Allegations of child abuse are ‘inaccurate’ says Janner’s daughter

Marion Janner, daughter of the late Greville Janner, has said in a television interview that she has “never” questioned her father’s innocence and is “absolutely” convinced his name will be cleared.

Child abuse allegations

Allegations of child abuse by the late Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC, first emerged publicly in 1991; however, it was deemed that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a charge. Another investigation in 2002 did not result in a charge, as the Crown Prosecution Service did not receive relevant documents. A third criminal challenge came in 2007, when it was again deemed that there was not enough evidence to press charges.

Click here to read the full article.

CICA Attitude to Abuse Victims a disgrace

“Compensation has been reduced for more than 400 sex abuse victims in Britain who later committed criminal offences, the BBC has learnt.” was the headline:-

Sanchia Berg of the BBC made a Freedom of Information Request to the CICA who could not produce all the results she wanted, because she spoke to me before the story was published. She asked if ACAL(Association of Child Abuse Lawyers) had any statistics as to how many abuse cases are turned down because the applicant has committed criminal offences. Because in the past, we have had experience of a biased approach, we usually opt for the alternative civil system, and thus only have anecdotal opinions.

To read more see my blog on our Abuselaw Website

Welcome news that Lord Janner will face charges of historic child abuse

Child abuse lawyer Peter Garsden has welcomed the decision of an independent QC who has overruled the original decision of Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, not to charge Lord Janner over claims of historical sex abuse because of his dementia.

 

To read Peter's comments click through to abuselaw.co.uk

 

 

Mandatory reporting of child abuse - is it the answer to child abuse scandals?

See our blog at www.abuselaw.co.uk which discusses David Cameron's proposals for ending the 'culture of denial' which he says exists amongst social workers and other child care professionals.  Peter Garsden looks at the mandatory reporting of child abuse, and considers why this is a better approach.

Should the National Child Abuse Enquiry be scrapped?

Theresa May before the Select Committee

It is a shame that there has been a leak of a letter Theresa May has sent to all the existing members of the Independent Enquiry into Child Abuse, which contemplates scrapping what has taken place so far, and starting again.

There seem to be three options:-

1. Turn the existing arrangement into a statutory inquiry.
2. Set up a fresh statutory inquiry
3. Establish a Royal Commission

Let me make it clear that I welcome the concept of an enquiry into the problem of the covering up of child abuse in the past, which seems to have infiltrated every being of our society. When it was first announced 6 months ago, so did the victims/survivors. Sadly many of them have lost complete faith in what has taken place so far, yet the predominent feeling about Ms May is positive.

So far the Home Office, under the stewardship of Ms May, seem to have made so many errors:-

1. Failure to consult with the survivors/victims before the enquiry was announced to find out what they wanted.
2. Failure to research the background of Lady Butler Schloss to make sure she would be an acceptable chairperson for the survivors.
3. Failure to do the same in relation to Fiona Woolf.
4. Failure to spend time looking at other enquiries around the world (eg. Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, Australia) and learn from them. Take the Redress Board in the Republic of Ireland. In that case, the government tasked a leading Irish QC (Sean Ryan) to do a paper which set out his ideas on how the enquiry should be run. They listened to him and followed his lead. It was a success.
5. Failure to distance itself from the decision process of how the enquiry should be set up - how can the Home Secretary effectively decide upon a chairperson when allegations are being levelled against the very body which is involved in setting up the enquiry?
6. Failure to announce a statutory enquiry with legal powers from the beginning.
7. Failure to set up a Royal Commission along the lines of the Australian model which has the respect, and acceptance of the survivors. It is Legally Constituted.

I have much sympathy with the panel members who are now under intolerable pressure and criticism from, effectively, their peers, who are also survivors. I think that the panel are now seen as the "government's lap dogs", who were on the side of the angels but have now gone to work for the devil, who are the government. It is unfair that some of them are now being pilloried.

