Friday, 19 August 2022

The Second Coming of Jesus

We live in a materialistic society in which spiritual values are largely marginalised. This was not always the case. For example, in the Middle Ages religion was a matter of profound importance for both the state and the ordinary citizen. In the Victorian period there was a renewed interest in the Christian faith. But in western societies today relatively few people show much interest in spiritual matters, and this is particularly true in Britain.

Today there are two prevailing orthodoxies, both of them deeply flawed. Christianity, since time immemorial, has been hijacked by superstitious beliefs, but in its favour still accepts the spiritual nature of mankind. On the other hand, secular materialism, the predominant belief system amongst both the intelligentsia and ordinary people, regards humanity in entirely materialistic terms, and dismisses any claims of spirituality as superstitious or invoking the supernatural.

Secular materialism has permeated many people who nominally consider themselves Christian. They have come to believe that the afterlife is a delusional myth and that at death we are all extinguished. As a result many are in a state of anxiety due to the societal failure to challenge this pernicious doctrine. It is sadly the case that there is very little debate investigating reasoned alternatives to these two main orthodoxies in Western society.

A fundamentalist Christian website has complied a list of nearly 70 American churches ‘who identify themselves as Christian, and/or believe in some parts of Christianity’s Theology. These False churches (cults) use the Bible as their scriptural text, but it is misapplied.’ Two of the churches on the list are the Foundation Church of Divine Truth and the Church of the New Birth. Both are rightly described as sects since they are believed to be supported by only a relatively small number of followers.

For reasons that will be given later in full, fundamentalist Christians would be very surprised to discover that these two sects are the only churches in the world that follow the true teachings of Jesus during his ministry two thousand years ago in Judea and Galilee. Thus it follows that all Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, have since their inception been preaching doctrines that are distortions of the true teachings of Jesus.

According to Wikipedia ‘the ‘Second Coming’ is a Christian concept regarding the return of Jesus to Earth after his first coming and believed ascension to heaven about two thousand years ago. The belief is based on messianic prophecies found in the canonical gospels and is part of most Christian eschatologies’. Fundamentalist Christians implicitly believe that this event will occur at some time when Jesus in his glory and majesty will establish his Kingdom on Earth. This widely held belief is however a physical impossibility, and so cannot happen in this way. Strangely, not one fundamentalist Christian in a million appears to be aware that Jesus, in his own words, did in fact make his second coming over one hundred years ago.

This remarkable claim will be considered by the overwhelming majority of people as crazy nonsense promoted by a lunatic fringe. However, they should keep an open mind, since this is the only means of arriving at the truth. So the question that must be asked is - just how did Jesus make his second coming? Before answering this question it will be necessary to provide some background information about the human condition, which will explain the mechanism Jesus employed to achieve his second coming.

As outlined by Jesus (unless otherwise stated all comments credited to Jesus are from the time of his second coming) humans comprise three separate components. The first, recognised by everybody, is the physical body. Secular materialism and science declare that this is all there is. So consciousness and the mind are deemed to be generated by the brain. Any scientist questioning this orthodoxy is likely to face professional hostility for giving credence to superstition. However, in reality, if this belief was true then we would all be corpses, which is clearly not the case.

The question is rarely asked just how the brain manages to generate consciousness, the mind, the beating of the heart, the breathing of the lungs and all the other functions that make up a living person. So it must be concluded that secular materialism (and science) is wedded to an absurd doctrine, which moreover has no real evidence to back it up. Secular materialism fails to provide any credible answers to this conundrum and never will.

The second component of humans is the soul. Secular materialism dismisses this concept as invoking the supernatural, and so rejects the existence of the soul out of hand. In theory, Christian churches support the principle of the soul. Indeed their primary objective is often described as ‘saving souls’. However, the Christian concept of the soul is nebulous and hazy as well as confused. According to Christian thought there appears to be two avenues for the salvation of souls.

The first is the second coming of Jesus in his glory (also known as the Rapture) who will create his eternal Kingdom on Earth, to include all Christian believers who are then alive, along with resurrected believers. This viewpoint is clearly nonsensical as it is contrary to the most fundamental laws of physical and biological science, so of course it will never happen.

The second avenue involves an afterlife in which Christian believers are destined for a glorious life in Heaven basking in the eternal presence of God. Those who are not believers are destined for Hell, controlled by the fallen archangel Satan, where they will spend eternity in a fire that burns but never consumes. Catholics believe in an additional location, Purgatory where inhabitants need to be purged of their sins in order for them to be allowed into Heaven. These three locations are clearly not part of the Earth world so must exist in another dimension or location. Jesus advises that this scenario has some elements of reality, but has been heavily distorted.

There is some dispute about the nature of the human soul between that of Jesus and what he terms ‘Eastern Religion’, but both agree that the soul is the highest principle of humans, that it is non material comprising spirit, that it is permanent and is the defining feature of humans, meaning that the soul is the essence of our being. Thus we comprise souls who in our Earth life inhabit physical bodies which are finite and temporary.

The third component of humans, unacknowledged by both secular materialists and Christians, is the spirit body. This exists from when the soul enters into the foetus and remains attached by a cord to the physical body throughout the earth life of the individual. It cannot of course be seen but it can be felt through the phenomenon known by the medical term hypnagogic jerk. This is the sensation occasionally experienced by many people when they are drifting into sleep but suddenly awake with a jerk, and occurs when the spirit body returns to the physical body, although of course on the vast majority of occasions this occurs naturally when we awake without any physical sensation. It should be noted that medical websites admit that ‘there is little understanding what causes’ this phenomenon, although several speculative suggestions are made, which amount to nothing more than guesswork.

Thus sleep can be defined as when we transfer our consciousness from the physical body to the spirit body, still connected to the former by the invisible cord. When this cord breaks our earth life ends, our physical body starts to decay, and the soul and spirit body migrate to their new domain in the Spirit Realms surrounding and interpenetrating the Earth.

Jesus advises that each person’s place in these realms will be determined by the life they have lived while on Earth. Those who have lived an evil or selfish life will inhabit the dark regions, but the majority who have lived a typical average kind of life will inhabit the lower realms of light. Religious belief is wholly irrelevant to their ultimate destination. In the words of Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson (who has provided the most detailed revelations from the Spirit Realms) ‘no person or persons can assign to a single soul any other place in the spirit world than that which that soul has merited for himself. He cannot be saved through the intermediation of another, whoever that other may be’

So this is the explanation for the natural process known as death, which is the trigger for our entry into the afterlife. Christian churches believe in an afterlife but their concept is incoherent, unfocused and heavily influenced by superstition. Secular materialism wholly rejects the notion of an afterlife since it is reliant on a belief in the supernatural which is contrary to science.

Jesus from his elevated place in the spirit world can of course witness events on Earth, and for a very long time was troubled by the distortions of his teachings which had become deeply embedded in Christian doctrine. Over a century ago he concluded that the time was right to make an attempt to convey to humanity the erroneous beliefs the Christian churches were promoting, and he did so in the only way possible, via a medium.

The medium chosen was James E Padgett, a Washington DC lawyer, who first became interested in Spiritualism after the death of his wife in February 1914. At a spiritualist meeting he was informed by a medium that he had the gift of automatic writing, something of which he had hitherto been completely unaware. The first person to communicate through him by this method was his late wife Helen. He then began to receive messages from other deceased relatives, and then extraordinarily he began receiving communications from Jesus. At first he refused absolutely to believe that these were genuine and destroyed them. But he was eventually persuaded by his relatives that this was the genuine Jesus of the Bible. The first retained message from Jesus dates from September 1914. Until his death nine years later Mr Padgett received about 2500 messages from spirits, including well known biblical figures most notably several of the Apostles.

Mr Padgett was chosen by Jesus because the messages would not be distorted through the prism of the medium’s own thoughts or beliefs. In this regard it was a wise choice as the messages are a model of clarity in communicating the views of Jesus. In other regards the choice was not so good as Mr Padgett had health problems and financial worries, resulting in him becoming tired or distracted and thus unable to channel the messages at times.

Critics will argue that this is not the second coming of Jesus at all; it is Spiritualism – just a fake medium making it all up. This will be the view of secular materialists, since if there was an afterlife, their central dogma would collapse. Sadly, this will also be the conclusion of many traditional Christians who are fearful that there may not be an afterlife. More fundamentalist Christians are likely to conclude that the messages have been inspired by demons, seeking to undermine their faith. Both Christians and secular materialists demonstrate a visceral hostility to Spiritualism, largely motivated by the fear that if the claims made were true, their central beliefs would fall apart.

Largely forgotten today, the Church Of England carried out an investigation into Spiritualism in the 1930s. However, upon completion it was shelved, but the conclusion was originally ‘leaked’ from the Spirit World by Monsignor Benson as follows ‘The Church Of England held an inquiry into the whole subject of communication with the earth, ordered by no less a functionary than the Archbishop himself. They investigated very thoroughly and deliberated very carefully, and compiled a report of their findings. The majority were in favour, and declared that communication did in fact exist. The whole report was officially suppressed. There are people who say that if that report had been against us, it would have been published with a flourish of trumpets to help it on. The Archbishop who ordered the inquiry and then ordered the report to be suppressed, has since come to live here himself.’

The actual wording of that part of the report to back up this claim was ‘When every possible explanation of these [spirit] communications has been given, and all doubtful evidence set aside, it is generally agreed that there remains some element as yet unexplained. We think that it is probable that the hypothesis that they proceed in some cases from discarnate spirits is a true one.’

In an article from 2020 in Church Times on the report the following interesting observation was made. ‘The spirits described an afterlife, however, that did not fit with the Church’s teaching. It was inclusive and universal: everyone went to the same place. There was no hell, no judgement, and no eternal punishment. Rather, every spirit had the opportunity to ‘rise’ towards perfection, from whatever state or ‘sphere’ it arrived. The afterlife was an opportunity for growth, development, and progress.’

So returning to the messages through Mr Padgett how do we know that they are indeed from the Jesus of the Bible. Well it is impossible to be absolutely certain, just as it is impossible to be certain that the accounts given in the New Testament are an accurate reflection of the true teachings of Jesus, despite being accepted by billions of Christians throughout the centuries, undaunted by the scholarly evidence that large parts of the Gospels were written many years after the ministry of Jesus. The best approach to these messages is one of scepticism, but to be sufficiently open minded, and to employ reason and logic to test their quality and credibility.

After reading all the messages conveyed through Mr Padgett, and those through later mediums up until the present time, the conclusion this blog has reached is that they can only be genuine messages from Jesus. The reasons for this are that they clear up many of the less credible claims made in the Gospels, they are from an individual who has a deep understanding of the Jewish faith, and first hand knowledge of the conditions in Judea during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when Jesus undertook his ministry. The messages relating to religious concepts are conveyed in a very authoritative manner, demonstrating an elevated spiritual consciousness, and a capacity for subtle reasoning.

It is almost impossible that all of this could be fabricated even by the most scholarly, and sustained for a period of over one hundred years. In short, these messages from Jesus and others have the ring of truth about them, more so than the Gospel accounts about his life and mission, which have often lacked credibility. The reason for this is obvious; they can now communicate directly using their own words, rather than have them filtered through the emendations of many unknown authors.

So what are the main distortions of the teaching of Jesus which have infiltrated Christian doctrine? In order of importance they are that Jesus is not divine so does not form the second part of the Trinity and should not be worshipped as God; that he did not perform the role of a blood sacrifice on the cross to deliver eternal salvation for Christian believers; there was no Virgin Birth - his conception was through normal biological means; his body and blood are never present in the Christian celebration known as Holy Communion; that he did not establish a church but remained an adherent of the Jewish faith; and finally he did not perform the miracles ascribed to him, although he appears to have been an exceptional healer.

The biggest omission from the New Testament is the failure to reveal the central platform of the ministry of Jesus. This was his advocacy of the New Birth for humans, whereby through devout prayer and love of God their souls would be opened up to the divine inflow of God’s love, thus ensuring their certain immortality at a divine level rather than a less certain immortality at a human level.

With regard to the Biblical and Christian claims of the divinity of Jesus, these are dismissed by Jesus himself thus ‘I was not God and never claimed to be. The worship of me as a God is blasphemous and I did not teach it. Such worship is all wrong and is very distasteful to me, and only makes me the more anxious and determined that this great falsehood shall be exposed and not believed in any longer. The Trinity is a mistake of the writers of the Bible. There is no Trinity - only one God, the Father. He is one and alone. As to my sitting on the right hand of His Throne, that is not true. I did not proclaim myself to be God, neither did I permit any of my disciples to believe that I was God.’

On the subject of dying on the cross for the salvation of mankind Jesus states ‘when it is said, that from the beginning the Father had foreordained my death on the cross that man might be redeemed from the penalties of sin in all men who lived thereafter, are all wrong and have no foundation as facts. The sayings in the Epistles and in the Gospels and in Revelation to the effect that my blood saves from sin, were erroneous, and my disciples never wrote that false doctrine, for I repeat here, what I have before written you, that my blood has nothing to do with the redemption of mankind from sin, nor has my blood any effect in uniting man to God or making them one with Him. I know that the Bible iterates and reiterates the statement that I am God, and that my blood saves from sin and that I am a propitiation for mankind, but nevertheless, the Bible is all wrong, and these false doctrines must be corrected and men taught the true plan of salvation.’

With reference to Biblical claims about the Virgin Birth Jesus rejects this saying ‘I was born as you were born. I was the son of Mary and Joseph, and not born of the Holy Spirit as it is written in the Bible. I was only a human being as regards my birth and physical existence. The account in the New Testament is not true, and was written by those who knew not what they wrote. They have done the cause of God’s truths much injury. I was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, as it is taught by the preachers and teachers who are now leading mankind in the doctrines of the churches.’

The main platform of the ministry of Jesus while he lived on earth was to convey his message of the New Birth. Jesus summarised this as follows ‘No man can come to the Father’s Love, except he be born again. This is the great and fundamental Truth which men must learn and believe, for without this New Birth men cannot partake of the Divine Essence of God’s Love, which, when possessed by a man, makes him at one with the Father. This Love comes to man by the workings of the Holy Ghost, causing this love to flow into the heart and soul, and filling it, so that all sin and error, which tends to make them unhappy, must be eradicated. Let men turn their thoughts and aspirations to God, and in truth and sincerely pray to the Father for an inflowing into their souls of his Divine Love, and have faith, and they always find that the Father will bestow his love upon them, in accordance with the extent of their aspirations and longings.’

This shows that there is a wide gulf between the salvation promoted by the Christian churches, and the salvation taught by Jesus during his ministry on earth, which he has repeated and confirmed in his Second Coming. Fundamentalist Christians believe that they will gain salvation by accepting Jesus as their Saviour, who as the Son of God, offered himself as a sacrifice on the cross for the salvation of mankind.

However, the salvation preached by Jesus is completely different; instead it is achieved by undergoing the New Birth, whereby immortality will be assured through the absorption of the Divine Essence into the soul, rather than relying on an uncertain immortality by remaining human in nature without the inflow of the Divine Essence.

This explanation from Jesus clears up the mystery as to why fundamentalist Christians refer to being ‘Born Again’ when they have accepted Jesus as their saviour. The phrase is definitely one expressed by Jesus during his ministry, but has been distorted beyond recognition by the Christian churches into one that has no basis in the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus did indeed die on the cross at Calvary but this had nothing whatsoever to do with God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. He was in reality executed ‘for blasphemy and iconoclastic teachings against the beliefs and doctrines of the Hebrew faith’ as explained by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus. He justified his actions thus ‘I was without prejudice against Jesus as a man and, as I believed, a fanatic; and it was only because I was convinced that he was an assailer of, and dangerous to our religion and the welfare of my race that I consented to his death.’ He continued ‘we were confronted with what we believed to be the destructive and irreligious teachings of Jesus, and after making numerous efforts to suppress him by threats and persuasion without effect, we concluded that our absolute and indisputable duty to God demanded that he be removed from the sphere of his activity, even though such a result could only be accomplished by his death.’ He added ‘there was a sense of obligation that rested upon us to protect and keep whole the divine doctrines and teachings of our faith. Jesus stood in the position to us and to our religion of a breeder of sedition.’ So dying on the cross formed absolutely no part of the mission of Jesus on Earth, indeed it was a personal catastrophe as it very prematurely terminated his ministry.

So it is clear that the Christian churches have, for almost two millennia, been preaching doctrines that have virtually no relationship to the genuine teachings of Jesus, which makes it imperative that the true teachings of Jesus are revealed to mankind to set the record straight. In the words of Jesus ‘I will explain all the qualities of the soul and spirit so that mankind need no longer remain in darkness as to what my teachings mean and as to how very necessary it is that it shall understand and follow my teachings. My new revelation of the truths of the soul is what mankind needs at this time, and what men will be in condition to accept as the real truths of God’s love and of His laws. My coming to you (Mr Padgett) is really my Second Coming on earth, and the result of my coming in this way will satisfy and fulfil all the promises of the scriptures as to my Second Coming.’

Jesus is well aware that conveying the message of his Second Coming through a medium will be treated with much scepticism, which he acknowledges as follows ‘I know that it will be difficult to make men believe in communications that may come through mediums, and that the churches will antagonize the reception of such communications. I fully realize that when you shall publish my messages the great difficulty in their being accepted will be the doubts of the people as to their source.’

Jesus is however confident that ‘the testimony of the numerous writers will be so strong that the doubts will not be able to withstand the evidence of my being the writer of the messages. And when men read the same they will realize that the truths which they contain could only come from a higher source than mortal mind and that the hand of the Father is in them. We will have a great difficulty to have people believe that I wrote the messages, and that we will have to do everything possible to convince them of the truth of the source of the writings. But if this difficulty should appear almost insurmountable in the beginning, yet after a while, when men come to appreciate the inherent truth and importance of the messages, they will easily believe that I wrote them.’

Up to the present time the messages of Jesus in his second coming are still unknown to virtually all of mankind despite eighty years having elapsed since they were first published in book form. Unfortunately, they have been completely ignored by the media and the objections to their acceptance by mankind are formidable. Firstly, the vested interests of the Christian churches means that they will to do everything they can to maintain their erroneous doctrines which they invested so much in over innumerable centuries. A second hurdle is the hostility, almost hatred, of the intelligentsia and general public to Spiritualism, which is regarded by most of them as a delusional cult supported only by cranks and the credulous. The fact that virtually none of them have ever attended a demonstration of mediumship, or seriously investigated the subject, will not stop them clinging to their ignorant opinions.

So regrettably Jesus may have considerably underestimated the resistance his Second Coming messages will face in gaining general acceptance. We are currently faced with an unholy alliance (quite literally) between Christian superstition and secular materialism to suppress revelations about the afterlife, that prevents humanity becoming aware of their own immortality, and gaining the comfort to their wellbeing that this knowledge would bring.

The messages from Jesus given above are just a small part of the communications made through Mr Padgett and his successor mediums. There are many thousands more, not just from Jesus but also from his disciples, religious leaders and important historical figures. Not all support the doctrine of the New Birth, but they do provide an insight into the afterlife that awaits us all. There are also revelations about the early life of Jesus in Heliopolis and Nazareth, his relationship with his cousin John the Baptist, and the gradual dawning awareness of his supreme mission to mankind. These messages can be found in full at, then click on ‘The Padgett Messages in date order’ towards the end of the list.

Thursday, 18 August 2022

Blast from the past 1 – Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been in the news recently marking the first anniversary of western troops leaving the country. Back in 2009 the predecessor to this blog highlighted the futility of Britain’s military mission in that country. This is the blogpost from that time in full:-

Since the start of British military operations in Afghanistan, nearly 200 service personnel have died. It is worth considering what it is that our armed forces have been sent there to achieve. According to Gordon Brown it is "to break that chain of terror that links the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain".

There is no doubt that the ideology of the Taliban, the enemy our forces are fighting, is one that is as oppressive and repulsive as it is possible to imagine. However, in this respect its aims are little different to the religious primitivism and suppression of human rights which already exists in Saudi Arabia, a regime that we have rewarded with billions of pounds worth of arms sales. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan they harboured the Al-Qaeda jihadist training camps. It was clearly necessary to take these out after the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, Al-Qaeda moved over the border into Pakistan, a country with far stronger links to Britain.

As a result of the air strikes against the training camps, Al- Qaeda is now probably beyond our reach, and our forces are left fighting an endless conflict with enemy "insurgents" who are often indistinguishable from civilians. Although we know how many of our service personnel have been killed we have no real idea how many Afghan civilians have died as a result of coalition activity, but we can be sure that it is very considerably higher than our own military losses.

Gordon Brown's stated reasons for continuing this unwinnable war are a mendacious deception. Whatever the outcome it will have no effect on the threat Britain faces from jihadist terrorism. All the men behind the recent terrorist plots in Britain, both successful and failed, were either born here or were legally resident here. More to the point, virtually all were here as a result of the immigration policies pursued and supported by all the main political parties. The numbers of such people are continuing to increase, mainly but not exclusively as a result of arranged marriages. Thus the sea in which these potential fifth columnists swim is continuing to expand, and the threat they pose increases accordingly. Consequently, the lives of British soldiers are being lost needlessly whilst the real threat to our security is being ignored.

Enoch Powell long ago warned that "we must be mad, literally mad" to allow open ended immigration on this scale from such a source. But even he failed to foresee the deadly nature of such crazy policies. The war in Afghanistan is the unintended but direct consequence of past and present British governments' reckless encouragement of third world immigration, since without it we would be immune to global jihadism.

This analysis has clearly stood the test of time. Over 200 more service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2009 and the number of civilians killed there during that period has been enormous. Since then there have also been numerous jihadist terrorist atrocities committed in both Britain and other European countries, all of them involving people admitted through reckless immigration policies. Given the ever increasing number of these potential fifth columnists the ‘chain of terror’ mentioned by Gordon Brown has most certainly not been broken, despite our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thus the inescapable conclusion is that British government intervention in that country has had no lasting impact and our soldiers killed there died in vain.

Thursday, 21 July 2022

Rolf is innocent OK

One of the biggest miscarriages of justice in Britain during the present century has been the conviction of the entertainer Rolf Harris following several allegations of historic sexual offences. The full background to his trials is outlined in a recent book by William B. Merritt who was his defence team’s specialist investigator. His revelations confirm what many have suspected that Rolf was innocent of all the charges brought against him, and that he was the victim of an organised campaign by the authorities to obtain celebrity convictions in the wake of the Jimmy Savile furore.

Rolf Harris was found guilty of all twelve charges he faced made by four accusers during his first trial in 2014. He was one of a number of aging celebrities who attracted a police investigation arising from the hoax ITV Exposure programme which peddled numerous fabrications against Jimmy Savile, summarised here . The fallout from this duplicitous programme created widespread outrage that Savile had ‘escaped justice’ for all the many ‘crimes’ he was posthumously found guilty of in the kangaroo court of public opinion, fomented by a hysterical campaign of demonisation whipped up by the media and some politicians. Under the aegis of the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Yewtree a witch hunt of well known celebrities was instigated to deliver scapegoats to appease the baying mob. They struck gold with their biggest scalp, Rolf Harris.

It is worth examining each of the accusers’ claims during his first trial. The first and most damaging was that Rolf carried out an indecent assault against an eight year old girl while attending an event at a small community centre in Havant, Hampshire. This was alleged to have taken place in autumn 1969, nearly 45 years before the trial. No evidence was presented that Rolf Harris had ever visited this community centre. Police investigations were unable to track down any local residents who could recall his attendance there. At the time Rolf was a major TV star and his appearance would almost certainly have generated enormous publicity in such a location. Given the complete lack of any corroborating evidence it is a mystery why this charge was allowed to stand. Despite all this the jury found Rolf Harris guilty and his accuser received £22,000 in compensation.

During this first trial Rolf Harris did not employ his own investigative team. Instead his defence team had to rely on the evidence obtained by Operation Yewtree officers, which the specialist investigator Mr Merritt described as ‘later exposed as being inept and biased’. Rolf appealed against the Havant community centre conviction and this time employed a team of investigators to uncover evidence that should have been presented at his trial. The outcome of their research was that many new facts came to light which proved that Rolf Harris had never attended this community centre, and that his accuser must therefore have been lying. In November 2017 the three appeal judges unanimously agreed that Rolf’s conviction on this charge was unsafe, and his conviction was quashed. However, the false accuser still retained her compensation and she never faced a charge of perjury, showing that the trial was less about justice and more about pursuing the ‘believe the victim’ agenda.

The second accusation against Rolf was that he indecently assaulted a 13 year old girl during the recording of the BBC TV game show It’s A Knockout. This allegedly took place nearly forty years previously in a Cambridge park. The complainant testified that this event had taken place in 1975 at Parker’s Piece, a green in the centre of Cambridge. In reality the TV recording took place at another site, the Cambridge City football ground. Despite getting the location wrong the accuser’s account was accepted by the prosecution. Rolf’s defence team produced irrefutable evidence that he could not have appeared at this event as at the time he was performing in a concert in Canada. However, Rolf then made a claim that was to cost him dearly when he stated that he had never been to Cambridge prior to 2010.

This attracted widespread publicity, and it prompted a new witness to come forward to inform the police that Rolf had participated in ITV’s Star Games programme from 1978. This event was held in yet another location known as Jesus Green to the north of the city centre. Television footage confirmed that Rolf Harris had indeed been a participant at this event. At the time this was revealed his defence team had based their case on refuting the 1975 claim. But in mid trial the judge made the highly prejudicial decision to allow this charge to be changed to incorporate the newly revealed 1978 event. This meant that the accuser’s age had been changed to 16, the venue had been changed, the TV programme had changed and the broadcaster had changed. No adjournment was allowed to provide the defence team an opportunity to investigate these changes, and the complainant was not recalled to the witness stand to explain the serious inconsistencies in her evidence. Additionally, the investigator Mr Merritt has uncovered evidence to suggest that in 1978 the accuser was living in Oxford, not Cambridge.

The prosecuting counsel took full advantage of Rolf’s belief that he had never visited Cambridge before 2010, with the underhand objective of convincing the jury that he had lied deliberately to cover up his appearance at the Star Games in 1978. This was entirely false as Rolf Harris would have attended thousands of events during his career. It was common practice to bring celebrities by coach to these kinds of events, held in parks that are interchangeable with hundreds of others throughout the country. Over three decades later Rolf would have had no reason to recall that the Star Games event had been held in Cambridge. Despite all the inconsistencies in the evidence Rolf Harris was found guilty of this charge.

