Past Lives and Present Misgivings – Part Six.

by Anna Raccoon on October 29, 2012

The opening sequence of the Panorama film featuring the alleged sexual abuse of children at Duncroft lingered on a huge and imposing set of Victorian iron gates.  Half open, they conjured up an image of a peek inside a forbidden and forbidding world. A world where children were routinely abused in a manner which our intrepid reporters were about to reveal…it was shades of Haute de la Garenne and a dozen Hammer horror films. It was an emotive image.

It has stuck in my mind for no other reason than that, once again, I had no memory of those gates. For once I have no criticism of the film crew, it was a good shot and set the scene for what was to follow. I have no criticism here of the Panorama research team – their idea of attention to detail is not the same as mine, I accept that. Still, I couldn’t get those gates out of my mind. Was it possible that this was another entrance, one I had never seen. We mustn’t forget that Duncroft was then was a locked facility – we weren’t wandering round the grounds, far from it. I went to the trouble of tracking down the builder who converted Duncroft into luxury flats in the 1990s, flats which today sell for in the region of half a million pounds – to residents who must be utterly thrilled with their new found notoriety. He was kind enough to check his records this monring, and sadly, it was 20 years ago, and they no longer are able to confirm where those gates came from.

It is an utterly irrelevant detail to the vast story of Savile’s undoubted predilection for underage girls. But my focus has never been on ‘immature and ageing pop star prefers to have sex with immature and unquestioning girls’ – that is a story as old as the hills and one that will no doubt continue. It is illegal, it is utterly wrong, but the present media fest won’t stop it. No, my focus was always on the question of whether the original story which focussed heavily on Duncroft was wrongly prevented from appearing – or not. Heads have already rolled over the question of why it wasn’t transmitted, millions (our millions!) will now be spent on public inquiries trying to answer that question, and inevitably, many people who appear to be disconnected to the story – those apartment residents for a start – will be made to pay a price for the decision which made Merion Jones throw his toys out of his pram and allege that there was a concerted cover-up of Jimmy Savile’s reputation and that ‘his story’ was rock solid.

The truth of that orignal story matters more than ever, so forgive me as I pick at every stich in it.

I have already demolished Bebe Roberts account of how ‘girls were hiding terrified behind doors’ as Savile rampaged round the building seeking fresh victims….. unfortunately Bebe was 23 by the time Savile visited Duncroft, and had left the school by some 9 years, so her account of being molested by him aged 14 was, er, total nonsense. Does that matter? Surely there are always going to be some who come forward in the wake of such a witch-hunt as this who are going to make false allegations. Yes, it does matter, if for no other reason than that Bebe, poor fool, must now go through the rest of her life having been publicly labelled a liar, having proudly produced her photographs to make sure that all her neighbours recognised her…she is a victim of all this too, though your immediate sympathy may not lie with her. She will go in the same box along with John Gibbon of Redcar who also proudly produced photographs of himself standing in front of Savile’s car and gave a vivid account of how he ‘was lured’ into the back of Savile’s car, and assaulted. He ‘grabbed the door handle and lept out’…I have lost count of how many car dealers have now come forward to complain that the photograph clearly illustrates a 1977 Rolls Royce Corniche which has a padded parcel seat in the back and two front seats which must be folded down to get into and out of the back – and no rear doors to grab a handle of…he’s another one who will be trotted out in defence, to prove that you can never trust allegations of pedophilia. And this helps genuine victims how? The media have a lot to answer for when it comes to helping genuine victims.

What of Karin Ward? I have taken a lot of schtick over the past few days for daring to question any part of her story. Or indeed, that of Bebe’s initially. It seems that if you were a resident of Duncroft who claims to have been abused you must be believed, protected, defended. If you were a resident of Duncroft who was not claiming to be abused – then you can only be ‘muddying the waters’, or ‘have an agenda to prevent the truth being known’ – because such is the power of the media, that ‘everyone knows the truth’. If only. There is only one story in town.

I had some evidence of this before I started, I detailed my initial attempts to talk to some in the media. ‘Commercial suicide’ and Career suicide’ were phrases said to me by two top flight investigative journalists when I attempted to point out where the evidence could be found that would disprove some of what was being put around. They didn’t care to open that box…

Since then, I have been approached by The Times:

I’ve just been reading your posts, Past Lives and Present Misgivings. Very moving and interesting, and naturally enough I’m very intrigued by what will be in the next chapter. . .

It makes me wonder whether I could have a chat with you about the possibility of you writing of your Duncroft experience for the opinion pages of The Times. What do you think?

Mr G is framing that one for me as we speak…needless to say, when they saw from the next chapter that I wasn’t abused by Jimmy Savile – they lost interest. Ditto, Radio 4 who wanted to fly a journalist over to France hot foot before I revealed what happened when Jimmy Savile visited the school, a scoop for them, er, lost interest when they discovered I was not claiming to have been abused! I am not alone getting in this reaction, far from it, for I have finally this morning tracked down, shall we say, an elderly member of staff from those Duncroft years. We chatted for hours on the phone. I am not going to reveal who she is, for very good reason. She is waiting patiently to make a statement to the Police. And that is going to put the cat firmly amongst the pigeons.

She has no interest in speaking to the media, not because she is old, or infirm, or uncooperative – but because the media have already had ample opportunity to speak to her.  The Daily Mail, the Sunday Telegraph, the Independent were among those whose names she remembered from the days when, after some ‘helpful person’ had fed her address to the press, she found herself besieged by so many journalists and camera crews that she was unable to leave her home, nor were her neighbours; finally this elderly woman was forced to vacate her home and stay with friends. Nothing wrong with that you say, it is right that those in a position to throw light on this matter should be rigorously questioned by the media. I would agree – had any of the media been interested in what she had to say. Had even one of them quoted her. But you see, she didn’t make the girl’s story stand up either, in fact what she had to say was in direct – and provable – opposition to some of the claims – and they didn’t want to know! There was only one story in town.

I didn’t think I could still be shocked by the British media. I can. Here was someone who had direct and in many cases, documentary evidence, that the media were chasing a stuffed rabbit rather than a hare, and they just looked the other way. Her testimony will be damning. And damaging.

Damaging because more people will be proven to be liars. Just because they were blinded by the lure of five minutes of fame. They will have to live with that, and it saddens me; already damaged lives will be further damaged. Some will say – ‘serves them right’ – but I don’t hold with that view. I would rather say, it serves all of us right. We have the media we pay for every time we buy a newspaper or pay our television licence. We encouraged them to make a living out of feeding us pap – and they obliged.

The media, quite rightly, consider Jimmy Savile to be their own creation, as was Garry Glitter; now they delight in taking him down. Despite my knowledge of specific allegations being false, I think on balance, that I accept he was a man of many sexual preferences – mostly illegal. There are too many allegations now to think that they can all be without foundation.

Karin Ward undoubtedly met him, as a 14 year old at her children’s home in Norfolk, and possibly again when he visited Duncroft in ’74. She was certainly in a party of heavilysupervised children (these were mainly children who had been locked up to prevent them from running away!) from Duncroft which visited  the set of Clunk-Click, not the dressing rooms, not Top of the Pops at all. She was 16 on March 25th 1974. The media persist in saying she was 14 when on Clunk-Click. The first episode which she attended was the one featuring Olivia Newton-John – can anybody tell me the date of that? She was quite possibly one of a small number of children who were allowed in groups of three to take ‘a short trip round the block’ with a member of staff in the vehicle in Savile’s Rolls Royce as a special treat.

It remains entirely possible that she met up with Savile again after leaving Duncroft.

There have been many people working in the background of this story. Somebody forged the letter that Fiona produced saying the investigation into Savile was being dropped due to his age. Somebody, I am alarmed to tell you, set up a Facebook entity in the name of a former member of staff encouraging former residents to tell them their story. How many children – now adult – felt safe communicating with what they thought was a trusted member of staff? It took a high level call to a Director of Facebook before that entity was taken down – it has never been established who set it up. Certainly not that member of staff. The entire Facebook group which had been urging girls to come forward with tales of abuse was taken down just before the broadcast of the story. I am not alone in having received threats for having ‘dissed’ the tale of ‘institutional child abuse over a number of years’. Someone in the background has had a keen and determined interest in building this story.

Why were the Home Office records of girls who had been sent there by the justice system, handed to Barnardos, a private charity? Why were later records, of girls who were sent there under the auspices of the mental health regime, handed to Barnardos, a private charity? Why are they still listed as safely in the possession of the National Archive? Who has seen them?

Savile did spend one night on the premises. He was opening a fete in the area the next day. It can’t have been pleasant for him. He was billeted in a spare room in the newly built staff quarters, not the cosy headmistress’s flat – the other side of the secure unit which had been built by MIND by that time to house girls whose behaviour was considered exceptionally challenging. The corridors leading to and fro that area were permanently locked – not to protect the girls, but to protect the staff sleeping there, and that included Savile who would surely not have got a minutes sleep that night, when you think about it, if all those girls had been able to access him during the night – I must admit, so great were the allegations that he might have had access to the girls that I had never considered his fate had the girls had access to him!

Miss Jones did indeed stay on to 1974ish. The answer should have been obvious to me – I had always believed that she left when it ceased to be an approved school and became a secure unit for girls with far more profound mental health issues. Of course, the nature of the school might have changed overnight with one fell swoop of the bureaucratic pen, but her dedication to her experiment didn’t. There were still girls there in the old part, finishing out their allotted time in her charge as determined by the courts, and so she remained – until the last of her charges had gone their way into the world. Typical.

MIND built her a house in the grounds, Duncroft was no longer the comparatively cosy environment it had been, where she could sleep in a room next to her girls. Her sister did visit her there; she brought her young son, 7/ 8 years old with her.

Little Meirion, getting his first peep – from a distance – of the place that he was to turn into the ‘story that any journalist would want’.

Of such slim pickings is a media storm created.

* I have now amassed a body of documentary evidence. I am not handing it to the media either. It is going straight to the Police, and I remain ready to make a statement as do several other people.

Share this:

Tagged as: Child Abuse, Duncroft, Jimmy Savile, Margaret Jones

Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renowned for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment’s notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining – and it doesn’t rain very often round here – or when it is a blistering 40 degrees and she’s feeling bad tempered.


 Edward Quentin Waliser December 8, 2012 at 13:11

May I thank you for your Blog, I have been trolling around the sea and got lost in the foam of the virulent MSM!

Although your memories do not change the fact that something is going on with the Savile PSYOPS, your personal experiences eliminate one area wherein you were esconced years ago and makes one wonder what is really happening?

There are many civilian investigators of paedophilia one comes across and one I cannot remember dealt with the Isle of Man, and, like most, tie such back to the Royal Family + people in high places, as do many comments re Savile infers.

If this is true it’s possible Savile has been thrown to the wolves to get the legal age reduced in UK to 13 yoa giving such paedophiles some immunity? Just a thought. This would tie in with comments already made herein with earlier puberty, perhaps.

However, Savile’s themetune: leaves me in no doubt the BBC allowed such obvious perversion to continue when his audience consisted of under-aged children.

To translate with pretty obvious interpretation:

Edited by Anna: I’ll let my commentators make their own mind up about that youtube piece thank-you Edward, no need for your translation.

 Jerzy Pullova November 2, 2012 at 00:25

Personally I’m more interested in how Savile became the Caligula of Broadmoor . . .

 belinus November 1, 2012 at 12:34

I have just listened to an interview with a New Zealander who claims to be connected to intelligence, he said that the secret societies compromise upcoming people in all walks of life to paedophile acts which are then photographed and or video made.

That it is these compromised people who are then almost immediately promoted to a position in all walks of life, specifically the Judiciary.

he said the current Judiciaries of the western world are basically huge paedophile networks, full of compromised people who will act according to the dictate of the secret societies.

He says because paedophilia holds the most shame it is therefore the greatest means to control of our civil systems by the shadow power base, the secret societies

If this is the case then the only way for the people to get anywere in removing the shadow networks would be to offer full and complete forgivness and amnesty for all those trapped in this manner who came forward and spilled the beans.

Not only that, but if this is the case, then each time we have an episode like JS exposed, it furthers the grip by the shadow networks over those compromised, to continues the silence, and more importantly, a continuation of the implementation of the secret society agenda.

 Ho Hum October 31, 2012 at 23:35

Far be it from me to wish to derail the Savile discussuion, but really, Belinus…. ‘If this country ceases to act within the protection of the constitution’?

The UK does not have a constitution, in the conventional use of that term, to be usurped by anyone or anything. Those whotsits in Parliament can do whatever they like. The only backstop we plebs have at all, and for which we should be grateful, is the European Court of Human Rights which, in its upholding of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides us with the closest thing we have to any fixed rights at all.

I agree that fascism, as truly defined, is a real issue. In short, the most dangerous ones we have today are probably those to be found being bummed up in, and by, the Daily Heil and similar parts of the media, for the insuffereable delectation and diversion of the idiotic masses.

As for the rest, well, taking as an example, ‘History has shown me that the history of these Isles has been one of the destruction of the White Goddess, the heaven influenced spirtit that encompassed the matriarchal system, whose last bastion in Britain was the land of the Brigantes. She would move through Constantine to Rome and would become the doctrines of the early Church in Rome. She would come back to these Isles in her true form, not to Iona, but to Northumberland with Oswald’; I do hope that if you are using any sort of medication, it is of the legal variety.

 Ho Hum October 31, 2012 at 23:38

Sorry about the misplacement. I don’t comment on these things too often

That was meant to be a response to Belinus @ 22.36

 belinus November 1, 2012 at 00:07

So we are agreed, we either choose the British realm or the corporate UK realm…

Not big on medication but I am partial to what history throws up…I am of course still learning….

And who knows, I might end up believing, as I percieve you do, in the fact all mankind up to the the release of Theosophy, were superstitious idiots, a foundation upon which a great nation was born, I leave it to you to decide which nation that would be…

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 20:23

Harking back to the post from someone who wanted to know if the red-head in the photo with Savile, now removed from the internet, was Fiona. No. Another girl entirely.

 lleweton October 31, 2012 at 17:26

Congratulations on this series. Your integrity and love of truth shine throughout it. And it has the ring of truth. As a now long retired news agency journalist I think it is the epitome of what good journalism should be.

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 16:56

So what is Teach First?

 Tatty October 31, 2012 at 13:43

Almost speechless. THIS…all 6 posts to date of it…illustrates the honesty, integrity and hunger for Truth of a Liverpudlian soul.

Please accept from a “plastic scouser” a “Very well done, Our Kid ”

 Brandon October 31, 2012 at 11:52

I see one of your former house guests has found a new political stamping ground:

Dr Kapur said immigration from Eastern Europe was a concern in the constituency. “How I would sort this out is a little bit more complicated but I would do my best.”

Good that he’s making a fist of explaining his policies to his would-be constituents then!

 Peter Principle October 31, 2012 at 11:50

Have noticed that a number of media outlets are reporting an interview with a former nightwatchman at Leeds infirmary who states he recalls a number of occassions when Savile took “teenage” girls into his private quarters during the night.This is being presented as evidence of further sexual abuse on young girls be Savile.

Now I’m no way condoning sexual abuse but what is noticible by its absence in these reports ( apart from what actually happened once inside, but lets accept for the sake of argument..) is any evidence that any of these “teenagers ” were under the age of 16 since “teenager” can apply to anyone in the 16 to 19 age group and unless they were forced against their will, and again no evidence is presented that they were, any sexual contact that took place is perfectly legal.

Again this is sloppy reporting more akin to a hystetical witchunt than an active search for the truth.

 Brandon October 31, 2012 at 13:22

Locate the posts from Twiggster on the thread below, posted shortly after Savile’s death – don’t get much sense that his activities here involved consent by the other parties…

 Peter Principle October 31, 2012 at 14:42

My point is not to excuse Savile but to point out that not every instance involving him and females would necessarily have involved sexual abuse. For that to be established in each instance we need evidence. The story doing the rounds today contains no such evidence yet is being touted as such.

