Pages

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

'Unreliable' - that's untrue to you and me !

What happens if you or I, make a claim that leads to the arrest and, in some cases, conviction of an innocent person ? Would I  be arrested ? Moreover, would my public shaming and exposure as a liar make any subsequent claims, of a similar nature, less, or MORE likely to be believed ? It's obvious isn't it, no one would believe me, and they'd be right. So, why have so many folk gotten away with publishing or republishing serious claims of sexual assault ? Like this one for instance ? Yes, it's that eight year old gal again ! 
 In Exposure the update, MWT informs us at 18.25 that poolice are now investigating 16 allegations at Stoke M Hospital, 9 of these 'alleged victims' are represented by Liz Dux. The 'accusations range from indecent assault to RAPE' (MWT's emphasis not mine).
'One of her clients claims to have been just eight years old when Savile attacked her' 
Dux - Well some of them are totally shattered .... We are talking about .. went in as patients and came out abused victims' 
Several of the victims DID report matters to members of staff ... very promptly after the abuse had taken place' 
MWT 'At least two of the nine (her NINE) victims told staff members ?'
Dux 'Yes they did' 'No action was taken' 
Amazingly, the official NHS report published eighteen months AFTER these words were spoken, found no evidence that ANY reports were made to Any member of staff at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, or anywhere else for that matter ! 
SOMEONE has told a barefaced LIE, and no one has owned up to this yet ! Presumably, those two alleged reportees have been awarded compensation ? Don't we have a right to know ? This is, after all, public money that's being frittered away, not just the estate of a dead man !
WHY the hell is no one forcing Liz Dux and MWT to answer questions as to how an eight year old girl, they claim was raped in hospital, became an eight year old boy ? It's important you see because this story was peddled on our TV screens and across the media and press in October/November 2012.
Did the legal requirement of responsible journalism completely disappear in October 2011 ? Let's see what the Savile dame has to say about media reportage of claims that the BBC bosses were essentially aware of Savile's alleged offending shall we ? 
http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/chapter_8.pdf 
The Press Gazette helpfully provides summaries of the several reports. 

 Now, what's good about the sun's unreliable report is the fact that the dame goes over and beyond in order to establish the truth about the claims said to have been made by a  'top producer' or whatever he actually was, while he worked on Jim'll Fix it, in either 1988 or 1989 ! After all, if she hadn't spoke to him, would any of us been any the wiser as to that difference of opinion as to what he actually told the hack the night BEFORE they published his little Savile tale. 
You see, the BBC in 2012 had rejected claims that Savile had been reported to bosses but those bosses turned a 'blind eye'. More than two years later, the dame concluded FOR the BBC bosses, and very much against the hacks. Well, that's certainly how her words read to me 






Read that line again - 'much of the material by which the public had been persuaded that the BBC knew about Savile's crimes was unreliable' ! What the hell ? Is it too much of a stretch of Ms Smith's 'remit' to take that conclusion to it's, well, logical conclusion, that press folk were deliberately spreading lies, or, at the very least, exaggerating or completely altering, other people's already exaggerated claims ? 
Mr Nicholson's recollections of what he saw or what he told the sun hack, he allegedly saw in a BBC dressing room, certainly sounded a lot less, well er, criminal, by the times he found himself before the dame in London. Presumably, he'd contacted her to give evidence ?







Over and beyond - the Dame asked the Sun 
And she wasn't going to be flipped off with that ! She didn't get the information requested, like Brian Neil QC didn't get any assistance from the NOTW forty odd years earlier, and no one appears to give a shit about that fact either ! 
All comes to all, the dame exonerated the big boys at the BBC. They did NOT know that Jimmy Savile was committing 'crimes' on their premises because nobody told them, although everyone knew at least one person who knew at least one person who .... 
Naturally, Ms Dux was not happy with the dame's conclusions, what does vicarious liability mean again anyone ? 
 For once I'm in agreement with Liz, I find it 'implausible' too !


To date, no one has used the word 'unreliable' in the same sentence as Liz Dux's eight year old 'victim' of Sir Jimmy Savile. Ooops, I just did ! 



 

6 comments:

  1. What is revealing is that it appears that Dux can do nothing about it. I guess this is why there was such a fight over WHO would lead the IICSA Inquiry. The law fiirms had to know that whoever it was, they would come down on their side in the end. That Smith can simultaneously declare the BBC innocent but Savile guilty is implausible really, especially as the ex-BBC Governor who claimed Savile had been barred from Childline never reached the report at all and Dux never even invokes him. By Smith's own parameters, Rodney Collins would make it a slam-dunk for S&G. Yet nobody challenges anybody. It's like a choreographed dance, with neither side wanting to turn it into a costly brawl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can do nothing about what Moor ? I take it you mean the alleged 'whitewash'. As for the 8 yr old girl thing she did say that the press got it wrong. Problem for her being that, this was said on TV in her little appearance on Exposure update. She never corrected it, yet she says they are HER clients ! WHY does no one challenge her ? A Bridge too far I expect

      Delete
    2. "why does no one challenge her"

      That's what I mean. They have all these inquiry rituals for which they all get paid, but nobody really is serious are they. You are left with the feeling that the BBC could just have said "Prove it" all along, but they chose not to do so. It's all a game of give and take. Tax payer gives the money and takes the loss, so these bizarre dancers can do their pirouettes together.

      Delete
  2. I always wonder if the Sir's name will be cleared, I certainly have my hopes that the real truth will come out.. I read somewhere that you organised a peaceful march around the lake at roundhay park.. if you are setting one up for this year I will be very happy to participate and meet the fellow #believers. I also happen to live on the outskirts of Leeds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Badger I'll keep you in mind

      Delete
    2. Badger- his name WILL be cleared - it's all there just need balls and someone to listen / publish.

      Delete