Maggie Thatcher was Priestess of Savile's Satanic Abuse Gang!
Can it really be true?
Of course it's not true, but it is a
headline which leftist intellectuals might dream about.
That's the problem with the Savile-monster bandwagon.
There are just SO many irons in the fire that the gullible British
public can't see how they are being played like a fish on the
end of a line.
Yes dear reader, in order
to discredit Thatcher and her clique of powerful political allies the
Leftists used the imaginings of 'victims' of the Bryn Estyn saga
to accuse Lord McAlpine, a Conservative mandarin and close aide of
Thatcher, of abusing children.
There was absolutely no evidence other
than the fantasies of one man who had lived at the Welsh
care home, Bryn Estyn, during childhood ; but that was all Thatcher's
enemies in the Great British Media needed and the wolf pack began their
howling. Philip Schofield 'outed' the Prime Minister over it on
the This Morning show, but they had badly overstepped the mark.
McAlpine sued everyone in sight. The kick-back in public opinion was
immense, the BBC went to pieces with internecine squabbles and the
trouble-makers in the media back-peddled frantically.
'victim' at Bryn Estyn, one Steven Messham, who had been so
absolutely sure of himself
beforehand, suddenly left the media
in the lurch. Although originally he said he was sure who had abused
him, he now said he wasn't sure and couldn't identify McAlpine! He
apologised for making the accusation. The strident reporters who
had backed the 'victim' were made to look foolish and retract on air. The BBC
apologised and paid Lord McAlpine out. But Messham was not
a stranger to making such accusations. In an earlier BBC programme a similar situation occurred;
"What the BBC did not tell us was that Messham
claims he was sexually abused by no less than 49 different people. He also
says he has been physically abused by 26 people. In 1994 the Crown
Prosecution Service declined to bring his allegations against Howarth to
court. None of his allegations has ever resulted in a conviction. In 1995
one of his most serious sexual allegations was rejected by a jury after
barristers argued that it was a transparent fabrication." See more on the Bryn Estyn saga here:
Back To Savile-monster to Save the Media's Reputation
To save face with the public the
media returned to the
Savile-monster scare - after all Savile was at one time big mates with
Thatcher but now being dead he couldn't sue anyone - he'll do!
The possibility of Savile sexually abusing just-under-legal-age girls soon turned
into the most heinous sexual abuse crimes against children imaginable. Savile wasn't
just an abuser, they said - he was evil.
We were treated to months of allegations of child abuse and
increasingly hysterical claims about Savile's supposedly secret
reign of sexual abuse in the media over 40 years which included
accusations of necrophilia and him being involved in the Yorkshire
Ripper murders. You can see some of these lunatic accusations
aired later on this page. As the hysteria increased and over 450
claims of abuse flooded in, we knew by the very irrationality of the
claims that it wouldn't be long before the 'ultimate' sex abuse
scare Satanic Ritual Child Abuse began to feature in Savile-monster.
The BIG Question
The BIG question in the Savile-monster case was this; Why did people in the media not 'out' Savile during his 40 year reign of abuse?
It looked like they all knew what was going on but turned a blind eye.
Including Childline supremo Esther Rantzen who in an unguarded
interview admitted that quite a few people had suspicions. The uproar was immense and Rantzen quickly qualified
13th October 2012: Esther Rantzen in row over claims she ignored warning about Jimmy
Savile. Child abuse campaigner Shy Keenan claims she warned Rantzen about
ChildLine founder says she cannot remember the incident and denies that
Jimmy Savile's name was ever mentioned.
Once the media realised which way the wind was
blowing they began the new back-story. Savile was a secretive person -
that he abused hundreds of children under the noses of so
many intelligent people in the media without them knowing and without
any of the 450 victims ever bothering to pursue the issue when they
grew up! What a
cunning and clever abuser he was.
Then on the 13th January 2013 the Media's 'get out of jail free card' turned up.
The old Satan Hunters who had foisted the SRA scare on the British
public in 1990 had jumped on the Savile-monster bandwagon and their leader Valerie
was centre stage to fan the flames with an interview in the
Sunday Express newspaper (see rightmost column for full lurid text).
Well of course, that
must be it! That is how Savile managed to fool so many
journalists and TV producers - he was part of a secretive network of
SATANISTS! And as every member of the public already knew,
Satanists were a dab-hand at keeping things quiet with friends in
high-places sworn to secrecy; weren't they? I mean, we had only
had 24 years of continuous world-wide investigations, hours and hours
of TV documentaries and millions of column inches of debate about
claims by fundamentalists and therapists that a Satanic Network was
regularly abusing and killing children world-wide. Nobody at the BBC
would ever have been on the alert for that would they?
Women who need Help not an Inquisition
Led To 'Persecution', Lawyer Says
TELLING THE TRUTH LEADS TO A HAIL OF THREATS AND ABUSE ON TWITTER
The "persecution of
old men" in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal is wrong and
the age of consent should be lowered to 13, according to a leading
Barbara Hewson said the child sex abuse crimes of the disgraced
television presenter Stuart Hall were "low level misdemeanours".
She also said the law that guarantees anonymity for those who complain of sex abuse should be scrapped.
The leading human rights barrister at London chambers Hardwicke
said: "The post-Savile witch-hunting of ageing celebs echoes the Soviet
Her comments in the online magazine, Spiked , came
as Scotland Yard's Operation Yewtree continued its inquiries into
allegations involving Savile and others, many of whom have been
It has led to the arrest of Rolf Harris, the former pop star Gary
Glitter, DJ Dave Lee Travis, comedian Jim Davidson and PR guru Max
Clifford. All deny any wrongdoing.
She claims the witch-hunting is the result of the "do-gooders" and
"moral crusaders" who have infiltrated "Britain's law-enforcement
She goes on to name these "moral crusaders" as the National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the National
Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC).
Both charities take part in Operation Yewtree.
In the article, Ms Hewson said: "But the low-level misdemeanours
with which Stuart Hall was charged are nothing like serious crime."
She added: "Ordinarily, Hall's misdemeanours would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event.
"What we have here is the manipulation of the British
criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a
And she concluded: "As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my
recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict
statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and
reduce the age of consent..."
READ WHAT BARBARA HEWSON ACTUALLY SAID - THE FULL 'SPIKED' ARTICLE IS HERE:
Follow Barbara Hewson on Twitter here: @BarbaraHewsonQC
But when all is said and done Sinason's 'revelation' in the Express is simply another flight of fancy from the parasitical therapy industry
which wastes millions of pounds of taxpayers money indulging the
twisted imaginations of mentally unstable women who have spent the past
twenty years suffering from the euphemistically named 'Care in the Community'! which
was ironically brought in by Thatcher's government to throw the
responsibility for disturbed people onto health charities and paid-for
Bleeding hearts are constantly demanding that the public have sympathy
for poor women suffering from mental problems but how many of these
'patients' are simply telling their mind-controllers
what they want to hear and confabulating nonsense in order to continue
to get emotional support and benefits, or just simply attention?
Must we believe EVERYTHING these 'victims' tell us, no matter how silly it seems?
Why are people condemned as cruel for questioning what these informers say when what they are saying is patently rubbish?
The Root Of The Matter
There is a big difference between sympathetically listening
caringly to someone who is outpourring their hearts in order to unearth
the root of their problems - and believing everything that falls
out of their mouths. The former is proper psychiatry the
latter is a shiboleth of the New Age self-analysis movement pushed by
feminerapists who have since the 1960s commandeered debate in the
'West Coast' therapeutic industry. In proper psychiatry one looks not for what the patient is saying but why the patient is saying it. It
is a given that people who are emotionally disturbed cannot interpret
their experiences within the norm and will often use allegory to
explain their feelings. It is vitally important that the
psychiatrist listens but in the patient's sensitive state NOT reinforce
inadequacies or persecution complexes or any other neuroses. Satan Hunter therapists do exactly the reverse and this has got to be ultimately bad for the patient.
Proper psychiatry has let patients and our society down by
remaining aloof from the rapid internal development of
feminerapists who since the 1970s have controlled the
debate and put emphasis on 'caring' rather than treatment. Before
anyone does anything we must all first 'care' they say. This is
platitudinous nonsense because every genuine human cares for others
unless they are psychotic and cannot empathise. Proper psychiatry
has not effectively repudiated this kind of feminerapist nonsense
before its adherents took the initiative in the media and this unholy
alliance of media and feminerapist is the root cause of many of the
ills in our society today. They not only control the debate but
also black-mail politicians and the police into wasting millions of
pounds of YOUR tax-money on moral wild-goose chases. Feminerapists are
today so powerful it seems that politicians cannot tell them to simply
belt-up and get a life, they must throw good money after bad to avoid
being labelled 'uncaring'.
Beam Me Up Scotty
There are a growing number of people who
believe they have been tractor-beamed up to a hovering space-ship,
mind-wiped and anally-probed by Aliens. Does their
wholehearted belief in these experiences mean we should believe them too? There is no scientific evidence to
show that other life-forms exist.
There is no evidence that
Savile was involved in any Satanic group nor that any Satanic group
actually abuses children. The outpourrings of a
dysfunctional mind is not 'evidence' of anything other than a call for
If accusers have a history of mental illness is it not
right and proper to check to see if what they are claiming actually IS
true, before going public with it and trapping them in lies which
deleteriously affect them? As in the case of the Bryn Estyn
'victim'. If they are living in a fantasy world shouldn't this
impact on the way they are being medically treated?
For instance some of the early Savile-monster allegations were from
people who were inmates of mental institutions yet the media reported
their allegations and imaginings without ever mentioning this fact.
A Tale of Two Carols
The cases of Caroline Marchant (full story here) and Carol Felstead (see background here)
are classic examples of the deaths of patients who were sucked dry
by SRA therapists. Interestingly the doyenne of
believers in SRA, Valerie Sinason,
(see rightmost column for full Sunday Express story) was involved in the care of Carol
Felstead and used her imaginings in a book to 'prove' the existence of
SRA titled Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse,
Yet Sinason is still the subject of an investigation by Carol
Felstead's parents into the
misinterpretation of Carol's 'satanic past'. In therapy Carol was lead
to accuse her parents of being Satanic abusers which was demonstrably and provably
false. Subsequently completely exonerated by the police they are now
to discover just exactly what Carol was made to say about them by
therapist-inquisitors who controlled her life for the decade before she
committed suicide. I wonder what the Felsteads who really ARE
victims of the SRA myth thought of the Daily Express's judgement in
publicising Sinason's claims?
Are the women patients who identified Savile as a leading Satanic Abuser
suffering similar shifts of reality to Carol? Well YES probably but we will
never know and must take Sinason's word on it. Unfortunately
Valerie Sinason's track record of unsubstantiated claims of the
existence of Satanic Abuse is lamentably poor as you will shortly see.