This is at best sloppy reporting or at worst a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters by creating a narrative of “trivial” reports with the result that genuine cases do not get the attention they deserve. In my opinion it is likely that saviles relationships for want of a better word comprised of both wanted and unwanted advances. It is the unwanted ones which merit investigation on the basis that there is actual credible evidence of this occuring. Failure to do this leads to massive fishing expiditions which waste valuable investgative time and resources.

 Peter Principle October 31, 2012 at 23:28

Looks like the Media have busted their own story.

 Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 14:38

Huge story there. For the BBC it looks like curtains. The Mail has a BBC governor saying parts of the BBC itself could not be trusted.

Nothing to do with proofs about Savile any longer: that he was “creepy” is enough to make this this governor feels self-satisfied enough to make him want the world to know. The story is moving on and the newspapers have their real quarry at ground now. The BBC has not lifted a finger in its own defence. Best to give it a bullet and end the suffering.

Nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of the Duncroft background.

 Brandon October 31, 2012 at 11:38

Thinking about how Savile was allowed anywhere near the pupils at Duncroft by Ms Jones or anyone else for that matter… sometimes smart and intelligent people make very poor judgement calls… I’ve just been reading your account of allowing first Kapur and then Withers to stay at your house. Ouch!

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 10:31

Teach First is a national charity, independently governed and run.


HRH The Prince of Wales

Founding Ambassadors

Stephen O’Brien CBE

Sir George Iacobescu CBE

Ralph Tabberer

Dame Mary Richardson

Dr. John Dunford

Lord Andrew Adonis

Jo Owen

Rona Kiley

Prof. Sonia Blandford

John May

Board of Trustees

Dame Julia Cleverdon DCVO CBE, Chair

John Rink, Deputy Chair

Lord Andrew Adonis

Glenn Earle

Lou McCrimlisk

Mary Meaney

Vanessa Ogden

Jo Owen

Tom Ravenscroft (‘07 Ambassador)

Sarah Shillingford

Clare Darley

 Ct October 31, 2012 at 10:26

“I was there and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen”

What you mean and it is all anyone can conclusively state is, “I was there and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen to me!”

 Matthew Smith October 31, 2012 at 10:07

When I first heard this story, one of my first impressions was that the claim that Savile was untouchable during his lifetime was nonsense. In the last 20 years of his life he was a has-been (except on the occasions he popped up doing charity runs or interviewing with Theroux – which is basically the mark of a weirdo anyway), and during that time quite a number of men, including innocent men, were jailed for sexually abusing boys (and girls) in care homes and other institutions, often on very flimsy evidence obtained by the police by going to former residents and telling them that their former school or home-mates had made an accusation and did they want to add to it, as they might be able to get some compo for doing so. Richard Webster and Paul Woffinden did an exposé of this in the Guardian in 1998. The evidence required for a historical case of child abuse was much lower than what was needed to convict a man of a recent rape. If any of this was true, it could easily have been exposed any time in the past 20 years.

Also, nobody seems to have asked if any of the ex Duncroft girls making accusations are of current good character. I was at a special school for “disturbed” boys (Kesgrave Hall in Suffolk — also ostensibly for the academically able, in this case boys, and not a locked facility — we were referred by LEAs, not the courts) and while there are those who have gone on to make something of themselves, it has also produced drunks and criminals. I wouldn’t readily believe claims made by my old school “mates”, although in this case I was there and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen — I don’t know that about Duncroft or any other school.

 Jonathan Mason October 31, 2012 at 14:36

I have thought this myself (my own experience of working with juveniles having been in Florida). Although some children survive the juvenile system and put their poor start in life behind them, it is also true that adult prisons are full of graduates from the juvenile system. In the case of Duncroft, serving a population of girls of exceptionally high intelligence would suggest that there would have been a higher proportion who had gone on to lead successful or useful lives, it would be very unwise to assume that all did.

That is why I am not so sure that Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor who canned the Duncroft feature, might not have had good journalistic reasons to hold back on that feature, that might have had nothing to do with the Savile tributes, as he would have had plenty of opportunity to assess the character and credibility of the women complaining, including, no doubt, recorded material that was not planned to be broadcast.

 Ct October 31, 2012 at 09:18

i don’t understand why the confusion here? From what I have read is the model of car had only two doors. Allegedly JS showed the young lad the interior of the car with them both sat on the back seat. It therefore seems most likely that the front seats would be left in a forward position still as just showing the interior and not being chauffeured JS would have to let himself out. If the front seats are forward and the boy was desperate to escape it makes perfect sense that he would scramble forward to reach for the front door to try and escape by the only exit. It seems to me you have a bias to discredit it.

 Peter Raite October 31, 2012 at 12:49

Except his account is conspicuously lacking those details. We hear about the (alleged) drinks cabinet, electric windows, the seats they were supposedly actually sitting on etc., but not having to negotiate an exit via the front doors from the back.

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 31, 2012 at 13:29


The Mirror reported….

“The car had smoked glass windows and a privacy screen. He showed me a compartment with brandy and whisky and crystal glasses. The seats were red leather. I was gobsmacked to be in a Rolls-Royce with Jimmy. But he stank of cigars and alcohol.”

Privacy screen? Red leather seats? Stank of alcohol?

The privacy screen was not in use and passers-by could freely look in?

Do the seats look red or cream in various photos?

It was reportedly teetotal until 1998 when he began a liking for Whiskey after buying his Glencoe cottage.

The local papers would most likely have covered the event and could confirm time and place also Jack Barclay might have details of cars sold to Jimmy Savile.

 Peter Raite October 31, 2012 at 13:51

Quite. Those details could apply to any number of Rolls Royces, but clearly not the Corniche, quite apart from the fact that a privacy screen is usually a sound-proof glass partition between the driver and the back-seat passengers – it prevents being overheard by the “staff,” not restrict view from the outside in. Even accounting for the fact that the front windscreen couldn’t be smoked, anyway, it doesn’t look like the rear window is, either.

On the other hand, if someone were asked to speculate what sort of vehicle they would expect a celebrity like JS would have….

 Essex October 31, 2012 at 15:23

The simple fact is the oldest that car can be is a 1977 model, I’ll even mention the fact it could also be a 1979, 1980, 1981 etc.

Any car expert worth their salt will know just by this photo, it is glaringly obvious if you know what to look for.…2B2-727926.jpg

Also note in the photo JS has a Jim’ll fix it logo on his tracksuit, which aired between 1975 and 1994 Some might say JS had the car for a few years, he might well have had it for a few years after 1977

Lets dispel the privacy screen myth and why Mr Redcar man invented it, everyone walking past that car would have been ogling it, particularly because of the owner. Also if the imaginary privacy screen miraculously did exist, how did he reach the front door handle, wouldn’t he have been trapped in the back? I can’t be bothered to even wonder how this screen could possibly be attached, perhaps it was a concertina type that appears out of the floor with super duper fixings on the soft top roof to secure it.

By way of a comparison this is a video of a 1974 model, this has grids under the lights. Also has the English dealers name Jack Barclay name.

After watching please could someone explain where a privacy screen would fit, because if one can I’ll be a Monkeys Uncle.

Please don’t point me to the English classic car vid from the Netherlands on utube the guy has clearly cocked up with the date of the car.

 Essex October 31, 2012 at 15:50

Sorry my link went dopey in the first paragraph

this is the correct link.

 Alan October 31, 2012 at 17:51

The Phab charity logo under the Jim’ll Fix It one would date the picture to late 1981 at the earliest. Phab Limited was incorporated in November 1981 and became a registered charity in January 1982. When Savile got the car is another matter.

 Robb October 31, 2012 at 18:38

Hi Essex — It occurs to me that the best organisation to get an authoritative statement from may be the Rolls Royce Enthusiasts Club.

“The Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts’ Club (RREC) caters for anyone with an interest in the motor car products of Rolls-Royce, including Bentley cars built from 1933 onwards. From just 11 people at the inaugural meeting in 1957, membership now stands at 10000 and the Club celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in style in 2007. Membership is open to owners and non-owners alike and members are drawn from all walks of life and from most countries of the world.”

Not many Rolls were made–on the scale of things. I bet someone has a bio of every one! Not least Saville’s since he was famous. Enthusiasts’ club like to keep track of such things.

 Woman on a Raft November 1, 2012 at 11:03

A great deal depends on whether an RR Corniche convertible with that ugly solid bumper could have existed in 1972. Something only a dealer such as Jack Barclay or the Owners Club could settle, I suppose. Meantime, here is a video of a white 1972 RR convertible which has the required ugly mug. Either: that bumper could have existed in 1972, or the cataloguing at the show is mistaken, which is possible. I’ve no idea which.

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 19:54

I don’t think Savile drank, did he?

 Essex November 1, 2012 at 05:36

I’m replying to you Mewsical because I can’t reply Robb.

This is why I made such a big point about the privacy screen in the Rolls Royce

This is what Mr Redcar Man stated……


“He was wearing a silky red tracksuit and white trainers. He asked if I’d like to look inside the car. I said ‘Yes please’ and we got in the back,” said John.

“I said ‘Why the back?’ He said he wanted to show me the luxuries inside. The car had smoked glass windows and a privacy screen. He showed me a compartment with brandy and whisky and crystal glasses. The seats were red leather. I was gobsmacked to be in a Rolls-Royce with Jimmy. But he stank of cigars and alcohol.

Then John claims Savile suddenly leaned over, put his hands inside his tracksuit bottoms and fondled him.

“I just froze. I couldn’t speak,” said John. “When I grabbed the door handle and jumped out he didn’t say anything. I found my mum in the restaurant and I felt safe. I saw Savile about 10 minutes later just walking around the place.

As Rocky Raccoon noticed as well a few posts back about the interior of the car.

The bloke from Redcars next exclusive, after I was molested by JS in 1972 I was so traumatised I had to go home and play my Sony Playstation in my time machine.

 Alan October 31, 2012 at 23:21

The blue Rolls Royce strikes again!

‘Abused’ child poses next to Jimmy Savile’s Rolls-Royce in chilling picture released by lawyers as they appeal for information over attack by late TV star

The same picture of a boy stood near Savile’s blue Rolls Royce Corniche has been used to illustrate a different complaint of abuse – the original being the boy getting molested in Portsmouth in the back of the car in 1972 at the age of 9 despite the car very likely not existing until 1977 at the earliest and the new one being the same boy in the picture being, at the same location but instead of being abused in the vehicle he was abused by Savile on Southsea common.

 Essex November 1, 2012 at 00:33

And the original story posted 06/10/12 No flies on the Daily Mirror

Daily Mirror 31/10/12

No flies on the Daily Mirror. Case of the left hand not knowing what the right hands doing.

 Robb November 1, 2012 at 02:34

Hi Essex — Anna’s original link for Gibbin was to the Northern Echo 10th October 2012.

It is clear now this is largely a rewrite of the Mirror 6th October, while getting a couple of facts wrong:

“John Gibbin, of Redcar, also said he reported the matter to the Metropolitan Police in the 1980s – but officers did not even call him back. The 49-year-old said he was at a charity track and field event in Southend, Hants, in 1972, which was being hosted by Savile, when he was lured into the presenter’s car and assaulted. Cleveland Police last night confirmed they had received a complaint relating to “a historic allegation of sexual assault”.

First, ‘Southend, Hants’ which doesn’t exist. Southsea does. Then it muddles this (from the Mirror):

“After hiding his ordeal for 40 years, John walked into his local police station in Redcar, Cleveland, on Friday and filed his complaint against Savile. In 1980 my GP referred me for ­counselling. I told them I’d been sexually abused. I just didn’t say who by. I’m so glad this has come out now…“I never thought about going to ­police because I thought no one would ­believe me.””

Providing the Mirror accurately reported its interview with Gibbin, and the NE didn’t re-interview him and was given a different story. Which seems unlikely, given the poverty of provincial papers.

Now as you point out, a new Mirror report with the same pic–but minus Gibbin’s name (now all lawyered up)–and fewer details. Which by now, here, have largely been shredded. If not quite definitively yet. This is the new bottom line, from Gibbin’s lawyer:

“Once we have established those details we can then see whether the victim has a case which we can pursue against Jimmy Savile’s estate.”

Money, as ever.

 Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 03:14

Yes, Robb. Follow the money, or even the expectation of it.

I seem to recall Savile on the tele years back explaining (gloating) how he had bought a tanker-full (road tanker) of petrol. 3000 gallons of it. And buried it as a hedge against price increases. I wonder if he ever got around to tapping it (or taking some kiddie to sniff it) and is it still underground? Must be worth a search I would think.

 Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 03:15

Maybe Belinus has sniffed it.

 Peter Raite November 1, 2012 at 08:54

Anyone spouting FOTL nonsense must under the influence of something!

 Dai Brainbocs November 1, 2012 at 07:43

Did GPs refer people who had been abused for counselling in 1980? My impression is that this is a more recent likely course of action. Happy to be corrected.

 DJ October 31, 2012 at 06:06

PS just want to make clear on re-reading my post, JS if he did what he did, is just as guilty even if the girls were drawn to him, not trying to defend JS just saying what he was doing was on a different level altogether than Rochdale.

 Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 09:29

I think the reason the “Rochdale” case didn’t stay on the media is because it is an open and shut story. It was sub-judice beforehand. After the verdict, where is the story after case and sentence is reported? I certainly don’t want to read any more about the vile things those men were doing. There was a question about the supervision of the girls homes, but the press hounding the social workers, who are no doubt doing their best, wouldn’t help much either.

One reason why the Savile story has such legs is that there can be no sub-judice because there will never be a trial, and as Meirion pointed out, there can be no libel case. Another reason for the hugeness of it is because Savile is a dead famous celebrity, in every sense of the words, and the great British public are celebrity-obsessed.

The issue here is that the damning charges that lie behind the Savile case, which relate to Duncroft girls, look wobbly. There is relatively little known about the other 300 lines of inquiry – probably because they are sub-judice. A couple that have slipped out such as the Redcar story, seem doubtful. We do know that two men who are alive and have been named by the press as being in cahoots with Savile are still at liberty, despite both of them having been *outed* by the same Duncroft-based allegations. This suggests the evidence is not substantiated, because otherwise they would presumably now both be on remand. Only one of them has even been taken in for questioning.

The Telegraph story complaining the police did not interview Miss Jones in 2007 suggests the papers will shift “blame” from the BBC onto the police at the slightest opportunity. The police have been kicked from pillar to post in the UK over the last few years. I think there is a clear danger that they will want to offer Jimmy’s head on a plate to appease the mob. What good are more lies to the victims of genuine child abuse?

 Anna Raccoon October 31, 2012 at 09:47

Very astute of you Moor!

 ivan October 31, 2012 at 10:36

Moor, the hounding of the social workers and their bosses is essential, or do you blindly accept the official line that ‘lessons will be learned’? Lessons haveNOT been learned in the past so why should they be now?

Until there is a massive shake up of the SS in this country there will be the continuation of the things we are seeing today.

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 10:57

It is not social services in a mess it is the charitable trusts acting as outsource providers, see MIND 1974 and the entrance of JS to Duncroft, the very empire now being pushed as the saviour of SS.

They have almost completed this agenda in education under the Academies.

 Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 10:58


I accept nothing and question everything. I am no believer in the Nanny State and I despair of people’s unwillingness to look after their own children properly, not to mention their aged parents.

I don’t believe the “State” will ever look after children (or anyone else) properly, but am very convinced that individuals, like Miss Jones could do so, and did do so, and now even that fact is being trashed in the stampede to convict a dead celebrity and absolve everyone from their own individual responsibilities in this matter by creating a mythical “Paedo-Monster”.

Sorry I have no universal solution to agree with you, but you, and the world have my very best wishes.

 ivan October 31, 2012 at 12:52


I was born before the ‘STATE’, as it is today, came into being and constantly wonder exactly what said ‘state’ is trying to do or become. I can only assume this lot have never read history or have convinced themselves that they are better or more prepared than all the other ‘states’ that have vanished in the mists of time.

