I received just one reply, along with an offer to meet with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

27 March 2017

Private and Confidential

FAO Fabian Hamilton

147A Easterly Road

Leeds

LS8 2RY

Dear Fabian

Re your offer to assist further.

REDACTED has shown me the letter he received from you, you will not be surprised to hear that you are the only person brave enough to reply. I am very pleased that you are still fully behind me and would still like to see this injustice put right.

In your letter, you offer to help further if required. May I request you support me with the longstanding Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation. They have made it very clear they will only consider whether procedures were correctly followed by the DOH, or not, in the way they handled my case. I have a meeting arranged with them in May and would appreciate it if you could write to them in your capacity as an MP, and as someone who has met me; to support me in three specific areas.

1.      I witnessed Savile with a dead body. What procedures were followed by the NHS/DOH enquiry team to determine that I could not have witnessed this. My point is, they need to prove that information that Savile had access to the morgue and to dead bodies in Leeds General Infirmary, was already in the public domain prior to my providing a police statement in 12 October 2012. If not my story has to be true.

2.      I was asked by the NHS, and by my solicitor, to attend a meeting with their enquiry team which they termed ‘Speaking Out’. I understood and was advised that this was to help the NHS/DOH to better understand how Savile had behaved and to help them to put new procedures in place to prevent such an occurrence happening again. When I arrived, I was surprised my solicitor was not present. I very soon worked out that the meeting was a damage limitation exercise and that I was in fact not there to help them, but for them to determine if my case would stand up in a court, i.e. if they needed to compensate me under any scheme yet to be agreed. I was not advised in advance of the meeting, by anyone, that the meeting was to see if my claims passed a threshold or not. What procedures were in place that permitted the ‘Speaking Out’ team to question vulnerable victims in this way. Had I been made aware that this was the reason for the meeting, I could, should or would have had asked for representation to be present.

3.      To date the Parliamentary Ombudsman has not been able to reach a determination to my submission as the DOH are claiming the information they hold is subject to legal privilege. What procedures could they possibly have in place that could be subject to legal privilege? Items 1 & 2 above are clear examples where procedures were not followed. There are others i.e. the DOH, despite being advised by the police and my solicitor of my confidentiality requirements, wrote to me at my home stating that I was a victim of Savile and asked me to assist their enquiry. In addition, I reported 4 other areas of abuse by Savile – all of which are typical of Savile’s modus operandi as reported many times by the press over the past four years, have they all been given due weight by in their deliberations? I very much doubt it.

Signed

REDACTED

CC Dame Julie Mellor, Parliamentary Ombudsman Service