Therefore it is no surprise to us to find that after over 20 years of striving
to 'prove' the existence of SRA based on the fantasies of disturbed
women, some of them somewhere would have implicated known
personalities who were active in their childhood memories.
The question the media have to ask Valerie Sinason
is not 'did they really say that' but can we see the transcript of the
session in which the 'patient' said those things to judge whether it
was spontaneous and to see what else she had to say and how irrational that was?
did Sinason wait for TEN YEARS until the Savile-monster bandwagon had
reached fever pitch before
injecting these untested SRA claims into the public debate?
Those ten years were perhaps the most crucial time for believers in SRA
a case like Savile's would, if true, have greatly assisted the
movement trying to prove the existence of it. Yet we heard nothing from
Sinason about Savile then, instead we were treated to the Daily Express
again portraying Sinason as a 'Government backed expert' giving her
space to promote her Department of Health Report so:
Feminists and dithering Xists may say we are being cruel to question
'victims' who claim to have been satanically abused but if people had done so in poor Carol and Caroline's
instance their lives may not have ended in such tragic
circumstances. Looked at from this perspective we are far more
responsible and sympathetic than the satan hunters who track down
people who say silly things and then make it the main feature of their
The sensational article, left, shows how the tabloids dealt with Sinason's report.
Click on the photo of Valerie Sinason below to hear the SAFFUTUBE clip of her defending
her position on Radio 4's TODAY programme on 9th February 2000.
Were you the public ready to
accept these barmy ideas back then? Of course not, and neither
did real journalists such as Alisdair Palmer of the Sunday Telegraph.
Read what he had to say about Sinason's much vaunted 'DoH report' at
SATANIC ABUSE MEETS THE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES.
by Alasdair Palmer
Ms Sinason's certainty in the reality of satanic abuse derives from her
certainty that the testimony of survivors must be true. Not all of that
testimony is the invention of the fevered imaginations of social
workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. There are certainly people
who claim to have been forced to participate in Satanic Rituals which
have involved the sexual abuse of children and the drinking of blood
Rebecca Dallimore is one. In 1998 she said that her parents had
sexually abused her during devil worship rituals. Acting on her claims,
the police launched a three-month investigation into Mr and Mrs
Dallimore, a retired couple who had recently moved to Norfolk. Mr
Dallimore was arrested. "It was only when the police asked if I had a
black table cloth and a devil's mask in the house that I realised what
was going on," remembers Mrs Dallimore.
The police investigation eventually exonerated Mr and Mrs Dallimore.
Their daughter's accusations were found to be pure invention and seemed
to have derived from Rebecca's experiences at an evangelist church,
whose priest, the Rev Arthur Row, believed in the power of Satan. He
had enthusiastically taken up her allegations. Personal testimony has a
peculiarly powerful effect in persuading people.
It is cases like
that of the Dallimores that demonstrate the importance of corroborating
"memories" before rushing to the conclusion that they are true. But
the uncorroborated testimony of "survivors" is enough to convince many
people of the reality of satanic abuse - even though some of the
"survivors" also have "memories" of being abucted and sexually abused
Uncorroborated testimony was also what convinced
many intelligent, and initially sceptical people, in the 16th and 17th
centuries of the reality of witchcraft. It did not require torture,
pointed out Jean Bodin, the French political philosopher and economist,
to persuade women to confess to anointing themselves with the fat of
murdered infants, getting on flying goats or broomsticks, attending a
witches' sabbat where they saw friends copulating with the devil, then
eating roast or boiled children. They did it freely, of their own
accord. So, concluded Bodin, they must be telling the truth.
The "memories" of today's "survivors" of satanic abuse are hardly less
fantastic than those of their 17th-century counterparts. But they are
enough to convince many psychiatrists and social workers of the reality
of a vast network of devil-worshippers in Britain today.They do not see
the need for corroboration, and indeed question the motives of those
who ask for it.
They would like to see rules of evidence changed so that
it would be easier to get convictions for satanic abuse and have in
mind something like the Criminal Justice Act of 1994, which abolished
the requirment for corroborative evidence in child abuse cases. The
result of that change is that you can be convicted - and many people
have been - simply on the word of the individual who accuses you, even
if the allegation dates back 20 years. The rationale for the change
in the rules of evidence was simple: without it, it would be impossible
to get convictions in most cases of child abuse. Its effect has been
to lower the standard of proof: no one could say that a charge of
sexual abuse based on one, unsubstantiated, recollection of what took
place 15 years earlier has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".
The lawyers who piloted the change, like the
psychiatrists and social workers who lobbied for it, argued the goal of
punishing real child-abusers justified the risk - it is in fact a
certainty - of punishing a number of imaginary ones. But relaxing the
rules of evidence sets an alarming precedent. If those who believe in
satanism get their way, the law will eventually be changed to make
uncorroborated testimony of satanism sufficient for conviction. That is
why we should be deeply alarmed - not about Satan, but about Ms Sinason.
Excerpt from The Sunday Telegraph 13th February 2000.
course, since then the
DoH has buried Sinason's report (see Devil Report Junked here). We understand it wasn't even sent out
for peer review. It was supposed to be forwarded to a parliamentary
steering committee but that never happened. It certainly hasn't
been published or accepted by the DoH
as an accurate scientific document, yet Valerie has vaunted her
report in the press and repetitively mentions the Department of Health
connection with it. In fact we don't know anyone anywhere who as
actually read a copy of it!
WE CHALLENGE VALERIE SINASON TO PUBLISH
HER DoH REPORT IN FULL SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT SCIENTIFIC METHOD SHE
USED, HAVE ACCESS TO THE STATISTICS SHE IS CLAIMING PROVE SRA EXISTS
AND CAN SEE HOW SHE ARRIVED AT THEM. UNTIL WE SEE HER REPORT WE WILL
CONSIDER IT AS CONJECTURAL AS THE TESTIMONY OF PATIENTS WHO SAY SAVILE SATANICALLY ABUSED THEM.
Dame Janet Smith's £10 million Savile report for the BBC was published
on 25th February 2016 and is masterpiece of statistical obfuscation,
portraying anecdotal information as hard fact. Even after this
mammoth project the allegations against Savile still boil down to the
word of victims - it's 'he said, she said' . There is a dearth of actual
It contains 793 pages with over 254,000 words.
The Inquiry interviewed 380 witnesses at length. But there is not
one mention of Satanic Abuse or any suggestion of occult involvement.
- VICTIMS: There
were 72 total 'BBC victims'. Half were 16yrs or older & therefore
above the age of
consent. Why were these cases mixed with the 34 people who said
they had been abused whilst underage? There's a big difference
between innocent children being groomed for abuse and consenting adults
who change their minds 40 years afterwards. Savile is regularly referred to as a 'paedophile' yet half of his claimed 'victims' were adults at the time.
- RUMOUR-MONGERING: 76 BBC staff
who worked with Jimmy heard 'rumours' of abuse, but another 90 who had
worked with him did not hear any rumours. Rumours are not in any event
- 'victim' B40 ( who was over 20 yrs old at the time ) was 'abused' in a "Not overtly Sexual" way. What way was that then and would the average person find it abusive?
- One woman said she had been abused "over the telephone" (?).
- Six victims claimed they had been abused without being touched. ("No Physical Touching") Presumably
this meant Savile had been talking obscenely to them? Without
knowing what was said and it's context it is difficult to validate this
'abuse' and certainly in the 'swinging sixties' it is doubtful whether it would have been seen as such.
- ADULTS: Nineteen (e.g.
almost a third) of the self-declared BBC victims were over 20yrs old.
Was every one of Savile's sexual encounters recorded? Did witnesses who worked at the BBC and who had had normal satisfactory sex with Savile come forward to say so? Did the report
attempt to re-definine 'sixties sexuality' in terms of straight-laced 2016
Tough Love Better in the Long Term
Filthy Lucre or revenge upon society?
Continuing to qualify for psychiatric support might not be the only
motive behind some of these allegations. In one set of accusations
about supposed Satanic Ritual Child Abuse the media did not mention
that a key accuser had already obtained £25,000.00 from the Criminal
Injuries board a few years before after making 'ordinary' child-abuse
allegations in a previous trial. At the earlier trial she never made any
mention of Satanic Abuse but went ahead to make allegations of SRA in
another later case following 'counselling'. Will she get another
A VICAR was slammed by support groups last night after accusing Jimmy Savile’s victims of trying to make money.
The Rev Dr John Cameron, from St Andrews, Fife, alleged the victims had “the clear intention of being compensated” by the late DJ’s charities.
“I don’t like witch-hunts,” he said.
“I’m not saying that it didn’t happen but some of the claims are strange. I think it’s gone too far now.’’
But Marnie Collins, manager at the Kingdom Abuse Survivors Project, said: “Victims are not looking for money but to have their experience validated.’’
18th October 2012
:by Daily Star reporter:
In historical cases attached to care institutions (such as orphanages,
council child-care homes, and young offenders institutions, etc.) the
police , as a matter of course when any abuse allegations are made, contact all past
residents (now adults) in a trawl to ask them if they had been
abused. Of course hundreds said they had.
It is not unkind
to say that people who start out life in an institution have a more
than even chance of experiencing difficult lives and in middle-age
might relish the idea of getting a few thousand pounds from the State
Parent who let them down so badly when they were young.
One can imagine a vicarious pleasure in those whose lives have been
controlled by psychiatrists and social workers being able to turn the
tables and manipulate those who normally control them.
Even if they themselves hadn't been sexually
abused by the teacher who was being accused by their former mates almost all
of them would have received corporal punishment at some time which under
today's definitions would qualify technically as child-abuse
. Particularly if, as in the case of Savile-monster and Bryn Estyn some 'perpetrators' were already dead and
couldn't say the nay.
When the police in operation Yew Tree say that Savile was the
prolific sex offender in history what they are actually saying is that
450 people have entered official complaints to say they were abused by
him. Not all of these have been checked out and hardly any will
ever be checked out fully because
Savile's PA Says Allegations Fabricated
THE best friend of disgraced paedophile Jimmy Savile has claimed scores
of alleged child abuse victims threw themselves at the TV legend. Janet
Cope, the stars personal assistant for 28 years, slammed his accusers
as nothing more than celebrity-obsessed attention seekers motivated by
She refused to accept the star was guilty of any of
the child abuse claims, including accusations he molested disabled
children at a string of charity events. Speaking at her home in Aylesbury, Bucks, last
night, Janet, 70, said: 'I saw nothing at all and that is what
makes me so cross. Why have all these people shut up for 40 years? I
just think they are jumping on the bandwagon.
You're looking at the 1960s in most of these
instances. Back then I was a young thing. I thought nothing of having a
quick snog behind the bike shed with a boy and I think that is what
half of this is. I think a lot of them are fabricated.
I never saw it. I worked very closely with him and I never saw a thing.
