MY LIFE IN THE DAY - Sally Stevens

TEA AND CONSPIRACY

The indefatigable Anna Raccoon blog has broken an important story in the Savile saga, which continues to keep the UK legal community, social media, the MSM, various other opportunists,and the British police continually on their toes since Jimmy Savile died in 2011. (Photo: Ben Franklin in his coonskin hat. )

Long ago and far away, there was an approved school called Duncroft. It was extant from about 1959 to 1980. I hope we're all thoroughly briefed on that one! Still a subject of litigation in the Starr v. Ward defamation. 

 So, in 2011, a few women from this school, which was designated a Care Home with Education in 1969, further to amendments to the Children's Act,  (a CHE for short), banded  together via social media, under the aegis of a BBC producer Meirion Jones and reality show witch-hunter, Mark Williams-Thomas, deciding it was time to sue the estate of Jimmy Savile, an eccentric but very well-liked host of several successful BBC TV programs, notably Top of the Pops, Jim'll Fix It, and Clunk Click. 

Jimmy's main preoccupation was his charity work, particularly to medical institutions.  He generated a potload of money and it mostly all went to charity.

Until his death, not a whisper of scandal was heard in the land.  He set up Trusts for his charities upon the event of his death, and passed away at the age of 85 in October 2011.  He had a very elaborate funeral in his home town of Leeds, and was laid to rest under an ostentatious gravestone. 

Then, along came the Duncroft accusers, led by Meirion and Mark.  Meirion is the nephew of the former headmistress of Duncroft, Margaret Jones, the son of her deceased brother.  Meirion and his mother used to visit Duncroft. (Margaret Jones is still alive and kicking, 93 and in full possession of her faculties.) 

From thereon, the whole country squirmed under the hell-fire unleashed against Jimmy Savile by these accusers and their MSM exploiters.   Up came the pitchforks and the shrieks of "paedo!!"  His homes were defaced, his relatives took his gravestone down and had it smashed up, most of the country reeled back in horror.  What viper had they been nursing in their collective bosom?? 

The MSM danced around the bonfires they were creating, (a big bonus after being recently disgraced in the Murdoch scandal.)  Exonerated!  We've got the goods!  Follow our lead, believe the nonsense, Jimmy is a monster, bla bla bla! Sell papers, sell papers!

What these various characters were not quite prepared for was ex-Duncroft women who weren't buying it.  We have Bebe Roberts to thank for that.  Bebe, who flat-out lied to the Mail, with her simpering photograph.  Bebe, who claimed that Jimmy was at the school in 1965.  Bebe who was called out for the liar she certainly is. 

At last, a woman who was at Duncroft at that time, someone whose identity was known at least to me for a long time via conversations on a site for people who had been in care, has decided she should speak out.  She chose the Raccoon blog as her platform, and spent long months providing her story. 

Meet "Susan" - who was first allowed to invite Jimmy Savile to tea at Duncroft, after he passed muster with Susan's mother and the extremely strict headmistress. 

Like a coonskin cap, thereupon hangs a tale.   Read all about it. 

READY FOR HIS CLOSE UP

Bryan Singer, director of the hugely-successful X-Men franchise, has withdrawn from participation in the promotional ramp-up to the release of "Days of Future Past," the latest in the series.  (Photo: Bryan Singer on set with Patrick Stewart.)

This decision follows accusations by Michael Egan an obscure actor from Nevada, who claims that Singer, among other Hollywood power brokers, molested him at sex parties in Hollywood in 1998, when he was 15, and again in Hawaii in 1999, when he was 17. (Photo: here we see Michael Egan exhibiting pathos, while his mother emotes.)

"Egan filed suit in federal court in Hawaii last week, accusing the director of sexually abusing him during the late '90s as part of a “sordid sex ring” that preyed on teen boys looking to break into the industry.

Egan, now 31, claims Singer and three other media moguls began sexually assaulting him at “notorious” drug-fueled house parties when he was new to Los Angeles and working as an actor for another member of the alleged ring. Egan’s lawyer said Singer first victimized Egan when he was 15, and that Singer and the other men continued the abuse in 1999, during a series of house parties in Hawaii when Egan was 17.

In four highly similar lawsuits filed in the last two weeks, Egan lodges sexual abuse allegations against Singer, 48, as well as former WB Chairman Garth Ancier, 56, former Disney exec David Neuman, 53, and producer Gary Goddard, 61.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/singer-bows-x-men-press-lawsuit-scandal-article-1.1768082#ixzz2zr1XGulO"

 

So, I live here, and I know stuff goes on, but I also know that verification of age is de riguer.  Nobody wants to go to prison, thank you.  Mr. Egan has a lot of 'splainin' to do, imo.  But he has some plump partridges in his sights, and he has a lean and hungry look.  His 15 minutes are ticking away.

 

We await events.

