Sabine, you are a prolific blogger, whose work is well researched, and I am not.
I therefore hesitate to criticise your work. But your opening sentence was a disjointed rant.
You wrote, “The decades of exploits of Jimmy Savile have been treated with what can only be described as ‘Wilful Blindness’ exercised by the British Establishment, i.e. Police, Judiciary, Government, Authorities etc: Police ‘too busy’ for fraud.”
The possible “British Establishment” culprits, of “wilful blindness”, negligence, downright complicity or any other way in which the “decades of exploits of Jimmy Savile” have been “treated” less than appropriately, certainly include the BBC and the police, by all accounts, I concede.
The term “authorities” is so vague that I have no criticique, only criticism of your vagueness itself.
The job of the judiciary is to ensure fair trials, in this case criminal trials, when the BBC or others grass up their staff perps like Savile to the police, and the police ensure that those perps are duly prosecuted. The judiciary (a bench of whom who pissed me off in a magistrates court in Somerset only two days ago) are innocent in the Savile affair. Why? Because those who should have informed on Savile (the BBC) and those who should have then banged him to rights (the police) failed in their duty. This prevented Savile’s exploits from getting before the courts, for the judiciary to screw up, as they sometimes do, sometimes out of corruption rather than incompetence, I dare say.
I have had reasons to criticise the police myself, and reasons to thank the police, in my own personal life experience. Not to mention what I’ve read about. This applied even before that days arrived when reading the news became so much easier, with the arrival of the internet.
One reason for people who read the news to criticise the police is for their being ” ‘too busy’ for fraud “, you seem to have read. Another reason is for the police’s blowing the chance to bring Savile to paltry human justice, so that his death, which would have summoned him before a higher court than man’s, before which we must all stand trial one day, could have been in prison. But these too separate alleged police failings – letting Savile escape, and claiming to be “too busy” to investigate fraud, when most of us can think of things we’d like the police to stop busying themselves with – are not logically connected. Yet you have connected them, in an opening sentence so substandard that it discouraged me from reading any further.
Less is more, if you know what I mean. Please write less, but of better quality.
