Check out the Mail on Sunday; the media don't quite dare say "the Savile madness was a media constructed fantasy" but the entire structure is falling apart. With two thirds of the claims now discarded as false (and the other third simply marked "believable" - meaning the victims acted better), lawyers grabbing all the money (even from the "believable victims") and Judges complaining that the whole thing has turned from a tragedy into a farce (just imagine the scene in court - what's the term for a gaggle of lawyers?). We've been saying this ever since it started. The BBC was quite right to reject those early false allegations and to refuse to broadcast them.

The big explosion will come when the woman who forged the original letter reveals how, why and who from she got the (old) Surrey Police letter heading. That will explode the entire barrel of gunpowder - which certain cops are delighted to anticipate.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827079...genuine-victims.html

Truly extraordinary quantity of views and messages this morning; credit, please, not to me but to Anna Raccoon, whose contribution has been enormous. Quite apart from anything else, anyone who ploughs through every word of every NHS report to see how, again and again, the claims are ludicrous and insane, let alone usually rejected (something not reported by media at the time), deserves a research medal.

One wonders how many millions will now be wasted by reports on all the new hospitals (many of whom have since shut down) following this white rabbit of insanity down the media hole.

Do we really, as a nation, want our taxes to be spent on this instead of on improving health care, employing nurses and doctors, buying medicines, building wards and creating new beds?

So that, eventually, we can give money to lawyers and TV personalities?

All well good and true JK,but as with Rotherham the main point of public anger has been missed...that is the 'cover up' element.
Without the attempted cover ups none of the exaggeration that came after could have happened...cure the illness first,clear up the mess it made second.

What cover up Patt? I saw no cover up. There was no cover up. There is NOW a cover up (protecting those who exposed things that never happened). But it won't last long.

I hasten to point out, Patt, that, if you're referring to the "cover up" of all those millions raped daily who never said a word at the time, deciding that innocent girls did not need to be protected, when even one anonymous call to the anonymous Blessed Esther free Childline Helpline would have saved thousands from rape, I don't blame them because, clearly, what they NOW reveal never actually happened. Why bother to protect millions from a mad rapist when he was alive if he hadn't actually done any raping?

JK2006 wrote:
I hasten to point out, Patt, that, if you're referring to the "cover up" of all those millions raped daily who never said a word at the time, deciding that innocent girls did not need to be protected, when even one anonymous call to the anonymous Blessed Esther free Childline Helpline would have saved thousands from rape, I don't blame them because, clearly, what they NOW reveal never actually happened. Why bother to protect millions from a mad rapist when he was alive if he hadn't actually done any raping?

No Mr King far from it,I'm referring to the fact that there were complaints about Saville made to the police etc,they were not followed up properly...as was also the case in Rotherham.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2461443...-escape-justice.html

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/346...interview-transcript

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/ji...ct-Jimmy-Savile.html

I'm sure 99% of the Saville claims are at best exaggerations,most bullsh!t...but we got to this ridiculous stage because 'those above' tried to interfere.

I am really confused. How can there be a cover up if there was nothing to cover? And how can there be victims when no crime (we assume)has taken place?

No Patt I reckon nobody "tried to interfere" (believe me, if people could be made to interfere, I had more than enough contacts during my mini ordeal but knew they would never work). I blame incompetence linked to the fact that any investigations at the time were clearly into mad people who, after a few seconds, could be seen to be part of the barmy multitude of exaggerators, deluded or after cash. Decent cops would and should have simply shrugged shoulders and said "piss off". They must have had dozens of allegations about celebrities every week (in the 60s dozens of young girls used to claim pop stars were the fathers of their illegitimate brats).

But Honey - the point is that, these days, fairly standard if offensive behaviour like pinching bums and tweaking tits from 40 years ago is now regarded as rape. Exaggerate it a little and you have a serious offence ripe for compensation. Especially if the accused is dead and the law says "you will be believed".

For NatWest to admit that two thirds of the "victims" have not been believed is extraordinary (they are clearly trying to justify their behaviour).

JK2006 wrote:
No Patt I reckon nobody "tried to interfere" (believe me, if people could be made to interfere, I had more than enough contacts during my mini ordeal but knew they would never work). I blame incompetence linked to the fact that any investigations at the time were clearly into mad people who, after a few seconds, could be seen to be part of the barmy multitude of exaggerators, deluded or after cash. Decent cops would and should have simply shrugged shoulders and said "piss off". They must have had dozens of allegations about celebrities every week (in the 60s dozens of young girls used to claim pop stars were the fathers of their illegitimate brats).

But Honey - the point is that, these days, fairly standard if offensive behaviour like pinching bums and tweaking tits from 40 years ago is now regarded as rape. Exaggerate it a little and you have a serious offence ripe for compensation. Especially if the accused is dead and the law says "you will be believed".

For NatWest to admit that two thirds of the "victims" have not been believed is extraordinary (they are clearly trying to justify their behaviour).

The allegations before his death did come across as far more believable than those after his death...and as for similarities with your case he was connected far deeper into the 'establishment' than you ever were...hospitals/tv/bbc..etc...no disrespect intended Mr king,just pointing out a fact...and if we are to disprove a lot of the rubbish being put about now we do need to have answers...the public in this internet age will not be pushed about,and to my mind that is a good thing.

I'd like to reply to a point made in your opinion piece this morning regarding " police hating these cases." In my experience and following the experiences of a number of others falsely accused , this is not the case at all.