What makes it worse is that because they are on the panel, they cannot really speak up for themselves through Social Media or the media. When one is appointed to a quasi judicial role, then radio silence is the usual requirement. The temptation is sometimes too great, largely because of the obvious sense of injustice.

I think that what has happened is that the Home Office realise that the panel members are coming under so much pressure, and are being affected so badly by Social Media, and criticism by other survivors, that their primary responsibility is to protect them, and do something different, hence the recent annoucement.

Undeniably the Home Office must take the blame for this intolerable period of inactivity. If the enquiry had got under way before now, we would not be in this totally unacceptable no man's land of proscrastination.

My Number 1 money is on a Statutory Enquiry and in 2nd place a Royal Commission. The objection to a Royal Commission, apparently, is that it will take too long to set up. Meanwhile victims/survivors continue to suffer and get angrier by the day....

Another one bites the dust in child sex abuse inquiry

I will be giving my views on BBC News 24 at 7pm tonight on the inquiry. It comes as no surprise to read in press that Fiona Woolf has resigned as chair of the historical child abuse inquiry.  It’s been reported that she resigned last Friday, not as a result of pressure from Theresa May but because she felt that victims lacked confidence in her. 

As I said in a recent radio interview (read my earlier blog dated 27/10) I was surprised that the government chose Fiona Woolf to lead the enquiry in the first place as she does not have a history of representing the rights of the poor and oppressed members of Society.  So quite apart from her connections with Leon Brittain, which has been much reported in the media, she never  had the respect and trust of the survivors, hence the enquiry was doomed from the start.

Labour has said ‘the candidate must have the confidence of victms’ groups’ whilst Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile said: ‘they should have experience of dealing with child abuse and child protection.  I agree with both Labour and Lib Dem’s sentiments, the new Chair must have the respect of the survivors.  Potential successful models should include the Royal Commission in Australia and the Irish Redress Board.  Both of which have worked well for victims.

It has been said that Human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield is apparently the ‘victim’s choice to head the inquiry but Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to tell MPs later that she will consult victims before appointing a new chair for the historical child abuse inquiry. 

One would have thought that such a consultation should have been a fundamental factor worthy of consideration from the start!

It is considered to be a poisoned chalice to hold this job, as whoever takes it on must have the trust of a group of people who generally rile against authority with a passion, and see conspiracies round every corner, for the very good reason that they have been abused by someone in authority and a position of power in infancy. The inquiry is almost doomed to failure from the start, two chairpersons having resigned already.

One would have thought that a retired judge with the independence that inevitably flows from such a job, with no pre-conceived bias has to be a natural choice. Such a person will be thought by victims to be fearless in the face of government opposition to disclosure of documents. Also it would seem fundamental to announce that the inquiry should be statutory in nature with all the consequent powers that will inevitably flow from such a move. It is, after all, what the survivors want.

Sexual exploitation in Cheshire gets more attention from the police.

Chief Constable of Cheshire, Simon Byrne

I was interviewed on BBC Merseyside this morning about the Cheshire Police announcement of a new initiative to take a more protective and proactive approach to the possibility of sexual exploitation in Cheshire by announcing that each Children's Home will have its own designated officer.

I hasten to add that there is no suggestion in the police press release that exploitation is going on right now. It is more a case of prevention rather than cure, which has to be prudent and insightful bearing in mind what we have heard in Rochdale and Rotherham.

At QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden we have, in the past, dealt with large scale Cheshire Police enquiries into children's homes which are now closed such as Danesford in Congleton, Greystone Heath in Warrington, St. Aidan's in Widnes, St. Joseph's in Nantwich, Newton Hall in Frodsham, and Kilrie in Knutsford. They all involved abuse by care workers many years ago. I think I am right in thinking that most of the homes were closed by the Thatcher government in the 1990's, if not before, for various reasons including cost.

Now we notice that Cheshire Police, after consultation with young people and relevant organisations about what their requirements are have assigned a special officer to each children's home so that young people can talk about anything they want to in safety, which has to be a good thing. It is a shame that the same thing didn't happen many years ago at the homes where abuse took place.

A similar initiative was attempted at Danesford in Congleton many years ago by a child advocacy organisation called NYAS on the Wirral. The idea was that the children should have their own independent voice and means of support outside the home. It was planned that they should have their own telephone number to ring. The move failed, of course, because the care workers within were, at that time, abusing the boys. The last thing they wanted was an outside body coming in to discover what was going on.

If there are any potential sexual exploitation incidents of children being taken out of the homes for sex, then the police force will be able to show that they have done anything they can to prevent issues before they start happening, or take root.

The big difference between sexual exploitation and other crimes, is the difficulty of the police force to bring prosecutions because the victims are:-

1. Young and vulnerable
2. Threatened in a most aggressive way by the abusive gangs.
3. Unwilling to give evidence out of fear and intimidation.
4. In need of intensive witness protection.

Thus the police have to go out looking for crimes rather than waiting for the victims come forward to them. It is therefore resource intensive and difficult to detect. Most forces are advised to have a specialised unit assigned to this crime. It is against the grain for the police to go out looking for crime. They are taught to believe that they should be reactive to complaints and investigate rather than "trawl".

It is the Jimmy Savile scandal that has brought about a whole new attitude to the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse, and long overdue it has been. Historical abuse has now a higher priority than it used to, and hurray for that.

Jimmy Savile Trust challenges the compensation scheme in the Court of Appeal.

I will be speaking on BBC Radio Leeds drivetime concerning the news that the trustees controlling Jimmy Savile's charitable trust are trying to prevent victims claiming compensation from his estate.


As it stands the victims can't legally claim compensation from the money which the trust controls, but they can claim from Savile's estate. But now, the trustees who control £3.7M, have won the right to challenge any payouts from the Savile estate and plan to take their case to the Court of Appeal later in the year. If the trust's case is found successful, victims may not even be able to claim compensation from the Savile estate

Why now

This has come as a shock to both lawyers representing the victims and the victims themselves, as initially there was no objection from the trust to the compensation scheme when it was being agreed at the High Court, but the trust instead lodged papers afterwards with the Court of Appeal. It has been documented that the named trustees of the charity also appear as beneficiaries in Savile's will.

Impact on victims

Understandably the victims are said to be angry and disappointed. This will mean that the case will drag on even longer than otherwise it would have done, and will be frustrating finalisation of the claims.

The Jimmy Savile Compensation Claims are set up to be shared under a scheme already set up between the estate of Jimmy Savile, the BBC, and the NHS Trust. There has been authorised advertising, and a capped limit of £60,000 per claim.

Rolf Harris abuse victims – how much compensation will they be able to claim?

Rolf Harris

Following the recent guilty verdicts delivered to Rolf Harris, on all 12 counts of child abuse concerning four girls, it has been reported that police have received new complaints against the TV entertainer.  It has been reported that 12 further people have come forward.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has said the Crown Prosecution Service will work with the police to look at new cases, although it was too early to say whether more charges would follow.

One paper reports that as a result of these new potential victims he could face a "string of compensation claims" which could diminish his "£11m fortune.” Accounts show that millions are tied up in a network of companies, his oldest company, Rolf Harris Enterprises, was launched in 1963.  Also his home in Bray, Berkshire, could be sold to pay compensation for his victims.

Following these new claims, a High Court civil claim is set to be launched in weeks which will effectively freeze the his assets and prevent Harris transferring the deeds of his home and multi million pound assets to his daughter or other family members.

In terms of how much compensation the alleged victims of Rolf Harris will be able to claim depends of a number of different factors including how it has affected their life, whether they will need extra support in the future and how much money they have lost or will lose as a consequence.  The law awards damages for physical or psychological harm.

If you have been the victim of abuse our specialist abuse litigation team at QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden are able to offer confidential and professional advice on the merits of bringing a claim for compensation.  We will assess your case and give you guidance at the beginning of your case as to how much compensation you are likely to receive.

Speak to one of our specialist male or female solicitors in complete confidence.  Call us on our confidential phone line or via email.  0845 604 7075 or abuslaw@abneys.co.uk.

Was Rolf Harris Mr Jekyl or Mr Hyde?

Rolf Harris when arrested.

Today has been so hectic ever since the jury returned guilty verdicts on all 12 counts and convicted Rolf Harris of abuse of 4 girls. I have discussed the story on Radio 5 Live, then BBC News 24, Radio Wales, and Radio London, followed tomorrow by a clip for Breakfast tomorrow.

The theme remains the same - Harris was a Jekyl and Hyde character who fooled everyone. Savile was the same, but perhaps not as genial. Some said Savile was a frightening individual who you didn't cross, not only because he had been an all in wrestler in contrast to Harris whose hobby was less physical in the form of art.

The likenesses and differences are:-

Likenesses

• They both did endless work for charity.
• They both worked with children.
• They both entertained children.
• They both used their media profile to hoodwink victims into a state of trust.
• They both had connections with many individuals very high up in Society - Savile with Margaret Thatcher, and Harris painted the Queen.
• They both worked in the field of popular music which inevitably brought about meetings with adoring fans including children.
• Neither was discovered until in their 80's, Savile obviously after death.

Differences

• Savile is dead - obviously thus making it easier to report what happened without fear of a libel suit.
• Savile used his connections with those in authority to shield himself from action by victims eg. Leeds Police, and threats of action by using his "mates" in authority.
• Savile appears to have liked all types of victims including
• Boys
• Girls
• The disabled
• Hospital Patients
• Dead Bodies (yes believe it or not he was seen to visit the mortuaries in various hospitals including Leeds and Haute de la Garenne in Jersey)
• Harris on the other hand only appears to have had an interest in the female sex according to the media stories.
• Savile was feared in his lifetime, and known to be an "odd" character who never married, whereas Harris appears to have lived a "normal" family life.

So what will the sentence be on Friday - not as long as the victims want, I predict. The judge will be hampered again by the law which puts a cap on sentences which relate to offences taking place a long time ago when the punishment was different, on the basis that if Harris had been prosecuted at the time of the offences, the sentence would have been more lenient.

Is it any surprise that more suspects have arisen in the Knowl View Rochdale Cyril Smith scandal?

Cyril Smith

Yesterday it was announced by the police Operation Jaguar, who are investigating the allegations of abuse against Cyril Smith and his connections with the residential home Knowl View in Rochdale that more victims have come forward thus widening the investigation to 21 alleged abusers at the home.

Apparently 7 men have made allegations to the police which will be investigated.

Police said the men claimed they were abused by Smith at Knowl View in Rochdale in the 1970s and 1980s.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said there were now 21 suspects, 14 of whom it had identified, including Smith.

Police said three new alleged victims of abuse at Knowl View have come forward bringing the total to ten. Seven of the 10 allege abuse by Smith.

Here at QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden, we act for one victim of severe sexual abuse at Knowl View. We are anxious to speak to anyone who can help us in any way with what went on there. In particular we would like to speak to other victims of abuse there, so that we can build our case and make it stronger. As the abuse happened many years we need as much corroborative evidence as we can find.

I appeared on BBC News North West to give my opinion. I was asked if it surprised me that more allegations had arisen. My reply was a little melodramatic that paedophiles hunt in packs. It is true, however that at most of the homes we have looked at from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, where abuse took place, there were more than one sex offender care worker operating at the home, at one time. Whether or not they all knew what other was doing is not proven but likely. Some have attempted to trace links in the past.

As Detective Inspector Terry Oates, from Warrington Police said to me in 1996 when was investigating Greytone Heath, a home infested with sex offenders, "I like golf so I go to a golf club to play. Paedophiles like children, so go somewhere they can find them. They don't have to operate sophisticated rings because the children are all there for them to abuse whenever they like."

At one time 41 out of 43 police forces in this country back in the late 1990's had a major children's home investigation in the area. Manchester investigated 66 homes, and Merseyside 89 homes to quote just two counties.

Here at QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden, we are not only looking at Knowl View, but Foxholes in Rochdale where abuse also took place. There are other issues with Rochdale which have captured the media. Whether or not there is something sinister about the town is difficult to prove.

One simply hopes that the victims get the justice they truly deserve after being fobbed off for so many years.

Will the sentence of Max Clifford send out a good message?

Max Clifford with his daughter

With the failure of the prosecutions of several recent high profile celebrities for abusing young girls, the media and the allegedly falsely accused were starting to question whether mounting multi claimant cases of abuse from many years ago was a sensible way to spend public money.

The recent conviction, and sentence today of Max Clifford justifies all the hard work put in by Operation Yewtree at the Met Police.

I just hope that the prison sentence is long enough to make the victims think they have got justice. Despite his protestations at trial his victims will be after acceptance that they are telling the truth. They want to be believed and have the satisfaction of feeling valued rather than guilty for what happened, which is so often the case.

The word is that the sentence may be as low as 2 years because the judge is bound by guidelines which were in force at the time the offences were committed ie the 70's and 80's rather than the present day.

The point is that most victims of abuse keep their experiences a secret because of fear and shame until much later in life, so a ban on prosecutions of events taking place years ago, would be catastrophic for victims. It would also have a very wide impact upon not only celebrity cases but also the vast majority of "normal" abuse cases of family members, professionals etc.

It has emerged in the press that earlier this year ago Clifford took out an unexplained £3.5m mortgage on his Surrey mansion with the suggestion being he wanted to put his money out of reach of victims looking for compensation. The civil courts have power to reverse transaction designed to avoid the payment of debts where it was done with that sole intention. It does seem to be the sort of thing someone expected to pay large amounts of compensation to do, but borders upon dishonesty. After all, aren't the victims entitled to be compensated for the suffering they have endured?

It is also said that a divorce is likely, and if so, the victims will be competing with his estranged wife for a slice of the pie. The question is, what has happened to the money raised by the mortgage? Some, no doubt was used to pay legal fees.

Let us hope that the victims obtain some sort of closure after today.

Hopefully I can give my views on BBC News 24 this afternoon.

Is there a whole new breed of abuse hidden in the army just waiting to be discovered?

Anne Marie Ellement

The recent story about the suicide of Anne Louise Ellement, and her inquest, demanded and orchestrated by her family and campaigning lawyer, made me realise that there is a huge undiscovered area of abuse in the military, it seems, at the moment, more against women than men. It would not surprise me in the least if, in a very male and power dominated environment, that male on male abuse is not also commonplace.

The inquest revealed that a female soldier, albeit with a fragile mental health background, was bullied ruthlessly for reporting two soldiers for raping her at barracks in Germany. Because the military do not have to hand over allegations of a sexual nature to the civilian police, it was decided to take no further action. This then prompted the accused's soldier's girlfriend to bully her cruelly for being a "slag" etc. The upshot, eventually after this had gone on for more than a year also by others was the successful suicide of the soldier. Because this soldier was disliked, presumably in view of her accusations, she had been overworked, and given unreasonable amounts of work which she was unable to complete, hence allegations of work related stress.

An interesting article of quite outspoken comment appeared in the Guardian Society Pages, written by a former soldier, Joe Glenton, which in summary alleged that there is institutional sexism in the army - to quote

"Let us dispense with the idea that the British military is in a meaningful sense a slightly quaint but essentially harmonious family. Healthy families do not regularly inflict acts of sexual violence upon each other, and in the British forces rapes and sexual assaults seem to have become something of a banality. No comparable professional group in the UK appears to rival the military for rates of colleague-on-colleague sexual violence. I would argue this stems from a poisonous mix of unchallenged sexism, unaccountable power and an archaic military justice system."

I then started to compare the way it is in the army with abuse in the civilian world and came up with some startling conclusions:-

1. To exist, abuse requires a cloistered environment where an abuser can be alone away from the prying eyes of those who might judge, prevent, and prosecute - the army is its own world with its own police force and internal rules. To justify this existence it needs to produce a fighting force which can protect our nation. This justifies making individuals who will not think twice before killing another man in cold blood. But how does this fit in with a morally sensitive environment and a caring attitude to allegations of rape?

2. The way in which abusers manage to operate in secret for many years is by abuse of power, which is indeed what abuse is. Whilst sexual assault is usually the outcome, the driving force and perversion is always abuse of power which makes all abusers manipulative and coercive of their victims and any authority which attempts to investigate and punish them. The army lives on power and command. It is insular, and male dominated. It has to be powerful to survive and win wars.

3. The way in which one can route out abuse is by creating an open and protected system of reporting. Mandatory reporting exists in most countries which use civilised systems of law - apart from England of course - which makes the failure to report abuse witnessed a crime. What better environment exists to suppress the reporting of abuse a crime than the army . They use their own military police to investigate most crimes. To make a report, one presumably has to go through the echelons of power rather than being able to report outside of the army to the police. It is thus easy to contain any corruption internally and at source. Indeed it was not until 1999 that it became possible legally to bring any civil proceedings against the Crown. Prior thereto it was the law that the Crown was immune from any sort of civil suit.

4. The more traditional and inward looking an organisation (the Catholic Church for instance), the less likelihood there is of any abuse being investigated and changes made to prevent it happening in the future. One definitely gets the impression that the Army has all the hallmarks of making the process of investigation and change extremely difficult.

Having done my analysis I feel quite pessimistic that the abuse which exists in the army will be routed out and its culture changed. I fear we have a long hard path to tread, and a long way to go.....

Is there a new wave of abuse compensation claims?

This is the question I was asked by a researcher from BBC Wales who referred me to two articles on the BBC News website. She was wondering if things were changing because of all the publicity, and perhaps that local authorities would not be able to afford claims for massive damages akin to the American system. The answer to the question is simply that because of all the publicity more people are coming forward to the police wanting to prosecute their abusers, and to lawyers, wanting to pursue claims for abuse against either their abuser of his/her employer if appropriate.

The two articles I was referred to were "Lawyers seek US-style damages for abuse at public schools" which is an article sourced by some American Lawyers who have come over from the States, where damages are many times higher in value than in the UK, not just in the field of abuse, but also generally. This is for two reasons:-

1. American Lawyers are paid a percentage of damages - as high as 40% in some cases on what is called a contingency fee basis - now legal in England since April 2013 but in a slightly different form - damage based agreements.
2. Juries often assess damages - their view of how valuable a case is often tops to some degree what a conservative judge might think.

I do agree that United Kingdom damages are too low. When one considers that abuse is a life long period of suffering, then compensation of between £30,000 and £50,000 is to little. It equates to about a nice Starbucks coffee per day. The problem is that the ceiling for damages is scaled down from the most serious injuries, the figure for which is not high enough. The figures are set down by the Judicial Studies Board Guildelines. Even though a 10% increase was announced in April 2013, UK damages dwarf the US.

The other article announced that a group of 10 new claimants had come forward to make claims against Cardiff County Council for abuse committed by an employee called David Leighton Davies who had been convicted for offences at Cyntwell High School in Ely as long ago as 1977. The article made it clear that it was the insurers were responsible for meeting the awards, but still there was a worry that it might affect the finances of a local education authority.

My points were:-

1. The attitude of the police to investigating past incidents of abuse has changed radically due to new guidelines brought out by Keir Starmer, and in response to cases like Jimmy Savile.
2. There is a feeling by the authorities that celebrities were allowed license to abuse young girls in the gaze of those in authority many years ago, and that this should never happen again - hence Operation Yewtree and the many prosecutions of celebrities presently taking place.
3. More disclosures of abuse is a good thing. Victims should not have to keep their secrets hidden for fear that the events were their fault, or that they will not be believed.
4. Disclosure can be painful, but is better out than in. There is an abundance now of support by way of counselling and charitable groups that can assist any individual go through the process.
5. It is now much more acceptable to admit that someone has been abused in childhood, indeed it is commonly on the news almost daily. Most victims remain, however, ashamed and silent. It is understandable. 
6. What we are now witnessing in the media is still the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think we will ever reach the heights of American damages for victims going to the Courts of England and Wales. Victims do, however, deserve more than they get. Let us hope there is no backlash designed to squash genuine claims like there was around 2001 and 2002, when the Home Office launched an enquiry into alleged false allegations of abuse from children's homes - for which see my previous blog.

The Police interview of Jimmy Savile shows what a manipulative paedophile he was

Savile with OBE

When you read the recently released interview by Surrey Police in 2009 of Jimmy Savile with the hindsight we have now, it is almost a textbook exercise in the manipulative powers of the paedophile. At the time, he was Sir Jimmy Savile OBE who gave heaps of cash to charity, and did benedictory work for the disadvantaged with friends in high places and influence with media and politicians alike. So how could anybody possibly believe that throughout his life, he abused under age girls, and boys?

Well, what are the necessary tools which a paedophile needs to hoodwink, groom and then abuse a child?
Fundamentally, child abuse is an opportunity and desire by a sex offender to abuse whatever power he has to entrap a victim.

1. Charm - no child will go off with a dirty old man in a mack.
2. Persuasion - but not in a dominant or bombastic way - with guile and intrigue, possibly some humour.
3. Manipulative - he has to have this in spades. Not only does he manipulate his victim, but also all those around the child who might protect him/her from harm. So how does the manipulation work?

Now let us go back to the Savile interview. How does "Sir" Jimmy manipulate his interviewer at the police force who were interviewing him?

1. Savile had persuaded them not to interview him at the police station, which presumably was in Surrey, but rather on his home turf at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where he was more in control of the situation than he would have been if he had been interviewed at a police station in Surrey. The HMIC said it was wrong to allow Savile to choose where and when his ‘ineffective’ interview took place.
2. He quickly takes over the conversation, in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions by simply making a speech, which was nothing more than a self image boasting rant, designed to convince his interviewers that all the serious allegations of sexual abuse did not amount to anything they should even investigate.
3. His tone is overtly casual, relaxed and fluent, but has an undercurrent of malevolence and threats, which are intended to hint at how much power he has to make life difficult for the police if they misguidedly decided to prosecute him. 
4. He says he has friends in high places not only with the police in Leeds whom he shares his threatening letters. He implies they share his view that these girls are just after some money by making false allegations against him.
5. He refers to the girls as midges who chase him, and  "you can brush them away like midges and it's not much of a price to pay for the lifestyle." What greater image of ultimate power is there than a large human swatting a midge. This just makes him sound more powerful.
6. He refers in the interview to being able to sue newspapers who cross him, or indeed anyone who gets in his way. He even suggests that they police could end up taken by Savile to the Old Bailey if they are not careful.
7. Ironically he emphasises his power, belittles his victims saying they are like flies who buzz around him for attention, whom he can pick and choose at will by virtue of his incredibly powerful celebrity status.
8. In typical paedophile fashion, he blames the victims for lieing and simply being interested in his celebrity status and money, which they need for "Christmas". He says his blackmail and threats do get worse at the season of "goodwill".

If one were to write a textbook on how to be a successful paedophile in complete control of everything around you, to enable you to abuse children at will, then the life of Savile and this police interview are a good but frightening example of how to go about it.

Abuse of power is a very dangerous thing. Countries have been dictated and fallen because of its evil side effects. It is like any quality. In extremis it is frightening.