He knew his reputation was at stake. I will defend him....
Daily Star 14th October 2012
(a) the situation often goes back 40 years
or more and corroboration is very difficult and time consuming, and
Savile's 3.5 million pounds estate will simply be divided up
between them all and then their solicitors will move on to more
damages from the BBC.
(b) it is
considered unfair or unsympathetic for the police to challenge the veracity of any
Indeed, James Fielding, the hack who worked-up Savile's supposed
Satanic links for the Sunday Express, himself mentioned elsewhere that
institutions, including the BBC, face an estimated £10,000.000.00 in
damages claims in respect of Savile and that lawyers have so far put in
legal actions for over 50 people. The motivations of one such
complainant is interesting:
"A 52 year old woman [alledgedly]
abused by Savile in 1974 at the Duncroft Approved School for girls in
Staines, Surrey, told the Sunday Express " I am so angry after reading about how all his other victims suffered over so many years. I wasn't going to seek compensation but now I am going to see a solicitor""
But of course there was NO mention of Satanic cults in her tale of abuse, she claims that Savile raped her in his Rolls.
Indeed, we believe there are NO other complaints about Satanic
involvement other than the instances told to Valerie Sinason by her
Considering that in his 20 year tenure as 'the
kids TV' Savile must have met and personally spoken to tens of thousands
of children who can all substantiate
meetings with him, some might say that it is surprising only 450 are queuing up
with stories of being groped or being forced into under-age sex!
Couple all this with a tranche of solicitors now specialising in
'class' claims for historic child abuse and you have an 'industry'
which seeks to tutor and direct claims of abuse in institutional
settings taking the initiative right out of the hands of victims. The TV help-lines pass the 'victims' to the solicitors.
All the 'victims' have to do is say 'yes' and sit back and wait. Many of
these abuse claims will be relatively inconsequential (e.g. groping) but they are now all lumped in
with the rest to support shocking claims of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse in connection with Savile-monster. Claims
which not only have no evidential basis but which may actually
undermine and overshadow the few genuine cases which might have
In her masterly overview of the NSPCC and CPS 'reviews' of the Savile-Monster Case
Anna Racoon makes it clear that most of the 450 'allegations' are small-beer and many may very well be fictitious.
The police concluded that Savile was not part of a paedophile ring
so Sinason's conclusions and assumptions were
entirely wrong on that score - again.
"There is no clear evidence of Savile operating within a paedophile ring "
See full story here:
THE SAVILE-MONSTER ALLEGATIONS
Whether Savile actually did abuse a number of young women is debatable.
During the 1960s 'free-love' era it is quite possible that not only
Savile, but many other 'celebrities' overstepped the mark without
checking the age of teenagers who were eager to please.
be a symbol of all of these people who are now shaking in their shoes
about close-call sex. This does not indicate a paedophile ring, nor does it indicate Satanic Ritual Child Abuse.
One courageous woman went public with the
fact that she had had a sexual affair with the late John Peel when she
was 15 and said it was driven by love and she did not feel in any way
used or abused. She wouldn't be claiming damages from the BBC she said, and
she urged other women to come out publicly to say they had been complicit to avoid a witch-hunt.
A photograph of her at 15 looked like she was 20.
Remember that during the early 1960s people left school and went out to
work and make their own way in the world at 15. They were much more
mature than today's youth who are kept in further education until their
course John Peel has become something of a national treasure and his
memory was not slandered as 'a monster' or a 'Satanist' after this revelation. However the media's
treatment of Savile was far more vituperative and accusations now surfacing about Savile and his supposed
connections to imagined Satanic Child Abusing networks is something very, very
different. In our estimation this is a dangerous move towards irrationality. It is another example of the
Satan Hunters in social work exaggerating a scare for all it's
In the Child Scare Industry nothing succeeds like excess.
The troublemakers in social work never went away after they brought
the country to its' knees during the 1990s Satanic Panic. The very same
people whom the SAFF took to task and exposed for faulty and misleading
statements in the intervening two decades are jumping on the Savile-monster child-scare bandwagon
again now using the same mega-scare formula as before. For twenty
years they have been quietly collecting emotionally fragile women and
filling their malleable minds with Satanic clap-trap in recovered memory
Satanic Baby Eaters?
The problem is that the public's attention span is too short to
remember the rich tapestry of failed claims these people have made in
the past. The Sunday Express reports Sinason's claims with
muted respect but omitted to recall that in 2001 she told the
Independent newspaper that she had found an internet site showing
photos of Satanists eating aborted foetuses? It turned out to be
a hoax by a Chinese performance artist and the Independent
actually had to apologise to its readers for misleading them about
it. See here for full details.
Jewish-Masonic Satanists Rule The World:
years 'the Son of God', (David Icke) has
been peddling anti-semitic propaganda by popularising the highly
dangerous New World Order myth and directly defaming the British Royal
Family as being complicit in a world-wide Satanic Network. Most of his
followers are also believers in Satanic Ritual Child Abuse and agree
with his claims that former Conservative prime-minister Ted Heath was
Satanic child killer. But he's dead too so they can say what they
like now. Valerie Sinason is in close contact with David Icke
but we do not know whether she also believes in reptile-like aliens
walking the earth cloaked in human form, as Icke does. To
see how ideas from one camp may infiltrate the other look at this
extract from Icke's Forum:
|David Icke Forum: anyhoo s by anyhoo
04-06-2011, 10:40 PM #15 gladys Senior Member
I believe I am a victim of SRA as a young child.
They brought me to the very point of death, so my eyes rolled up in my
head. I nearly died during it I was so traumatized. It left me with a
stutter that I have had to go through my life with. Is it not a sick
thing to do such a thing to a young innocent child? And my own parents
were involved in my corruption. I can see that now. How do you think I
Hello sweetheart, you might like to check out the 'RAINS' website (ritual abuse information network and support). It is run/supported by David Icke and Valerie Sinason (psychoanalyst/psychotherapist for victims of SRA). You will find a wealth of information here, and support/help, should you need it.
Human Sacrifice at Haut de la Garenne?
Key links between the Savile-monster bandwagon
and the old allegations of Satanic Ritual Child abuse are seen clearly
in the re-emergence of the Jersey Haut de La Garenne SRA claims.
The SAFF completely dismantled the hysterical claims about
supposed Satanic Rituals involving the killing of children at Haut de la Garenne in our 2008 expose here yet
because Savile visited there once these falsehoods were re-ignited in
October 2012 with a new inquiry demanded as though all the effort and
negative-findings in the original investigation had come to
Ritual Abuse in The Hospital Morgue?
Sensational accusations to blacken the name of Savile were made by a porter
who worked at Leeds Infirmary where Savile regularly volunteered. The
informant said he knew Savile was ritually raping dead bodies in the
Morgue in the 1980s. These allegations get front page headlines
from the unquestioning British media until Leeds Infirmary denounce the porter as not
having worked there until after 1990!
Abused in the Back of Savile's Rolls-Royce?
One person claimed to have been abused by
Savile in the back of his Rolls-Royce car when he was a child. The
'victim' said Savile pushed him onto the back seat through the back
door of the Rolls. Unfortunately the car Savile owned at the time
was a coupe and did not have rear doors!
Several of those who have placed complaints
and accusations against Saville claimed that he abused them when they
were inmates in Broadmoor psychiatric hospital (a prison for the
criminally insane). One of these was interviewed at length on
national TV. The TV people did not bother to ask nurses at
Broadmoor for their opinion. They would have confirmed that the prison
is arranged so it is impossible for anyone to come into contact with prisoners alone. All access involves at least two
warders but the accusations were that Savile abused inmates alone.
These are easy
things to check but the great British media ignores them by virtue of it's
well-used axiom: 'Never let the facts get in the way of a good story' Such
as the Media claim that Savile had bought a high-rise luxury apartment
overlooking Roundhay Park in Leeds because it had a clear view of a
child's playground in the park. The truth is that the playground
was put there many years after Savile purchased his flat.
VICTIMHOOD: How the System Works
Badly trained fundamentalist christian
'counsellors' have built an
industry churning out victim
imposters who are told that the
unhappiness and tragedy in their lives has been caused by them being
infected with spiritual evil. They tell them that they must discover
the extent of their evilness by recovering memories of past sins so
they can be rehabilitated. It is but a short step to directing the
resultant victims into a
clique of hard-line SRA believers who quickly work-up imagined abuse in
(non-existent) satanic networks. The government has not simply
allowed these people to continue their obsessions but as you will see here, actually funded
them with taxpayers money into the bargain.
No Sex Please,
The Epidemic of Sexual Abuse Allegations which began twenty years ago with
untrue claims of a UK wide network of Satanic Child Abusers, has
gravitated through Children's Homes, into the Entertainment Industry
and is now being used to bring-down politicians and discredit political
parties, as in the Lord Renard accusations here:
the media's political black propaganda class-war lying work with
you? When the media's political left failed in their
attrocious attack on
'peer' Lord McAlpine, (see above) they covered up their lies with
new attack on 'peer' Lord Renard. Did the average newspaper
see the difference between spurrious claims that a group of peers
secretly abused children from childrens' homes and the later
allegations that a randy peer pinched the bums of lady party
Can we get a sense of proportion into these claims? No sex please,
As soon as a hysteria so extreme as the Savile-monster scare comes up
the Satan Hunters quickly jump on the bandwagon again to the
delight of the intellectually challenged British Media and the grasping
child-welfare charities who,
hard-pressed for funding these days, are all too willing to allow the satan-hunters
to stampede the public into believing any threat in order to push
the government into handing out public funds to pursue a dangerous myth.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether you want to live in a
world which is driven by the fantasies of mentally ill people and
organised by extremely well-paid therapists who are the main
beneficiaries of taxpayers largesse in treating SRA survivors, or
whether you believe in natural justice and that a person is
innocent until proven guilty, that there are always two-sides to every
story and that if we expect to receive human dignity we should extend
it - whether that person is dead or alive.
To see how Feminerapists knowingly created and promoted the idea of 'Victimhood'
you should read this important analysis here.
Savile and Satanic Abuse - Valerie Sinason Defends Herself Against Private Eye Criticisms
In response to the Private Eye article (Familiar Ritual - below right) which critically questioned Sinason's claims in the Sunday Express (Savile Was Part of Satanic Ring
see top right) she gave a rare public interview to BBC Bristol
Radio's Drivetime programme and her comments make astounding
listening. We have always criticised Sinason for refusing
to enter into a proper public debate and answer crucial questions about her
SRA allegations. She covers some of those in this
interview. We have therefore appended a verbatim transcript of
important parts of it below.
Transcript of Friday Drivetime Interview with Valerie Sinason over her claims that five of her patients were ritually abused by Jimmy Savile. 2nd May 2013.
Tony Gosling: Going back to these victims what did they tell you what they had actually done?