The only real solution is to remove the ‘state’ from peoples lives and control over anything.

 dj October 31, 2012 at 21:39

It’s not just SS, it’s the police (one of which was a user of a 14y/o girl), the whole stinking system. SS characterised these girls as “prostitutes” – basically exactly the same way the abusers thought of them. We hear all this “we need a root and branch review of the BBC, celebrity etc” following the JS affair, but no “mega-review” of SS and the police following Rochdale. The sentances these guys got were pathetic, expecially considering these crimes were racially motivated (I can’t see a distinction personally, the the law says if anything is racially motivated it’s something like double the sentance – no expert – happy to be corrected) Some got 3 years, out on tag in 18 months for sexually abusing a 13 year old girl who has been bullied by violence into being a prostitute. The media, gave a couple of days focus on this, and now have moved swiftly on to obsessive coverage of JS.

The people who gave us the utter shithole which now is the United Kingdom have seen their multiculti policies fail, and are desparate to keep repeating the lie while protecting illiterate savaged targeting our forgotten, uncared for youth, itself a product of exactly the same people, who also have removed child rearing to be a state activity and encouraging irresponsible parenting at every turn.

I am convinced, as are you Ivan, that this is yet another media manipulation.

 Peter Raite November 1, 2012 at 08:33

Anyone using the term “multiculti” certainly makes their true motivations clear….

 dj November 1, 2012 at 17:31

That’s right, I am yet another right wing extremist.


 DJ October 31, 2012 at 06:02

Does anyone remember Chris Morris’ “Brass Eye – Paedogeddon” episode from 2001? A record number of complaints, all by those who have no perception of satire or irony.

Now, it’s even more relevant even 11 years on.

My view, first and foremost on this issue, is that this is being “promoted” to cover over the Rochdale scandal – let’s not forget, that is an issue which might affect anyone with a young impressionable daughter today – whereas Jimmy Saville cannot abuse from the grave.

This will be a wee bit controversial, but surely a pop star, adored by his legions of fans, would have had many teenage girls who wouldn’t have objected to his interest? This is in stark contrast to the poor care home girls in Rochdale, who were pimped to have sex with hundreds of men, and receiving beatings for non compliance, and was covered up by the authorities. That, should have been the focus for the previous 4 weeks, not this non-story

 ivan October 31, 2012 at 10:28

DJ, you are saying exactly what I have been saying.

I have sent comments to that effect to the Mail on the various stories they have run – most of them are stories without facts – and every time I have been censored – nothing that disputes the official cover up is ever printed.

 dj October 31, 2012 at 21:24

Wow, you seem to be finding the nerve. Keep waggling the knife around, censorship in itself can tell the greatest story…..

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 02:03

And the role of the media in all this from the 1960s onwards ?

In true form (and one reason why I am glad to be out of the sordid business of British tabloids) Britiain’s tabloid media (including TV) has written itself out of the story and avoided mention of it’s own complicity in promoting a culture of wink wink, grope grope, type of sauciness and that includes actively promoting Jimmy Savile (and I have no idea if he was guilty or not) which encouraged the very activities that Savile is accused of.

At the very least they turned a blind eye and this is confirmed by an ex-Sun editor who proclaims he knew all about Savile but could never expose him because he was powerful and rich.

That doesn’t explain then why The Sun and that same editor and all other tabloids promoted Savile’s charity runs and fundraising and so on.

 Elena ‘andcart October 31, 2012 at 00:43

Am I the only person who is seriously upset by this all? And way beyond any thing that Jimmy Savile might or might not have done. Families that allowed their underage daughters to wander the streets late at night and to put themselves at risk. And have we thought that the dissolution began last week, or even last year? Are we a society who has just locked up a man for thinking that some silly girl who went willingly, is entirely to blame? Are we the society who gives birth control injections to thirteen year old children and then blames some man for taking what is willingly given? Are we the society that wants to decimate a dead man because he appears to have groped a few silly girls who wanted to be groped? Only 300? Oh My. he certainly missed out there. Thousands of them were throwing themselves at him. And if all they can come up with is 300 then this might be a measure of his restraint, and the pathetically small number of the bums he groped.

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 01:00

I’ve been seriously upset since I first found out what game was afoot. I am more than seriously upset at the role that liars are playing in this, who attended the same school I did. So is Anna, and so are at least three other Duncroft women from the 60s. You probably noticed that.

Besides Jimmy and his perhaps willing partners, the picture is much broader though. When should the real age of consent occur? Spain has it at 13. Some states in the US allow marriages of 14 year olds. I am ancient enough to remember Jerry Lee Lewis being asked to leave England because he had just married his 14 year old cousin, completely legally under the laws governing the state of Louisiana.

 Elena ‘andcart October 31, 2012 at 01:36

I don’t think that the age of consent matters all that much. If The State is pumping birth control injections into girls of thirteen then that is the age of consent. Argue me that one. I could make minced meat out of anyone who said otherwise. “Xcuse me, Your Honour, this child has been given birth control by The State. What did The State think she was going to do with that when it wasn’t at home? Or was it just for a laugh in passing?

So, these same girls were either getting the same advice thirty years ago, or Mr. Savile somehow failed to impregnate any of them. Very strange that he doesn’t seem to have loads of illegitimate children.

Lies? I don’t know, Love. I only ever wanted Proof.

 Jonathan Mason October 31, 2012 at 02:45

Of course the age of consent is relevant, because that is what the law states, and girls of less than 16 are not deemed legally capable of giving consent.

Yes, it is certainly known that delinquent girls have been prescribed the pill when underage for their own protection ever since the pill was first available, and now it is Depot Provera injections that are more commonly used. This makes sense when it is known that the girls are prostituting for money or drugs, for example, and that they are out of control, but that does not mean that any man who has sex with them is exempt from legal liability for HIS actions, and when the man is a great deal older, he tends to be held more responsible. Suppose the man passes on HIV or some other venereal disease–is he less liable to be charged with rape just because the girl is on birth control pills? Absolutely not.

 Elena ‘andcart October 31, 2012 at 03:18

And what might you say about a girl that looks to be at least sixteen? It is the age of consent that is wrong. And No, I do not approve, simply because I believe that it is harmful in the long term. But her Mother should be telling her that. And I’ll tell you what, old and cynical as I am, I would not blame any man for taking what is thrown at him. It is the nature of The Human Race. What the hell do you think Sex is all about? Sex doesn’t have principle. It’s there to procreate, and it doesn’t much care about how it does it.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 08:38

I agree. As does this writer and another sensible Beeb identity Joan Bakewell who makes the point that attempting to explain why things happened in a previous era is almost impossible. ie : the 60s thru to 80s.

which doesn’t forgive people but also people should not be condemned for accepting the morals of the time.

I doubt Savile was the most intelligent person either. Clever maybe and cunning.

 Alan October 31, 2012 at 10:31

Elena ‘andcart said: “Very strange that he doesn’t seem to have loads of illegitimate children.”

Perhaps all the cycling rendered him infertile.

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 22:59

A note on Liz MacKean on Panorama:

“We’d spoken to people who collectively deserved to be heard–and they weren’t heard. And I thought that was a failure….I felt we had a responsibility towards them. We’d got them to talk, but above all we did believe them. So then for their stories no to be heard–yes, I felt very bad about that. I felt that I had let them down.”

Unnoticed in this is the admission that, apparently, some of the accounts of abuse Newsnight heard had never been reported to police. This led to criticism that the BBC had not passed them on. Which begs several questions. Why didn’t Liz? For a start.

Many more once you start poking into the ‘responsibility’ of reporters to their subjects or sources.

MacKean appears to be a decent reporter. But this is self-serving. Really, she wanted to get the–her–story out. As reporters do. If concern for those people to be ‘heard’ was paramount, there were many ways to do this–police, newspapers, internet, etc. Even ITV…

Turns out it wasn’t. Paramount. Just another story–except it was a really big one that got away.

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 00:54

Precisely. When you hear of a crime being committed, you generally respond by notifying the authorities, unless of course this action might queer your pitch.

 Anthony October 31, 2012 at 00:58

But Savile was then dead? As far as she knew the report was going to be broadcast, and other victims could then come forward. Since he was dead it wouldn’t necessarily have occured to her that there would be an involvement from the police, as there now is.

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 01:07

I assume that the BBC employs a full complement of lawyers, who would have been endlessly consulted as to the legal appropriateness of this proposed action.

 Chris Barratt October 31, 2012 at 09:29


 Brandon October 30, 2012 at 19:05

Hi Anna

I’ve said before elsewhere what an admirer I am of your blog, and your recent six-part biographical epic. And I sympathise that you have found yourself on the end of so much abuse for providing a thought-provoking account that, in places, goes against the current ‘perceived wisdom’. You write, eloquently, and with conviction.

However, a couple of things do jar. I’ll mention them if I may. First, there is a sense that in your need – which I find understandable – to represent Duncroft as you knew it, and to defend Ms Jones – clearly an important figure in your development – against what you regard as misleading accounts, you are perhaps resistant to acknowledging that the institution of the mid-sixties was a different beast from that of the mid-seventies. I went to a London school in the eighties which was at that time held up as a paragon of the inner-city comprehensive; a decade earlier it was regarded as so dangerous that security guards were employed to patrol its corridors. A decade is a long time in the life of many institutions.

The second thing which I find slightly concerning is the vehemence with which you have set about Meirion Jones. You seem to be attributing to him petty, parochial and vindictive motives in his pursuit of this story, without that much evidence. I get the impression that you don’t know him, so am second-guessing that your views of him may be second-hand ones influenced by his aunt, who, perhaps feels betrayed by his decision to make her former place of work a central motif in his documentary. This is just speculation on my part, of course. But I can’t help feeling that this particular focus of your enquiry is not serving the bigger arguments that you have made in the way that they deserve.

Just a few musings.



 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 19:34


Timing is everything!

What first drove me into print on this matter, something I was deeply unwilling to do, was Bebe Robert’s account in the Daily Mail, coupled with comments left on Friends reunited to the effect that Miss Jones had presided over systematic abuse for many years – from 1965 (the Bebe Roberts account) to 1974 from as yet (then) unnamed interviewees.

From which you may correctly deduce that if Bebe Roberts hadn’t jumped on the bandwagon with a nonsensical account of things which couldn’t have happened, I would still be lurking in the undergrowth, following the story with interest but not exposing myself to the opprobrium I have done for speaking out.

I was not trying to defend Miss Jones reputation, merely incensed that the Daily Mail should be printing such garbage.

When that continued into Fiona’s account of the ‘forged letter’ I was already ‘in for a penny’. That then continued into Karin Ward’s rather jumbled juxtapositioning of events which may have happened to her, or other people, over a period of time, during some of which she may have been at Duncroft. That is as politely as I can put it.

Following which, ‘mewsical’ who I haven’t heard from in 20 years, and several other girls that I have never communicated with before, came forward and agreed, first and foremost, that Bebe was totally incorrect and then offering information filling in some of the gaps.

From a position of a week later, all those events are being viewed as one, that is now being construed as a concerted effort to defend Miss Jones’ reputation, and a joint – what was the word used? Rota? to ‘muddy the waters’.

My views of Meirion are not even marginally influenced by his aunt, I have never in my life discussed him with her.

They are influenced by looking at a journalist who doesn’t even bother to contact his aunt to tell her that he is about to ‘position’ her centre stage in an attempt to prove institutional child abuse – merely sends an assistant to doorstop her the night before transmission, and who doesn’t reveal to the world at large, merely one editor on a rival programme, that it is indeed his aunt that he is exposing in this manner. I find that despicable and will keep saying so loud and clear.

That when he is stopped from transmitting a programme that relies on so many incorrect facts and uncorroborated allegations, he throws his toys out of the pram to the extent that he has, then I find him totally, utterly, and irredeemably despicable.

Any of my regular readers will tell you that they are as gobsmacked as I, at my finding myself in the position of inadvertently defending the BBC – an institution I have railed against for years. Had they transmitted this uncorroborated tale – I should have been the first into print the next morning complaining about it – had I never heard of Duncroft before in my life.

My personal connection with the school merely put me in a position to argue with some of the allegations in that original Daily Mail article.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:33

Again real participants who were at the centre of the ‘action’ are being questioned- which is how it should be.

But some will have differing views, some will tell the truth and some will lie.

Those who lie generally can be caught out in a trial as lying under oath and in the full glare of a court is the most difficult thing of all.

To date I have heard the lurid tales and it’s all anecdotal but Ms Raccoon sounds like she is prepared to back up her view of the truth with hard evidence such as dates , ages and so.

As a Fleet Street survivor I can assure you that tabloid tales pervert , promote and exagerate a narrative to fit a sensational headline.

That is evident in today’s Daily Mail whcih proclaims in bold type :

Two more celebrities ‘to be named soon’ as Savile sex abuse detectives widen their net

Celebrities among names given to mediator Mark Williams-Thomas

Alleged victims have not yet spoken to police

Gary Glitter questioned over the weekend in connection with investigation

More arrests expected as police warn accomplices ‘we’re coming for you’

These all imply guilt before even questioning let alone trial. Any famous person now even spoken to will have their career dashed for ever.

These are disgraceful headlines that should never be permitted.

 Jonathan Mason October 31, 2012 at 02:58

“As a Fleet Street survivor I can assure you that tabloid tales pervert , promote and exagerate a narrative to fit a sensational headline.”

My own experience of working at newspapers, where I had some limited opportunities to write or change headlines, was in the USA, but for what it is worth, it was always a case of writing the story first and composing a headline at the last moment, never the other way around, because the exact wording of headlines always depended on the space available on the page, which tended to depend on the photos used, the size of font used, and so on.

Certainly the journalist who wrote the story would provide a working headline, but that rarely matched what was published.

It might have been different in the days before newspaper pages were laid out on computer screens–I don’t know.

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 21:16

Hi Brandon– I too an admirer of Anna’s blog. And I too criticised her attack on Meirion Jones. The ferocity seemed unmatched by the evidence she provided. Indeed that blog was mostly speculation. Most unlike her. Her reply to you–on Meirion–I find no more convincing.

Anna’s original complaint, if I remember rightly, was that Ward was vulnerable and that Meirion exploited her. Without knowing the details of what went on between them–which are not established so far–I am not so sure. To put it at its bluntest: a journalist has an obligation to make fine judgements about person’s mental state before reporting their freely offered story?

That asks too much. In some exceptional circumstances, maybe. I cannot see they have been established here. Not least because Ward had been blogging about this stuff for some time and was about to publish a book.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 21:25

Meirion Jones found the blog and book excerpts on line, like everyone else. Because he had a personal connection to Duncroft, like Anna, myself and other women here, in his position as a respected investigative reporter, he obviously was intrigued and presumably met Karin Ward and Mark Williams-Thomas, etc. Where I lose some respect for Meirion is that he knew Duncroft was his aunt’s school and that he had been there himself. Armed with that, I believe he had to conduct a fair investigation which, to my way of thinking, should have included a telephone call to his aunt at the very least, asking for her opinion on Karin’s book/blog posts, and to let her know he felt he had an obligation to pursue the allegations made by Karin. Instead, it appears that he then went actively seeking other women who were prepared to join in with the allegations. Miss Jones didn’t know about any of this until it hit the papers. Hence, here comes the bus and under it goes Miss Jones, without so much as a honk of the horn.

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 22:29

Hi Mewsical — “Meirion Jones found the blog and book excerpts on line, like everyone else.” Is that attested to, or supposition? If it IS known, I apologise. Difficult to keep up with every detail. But for the rest:

“presumably met Karin Ward and Mark Williams-Thomas, etc… I believe…to my way of thinking…it appears”

Supposition and value judgements (which you are entitled to make). But, as yet, we don’t actually KNOW. Hence my criticism of Anna’s post about him. Seemed unevidenced and premature.

Take Mark Williams-Thomas: what was his role? On Newsnight, later on ITV? It is far from clear. On Panorama (now vanished from the iPlayer) Liz MacKean described him as an expert who had helped. Can’t recall the exact words. There seemed to be no implication he had led the investigation, rather advised. As an expert. Seems like he then ran off with what he had learned to ITV.

I know! “Seemed, seems.”

As with Meirion Jones, we can have our suspicions, but we don’t know. Whether MW-T will be captured within the BBC investigation net remains to be seen. He is not a BBC employee, after all, and the investigation has no subpoena powers…

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 00:48

Hi Robb – I read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true, right??  However, it could be that he was trawling sites like Friends Reunited and perhaps Careleavers Reunited as well. My point is that he came upon it by innocent means – I do want to give him the benefit of the doubt here, though he may not be entitled to it. But, I’m sure he was very intrigued, and as a good journalist, he pursued his lead. I’m also going to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he, like many BBC staffers, had heard these rumors for years about JS. Now, fate delivers JS into Meirion’s hands, courtesy of his aunt’s former pupils. What to do, what to do? No brainer. Gather some accusers, and get this out to the public of course. Oh bugger, can’t do that, it’s the Beeb, and I work here. Hm. Let alone Newsnight is tanking in the ratings, unlike the mighty Panorama.

Now, Mark. Mark was consulting on the Newsnight segment only, he’s never concealed that. He is a person experienced in the field of child exploitation, and was instrumental in bringing Jonathan King to justice. You can google him. He continues to be involved in the Maddie kidnapping investigation. When I found out, via alerts from the Duncroft alumni, that this situation was occurring, I was, like Meirion, very intrigued. So, I figured out who Mark WT was and called him, while he was still working on the Newsnight piece. We had a long amiable chat, I expressed my doubts, he acknowledged I was entitled to them. His interest is much broader than just what happened at Duncroft – that was his fulcrum.

So, this Newsnight to ITV to Panorama and back to ITV for Mark’s follow up is just a brilliant parlay, imo, but doesn’t consider who is getting mashed up in the wheels of ambition (Meirion) and a continued crusade (MWT).

I’ve stayed involved ever since, have met the 70s accusers at least on line – not Kari as far as I know until very recently, and have also met Bebe Roberts on line. I am very disappointed in Bebe, and I don’t know why she made this decision. She must have known that at least three of us from that time period would immediately challenge her, which we did. And then Anna La Raton Laveur (that Francais for Raccoon, btw) got wind of it, which Bebe did NOT count on. Then another plot was uncovered regarding a false identity, and the thing keeps unraveling.

Kari recently posted to a now-disabled FB site that she was afraid that Savile had followed her to Duncroft, after she met him at her Norfolk school. She claims she was holidaying in Jersey and they visited Haute de la Garenne to socialize with the children and there he was again.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:50

Trust me, I was a policeman : The role of Mark Williams-Thomas, self proclaimed expert is troublesome and I note today he claims he is a sort of go-between with alleged victims and the police- a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and one that should never be permitted if true.

The profit angle must be removed from child protection services and that includes exploiting genuine cases for tabloid & TV audiences.

 Rocky Raccoon (not related) October 31, 2012 at 02:45

Mark Williams Thomas issued a statement on the 1 October outlining how the ITV programme came about.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:45

I think it’s most important a real journalist take into account the emotional and mental state of a source and question their motives.

However British tabloids are a law unto themselves in these matters and decide the rules-basically that there are none as long as the product is flogged.

 Robb October 31, 2012 at 14:11

Hi Mewsical, Observor & (not related) — Thanks for all the interesting info and helpful links.

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 18:14

Anna – Re John Gibbon of Redcar: “I have lost count of how many car dealers have now come forward to complain that the photograph clearly illustrates a 1977 Rolls Royce Corniche.”

You didn’t link to one, so naturally I looked. Here is the best I can manage:—Tuesday-2nd-Octob/Rolls-Royce-Corniche-convertib/

“This Corniche was originally supplied to Sir Jimmy Savile OBE in 1977 for the use of his mother, ‘The Duchess’. However, the car was too large for her to drive personally and was soon returned to Jack Barkley of London. Subsequently, it was delivered to its second owner and was kept in the family for the next 29 years. Year of Manufacture: 1977″

It indeed looks identical to the one in the John Gibbon photo. (Lots of pics of Savile and Rolls via Google. Just not this blue one. Unsurprising, perhaps, if he bought it for his Mum.)

Apologies if others have noted this before.

 Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 18:44

Jimmy’s other car looks more full of potential, but so far seems unascribed, although the Mirror seems to be conflating it with a “caravan”.

Mention of two Duncroft girls, Charlotte and Jill, in this piece also.

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 19:12

Hi Moor

Thanks for the link. The point of this Rolls, of course, is that Gibbon claimed to have been abused in it in 1972. Savile didn’t get it until 1977–so Gibbon must be mistaken (about when his pic was taken, at least). About other matters too, possibly.

 Alan October 30, 2012 at 19:34

“This Corniche was originally supplied to Sir Jimmy Savile OBE in 1977 for the use of his mother, ”

That’s weird. Agnes Savile died in 1972.(Or 1973 according to some Jim’ll obituaries.)

 Sam West October 30, 2012 at 20:10

Robb ………. the Duchess (his Mum) died in 1972!

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 20:53

Hi Alan/Sam West

Thanks! Here is the thing. Gibbon claims to have been abused by Savile in 1972 in this blue Rolls (with pic). Anna claims ‘car dealers’ say this model Corniche is 1977+ vintage. So I look through Rolls Corniche pics, starting with WikiP

Frankly they all look the same to me. So, on to Google Savile’s Rolls. None look like the Gibbon pic. Except the blue one I linked to above! Did my best.

Perhaps Anna can clarify who said knowledgeable ‘car dealers’ are. A small detail, but the basis of her questioning Gibbon’ account. So important.

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 20:55

No idea who the car dealers are, there are various accounts all using usernames, so no way of knowing who they are, other than that they all claim to be car dealers.

 Peter Raite October 30, 2012 at 21:22

Regardless of the year, the issue is surely that Gibbons claimed to have been assaulted in the back, describing it in a way that fundamentally conflicts with the fact that the Corniche was only ever a two-door car?

 Robb October 30, 2012 at 21:53

Peter — Not entirely. The question is: is this confabulation or a 9 year-old’s confused, possibly traumatised, recollection 40 years later? Anna, without much evidence, plumps for the former.

Gibbon accompanied his story with a pic of him standing in front of a blue Rolls SJ 247: “ABUSE ALLEGATION: John Gibbin, of Redcar, in front of Savile’s Rolls-Royce at the age of nine”

“The 49-year-old said he was at a charity track and field event in Southend, Hants, [in aid of Stoke Mandeville Hospital] in 1972, which was being hosted by Savile, when he was lured into the presenter’s car and assaulted…he reported the matter to the Metropolitan Police in the 1980s – but officers did not even call him back.”

There are checkable facts here. Was there such an event in 1972? Was Savile present? In a blue Rolls? SJ 247–what car did that number belong to then? (It is seen on other Savile cars later.) Was this car purchased for Savile’s mother–if not in 1977, earlier? Returned to ‘Jack Barkley of London’ as my earlier link suggested? If so, when? Etc.

The importance of these questions in establishing the truth is that they are, in principle, answerable by documents or witnesses who have no stake in the outcome. Which is not true of those making accusations of abuse.

 Woman on a Raft October 30, 2012 at 22:38

Illustrated by a photo captioned “30th October 1972 Jimmy Savile with his Rolls Royce at Appleyards”. The registration is JS 954 rather than JS 247 in the Gibbin photo.

He may have owned the registration JS 954 since the 1950s as he was photographed with it for Cycling News. (scroll down to bottom photo).

Presumably he just moved the registrations around.

 Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 21:42

This photo is labelled 30th October 1972…

This is the Redcar car ……

Jimmy had more than one car and more than one number in use possibly. The geeky stuff about the Redcar car is that if you look closely you can tell it is a soft-top convertible. Car geeks say these are two-door only and the |redcar story has the boy opening the rear door to “escape”. Presumably they can also tell the year. This is a close-up of the Redcar car:

You can see the *soft-top* front edge clearly.

Anyhow, on the subject of cars, I was reading that the Duncroft girls were claimimng to have had “rides” round the neighbourhood in Jimmy’s car, but also that he had a caravan in the grounds…. an unusual towing combintin, but no doubt technically possible. Also the Mirrot has tried to make out the “caravan” was actually Jimmy’s Range Rover with fold-down seats in the back.

Presumably Miss Jones will have some memory of this veritable fleet of vehicles arriving, all driven by one man.

 Alan October 31, 2012 at 11:44

Savile had a succession of convertible Rollers. Relying on Wikipedia, the blue one with the ugly bumper is a Corniche 2 and cannot be older than 1977. The white one in the link Woman on a raft provided is a Corniche 1 which was made from 1971 to 1977. Before that Savile had a white Rolls Royce Silver Shadow drop head coupe, a forerunner to the Corniche and also a two door convertible. And before that I think he had a Silver Cloud drop head coupe that was likewise a 2-door convertible. After the Silver Cloud left Savile’s ownership that particular car was repainted and used in the film Blowup so he didn’t own it by 1966.

The Range Rover Carawagon was made for Savile in 1978. In articles about it it is described as having spent much of it’s time parked at Stoke Mandeville for Savile to sleep in when raising money for charity. Savile reportedly had a room at that hospital so why would he need the Range Rover? Likewise for Duncroft why would he take a caravan, motorhome or that Range Rover there to use if he was supposed to have a room available to him?(Leaving aside the possibility of the Carawagon being a product Savile was endorsing but didn’t actually require, or that he did use to begin with and was later allowed to stay in the buildings.)

 Ellen Coulson October 31, 2012 at 15:26

She remembers the caravan being parked on the drive on one occasion. I will clarify whether it was the school drive or the drive to her house next time I speak to her.

 Ellen Coulson October 31, 2012 at 15:59

Have just spoken to Margaret Jones. Caravan or whichever car he was driving would be parked outside front door of school by his driver. He usually had a driver with him.

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 31, 2012 at 20:46

There are newspaper reports of a long time associate of Jimmy Savile having been a driver for Savile, but he denies the claim.

Looks like the Mirror and a firm of solicitors are having doubts about the car incident? The name has been dropped and solicitor is trying to contact the organisers of the event.

PS. Are Fiona and the other person from the 60′s or 70′s era?

 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 17:32

@ Ivan. Whey Hey, us of the voice of reason are being surreptitiously censored, since I doubt that The Mail will admit to this. But printing half of my comment is an admittance in itself. Very stupid if you ask me. Why print half a comment? They might have done better to ignore me altogether, yet again.

I have never in all of my life said anything even remotely actionable, but I might start to in a minute. Perhaps we all need to suggest that we are being gagged. Free Speach, and all that crap. Sadly, the hoi poloi don’t seem to be able to spell the one thing they most crave, in the process of decimating all and sundry without a scrap of proof. Pfft to Free Speech if that is what it amounts to.

 WM October 30, 2012 at 17:05

Savile: Police failed to interview headmistress of abuse school

Thoughts please?


 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 17:42

Erm, Stupid? Gross Negligence? Don’t want to kill a good story? Heaven forbid that anyone would ask for proof.

Sorry, I refuse to label what was probably a relatively harmless Groper as a Paedophile, if he was even a Groper. I still haven’t seen any proof that he was.

 babel6 October 30, 2012 at 19:05

Maybe here?

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 21:36

The school was not under the control of the Home Office, thank you. It was under the control of MIND and the NAMH. If the police didn’t interview Miss (not Mrs.) Jones at the time of the first complaint in 2007 – or was it 2006, or did Fiona forge a letter and then give it to the Mail – that could likely be that there might not have been a complaint at all. That forged letter was a smoking gun. It also makes no sense that they wouldn’t have spoken with her. A lot of this makes no sense, and generally speaking, when something makes no sense, it usually isn’t true.

 Anthony October 31, 2012 at 00:28

The existence of this supposed forged letter hasn’t been proven by anybody, the Mail didn’t show it, why not?

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 01:03

Good question, and I will be sure to ask them.

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 31, 2012 at 11:16

Is ‘Fiona’ of the forged letter fame, the same person that was in a photo which used to be on Friends Re-United of a ginger haired girl cuddling Jimmy Savile while they stood in front of a bronze coloured Rolls Royce?

I’ve been told by a third party that a Jaya Narain in Manchester interviewed Bebe Roberts for The Mail.

 Ellen Coulson October 31, 2012 at 15:22

and frankly why did they wait until 2007 to make a complaint about something that had happened 33 years before? Couldn’t perchance Fiona/Smelling fell out with Theo and started to make trouble!

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 31, 2012 at 20:49

Are Fiona & the other person from the 60′s or 70′s era ?

 Miss T October 30, 2012 at 17:05

Memory is a very unreliable thing. It’s a bit like the Chinese whisper game. Each time it is re-examined it is altered in some way. An abuse victim is likely to re-examine it many thousands of times over the course of many years so inaccuracies of accounts are not always proof that things didn’t happen, details are lost and details are skewed. that can implicated the innocent and also exonerate the guilty. It’s all to easy to pick out one inaccuracy in a huge wide story and claim the entire story must therefore be false. I am not making judgements either way, I wasn’t there, i don’t know those involved. I will say one thing though, when hundreds of people are making claims even if 99 out of a 100 were false, it only takes one to be guilty of a crime. I find it very hard to believe all the hundred of people are ALL wrong.

 Ellen Coulson October 30, 2012 at 16:05

Meirion, by the way, continued to visit Duncroft when he was at university which is presumably when the photograph of him with Savile at a garden party held at Duncroft, a copy or the original of which MJ has, was taken.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 13:43

no lizaeds here…

 Engineer October 30, 2012 at 13:14

It would seem that this story is attracting the conspiracy theorists already. Let’s have a look at what we know. We know that many accusations of improper conduct have been made against Savile (and others) regarding events that may have occurred during the 1960s and later. We know from the testimony of many people that the atmosphere surrounding the pop music and entertainment industry (including the broadcasting of it) was one that tolerated, indeed rather encouraged, drugs, sexual wildness and generally louche behaviour. We know that Dunscroft has been linked to Savile by some in the media, and we know from Anna’s researches that there is significant doubt over some of the claims made about Savile and Dunscroft. Beyond that, we don’t know very much, though there is the usual swirl of speculation and gossip that surrounds any scandal.

Some have suggested that this is Murdoch’s revenge. No doubt he is looking at all this with a wry smile; he’s a seasoned campaigner, and he knows full well that what goes around, very often comes around. It shows some of his tormentors in a rather poor light. However, how is he supposed to have engineered all this? There is not one shred of evidence that suggests the involvement of Murdoch, News Corporation or any other ‘driving force’.

There are some suggesting that this is a plot to break up the BBC. I’m sure there are some who would be delighted to see the BBC’s demise, but it’s hard to see how this would cause it. There are many of us who feel that the BBC has become an overlarge organisation with too narrow an outlook, and well overdue a good shake-up. Maybe this will give the BBC cause to look carefully at the way it goes about it’s business, particularly in the way it manages it’s programming aimed at younger people. However, it’s a bit too soon for that; we don’t actually know the extent of wrongdoing, and who did wrong, yet.

So come on people; let’s keep an open mind, and keep our feet on the ground. Better to establish the facts, and act on those, not on speculation.

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 13:25

True, but it is worth bearing in mind that the authorities, police and MSM are already peddling a conspiracy theory regarding paedophile “rings”, institutional staff acting as enablers and procurers for said “rings” and so on, and promoting any claim, however ludicrous, without any scepticism or reserve whatsoever, and Savile has already been posthumously condemned as “Britains worst sex predator ever” and a rabid damnatio memoriae is in progress. The MSM in collusion (is that too conspiratorial a term?) with the Child Abuse Industry moved instantly to a state of certainty regarding this “paedo ring conspiracy” and are clearly intensely reluctant to consider any paradigm of a more moderate type.We don’t know very much, but at least we’re trying to find out, which is more than they seem to be trying to do.

Take one smidge of data; it took me five minutes twiddling the filters in Photoshop to read Savile’s tracksuit slogan and link it to 1976, not 1971. I’m busy working and I had time to do that. None of our intrepid “investigative” reporters seem to have bothered. Nobody wants any contrary data. That may not be a conspiracy, but it leaves one with little confidence that they’re making any effort to get the story right.

We must avoid conspiracy theories, but it must be remembered that we are already discussing a conspiracy theory; one which, terrifyingly, is commonly believed by those who rule us and dominate the discourse in our society.

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 13:43

I sympathise Ianb. I have watched the hysteria growing by the hour with mounting horror. Any attempt to distinguish fact from fiction is viewed as having ‘an agenda’- and a deeply unpleasant one. It is as though a collective madness has overtaken the entire population – has anybody checked the bread?

 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 14:50

Interesting, but possibly not all that relevant. I have left all of a dozen Comments on Daily Mail Articles questioning The Witch Hunt, but only one has been printed, minus half of my comment. And then only after I pointed out their obvious reluctance to print dissent. That was the bit they removed.

This from a long term subscriber who more often than not is in The Top Ten Best Rated on other subjects. Yes, I do check to see if I have been Red Arrowed and where I have been rated. I think it is related to Ego, or possibly lack of.

 ivan October 30, 2012 at 16:49

Elena, you are half a comment up on me then – I haven’t had any of my 14 printed. Maybe I should try once more and mention their not wanting dissent.

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 30, 2012 at 17:20

The tabloid press are probably hoping their own cover ups go un-noticed.

Has anyone been in contact with the reporter of the Bebe Roberts piece in The Mail to ask if they checked with others who were at Duncroft in the mid 60′s?

 Bill Sticker October 30, 2012 at 17:22

I too wonder at the increasing quick tempered judgmentalism on display. Perhaps it’s something to do with the perceived lack of personal space in Britain? Whenever I’m back in the UK, I’m often prone to thinking; “How do they live in anything that small?” Always glad to get home to BC.

As for the Bread. Has anyone tried the dancing cure?

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 18:32

I have fired off a couple of emails to Claire Ellicot – she responded to one, hotly denying she had ever tried to contact anyone on Voy. I then sent her the links to Past Lives, and not surprisingly she has not responded again. I’m speaking with another reporter from the Sunday Mail at the moment, and trust me they are not at all thrilled with things like forged letters, women from the 60s lying like rugs, etc. This may all unravel even yet.

 Rocky Raccoon (not related) October 30, 2012 at 23:27

Bit odd for Ms Ellicott to deny she was on Voy touting for buisness, as she left her email address & phone number.

 Span Ows October 30, 2012 at 18:04

Anna, you may be right: you’ll be ‘pleased’ to hear that ergot is making a comeback! That and many other mycotoxins are rife this year.

 E. R. Got October 30, 2012 at 18:51

Madness! Madness, I say!

 S C Lerotium October 30, 2012 at 18:59

There may be a grain of truth in what you say.

 I. P. Loughthefield October 30, 2012 at 19:31

Ergot? What ergot?

 Ann Scatter October 30, 2012 at 19:36

Span Ows is right, ergot was rife this year.

 Mike O’Toxin October 30, 2012 at 19:43

I’ve ‘ad more comebacks than Shirley Bassey, me…

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 20:07

Excellent cook, was Shirley.

 J Tull October 30, 2012 at 20:15

Well, don’t blame me.

 E I Addio October 30, 2012 at 21:47

Single agricultural worker (late 40s) seeks significant other with view to marriage. Looks unimportant. GSOH appreciated. Replies to PO Box 47

(That’s enough, Ed)

 Peter Raite October 30, 2012 at 14:16

Sadly, Ian, the propensity of parts of the press not to ask the right questions – or rather not even knowing where to ask them – is nothing new. Anna has mentioned the Rolls Royce detail blatently obvious to enthusiasts in that field, and we are similarly seeing numerous examples where a knowledge of vintage TV instantly challenges that which the press is happy to accept without question. In many respects, it seems that the original “problem” with theNewsnight story is that it didn’t bear close examination ina way that particularly the print media isn’t interested in being forensic abot the stories people are telling them.

 Smoking Hot October 30, 2012 at 17:50

All Savile’s RR’s were bought at one place without exception and the old one always put in as part exchange. None had fold down seats to become a bed. As for the allegation by Gibson … Savile is supposed to have done this in full view of all the people staring into his car???

l await the police charging someone with wasting po;ice time. Shall l hold my breath?

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 14:20

Is it possible you misunderstand the concept of the term conspiracy, as it is clear you equate it as a dirty word?

Or perhaps you could offer your take on the reality that every criminal case ruling , every political decision, ever, is the conclusion after the investigating of a ‘conspiracy’ to do wrong against that which it defends.

Forgive me but your tone is one most associated with an agenda to divert, to confuse, to detract… those who will be reading this blog.

Harper and his whole team, which was huge, appeared to me to be the real thing, unless we the taxpayer have been paying inept detectives for years?

Of course if you have evidence outside of those high level Masons who took over the case and quashed it…I would be very happy to recieve it.

thanks in advance

 Simon October 30, 2012 at 11:27

Great piece of investigation. I believe you know Barrister Felicity Gerry who is an expert of crimes with a sexual eliment. Perhaps you can ask Felicity Gerry to give an opinion? That would be very interesting for your readers.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 10:59

I am also want to believe that the reason they shifted Miss Jones into a posh home in the grounds would be to free up the school for their new script called charitable trust social services. And who wants to come in and rescue social services…. royal charitable trusts…

And let us not forget that Military Intelligence Marconi (the BBC) is the corporate crown, as Fox and all private media through GEC are also of the same crown, therefore in order to demolish the BBC they would have to conspire scandal.

I see a right royal greasy hand in all this madness with them losing nothing if they get Teach First in social services, outside constitutional law of course…

 Engineer October 30, 2012 at 12:38

So the Royal family are in league with Murdoch, and have caused all this? Forgive me while I fall about laughing…..

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 13:04

Mind the lizards don’t get you whilst you’re laughing Engineer – devious little buggers they are.

 Engineer October 30, 2012 at 13:18

Don’t worry for me! I’m hiding behind the sofa with my tinfoil hat and clove of garlic. They won’t get me!

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 13:50

Perhaps a study of the Alpha Lodges would help curb the laughter somewhat.

then perhaps, a shufty at the Order of the Garter.

Then look at the patrons of the RSA from which cometh Teach First…

I do not deal in speculation unless I state the fact.

David Icke as far as I am concerned is the biggest shill out there, he pushes nothing but gnosticism.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:21

To the contrary, Rupert Murdoch has openly expressed contempt for the British Establishment and it’s institutions like the Royal Family. It dates back to his father being a war correspondent at Gallipolli and the actions of what he said were incompetent British generals given their commissions by virtue of class.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 19:33

They built a house for the headmistress, not for Miss Jones personally. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sister Consolata lived there when she headed the school for Barnardo’s. The quarters that Miss Jones had prior to that were very small and cramped and I believe she had to share it with another staff member. The staff didn’t have a lot of privacy, and were mixed in among the girls’ dormitories. Duncroft expanded with other buildings as well – an education building and Norman Lodge, which was the hostel for girls who were working and paid rent there.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 10:42

by the way I do believe the DS thread is now closed…

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:52

It’s moved to part 4.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 19:22

Ooo thanks, not savy with the DS could you be so kind as to present the link to part 4

 Trenchfoot October 30, 2012 at 23:21

I’m sure Jzee can help you.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 10:40

I believe, at this stage, it is fair to assume, the media is moving up its own backside in its thrust to lower the age of the girls.

15 year old girls are experimenting, either with boys a year or two older, with the odd one going all out for a boy five or six years older, we all remember this from our school days.

The girls in question had an extra bonus during their times of experimentation in that they had access to stars, and yes from the girls perspective they would believe it was they who were the lucky ones.

I have been active in the music industry for over 30 years, and one prime reality when it comes to all musicians who gain success early on, is the fact they remain like children.

Put the two together, experimenting 15 year olds, and child like celebrities and this is what you get.

Unless I am missing something… the whole sorry saga appears to be around 15 and 16 year old girls with the press determined to lower the ages in collusion with certain girls from Duncroft.

This is why I believe Anna’s information is of prime interest.

And let us not pretend for a second that sugar and spice and all things nice = a female.

It would appear intelligent girls are rebuffing the stories of not so intelligent girls, which unless a serious account of wrongdoing at Duncroft before MIND took over, has to be an important point on which this story is perceived.

Feminist’s can shout all day that males are bad, but it has always been the prerogative for girly to change her mind, especially is there is an offer of cash and a little limelight.

First rule in spiritual existence…know your own part played in your entire life for only then will you become profound in how you live .

Your thoughts….

 Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 10:51

I agree with Belinus about the psychological profile of ‘celebrities’ and young girls, sparse as the profiles go. I would go a step or two further and point to the childISHness rather than childlike qualities of many of the ‘performers’ and ‘celebrities’ over the past half-century. The ‘Jimmy Savile’ character – for performance character it is – is well suited to the Vicar of Dibly character.

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:50

It does not matter if Karin Ward was 16 at one point she travelled to Clunk Click, in fact we have a date of February, 1974 as the first likely visit, when she was 15, the point is Savile was targetting girls in a closed institution and admitted to being their “term time boyfriend”.

 Thor2Hammer October 30, 2012 at 10:29

BBC website – “The Road to Hypervigilance” – Mentions ‘Duncroft’ &c –

\The Jimmy Savile case has highlighted how much the culture of child protection has changed in the last 40 years. But what was behind the transformation?\

(DID Mr S have ‘regular unsupervised contact’ which would have come within the requirements for current ‘Criminal Records Bureau’ checks?)

 Thor2Hammer October 30, 2012 at 11:59

“By the way” – At the relevant dates – was there any ‘evidence’ which would have caused the CRB to mark his card – even by CURRENT standards?

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 09:35

This may or may not be relevant, and may or may not have been addressed. But in the photo of Jimmy said to be at Haut La Garenne, which The Sun Says was in 1971, he’s wearing a tracksuit with the phrase “Love Is An Uphill Thing” written on it, the name of the book he had published in… 1976.

 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 10:56

That’s a good find, I think.

 Alan October 30, 2012 at 13:16

Well spotted. His t-shirt says something like ‘superspine’ as well. Something to do with Stoke Mandeville I expect.

The Daily Mail believed that photo to have been taken in the late 1960s.

The building nearest the people has been said to resemble a building at Haut de la Garenne – the one with a pale blue roof here I guess.

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 13:30

Hmm… it’s interesting to note from that article as well that Lenny Harper, he who headed up the Garrenne investigation that declared a piece of coconut to be “human remains” and was given the boot for total bungling (and running up mega expenses in the process) is now a credible expert. Hey ho.

 belinus October 30, 2012 at 14:03

Selective in your beliefs there, Harper would refute that stance still today, as would the police dog specialising in human remains.

What are you protecting sir?

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 14:28

Ah, but the scientists who analysed the coconut would say it was a coconut, and that is what matters.

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:46

Actually the coconut was probably a piece of wood, but was initially said to be possibly bone by an archeologist on the site. Regarding the photo, we know Savile had been visiting the channel islands since at least 1969, his mother was at some point in the Catholic care home of Little Sisters of the Poor:

“[Channel Islands] An International Year of the Child ceramic plaque for Jersey, 15cm diameter; a shield wall plaque for Jersey Battle of Flowers, 1969; a copper heart shaped plaque, inscribed ‘Jimmy Savile O.B.E.’, blue velvet mounted with a plaque inscribed ‘To Jimmy With Heartfelt Thanks For Invaluable Assistance 1969-1979 In Raising Funds For The Ever Grateful Children Of Guernsey “LUV”, Ladies of Variety, Tent 55′, 33cm square overall; a stainless steel tray, engraved ‘To Jimmy Savile O.B.E With thanks for a great walk Easter Monday, 1976 From Aquila Youth Centre Jersey’, 37cm long; and a printed flier for battle of Flowers Centenary Special ‘An Evening with Jimmy Savile’”

 Peter Raite October 30, 2012 at 13:49

The Mail not helping itself there by using an internet-sourced version of the photograph, with a badly-Photoshopped “sign” with the name of a TV programme that didn’t start until 1975….

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 08:31

Agreed : the sign is an obvious photoshop job that doesn’t prove anything. Sadly Lenny Harper making his claim about Savile now can’t be taken seriously.

 Span Ows October 30, 2012 at 18:01

Ian B, I am not sure that is relevant at all…unless he was in the habit of wearing clothes with his book titles on them. Far more likely that the words on his shirt are what he named his book after!

 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 19:00

Now there’s a good one. I am just about to write a Block Buster of what will happen to me next year, should I be so lucky. Hopefully it will be a bit more interesting than what happened to me this year, or even last year.

Awfully sorry, but by my lites this man is innocent until proven guilty, and that ain’t ever going to happen. Jimmy Savile will never be proven guilty.

The Media has gone mad yet again, and is proving yet again that it needs to be monitored, especially if the best it can do is to accuse a dead man. Where were they all when “Everyone knew” what Jimmy Savile was doing?

But never mind me and the forty million pounds he raised by a large amount of physical effort. Just trash it all on hearsay. Shut down the Charitable Institutions that accepted money raised by him. Give it all to the dogs who quite likely better deserve it. For it is certain sure that no Human Charity is going to benefit from what is going on at the moment. Who in their right mind would want the huge amount of money that he raised? So, they are all going to say, “No, thank you, we don’t want it?” And “Yucky, yucky, what an horrible man?” I don’t think so, somehow. BUT who will be the first to accept this 40 Million? Or will it all go to a bunch of silly girls whose parents should have known better?

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 06:13

So here’s the thing. The MSM are ignoring this. How do we make them pay attention?

It’s no good if this stays as a best-kept secret of the blogosphere. As noted by others, the “narrative” is already moving on from the initial Duncroft claims and if they aren’t debunked now, they never will be. The Activist machinery works to ensure that their voice is heard (and dominant). How do we do the same? It’s no good us all just sitting here talking about it.

Tweeting editors? Emails? What should we do?

 Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 04:01

This whole blog series, Anna, has focused on Savile’s alleged crimes – and rightly – whilest seeking objectivity and balance in the best traditions of ‘Truth-seeking’. And it has exposed coteries of conspiring liars who seem to have had a life-long non-aquaintance with truth at all. But the emphasis has been on the entertainment and news media with little illumination of the wider impact on our society of the complete breakdown of moral standards.

Here is an example:

“”A mother-of-three who drank enough to ‘knock out a bull elephant’ faces jail after molesting two schoolboys at a friend’s 50th birthday party.

Amanda Wheeler, 31, kissed and groped a 12-year-old boy on a bench, rubbed her breasts against teenagers she was dancing with at the party and performed sex acts on two boys in a bedroom.

Worcester Crown Court heard the part-time cleaner had been drinking vodka, beer and wine throughout the evening.””

I have pointed earlier to the epidemic of false accusations that has gripped our society over the past thirty years of so, and others have pointed to the mass-hysterical social services fiascos which are driven by the same destruction of ‘standards’. Peadophilia, sexual abuse, molestation are STILL reported as being a ‘male’ problem when in fact, as so many page 16, lower paragraph reports after the local dog-show show, it is widespread and not gender specific.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 00:02

A very significant member of the staff is being interviewed today. I am personally very glad this particular individual has agreed to speak out.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 18:51

It’s now going to be tomorrow.

 Dave October 29, 2012 at 23:43

I’m with Delphius on this.

Who stands to gain from the BBC being discredited in this way?

Stand firm Anna!

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 00:33

I’ve no doubt Messrs Dacre & Murdoch are rubbing their hands at this, but it has no bearing on whether abuses actually occurred at the BBC or not.

 Londonexplorer October 30, 2012 at 04:25

What you say is true but it is the BBC constantly being kept in the frame, not just by the print media but also by their own reporters. There seems to be little mention of Savile’s career in commercial radio or the various ITV companies. I think Dave & Delphius have good reason to question who stands to gain from the BBC being discredited from from all of this.

BTW anna thanks for beavering (or racooning!) away on this..

As a trusted campaign colleague once said to me, “Knowledge is power”

 Noise October 30, 2012 at 12:41

Funnily enough when I first heard all this kick off, I was partially thinking “who is the intended target?”.

It seems that BBC and liberal types took a huge attack on News Internation.

News International is enjoying being able to freely attack them in return.

I am slightly concerned that there is almost too much information in this thread, that someone within the BBC may be issuing a defence by proxy top murky the waters.

Most evidence points towards the main televised victims being complete fruitloops though. I’d probably reach the same conclusion mind, the court of public opinion is perhaps the best evidence that democracy BY the people is destined for failure.

