looking for mud to stick.. Images of children need not be explicit, sexual or even actually of children at all. Images of 'extreme' pornography may be actually from LEGAL websites. Etc. What makes a picture of a child 'illegal'? Would you know an anonymous naked 19 yr old from a 15 yr old? Or a 23 yr old from a 15 yr old? What makes a photograph of 'a person' sexual or deviant?

Investigation - trawling for 12 months. That's all devices and electrical equipment seized - phones, computers etc. All 'contacts' - numbers, email addresses, names - contacted at random and possibly inconvenient times, sometimes more than once - told they will be 'believed' (*ie compensated/sponsored) if they want to make an allegation. The police work on the basis that they will incriminate said individual. The CPS work on the basis any prosecution has to succeed by any means necessary.

I'll leave people to make their own minds up as to how "fair" this kind of "investigation" is. My feelings is most real people would not withstand such attention, let alone old men caught up in a multi-million pound national witch hunt.

My opinion is that is indeed balderdash - call it an 'educated guess' if yew like...

Chris Retro wrote:
Robbie - as to 'images' I refer you to the other thread on here. An "image" need not be in any way illegal as they are looking for mud to stick.. Images of children need not be explicit, sexual or even actually of children at all. Images of 'extreme' pornography may be actually from LEGAL websites. Etc. What makes a picture of a child 'illegal'? Would you know an anonymous naked 19 yr old from a 15 yr old? Or a 23 yr old from a 15 yr old? What makes a photograph of 'a person' sexual or deviant?

Investigation - trawling for 12 months. That's all devices and electrical equipment seized - phones, computers etc. All 'contacts' - numbers, email addresses, names - contacted at random and possibly inconvenient times, sometimes more than once - told they will be 'believed' (*ie compensated/sponsored) if they want to make an allegation. The police work on the basis that they will incriminate said individual. The CPS work on the basis any prosecution has to succeed by any means necessary.

I'll leave people to make their own minds up as to how "fair" this kind of "investigation" is. My feelings is most real people would not withstand such attention, let alone old men caught up in a multi-million pound national witch hunt.

My opinion is that is indeed balderdash - call it an 'educated guess' if yew like...

Well said Chris,if Robbie had actually had any first hand experience of these matters he may well come to a better conclusion than is his media inspired norm.

Strange that all these alleged victims never felt the assaults/crimes were serious enough to report at the time? Did even ONE of them? (I know he was in trouble for sex with a 15 year old in 1999 or something, but where we're all these other 'victims' then?)

Whatever the case if he is found guilty I don't think it is right to punish him according to today's standards, I think it is only fair that if a person is convicted of an historic offence they should be punished according to what the going punishment was at the time the alleged offense was committed. Or else it's just revising history isn't it? I could be sitting here doing something that is perfectly legal or at least not a hanging offence 1 minute and then 20 years down the line it could be made illegal or a hanging offence and i'd be in deep trouble without any warning wouldn't I?

I also think it is only fair to consider how these men might have changed over the years i.e something they may have thought was acceptable 30, 40 or 50 years ago might well be unthinkable to them now, times change, standards change and so do people, so I think that should be acknowledged and taken into account personally...

robbiex wrote:
How do you know that this is balderdash. We can't disbelieve all accusations anymore than we can believe all accusations. As for the images, either they were found on his computer or not. You can argue forever about whether looking at pictures should be a crime in itself, however the fact is that it is illegal.

Re: The images

It would seem like a very big risk for a man in his position to take though wouldn't it? Given his previous conviction for sex with a 15 year old, not saying he wouldn't, but it would be a very big risk given that suspicion would already be on him more than someone who'd no previous convictions for a sex offence...

Chris Retro wrote:
Robbie - as to 'images' I refer you to the other thread on here. An "image" need not be in any way illegal as they are looking for mud to stick.. Images of children need not be explicit, sexual or even actually of children at all. Images of 'extreme' pornography may be actually from LEGAL websites. Etc. What makes a picture of a child 'illegal'? Would you know an anonymous naked 19 yr old from a 15 yr old? Or a 23 yr old from a 15 yr old? What makes a photograph of 'a person' sexual or deviant?

Investigation - trawling for 12 months. That's all devices and electrical equipment seized - phones, computers etc. All 'contacts' - numbers, email addresses, names - contacted at random and possibly inconvenient times, sometimes more than once - told they will be 'believed' (*ie compensated/sponsored) if they want to make an allegation. The police work on the basis that they will incriminate said individual. The CPS work on the basis any prosecution has to succeed by any means necessary.

I'll leave people to make their own minds up as to how "fair" this kind of "investigation" is. My feelings is most real people would not withstand such attention, let alone old men caught up in a multi-million pound national witch hunt.

My opinion is that is indeed balderdash - call it an 'educated guess' if yew like...

There is no way I would be able to stand that much humiliation and intrusion, even if in the end they found absolutely nothing 'incriminating' - it's the thought of all your acquaintances being contacted, however casual and all your private business being raked though and exposed - no one would want that innocent or guilty...

'one count of possession of extreme pornography, one count of possession of prohibited images and one count of possession of an indecent image of a child.'

We just don't have enough detail to comment on the main charges,but 'extreme pornography' could be something as simple as anal sex.The other two charges may well have included as Chris says non pornographic child images.These are possibly thrown in to pretend they have some 'real proof',not just some false allegations,leading to compensation claims.

Pattaya wrote:
'one count of possession of extreme pornography, one count of possession of prohibited images and one count of possession of an indecent image of a child.'

We just don't have enough detail to comment on the main charges,but 'extreme pornography' could be something as simple as anal sex.The other two charges may well have included as Chris says non pornographic child images.These are possibly thrown in to pretend they have some 'real proof',not just some false allegations,leading to compensation claims.

What's an 'indecent image of a child'? - there's several of me in my mum's house in the bath, getting my nappy changed, skinny dipping at the beach... You'd think they'd have to be worse than that wouldn't you? Though these days i'm not so sure... 38

One of the many funny moments during my fiasco of 13 years ago was when the investigating police (who were later so helpful to witnesses being interviewed) produced the only obscene photo they had found in my house, of a young boy in his swimming trunks on a beach, and asked me... "Who is this boy?".

Their faces when I told them... "Me".

JK2006 wrote:
One of the many funny moments during my fiasco of 13 years ago was when the investigating police (who were later so helpful to witnesses being interviewed) produced the only obscene photo they had found in my house, of a young boy in his swimming trunks on a beach, and asked me... "Who is this boy?".

Their faces when I told them... "Me".

Lol, who did they think it was likely to be? What are they going to do ban cameras on beaches now? Burn all the old family photos from 20+ years ago? I don't know...