Valerie Sinason: ....Savile was not only abusing all children with and
without disabilities in group settings in individual settings, in
hospital settings, he was also invoking belief systems doing
rituals making children believe he had extra powers and that if they
didn't obey him they would also be punished in an afterlife....
Note well that Sinason is again portraying allegations and accusations
from patients as FACTS when they are only uncorroborated stories by
people who come to her for therapeutic work who usually have a
chequered history of mental illness involving, as she admits later on,
self-harm, and a lack of ability to see the world as it really
is. This constant bias towards believing every SRA fantasy
a patient invents without checking any of it and then presenting
the fantasies to the public as proven fact whilst completely ignoring
evidence to the contrary is the false foundation upon which all
allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse reside..
As such the accusation that Savile was 'making children believe he had
extra powers and that if they didn't obey they would be punished in an
afterlife' is either an OPINION from them or a suppostion from her.
What it is not is a statement of fact. A more proper reply
would have gone something like this: 'Under disclosure
questioning as part of their psychiatric treatment five of my patients
said that Savile had done such and such a thing. I believe them but
none of it has been as yet corroborated by the police'. The
specialist word 'INVOKING' appears to
have been added to convey a ritual connotation and we don't believe any patients used this term in disclosure.]
Gosling: Well in what way, how could he do that? I mean
surely; I know that there's been this headline about your work
talking about Satanic Rituals but does that actually bear any
relevence to any kind of real religion or do you think it was just done
to scare the children?
Sinason: Thats a really important differentiation, first of all
can I make clear that there are satanists who would never harm anybody.
It's a legal belief system and I have met many satanists who became
satanists because their churches were threatening them with the most
horrendous punishments in an after-life for having done wrong things
and they became satanists in order to feel they could die safely and
wouldn't be tortured in an afterlife. So please let me say that
first of all that when I talk about Satanist Abuse I am in no way
saying that all Satanists are abusers anymore than when we speak
about abuse by catholic priests we are saying that all priests
are; but where satanists are abusers too then there are extra
things in especially for example, Aleister crowley, that can be used to
frighten children more. But the use of cloaks, of making spells,
of making threats, of threatening what will happen after death
too, is something that the five different people that have spoken
to me about Jimmy Saville all said he had been part of..........
Sinason here appears to be pandering to the prejudices of
listeners whilst dodging the issue of
religious bias and at the same time directly attacking Satanism.
she insists that many Satanists never harm anyone, and then later
contradicts herself by saying that whilst all satanists are not abusers
those who are abusers abuse more seriously because of a belief in
This is not true. Satanists do not believe in an afterlife and therefore it is impossible for genuine satanic followers to be
threatened with it. This
leads us to suspect that Sinason's patients are inventing SRA
scenarios. Their lack of knowledge of Satanism is reflected in such basic errors as these.
then insists that Satanist Abuse is far worse than priestly abuse
because it involves the use of cloaks, chants, and threats about
terrors after death, yet this is precisely what the Christian religion
children! In the minds of Sinason and her
patients Christian doctrines about Hell have been projected
onto Modern Satanism which, ironically, exists precisely to free the
ignorant from such ideas.
When compiling a list of the 'horrors' of satanism (which after 25
years as the foremost exponent of SRA you might think would be simple
for her) she can't appear to think of any and dredges up the tired old
myth of Aleister Crowley ( see here).
She says that Crowley can be used to 'frighten children more' than can
the images available to Christian priests. She does not explain how
Aleister Crowley's highly intellectual
magical system which would be completely out of the grasp of children,
can be used to terrify them - whilst an image of an emaciated man
nailed to a wooden cross with blood pouring from his body might
She concludes her 'evidence' by saying that her patients had all agreed
Savile had been part of all this, yet we know from the Sunday Express
article that the stories outlined in the article do not illustrate any
attempt by him to convince them that they would suffer in an afterlife
and these claims appear to be later embellishments.]
Gosling: Now there was a piece in Private Eye about you Valerie
on the 22nd February to 2nd March this year edition after the headline
in the Daily Express really questioning whether there was any
corroboration for this and effectively insinuating that you were making
Sinason: When there is abuse by itself it's scary enough. When
there is abuse within a religious setting it is so terrifying for
people. Look how long it has taken, the Ryan report of 2009;
it took till then to talk about ritualistic kinds of abuse
children in Ireland went through at the hands of nuns and priests
so nobody can bear it when it is linked to religion, but when it is
linked to religion which is not mainstreeam it seems to frighten
people more. As if; yes abuse exists, satanism exists, but you
couldn't have Satanist Abuse. And in fact at one point I said
maybe the whole country should convert to satanism because it
seems as if Jews Moslems, Buddhists, Christians, all abuse their
children and Satanists are the
only people who don't!.................So no I haven't been in a
ceremony , but I have seen the marks on them and I have seen the terror
they are in and I have seen how they were before such events happened
and how they are when they speak about it, how consistent they are in
other things they say; so that there has been no reason from a
psychological point of view to doubt their capacity to give good
evidence. but it is the police who need to find the proper
[Ed: Sinason here attempts to assert that Christian Priestly Abuse, (which is an endemic problem worldwide as we outlined first here:)
is a form of ritualistic abuse which is prevalent right across
the religious spectrum and so, by deduction, she says it is also bound to exist
within Satanism. That's simply not true.
first problem is that priestly abuse is NOT ritualistic in the sense
that it is NOT undertaken by priests as an extension of their religious
philosophy which is what Sinason has always maintained about SRA. These
renegade priests are just paedophiles who prey on children haphazardly
and the use of Catholic trappings is incidental to their abuses which
mostly rely on gaining trust as an authority figure.
this priestly abuse scandal was not some hidden secret which
campaigning therapists had to drag the authorities to recognise. The
Ryan/Murphy reports admit that the authorities knew about priestly
abuse for decades yet allowed it to happen.
Dozens of self-help groups and thousands of victims of priestly abuse
with real tales, real names, real places, real times and dates,
thousands of real
prosecutions and other absolutely incontrovertible evidence (evidence
mind you, not inuendo) , had been campaigning for nearly 20 years to
force the Irish government to address the problem. Against this
Sinason has only ONE prosecution in twenty five years, the
Kidwelly case, the terms of which we also question here.
is therefore absolutely NO comparison between the eventual admission of
the Irish Government Report that Priests had been allowed to
repetitively abuse children in their care for generations, and
accusations by Sinason's patients that they were abused by Satanists.
One does not in any way prove the other. If anything it actually
indicates the reverse. If in order to 'prove' SRA Sinason has to
rely on the prevalence of Priestly Abuse this is in itself an admission
of failure to prove her allegations of Satanic Abuse..
only other 'evidence' Sinason puts forward to convince listeners of the
veracity of her patient's tales is the degree of 'terror' evinced by
them. Sinason does not give a scale of terror on which to gauge
this subjective factor. Would it be less or more terryfing than
the shell-shock of troops in battle? Would it be less
or more terrifying than being an inmate of one of Hitler's death camps?
Would it be more or less terrifying than a man with
vertigo being made to do a parachute jump? Some people are
terrified of spiders, others are terrified of snakes, and many
claustrophobics become terrified when asked to enter a
lift. Unsurprisingly, tales of spiders, snakes and
being kept in caves or dungeons feature frequently in
patients' stories about SRA. Why therefore is Sinason not
treating these people for known and accepted psychological
syndromes instead of using their anxieties to promote the acceptance
of the barmy idea of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse?
challenges us with having to declare her judgement faulty;
or trust her opinions and assume that her patients really
must have been very terrified in some special Satanic way which had an
effect on their mental state which ordinary fears could not
cause. This of course would be a first in clinical
psychiatry and is actually nonsense. However, it is not nonsense
to anyone who believes in MK-Ultra, CIA mind control conspiracy
theories. There is a whole tranche of conspiracy nuts on the
internet furthering these ideas and perhaps the most eminent of these
is the American group S.M.A.R.T. (see here) an
organisation which blends leading edge ideas on dissociation with
torture in (supposed) Satanic Ritual Abuse situations by CIA / NSA
agents who are involved in a Zionist plot to take over the world.
S.M.A.R.T. sees Sinason as a Doyene of SRA and carries
numerous references to her work on this issue on their website,
promoting her ideas on how Satanists 'program' children widely to an
international audience. In contrast, in the British media
Sinason rarely if ever explains in detail what her patients are
terrified of and how mind control is used on them. Is she hiding
her real beliefs on mind-control and if so why?
Gosling: ......Why do you think Private Eye have taken this
attitude. 'Cos they are saying in the report, basically, that
there is no such thing as ritual abuse or Satanic Ritual Abuse.
Sinason: I have found it so disappointing because from my teens
onwards I always liked Private Eye and always felt they were on the
side of people being badly treated so it was quite a shock not just to
me but to all the other people who work with ritual abuse survivors to
have an intelligent satirical paper to take the strange view that no
such thing could exist. In the wake of the Kidwelly case which
was a very successful prosecutioin in 2011 where four adults were
convicted for the ritual abuse of vulnerable children and where we have
got lists of cases which have
been successfully prosecuted to say that nothing exists is creating the kind of climate that allows a Jimmy Savile to exist.....
Sinason's maleable logic confuses the issues for the
listener. By questioning Sinason's allegations , Private
Eye, is accused of aiding and abetting abusers and of becoming
unprincipled about the downtrodden. Any intelligent observer can
see that Private Eye's approach has been consistent on this issue;
child abuse exists but cases of satanic abuse do not. Sinason
boldly makes lists of cases she thinks proves SRA and should shame
Private Eye into keeping quiet, but diligently omits
to mention many other cases like the Epping Case and others which she
championed as SRA but which turned
out to be serious and damaging miscarriages of justice which the Eye
helped to overturn. If Sinason wants to publicly compare the
very many failed
SRA cases with ones she thinks prove its existence we'll be glad to
oblige her. Does she
still think the Epping Case was a real case of SRA? ]
Gosling: ....Now you've spoken to five of Savile's victims what
evidence do you have that it this is more wideswpread, you mentioned
that Kidwelly case but what about your own personal experience do you
think this is more widespread than we realise this kind of abuse? ...
Sinason: The kind of ritual abuse in a belief system, I have
worked or heard from about 500 people in 25 years and I am assuming
that from what colleagues are telling me that this is not a huge part
of abuse if you think that most abuse in the country tragically is
within the family - its incest, or near family, - abuse within a ritual
that is not, er, that is family or family and others, I would think it
is one of the smallest forms of abuse but one of the most, er,
dangerous and damaging because any child who has been abused is told
not to tell and is threatened about what will happen if they tell
but it seems that with ritual abuse children are told that if they tell
they and people they love will be punished in an after life. When you
kind of religious threat like that whether you believe it or not and
you are doing it and dressing up to frighten the children the important
thing is that the child believes it and that means that child even when
they are an adult and come for help are still scared that something
terrible will happen after they are dead because they've told on
their abusers. .....
'Hearing from' 500 people over 25 years is not the same
thing as having 500 categorical cases of SRA. The only real
yardstick of whether SRA exists is whether prosecutions
occur. Of the couple of dozen cases which the police were involved in during
the 1990s when Sinason first began promoting the idea. NOT ONE
case was successfully prosecuted. In 25 years there has not been
one dead victim produced (unless of course you count Carol
Feldstead-Myers who became a key patient in Sinason's SRA stable for a time and
later committed suicide (see here). Is
Valerie counting her case as real? When all said and done;
after 25 years of consistent ferreting Valerie has only come up with
the Kidwelly case and even that does NOT prove her contentions about a
network of satanic abusers as we outline here.
Sinason prattles on about abusers terrifying kids but she never ever
specifies HOW these things work. Why would a child be more
frightened over an occult curse rather than being cast into a
Christian Hell? What is the perpetrator's objective
in frightening the child into silence by dressing up when the morass of
ordinary abusers can apparently keep their activities secret and the
children compliant by treating and entertaining them? Being told
that one must keep quiet 'otherwise loved ones will suffer in the next
life' might work on a small child but why would it continue to work
when they became self-aware and more enlightened as they grew older?
Isn't all this hubub over secrecy just mystification to
hide the fact that most of Sinason's patients have
spent years in therapy and never once mentioned Satanic
Abuse until an SRA believer got their hands on them ? ]
Gosling: Okay valerie I suppose the final question has to be what od you think can be done about this in the long term.
Sinason: I think the more we consider that any child looking
distressed, disturbed, has gone through something and that we can have
a question "What's happened to you?" But when an adult is
emotionally disturbed, homeless, in pain, something has happend, what
is it? Once we start thinking; Have they been traumatised? What
could have happened to them? We make a climate in which it is
easier for people to tell and once people can tell the culture of
secrecy goes. Just having an open mind. No therapist I know who has
worked with extreme allegations of Ritual
Abuse even knew it existed, even have a view over whether they believed
it or not but when faced with it we have had to see something
horrible. Er, the more people can consider, that yes there
can be wrong allegations, there can be emotional disorders that make it
hard for people to remember everything properly. But that if we know
whatever the worst things are they've hapened to people it will make it
more possible to tell....
In short Sinason's SRA therapy is to tell her patients that they can
say anything and they will not be challenged about it. All well and
good but as we mention elsewhere,
There is a big difference between sympathetically listening
caringly to someone who is outpourring their heart in order to unearth
the root of their problems - and believing everything that falls
out of their mouth. In proper psychiatry one looks not for what the patient is saying but why the patient is saying it. It
is a given that people who are emotionally disturbed cannot interpret
their experiences within the norm and will often use allegory to
explain their feelings.
It is vitally important that the
psychiatrist listens but in the patient's sensitive state NOT reinforce
inadequacies or persecution complexes or any other neuroses.
Satan Hunter therapists do exactly the reverse and this has got to be
ultimately bad for the patient.
Being a 'victim' of SRA was certainly bad for poor dead Carol Myers.
And for tragic young suicidee Caroline Marchant. History shows that it
wasn't Satanism which caused their deaths. It was being denied proper
psychiatric care whilst being left in the clutches of Satan Hunters who
were obsessed with a dangerous myth. ]
There has been so much evil talk about Jimmy Savile that I thought I would remind people of some of his achievements.
(1) He spearheaded the Clunk-Click seatbelt campaign and worked
tirelessly to bring in the law making wearing of them compulsory.
In doing this he has probably saved tens of thousands of lives of children and adults.
(2) He raised the profile of physically disabled people, gave thousands
of sick people hope and raised an estimated 40 million pounds for
charities to aid the disadvantaged.
(3) He was an ardent Catholic and regular church-goer who by dint of
his lifetime of charitable work was granted a personal meeting with the
In his TV show Jim'll Fix It, he brought to life the dreams of
thousands of disadvantaged kids the vast majority of whom have NOT made
any accusations about being abused by him.
John Freedom, Mortlake, Imbolc 2013
Latest Revelations Cast Doubt on Veracity and Number of Allegations made against Savile
Jimmy Savile's niece's demand for compensation led to police fraud probe: Her own daughter says 'abuse' story is false...
so how many more of the 211 claims for vast payments will police investigate?
- Caroline Robinson claimed great-uncle Savile abused her in front of family
- In 2011 gave TV and newspaper interviews following paedophile's exposure
- But family members say ‘there is not a chance in this world’ her story is true
- Now police are investigating other Savile compensation scheme claimants
- Many of the 211 claims are vague with history not always checking out
Detectives have launched a criminal inquiry into suspected fraud over claims of sex abuse by Jimmy Savile, The
Mail on Sunday can reveal. The extraordinary development
centres on allegations by Savile’s own great-niece, Caroline Robinson,
who claims she was sexually abused by him as a child – and is seeking
thousands of pounds in compensation.
But following inquiries by this newspaper, police in West Yorkshire
have confirmed they have now launched a probe. And both West Yorkshire
and detectives from Scotland Yard’s Operation Yewtree have said they would investigate other claims if fraud were suspected.
Some 211 people came forward claiming compensation after alleged abuse
by the DJ, who died in 2011. The following year, a TV documentary
exposed his predatory behaviour, opening a floodgate of claims.
An engagement party at a luxury venue in Leeds in
1978. The bride-to-be – who, unusually enough, is both pregnant and
only 15 – is asked by her mother to take some food to the disc jockey,
her famous ‘Uncle Jimmy’ Savile, who’s playing the hits in his booth
next to the heaving dance floor. The girl shudders at the
request because three years earlier, when she was just 12, Savile
sexually abused her in front of numerous relatives at a family
gathering. But she’s keen to please her mother, and so she obeys – only
to be assaulted all over again, this time much more seriously.
It’s dark and noisy. No one sees his attack and no one hears her
protests. ‘He cornered me; I was trapped,’ she would tell a reporter
years later. ‘I can still summon up the smell of him; his cigars and
a sweet, sickly girls’ perfume. When it was over, I ran outside. I
remember being sick. Then I went into the hotel toilets and scrubbed
In the long, posthumous charge sheet against Jimmy Savile, this
depraved case stands out: an account of his abuse of his own
great-niece, Caroline Robinson. Now 51, she gave TV and
newspaper interviews in 2012, after the documentary that first exposed
Savile as a paedophile. But an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that
her story conflicts with other evidence – and in this is not alone: so
far as it is possible to check other claims being made by Savile’s
alleged victims, some may also be questionable.
At least five members of Mrs Robinson’s close family say
she is lying, including her daughter, Samantha Smith. Samantha has even
accused her mother of making a fraudulent claim for compensation, and
submitted a formal complaint to police.
Mrs Robinson’s brother, Martin Perry, adds ‘there is not a chance in this world’ that her story of being abused by Savile while sitting on his knee in front of many witnesses aged 12 was true. As for the engagement party, ‘it never happened’.
Mrs Smith, 26, a school science cover supervisor, said: ‘She’s made out like she was trying to protect me from him. It was the exact opposite.’ When
she was 13, she said, her mother made her take a day off school to go
to Savile’s brother Vincent’s funeral – purely so that she would meet
Jimmy. ‘She was saying, “There he is, go and talk to
him, he’s got loads of money”. His money and fame were the only reasons
she made me go the funeral of a man I’d never met.’
Her police statement concludes:
‘I reject all of Caroline’s claims as nothing more than a calculated lie in order to obtain money fraudulently.’
Last night, Geoff Dodd, West Yorkshire’s Assistant Chief Constable,
revealed police were beginning an inquiry into whether Mrs Robinson’s
claim is bogus. She has previously denied her family’s
allegations, but last night did not return requests for
comment. Mrs Robinson has waived her anonymity
by giving interviews, so it is possible to check what she says. Legal restrictions make investigating claims by others who say Savile abused them extremely difficult.
However, inquiries by this newspaper have revealed:
Mrs Robinson’s compensation claim is one of 211
filed under a scheme set up by the executors of Savile’s will, National
Westminster Bank, and the law firm it has engaged to run it, Osborne
Clarke. All aspects of these further claims are
supposed to be totally secret, but many refer to events and times – for example, screenings of Top Of The Pops – which would appear to be impossible. The way the scheme works means they are subject to only the most cursory scrutiny.
The lawyers who represent claimants will be paid between £11,000 and £16,000 for every claim they process. Under the scheme’s fixed ‘tariff’ of damages and legal fees, this means the lawyers will be paid up to ten times as much as victims. Next month, the scheme will be challenged in the Court of Appeal.
The fees going to Osborne Clarke will take precedence over all other calls on Savile’s fast-shrinking estate.
They have already taken £500,000 and submitted bills for a further
£200,000 – still only a fraction of the sum they will eventually be due.
What is left of the Savile estate is currently
valued at about £3 million, and the payment of these fees will empty
the pot. The only genuine victims likely to receive compensation are
those abused at NHS hospitals or the BBC: in those cases, the burden
will be transferred from the estate to tax and licence-fee payers. But
this applies to less than half the claimants. The others will probably
A SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL?
THE 2012 documentary that destroyed Savile’s reputation focused on allegations that he assaulted girls during visits he made to Duncroft,
a secure Approved School in Surrey for teenage girls. In
the programme’s wake, more former Duncroft girls came forward, and at
least 14 are now claiming compensation under the scheme. Some say
Savile abused them when they were taken from Duncroft to recordings of his BBC TV shows.
But, like Mrs Robinson, former Duncroft inmate Bebe Roberts went
public. She said in a 2012 interview that Savile assaulted
her when she was 15 in 1965: ‘If you were walking down the corridor
he would come up close and touch you inappropriately… He always came
when we were getting ready for bed. There were girls in there who were
quite terrified of him.’
Ms Roberts’s claims surprised her former room-mate, Susanne
Cameron-Blackie. Now a lawyer and mental health expert, Ms
Cameron-Blackie said: ‘I was staggered by her interviews, for the simple reason that in 1965, Jimmy Savile did not come near Duncroft. We never saw him.’
Yesterday, Ms Roberts said: ‘I’m sticking by my story. I will never say anything more about it.’ She said she had not claimed compensation.
This newspaper has uncovered evidence that Jimmy Savile did not visit Duncroft until early in 1974, when his name first appears in its visitors’ book – so casting
doubt not only on Ms Roberts, but on the allegations of four women who
have made compensation claims, because they say he abused them before
The Mail on Sunday interviewed the woman responsible for Savile’s first visit to Duncroft. Susan – she has asked us not to publish her surname – revealed:
‘I met him on a weekend leave in late 1973. ‘My mother was
managing a country club. There was a reception for police officers, and
she needed a waitress, so asked me to fill in.’ The result
was that Susan, who looked older than her years, was serving a group of
detectives and their friend Savile. He asked her to visit him at
the flat he used at Broadmoor Hospital the next day.
They kissed, but she says that when he discovered she was only 15, he
ceased intimate contact. Later she begged her mother,
Sheila, to ask Duncroft’s head, Margaret Jones, if Savile could visit.
Sheila later confirmed she did so. Ms Jones – 93 but still mentally
sharp – told the same story: ‘I never knew Savile until Susan’s
mother asked if he could come and brought him there in 1974. I said Yes
because I thought it would be good for the girls.’
The Savile compensation scheme was first advertised in national
newspapers. Claims are checked by a small group of ‘scrutineers,’ made
up of members of Savile’s family, a few friends and former colleagues.
They are prevented from discussing claims so it’s impossible to establish their veracity.
Missing Police Evidence:
The task is still harder because
the police, who seized Savile’s diaries that recorded his movements for
more than 20 years, say they have ‘lost’ them.
But it is clear that many of the allegations being processed are vague.
An analysis prepared for the Court of Appeal reveals that out of 211
claimants, eight say an incident of abuse took place at some time in a
period lasting ten years or more. Eighty say an incident occurred in a
period of between two and ten years. Sixty-one specify a year, and 62
both a year and a season.
There are claims by people who say they were assaulted at
recordings of Top Of The Pops before it started in 1964, and others by
those who describe assaults at the BBC TV Centre in London at
recordings of programmes which were, in fact, filmed elsewhere.
The Savile compensation scheme was first advertised in national newspapers following the sex abuse scandal One claimant described an assault by Savile in 1945, stating that he was a manager at a Mecca Ballroom. In 1945, Savile was 19 and a ‘Bevin boy’ miner.
Most of the claimants – 174 – are represented by a team from law firm
Slater & Gordon, led by solicitor Liz Dux. She said she ‘cannot be sure there are no fraudulent claims’,
though she said she has rejected claims which seemed
improbable. She also admitted that many claimants might
never receive a meaningful payment: ‘They are going through an awful lot of pain in reliving their ordeals for a tiny monetary gain.’
The scheme’s tariff sets eight separate compensation bands: victims who
were touched over their clothing should get £1,500, rising to £7,500
for those assaulted under their clothing, and a maximum £40,000 who
were raped. Ms Dux said most of her clients’ alleged abuse
was at the lower end of the scale, so that they would be due less than
£10,000 – or in other words, less than the £11,000 to £16,000 due to
claimants’ lawyers like her under the scheme’s fixed legal fees, and in
some cases, much less.
But she insisted: ‘The scheme was drawn up to keep legal costs to a minimum.’
However, the sums due to NatWest’s lawyers Osborne Clarke – who have
appointed a team of barristers to assess all the claims, adding still
more to their costs – would likely soon render the estate insolvent.
When that happened, Ms Dux said, ‘we will not be paid, and nor can
the victims. If there’s not enough money left, the court will decide
how to divide what’s left. Osborne Clarke will take precedence.’
The scheme is being challenged in the Court of Appeal by the trustees
of Jimmy Savile’s charitable trust, to which he left almost all his
Jo Summers, the trust’s solicitor, who is working on the case pro bono, said:
‘The money should go to the bona fide claimants. A scheme where the lawyers get more than the claimants cannot be right.
‘The level of scrutiny NatWest/Osborne Clarke are applying to the
claims is ludicrously low – it will be almost impossible to tell which
claims are genuine and which are not.’
Osborne Clarke and NatWest refused to comment. A BBC
spokesman said it would deal with claims where appropriate, but could
not discuss any details.
Although she would not respond to this newspaper, Caroline Robinson has earlier insisted on her Facebook page: ‘My
so-called family are trying to stop me telling the truth… I have told
the truth, it’s a pity certain people can’t handle the truth.’
Source: By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday , 18 October 2014
Click here to return to the SAFF frontpage
Sinason Jumps On Savile Bandwagon as Sunday Express embarasses itself with 20 year old Failed SRA Claims
JIMMY SAVILE WAS PART OF SATANIC RING
By James Fielding
JIMMY SAVILE beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret satanic
ritual in a hospital.
The perverted star wore a hooded robe and mask as he abused the terrified victim in a candle-lit basement. [
Ed: a dissociated woman receiving therapy so alleged 20 years after the
event and no other evidence exists to support her allegations]
He also chanted “Hail Satan” in Latin as other paedophile devil
worshippers joined in and assaulted the girl at Stoke Mandeville
Hospital in Buckinghamshire. [Ed: she may have said that but no paedophiles or satanists have ever been uncovered at the hospital]
The [Ed: Alleged ] attack, which [ Ed: is claimed to have] happened in 1975, shines
a sinister new light on the former DJ’s 54-year reign of terror.
Savile, who died aged 84 in October 2011, is now Britain’s worst sex
offender after police revealed he preyed on at least 450 victims aged
eight to 47.
The girl kept her torment hidden for nearly 20 years before finally
opening up to therapist Valerie Sinason.
Dr Sinason told the Sunday Express she first spoke to the victim in
“She had been a patient at Stoke Mandeville in 1975 when Savile
was a regular visitor.
She recalled being led into a room that was filled with candles on the
lowest level of the hospital, somewhere that was not regularly used by
staff. [Ed: how would she know that?] Several adults were there, including Jimmy Savile who, like the
others, was wearing a robe and a mask.
“She recognised him because of his distinctive voice and the fact that
his blond hair was protruding from the side of the mask. He was not the
leader but he was seen as important because of his fame.
She was molested, raped and beaten and heard words that sounded like
‘Ave Satanas’, a Latinised version of ‘Hail Satan’, being chanted.
[Ed: Incorrect, the Latin for Hail Satan is 'Saluto Satanas' -
Ave is a latin interjection as in 'Ave Maria' which does not mean Hail
Mary but which is known to all Catholics as Hail Mary suggesting
religious preconceptions in Sinason's patient]
There was no mention of any other child being there and she cannot
remember how long the attack lasted but she was left extremely
frightened and shaken.” [Ed: Did she tell her doctors? Did she tell her nurse? Did she tell her parents? and if so what happened?]
Savile was a volunteer porter and fund raiser at the hospital between
1965 and 1988 and had his own quarters there.
Five years after the hospital attack, he [Ed: Alledgedly] abused a second victim during
another black mass ceremony
[Ed There is no evidence to support
the idea of a specific Black Mass in the first or second instance this is pure journalistic conjecture) held at a house in a wealthy London street.
The woman was 21 at the time and was made to attend an orgy, which
later took on a darker twist. [Ed: Which Street? Which House? Which part of London? How did she get there? Who else was there?]
Dr Sinason, director of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies in London,
“A second victim approached me in 1993. She said she had been
‘lent out’ as a supposedly consenting prostituted woman at a party in a
London house in 1980.
“The first part of the evening started off with an orgy but half-way
through some of the participants left.
“Along with other young women, the victim was shepherded to wait in
another room before being brought back to find Savile in a master of
ceremonies kind of role with a group wearing robes and masks. She too
heard Latin chanting and instantly recognised satanist regalia. [ed: how does one instantly recognise Satanic regalia? Presumably the same way one instantly recognises Latin chanting?]
Although the girl was a young adult, who was above the age of consent,
she had suffered a history of sexual abuse and was extremely
Both victims contacted Dr Sinason, who is president of the Institute of
Psychotherapy and Disability, [Ed: a grand-sounding organisation she herself invented] while she was involved in a Department of
Health-funded study into sexual abuse committed during rituals and
[This makes Sinason appear to be a specialist for the DoH but this is
not the whole story - See here for the true perspective]
“Both these witnesses did speak to
police at the time but were vulnerable witnesses and on encountering
any surprise or shock did not dare to give all the details.”
same old same old. Once the police are called in the sensational
accusations fade away or are minimised just as happened with Lord
McAlpine and the Bryn Estyn 'victim'. ]
The police took no action. [Ed what none at all? Does this mean that they found 'no case to answer? In which case why is Sinason relating it?']
She had been a patient at Stoke Mandeville in 1975 when Savile was a
Dr Sinason added: “Savile was still a huge celebrity in the early
Nineties, let’s not forget, and there was never any action taken
against him or any of the others involved. [Ed: what is Sinason trying to suggest? That all the authorities refused to take action when told? That there was a cover-up?]
“Neither girl knew one another, they lived in different parts of the
country and contacted me a year apart yet their experiences are very
Whether Savile was a practising Satanist or merely enjoyed
dressing up to scare his victims even more will perhaps never be known
but he left those two girls mentally scarred.”
[Ed: Misleading conclusion. They may not have known each other but would of course have both
independently known about Savile's fame during those years. On the other hand it is possible
that the girls simply made up their stories because despite Sinason's assurances otherwise, each of their
claimed experiences was completely different.]
Dr Sinason has passed details of the abuse to officers from the Savile
inquiry, Operation Yewtree.
A joint report published on Friday by the Metropolitan Police and the
NSPCC uncovered at least 30 claims of abuse at Stoke Mandeville.
The hospital said it was unable to discuss individual cases while its
own “Speaking Out” investigation was ongoing.
Anne Eden, chief executive of Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust,
said: “As the investigation’s name suggests, it is very keen to hear
from anybody with any knowledge that they feel could help its work or
anybody that needs support because of Jimmy Savile’s alleged
If you have been a victim of Savile's satanic rituals contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Source: Express Sunday January 13th 2013
Well, it all sounds uncontestable according to bullish James
Fielding, but now read what a proper journalist has to say about
A CASE OF RITUAL SCIENTIFIC ABUSE
By Tim Williams
HYSTERIA is spreading. The delusion has breached the walls of the
Academy. It is now disturbing the thought patterns of not merely
the media but the Metropolitan Police. An epidemic of psychosis is upon
Public sanity is on the line. Someone serious actually believes in ritual satanic abuse. And that is really alarming.
Many in Scotland will be reading with wariness if not weariness the
reports apparently vindicating a belief in what those who believe it
exists call SRA (as though the simple attribution of an acronym bestows
a shred of scientificity to mumbo-jumbo).
Children in Orkney were taken from entirely innocent parents on the
paranoid pretext that what were in fact incoming hippies were witches
and warlocks sexually abusing kids for the greater glory of Beelzebub.
Believing that there is sweet FA to SRA, I find myself profoundly
depressed at the recurrence of the irrational disease of RSA-spotting.
The source of the story is "research", by London's Tavistock
Institute of Medical Psychology. I say "research" because coming from
that source one wouldn't expect standards of empirical rigour of the
kind required to be convincing in the natural sciences. The Tavistock
Institute has been one of the homes of the weirder versions of
psychotherapy and the busted flush that is psychoanalysis.
Scotland's very own psycho-charlatan, RD Laing, practised out
of the Tavistock at the height of his notoriety. It is where
scientifically dubious claims about "recovered memories" of child
sexual abuse and SRA have been made for many years. What's new is that
the police are apparently taking the claims seriously. [continued below inset panel]
Top Savile Cop groomed By SRA Fanatics?
Commander Peter Spindler, head of Operation Yewtree, ( the Metropolitan Police's investigation into Jimmy Savile's abuses) is no stranger to claims of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse having been one of those involved in oganising the Met. Police's first Satan Training Seminar in October 2004.
decided it was alright for them to hold the first in a series of Satan
Seminars to teach police how to identify SRA even though the mass of
available evidence showed it did not exist. We reveal the documentary
evidence which shows how the Met. was fooled about SRA in the SAFF's
exclusive expose of the St Winebald's Day Sacrifices here..
Organised by (then Detective Inspector) Spindler,
these Satan Seminars were run in conjunction with Lee Moore. the head of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers (ACAL), who
claims to have recovered memories of her own Satanic Ritual Abuse, and were to be rolled-out to other forces afterwards.
Amongst the madcap
methods given to the Met. police were 'indicators' of Satanic Abuse
which we can prove were derived from those originally developed by
fundamentalist fanatics in the U.S. in the mid 1980s and subsequently
misused in all the flawed cases in the 1990s (Rochdale, Orkney etc).
It was the use of such 'indicators' which was specifically singled
out by the government inquiry which followed as the prime cause of
creating false allegations of SRA, yet here the Met. appears to
be falling for them again.
See The St Winebald Bunkum here.
Latest News: Spindler Quits Operation Yewtree
Scotland Yard's top police
officer overseeing investigations into allegations of child sex abuse
by Jimmy Savile and other prominent figures has left, Exaro can reveal.
Peter Spindler has already exited his post as a commander at the
Metropolitan Police Service, where he was head of "specialist crime
In that role, he was overseeing three high-piofile operations by
the Met's paedophile unit into allegations of sexual abuse of children
by celebrities, including Savile, as well as politicians and other
VIPs. But after five years as a Met commander, he started a new
job on Tuesday with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), an official
Spindler's decision to leave
the Met is bound to surprise many with an interest in child protection,
and raises questions over the direction of those three operations. He
had overall responsibility for 'Operation Yewtree', which investigated
allegations against Savile, the late BBC presenter Itis still investigating a host of other people from the celebrity world.
Spindler was the public face
of the Mets investigation into Savile, and frequently appeared on
television to talk about progress in the operation. After the
publication of the Mets report, he famously said that Savile had "
groomed the nation." But he faced criticism over the Met paedophile
unit's strategy of arresting people - including celebnty figures -
under Yewtree when there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
Spindler also had
responsibility for 'Operation Fembridge'. which is investigating
allegations that boys in the care of the London borough of Richmond
upon Thames were sexually abused at Elm Guest House by prominent people
- including MPs - and others.
The author of the study, Valerie Sinason, a practising
psychoanalyst, says that she has "treated" (I wonder if that means
"cured": I doubt it somehow) 75 children and adults over the past 15
years who had claimed to be victims of or to have witnessed satanic
abuse. More bloodcurdlingly, though admittedly less plausibly, 46 of
them claimed to have seen murders, while a further 15 said they had
witnessed induced abortions or the murder of babies. Only 14 saw
nothing interesting, though maybe further therapy will enable them to
recover those memories of baby-killing warlocks which they are clearly
at the moment repressing. I wish them well.
The Metropolitan police officer assigned to investigate the claims
noted that while "nobody wishes to believe the unbelievable ... we are
going to look at them in every possible detail and if it is possible to
prove it, we will prove it".
[Ed. 13 years later and the Met still have no proof of the existence of Satanic Abuse]
Ms Sinason asserts, without evidence, that perpetrators of RSA are not
necessarily believers in Satan: they merely use Satanism to terrify
their victims. Her compelling evidence for the fact that such abusers
exist, apart from the coherent analysis of her patients, is that there
are "currently seven people in prison in the UK for satanic abuse". [Ed. These cases are not categoric and their satanic derivation is disputed by most observers]
Why isn't there more evidence? "I have also heard from lawyers," says the resolutely anecdotal Ms Sinason,
"who say they removed the Satanic element from charges in order to
ensure a successful prosecution." There was also "evidence", she said,
that "Satanic groups" sometimes did not register the births of babies
and that the "children were then kept captive for a number of years
before being murdered." She thinks this may be happening "especially in
I don't believe a word of it, nor should any serious academic. The
police should walk on the other side of the road from what is the
wilder edge of "psychotherapy." They should also have a look at what's
happening in the States, from where most of the "thinking" behind
recovered memories and RSA came.
There, case after case brought to court is being thrown out -
not just for lack of evidence but because academically respectable folk
are ridiculing the "expert witnesses" who support such allegations.
Many convicted have been released on appeal and can expect huge
compensation. Families split by claims made by sick or manipulated
children are being reunited as simple-minded acceptance of the
"coherent narratives" recovered by therapists from patients are being
seen as "false memories" imposed by therapists on vulnerable people*
It is typical of the time-lapse problem between fashionable theories in
the US and here that just as they are being ditched there they retain
some currency here. Before the Met or the media waste too much time
digging up the countryside looking for fictitious foetuses, I recommend
they read a few books. The American Frederick Crew's demolition of
psychoanalysis and recovered memory would be a good start, followed by
Elaine Feinstein's book on hysteria, which points to RSA as one of the
many examples of contemporary hysteria with no serious factual basis.
They may also like to consult the ordinary people of the Pembrokeshire
town from which most of the seven people imprisoned for SRA come. You
won't find a single person there who believes in their guilt or in the
nonsense spouted about them at their trial by children disturbed by
social workers and disoriented by "experts" who wouldn't know a fact if
slapped round the face with it.
Abuse? Studies such as this are such an abuse of the forensic method that even Mulder and Scully would be sceptical.
Copyright 2000 The Scotsman Publications Ltd. The Scotsman February 10, 2000,
MORE SAVILE-MONSTER NONSENSE
False 2015 Hampstead SRA case lobby uses two year old Valerie Sinason Interview to substantiate their mad allegations.
On 9th September 2015 the lobby-group which had a year earlier created and caused a
fictitious SRA panic at Christ-Church primary school in Hampstead, London, published on Youtube a two year old radio interview given by Valerie Sinason, claiming
that Satanic Abuse existed. Their intention was to convince their
extremist support across the net that their contentions about Hampstead
were true. Even though some of the people leading the scare have been already condemned and prosecuted
by the legal system for their lies.
The interview was originally given
to BBC Bristol's Drive-Time radio programme on 2nd May 2013 and repeated the unproven claims Sinason made in the Sunday Express
article (above) that Jimmy Savile was part of a group of satanic abusers.
The Drive-time host who interviewed Sinason is one Tony
Gosling, a Christian fundamentalist who believes in
the New World Order myth which is an age-old precursor of anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic
hatred. The SAFF exposed his attempts to misuse the BBC for
sectarian propaganda and his promotion of lies on the Russia Today
but of course the BBC is now so corrupted that nothing was done about him. Had Jeremy Clarkson
promoted the same ideas on air he would have been suspended immediately
but Gosling, ensconsed in an out of the way BBC local radio-station is
apparently allowed to do what he likes.
Note well that Gosling has aired earlier interviews
pushing the Satanic Myth when in 2009 he gave a platform for Roger
Cook, who lives near Bristol, to perpetuate the untruths in his discredited TV programme 'The Devil's Work' which started the myth in 1989.
Does Valerie Sinason
agree with the use by extremist liars at Hampstead of her
interview to support fictitious allegations of Satanic Abuse? We
remind her that a high-court judge has already said this about the
Hampsted SRA case;
“I am able to state with complete conviction that none
of the allegations are true. The claims are baseless. Those who have
sought to perpetuate them are evil and, or foolish.” . Neither child had been sexually abused by their father, teachers or
parents at Christ Church Primary School Hampstead, the priest at the
adjacent church, or anyone else mentioned."
sinason agree that publicity about her own still unproven allegations
about Jimmy Savile being a Satanic Abuser first aired in January 2013
are likely to have influenced the Hampstead scare which began in the
summer of 2014?
Discover the despicable actions of fanatics involved in these
allegations and the background to their activities on the Hoaxsted Research debunker site here:
Discover more about Gosling and his fundamentalist troublemaking here:
Discover more about Valerie Sinason's lamentable track record of claiming she has discovered Satanic abuse when it wasn't, here: and
ask whether it is not now time for the authorities to stop her inciting
this damaging myth which has damaged the lives of so many people and killed a few as well.
We critically analysed Valerie Sinason's Drive-Time interview when it was first broadcast and you can find our dissection of it in the adjacent column, left.
October 2011. Jimmy Savile dies. He
is buried in Scarborough with full honours. Thousands of well-wishers
line the roads as his cortege passes to his interment in the Catholic
cemetery. A historic plaque is put up on the wall outside his Scarborough
December 2011 the BBC drop an
investigation by Newsnight into the allegations of sexual abuse by
Jimmy Savile and airs a Christmas tribute programme to him instead.
ITV airs a documentary, 'Exposure, the
Other Side of Jimmy Savile', in which a number of women claim they were
abused by Savile as youngsters.
9 October 2012: Peter Spindler of the
Metropolitan Police tells the BBC: "It is quite clear from what women
are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender"
10 October 2012: Jimmy Savile: Headstone Removed And Dumped. The late TV star's headstone is to be sent to landfill after its
removal from a cemetery by his family amid new sex abuse claims.
11 October 2012 and George Entwistle,
Director General of the BBC, asks journalists why the Newsnight
programme was dropped as police from Tayside, Greater Manchester,
Lancashire and North Yorkshire police say they are investigating
allegations going back to 1959
Friday 12 October 2012; Savile abuse allegations: 340 lines of inquiry and possibly 40 victims.
13th October 2012: Esther Rantzen in row over claims she ignored warning about Jimmy
Savile. Child abuse campaigner Shy Keenan claims she warned Rantzen about
ChildLine founder says she cannot remember the incident and denies that
Jimmy Savile's name was ever mentioned.
14th October 2012;
The best friend of disgraced paedophile Jimmy Savile has claimed scores
of alleged child abuse victims threw themselves at the TV legend.
Janet Cope, the stars' personal assistant for 28 years,
slammed his accusers as nothing more than celebrity-obsessed attention
seekers motivated by money.
15 October sees a man come forward alleging that Savile abused him when he was a nine-year-old boyscout.
A transgender man comes forward alleging
that Jimmy Savile 'stuck his hand up his nightdress' while he was a
17-year-old teenage girl at Broadmoor in the 1970's.
16 October 2012: Savile alleged to have abused children at Haut de la Garenne, children's home in Jersey
25th Oct 2012: Jimmy
Savile has been described as an expert at "hiding in plain sight". He
was the eccentric who seemingly joked openly about his sex life...
29 Oct 2012: Creepy' Jimmy Savile was banned from
Children in Need. Jimmy Savile was banned from BBC Children in
Need because of his suspicious behaviour with children more than a
decade ago, a former BBC executive has revealed.
7 November 2012: Independent inquiry to examine claims of Jersey abuse.
Claims that Sir Jimmy Savile abused girls at a children’s
home in Jersey
are to be examined by a new independent inquiry.
7 November 2012: Jimmy Savile was suspected of being Yorkshire Ripper. Jimmy
Savile was questioned by police investigating the Yorkshire Ripper
murders, a senior officer who worked on the inquiry revealed.
13 Nov 2012: Late Liberal Democrat MP Sir Cyril Smith a closet paedophile 'had a close friendship with Jimmy Savile,' The Sun has revealed.
13th January 2013: Sunday Express hypes Sinason's claims about Savile being a Satanist child Abuser.
THE SATANIC PANIC:
TWO DAYS after
a report was published on the extensive allegations of sexual abuse
against Jimmy Savile, the Sunday Express carried a front-page splash,
"SAVILE WAS PART OF SATANIC RING",
and an inside page story starring none other than Valerie Sinason (Eyes passim), a Harley Street psychotherapist who has been one of the UK’s main proponents of a belief in Satanic ritual abuse.
The report on Savile, a joint effort by the Metropolitan Police and NSPCC called Giving Victims a Voice, revealed that 450 people had made allegations of sexual abuse against Savile. The report concluded that Savile was "a prolific predatory sex offender and the scale of his abuse is believed to be unprecedented in the UK", while acknowledging that the information against the former DJ had not been corroborated and could not now be tested in court.
Was any such caveat attached to the Express’s Satanic claims? Er, no ~
even though Satanic abuse was debunked as a myth by a government-
funded inquiry as long ago as 1994. Since then, no physical, forensic
corroborating evidence has been produced anywhere in the world to
substantiate the existence of Satanic ritual abuse, in which an
international web of devil-worshipping paedophiles are claimed to rape
children in Satanic rituals including the sacrifice of babies and
This lack of corroboration did not dissuade Sunday Express reporter
James Fielding, however, who wrote sensationally and without question:
"Jimmy Savile beat and raped a l2-year-old girl during a
Satanic ritual in a hospital. The perverted star wore a hooded robe and
mask as he abused the terrified victim in a candle—lit basement. He
also chanted ‘Hail Satan’ in Latin as other paedophile devil
worshippers joined in and assaulted the girl at Stoke Mandeville
Hospital in Buckinghamshire. The attack, which happened in 1975, shines
a sinister new light on the fonner DJ’s 54-year reign of terror... The
girl kept her torment hidden for nearly 20 years before finally opening
up to therapist Valerie Sinason."
Based solely on the interview with Sinason — no evidence or interview
with the alleged victim — the Sunday Express went on to relate
Sinas0n’s account of another patient who she said had been abused five
years later "during another black mass ceremony held at a house in a wealthy London street".
Sinason, director of the NHS-funded Clinic for Dissociative Studies
in London, said the victims made these allegations to her independently
when they were in therapy in 1992 and 1993, while she was based at the
Tavistock Clinic in north London. At the time, the paper reported,
Sinason was involved in a Department of Health—funded study (never
published) into "sexual abuse committed during rituals and religious ceremonies". Sinason told the Sunday Express:
"Both these witnesses did speak to police at the
time but were vulnerable witnesses and on encountering any surprise or
shock did not dare to give all the details."
The paper reported: "The police took no action."
It added, however, that Sinason had passed details of these two
"Satanic" cases to officers from the Met”s Savile inquiry, Operation
Yewtree, launched last October after the controversy over Newsnighfs
failure to broadcast an investigation into abuse allegations against
Savile and lTV’s subsequent programme, Exposure: The Other Side to Jimmy Savile, carried interviews with five alleged victims.
The Met/NSPCC report does not reveal whether the Satanic claims from
Sinason were included; nor whether the claim that Savile was part of a
Satanic ring was even treated as credible.
What the report does say is:
"There is no clear evidence of Savile operating within a paedophile
ring, although whether he was part of an informal network is part of
the continuing investigation and it’s not therefore appropriate to
comment further on this.”
No doubt Valerie Sinason will be submitting her "evidence” forthwith.
Meanwhile, as 31 alleged sex abuse victims of Savile sue the BBC for
compensation, it remains to be seen how many more of the remaining 450
alleged victims will also launch actions against the broadcaster and
various NHS bodies where Savile worked. The tricky question remains of
how, in the absence of corroborating evidence, genuine claims can be
separated from spurious ones and settled fairly.
EYE 1334: 22 February 2013
Private Eye Subscription Department:01795414870:
Read Moor Larkin's blog on the Savile Discrepancies.
Judge for yourself whether the whole Savile / Paedo Celebrity
accusations are not just a re-run of the 1990s satanic ritual abuse
myth, without the supernatural context.
False Memories, False Victims, False Investigations, Gullible Media,
Grubby Child Charities, and compliant police forces willing to
persecute anyone who is accused on the flimsiest of evidence.
The truth is here:
The Ray Teret Trial
BBC News Friday 5th Dcember 2014. BBC NEWS REPORT By Judith Moritz,
SAFF Review & comment:
Judith Moritz bends her duty as a professional journalist to unfairly
slate Jimmy Savile.
The Jury which could not produce a unanimous decision after 50 hrs
deliberation (a sure indication that evidence was questionable)
was told by the judge it could bring in a majority 10 to 2
verdict. Majority verdicts bring the entire justice system into
disrepute because it is a form of bargaining where jurists who do not
believe in the guilt of the accused are pressured into accepting lesser
counts so the rest can go home for the weekend. Remember the crucial
axiom 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
In the event Teret was convicted of seven counts of rape
and 11 counts of indecent assault on eleven girls between 1960s and
1970s. There were indictments against Teret for six
other girls but he was found not-guilty in those cases.
One of these women, now middle aged, had claimed that she had been
raped by both Savile and Teret in the same instance. She was the star
witness for the child-scare-industry but the Jury found Teret not
guilty of this double-rape accusation, which was said to have
occurred in the early 1960s when she was 15.
Instead Teret was found guilty of raping the complainant on his
own. Thus the crux of the trial was that, even though, like a lot
of people, Teret knew and worked with Savile back in the day, the Jury,
with all the evidence to hand categorically ruled without
equivocation that Savile was not involved in any of the abuses for
which Teret was being tried.
The child-scare-industry hoped the Teret trial would confirm the
allegations against Savile. Savile was in effect being tried
along with Teret 'in absentia'.
However when put to the test in a court of law the evidence presented
actually exonerated Savile from any complicity. This has raised
questions about the astronomical number of witnesses who, unchecked by
any official investigation or trial, or rule of law, has been
accepted without challenge by press, police,
government and child-charities who benefit from them.
However Judith Moritz brushed over this watershed moment and in
an utterly biased piece for which she should be eternally ashamed
she reported in terms
which the ordinary viewer would take to mean that the allegations against Savile had actually been upheld. .
Moritz' first besmirched the two in the early part of her piece. It went like this:
recall that Moritz made this statement AFTER the Jury had pronounced
the reverse. In the only citation which was brought in the trial which
involved Savile and Teret together the Jury threw out the charge!
There was no evidence that Teret and Savile were together
depraved. Is it being suggested that every DJ or pop-star who
knew or worked with Savile is an arch-abuser? Then simply knowing
or working with Savile cannot be grounds for accusations of abuse.
"And Ray Teret was also a friend of Jimmy Savile, upon whom he modelled both his behaviour and his depravity."
One could say that Teret was depraved. One might claim that, even
though no trial has occurred to prove it, Savile was independently
depraved. But to infer that Savile and Teret infected each other with
depravity after a Jury had just said they didn't is certainly
inaccurate. Moritz was therefore not reporting what happend
but relating her own prejudices.
Why was this? Well we conjecture that the Child-Scare-Industry mafia were
betting on this trial being another watershed and had already arranged a
barrage of 'told you so' publicity in which various journalists had got exclusive
access to various people in the swim.
Moritz for instance, interviewed 'Cathy'
a very emotionally disturbed lady who had been abused by Teret when she
was 12 and who was a main witness in the trial. Sections of this
interview were woven into her broadcast piece on Teret. We will
lay bets that similar interviews with 'victims' who had claimed that
both Teret and Savile abused them together were also in the can with
other journalists but these had to be cut-out at the last minute
because that story was proved by the court to be false.
All these people were left with after the surprise jury verdict
exonerating Savile was what they've been using for the past two
years: INUENDO; and unfortunately Judith Moritz's piece was
full of it.
Towards the end of the piece Moritz lets her professional standards down one more time by saying:
girl was said to have been raped by Savile and then Teret. The
Jury didn't accept Savile's role in the attack but the case is seen by
some as the closest a court will come to putting him on trial.
Unlike his friend, Teret has not escaped Justice"
But of course Savile 'escaped justice' because he was found INNOCENT of the charges made against him in court!
Is this gobbledegook some kind of consolation prize for the Savile-hunters in the child-scare-industry?
So for the first time after several years of massive nation-wide
publicity the allegations about Savile were tested in a court of law
and DISPROVED. We
are not of course suggesting that every person who has claimed Savile abused
them is fabricating, what we are saying is that it appears that some are, and the Teret trial is proof positive of that fact.
Note that originally when operation Yewtree was at it's height in 2012
there were claims from 450 victims that Savile had abused them.
The actual figures were fugitive and rarely discussed. The police
didn't test any of those original claims in depth because Savile was
already dead hence a prosecution could not be brought against
In a voluntary arrangement a panel was made up of several people who
were not police but who were given the job of deciding from
amongst the 'victims' who had a definite claim and who had not.
The cost of all this activity was bleeding the estate of Savile dry and
so it obtained a High Court hearing to adjust it's financial
arrangements All the socilitiors who were acting on behalf of victims
who had passed the earlier test were at this hearing and questions
could now be asked in open court.
The records show that a total of about 211 victims were now extant. Thus over 200 people who said they were Savile's victims had been proven not to be.
Nearly 50% of those who claimed abuse by Savile had such weak cases that they were
filtered out early on.
Isn't it time the hysteria stopped?
Isn't it time the names of the people making these allegations and who are not involved in proper criminal enquiries are made
public so that others who know them can comment on the veracity of
Now we have had the first test in a court of law and the allegations about Savile in that case were also found to be unproven.
Watch this space.
Trial statistics from: BBC: