Savile's string of victims in Dorset

Jimmy Savile relaxes on Bournemouth beach Jimmy Savile relaxes on Bournemouth beach

DISGRACED TV presenter Jimmy Savile is alleged to have sexually abused four people living in Dorset.

The victims made contact with the police following the launch of Operation Yewtree – a dedicated investigation set up following the death of the Jim’ll Fix It star.

A report by Scotland Yard and the NSPCC published yesterday revealed the shocking scale of his predatory offending which spanned decades.

It states that Savile, who owned a flat on Bournemouth’s East Cliff, was 'a prolific, predatory sex offender', who could have been prosecuted for offences against at least three victims while he was alive.

The ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ report adds that the presenter used his celebrity status to ''hide in plain sight'', with 214 criminal offences now recorded against him across 28 police forces. Four of these were in Dorset and three in neighbouring Hampshire.

A spokesperson of Dorset Police Safeguarding Referral Unit said: “Dorset Police is working with officers from Operation Yewtree and are investigating reports of historic criminal offences that have occurred in Dorset.”

And in a statement, Hampshire Police yesterday said: “Hampshire Constabulary received three separate reports of sexual assault by Jimmy Savile that were alleged to have been committed in the force area.

“All three were passed to the Metropolitan Police Service for investigation as part of Operation Yewtree.”

Alison Levitt QC, legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), said Savile could have been prosecuted in 2009 had police taken victims more seriously.

A total of 450 people have come forward alleging sexual abuse against Savile since October, including 34 rapes and 126 indecent acts.

Offences took place in hospitals, mental health units and even a hospice and victims were aged between eight and 47.

Commander Peter Spindler, who is leading the national investigation into Savile's abuse, said: ''Savile's offending footprint was vast, predatory and opportunistic. He cannot face justice today, but we hope this report gives some comfort to his hundreds of victims. They have been listened to and taken seriously.''

He said 617 people had made contact with officers investigating claims against Savile and other figures in the entertainment industry, with 450 directly relating to Savile.

Peter Watt, of the NSPCC, said: ''The sheer scale of Savile's abuse over six decades simply beggars belief. He is without doubt one of the most prolific sex offenders we have ever come across and every number represents a victim that will never get justice now he is dead. But with this report we can at least show his victims that they have been taken seriously and their suffering has been recognised.''

Jimmy Savile had several links to Bournemouth. He bought a flat on the East Cliff and moved in during April 1972.

He kept the flat and visited occasionally where he was often seen running along the promenade.

The flat was reportedly sold for charity when he died in 2011, aged 84.

Savile also once owned the popular Bournemouth cafe Norwegian Wood, right, in Glen Fern Road and surrounding buildings.

After the allegations emerged about Savile, current owner Lindsey Webb said she planned to scrub his name from its history.

Savile also worked as a public relations consultant for the Maison Royale/Le Cardinal nightclub complex on Glen Fern Road from 1973 until 1978.

The majority of people reporting sex crimes about shamed Jimmy Savile had kept their experiences secret for several decades.

The Giving Victims a Voice report states that many had not spoken out for fear of not being believed or taken seriously.

Other reasons included shame, a lack of trust in statutory agencies and the justice system, a fear of getting themselves or perpetrator into trouble, and the offender using threats and coercion to silence them.

But the report also noted there had been a ‘substantial rise in the reporting of non-recent sexual abuse since Operation Yewtree began’.

Yesterday Dorset Police urged victims of rape or sexual abuse to contact them – no matter how long ago the offence happened. Detective Superintendent Andy Clowser said: “If you have been a victim of any sexual assault, but have not reported it, please do come forward and tell us.

“I would like to reassure victims of this sort of crime that Dorset Police take these matters extremely seriously.

“I appreciate the sensitivities and the reluctance of some victims in reporting such matters. I have dedicated specially trained teams who are experienced in dealing with offences exactly like those that form part of the Savile investigation.

“Some victims may only wish to speak with non police professionals and this is of course something we would completely respect.”

Dorset last year launched its ARC – a dedicated sexual assault referral centre where victims are offered multi agency support in a safe, discreet and caring environment.

Anyone – man, woman or child – who has been sexually assaulted either recently or in the past, can contact ARC Dorset directly or the police.

ARC Dorset is open 10am until 3pm Monday to Friday and available on 0845 519 8638, email contact@arcdorset.org.uk Det Supt Clowser continued: “I would urge victims of these awful crimes to speak to someone whether it is a matter that has just happened or happened some time ago.”

Ron Lock, independent chair of the Bournemouth and Poole Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, said: “A huge amount of work is underway in the area of children’s safeguarding and locally we work with other multi agency partners to tackle the serious issues around child abuse and sexualisation and exploitation of children and young people.

“There is the real concern in society that children are being exposed to adult and sexual behaviours too early, and consider themselves as part of the adult world, when they should be allowed to be children and grow up at a more natural pace. At the extreme end of these concerns is that the sexualisation of children can unintentionally leave children vulnerable to sexual abuse.”

Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, said: “This is an issue which we should all take seriously. “I think the Jimmy Savile case has shown just how prevalent child abuse is and it concerns me.

“It is very important that when it’s identified that a child has been sexually abused they are offered the right counselling and support.”

She said she continues to campaign in Parliament for victims of sexual abuse to be automatically offered therapeutic treatment.

Bournemouth West MP Conor Burns said: “For those victims of Savile’s cruel exploitive behaviour, no report is going to bring full closure. The reality is Jimmy Savile is dead and cannot be punished in the way he deserved to be punished.

“The report highlights that had the victims of Savile’s abuse been taken more seriously, it’s likely he would have been brought to justice and there would have been fewer victims.”

Comments(21)

BIGTONE says...
10:48am Sat 12 Jan 13

Seeing a news report video it would appear some of the offences were "groping" in public.How many of you have had your bottom pinched in the 50's 60's 70's etc when been clubbing or in bars?
I did on many occasion. In fact it was seen as a bit of a giggle by the perpetrator if you could not figure out who had done it.
Unfortunately in the early days this offence (depending on severity)was generally viewed as naughty/cheeky by the offender.
Paedo's were unheard of then even though offences were taking place.
It's sad that the authorities didn't get him in court. Were they afraid of him because of his status?
Time,society and attitudes change.

Pablo23 says...
11:49am Sat 12 Jan 13

BIGTONE wrote:
Seeing a news report video it would appear some of the offences were "groping" in public.How many of you have had your bottom pinched in the 50's 60's 70's etc when been clubbing or in bars?
I did on many occasion. In fact it was seen as a bit of a giggle by the perpetrator if you could not figure out who had done it.
Unfortunately in the early days this offence (depending on severity)was generally viewed as naughty/cheeky by the offender.
Paedo's were unheard of then even though offences were taking place.
It's sad that the authorities didn't get him in court. Were they afraid of him because of his status?
Time,society and attitudes change.
From the reports I think these offenses were a lot more serious than a bottom pinch, but I take your point

stalisman says...
12:18pm Sat 12 Jan 13

It is unfortunate that the nature of the abuses are still hidden in the fog of legality. One cannot discern the actuality of the offences and past political incorrectness is blended together with acts of sheer revulsion.

This 'mystification' is useless to everyone and is surely preventing the true exposure of the extent to which saville like persons still predate on this world of ours.

Why are only pensioners arrested?

Are we supposed to believe that is an old problem now duly sorted?

Pull the other one!

The failure of the investigations to pull in current predators says quite a lot about the behind the scenes manipulation by politicians so as to inhibit full openness ..especially in The NHS where many investigations are by design prevented from sharing information that a single coherent investigation would be privy to.

I do not believe that crop circles are made by Aliens, but I do believe that earthlings in power manipulate the truth.

pete woodley says...
1:16pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Yes and so do a lot of us.

High Treason says...
2:30pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Now it is the compensation circus which should be restricted to those who made a complaint to the police at the time of the alleged offence. Otherwise it issimply impossible to know which cases are genuine and those in it for the cash.

Seabeam says...
4:11pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Why nothing till he was dead? Was it because he would have named some establishment and famous people.
They are all in this together. Always have been.
complaints where made before his death but the pplice deterred anybody from pressing the issue.
Seems pretty obvious to me.

ringwood_blue says...
5:45pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Judging by the weight of complaints, it seems very likely there was a good deal of turning of blind eyes and ears; those guilty of it should be ashamed. I wonder if they can be prosecuted? I certainly hope so.

Controversial But True says...
6:02pm Sat 12 Jan 13

I'm as disgusted as anyone else with this sick paedo pervert.

What baffles me is why only after his fortunate death, do the complaints roll in like this.

It's not like he was a godfather figure with connections to the underworld (well, he has now :-) ). What did people fear so much to prevent them reporting him when it happened? He was only a big star in the 70's and many of these complaints date back 50 years.

pete woodley says...
6:18pm Sat 12 Jan 13

You are not the only one who is confused,obviously some are jumping on the bandwagon,some were to scared or too embarassed to say anything,i important point was that those charities who received big donations from him would certainly not wish to lose them, which he appears to have threatened to do.The higher ups in the police were also too scared to upset the charities.

fedupwithfedupjobsworths says...
6:34pm Sat 12 Jan 13

I had to laugh at the person who phoned BBC Radio Ulster in support saying he wasn't all bad. Apparently Jim fixed it for him to milk a cow while blindfolded.

jobsworthwatch says...
7:56pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Well done Mr Burns for pointing out that Savile is dead and can't be punished. How about punishing those that allowed Savile to get away with abusing the victims. The abuse of 450 victims can only go unnoticed for such a long period of time if those to whom the abuse was reported turned a 'blind eye' or it was deliberately 'hushed up' by yet still others. They can be punished!

fossilmole says...
8:01pm Sat 12 Jan 13

The press are having a field day with all this speculation and pontification about a dead man and what he did or didn't do!

If the reports are correct and could have been proved when the man was alive all these 'EXPERTS,' who have much to say now, should be lined up and quizzed as 'Why didn't YOU do something when the man was here and could have been prosecuted?'

pete woodley says...
8:09pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Thats what we all want to know.

benjamin says...
8:49pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Only people who made complaints to the police or other authorities before the Savile story went public should be considered for compensation. Anyone who kept quiet were only aiding and abetting Savile and his evil ways.

The Timelord says...
9:49pm Sat 12 Jan 13

I can't see how any amount of compensation of the dirty money from this sicko's estate could ever compensate anyone for their experience - I for one wouldn't want his filthy money, however much it was and I can't see how the principle of claiming it and giving it away to charity would help. No discerning charity would now want any association with this pervert.

May he and his image rot in hell forever.

JassyK says...
9:30am Sun 13 Jan 13

"He said 617 people had made contact with officers investigating claims against Savile and other figures in the entertainment industry, with 450 directly relating to Savile."

450 have only just come forward...hmmmm, i wonder how many of those are riding the bandwagon.

It is near impossible out of 450 people not one of them come forward when it happened unless the police are not telling us something...a bit of both i think.

ekimnoslen says...
1:33pm Sun 13 Jan 13

High Treason wrote:
Now it is the compensation circus which should be restricted to those who made a complaint to the police at the time of the alleged offence. Otherwise it issimply impossible to know which cases are genuine and those in it for the cash.
I couldn't agree more. Although I personally disliked the man it seems strange that so many apparently traumatized victims have emerged AFTER his death. The deceased of course have difficulty in defending themselves.

Rally says...
10:29pm Sun 13 Jan 13

It's interesting how the words 'alleged' and 'allegedly' get left out of people's comments here.
I have this quaint idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
There can be no trial, obviously, so people should be careful of what they say.
If you want to believe, repeat believe, Savile was guilty, that is your choice.
Equally, If you want to believe, repeat believe, Savile was innocent, that is your choice.
Me?
I simply don't know one way or the other.
We are talking about events - many unwitnessed - that allegedly, note allegedly, occurred 40 or so years ago.
How can justice be served properly when all that we have for evidence is decades-old and recent hearsay?
Don't point a finger unless you are backed with evidence that will stand up in a Court of Law.
My real concern here is the 'Trial by Media', 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' and 'Witchhunt' mentalities that prevail here - it risks creating an atmosphere not much different to what happened in Germany in the 30s with the arrival of the Gestapo; e.g. people being arrested on the word of neighbours with a grievance over something petty.
To those of you howling at the late Savile despite the lack of sound evidence one way or the other: you are standing on a very slippery slope.

pete woodley says...
6:20am Mon 14 Jan 13

Rally,so so many people and the police are wrong are they.Does make me wonder why YOU are standing up for Saville.Your last sentence sounds like a very nasty THREAT.

Rally says...
12:25pm Mon 14 Jan 13

I do not know whether some people and the police are right or wrong about the allegations made against Savile, but, then, nor do you Mr Woodley.
All that you and I have to go on currently is what the Media chooses to tell us and which parts of it we choose to believe, disbelieve, or ignore.
Consequently, making the judgement that you do you are in effect supporting 'Trial by the Media', and this I find disconcerting.
Then, in this country a person is innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a Court of Law. Do you, Mr Woodley really want that to change to 'Guilty until proven innocent'? I certainly don't.
Sadly, such is the influence of the Media today that what I write on this issue will be seen by some - such as yourself? - as my somehow supporting Savile's alleged sex crimes.
You are all completely wrong, for I believe paedophilia to be a particularly heinous crime. But this does not mean to me that a person charged with this offence should not be given a fair trial in a Court of Law.
Sadly, and particularly so for his alleged victims, Savile can never stand trial.
As for your comment, 'Your last sentence sounds like a very nasty THREAT.'
You infer wrongly, Mr Woodley. History teaches us many things, and my remark about 1930's Germany and neighbour turning on neighbour is, IMO, a case in point.
Condoning 'Trial by Media', 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' and 'Witch-hunts' forms the thin end of a very unfair and potentially dangerous wedge.

pete woodley says...
2:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

No wonder the public were put off reporting Savile.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree