Jimmy Savile: The BBC’s Pet Paedo May Not Have Abused Victims In 41 Hospitals
Jimmy Savile (right) and Dr Gerard Vaughan, Minister for Health, at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire, where a National Spinal Injuries Centre is being built. Also attending the ceremony, in which Jimmy announced plans for a new appeal, are patients, staff, and a pipe band from the Royal Artillery Force. Date: 16/06/1980
JIMMY Savile has yet to be dug up and beaten with sticks, his head stuck on a spike. But the man never tried for his alleged crimes remains under investigation. The Times tells readers:
Jimmy Savile may have sexually abused patients at 41 hospitals, the health secretary has revealed. New allegations have been made in relation to 12 NHS trusts, including nine not previously implicated in the scandal.
It’s always useful to turn sensation on its head.
Jimmy Savile may not have sexually abused patients at 41 hospitals, the health secretary has revealed.
What Hunt revealed was nothing at all. He just hinted and suggested that the purge on paedos was making progress.
Savile remains stubbornly dead. The Government is chucking all the ills of the past into his pit. The problem is that if you keep looking at the past, you miss the present.
Findings in the first round of NHS investigation reports, published in June, said that Savile had committed “truly awful” abuse against patients at hospitals across the country. Investigators described the broadcaster as an “opportunistic sexual predator” who used the NHS and his celebrity status to “exploit and abuse” patients and staff.
You see. He was opportunistic. You might wonder who gave him the opportunity? Are these enablers all dead?
Outstanding investigation reports, including at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire, have been delayed until later in the year at the request of prosecutors, Jeremy Hunt said in a written statement.
Lawyers representing Savile’s victims said that it was “incredibly worrying” to see new concerns emerge. Tracey Storey, a specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who is representing some of Savile’s victims, said: “The revelation of further allegations raises even more concerns regarding his activities and how he was able to offend over a number of years.”
Savile was a revolting man. But should not the word “victims” be prefixed with the word ‘alleged’? Have the rules of law and fairness been dispensed with? Was Savile that special?
There will also be a delay in the publication of investigations into alleged abuse by Savile in children’s homes and schools, which are overseen by the Department for Education.
You see. When the Department of Education is in the line of fire, the abuse is “alleged”. When the NHS is in the crosshairs, the alleged abuse is “opportunistic”. But the alleged victims are “victims”. They can be paid off and the casebook shut. No trial. No evidence. No names.
Such is the level of reporting the job oi ‘Chair’ of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse so recently vacated by Fiona Woolf, is an impossible one. Who will dare to be impartial in the face of so many victims and huge institutitions seeking not justice but a chance to repent and be forgiven?
On November 1, the Mail reported:
A former cancer patient who wrote to Jimmy Savile and thanked him for helping to save her life is claiming £60,000 damages for what she claims was a series of sexual assaults. Her claim is one of many being laid against Savile’s estate which a Mail on Sunday investigation has found to be questionable.
They are all questionable, but not, perhaps in the way the Mail pitches it as the claimant being the one to be investigated. This is about alleged crimes. That relies on evidence, statements and facts. The former cancer patient’s letter does not preclude her status as an alleged victims. We don’t know what went on.
The Mail adds:
Last month this newspaper revealed that West Yorkshire Police were investigating allegations that Savile’s great-niece, Caroline Robinson, is fraudulently claiming compensation for supposed assaults by Savile when she was 12 and 15.
Again. We don’t know.
Posted: 7th, November 2014 | In: Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
