Grahame Wettone (police correspondent) says looks bad that when Surrey police , when investigating the Duncroft School, asked Yorks Police what they knew about Savile, yet the W . Yorks force continued to use him on crime reduction, road safety campaigns etc.
Grahame Wettone (police correspondent) says looks bad that when Surrey police , when investigating the Duncroft School, asked Yorks Police what they knew about Savile, yet the W . Yorks force continued to use him on crime reduction, road safety campaigns etc.
All seems a bit whitewashy to me.
Crime reduction campaigns all I've heard of is/was the Clunk Click campaign?.
They were talking to someone from W Yorks Police on BBC Breakfast who said they were working with the NSPCC and NAPAC to try and find safeguarding tactics to help victims speak out more quickly, as far as I understood it. They said they wanted to try and find out why so many people didn't come forward beforehand - hmmm...
A West Yorkshire Police report says DJ Jimmy Savile "was not protected from arrest" because of his relationship with the force - but a lawyer representing victims says this "doesn't add up".
Alan Collins, who represents 40 victims of the disgraced broadcaster today questioned the findings saying: "Savile was able to run rings around the police for decades. He used police officers."
Mr Collins told ITV's Daybreak: ""He was engrained with them, dovetailed with them.
"The report begs a lot more questions. It provides some answers but the report reveals memories that are not as sharp as perhaps they ought to be, 'can't remember', documents that can't seem to be located.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s9lqg/5_live_Breakfast_10_05_2013/
1hr 5min in
Radio 5Live Breakfast, talk with Danny Shaw, BBC Home Correspondent, then Dan Davis, who is writing a book about Savile. He calls the report "A bit of a whitewash, a bit of a fudge."
Mentions an ormamental lighter found when auctioning his stuff, "From all your friends at the Vice Squad."
Later in 5Live Breakfast
"Ingrid Lee, Temporary Assistant Chief Constable with West Yorkshire Police, is challenged by Nicky Campbell about a reported present of an ornamental lighter given to Jimmy Savile by the West Yorkshire Police decades ago; and Savile's 'coffee meetings' where police officers met Savile on Fridays at his house. "
I've read some daft comments before, but this one really goes to a whole new level.
Good grief.
I don't understand why you think that was a daft comment. If a "victim" did not feel it worthy of reporting at the time why should they suddenly feel the need to now after so many years?
Having dealt with true victims of dreadful child abuse I just feel that some are trivialising the whole situation by reporting what were essentially minor offences at the time. I have great sympathy for victims of serious assault and rape and especially for children but I have no sympathy from any woman who decides after so long that a pinch on the bottom has destroyed her life and they should get compensation,
I found your comment insulting as you obvioulsy haven't read the whole of the post or any of my previous posts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s9lqg/5_live_Breakfast_10_05_2013/
1hr 5min in
Radio 5Live Breakfast, talk with Danny Shaw, BBC Home Correspondent, then Dan Davis, who is writing a book about Savile. He calls the report "A bit of a whitewash, a bit of a fudge."
Mentions an ormamental lighter found when auctioning his stuff, "From all your friends at the Vice Squad."
Why are the police allowed to investigate themselves? It's time this practice was stopped. The Hillsborough independent panel showed what can happen.
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas 3m
West Yorkshire Police review of #Savile does identify 76 sexual offences - youngest offences against a 5yr old child
Seven men have been convicted of exploiting teenage girls - including prostitution and trafficking. Our reporter Phil Mackie spoke to DCI Neil Jamieson of West Mercia Police.
Police report into relationship with Jimmy Savile branded a whitewash
A police report into its relationship with Jimmy Savile has been branded a whitewash and condemned by his victims.
I've been following the Savile stuff and indeed this thread from the off.
I still don't understand the posters/ people who say-
1) They don't know why people who were abused years ago didn't speak up at the time and imply that as they didn't, it's a bit late to come forward now.
2) People who have reported so called 'minor offences' shouldn't really bother as the police investigation should only be focused on major incidents such as rape.
My personal views on the above-
1) It's outrageous to suggest that there should be some kind of time limit on this kind of thing. As many posters have pointed out, victims may have a myriad of reasons for why they perhaps haven't come forward until now- fear, shame being just a couple of possibles.
2) If we truly want a warts and all, transparent enquiry into this, I would think that ALL instances should be reported, regardless of whether they are perceived by some as being 'less important'. If we are to have a fully open and honest investigation, ALL instances, minor and major should surely be taken into account, to give a fully represenatative picture of what went on. Let the police and legal system decided what is 'worthy of prosecution' and what isn't.
Should we name those accused of sexual abuse before proven guilty?
24% Yes
76% No
I've never trusted the court of public opinion, but this is a topic which troubles me. I can see a very good reason for people charged with serious sexual offences being named, if there is a chance that doing so will encourage other victims to come forward. At the same time, I have painfully personal experience of what a false accusation can lead to.
Is there a middle way? Restricting the reporting of names unless the CPS receive judicial permission to publish? This would protect the victims of malicious accusations, without hindering the investigation of those offences where publishing the accused's name may lead to the discovery of further offences.
The West Yorkshire Police report reveals the allegation of a payment in 1958 to the police to make a court case go away never happened....
7.5
In October 2012, it was reported in the media that Savile had been investigated by the police in relation to offences of indecency involving “young girls” as early as 1958. In a journalist interview with a former employee of Savile’s club, the Mecca Locarno in Leeds, it was reported that Savile had come into the club one day and seemed to be in a low mood. When the employee spoke to other people in the club, not Savile, he was told that Savile was worried because he was up in court for “interfering with young girls”. He notes that a few days later Savile was back to his normal self. The press reports quoted the employee as saying that it was because “he had paid them (the police) off”.