 Smoking Hot October 29, 2012 at 23:21

As far as the media is concerned Duncroft is old news. lt’s served it’s purpose and the media have moved on to the next stage along with the help of the police. We’ll see more celebrities and names arrested … and then released but probably bailed. Their lives will be in ruins by that time as the mud will stick. It really is like we’ve gone back to Medieval times. Evidence or facts are no longer of any importance it would seem.

l wouldn’t hold your breath Anna to be asked to make a statement and that goes for the others you are in contact with. l hope l’m wrong but l fear l’m not. lt may well indeed fall on your shoulders for these others to be heard. Alas by doing so, you will incur the wrath of many. l’ve had a taste of this by simply linking to your Duncroft posts.

l admire your courage to continue to bring forth ‘the truth’ … it’s not an easy path to tread and certainly not for the faint hearted. l wish you well.

 Observor October 30, 2012 at 07:14

No I have different view. The chances are IF anyone else is arrested (Glitter seems to be a crowd pleaser of no importance) they will undoubtedly be very rich with expert legal advice and Ms Raccoon’s investigations could feature heavily in defense. Or at least open the way for a forensic grilling of claimants that may backfire on them badly.

 Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 08:54

Rule of Thumb (equivalent to Rule 303): Never speak to a policeman unless it is to get them working for you. The police will say, at some point, “what you do say will be taken down and may be used against you”. They NEVER say, it will be used FOR you.

 Dai Brainbocs October 30, 2012 at 09:08

Does the formal caution not now say “… may be used in evidence”?

 Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 09:31

As with Rule 303 it only works one way.

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 14:48

This might be a good place to add in a smidge of conspiracy linky-linky Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon nudge nudge Area 51-ery.

Karin Ward’s therapist is the same therapist who investigated the Hollie Greig thing on behalf of the Scottish waddayamacallit government or whoever. I’d give the name, but since I read the first few free pages of Keri the other day, with the thanks to said therapist, then googled the name, the Amazon “look inside” thing has stopped working beyond the front cover, so I can’t.

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 14:55


 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 15:07

Well Anna, if you’ve got a Kindle and £1.60, take a peek… I haven’t got either :’(

 Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 15:09

The link is still available from my location. I have copy/pasted the prologue’s opening paragraph

“This book is dedicated, firstly, to Dr. Carolyn McQueen. This extraordinarily gifted and empathic psychologist picked me up when I was entirely broken — and painstakingly put me back together in order that I could function in some semblance of normality. In fact, if not for her, this book would never have been written at all. “

 Woman on a Raft October 30, 2012 at 16:02

Double ID check required. Might be two separate people. This one isn’t a doctor. Or maybe not.

The consultant psychologist Ms Carolyn McQueen employed to write a report on Hollie for Shropshire County Council stated that Hollie’s claims of sexual abuse were unsubstantiated.

 Woman on a Raft October 30, 2012 at 16:16

I think this is the right Carolyn McQueen, listed as Dr with the BPS.

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 16:28

WOAR, I’m confused. Are they different people? Are there two different Carolyn McQueens who are psychologists dealing in child abuse?

Also, I wasn’t suggesting that McQueen (if the same one or not) is part of the Greig bandwagon. I was myself a few days ago just interested in how Ward got noticed, and the psychologist- if sufficiently involved in the Abuse bureaucracy to be writing reports- might have been the conduit.

 Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 17:05

Meirion’s story is that he just found Karin’s story on the internet, via that fantasy site. If he was googling “Duncroft” it wouldn’t have been difficult to spot it, and then the JS acronym in her writings. She is a very impressive writer – clearly Duncroft was still a place for intelligent girls, even in the 1970s.

 Span Ows October 30, 2012 at 17:54

I doubt there are many consultant psychologists that are not doctors.

 Woman on a Raft October 30, 2012 at 18:11

@IanB – just checking because the precise job description and title matters in the field of psychology. Some of the descriptors are legally protected, some of them mean ‘lady did evening class’. I was puzzled by the inconsistency in the title. That can mean sloppy typing by someone, or it can mean two people or, sometimes, it means a person whose qualifications mysteriously change.

In this case it is one person who is sometimes doesn’t use their title but who is a reliable accredited therapist. It’s likely that she was approached in that capacity. The fact that she’s now in bad odour with the Hollie G campaign suggest that she’s not easily co-opted in to a circus.

 Ian B October 31, 2012 at 03:28


Meirion’s story is that he just found Karin’s story on the internet, via that fantasy site

This is the bloke who forgot to mention his aunt worked there and he’d been a personal visitor, yes?

I’m a bit confused about the timeline. As I understand it, Anna reports that a group of Duncroftians were liasing on a message board and offline, apparently synchronising memories or what have you. When was this occurring? Before Merion Jones randomly found Karin Ward’s writings on the internets? Or after?

If before, doesn’t that imply some premediated desire to do something with their shared abuse stories?

Like I said, getting a bit lost as to what happened when here. My cynicism was aroused by the MSM uniformly portraying Ward as having reluctantly been drawn from the shadows and bravely waving her anonymity, only to discover that she had been already writing books of Survivor memories, and the second was due out to coincide (apparently) with the documentary broadcast, and she’d tweeted about “expecting lawsuits”.

So my speculation was whether she came to the attention of the abuse investigator policeman bloke and the MSM via a therapist with abuse bureaucracy connections. I must add here that having been following this stuff for years, since my youthful Dawkinsian proactive atheism drew me to an interest in the SRA panic. I have a deep cynicism towards abuse therapists who tend to be part of a general pattern of teaching their patients to believe anything that comes into their head as true memories and so on.

 Ian B October 31, 2012 at 08:38

According to Mark Williams-Thomas, the Duncroft Girls got in touch with him independently of the Newsnight investigation.

 GildasTheMonk October 30, 2012 at 21:48

Well, having met the urbane, witty and kind hearted (though not to be messed with – I apologise about the incident with the tennis ball and the wolf hound, Anna, and also “Smuddgate”!) and having a mere 30 years of experience of dealing with both the good (rarely) and the utterly sociopathic (often) because of my job, I can happily tell you that Anna is one of the beacons of honesty and probity in this world – and blessed with a meticulous forensic mind.

I am forced to encounter and consider people (I use the word in its loosest sense) like you quite often. It is always a depressing and disagreeable experience, and always ends the same way. Given enough time and resources, you will leave the room railing against the result. It is almost piteable. Almost, because it is necessary that in a free and open society, you and the filth like you are subject to sanction.

You are quite probably, no almost certainly,suffering from acute paranoia and delusional psychosis. Please get some form of therapy. Simple medication will probably not be sufficient. You may wish to ask your GP to help you be “sectioned”, and leave the rest of the world get on its way for a while. I rate your chances of recovery as poor to low, but at least you won’t pollute my atmosphere for a while, or, more importantly, insult a good and kind person who tells the truth, even at her own risk of being attacked by what I understand are called “trolls”.

Like you.

Go back to the darkness that awaits you.


Anna, you may wish to moderate this reponse!

 Saul October 30, 2012 at 22:38

It’s not like you to sit on the fence Gildas, say what you mean.

(ermm, care to expand on “Smuddgate?”

 Elena ‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 22:57

Oh gosh, can I second that without fear of censure? But who cares anyway. Most of us know where we are at. But I have to say that I worry about my own disintegration in the realms of The English Language. Where I am at? God help me.

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:18

there is also the problem that under English law you are not generally invited to speak to the police, rather arrested and then questioned.

The arrest gives the impression of guilt.

 Paul October 31, 2012 at 02:24

@ Observor

Not necesarily as true these days, even when an offence is suspected. In some cases you are invited to go along to speak to them, even using your own transportation to get you there! I’m told that every arrest has now to be attended by about 43 separate pieces of paper which the Police have to complete. So in some cases you are invited to attend to discuss things. The implication (or indication) is that you will however be arrested if you decline that invitation.

 Elena ‘andcart October 31, 2012 at 02:55

Just keep your mouth shut when you get there. 99% of people implicate themselves. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are guilty. The Police will do you given half a chance. Sorry about that, but it happens to be true. Which is why the more stupid get done. And those with a good Brief often don’t.

They knew that they never had a hope in hells chance of catching Jimmy Savile, especially as they never had any Evidence. That’s the thing you see. No Evidence.

 Jonathan Mason October 29, 2012 at 22:25

Anna, is not quite clear what you are saying. Are you saying that your phone conversation with the former employee provided all the information about Savile only having stayed the night one time, a short ride in the car, one visit to his TV show, and not to Top of the Pops, and so on?

If so you are rather confirming my suspicions in earlier posts that the version of Duncroft portrayed by Karin Ward, which seemed to me ludicrously lax in terms of the level of supervision provided, is not really an accurate one and the quotation below could not be true.

“In fact, on the SEVERAL OCCASIONS when he chose to take me out, he often tried to press me to ‘go further’ than simply fondling him and allowing him to grope inside my knickers and at my almost non-existent breasts.  He promised me all manner of good things if I would give him oral sex. In fact, when he vowed one day, that if I gave him oral sex, I and a few other girls could come to BBC Television Centre and be on his television show, I agreed.  Fortunately, due to the lithium I was taking, I have very little recollection of that event, although I do remember gagging violently and JS reaching across to fling the passenger door open and urge me to vomit ‘outside the car’.”

Ward, Kat (2012-10-13). KERI KARIN: the SHOCKING true story of a child abused, CONTINUED (child abuse true stories) (Kindle Locations 527-534). Child Abuse True Stories. Kindle Edition.

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 00:32

Anna says “The first episode which she attended was the one featuring Olivia Newton-John “, indicating the Duncroft girls went to more than one episode. Regarding Anna saying any of the girls’ trips in Savile’s Rolls Royce or their movements at the BBC were always accompanied by a member of staff, I assume this is what these former members of staff have told her, which is somewhat predictable that they would do so now, is it not, considering they had a legal responsibility towards them?

 Jonathan Mason October 30, 2012 at 02:53

I just don’t know. On the one hand we have the “things were different in them days” argument, but on the other hand we have the idea that even 30 or 40 years later staff are aware of negligence in the past and try to cover it up. I get the impression that Anna’s memories of Duncroft lean more towards the idea that there was fairly strict supervision and an awareness of staff’s legal responsibilities–tolerance of and encouragement of underage smoking not withstanding.

Incidentally, my first impressions of Karin Ward’s most recent book was that it was almost a diary of smoking cigarettes, so much is the subject obsessively discussed, but on reaching the end of her book, there is a rather poignant mention that she finally gave up smoking in 2011 after being diagnosed with a smoking-related disease (bowel cancer).

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:24

“I get the impression that Anna’s memories of Duncroft lean more towards the idea that there was fairly strict supervision and an awareness of staff’s legal responsibilities”

Anna, or perhaps it was her friend, Mewsical, has stated that the way things were run at Duncroft changed significantly after it ended being directly controlled by the Government in 1970, falling into local authority control, and then by MIND and NAMH in 1974, with Margaret Jones then taking on a more administrative role and liasing with parents. Taking that to be an accurate picture, it surely cannot have been Miss Jones was able to be the one who would keep an eye on Savile’s behaviour, so she cannot possibly vouch that nothing untoward went on. Mewsical has also stated that the girls who came after 1970 were of a ‘different caliber’ and that Margaret Jones was happy to retire.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 18:44

Margaret Jones never changed her role, Anthony. When visitors came to the school, she was front and center. She was the headmistress and it was her role to welcome visitors and show them around the school, at the very least. They would have been entertained in her study, not among the girls, and when she had her own house I imagine – because I wasn’t there – she had the guests at her house for at least a cup of tea and a chat. In a situation like Savile driving a few girls and an accompanying staff member around the block in his Rolls, she certainly would have been watching that. I NEVER believed that any girl was allowed to go off alone with him – that just doesn’t track with me at all. It seems certain that there was no Jimmy Savile before 1974 as well. The girls also went home on home leave, and at least one has said that JS gave them his phone number at the BBC. When you were home, you were in the custody of your parents or guardian. I believe Karin Ward has additionally said that she liked being at Duncroft and felt safe there.

 Paul October 30, 2012 at 21:38

You’re trying to find anything that will support your theories, whether or not the balance of probabilities suggests the truth (or untruth) of any statement made. It is to be hoped you never sit on a jury in a court of law, because I suggest that the evidence presented would come a poor second to your pre-conceived version of events. Nobody here is suggesting Savile was entirely innocent. What people are saying is that no real proof has been presented and it has been virtually proven that some of the ‘evidence’ is false. This then casts doubt on a lot of the other evidence, at least that by the liars. That’s how the law works and is consistent with reasonable human nature and the interests of justice. Though not for some it seems. There’s nothing new in this either of course. We have all heard of and imagined baying lynch mobs many times, legal process be damned. The huge precedent for this would be in the matter of Witchcraft, which was surely responsible for the most horrendous miscarriages of justice in history, thousands of times over. It is to be hoped that we do keep our legal system and its processes because they are definitely one of the hallmarks of civilisation. You may imagine they never ‘come for you’ for any offence, as you are obviously without sin, but I would be quite concerned if I were you, because the world of Men is an ironic place and the most terrible ironies do occur.

 Anthony October 31, 2012 at 00:46

You are contradicting your own statements Mewsical, you wrote on the digital spy website:

“On the contrary, they seem to have become a good deal more strict, with padded cells, Thorazine, etc. This may have been because of the supervision by MIND and NAMH. Miss Jones did tell me that she was being expected to accept girls who were not of the same caliber as the girls she had in the 60s, and I certainly got the impression she wasn’t exactly unhappy to retire! She delegated a lot of the daily administration and supervision to the staff, and spent a lot of her time dealing with parents, social workers, etc., so rather than continually turn whatever went on to her, consider she had a fairly large staff, some residents and some coming to the school every day from outside.”

NOTE “She delegated a lot of the daily administration and supervision to the staff”

And as for Savile not being able to mix with the girls, this was clearly false as the photo shows him with his arm around them on a chair in what looks like some kind of common room. He notably described himself as their “term time boyfriend” in his 1974 autobiography.

 Trenchcoat October 31, 2012 at 10:56

Anthony are you Jzee on Digital Spy?

How old must the people over there, for them to think a woman having a maiden name and a married name is regarded as someone having something to hide?

 Observor October 30, 2012 at 07:10

Sorry but I’m not buying that at all.

Just because of the time period I do not believe a group or one girl would be permitted to go unaccompanied with Savile or even the Queen Mother to a TV studio or trips in a car.

And saying it is “predictable” for staff to say that (and if they did it’s also evidence) is a slur that carries no greater or less importance than Karin Ward’s claims or anyone else’s but does indicate that the worst is preferable to a far lesser and more mundane truth.

 Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 07:27


I have already allowed for the possibility that ‘staff would say that’ – but what staff will also say is who else was in the car/school mini bus depending on which incident you are talking about…..they will not be so easily dismissed as ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’….

Fur will fly, trust me – and these girls will not be dismissed as ‘wasn’t even there at the time’ – they were there!

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think middle aged women, as we all are, would expose themselves to the sort of sly innuendoes that we have over the past few days for the mere sake of Miss Jones’ reputation. We do it because the truth does matter. Far more than Miss Jones even. We don’t have a book to sell!

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:30

“but what staff will also say is who else was in the car/school mini bus ”

Of course they would say girls were always accompanied, they doesn’t mean that they were. We know that Savile was able to bamboozle people for decades that he was an upholder of morality and Christian values, a man devoted to charitable works.

 Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 18:48

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony – I was at the school. You weren’t. I agree with what Anna said. We have no books to sell. There was no WAY the girls went ANYWHERE without a member of staff present. You can twist it with all the pretzel logic you want, but that’s the truth. On top of which, what if one of them tried to abscond while with him alone? Easy to do, just hop out of the car and start running. That would create a huge problem for him. So, not only to protect the girls, but also to protect the visitor. Think about it. Really.

 Paul October 29, 2012 at 21:17

Found the gates, they are modern you can the entry phone.

51°26’15.16″ N 0°31’05.01″ W

 Paul October 29, 2012 at 22:13


 Michael October 29, 2012 at 20:58

“…my focus was always on the question of whether the original story which focussed heavily on Duncroft was wrongly prevented from appearing – or not.”

