and check out the comments...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4290336...versity-student.html

Via your message board JK, I would like to suggest an Amnesty. This Amnesty is offered to all those men and women who falsely accused Sir Jimmy Savile. They can give their reasons (optional) admit they were coerced (optional) or take the opportunity to do the right thing and save lives and reputations of so many falsely accused human beings.

Until this happens, and the Savile scandal is seen as the unjust tradegdy that it's is, and until the Yewtree Police and the scandalous Lawyers are brought to book, stories like the one mentioned above WILL continue to happen.

For those ready to have a go at me and say "do you really believe Sir Jimmy Savile was innocent, are you insane?"

Ask yourself.............

Did you believe in WMDs?
Did you believe anyone could lie that their child had cancer to set up a Just Giving Page?
Did you believe that someone could lie their fiancé died in 9/11 for attention?
Did you believe children's bodies were buried in Jersey?

Now start believing that people do lie, for lots of different reasons and YES people do and have lied about Sir Jimmy Savile (difficult for some of you to believe, but give it a go).

#savileamnesty it won't stop until you come forward. YOU WILL BE BELIEVED.

I meant to say, if anyone wants to add this to the Daily Mail comments, go ahead.

Excellent post. I think you're absolutely right. Until people stop holding up the Savile claims like a Holy Grail, no-one is safe (or "everybody is fair game", to quote Mark Williams-Thomas). I believe the Savile claims are a scam and have given people the green light to commit legalised fraud against the living. It's inconceivable that scores of crime victims would all have failed to report crime against them by a stranger for decades or that even a handful would have been turned away or not had their visit recorded by police. But so many people have bought into the Savile claims, including decision-makers, that there would be a lot of face to lose for anyone admitting they had been conned. And money too for anyone admitting to fraud or anyone for whom business is good as a consequence.

I know Jonathan’s own case, and others, came long before Savile, but it does seem that Savile has become the justification for all kinds of new mischief. Even those who have been willing to defend people like Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall or Ted Heath seem to feel the need to preface their defence with an acknowledgement of how awful it was that Savile got away with so much for so long, and how it was quite understandable and reasonable that we should vigorously pursue such cases.

How can someone insist that of course Jimmy Savile was guilty, but Ted Heath getting away with similar crimes just defies belief?

People lie for a range of reasons, but even an unclaimed lottery prize will find 100 winners.

An amnesty? I'm not sure. I'd rather see the estate repaid in full by those who have profited from this whole farce, and anyone convicted of HSA in the aftermath of the Savile debacle could be freed to make space for those who've already spent their winnings.

Misa wrote:
I know Jonathan’s own case, and others, came long before Savile, but it does seem that Savile has become the justification for all kinds of new mischief. Even those who have been willing to defend people like Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall or Ted Heath seem to feel the need to preface their defence with an acknowledgement of how awful it was that Savile got away with so much for so long, and how it was quite understandable and reasonable that we should vigorously pursue such cases.

How can someone insist that of course Jimmy Savile was guilty, but Ted Heath getting away with similar crimes just defies belief?

People lie for a range of reasons, but even an unclaimed lottery prize will find 100 winners.

An amnesty? I'm not sure. I'd rather see the estate repaid in full by those who have profited from this whole farce, and anyone convicted of HSA in the aftermath of the Savile debacle could be freed to make space for those who've already spent their winnings.

I would let everybody keep their compensation, but use public money to reimburse the children's hospital that was denied life saving equipment because of it.

Misa.........an amnesty IS asking a lot, but the end result would be the debunking of this rediculous and untrue attack on SJS's memory and his family. Lets just imagine 10, 50 or even a 100 stories being taken up by the media "I lied because"........................

NatWest hang your heads in shame, along with S&G and Yewtree. The bonuses, promotions and kudos will haunt you all, Karma is on its way. Just ask Gambo and the rest.

Jo.......... I always look forward to reading your comments about SJS.

Misa wrote:
How can someone insist that of course Jimmy Savile was guilty, but Ted Heath getting away with similar crimes just defies belief?
Because Jimmy Savile was eccentric?

here's an idea wrote:
an amnesty IS asking a lot, but the end result would be the debunking of this rediculous and untrue attack on SJS's memory and his family. Lets just imagine 10, 50 or even a 100 stories being taken up by the media "I lied because"........................
I do agree. I'm sorry if I came over a little negative!

Jo wrote:
Because Jimmy Savile was eccentric?
That's a most astute observation.

Thanks for the positive feedback!

I wonder if Jimmy Savile's family/friends have sought help from private investigators to investigate the claims, or at least some of them. According to the post pinned at the top of the Support Justice for Rolf Harris Facebook page (readable without a Facebook account, just click on Not Now when the white box appears), the same firm that worked on the DLT case is now working on the Rolf Harris case (firm's website).

David Rose/Mail on Sunday don't seem to have followed up this article. If the police aren't going to investigate the claims, perhaps others could step in and provide material for a follow-up story.

Jimmy Savile's niece's demand for compensation led to police fraud probe: Her own daughter says 'abuse' story is false... so how many more of the 211 claims for vast payments will police investigate?

And if the BBC had any backbone they would fight the false claims instead of paying out our money to fake victims.

You're welcome Jo.

Sir Jimmy's family and friends spent months (and many hundreds of hours) scrutinising the claims and providing evidence for the defence. They contacted the Police each and every time there was a PROVEN fraudulent claim. You've guessed it, they refused the evidence and the scrutinisers were warned off by the Lawyers.

It's all still available but until the Lawyers are told they can't legally sue the scrutinisers for reporting the Frauds, the evidence remains under lock and key.

In the words of JK, how delicious would it be to prove how much tax payers money was fraudulently paid out? Who helped this fraud, who covered it up......................and so it goes on.

Neither the BBC, NHS or the Police investigated these claims, but the family and friends did. They had to force the Lawyers into letting them. What they know is priceless, but through fear of a lawsuit they are silenced, possibly for ever.

They've done such a good job Jo, there's no need for Private Investigator.

Sadly David Rose didn't follow up the Great Niece story.

Neither David Rose (nor I) could follow up on the niece/suggested fraudulent claim because until she had actually claimed money, rather than just said she was going to, she hadn't necessarily committed any crime.....this was the same factor that handicapped the police investigation. No claim/ no fraud.

We both tried very hard to follow up on that story, but its not as simple as it seems at first sight.

I may not be writing, but I am still watching and listening......!

Here's an Idea wrote:
Neither the BBC, NHS or the Police investigated these claims, but the family and friends did. They had to force the Lawyers into letting them. What they know is priceless, but through fear of a lawsuit they are silenced, possibly for ever.

Are you saying that there is information which would show that some of those who made successful claims were clearly bogus? I'm aware that some claims were rejected under the very limited terms upon which they could be questioned. Is it these obviously fraudulent claims for which information may not legally be released? And, if so, do you know what the legal grounds are?

The deeply wonderful and utterly gorgeous Raccoon supplies wisdom as above!

At the very start of the High Court process under Mr Justice Sales, all the claimants were granted anonymity for life, regardless of the status of thier claims. Nothing can be revealed that would identify them or the nature of their claims. Nor can any of the people involved in the vetting process be identified, all are subject to stringent confidentiality clauses. We have all had the letter from Slater and Gordon threatening fire and brimstone and hot boiling oil or something if anyone opens their mouth.

Deeply frustrating, and very unfair, but that is the nature of a High Court order.

The frustration for those who know some of the truth, or part of the truth, is immense - but no one wants to lose the roof over their head......

My sympathy for the Savile family is overwhelming. They must feel like chewing their left arm off at times.

Interesting reading, thank you for your interest - Anna is correct, without proof of fraud no story or trial, no proof allowed due to confidentiality restrictions.

I did hear there had been a sighting, but didn't for a moment expect...

Anna, greetings!

Thank you, Anna. It all seems so long ago, but I should really have remembered your account of the proceedings.

Amanda, too. I can't begin to imagine what this has all been like.