Jimmy died on a 29th October, which fell on a Saturday as it does this year. The first working day for one ex-BBC hack was Jimmy's birthday. How Mr Jones must have seethed in those 45 hours listening to all those lovely tributes on the telly, in the press and online. He literally couldn't send this email fast enough. He was on a mission and he wanted to make sure his boot would be the first into a man whose body was still in a refrigerator in Leeds General Hospital
I don't think anyone who knows, knew or even half-liked Jimmy will ever forgive Jones for using the word 'paedophile' in that email, it's just plain callous isn't it ? But, enough of him, the purpose of this post is to ask you to consider this :
IF, Jimmy Savile really had been a paedophile, and everyone who said they knew, before he died, really did KNOW, why didn't anyone else attempt to do the same as Jones, as soon as he died ? After all, he's dead he can't sue, can he ?
Remember how long it took for this story to break in any significant way ? Only one or two brief reports appeared in the press, the first being the Sunday Mirror on 8th January 2012
'Inappropriate behaviour' really ? I'm wondering what's with the reticence here ? Haven't the women told them what they told Jones in November ? Give the chaps their due, they did, after all, get some information from the CPS and the Police
Shame they couldn't get their facts straight - did the cops say allegation or claims ? - pleural or singular ? it's kind of important or is just me ? And, the BBC's Newsnight is struggling apparently, oh dear, anyone have any big stories in the pipeline guys ?
So, what happened next ? Where's the outrage ? Where's the re-opening of the Police investigation ? Where's bloody Fleet Street and ITV and Liz Dux ? Only one publication would run the story, not ONE mainstream paper would touch it. Why not ? Enter Miles Goslett who wrote this on the 3rd November 2012
So, nothing much happened between February and September 2012 when ITV's Lesley Gardiner fired off her letter of intent to the BBC. Goslett says it's Leveson that spooked them, and he wasn't the only one. A week after Exposure, Roy Greenslade from the dizzy heights of the Guardian came up with this
Greenslade knows his onions, he knows that a libel case rests on the ability to prove one way or the other whether the words published are true. Suspicion and gossip about Savile there was and a plenty, but would the evidence hold up in a court of law ? Who, would supply that evidence, that testimony ? Those three women who lied about the existence of a fake letter ? Which three of Jones's women could that have been ?
Strewth, and to think Paul Connew at the Mirror only had two claimants, according to him in 1994
To date, I don't recall Connew ever producing this "credible and convincing" evidence. Let me know if you come across it won't you, after all, Jimmy's still dead, he still can't sue !
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the likes of the News of the World, might well have been fearful of losing a few quid in the libel courts. How duplicitous do you need to be to publish tributes to a man you even suspect, is a child abuser ?
Long before Leveson was a twinkle in Daddy Leveson's eye, the press, we are told, had a code of conduct. There were things that they simply would not do, photos they would not print, stories they would not publish. But, there's always at least one bad apple as they say, and in this next article, you'll see that it just happens to be the boss at the Mirror who OK'd this little gem
Goodness, Gracious I don't remember this ! Looks like Earl Spencer had a point !
This geezer needed a buyer, but who would stoop low enough ? Max Clifford knew
Roy Greenslade makes an appearance in Nick Cohen's piece
Was Montgomery still there in 1994 I wonder
The Mirror is still printed - the Independent only has an online presence now. Funny world, isn't it ?