February 2016: Dame Janet Smith BBC Savile Report Published - No mention of Satanic Abuse: - see here:

December 2014: Ray Teret Trial  Jury Exonerates Savile: See here:

October 2014:  David Rose's Unmasking of the Savilemonster Fraudulent Victims Bandwagon. See here:

  Private Eye says Sunday Express Satanic Savile Expose is Rubbish: Read The Full Story Here:   Valerie Sinason Strikes Back:  Answers Private Eye Criticisms here:

Jimmy Savile

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. 

McAlpine's '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 her comments.
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 paedophile claims . 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 - so mysterious 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 Sinason 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 intelligent 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 

Savile Case

Led To 'Persecution', Lawyer Says

Barbara Hewson


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 barrister.

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 Union."

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 high-profile names.

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 apparatus".

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 grotesque spectacle."

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..."



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 health care.

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 honestly 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 help.

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 might 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 campaigning (here) 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?

Why 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 - when 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:

children born for sacrifice to Satan - Valerie Sinason
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.

Valerie Sinason

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 the time


 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 by aliens.

 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.

Of 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 in connection with it. In fact we don't know anyone anywhere who as actually read a copy of it!


Savilemonster Dame Janet Smith report published

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 forensic evidence.

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 evidence.
  • DEFINITIONS: Definitions of abuse were astronomically wide and appeared to depend solely on whether the 'victim' felt they had been abused. For example:
    • One '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 Puritan Britain?
You can make up your own mind by downloading the full Savile Report from here: 

The most important conclusion we took away from it is that the idea of Savile being part of a paedophile ring,Satanic or otherwise, (as described by Valerie Sinason's patients in the rightmost column ) is fantasy.

Tough Love Better in the Long Term

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 illness.

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 £25,000.00?

Vicar Censored

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 most 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 money.

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

(b)  it is considered unfair or unsympathetic for the police to challenge the veracity of any victim's story.

 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.

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 distressed patients.

Considering that in his 20 year tenure as 'the king of kids TV'  Savile must have met and personally spoken to tens of thousands of  children  who can all substantiate their 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 occurred.

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: 


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.  Savile-monster may 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 mid twenties. 

Of 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 worth.

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 therapy. 

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:

For 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 a  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 feel?

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 nothing.  

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!

Broadmoor Abuses? 

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

No Sex Please,
We're British!

Man with Trousers DownThe 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

Did 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 a new attack on 'peer'  Lord Renard.  Did the average newspaper reader 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 workers?  Can we get a sense of proportion into these claims? No sex please, we're British!

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. 

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....

[Ed: 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..........

[Ed: 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. 

First 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 satanism!

  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.

Sinason 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 teaches 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 not. 

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 this up.

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 corroboration........

[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.   

The 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.  

Secondly 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.
There 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..  
The 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?

Sinason 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.....

[Again 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 make a
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. .....

[Ed: '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....

[Ed. 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.  ]

Extract Ends.


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 Pope.

(4) 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

Caroline Robinson's Savile story doesn't check outJimmy 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 myself.’

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 get nothing.


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 this date.

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 estate.

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.’

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday , 18 October 2014

how to contact the saff

We want this website to represent a fair cross-section of opinion. Would you like to add more Information, Observations, Personal Experience, Criticisms or Corrections to SAFF files and publications?
Then please click here to go to our Feedback Forum - You can leave a message anonymously on the Jimy Savile thread or just read what others have to say.

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

Sunday Express Headline


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 1992.

 “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, said:

“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 vulnerable.”

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 religious ceremonies. [This makes Sinason appear to be a specialist for the DoH but this is not the whole story -  See here for the true perspective]

She said:

“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.”

[Ed: 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 regular visitor. 

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 similar.

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 behaviour.”

If you have been a victim of Savile's satanic rituals contact 

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 Valerie's claims.


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 us.

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

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.

They 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 investigations".

 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 police watchdog.

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.

Source: ExaroNews

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 rural areas".

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,

Svile's Mysery Cash For Children - Daily Express 21 February 2013


Jimmy Saville and his doppleganger Peter, The Ripper, Sutcliffe

Valerie Sinason has been a prime mover in the Satanic Ritual Abuse myth since its inception in 1988

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.

Tony Gosling pushing his sectarian nonsense courtesy of BBC Bristol

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 website here:
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."

Portrait of Ella Draper prime mover of the Hampstead SRA case

Does 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:

Sabine McNeill, prime mover in the false Hampstead SRA allgations skipped the country

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 flat.

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 paedophile claims . 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.

Watch This Space!.

Private Eye Masthead


Familiar Ritual

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,


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 animals.

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.

Rosie Waterhouse:
EYE 1334: 22 February 2013

Private Eye Subscription Department:01795414870: /

Read Moor Larkin's blog on the Savile Discrepancies.

Jimcannotfixthis  Moor Larkin's detailed analysis of the Savile scare
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:

Jimmy Savile and Ray Teret catching some rays

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:

"And Ray Teret was also a friend of Jimmy Savile, upon whom he modelled both his behaviour and his depravity."
You should 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.

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:  

"One 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 him. 

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 their accusations?

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: