Jimmy Savile and the cast of hundreds

I have put so much research into this blog that it would frighten you. I normally like to get a few different view points, read some other versions of events and make up my own mind.

So, as normal, I read some newspaper articles, watched some TV and then as Morpheus says in The Matrix ‘You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.’

When it comes to this story, I took the red pill and I’m sure that many people involved wish that they had taken the red pill too.

Right, make yourself a cuppa, get comfortable and then read this. See, I want you in a rational and unemotional mind set. I promise to include links to supplementary information where possible, I’ll lay off the clichés and I will make a sincere effort not to get emotional or all ‘ranty’ about it.

OK?

Deep breath now.

Assume for one minute that Jimmy Savile did not tamper with any young girl (or girls) and all these claims of sexual abuse and molestation are completely 100% fictitious

Whoa! Wait a minute, I don’t care what you believe or what you think you believe or even if you are fed up to the back teeth hearing about a shell-suited gold wearing OAP with his hands down a child’s pants. (Sorry about the cliché)

Why would a bunch of women all come forward almost a year after the guy’s death to ruin the ‘good’ name of a man who raised millions for charity and is an icon in British Society?

Obviously I am no shrink or specialist in psychological disorders, but the person making the allegation would have to be fulfilling some sort of personal agenda (albeit a bit warped).

What would the reason be? Blackmail, extortion, discrediting their good name and image?

That isn’t really going to happen when the dude is 6 foot under.

However, it isn’t just one person is it?

No, no its not. The last I read the Metropolitan police were investigating 340 lines of inquiry, which involved 40 different victims and 12 formal criminal allegations.

I wondered why these people had not come forward earlier, as is only natural I suppose. However, these people actually DID make complaints against the DJ/Presenter/self appointed god like being and were told everything under the sun from ‘Not enough evidence’ to ‘don’t you like it?’ and even ‘Are you a lesbian’.

As individual claims these can be easily dismissed and indeed they were especially as they occurred in different areas of the country. We realise with how long it took to apprehend Peter Sutcliffe that police forces don’t always speak to each other.

However, as Alice wandered down the rabbit hole she found out that in 1994 the Sunday Mirror had "credible and convincing" evidence from two women who claimed Savile had been guilty of abusing them at a children's home. But was advised that the case wasn’t strong enough to avoid libel action.

What about Jimmy’s links with Haute de la Garenne in Jersey? The Sun newspaper was sued in 2008 over articles linking him to children’s home where remains of tortured children were found. Apparently 151 culprits were identified……….maybe there are even more ‘celebrities’ about to have their hiding place found.

Certainly, the names I have read or been hinted at are Ted Heath, Gary Glitter, John Peel, Dave Lee Travis, Freddie Starr and the possibility of the rabbit hole being deeper is all too apparent.

As far as I’m aware there are complaints being made from Stoke Mandeville, The BBC, Leeds General Infirmary, Broadmoor, Duncroft Approved School in Staines and Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey.

Jimmy Savile ‘allegedly’ supplied fresh young boys for Ted Heath to take out on his boat ‘Morning Cloud’ which links in very nicely with a bit of government corruption regarding Jeremy Thorpes getting off with an attempted murder charge.

Our libel laws meant that many allegations that would (and will) surface was always kept nicely packed away.

What about Jimmy Savile’s links with our nice and friendly serial killer & rapist Peter Sutcliffe, AKA the Yorkshire Ripper?

AHA! Not only did Jimmy Savile spend a fair amount of time at Broadmoor (not my choice of destination) but at Sutcliffe’s trial whose house was mentioned? Eh?

‘Mr Sutcliffe also told police he left the murder scene after he heard voices, but couldn’t tell where they came from. He also heard a car being driven away from the entrance to a house. Later he found out that the house was where disc jockey Jimmy Savile lived’

Well it may be dodgy but it certainly isn’t hard evidence.

Make up your mind but have a look at some of the information I found and as promised, here are some interesting articles for you to have a look at.

http://www.everything2.com/title/The+Dark+Side+of+Jimmy+Savile

http://yiannopoulos.net/2011/10/29/jimmy-savile-and-the-masonic-child-abuse-on-jersey-how-long-before-people-start-talking/

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=33514

http://trashcity.org/content/how-i-managed-to-piss-off-jimmy-saville/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g_zx4dp-qbk

http://www.anorak.co.uk/336013/celebrities/jerry-sadowitz-was-right-about-jimmy-savile.html/#comments

Bad Robot or Bad Programmer? Who is Accountable?

I love reading about research done at various different universities around the world. I'll admit that I love the stories even more when the research amuses me in some shape or form.

Though if I'm perfectly honest the latest research from the University of Washington in Seattle makes me feel a bit uneasy. You see, it's about how humans and robots interact.

Here's a bit of background for you.

Forty students took part in a scavenger hunt where they had to find a given amount of items within a certain time, then a robot named Robovie judged whether or not they should win the $20 prize money.

The only problem with this was, Robovie was programmed to lie.

Now, the strange thing is, even though the students saw Robovie as a robot and didn't consider it to be morally accountable for anything, some still got really annoyed when it lied. Realistically their anger should've been with the programmer rather than the inanimate object doing what it was 'told' to do.

Heather Gary, a doctoral student in developmental psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle said, "Some accused Robovie of lying or cheating."

About 65 percent of the 40 students said Robovie was at least somewhat morally accountable for lying.

Just as I was considering the possibility, with some degree of smugness, that I would realise that old Robovie was mere nuts, bolts and electrical wiring I thought of something else.

I have a name for my car & love my iPad, I shout at my work's PC when it locks up and freezes. Why do I do that when I know that whatever emotion I have for a piece of machinery won't change it's behaviour?

Yup, I hold machinery morally accountable for things, I give my car steering wheel a pat if it's gotten me home with hardly any fuel in it or it's started first time when the outside temperature is -21C.

Based on the findings in their paper 'Do Humans Hold a Humanoid Robot Morally Accountable for the Harm It Causes?' Heather Gary and the rest of her colleagues suggested that the military should consider the moral accountability of robots. I'll take that one step further and suggest that everyone or company that are building humanoid robots and the like should consider her findings.

B1-66ER robot that didnt want to die

It all reminds me a bit of 'Animatrix' the short stories based on and around the film trilogy 'The Matrix'. Ok, ok, I know that those stories are based on robots with artificial intelligence, but is that really so far away in the future?

After all....... It was only a year ago that Watson the IBM computer appeared on the tv programme 'Jeopardy'