Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reports on the many instances that the police refused to pursue allegations against Jimmy Savile due to his status and affiliation(s?). Savile was effectively above the law because it was not applied to hime
The missed chances to get Jimmy Savile
The official report into what police knew – and, critically, failed to do – about Jimmy Savile makes grim reading.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the watchdog that looks at how the police function, looked for evidence of reports, complaints and intelligence that had been gathered on Savile down the years.
They didn’t find a great deal – just seven potentially actionable complaints which emerged during a series of incidents. The inspectorate lists a further series of incidents in which people tried to report Savile and, in effect, failed to get the police to record what they were being told. …
I want it on record that I have experienced the same in trying to get the police to investigate allegations of very serious crimes against former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Ian Blair. I have made serious allegations to the police which are simply ignored. This is exactly the same as with Savile – he’s protected through the police’s refusal to record or take action on any credible allegations against him. Similarly, again it is because of his status and affiliation(s?) although I’m sure that Blair can’t now have any friends and must be universally hated for the useless little shit that he is and has been.
Which brings us to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Why are police treated so differently when they are accused and investigated? Shouldn’t they simply be investigated like any other criminals? Why are they told of accusations against them?