NIGEL EVANS ACQUITTED - ACCUSERS SAY THEY WERE NOT VICTIMS

MP Nigel Evans has now joined the growing list of falsely accused sex offenders, and has been acquitted of all charges brought against him by seven men, all of whom should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for ever agreeing to participate.  Nigel Evans acquitted of all charges.

Again, this is why we need to change the law, to punish those bringing false charges. Their identities should be revealed if a jury finds they lied - either when they turn 18 in the case of a minor accuser, or forthwith if of age.  And they should be charged with perjury, as well as possible exposure to civil charges for defamation. 

However, in the Evans case, his accusers came into court saying all the wrong things for the prosecution, i.e. they did not consider themselves victims, and that they were pressured by the police to appear, which to my mind exonerates them from further problems - they were honest when it counted.  How the case against Nigel Evans fell apart.

In the past, I've been rudely informed that making these sorts of posts discourage 'victims' from coming forward, and I reiterate, if you're thinking about lying then think again.  And again.  The juries are no easier to fool than anyone else with half a brain prepared to look at both sides of the situation. 

Of course, all these false charges could likely have been dealt with before any legal action was contemplated, if the CPS was paying the slightest attention to the prevailing climate whipped up by the MSM via the likes of Mark Williams-Thomas, and the law firm of Slater & Gordon to name a couple of offenders. 

The police, now freed from the surly bonds of ACPO, can proceed on a local level and conduct thorough investigations, hopefully aided by mental health professionals, to establish to their satisfaction that the accusers are telling the truth before wasting limited legal resources on these  circuses.  

We've had far too much of this going on since Jimmy Savile died.  I'm sick of hearing from people who continue to believe Savile was the greatest pedophile who ever lived, while all these older celebrities are leaving the courthouse to get back to their ruined lives, after being found innocent by a jury of their peers. 

These are people who have not investigated the Savile time-lines, photos, and other contrary evidence, who want to continue to believe that he did something appalling.  If Nigel Evans had been dead instead of alive, then perhaps he would've met the same fate as Jimmy.  But Nigel was not dead, and was able to face his accusers.  And the jury did their job. 

I hope Mr. Evans is reinstated as whip as soon as possible, and that this sorry travesty of justice, along with the other unsuccessful celebrity trials, fades into one of those phases in history when a country appears to have collectively consumed the Kool-Aid.

 

THE MILLS OF GOD - ACPO CLOSES DOWN

On April 9, 2014, in a bombshell announcement, the significance of which was probably missed by most of the population of the world, including its home base, England and Wales, ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), has announced it will dissolve the organization, effective immediately. It's Game Over

(Photo: Sir Hugh Orde, unemployed former Chief of ACPO.)

This is tantamount to the Spanish Inquisition admitting wrongdoing.  Or the NSA folding their tents and creeping away. ACPO

This unregulated cadre has been controlling all UK police activity for much too long.  Instead of letting the local elected police officials run their own districts as requested by their constituents, this little gang of lovelies has squatted like a poisonous spider over procedures as vital to the public well-being as responding to Freedom of Information inquiries relative to certain policing activities.  They have ignored members of Parliament and the public in this regard.

With this decision, the elected local police will henceforth handle their own specific issues, and respond to the concerns of their constituents, without 'oversight' and without accountability to ACPO, and can turn their attention to problems the public is really interested in, i.e. graffiti, local yobbos, etc. 

It took persistent efforts by Mark Reckless, MP for Rochester, to accomplish this.  But then it only took one small boy with his thumb in the dike to save Holland.  And one legislator with his head on straight  to stop the Salem witch-hunt.  Thank you, Mark.  Well played.

So, we await with interest the response to a submission of a well-respected blogger's thoughtfully- crafted request under the FOI relative to a certain former police officer, who has taken on the mantle of public inquisitor without accountability, without brief, apparently with the cooperation of ACPO,  as far as can be determined if failure to respond is any indication.   The response was due in early February, and has yet to be answered as required by law.

And how come this individual can actually be shown scanning the internet for kiddie porn, when any other British subject doing the same would be whipped smartly into court and rightly so?  Who has appointed himself a "child protection expert," with no obvious qualifications to do so?  Who was asked by the McCanns to stop acting as if he represented them in their continued search for their missing daughter?  Let alone the Jimmy Savile situation, which has resulted in absolutely nothing to date, except a pile of legal bills mostly for the benefit of plaintiff lawyers, also hopping on to the gravy train, driven by this person who was obviously enjoying the protection of higher-ups, who are now cast down?

Mr. Williams-Thomas, your wild ride may be coming to an end.  And not a day too soon.

It's been a long, long time but ... 

"Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all. " - Longfellow

"Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them." - God, Deutoronomy 32:3. 

Sleep well, Peter Spindler et al.  Time's up.

 

-

 

 

 

EIGHTEEN

The High Court in Britain ruled today that once a child involved in court proceedings attains the age of eighteen they are no longer protected under the Children's Act (1933) and their anonymity is stripped away.  High Court ruling.

However, this only pertains to children involved in family law proceedings and does not pertain to those who allege child abuse.

If abuse is reported to the authorities who presumably then investigate and prosecute the alleged offender, then the alleged offender has his/her day (or two) in court before a jury of their peers.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the accusers' identities are protected - BUT  when the outcome of the trial goes in favor of the alleged offender, the accusers just scamper off, without any retribution for their claims.  Been seeing a bit of that lately. 

No doubt exists that a real victim should be protected in perpetuity.  And their cases should be investigated and tried away from the light of public opinion, not on the telly, the web, social media. 

The alleged offender, [these days likely a celebrity from the 60s/70s, with a continued successful career] is now found not guilty, but left with a burden of legal bills to pay their defense. 

They go up against predatory personal injury lawyers, who promise their clients the earth and generally fail to deliver much more than what we call here in the States "go away money." 

 This is time-wasting nonsense for the quaking legal system in Britain. 

My late brother in law,John Cornwell QC (Dawson and Cornwell) initiated a handy trick for resolving legal claims against contractors for shoddy work.   Instead of hours of tedious testimony, bad photographs of bad work, and a lot of squabbling between the homeowner and the contractor, he changed it around. 

Instead of the cases coming to him and his juries, he was able to marshal mini-buses to take  judge and jury to the construction site, so they could inspect the bad work for themselves.  He told me that this reduced the case load by about 90%, as the dodgy contractors knew they didn't have a prayer against live inspection by a trier of fact. 

In that spirit, I would hope that the law can be changed regarding sex abuse claims.  If the accuser(s) were found by a jury to have brought false allegations, their identity should be a matter of public record when they turn 18. 

Just like the contractors who were suddenly exposed to objective scrutiny, these accusers might then think twice before running to the authorities to make false accusations in hopes of major compo, attention from the public via the MSM, revenge, whatever. Up to their counsel to advise them accordingly. 

Doesn't mean the authorities shouldn't pay attention and do what is needful to verify claims that could be completely legitimate.  But it does put potential accusers on notice that there are penalties for lying.

And that would probably reduce the case load substantially.  Let alone the expense to the public. Just saying.

 

THIRTEEN

Recently an investigation into rape accusations by a 13 year old girl in the UK was halted when the girl admitted to lying.  After costing the local tax payers quite a few quid, she will not be charged for this time-wasting nonsense.  Sussex police drop investigation costing thousands of pounds

So, where's the lesson here?  The accountability?   The responsibility?  What message does this little escapade sent?  You tell me. 

We're up in arms about defending the 'victim', but if you look at the laws as written, they are also about defending the rights of the accused.  There is no more powerful term than "Jailbait."  Most boys get advice from their fathers or peers about the lure of the sirens.  In Europe nobody carries a photo i.d., and even if they did, like here in the US, forged documentation abounds if you can pay the freight. And not too sexy to ask for i.d. I guess.

So, what is it about age 13 for girls?  It's well known that girls mature sexually faster than boys.  13 year old boys are of little or no interest to 13 year old girls - older men are - that's from 17 to what-have-you.  

So, gentlemen, you have been warned.  You know the law. Proceed at your own risk.  I know biology is working against you.

Going back to the witch-hunts of the 1600s, the most celebrated is Salem. But in England, the Pendle Witches were a very big case of the same era.   Both these cases involved accusations by minor girls.  

There's a fascination with witchcraft that continues to this day, certainly through music. Witchy Woman - Eagles.  Rhiannon - Fleetwood Mac. Black Magic Woman - Santana. And the super-succesful musical, "Wicked," celebrating the Witches of Oz. 

I hadn't heard about the Pendle Witches before, but did some research today after a heads-up.  You have to wonder why this motif keeps up through the ages. The Pendle Witches.

I guess when you're angry with parental or authoritarian restrictions, and you have the law on your side, then just go ahead and make false accusations.  Happens all the time.  It's up to the 'authorities' to make a mature judgment call, and realize that just 'giving victims a voice' in a willy-nilly fashion is NOT the answer. 

Give them a voice by all means, but that voice should speak to professionals in law enforcement and mental health, not the public via television producers, dodgy 'journalists,' fee-seeking lawyers, or other parties looking to make a buck or reputation. 

This is a private matter, and any 'victim' reporting for duty with a gaggle of glory-seeking opportunists at their back should be subject to extreme scrutiny.  So far, I have yet to see any mental health professionals render an opinion, even in a general sense, when it is patently obvious that some of these 'accusers' have their genesis in institutions serving those with mental illness. 

And complainants should stand ready to defend their case; don't bring it when you're in your 50s, over something you allege happened when you were only 13 and knew just what you were up to.  

Great BBC4 documentary here.  Pendle Witch Child.