New UK Goldmine Discovered

In what may be termed the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal, the BBC, his sometime employer, is clearly being lined up as the fall guy.  Not the numerous hospitals and charities which benefitted from Savile’s fund-raising activities and where most of the alleged offences seem to have occurred, presumably because it would be thought unseemly by lawyers endeavouring to obtain compensation for alleged victims.  As one of them said off-camera, “Who is going to pay for this?”  “This” being claims which might be made for psychological damage done to the alleged victims nearly 40 years ago.

What will mystify many people however is why none of the now 50 alleged victims went to the police in their mature years.  The only victim who appeared in a clip on Monday night’s BBC Panorama special programme seemed perfectly composed in describing the sexual abuse she alleged Savile inflicted on her in the 1970s.  The clip was filmed by Panorama journalists in November 2011 just after Savile’s funeral.  Why does the BBC get blamed for not telling the police of her allegations?  It wasn’t their job to pass on allegations to the police.  One can understand why young teenage girls may not have complained in the 1970s, but as mature women in their 50s in the vastly different environment of the 2000s, even before Savile’s death in 2011, it seems very odd.

In fact one victim did make a complaint which was investigated by Surrey police who interviewed Savile under caution in 2007.  The file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service along with three possible others which emerged during Surrey’s investigation.  The CPS declined to prosecute the 80 year-old Savile on the grounds of insufficient evidence.  Apparently the CPS recently reviewed its file and confirmed its decision not to prosecute.

Even more curious is the fact that Savile was created a British knight (and a Papal knight) in 1990 for his charity fund-raising despite rumours which it is now being claimed were circulating as far back as the 1970s whence the present allegations mostly derive.  A number of paedophile scandals in children’s homes had emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and greatly sensitised the authorities to such wrong-doing, so it seems inconceivable that the Honours Scrutiny Committee would not have run checks on any allegation of this sort against Savile.  Witnesses could easily have been talked to for this purpose without fear of facing Savile and his lawyers in court.  Even a suspicion of misconduct would have deterred the Honours Scrutiny Committee from passing the recommendation through to the Prime Minister.  So why is the BBC allowing itself to be made a scapegoat?  If we aren’t careful BBC Licence-payers will ultimately pick up a huge tab for this latest London lawyers’ goldmine[1].



[1] Another goldmine recently opened up is the operation to wrest potentially huge sums of money from the British taxpayer as compensation for self-confessed Mau Mau terrorists who allege ill-treatment by Kenya security forces in struggling to prevent the Mau Mau slaughtering other Kenyans, mainly black like themselves.  The right to sue the British government has been granted, by British judges, despite the fact that in 1963 the newly independent Kenya government took full responsibility for any claims arising from Kenya’s time as a British colony.  One can only wonder at the mentality of British judges who inflict this trial and expense on their own kith and kin, and the British lawyers who are making a very comfortable living from it.  They make Britain a laughing-stock.


Top| Home

Leave a Reply

Top| Home