Jimmy Saville: Multiple Allegations Now Confirmed

[Zaune]

The Guardian

Police are pursuing 120 separate lines of inquiry involving alleged rape and sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile stretching over a period of four decades and "on a national scale", Scotland Yard has said.

Two formal criminal allegations of rape and six of indecent assault have been recorded to date against the late DJ and TV presenter, who died last year, but police said they had received information relating to up to 25 potential victims, the majority of whom were girls aged between 13 and 16 when the alleged abuse took place.

The earliest allegation dates from 1959, said Commander Peter Spindler, head of serious crime investigations at the Metropolitan police, which is co-ordinating the inquiry, but the reports "span four decades of abuse", the majority relating to incidents in the 1970s and 1980s. Five police forces have received allegations about the TV star, he said.

Asked whether it was now possible to say definitively that Savile, who died in October 2011 at the age of 84, was a serial abuser of young women, Spindler said: "I think the facts speak for themselves around the number of women who have come forward and spoken about his behaviour [and] his predilection for teenage girls … It's a pattern of behaviour that is being presented to us."

His remarks give the clearest indication to date of the scale of abuse Savile is now thought to have committed, following a torrent of allegations against the star since it emerged 10 days ago that the BBC had dropped a Newsnight investigation into claims of abuse. The report, in which 10 women accused the TV star of abusing them, was shelved in December last year, shortly before the BBC broadcast a Christmas tribute to the late star.

An ITV programme broadcast last week and based on much of the same material alleged that Savile had raped or sexually assaulted a number of children, some at Duncroft approved school, a boarding school in Staines for girls with behavioural problems, others at the BBC when they had come to watch filming of his TV programmes, and others in his cars or motor home.

George Entwistle, director general of the BBC, apologised on Monday to the abused women and said the corporation would hold an internal inquiry into its own conduct, amid growing reports of a culture in which sexual harassment was commonplace, after the conclusion of the police inquiries. The operation, codenamed Yewtree, is expected to take around six weeks.

Asked about other TV stars who have been accused of abuse, Spindler said: "We've had a range of different names reported to us, but the only allegations recorded are against Savile himself." The comedian Freddie Starr said on Tuesday that he would welcome the opportunity to speak to police over a claim by one alleged victim of Savile that she was also groped by Starr in a BBC dressing room when she was 14. He denies the accusation.

The former head of Jersey's child abuse investigation unit said this week that he believed Savile was involved in abuse at the Haut de la Garenne children's home, the subject of a three-year investigation into sexual abuse. The DJ's name emerged during his investigations, Lenny Harper told the Guardian, and a number of former residents have now told solicitors that they were abused by Savile there during the 1970s.

Asked whether he was aware of allegations of abuse at other institutions, Spindler said the Met was "in dialogue" with both the Leeds General Infirmary and Stoke Mandeville hospital, both of which had close associations with Savile, adding: "His pattern of behaviour does appear to be on a national scale." The DJ, who raised millions of pounds for charities during his lifetime, had his own rooms at Stoke Mandeville and at Broadmoor secure psychiatric hospital, and stayed at both institutions frequently.

Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust said in a statement it "would of course co-operate fully if the appropriate authorities decide to investigate and call upon us for input" regarding Savile's conduct at Stoke Mandeville, adding: "We are unaware of any record or reports of inappropriate behaviour of this nature during Sir Jimmy Savile's work with the trust."

Peter Liver, director of the NSPCC, said the charity had passed 24 reports of abuse to the Met, 17 of which related directly to Savile. The charity has called on other victims of abuse to come forward and seek counselling or support.

Savile's family said on Tuesday that it had ordered his £4,000 gravestone in Scarborough to be removed, "out of respect for public opinion". The monument was erected only last month, but relatives said they were aware of "the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery". A memorial plaque to Savile in Scarborough has been vandalised, while a footpath named after him has also had its sign removed.

Meanwhile the BBC programme Panorama is preparing an investigation into Savile, the Guardian has learned, led by the same producer who prepared the original Newsnight report. It is understood that ITV is also planning a follow-up Exposure programme on Savile by Mark Williams-Thomas, the child protection expert who led last week's investigation.

Fucking hell.

