Ombudson meeting 2
Unfortunately, despite rediscovering the above documents from an old back-up, I do not have the final few documents, however I did attend another meeting with the Ombudsman this time at their London office on 23/05/2017, the notes we took to this meeting for reference said.
Notes for Tuesday
Terms of reference for the Leeds enquiry include
Review past and current complaints and incidents concerning Jimmy Savile’s behaviour at any of the hospitals owned or managed by LTHT and its predecessor bodies including: a where the incident(s) occurred; b who was involved; c what occurred; d whether these incidents were reported at the time and whether they were investigated and appropriate action taken.
Where complaints or incidents were not previously reported, nor investigated, or where no appropriate action was taken, consider the reasons for this, including the part played, if any, by Jimmy Savile’s celebrity or fundraising role within the organisation;
Areas of concern re procedure
1. The team wrote to me at my home address without checking with my solicitors/West Yorks police to see if this was appropriate
2. The team invited me to attend a meeting to listen to my case. Claire Jones wrote I am really pleased that you are prepared to come forward to be interviewed as part of the investigation - every single experience adds a significant amount of value to our investigation. But when I arrived they had already decided from reading my statement that I could not be a victim.
3. I was not warned that I was attending an adversarial meeting, nor that my solicitor would not be present, had I been I would/should have had a witness with me.
4. I was interviewed for approx. 1 hour upon arrival during which Claire Jones and Ray Galloway both attacked my statement calling my account untrue i.e. “you could not have witnessed Savile with a body because hospital procedures were in place to prevent this from happening” and “we find it highly unlikely that someone as famous as Savile would sexually assault/attack a child/children in his car/hospital corridor as these are public places”.
5. Only after the above meeting had concluded did they produce a recorder to start the formal recorded interview, this is evident in the recording because they both refer to what had been spoken off record in the interview.
6. I was offered professional psychiatric care by the team which I accepted, this was never provided. Over a year later I had to go to my GP and wait another year to receive care.
7. My MP Fabian Hamilton listened to my story and is on record that he “believed every word of my statement”, he raised the matter in the house and managed to get Kate Lampard to re investigate how I was interviewed, this investigation took about 3 weeks and when Kate met with Fabian she advised him that my claim had been rejected because I could not have witnessed Savile with a dead body as procedures were in place in the hospital at the time to prevent such an occurrence. This statement was made even though the published reports into Leeds and Stoke had a dozen witness statements in which Savile was seen behaving inappropriately with dead bodies in these hospitals?
8. In the published further investigation into abuse by Jimmy Savile at Leeds General Infirmary 27/12/14 Kate Lampard includes the following in her action plan 2.11 The Trust Quality Committee should commission a specific project on the care, transportation and storage of deceased patients to give wider assurance that the matters raised by Savile’s association with the hospital mortuary could not happen again.
9. My witness testimony re grooming, 2 counts of sexual assault in Savile’s car and one of grievous harm were all dismissed and not considered because the team had decided I could not have witnessed Savile – part of my statement is in their opinion not credible, therefore none of my statement is true?
10. The NHS/DOH and Jeremy Hunt MP all refuse to re consider my status as a victim despite the final published reports contents?