7.6
Following this WYP received an enquiry from BBC Radio Leeds asking for a response in relation to the media report. Later that same day the Radio Leeds reporter recontacted WYP stating they were no longer seeking a response. Radio Leeds had conducted an interview with the former employee and he had stated that the media was incorrect in its reporting and that he had been misquoted regarding paying off the police.
7.7
Officers from the review team have spoken with the former employee who confirms that he was misquoted by the press. He stated that the incident did happen but the conversation was about Savile paying off the victims’ families and not the police. He stated that he did not suggest that Savile had paid the police off in relation to this matter.
Checks were made of WYP archives, HMCS and the CPS and nothing was found relating to the incident or investigations or charges involving Savile in 1958.
The WYP have been unable to identify any victims relating to this incident and none of the victims who have come forward since Operation Yewtree commenced outline any offending matching this allegation.
Comments
All seems a bit whitewashy to me.
(Must learn to type faster)
Crime reduction campaigns
They were talking to someone from W Yorks Police on BBC Breakfast who said they were working with the NSPCC and NAPAC to try and find safeguarding tactics to help victims speak out more quickly, as far as I understood it. They said they wanted to try and find out why so many people didn't come forward beforehand - hmmm...
http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-savile-west-yorkshire-police-report-child-abuse
I am very supportive of our hardworking police forces but never have I read such a poor report #savile #WYP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22476937
ACC Ingrid Lee refuses to identify Inspector A and Sergeant B in #Savile Report. Let uPSD help her > http://www.upsd.co.uk/inspector-paul-dwyer/ …
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/it-doesnt-add-up-jimmy-saviles-victims-condemn-report-by-west-yorkshire-police-8610277.html
Vote on web site http://www.itv.com/thismorning/
Very unscientific poll results:
Should we name those accused of sexual abuse before proven guilty?
24% Yes
76% No
http://www.itv.com/daybreak/hottopics/jimmy-savile-west-yorkshire-police-report/
He's having a busy day; he also popped up Radio 4's Today programme
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1383224-savile-ran-rings-around-police
Savile "ran rings" aroung the Police.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-10/jim-davidson-re-bailed-until-july/
1hr 5min in
Radio 5Live Breakfast, talk with Danny Shaw, BBC Home Correspondent, then Dan Davis, who is writing a book about Savile. He calls the report "A bit of a whitewash, a bit of a fudge."
Mentions an ormamental lighter found when auctioning his stuff, "From all your friends at the Vice Squad."
"Ingrid Lee, Temporary Assistant Chief Constable with West Yorkshire Police, is challenged by Nicky Campbell about a reported present of an ornamental lighter given to Jimmy Savile by the West Yorkshire Police decades ago; and Savile's 'coffee meetings' where police officers met Savile on Fridays at his house. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018vpn3
I don't understand why you think that was a daft comment. If a "victim" did not feel it worthy of reporting at the time why should they suddenly feel the need to now after so many years?
Having dealt with true victims of dreadful child abuse I just feel that some are trivialising the whole situation by reporting what were essentially minor offences at the time. I have great sympathy for victims of serious assault and rape and especially for children but I have no sympathy from any woman who decides after so long that a pinch on the bottom has destroyed her life and they should get compensation,
I found your comment insulting as you obvioulsy haven't read the whole of the post or any of my previous posts.
Why are the police allowed to investigate themselves? It's time this practice was stopped. The Hillsborough independent panel showed what can happen.
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster
West Yorkshire Police review of #Savile does identify 76 sexual offences - youngest offences against a 5yr old child
(from p.55-59 in the Report)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22479831#TWEET750949
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018vwf5
A police report into its relationship with Jimmy Savile has been branded a whitewash and condemned by his victims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10048789/Police-report-into-relationship-with-Jimmy-Savile-branded-a-whitewash.html
http://bernardrix.com/2013/05/10/the-savile-case-and-pccs-lack-of-transparency/
I still don't understand the posters/ people who say-
1) They don't know why people who were abused years ago didn't speak up at the time and imply that as they didn't, it's a bit late to come forward now.
2) People who have reported so called 'minor offences' shouldn't really bother as the police investigation should only be focused on major incidents such as rape.
My personal views on the above-
1) It's outrageous to suggest that there should be some kind of time limit on this kind of thing. As many posters have pointed out, victims may have a myriad of reasons for why they perhaps haven't come forward until now- fear, shame being just a couple of possibles.
2) If we truly want a warts and all, transparent enquiry into this, I would think that ALL instances should be reported, regardless of whether they are perceived by some as being 'less important'. If we are to have a fully open and honest investigation, ALL instances, minor and major should surely be taken into account, to give a fully represenatative picture of what went on. Let the police and legal system decided what is 'worthy of prosecution' and what isn't.
Just my tuppence worth.
From ITV lunchtime news
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-10/archbishop-of-york-lord-hope-dean-of-manchester-robert-waddington-abuse-claims/
There was also a Duncroft survivor saying victims felt let down by the report.
I've never trusted the court of public opinion, but this is a topic which troubles me. I can see a very good reason for people charged with serious sexual offences being named, if there is a chance that doing so will encourage other victims to come forward. At the same time, I have painfully personal experience of what a false accusation can lead to.
Is there a middle way? Restricting the reporting of names unless the CPS receive judicial permission to publish? This would protect the victims of malicious accusations, without hindering the investigation of those offences where publishing the accused's name may lead to the discovery of further offences.
Checks were made of WYP archives, HMCS and the CPS and nothing was found relating to the incident or investigations or charges involving Savile in 1958.
The WYP have been unable to identify any victims relating to this incident and none of the victims who have come forward since Operation Yewtree commenced outline any offending matching this allegation.