Sunday, 21 February 2016
" Quick on the draw"
Apparently, Jimmy Savile wore tracksuits because they provided him quick access to his genitals ! Goodness gracious, I remember hearing this tosh at the beginning of this saga, but with the leaking of parts of the dame's report, it appears we may be in for more 'forensic' examination of this all important aspect of Savile's alleged 'abuse'. I kid you not ! The times 22nd Jan 2016
The government's response to this leaky 'draft' is kind of previous, given that the contents have not been released yet. Oh, and was anyone aware that this thing has allegedly cost us £10,000,000 !
Dux reacted to the news that the BBC bosses had been 'exonerated' by the dame
Summat tells me, Ms dux is not going to like the finished product scheduled for release this week ! She'd had such high hopes for the dame two years ago !
Two years old, yet some 'source' was feeding the media information even then. Could they have had access to this 'draft' as far back as this ? After all, it had been due for release then, hence the article, and while Dux was disappointed in the delay, she accepted it because
Oh yes, Ms Dux had only 74 'victims' back then, her 'scheme' had not yet been sanctioned in the high court back then.
And, she was counting her money before she had any idea of what it would be. You have to hand it to dux she has some brass neck on her when she says
The report was delayed a second time at the start of last year, but this time, it was, we are told, at the request of the met
The Savile compo scheme was in place, no new clients for Dux after June 2014 (if my memory serves me right), yet her claimants now numbered 168
Then the cops revealed that Yewtree was still on the go (was it ?) Surely, they had moved on to more 'important' people ?
My only interest in the 'VIP' claims/assessments/investigations, lies in any aspect that might affect a reasonable person. One aspect being the now, sort of, admission by Police that their findings that 'Nick's' claims about Leon Brittan, were 'credible and true' were wrong ish !
The VIP's fought back you see, the one's who could, but what about the dead ? Let's go back to 2012 shall we ? It's days before Exposure airs and things are looking pretty grim for Jimmy because, the claims previously restricted to relatively minor alleged incidents, now use the word RAPE ! Two of the women found by MWT who appear on camera, allege that they had sex with Savile against their will. 'Val' and 'Angie'
I remember her saying this on the telly
'Credible' ladies and gentlemen ? I think not, you see Jimmy appears to have changed his MO since the 2007/8 police investigation, because now he's being accused of something he was NEVER ACCUSED OF BEFORE ! Time to refresh your memories about Alison Levitt QC's findings into that investigation. You see, the complainants or 'victims' as Ms QC had decided to call them, made no mention of serious sexual assault. In fact, the alleged incidents were anything but, moreover they involved just TWO women Ms A and Ms C, the latter of whom never even made or wanted to pursue a complaint. And, what were Ms QC's conclusions as to the TWO alleged incidents ? What should the cops have done, that they didn't do but that's OK, it wasn't their fault, they should have BELIEVED Ms A and told her and all the others who came forward via the internet, that other 'victims' existed.
Really ? Prosecution for what ? Read Ms A and Ms B's accounts, the former involving a B&B, a chaffuer and a crucifix, the latter a blanket, a television room in 1978 or 1979 (Jimmy only frequented the place in 1974) and most famously, involved the words 'beef biyani' !
'Credible' Ms QC ? One of the only two people willing to speak to the her, and not even an alleged 'victim'
She changed her story ? What, you mean like 'Nick' ? Ms QC covers 'B' here by, well blaming the copsand their crap note-taking !
Goodness Gracious, and from this, hundreds of 'crimes' have been attributed to Jimmy Savile. Ms QC made her agenda all very loud and clear back in January 2013. It was time to 'believe' everything a 'complainant' says. Why, Goddam, let's go all the way, let's call all these folk 'victims' shall we, because that is our agenda now !
Sorry Ms QC, but I don't believe Ms A,B,C and G and I suspect you don't/didn't either ! Ms G ? why that would be this liar
Next time, gals who became gals, teenager's who became children. Don't expect too much sense in the dame's report either. Their agenda has not changed yet, not for ordinary folk that is !