All other types of criminal prosecution take real work, gathering physical evidence, witnesses etc.
Not so an allegation of historic sexual abuse, just take statements from the accuser and any hearsay nonsense from friends and family, that's all the "evidence" required. Suggestions from the accused regarding witnesses that may dispute the allegations are ignored, statements are almost certainly not taken. Then submit this one sided "investigation" to CPS which is rarely examined in any detail. ( One falsely accused friend recently told me that their accusers statement had the gory bits in capital letters, I can only surmise this was to allow the CPS to skim read it and not look at the case as a whole.)

Modern police only appear to be interested in convictions to enhance their own promotion prospects, they are not interested in the truth or justice, just meeting targets.

Throughout my family's experience of a false allegation I was not really surprised at the behaviour of the accuser, but the biased police response shocked me to the core.

Pattaya wrote:
The allegations before his death did come across as far more believable than those after his death...and as for similarities with your case he was connected far deeper into the 'establishment' than you ever were...hospitals/tv/bbc..etc...no disrespect intended Mr king,just pointing out a fact...and if we are to disprove a lot of the rubbish being put about now we do need to have answers...the public in this internet age will not be pushed about,and to my mind that is a good thing.
The tabloids and media over the decades have constantly written the most unbelievable things and yet millions appear to have believed them. They most likely believe in Santa Claus as well! So like the satanic ritual and all the families rounded up a in few locations. Hundreds of lives destroyed. Yes amongst the families some problems but nothing that ressembled the media representation.
So Rotherham has come up. The stories and the reality are most highly likely, going by past record, to be on the opposite sides. Incompetence, lack of action, over action and so on. Organisations excel at been inept private or public.
So now look at the Savile explosion in stories. Well the media always had him in their sights because he never had a known partner thus they were trying, thus all the questions over the years culminating in the ITV documentry. So the stories and pre death stuff coming out like the policeman in the newspaper story referred to above and others have now disappeared. There was never anything there otherwise when Savile wrote his first book the media and vultures would of had him then. Connections, cover ups and rings. Savile was a loner. Good stories, great for the media and their believers. And that is all.

I know what you mean FA - the worst part of my entire experience was when it dawned on me that the police didn't care about the truth; they simply wanted a conviction. And, as I say in 65 My Life So Far, several of the officers on my case hated what was going on and bravely told me so.

In 70FFFY, Season Two of my autobiography, out at any moment (officially 6th December but actually ready now), you can read a chapter on Jimmy Savile that may open a few eyes.

JK2006 wrote:
I know what you mean FA - the worst part of my entire experience was when it dawned on me that the police didn't care about the truth; they simply wanted a conviction. And, as I say in 65 My Life So Far, several of the officers on my case hated what was going on and bravely told me so.

In 70FFFY, Season Two of my autobiography, out at any moment (officially 6th December but actually ready now), you can read a chapter on Jimmy Savile that may open a few eyes.

Is the 65etc volume included or do we need to buy both?

Sadly, Honey, you need to buy both; and the entire stock of Printed 65's ran out in a week, so it's only available as a (very cheap) E Book. But I can guarantee it's worth buying both.

a myth has already been created about Rotherham..a "cover-up" when no such thing happened.

Failing to investigate is not a 'cover-up' and the difficulty with cases like Rotherham - despite it being present as "1400 little kiddies" is that these were teen girls who had run away from home, getting drunk & taking drugs - basically doing what is happening all over the country.

Toss in a group of blokes with a certain ethnic backgroud and you have a media "good story"

And it will happen again as Social services are underfunded.

There was only one complaint about Savile despite false claims that others were made and "they weren't listened to". It's bullshit.

The claim that Savile was some "Establishment" power is a fantasy..he was a has-been DJ who was tolerated because he did charity work.

Those who say he was too powerful must have been hiding in a cupboard for 40 years and not noticed the 100s of very powerful politicians, businessmen, Lords, actors & celebrities who have been dragged through the mud in the media or charged with crimes.

But it's interesting that the all-persuasive Savile tales have actually worked.

### I always believed the claims on Savile's estate had to be challenged because if they were not : every estate in the future could be challenged likewise and eaten similarly.

#### the legal fraternity know this and were never going to cave into some opportunistic ambulance chasing shysters.

##### Very pleasing to hear one judge actually speak out with astonishment that no evidence was needed for Savile claims : if accepted without question it would change the nature of British law.

Yes Hedda but I found it astonishing that the Judge originally sanctioned the NatWest executor position. Surely he spotted the precedent would include dead Judge's estates? But no; British society and the broken legal system never ceases to amaze me. Remember; there is no decision on this yet. But the media coverage has alerted people with brains (1% of the world?) that false allegations do exist.

having been an executor twice, you are in effect powerless even though legal responsibility is yours unless you are an entity like Nat West who are all powerful.

Jim was remiss allowing the Nat West to be executors- another example of how he was really locked into another era when banks were far more kosher. Now run by carpet baggers.

The Mail still have it down to an art when they want to simultaneously publish a good story and yet hide it away if it doesn't suit their agenda. Usually placed on the left side of the paper, and strangely anonymous in the way they set it out, they seem to be hiding the story in plain sight, to borrow that fashionable phrase. I wonder how many readers actually absorb the meaning of such reports.

Ah yes, the Mail; best but nastiest paper in Britain. Don't you wish the Guardian was half as good?

What is more interesting is - why haven't other media outlets picked up on this? Answer - because it might kill "a great story". Sadly Editors seem incapable of spotting that it's now an "even better story". People are bored to tears with the "Savile was a pervert" story. The only thing liable to perk them up is the inevitable "Savile wasn't a pervert after all" story.