[Crazedwraith]

Ok, the Guy's dead. What is the point of this now? Do they want an apology? Compensation?

If true, this is very sad and a serious crime. But they can't exactly punish him, can they.

[Thanas]

They can probably sue the hell out of the estate.

[Zaune]

Ok, the Guy's dead. What is the point of this now? Do they want an apology? Compensation?

If true, this is very sad and a serious crime. But they can't exactly punish him, can they.

That's why I didn't post about this when the first allegation came out; one accusation, decades too late for there to be any physical evidence and a year too late for the accused to even defend himself, much less suffer any consequences? My first thought was that it'd turn out to be someone wanting to make a quick buck selling their story to the tabloids.

A sentiment I feel somewhat guilty about expressing now that the first accusation has prompted multiple other victioms to come forward.

[madd0ct0r]

following a torrent of allegations against the star since it emerged 10 days ago that the BBC had dropped a Newsnight investigation into claims of abuse. The report, in which 10 women accused the TV star of abusing them, was shelved in December last year, shortly before the BBC broadcast a Christmas tribute to the late star.

Fucking hell Beeb - who the fuck decided to cover this up?

[Hillary]

Well, this is the most unsurprising news of the year. I've been hearing rumours of all this stuff for decades - it was only a matter of time before it came out.

Ok, the Guy's dead. What is the point of this now? Do they want an apology? Compensation?

If true, this is very sad and a serious crime. But they can't exactly punish him, can they.

Well no, but they can "punish" his memory and they will probably get a good deal of catharsis from the process. The saddest part of this to me is that it shows, once again, that if you're rich you can really get away with a hell of a lot. The papers were all aware of it, the BBC were aware of it and the police were aware of it. Yet they all appear to have been powerless to do anything until his death.

[Sharp-kun]

following a torrent of allegations against the star since it emerged 10 days ago that the BBC had dropped a Newsnight investigation into claims of abuse. The report, in which 10 women accused the TV star of abusing them, was shelved in December last year, shortly before the BBC broadcast a Christmas tribute to the late star.

Fucking hell Beeb - who the fuck decided to cover this up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... avile.html

There has been a lot written about why I took the decision not to run a story into allegations of sex abuse by the former BBC presenter Jimmy Savile. It has been suggested I was ordered to do it by my bosses as part of a BBC cover-up. It has also been suggested that we deliberately withheld information from the police. Both these allegations are totally untrue and despite consistent strong denials keep getting repeated. I felt it would be useful to share more about what really happened.

The BBC has the highest editorial standards and with any story an editor has to weigh many things before putting something to air. BBC editors have a lot of power and responsibility and I have never, in the many years I have done this job, ever been told by one of my superiors not to do a story against my will. I would not still be working here if they had.

Why did I pursue this story about Jimmy Savile and why did I drop it?

I decided we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds he was too old. This made the public interest case from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.

Some of the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public interest served by reporting it given he is dead? The nature of the allegations and the level of proof required. The fact the incidents were 40 years ago.

We had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. We had no evidence against the BBC. In her original statement our key witness said she was "perfectly certain the BBC had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". However, I felt if we could prove the police or the CPS had let the women down in some way we should go ahead.

We did establish the police had investigated the allegations in 2007. However, as the police would be obliged to investigate I wanted to check how they would respond to the allegation that it was not pursued because Jimmy Savile was too old. The CPS told us:
"The CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." The additional guidance noted stated. "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."

This statement specifically denied the allegation that the investigation was dropped because of his age. I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish. There were some of my team who disagreed strongly with my judgement, and others who agreed equally strongly.

However, those who disagreed accepted my decision. There were no rows of any kind as has been reported.

Did we withhold evidence from the police? No. We are confident that all the women we spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police.

Did my bosses order me to do anything? No. I did discuss it with my bosses in News in the same way I do any contentious story we are working on. I was told in the strongest terms that I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the BBC affect my judgement.

The fact that the BBC has the capacity to do this may feel odd to other organisations but it is fundamental to the trust we share with our audience.

Their reason is that they were told there wasn't enough evidence for a case back when it was investigated. I can get not wanting to dredge stuff up on a dead guy when its already not been pursued by the police.