I find this point interesting. On the one hand the suspicion is that the Newsnight story was canned because of the embarrasment factor. The picture painted is of tireless brave journalists working hard to uncover the truth, which is then cruelly supressed by a bunch of chinless managers, fearful of reputational damage.

On the other hand, you have an image of corrupt, self-serving journos with the worst of motives who make stuff up, and are then held in check by their wise leaders.

Sadly, I get the sense that the worst part of both of these statements is nearer to the truth than the best part of either of them.

 belinus October 29, 2012 at 20:50

Well bloody done girl, I have only just met you but I had faith in your stance from the get go…

 Robert Edwards October 29, 2012 at 20:37

Bon courage, Madame…

 The Filthy Engineer October 29, 2012 at 20:29

Well done Anna. Nice to see that there is a flip side to the story.

Both Mrs FE and myself are wondering why, after all this time, so many people are jumping on the band wagon? After all there has always been underage groupies throwing themselves at celebrities.

 Carol42 October 29, 2012 at 20:28

All this reminds me of Cleveland, Orkney, Nottingham and Lanarkshire. All false and what happened then really was child abuse that no compensation could make up for. I was slightly involved in that area at the time and I just couldn’t understand why apparently sane people could believe any of it, wonder what the vested interest is in this case.

 Delphius October 29, 2012 at 20:19

I’m firmly of the opinion that some person or organisation is driving the Saville issue. Its had a life way beyond what one would term natural in the media, so the assumption is there is something or someone pushing the agenda.

To what ends its hard to say: it could be to hide other news, like deflecting the heat from an errant MP, or it could be an attack on the BBC in an effort to finally break it up.

The most likely scenario is its a driver for legislation. Watch for the various enquiries to dovetail in their reports, findings and most importantly recommendations. Most likely is that the recommendations (whether the enquiries find hard evidence of illegal practices or not) will include include draconian legislation which will extremely rapidly be enacted and made law. If there is no evidence, then the reports will use the “what if” scenario, basically we need to protect children from this happening even though it didn’t happen in the first place.

The thing is, no matter how bad, wide-ranging, authoritarian or puritanical the legislation that comes out of this, not one MP will stand up against it, because to do so will make them labelled “paedophile and sex offender supporter”.

The violent pornography law (that makes pictures of something entirely legal like stills from a BBFC certified film actually illegal to own) was made law in just the same way.

This is how bad law is made and freedom is eroded , using emotive subjects that cannot be argued against in order to quell opposition.

At a guess I’d say the end game is the establishment of increased powers of the state over and above the rights of parents to govern their children. I could be wrong, but I’ve seen for a long time that the court’s insistence on the rights of parents over the rights of the state to be a source of national and local government irritation. Removing the parent from the equation would allow government direct access to children without interruption. From home-schooling to sending your son/daughter to sea at 16, I reckon parents will lose what power they have.

 Ian B October 29, 2012 at 20:54

Well, the best model perhaps for understanding this is to remember that Activism is a very large machinery kept on constant standby. If we take another wing- the Greens- they know that if they sit and wait long enough, an environental disaster (e.g. oil spill) will occur; at which point the whole machinery roars into activity. Likewise, the Abuse wing can sit and wait for some claims like this to arise, knowing inevitably that they will, and then the machinery roars into life. They have spent several decades putting that machinery in place. But it is basically reactive; there is no “conspiracy” as such. Creating an environment in which claims will be made, and that machinery can be activated, is sufficient.

When that machinery does activate, it has pre-programmed goals, particularly legislative ones. They will certainly be looking for a Lawrence-style enquiry, legislative recommendations, and legislation in accordance with the programmed goals of the activist machine. At each stage, with each panic, they creep (or lurch!) closer to an ultimate goal- the banning of porn, or the social exclusion of males- and a reformation of institutions (especially the police and legal system) to bring them under more control of activist objectives; again, the Stephen Lawrence business was a perfect example of this.

To be cynical, the Activists are probably still smarting over the Tories’ cancellation of the “safeguarding database” ContactPoint thingumajig, so they’ve been itching for something like this to happen, one would imagine. Proving “institutional paedophilia” is the key thing here, as with “institutional racism”.

 Engineer October 29, 2012 at 20:57

That just sounds too much like conspiracy theory, and far too complicated a theory to work predictably.

My suspicion is that this is just one of those stories that ‘takes off’ for some not entirely understood reason. The Leveson inquiry was set up on the back of outrage over the supposed hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone, and deletion of messages on it by journalists. The deletion of messages by journalists was later shown not to have happened, but by then the story had run out of control.

In this case, I suspect that the BBC has been ‘turning a blind eye’ to all sorts of goings-on involving it’s employees and ‘talent’, and the build-up of filth has overwhelmed the dam of self-rightous arrogance and denial that held it in. The BBC has been overdue a shake-up for a long time. Maybe this will give it the kick up the fundament it needs.

 Ian B October 29, 2012 at 21:09

Hmm, the problem with “just takes off” is this; we are discussing human actions here, and human actions are always willed. Nothing “just happens”.

It is a simple matter of historical fact that activist movements have been using every tool at their disposal to create “social change” for nigh two centuries now, and a rabid, hysterical media is a part of that machine. The story of how we got the age of consent itself is interesting; the Reformers had been trying to raise it legislatively for ages, on the basis of an invented moral panic about “white slavery” (in which only they believed), but each time the law was not passed. The “first tabloid journalist”- W T Stead thus took it upon himself to engineer the abduction of a 13 year old girl, and reported it in his newspaper in lurid terms as “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon.”. It thus fixed in the public mind that the White Slave Traffic was real, and the law was passed in the hysteria.

It then came out that Stead was reporting his own actions; he had hired a procuress, who lied to the girl’s mother that she was going into maidservice, and then himself abducted her, drugged, to a brothel to “prove” his story. He went to court, and then to prison for a short term. It was all a pack of lies. But, the law had passed and the belief in White Slavery successfully planted in the public mind; his prison term a small price to pay.

These things don’t “just happen”. People make them happen. They are human actions, not acts of God.

 Engineer October 29, 2012 at 21:27

Ian B – I was replying to Delphius, not to you.

I hear what you say about certain ‘special interest’ pressure groups. However, the scandal seems to be unfolding on their own doorstep this time. I suspect that may give them cause to pause.

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 21:15

It was certainly notable that when it was reported that it was Colin Stagg’s phoen being hacked the week before the MD revelation, nobody was interested.

I think Ian is right, though, as regards the system being reactive, rather than conspiratorial, and gun control is a very good example of where this has actually happened. If you look as Home Office publications pre-Hungerford and Dunblane, it’s clear they were champing at the bit to tighten the legislation, but didn’t have any justification to do so until two obligingly psychopaths handed it to them on a plate. A couple of years ago, a Home Office consulation document was published which strongly recommends tighter controls on shotguns and their ammunition, even though the “evidence” presented in it doesn’t support or merit such a policy. Don’t you so, but you heard it here first….

 Engineer October 29, 2012 at 21:24

Some have suggested that the Home Office, for reasons beyond my understanding, would like to completely disarm the public (notwithstanding the extreme inconvenience that would cause for many perfectly legitimate activities, such as preditor control and livestock management). In respects such as this, the Civil Service is far more dictatorial than almost any government.

 Ted Treen October 31, 2012 at 13:19

“..Home Office, for reasons beyond my understanding, would like to completely disarm the public ..”

The reasons are all too clear. Look across the Atlantic – ignoring the hysteria about murder rates, as that’s an indictment of their society, rather than the available tools…

The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution to protect the freedom of the people.

I accept that the Dep’t of Homeland Security is eroding that freedom rather too much, but over-ambitious rulers are kept in check by the thought of an armed populace.

Why do you think our ruling elite here in the UK are so vehemently opposed to any kind of arming of the electorate?

Concern for our well-being? – If so, it would be the first time ever!

To save us from ourselves? – see comment above!

To ensure that armed bad guys can’t hurt us? – ask any cop involved in Trident how effective that is.

To prevent a serious rising by a pissed-off electorate? – getting warmer!

 Amfortas October 31, 2012 at 13:30

The US Constitutional ‘right to bear arms’ was to enable a Militia as at the time it did not have a standing Army.

 Ted Treen October 31, 2012 at 17:56

Enabling a militia to ensure the freedom of the people: ensuring their freedom from external OR INTERNAL tyranny…

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 21:35

Now it’s an excuse to carry an AK47 into a classroom, place of work, etc.

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 14:35

It is much easier to activate fascism with a disarmed population.

Fascism being a position by which the corporate realm merges with the domestic systems.

Mussolini said fascism should really be called corporatism.

 Ted Treen October 31, 2012 at 17:59

Yup, but in those days the corporate was generally a National organisation, with its interests mainly in one specific country. (By ‘interests’ I do not mean purely its property etc.)

Nowadays, corporates are global with generally no specific loyalty to any individual state or country.

Wither mankind?

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 18:40

Those same corporations of which you speak had an overdiing umbrella of control, the East India Companies and the committee of 300.

Back in the day each nation saw only the committee’s national representative, they failed to recognise the global overlord. After the second world war we began to witness its size as it removed all that were deemed national corporations to their new playground in the east.

Thatcher began the incorporation of our civil system in the privitisation of the utilities, Brown and his muppet Blair scooped the rest leaving the coalition to secure the rest in readiness for a lighter time for the next planned coalition and the Lib-Lab-UKIP pact.

I mean, if you are want to have a third world war then you need an enemy for NATO, and we can see this building in the middle east shift to all things China and Russia..

Blair demolished the political party that was Labour as Cameron and Clegg are demolishing the conservative outlook as a political movement for the British people.

Clever these bankers.

 dj October 31, 2012 at 21:48

Genuinely, tell me more. Are you saying they are destroying our political identity for reconstruction…..interesting to hear your view on this as I can’t quite exactly work out what “they” are doing, but I know “they” are definitely up to something….

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 22:36

What I have found is a position whereby we suffer a clear usurpation of the constitutional realm and its common law which offers all the rights for its citizens, limits the power of government, and protects the systems set up within its doctrines from all outside threats.

After the bankrupcy declerations in 1930, all went cap in hand to the fund set up by the wealthy houses connected by the East India companies, and the Virginia company, each holding the wealth from all the revolutions, wars, opium running and slavery. That fund was The Bank for International Settlemtns, from which we get the World Bank and the fund thereof, the International Moneatary Fund.

In order to recieve the credit, governments secured the people as collatoral. Once signed Europe required another world war in order to destroy Germany and Britain as a culture and religion, in order the programme created to benefit from the 1930 agreement could be implemented immedietely after the war.

This is why labour offering a serious contradiction in terms, and, defeating Churchill took a landslide victory after WWII.

The contradiction came in the offer of full employment and a huge welfare state, the former of course cancelling out the latter. We cannot of course hold the beliegured peoples to task for missing such a contradiction having suffered war like state since 1914.

Out come the social security numbers as the registration of births shifted to the creation of a corporate legal person as a mimic of your Christian name and owned by the corporate United kingdom.

The trick from that point was to programme the populations to identify their humanity as that fictitious legal person, therefore breeching crown copyright and commiting a fraud, while keeping that bit a secret, and for your trouble, given only a legal person can sue and be sued, for breech of crown copyright, you will be hit with whatever statutes they aim against the person you are falsly claiming to be the liable agent for.

In this way the people of Britain have through tacit agreement, rebuffed their god given rights under constitution, and chosen unwittingly, to be governed by commercial statutes because they claim to be a corporate entity, the legal person, created at the registration of your birth.

The legal person is denoted in the uppercase, uppercase first letter of first and surname, and with the titles, Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master and Squire.

This can only be so because the act of treason is from the very top, and I recieved a document last year that claims Queen Elizabeth II did not take the correct oath as that taken by her predecessors, the consequence of which means the British realm has had no monarch since 1954. Elizabeth II was only the British monarch from the death of her father until taking a different oath in 54. Should this be the case.

This places the entire raft of constitutional realm office holders in an act of treason, while from the oath they took they are in fact upholding the realm of Queen Elizabeth II, it just happens not to be the realm we believe it to be.

That is what I have found and needs to be either disproved or shown to be the case. But when it comes to the question as to why the realm has not worked …it is the answer staring us all in the face…

In truth all this began in Burgundy in 909 AD, when the Benedictine Monastic Order was taken over and the doctrines reversed, by the Carolingian warlords, at that time, and still today, parading as the Merovingians. The Carolingians of course are the bastard lines. They shifted the Benedictine doctrines from one of not owning property and land, to full ownership by the aristocracy that would grow within the Benedictine order as they became it in its entirety. From this move would be born the Feudal system that William the bastard would instill, first move into Scotland through the St Clairs then across the country.

This is what Henry VIII was attacking with the disolution of the Monastaries, unfortuneatley he threw the baby out with the bathwater, allowing the Zionist monster that was Cromwell to remove the laws on Usuary, an act that required the death of a king as he was the upholder of the constitution and the laws on usury.

In came the money lenders and made base in london, after a war with Holland, a plague and the great fire.

History has shown me that the history of these Isles has been one of the destruction of the White Goddess, the heaven influenced spirtit that encompassed the matriarchal system, whose last bastion in Britain was the land of the Brigantes. She would move through Constantine to Rome and would become the doctrines of the early Church in Rome. She would come back to these Isles in her true form, not to Iona, but to Northumberland with Oswald.

This would not do and so commenced the atacks by the Carolingian warlords history calls the Viking, just to keep the new fledged system supple enough for a 1066 invasion.

 dj October 31, 2012 at 21:45

Fascism is the most twisted word in modern usage, as is Liberal. I am often told that Conservatives wishing to diminish the size of the state are fascist.

It’s turned into a term for “I don’t agree with you”

 belinus October 31, 2012 at 21:54

Mmm, it is more the fact people believe fascism to be jack boots and swastika when that is what happens after the political system that is fascism is fully implemented, if it be the wish of the big houses.

If this country ceases to act within the protection of the constitution, then we are at the mercy of the corporations without any rights whatever. We are Babylon.

It is clear that the corporate education programme for the mass of children under the academy agenda is moving more and more to a military type system, while the schools push to take full power of attorney for the children having gained swathes of permissions, by deception, in the many agreements and outright demand for medical powers of attorney.

It worked for the Third Reich and it is clearly working for the Fourth.

Fascism first… (merging of the private corporate realm with the civil system…then the insanity cometh.

 Delphius October 29, 2012 at 22:15

Not so much a conspiracy, but its very easy for calls to be made and the story to be nudged along. Stories like this tend to have a shelf life and this one tends to be transcending what you’d consider normal.

Its then quite easy for inquiries that are set up to be steered to provide the required output.

Its then also just as easy for legislators to knee-jerk into action to “be seen to be doing something” to quell the menace of something that was manufactured out of thin air by the media.

Look through the archives and see how Liz Longhurst’s campaign over violent pornography was promoted from one mothers crusade, to legislation.

There was no need to bring in a law for something that was already covered by the obscene publications act, however there was a complication in that the members of juries trying OPA cases failed to agree with the state as to what was actually going to “corrupt and deprave”. Also the “Publications” part of the act meant you could only go for the publishers, not the readers. So, Liz Longhurt’s campaign was raised in profile, by amongst others , ACPO and the home office, both keen to change legislation.

The law is bad: how can something that is quite legal to watch like a properly BBFC certified film be made illegal when images of it are taken and used in a particular context? The images should be either legal or illegal irrespective of context, but this asinine law defines the same image as both. It also removes the jury, changing matters of public taste to state defined strict liability, with wording so vague and wide-ranging that it can be used to censor just about anything, not just porn..

I fear the increased hype over the Saville case, despite the contradictory evidence as set out here by Anna in one chapter of it, shows there is an agenda at work here.

 Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:57

There is truth in what you say : both the ‘strategy manager’ (what’s that?) for the NSPCC and Harriet Harman have linked the Savile scandal to the recent change for teachers remaining anonymous before being charged,

Yet there is absolutely no correlation between the matters.

