NYP: SAVILE/JACONELLI – The Final Countdown

NYP: SAVILE/JACONELLI – The Final Countdown

• Crime & Parliamentary Affairs correspondent TIM HICKS FCA outlines the present predicament of the North Yorkshire Police in respect of the latest SAVILE/JACONELLI revelations.

~~~~~

There have been some major developments in the Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile Scandal, which taken together completely destroy the credibility of the North Yorkshire Police investigation into Jimmy Savile, which is code-named OPERATION HIBISCUS.

The Broadmoor investigation

Some time ago, the NYE team published an article on Real Whitby raising concerns about Mr Alan Franey and Detective Superintendent Ray Galloway (retired), formerly the Director of Force Intelligence for North Yorkshire Police, concerning the investigation into Savile’s abuse of patients at the Leeds General Infirmary:

Mr Franey was a close friend of Savile’s and a member of his running club. He first met Savile at the Leeds General Hospital and Savile then specifically asked for him to be the General Manager at Broadmoor General Hospital. He has been severely criticised in the NHS Report on Broadmoor, culminating in a vote of “no confidence” in him in his capacity as Deputy Leader of Welwyn and Hatfield Borough Council being proposed on Monday the 29^th of September:  Full story here:  http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/09/grant-shapps-deputy-council-leader-to-face-vote-over-savile-claims/

Councillor Franey is also a member of the Hertfordshire Police and Crime Panel.

The Scarborough News investigation

On Thursday, the Scarborough News ran an excellent article on the paedophile-ring that Peter Jaconelli (Mayor and Alderman of Scarborough Council) ran in Scarborough, which included Jimmy Savile. The Scarborough News also asserts on the basis of witness evidence that North Yorkshire Police knew all about Jimmy Savile and others in at least 2003:

“It comes after The Scarborough News revealed in 2012 that two women claimed police officers had quizzed them about Savile as part of an investigation into a suspected paedophile ring that was operating in the town in the 70s and 80s. 

Both women, who contacted the newspaper separately, said they were visited by detectives in 2003 and questioned about the group, that was believed to have operated around the seafront arcades. 

They said police were linking two prominent Scarborough businessmen, including Peter Jaconelli, to the investigation and were told Savile was also a suspect. 

One of the women, who was a young girl at the time the abuse was alleged to have taken place, said: “A police man came to my house and asked me about events that happened and Savile’s name was mentioned. I asked him about this and he said he couldn’t say anything and nothing came of that.” 

However, when the Scarborough News contacted North Yorkshire Police, it denied any record of an investigation taking place.”

Full article here (well worth reading):

The 2003 investigation was a major paedophile investigation that was so large it had to be run on HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System). It will have generated an enormous amount of intelligence on local paedophiles, including Savile and Jaconelli, who offended openly in Scarborough and Whitby with the full knowledge and acquiescence of North Yorkshire Police. Yet North Yorkshire Police claims it knew nothing about Jaconelli until after his death, although in fact every schoolboy and parent in Scarborough knew.

Although the Scarborough News witnesses would not come forward to the police, their evidence is credible and perfectly confirms the evidence of the BBC witnesses here.

The North Yorks Enquirer investigation

On the 21^st of September 2014, the North Yorks Enquirer ran an article revealing for the first time that multiple Police witnesses have come forward confirming that Scarborough Police knew all about Jaconelli and Savile, and that the ring was involved in trafficking vulnerable young people to be sexually abused:

http://nyenquirer.uk/nyp-detsgt-srved-misconduct-notice-follow-report/

Understandably, none of the NYE witnesses will come forward to give evidence to the Police for fear of intimidation or retaliation by North Yorkshire Police. This is not surprising, considering the victimisation that NYE journalists have faced over the Jaconelli/Savile cover-up organised at the highest levels of North Yorkshire Police. Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick is still threatening to arrest your correspondent for coverage of this issue, even though North Yorkshire Police has referred itself to the IPCC and a serving Detective Sergeant has been served with misconduct papers by the IPCC over the failure to arrest Savile – thereby vindicating the allegations made by the North Yorkshire Enquirer

The effect of these threats is obviously to intimidate witnesses out of coming forward. This is obviously contrary to the public interest, because it prevents the full investigation of Savile and Jaconelli, so why would the Police behave in this way?

Well, North Yorkshire Police was responsible for the six most important failures to arrest Savile and the rest of the Jaconelli ring. These were:

1. The failure by Police Officers that served in Scarborough and Whitby to arrest Jaconelli, -although his offending was common knowledge in Scarborough- going back to the 1950’s and which was vindicated by the above impartial BBC investigation which would surely have led the Police to Savile.
2. The failure to arrest Savile as a result of allegations witnesses have alleged to the NYE that Scarborough Police received about Savile going back to the 1970’s.
3. The failure to properly investigate information it now admits it received from a 15 year old girl in 2002 regarding Savile.
4. The failure of North Yorkshire Police to investigate allegations about Jaconelli it received in December 2008 and January 2009.
5. The failure to pass on the intelligence held on Savile to Surrey Police in 2007, instead giving him a clean bill of health, which ensured the failure of the Surrey investigation.
6. The failure to pass on intelligence to the Metropolitan Police Operation Yewtree in 2012, on Savile and Jaconelli.

This consistent failure led to misery for thousands of children over many years, as Jaconelli and Savile committed rape, abused children and enticed them into prostitution. Any impartial investigation would severely criticise North Yorkshire Police. The North Yorks Enquirer has so far identified five Police Officers (in addition to the Detective Sergeant that has just had misconduct papers served on him) that should face misconduct investigations. So it is in the interests of North Yorkshire Police to prevent a full and impartial examination of the facts to occur.

North Yorkshire Police Acting Force Solicitor makes her contribution. 

It appears that the article we ran on Sunday has obviously rattled some cages at Newby Wiske Hall, because out of the blue, I received responses to two Freedom of Information requests that I had made some time ago concerning the Savile and Jaconelli scandal. They were written by the Force Civil Disclosure Officer on behalf of Ms Jane Wintermeyer BSc (Hons), Acting Force Solicitor and Head of Legal Services for North Yorkshire Police, and address FOIA requests made many months ago.

The first relates to information I requested on the young people’s event held at Selby Abbey in 2008. North Yorkshire Police provided Jimmy Savile with his own police car and driver, so he could share a platform with the Chief Constable at a Community Idol event and be held out as a role model for young people. Even though he was known by North Yorkshire Police to have been the subject of serious allegations of serious sexual offences in North Yorkshire, Surrey and Sussex, and was under active investigation by Surrey and Sussex Police for serious sexual offences – clearly a scandalous and embarrassing revelation for North Yorkshire Police.

“I write in connection with your request for information which was received by North Yorkshire Police on 12 January 2014.  

I note you seek access to the following information: 

Re: North Yorkshire Police & Savile & attendance at 2008 event

1. ‘Was the vehicle used to transport Savile marked “North Yorkshire Police”. 
2. Was the vehicle an unmarked vehicle allocated to a senior member of staff. 
3. Was the driver Chief Constable Maxwell. 
4. What was the rank and name of the driver. 
5. Were West Yorkshire Police informed that a North Yorkshire Police vehicle was in their areaon official business. 
6. Was the vehicle insured for ferrying non police staff to functions.’ 

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the information to you in full. 

1. ‘Was the vehicle used to transport Savile marked “North Yorkshire Police”.

No, it was an unmarked vehicle. 

2. Was the vehicle an unmarked vehicle allocated to a senior member of staff.

It is recorded that an ‘unmarked’ vehicle was used but it is not recorded whether the vehicle was

allocated to a senior member of staff. 

3. Was the driver Chief Constable Maxwell

It is not recorded that the driver was the Chief Constable. It is recorded that the driver was

either a police constable or a community support officer. 

4. What was the rank and name of the driver.

Please see answer to question 3”

The response is well out of date, showing that North Yorkshire Police has ignored its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act to release information on Jimmy Savile within the specified timescale (20 working days). In short, North Yorkshire Police has broken the law to withhold information which is embarrassing to it.

Despite stating that it would disclose all the requested information in full, the name of the driver has not been revealed.

The Officers that organised the Selby event were named in the press at the time: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/3673360.Girls_top_of_the_cops/

However, it is the second Freedom of Information Act response that really got my attention, which was first submitted on the 29^th of October 2012 and then re-submitted on the 21^st of April 2014:

“I write in connection with your request for information which was received by North Yorkshire Police on 21 April 2014. I note you seek access to the following information: 

Following the BBC documentary Inside Out on Peter Jaconelli and the Chief Constable’s recent announcement on Peter Jaconelli.   Please can I have an accurate response to the above Freedom of Information Act request. 

1. Did Mr Peter Jaconelli of Scarborough (died 1999) ever come to the attention of North Yorkshire Police, in connection with sexual offences. 
2. Did Mr Jimmy Corrigan (deceased) of Scarborough ever come to the attention of North Yorkshire Police in connection with sexual offences. 
3. The name and rank of the officers who commanded North Yorkshire Police at Scarborough from the period 1970 – the present. 
4. The name and rank of the officers who commanded North Yorkshire Police at Whitby from the period 1970 – the present. 
5. The date that North Yorkshire Police had access to computer/paper/card index records of investigations involving other forces. 
6. The number of unsolved sexual offences against children in Scarborough from 1970 – present. 
7. The number of unsolved sexual offences against children in Whitby from 1970 – present. 
8. If any member of North Yorkshire Police has ever been arrested and/or charged in connection with sexual offences against children. 
9. If any member of North Yorkshire Police has ever come to the attention of the Police, in connection with sexual offences.
10. Force policy in relation to protecting vulnerable young people at seaside towns in the period 1970 – the present. 

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information 

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted at/within North Yorkshire Police.

Decision 

To provide you with an accurate response to your request would require us to potentially search all computer and paper records across the force to identify any which may be relevant. For example, in relation to questions 3 and 4 we do not hold a list of officers who have commanded particular areas. The information will be contained within the personal file of each individual. In order to extract information relevant to this part of your request alone would require someone to examine thousands of paper files. As such the cost of providing you with the information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond, i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. 

I am not obliged to provide you with a response to your request pursuant to Section 12(2) as the information requested, if held, is not in an easily retrievable format.  Section 12(2) applies to your request as the cost of determining whether or not North Yorkshire Police hold information relevant to your request is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of identifying any relevant information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.  Pursuant to Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to your request” 

This causes me some concerns, as follows:

1. The response is well out of date, showing that North Yorkshire Police has ignored its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act to release information on Jimmy Savile, Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Corrigan within the specified timescale (20 working days).  In short North Yorkshire Police has broken the law to withhold information which is embarrassing to it, but to which I am entitled.  This is particularly concerning, given that I am a journalist investigating a story for publication in the public interest, which the public have a right to know about.
2. Many of the questions I asked do not require a search across all force records e.g. “The date that North Yorkshire Police had access to computer/paper/card index records of investigations involving other forces”.  I understand that a criminal record enquiry is a simple process nowadays.  So North Yorkshire Police again appear to be looking for a pretext to evade its responsibilities, thereby contravening the Freedom of Information Act.
3. North Yorkshire Police have run now FOUR major investigations into Savile, Jaconelli, Corrigan and others, and have an ongoing major investigation called OPERATION HIBISCUS  – yet according to North Yorkshire Police, we are asked to believe it does not have any information on the criminal records of two of the prime suspects, Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Corrigan, and cannot obtain this information.

In short, instead of commenting openly, North Yorkshire Police are using a legal stratagem to deny the public information that it is entitled to.

The Chief Constable has confirmed publicly that Peter Jaconelli came to the attention of North Yorkshire Police twice in 2008 and 2009, and Savile in 2002. Our information is that, in fact, Jaconelli came to the attention of Police regularly from the 1950’s onwards and Savile was known to them in the 1970’s. We have consistently alleged that North Yorkshire Police have intelligence in their systems which it is not releasing or was deleted.

Hence, perhaps, the refusal of the Force to confirm openly what it knows about Jaconelli and Corrigan in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

These Freedom of Information requests are highly revealing. They are indicative of a Force that has a complete disregard for its obligations and will break the law without hesitation, when trying to suppress an issue that is embarrassing to it.

Currently, local Councillors, numerous witnesses, the Scarborough News, Real Whitby, the North Yorkshire Enquirer, Police witnesses and the BBC are all alleging that North Yorkshire Police knew all about Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile – and covered-up for them.   

The initial response of North Yorkshire Police was that Savile had no local connection to North Yorkshire. A lie.

Since that time North Yorkshire Police has responded by lying in press releases, intimidating journalists and withholding information on what it knew about the Jaconelli ring.

It is time for the Chief Constable to come clean, and consider the public interest above the reputation of his force.