The third accuser accounted for seven of the charges brought against Rolf Harris at his first trial. She had been a close friend of Rolf Harris’s daughter for many years and was the first to contact the police with her complaints. He was accused of grooming her when she was in her early teens. Rolf Harris admitted that he had sexual relations with her after she had turned 18, but that this had always been consensual and continued intermittently until she was in her late twenties.

After their relationship ended she telephoned Rolf to ask for £25,000 to finance a bird sanctuary in which she had an interest. Rolf Harris refused her request, the result of which was that the accuser’s parents were then told about their affair and Rolf was threatened that the newspapers would be informed if he did not give her the money. The accuser’s father wrote to Rolf to inform him that he was disgusted with his behaviour. Rolf burnt this letter but eventually reconsidered by deciding to reply asking for forgiveness, but making clear that all sexual activity had been consensual. This letter was used extensively by the prosecution, and was distorted to make it appear as a confession when in reality it had been sent as an issue of conscience.

One particular comment in Rolf’s reply to the father would cause him problems. During a holiday he told the accuser when she was 13 that she ‘looked lovely in her bathing suit’, which the accuser as an adult retrospectively distorted as being ‘just the same as physically molesting her’, which is of course utterly delusional. This correspondence took place in the mid 1990s but the accuser waited until November 2012 before contacting the police. The police held numerous interviews with the accuser during the course of which she changed part of her initial statement. Rolf’s defence counsel referred to this extensive police involvement as a ‘rehearsal’, describing the actions of the Yewtree officers as ‘grooming a witness’. Despite the lack of any real evidence Rolf Harris was found guilty on all seven charges.

The fourth accuser was a 15 year old member of an Australian theatre youth group on a five week tour of England in 1986. She accounted for three of the charges against Rolf, claiming that he had carried out indecent assaults against her in a pub during an informal dinner. Nobody in the crowded pub had noticed anything untoward, nor did the accuser tell anyone at the time about what had supposedly happened to her. Rolf Harris denied the allegations made against him pointing out that there were inconsistencies in her evidence concerning the timing.

This accuser first contacted the British police when the allegations against Rolf were being extensively covered in both the British and Australian media. However, before doing this she had previously contacted an Australian publicist who agreed to sell her story through his media contacts. He obtained a contract for A$60,000, but the publishing outlet interested in her story insisted that she must first report her allegations to the police which she did. As a result Operation Yewtree detectives flew to Australia to take a statement from her, but with a strange lack of professionalism, appeared unconcerned that she had sold her story to the media prior to the trial.

During the trial this accuser claimed that the assaults took place at the start of the tour and because she had been so affected by what had happened she lost about a stone in weight during the tour, an outcome that appears highly unlikely. However, research carried out by Rolf’s defence team proved that the pub dinner took place near the end of the tour. When challenged about this she responded that it had taken place so long ago and she could not be expected to remember everything. It was also discovered that the arrangement of the seating and the tables in the pub made it impossible for an assault to have take place as she described that involved sitting on Rolf’s lap. Despite all the inconsistencies the jury again found Rolf Harris guilty on all three charges.

As well as a lack of any real evidence each accusation appears to be highly improbable on practical grounds. Three of the accusations occurred in crowded venues or events where there would have been plenty of witnesses. Such behaviour would be reckless, and carrying out a sexual assault in such circumstances appears almost incomprehensible by a celebrity likely to be under constant observation by the public. The remaining accuser, the close friend of Rolf’s daughter, appears to have been happy to be a regular visitor to the Harris home in her teens when the alleged grooming was supposed to have taken place. She appears to have never raised Rolf’s alleged grooming behaviour with her friend, his daughter. Moreover, even when she was demanding money from Rolf she never accused him of carrying out any illegal acts when notifying her parents about their relationship.

The investigator Mr Merritt was critical of the way the police had conducted the case against Rolf. He considered that the police were ‘neither prepared, nor adequately trained, to handle the number of historic sexual abuse cases’ they were now being asked to investigate. As a result they changed their normal procedure for gathering evidence. Rather than seeking evidence that could stand on its own, they undertook fishing expeditions to persuade women to ‘come forward’ to make allegations against celebrities. This was done on the theory that ‘they can’t all be wrong’.

This assumes that everyone who came forward was honest and nobody would make a false allegation tempted by the promise of significant financial compensation coupled with an assurance by the police that they would be believed. Since there would be no risk of prosecution, as shown by the bogus Havant claim, unscrupulous opportunists would have nothing to lose by making false accusations. Not all of these are necessarily made by compensation seekers; some can bear a grudge and seek revenge, whereas others are subject to false memories, often prompted by questionable therapy techniques.

Mr Merritt is critical of the bad character evidence that Rolf was confronted with at his trial. These witnesses were used to bolster the evidence of the complainants whose own evidence was regarded as too weak to stand on its own. According to Mr Merritt, the police refused to carry out ‘even the most basic checks to ensure that the evidence being provided by a bad character witness is genuine’ adding that the police ‘chose to accept anyone who was prepared to slate Rolf Harris’. At the commencement of his first trial Rolf had no previous criminal convictions and there was nothing untoward in his history. Despite this the prosecution went to great lengths to convince the jury that there was a ‘dark side’ to Rolf Harris, insinuating that he was a sexual predator, experienced in grooming young girls.

As a result of his convictions a further seven women made allegations of sexual assault against Rolf. They resulted in eight fresh charges which Rolf Harris faced in two trials held in 2017. This time Rolf did not make the huge mistake at his first trial of relying on the police to carry out an investigation. Instead, he appointed a team of private investigators led by Mr Merritt. As a result of the thoroughness of their enquiries they were able to provide compelling evidence that Rolf was innocent of all the charges made against him at the two later trials. Full background details on how this information was gathered are provided in Mr Merritt’s book. As a result Rolf was acquitted of all the later charges.

One can only agree with the conclusion of Mr Merritt that the ‘conduct of the Operation Yewtree detectives and investigators, in overlooking and ignoring evidence that supported Rolf Harris’s innocence, cost him both his freedom and his good reputation’. There have been many calls for a retrial. Although, due to his advanced age there are questions as to whether Rolf would be willing to endure further legal proceedings, a retrial appears to be the only realistic option if he is to clear his name and reclaim his reputation.

Wednesday, 8 June 2022

How to topple a prime minister

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has won a confidence vote by 211 votes to 148. Whilst hardly a ringing endorsement it should be remembered that it was an improvement on the 160 votes he achieved from 312 MPs in the parliamentary leadership contest over Jeremy Hunt in 2019. The Conservative Party is a broad coalition which ranges from those who would be much happier as members of the Liberal Democrats, to those who against all the odds still continue to espouse traditional conservative principles. So there will always be a significant number of MPs who would prefer an alternative leader for reasons of personal character or policy differences.

Boris Johnson is not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word as in reality he is a social liberal. He supports the net zero policy on climate change, was an enthusiastic attendee at ‘gay pride’ marches when London Mayor, appears unconcerned about open ended immigration from all around the world. He retains invasive and divisive ‘equality’ legislation, demonstrates minimal opposition to delusion transgender thinking, has done nothing to curb the growth in so called ‘hate crime’ legislation, supports same sex marriage but has introduced measures to further undermine traditional marriage. Many Conservatives have accused him of presiding over the expansion of socialist economic policies. So by any definition he is a long way from being a true conservative.

Nevertheless he is despised by the liberal politically correct class. This is because more than any other individual he delivered a victory for Brexiteers in the EU referendum. This was the first occasion in decades that liberals had suffered a reversal in their creeping, gradualist yet vociferous political agenda, and their fury knew no bounds as shown by the no holds barred campaign to overturn the referendum decision. Moreover, since becoming Tory leader he had the temerity to deliver a Conservative government with a huge majority, which further increased liberal loathing.

Since that election victory liberals have mounted a vocal campaign to destroy Boris Johnson’s premiership. Until late last year this had gained relatively little traction with the electorate. But matters changed when after repeated attempts the Metropolitan Police agreed to opposition requests to investigate the alleged breaches of covid regulations in Downing Street. The campaign to demonise the Prime Minister on this matter was orchestrated by the opposition parties and enthusiastically taken up by the BBC and other liberal minded media outlets.

For months on end the news agenda was dominated by a continuing drip-drip of revelations under what became known as ‘Partygate’, the primary instigator being the supposedly politically neutral BBC. Hardly a day went by without the public being informed of potential illegal gatherings at Number Ten, all supposedly presided over by Boris Johnson. The most egregious emotionalism was employed, particularly by Labour leader Keir Starmer. Wholly outrageous comparisons were made between grieving individuals being unable to visit dying relatives at a time when Downing Street staff were accused of ‘partying’. Those employing this kind of unprincipled emotional blackmail never asked themselves in what way would those experiencing grief have been affected by the events in Downing Street.

It is still unclear why any of the gatherings at Downing Street and Whitehall investigated by the police were contrary to covid regulations. It would clearly have been a breach if outsiders had been invited to social events but no evidence appears to have come to light that this occurred. Everyone at the ‘parties’ appears to have been a member of staff present at their workplace, socialising with colleagues who they would have worked with together throughout the same day. The only difference is that food and drinks were being consumed, and the conversation may have been primarily social rather than work related. Thus nothing was being done that would have added to the spread of covid as everyone involved had already engaged, through normal workplace activities, in the kind of close physical contact which would have facilitated the spread of the virus. So they are being demonised and criminalized solely for consuming food and drink in the workplace.

Despite all this the Partygate issue has successfully alienated many voters against both Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. The mantra has taken hold that lawmakers should never be lawbreakers. But as outlined above it is very unclear whether any laws have really been broken since nobody knows the criteria used by the police in deciding who should be issued with fixed penalty notices. Despite all the fuss Boris Johnson received just one fine, for the bizarre ‘crime’ of accepting a birthday cake in his office, which he did not solicit and which he was not involved in the presentation. It is a mystery why he never appealed against this outrageous abuse of the criminal justice system.

The job of Prime Minister is to preside over the running of the country, concentrating on issues of national and international importance. It is not his responsibility to act as an office manager as plenty of senior civil servants are employed to oversee the smooth running of Downing Street. No Prime Minister should ever become involved in the minutiae of office management or in supervising the behaviour of the workforce, which would be a very poor use of his valuable time that should be more productively employed on far more important matters. So his claim that he was unaware of any Downing Street social activities is entirely credible.

So the campaign to destroy the premiership of Boris Johnson has succeeded in severely weakening him. He has not yet been toppled but we can be sure that this operation, led by the subversive mouthpiece the BBC, will continue until its objective has been achieved. This is the modus operandi used by liberal activists to brainwash the public through their distorted manipulation of the media, promoting through relentless negative tactics their one sided agenda to blacken the reputation of their opponents.

Monday, 6 June 2022

Is the covid hysteria finally over?

Covid infections are currently running at over 100,000 per day, significantly higher than during the lockdowns, yet neither the media nor politicians appear to be paying much attention. Nobody is any longer arguing that we should all stay at home, wear masks in shops and on public transport, get tested frequently, or maintain social distancing to ‘control the spread’. So why are most people now behaving in this apparently reckless fashion when covid has most certainly not gone away?

Part of the answer is that virtually everybody has either been triple vaccinated, and/or gained natural immunity by contracting covid. As a result if they do become infected again they are appreciably less likely to die or become seriously ill. So the element of fear for most people has considerably diminished. There is also a general acceptance that because the Omicron variants are so contagious any curbs or restrictions on behaviour are pointless as everyone is now vulnerable to infection despite the precautions. So the question that now needs to be asked is whether the lockdowns and restrictions were ever necessary in the first place? Could we not have responded to covid in the same way as for flu and stayed at home for the period when we felt ill?

The truth is that a large part of the media, politicians and the public succumbed to a mass hysteria generated by the alarmist fears of a very small coterie who claimed an expertise about how best to handle the response to the pandemic. In the UK this source was the tiny but highly influential group of people on the Government’s SAGE committee who were allowed to impose their outlook on the rest of the nation. They asserted that they were ‘following the science’ with the result that politicians, media and public were unable to challenge their recommendations since, in a climate of fear, they were all unwilling to overrule the perceived authority of this supposedly expert elite.

In reality the science of covid was very uncertain in the early stages. Nobody really knew how contagious it was, who it was most likely to affect, what caused the spread of the virus, or how serious it would be when caught. The panic began in Italy with images of people dying on trolleys after hospitals were overwhelmed. The Italian government imposed a national lockdown, and similar lockdowns were quickly implemented in other European countries. By the time the virus caught hold in Britain the media and opposition parties were all clamouring for a lockdown. In March 2020 the government duly imposed a national lockdown for three weeks to ‘flatten the curve’.

It would be pointless with hindsight to criticise the government for this decision, as they were under enormous pressure faced with a new virus of unknown severity. They quickly introduced a number of new temporary ‘Nightingale Hospitals’, but in the event these were scarcely used. Meanwhile the NHS prioritised treating covid patients, thus creating the current lengthy backlog of cases as the treatment of patients with less serious medical conditions was delayed. It would be nearly three months before the lockdown was lifted and restrictions were gradually relaxed during the summer 2020.

Infections fell to a very low level in summer 2020 but bizarrely the government chose that moment to mandate the use of masks on public transport and in shops. No reason was ever given for this change, and no evidence has been provided since that masks make any difference to the spread of the virus. This was confirmed by the Danish study, the fact that infections decreased rapidly in the spring of 2020 without masks, the fact that they rose sharply in the autumn of 2020 when mask wearing was compulsory, and later in the pandemic, when Scotland retained compulsory mask wearing when it had been abandoned in England, yet Scotland still suffered the highest rates of infection in the UK. More disturbingly mask wearing became a virtue signalling fetish for those on the left of politics. Witness the absurd spectacle of the opposition benches fully masked up after the restrictions were lifted, at a time when the Conservative benches were almost mask free.

We are supposed to be living in a freedom loving democracy but during the period of covid alarmism the government was able to impose the most draconian restrictions on the population at the stroke of a minister’s pen. What was worse was the almost total compliance by the public who accepted all the restrictions on their freedom with relatively little challenge. Anyone unwilling to conform to this agenda was quickly denounced as a ‘covidiot’, someone supposedly prepared to take risks with the public’s safety for their own selfish ends.

There was little debate as to whether the restrictions themselves might be a bigger threat to the public than covid. Adverse consequences were ignored such as delayed diagnoses and operations, loss of education to school children, permanent damage to the economy, the loss of many small business in hospitality and retailing, the devastation of the travel industry, the adverse effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the nation, and the curtailment of living a normal life for a whole population placed under what amounted to house arrest. The fear generated through covid alarmism trumped all of these concerns.

Yet despite all these adverse consequences the government imposed two further damaging lockdowns , aided and abetted by the opposition parties and the BBC who all wanted earlier, deeper and longer restrictions. The Welsh authorities imposed a well publicised ‘circuit breaker’ which achieved nothing but this did not prevent the alarmists calling for England to follow their lead. The Scottish regime as a matter of principle consistently imposed longer and deeper restrictions than England but in the end they made no difference to the eventual outcome.

So all the evidence shows that the lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing and endless testing made little difference to the eventual outcome. Infections in Britain were close to the average, Sweden with far fewer restrictions did better, Peru with some of the severest restrictions ended up with the highest level of infections in the world. The death rate was about 0.3% of the population, almost all of whom were over the retirement age or suffered from long term conditions such as obesity or diabetics. So the government should now ‘do the right thing’ and issue an amnesty for all those convicted of a breach of covid regulations and return their fines.

The most disturbing element of the covid hysteria was not so much the totalitarian nature of the government’s response, but the self abasement of the public, happy to collaborate in their own subjugation. The explanation for this mass aberrant behaviour was the campaign of fear drummed up by the government, the opposition parties and the mainstream media, most particularly the BBC. The ramping up of fear has been the playbook of totalitarian regimes throughout the ages, and the authorities had no qualms about employing this technique to impose their will over covid.

The biggest danger for the future is that the political establishment, now realising how easy it is to manipulate the public into compliance with their agenda, will regard the covid response as a precedent and employ similar authoritarian measures in the future. So expect campaigns from vocal woke obsessives demanding similar levels of state control on such issues as the climate change hoax, homosexual proselytising, delusional transgender beliefs and still further capitulation to militant feminists, Islamists and black activists.

Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Liberals’ self hatred

For a long time British ‘progressives’ have been engaged in a hate campaign against themselves. As a matter of principle their default position is to despise their country, their culture, their race, their system of government and their class. This process has now reached absurd levels of self flagellation and delusion. White liberal racial guilt plays a large part in facilitating this process, as shown by the pernicious doctrine of ‘white privilege’. So it is worth examining one aspect of this deranged iconoclastic agenda which has recently started to manifest itself - the way that black people are currently portrayed in the media.

The issue of race has been the issue which more than any other has attracted the moral grandstanding of ‘progressives’. Paternalistic concerns for the supposed discrimination faced by ‘people of colour’, as we are now supposed to describe them, are merely an opportunist vehicle that has been co-opted by liberals to promote their own virtue signalling superiority. However, the sentiments are largely insincere, since liberals are no more likely to socialise or befriend black people than the average white person. In short, the race question is merely a platform amongst many others which the vocal left exploit for their wider political ends.

There appears to be a very simple rule amongst ‘progressives’ which is to invariably bend over backwards to accept the validity of a black person’s viewpoint, but to never give the benefit of the doubt to a white person in a similar situation. Our employment and race relations laws are all based on this assumption, and so can be used by black people to pursue their own self interests, in a manner that is not open to white people. The only exception to this outlook is when black people identify with, or express right wing views, when mysteriously they are treated with the same degree of contempt as whites. So the expectation of liberals is that their client groups should conform to approved stereotypical notions rather than to think for themselves.

Until about the early 1980s black people were largely invisible in advertising, and usually only appeared in TV dramas when portraying non-Europeans in realistic real life situations such as for example a government representative from an African country. This was regarded by most people as completely normal as well as perfectly acceptable, and there was absolutely no clamour from the public to introduce black characters into dramas were the audience would normally expect an exclusively white cast, or to bring more black faces into advertising.

But matters gradually began to change when black characters started to be introduced into drama situations that previously would have been exclusively white. The numbers were still relatively small, the assumption being that the public would gradually be more willing to accept the occasional black character as a legitimate feature of the storyline, and thus avoid alienating too many viewers who might prefer to watch programmes exclusively showing their own kind. This was in accordance with the policy of introducing small incremental changes as the most effective way of furthering the liberal agenda.

More proactive commentators criticised this approach as ‘tokenism’, demanding that more be done to improve ‘diversity’ and to increase the profile of black people in the media. Gradually the number of black characters started to increase, but the type of roles they played was circumscribed. They were very rarely portrayed as villains or criminals; instead they were disproportionately presented as the good guys fighting injustices, or occupying positions of higher rank or authority, bringing much needed guidance, advice and leadership to junior white colleagues.

In advertising, black faces first started to become apparent in publicity posters and documents issued by left wing local authorities. But commercial organisations still resisted breaking the white monopoly on imagery, presumably fearing that the inclusion of black faces would alienate many white people from buying their product. But eventually black faces started to appear in commercial advertisements also, and gradually these numbers started to increase. It was noticed that there was no pushback against this trend in the media, since to raise concerns would inevitably risk accusations of ‘racism’ and bigotry.

Today we have reached the absurd situation were more than 50% of advertisements feature black people, where mixed race couples are promoted as the norm, where nearly every TV drama has a disproportionate number of black characters, where historic costume dramas falsely and inaccurately include black characters, and where white historic figures are increasingly played by black actors. All this has occurred with little if any discussion or debate in the media. It is unclear who is driving this agenda, whether it is media and advertising regulators, or the management of commercial companies anxious to appease vocal woke activists or employees. But what it does demonstrate is the extent to which white liberals are consumed with guilt and self loathing for the newly discovered original sin of being born with white skin, an agenda that the mainstream media are too cowardly to challenge.

Monday, 7 February 2022

Boris vs Keir vs Jimmy

The prime minister has recently come under attack for repeating in Parliament a long standing claim on the internet that Sir Keir Starmer, when Director of Public Prosecutions, had personally failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile over alleged sex offences. Boris Johnson in rebuking Sir Keir in this way was clearly annoyed by the orchestrated campaign, led by the BBC and opposition parties, to destroy his premiership by drumming up public anger and hysteria over reports of workplace drinks at No.10 during lockdown. It is worth investigating whether Boris Johnson’s critique of Sir Keir has any merit.

The Surrey Police investigation into Savile has previously been outlined in this earlier blogpost This took place during the 2007-9 period and covered three allegations. The first was that Savile had forced a pupil of Duncroft approved school to place her hand on his groin in the TV room, the second that Savile had kissed a choir girl visiting Stoke Mandeville hospital and put his tongue in her mouth, and the third that Savile had engaged in sexual activity with a pupil in a building known as Norman Lodge located in the grounds of Duncroft. The file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), then under the leadership of Sir Keir, and the decision was reached by the CPS was that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.

As a result of the furore that ensued after the broadcast of the ITV Exposure programme in October 2012, the CPS, still under the leadership of Sir Keir, commissioned a report by Alison Levitt QC to investigate the reasons for not prosecuting Savile. Although the facts provided in her report are extensive, thorough and detailed, the analysis and conclusions are grossly unrealistic, almost bordering on the delusional.

The report was commissioned during the fallout from the ITV Exposure programme (the numerous fabrications presented in this were debunked in the previously mentioned blogpost). Like the BBC Smith report (outlined here the Levitt report was based on the premise that Savile was a serial predatory sex offender and the conclusions and reasoning were tailored to conform to this belief. She claims to have ‘tried to ensure as far as possible that I have judged the cases on the basis of what was known at the time, rather than the information today’. But it is clear from reading the report that she has accepted wholesale the prevailing narrative about Savile’s supposedly predatory behaviour, and this has deeply influenced her outlook and findings.

Her report also covered an investigation by Sussex Police into a single separate allegation involving a woman in her early twenties. This occurred in 1970 but was not reported until 2008. Unlike the Surrey allegations Savile was never interviewed by police about this, so it is not possible to know his response. After discussion with the police the complainant decided that she was not prepared to take the case forward as ‘it was a long time ago and she did not have access to the information the police required’ declaring she did not want ‘any more hassle’ about the matter. In the circumstances it is clear the CPS decision not to prosecute was the only option available. With regard to the allegation relating to Norman Lodge at Duncroft the Levitt report agreed with the conclusion of the CPS that ‘no prosecution could have taken place because the behaviour complained of did not amount to a criminal offence’.

With regard to the two remaining allegations investigated by Surrey Police it should be noted that neither of the complaints were made by the individual allegedly assaulted. In the case of the Duncroft TV room incident the complaint was made by a former pupil who claimed to have witnessed the alleged incident. This involved Savile taking the girl’s hand and placing it on is groin. When interviewed by the police she said that ‘she did not think much of what had happened’ and did not want to make a statement. Savile denied that this had ever happened, pointing out that it would have been impossible with so many witnesses present. The incident appears to relate more to some teasing suggestive horseplay, than an assault of a sexual nature, and in any case Savile was the object of the claimed touching, not the girl.

With regard to the Stoke Mandeville hospital allegation the complaint was made by her sister, a former Duncroft pupil. It was alleged that as the sister was about to board the coach for home, Savile called her over asking for a goodbye kiss. The girl was expecting a kiss on the cheek but instead ‘he kissed her on the lips and put his tongue inside her mouth’. She was shocked by this incident but the only person she told about it was her sister. In a statement she declared that she ‘never considered going to the police about the incident. I thought it was so insignificant at the time. I think it would have been a waste of police time’. Savile denied the incident had taken place again pointing out it would have been impossible with so many witnesses present. It is difficult to disagree with the assessment of the girl that the police at the time would have shown very little inclination to investigate what most people would regard as a relatively trivial incident.

In both of these cases the CPS reviewing lawyer stated that the determining factor in reaching his decisions was that he had been told by police that the alleged victims were ‘adamant’ that they would not go to court, and that one of them would ‘suffer’ if forced to take part in a prosecution. Given all this he took the view that ‘there was no point in considering the matter further as there was nothing more that could be done’.

In her report Alison Levitt disagreed with this approach. She ludicrously claimed that the allegations were ‘serious’ when in reality they were very minor and where even the alleged victims did not consider any need for the police to become involved. She makes much of the fact that none of them were informed that there were other complainants and that the CPS should have recognised this and ‘built’ a prosecution. She also claims that there was no collusion but in reality the former pupils making the complaints had been in contact on the Friends Reunited website.

The CPS was undoubtedly right not to prosecute, not only because those most affected refused to take part, but also because any jury would find it impossible to convict such relatively minor infractions, with such slender evidence, after such a long period of time. A prosecution in these circumstances would have been an abuse of the legal process, and any witnesses would likely have been torn to shreds by the defence counsel. Alison Levitt’s unbalanced conclusions can only have been made in an attempt to appease the baying mob outraged by the fabrications they had credulously swallowed after the ITV Exposure programme. The report however did confirm that in the case of the Stoke Mandeville kissing incident there was no mention of Savile previously ringing the girl’s home or her writing to him, as falsely claimed in the Exposure programme.

So it is true that Sir Keir Starmer was never personally involved in the decision not to prosecute Jimmy Savile, although it is somewhat surprising that he was never informed about a case involving such a well known national celebrity. Starmer accepted the finding of the Levitt report in full, which was clearly a disreputable and unprincipled attempt to distant himself from the entirely correct decision of his reviewing lawyer. In so doing he placed appeasing the public loathing of Savile over the facts and evidence of the cases, and the interests of natural justice.

Boris Johnson should also be condemned, not only for suggesting that Starmer was personally responsible for this decision and for his supposed ‘apology’ after the Levitt report, but also for assuming as truthful the grotesquely exaggerated nature of the complaints against Savile. This criticism can also be levelled at the aide of the prime minister who resigned, denouncing Johnson’s implication that Starmer ‘was personally responsible for allowing Jimmy Savile to escape justice’ through ‘an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse’. She is completely wrong on both counts, as it is clear from her gross exaggerations that, like Johnson, before sounding off she had done nothing to investigate the facts behind the decision of the CPS not to prosecute Savile.

To conclude, the prime minister was right to condemn Sir Keir but for the wrong reason. He should have condemned him for disreputably failing to support his reviewing lawyer who made the absolutely correct decision not to prosecute Savile.