And the BBC is most definitely a target and whilst we all have gripes against it, it’s loss or break-up would be a supreme success for many and a targedy for Britain.

 DJ October 31, 2012 at 05:48

I hope to god the DOES break up the BBC. Vile, odious organisation we are forced to fund. I hope the liberal bastards are all out of work and can try selling their stories about the NHS, the poor downtrodden public sector and “look how brilliant Chinese Communism is” to people who are not forced by court order to pay, and then we’ll see who the real journalists are.

 Amfortas October 31, 2012 at 08:12

@ DJ: “I hope to god the DOES break up the BBC. Vile, odious organisation we are forced to fund. I hope the liberal bastards are all out of work ……….. ”

There is no ‘perfect’ organisation whether we are forced to fund it or not. The BBC is a reflection of as well as a participant in the decline of Britain as a whole. Yes it has its vile aspects but let us not forget it’s successes. It started well and has produced much that is of incredibly high standard. It has had many very fine people within its ranks.

The entertainment industry has moved into a very dark place and I agree there are vile aspects. Maybe this is one more event that is needed for a general revulsion to bring about significant change.

When Heracles cleaned out the Augean Stables, he swept away a great deal more than just the horse shyte. I would not like to see the BBC totally destroyed. And I am pretty sure that this episode will not bring its destruction about but as the King chappie said to Heracles, “The shyte has to go”.

 davidb October 29, 2012 at 20:06

Still a gripping read.

Regarding the press, I have been involved in a handful of reported things. Its never accurately reported. I long ago took a decision to never speak to anyone from any branch of it. I did once believe the Times to be a good newspaper, but I heard first hand from someone they misquoted at the time of the Robin Cooke matrimonial debacle. And I have heard the later BBC reports on the radio of interviews I heard live being selectively edited to tell us the story they want to report, not the actual story I heard from the horses mouth.

The Police are an untrustworthy lot, but you’d be better speaking only to them, and never, not ever to the press.

I’m always curious why people crave that 15 minutes of fame. I don’t even like being incidentally photographed.

 Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:47

I’m a retired journalist who has worked on both British and Australian tabloids (mostly News Corp) and all I can say is I am so pleased I got out ten years ago.I saw the writing on the wall long before others but many aspects of the industry appalled me and whilst I was never involved in criminal investigations I witnessed the truth being manipulated and made fit not just a deadline but an angle.

I would never ever EVER speak to a journalist under any circumstances (nor the police without a lawyer) and the last time I did over a charity I was involved in the hack defamed the charity president and stole photographs for their story/ (and this in 2010). It took me tricking my way into the newspaper’s fortress like building and threatening to deck the journalist right there and then to get the photograph back and an apology. The editor wisely decided not to call security when I stated I would simply go to a rival tabloid and the police over the matter of the stolen pics.

The pressure journalists are now under that include the possibility of no job in 12 months are immense. They will bend and twist the truth.

Again : Ms Raccoon is wise tos end everything staright to the polcie (with copies of cours ereatined safely)

 Dai Brainbocs October 30, 2012 at 08:58

As Neil Young sang on Greendale: “It ain’t an honour to be on TV. And it ain’t a duty either.”

 jonseer October 29, 2012 at 19:37

May I say thank you Anna for a tale equally as gripping to this humble mortal as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”.

I hope & pray you are equal to the task.

Good luck & win for Truth’s sake.

 johnpd November 4, 2012 at 19:45

Indeed for Truth.

The most valuable thing on this planet, on which all trust & progress is built.

Thank you Anna.


 Ian B October 29, 2012 at 19:23

There are too many allegations now to think that they can all be without foundation.

They can be. Satanic Ritual Abuse- the progenitor and template for this entire panic- was constructed from clouds of allegations which were all entirely false.

 JuliaM October 30, 2012 at 05:31

Well, there was real abuse at the heart of them. There nearly always is.

Just not of the ‘Satanic’ flavour.

 Ian B October 30, 2012 at 09:57

No there wasn’t.

 Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 12:41

The controversy resulted in an official inquiry established in August 1991, chaired by Lord Clyde. The inquiry published its report in October 1992. It described the successful appeal against the first judgment as “most unfortunate” and criticized all those involved, including the social workers, the police, and the Orkney Islands Council. Social workers’ training, methods, and judgment were given special condemnation, and the report stated that the concept of “ritual abuse” was “not only unwarrantable at present but may affect the objectivity of practitioners and parents”.

 Peter Raite October 30, 2012 at 13:28

It’s rather sad that even today, there is no room for the concept of malice being the reason for a false accusation against an adult by a child. Even where they acknowledge a child may not be telling the truth, it is effectively excused on the grounds that it is probably an indicator of actual abuse elsewhere. As if that’s a reasonable justification for ruining the lives or careers of innocent teachers, carers, etc.

 Joe Public October 29, 2012 at 19:06

Thanks for another exciting, in depth, episode Anna.

Not so much a “Who dunnit?”, more a “Who wasn’t it done to?”

 ivan October 29, 2012 at 18:19

Anna, all of this begs the question, what are they trying to hide?

This bottom feeding extravaganza has all the hall marks of a cover up of something. Is it to cover some ‘important’ person or religious group or are they trying to divert attention from some political move?

Maybe it is more prosaic, the MSM no longer has journalists that are capable of doing in-depth investigations.

 Anna Raccoon October 29, 2012 at 18:22

Fiddling whilst Rome burns?

 Backwoodsman October 30, 2012 at 12:20

bbc ‘spoiling’ operation ? Confuse the issue with loads of unsubstantiated tosh about a place which is nothing to do with them ?

 Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 19:15

There is one feature in the works, which of course gives the journalist much more time to research facts, verify stories and so on. Until now, they’ve been running at the story against deadlines. No deadline involved with this.

 Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 18:10

I don’t remember those grand gates either, Anna. Just these wooden things that were actually open most of the time. When we barricaded ourselves into the Junior Common Room in February 1964, some of us wandered out into Staines, corralled a couple of teenage boys on bikes, and brought them down to Moor Lane to buttress our claims that Duncroft was in fact a girls’ approved school. They lingered about by the open gates, and we went back down the driveway, all of which would have been a bit tricky if the gates were locked. The gates shown in the Panorama piece were obviously put up by the builder during the gussying-up 20 years or so back. We weren’t that grand!

I was speaking with Barnardo’s this morning on other issues, and the subject of the boxes came up. They are in the possession of Kate Roach there. At this point in the proceedings, they cannot be given to anyone other than the police, because they are the subject of a criminal investigation at this point. But I hope the police do go after them. Lots of good info in those day books, if they still exist, of course.

Miss Jones was there until 1980, btw. She certainly worked for Barnardo’s who came in in October 1976. She told me that she didn’t really like that arrangement, at least as she informed me.

One question regarding Meirion. Did Miss Jones’ sister marry a man called Jones? I know it’s a very common name but just wondering.

I’m pretty sure that I know the staff member you spoke with, and I had some communication with her myself. If it’s who I think it is, there is a certain redheaded former Duncroft pupil who should start packing her bags and heading for the hills. She’s caused enough bloody trouble for everyone.

 Anna Raccoon October 29, 2012 at 18:17

Jones is a very common name in Wales – it wouldn’t be unusual for a ‘Jones’ to marry a ‘Jones’ – but then again, there are those within the BBC that I have heard refer to Meirion as a ‘complete bastard’. Don’t know.

 Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 19:29

That’d be Complete Bastard Jones, then.

 Dai Brainbocs October 30, 2012 at 08:51

I once knew a North Walian whose four unrelated grandparents were all called Jones at birth, could easily happen.

 Ellen Coulson October 31, 2012 at 11:13

No Margaret Jones’s brother was married to Meirion’s mother, Irene who was deputy headmistress of a grammar school in Surrey. She apparently was jealous of MJ and came over often with her daughter or son to meet the celebrities/minor royals etc!

 Surreptitious Evil October 29, 2012 at 19:32

Hang on. Didn’t Kate say she was a member of staff at Liverpool Uni? Not at Barnardos? So this gets really complicated. Some stuff which, legitimately, should be in Barnardos’ possession and a lot of stuff that should be in an appropriate public (rather than publicly accessible) archive is in the possession of Barnardos but managed by a public archivist?

And s29 DPA only permits data which is processed for the purposes of the “detection and prevention of crime (etc)” exemption from s7 (Data Subject Access). Not data which is processed for other purposes but has been disclosed to law enforcement under s29.3 (or court order or anything else.) Noting that Barnardos are not a data controller subject to s29.4.

 Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 19:43

Kate Roach is an employee of Barnardo’s, and is in charge of the entire Duncroft archive there, as well as all archives of all the Barnardo’s schools going back to the good old days in the East End, circa 1880. She is NOT a public archivist. Duncroft was a Barnardo’s school from the end of 1976 until it closed and the developer stepped in. Therefore, they are entitled to their records from those days, and agreed to accept the entire Duncroft archive from Liverpool, as it was taking up room. It’s all in their possession and under their control pursuant to relevant law regarding Data Protection, I imagine.

 Surreptitious Evil October 29, 2012 at 20:47

I misremembered – it was Katy _Gribbin_ who was the Liverpool archivist.

I’d just note that organisations that don’t want you to see things often have, or pretend, a very different understanding of Data Protection law than is justified either by the statutes or by extant case law.

 Ellen Coulson October 31, 2012 at 15:06

Sonya Maddieson is the Senior Archive & Administration Officer at Barnardo’s now not Kate.

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 17:31

Actually, it looks like she was in the editions for 09/02 & 02/03/74, as well, but the BFI does list the one for 23/02, which she may have been in, as well.

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 18:47

Wiki: In 1974, Newton-John represented the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest with the song “Long Live Love”. The song was chosen for Newton-John by the British public out of six possible entries.

Possible dates from calendar from 1974 based on sequential Saturdays. Can anybody remember if they did one or more songs per show, or how the run-off was done? I’m guessing one per week, a compendium show, voting, and then a show for the winning song (which was rightly beaten by Waterloo on 6 April). But can only confirm if someone has the Radio Times archive. Based on episode 3 being given correctly as 23 February :

February Saturday

9, Episode 1

16, Episode 2

23 Episode 3

March Saturday

2, Episode 4

9, Episode 5

16, Episode 6

23, Episode 7 (relevant birthday thought to be 25 March)

30, Episode 8

If this is correct, the first date of O-NJ on Clunk-Click is Saturday 9 February 1974, or the studio day if it was recorded. Well, you DID ask.

 Anna Raccoon October 29, 2012 at 19:15

WOAR! Respect!

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 19:22

BFI data:

9 February – two songs from `A Song for Europe’ sung by Olivia Newton-John, `Long Live Love’ by Valerie Avon and Harold Spiro and `Someday’ by Gary Benson and David Mindel.

16 February – three songs: `Someday’ by Gary Benson and David Mindel, `Angel Eyes’ by Tony Macauley and Keith Potger, and `Hands Across the Sea’ by Ben Findon and Geoff Wilkins.

23 February -[presumably the remaining song plus re-cap others]

2 March – In this edition the results of `A Song for Europe 1974′ are given.

So it needn’t have run to more than 4 shows, for which we all ought to be thankful. Hope this establishes the key date of Sat 9/2/72

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 19:22

1974! Grr.

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 19:52

Somewhat fortuitously, the only copy of the RT I have from those months is 23/03-01/03. For the Saturday, the listing is (literally):

“(as it happens)

‘I’d like to be the first one to interview Jesus Christ when H comes back – in the flesh. I would like to have a chat with Him. I think he’d be very interesting.’

Tonight Jimmy Savile invites viewers to select Britain’s entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 1974

A Song for Europe 1974

starring Olivia Newton-John who tonight sings all the six songs…”

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 20:01

Forgot to mention that the listing also states that votes (on a postcard, naturally) had to be received “not later than first post, Thursday 28 February…” If they were due to give the results on 2 March, it was probably the case that the programme was recorded either late on the Friday, or early Saturday. It may even have been live – if it wasn’t usually – or had a live insert for the results. I may be able to find out whether the general practice was live of pre-recorded, and how far in advance, on Thursday.

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 20:03

Now THAT’S impressive. 38 years and you get to the patch of data within 30 minutes. Cool.

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 20:13

Also, it looks like the series was supposed to start on 2 February, but the first episode was cancelled, “because of industrial action by studio electricians at SHepherd’s Bush over meal-break payments.” (The Times, Thu Jan 31 1974)

 Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 17:27

Clunk Click 16/02/74

“In this edition Olivia Newton-John sings songs from `A Song for Europe 1974′, including…”

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 17:46

BFI, above, confirms transmission date of 16 February 1974. Don’t know if the programme was live or if it was recorded, but if so the date can’t have been much in advance of that.

Roger Ordish, the producer of Clunk-Click, flew back to give an interview on 16 October 2012 regarding the later programme, Jim’ll Fix It which he also produced.

 Amfortas October 29, 2012 at 17:24

It gets better by the episode, m’dear. Scandals such as this have a habit of destroying many, many lives, even those of the liars and bandwagon passengers.

Keep this up. I am sending links as fast as I can to any who will listen.

 Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:26

There seems to be two sides to the Savile matter- a real side where he took advantage of sex on offer from legal and possibly under aged females (and note that one woman has said she had a consenual long term affair with Savile- and aborted his child , and another strand involving a conspiracy with two or more people to jump on the bandwagon with the possible compensation angle in mind.

That could lead to very serious legal consequences for those involved- if the police bother to follow it up. Given the police have already tried and convicted Savile, that maybe unlikely but the MSM needs feeding constantly so may turn their guns on false accusers, to keep the story alive.

It appears to me that the arrest of Gary Glitter has the elements o f authorities trying to look like they are doing something and he is an easy target. Other so-called celebrities may have much tougher legal briefs to fend of false accusers.

There is a touch of tabloid revenge as well over the whole hacking scandal with “Fleet Street” desperate to prove it’s role and like a wounded beast at it’s most dangerous, is avoiding it’s own role in promoting Savile with all those corny stunts he pulled. Blowback can be most dangerous.

 Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:14

“note that one woman has said she had a consenual long term affair with Savile- and aborted his child ”

As I stated below, Savile had form on paying older women to pose as girlfriends, I would not put it past some of his friends or family to do so now as some sort of desperate measure to prove his ‘normality’

 Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:11

and your proof of that is…?.

so she lies but all others to the negative tell the truth ?. Sure you aren’t a tabloid hack?

 Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 01:23

You’re reaching, Anthony.

 Anthony November 2, 2012 at 01:07

Not at all, Savile set up a fake engagement to Polly Browne, lead singer of PickettyWitch in 1972

 Paul October 29, 2012 at 17:12

clunk-click 1974

 Woman on a Raft October 29, 2012 at 17:12

The IMDB entry for Clunk Click Oliva Newton-John

gives a date of Season 2, Episode 3 (23 Feb. 1974)

Data is only as good as the volunteers who uploaded it, so not necessarily 100% although IMDB is regarded as reliable as fans care very much about detail.

I assume this is the transmission date but have not found a way to cross-reference that I can’t see an episode list. An archivist might be able to confirm.

 Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 18:33

That’s the same time as Miss Jones found his signature in the visitors’ book. February 1974.

 Moor Larkin October 29, 2012 at 17:09

Wise words from Mark. Copies secured – maybe duplicate originals for that matter. The police over here are bloodied and beaten after expose after expose – from recent Information Payola’s with News International to long-term cover-ups about Hillsborough. They may well want to give the clamouring masses what they want too, this time. After all what harm is it to a dead man?

Policemen (and women) are only human too.

Good Luck, or should I say Bon Chance.


 JuliaM October 30, 2012 at 05:28

They want to be careful when they climb on the back of that tiger. It can turn on them just as easily…

 Mark October 29, 2012 at 16:51

Evidence? Copy it first.

 Wendi October 29, 2012 at 16:50

A brilliant ‘Slam Dunk’ – chapeau Anna!

 Rocky Raccoon (no relation) October 30, 2012 at 17:43

According to former Surrey police officer and now presenter of ITV Exsposure…Mark Williams-Thomas.

“Police failed to interview the headmistress of a school where Jimmy Savile allegedly abused emotionally vulnerable young girls.”

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: