For those of us interested in actual truth, until today, we were still where we started; the only allegations which have seen the light of day – Jimmy Savile’s niece, now the subject of 11 signed statements to Police calling her a liar, the Duncroft girls with their forged letter and supporting cast of utter liars such as Bebe Roberts, even Police Officers reporting to Yewtree have been shown to spout nonsense – all that remains are the unpublicised allegations and in those we ‘must believe’ for the BBC is about to give each one of the ’Allegator victims’ £33,000 a piece of licence fee payer’s monies rather than risk traumatising them by actually subjecting their claims to the harsh light of day….I spoke yesterday of the risk free environment in which those claims for ‘compo’ were being made, and the financial penalties that lay in the path of any corporate entity that might be tempted to try to defend the claims.

Let us look now at some of the unpublicised claims, shall we? I am, as ever, interested in those who were in the vanguard of the ‘me too’ multiple claims made by those who watched the dreadful Exposure programme. At the time of broadcast, these comprised a group of girls connected to Duncroft, and one lady who was a member of Jimmy’s fan club. They were the people ‘exhaustively’ investigated by the Levitt report to see whether the claims that Savile ‘could have been stopped’ in 2007,  were it not for the reluctant CPS to press charges, were true. Without those claims, and the forged letter in the possession of Fiona Scott-Johnstone claiming that Savile was not charged because he was ‘too old and frail’, the present ‘Savilisation’ of our media would never have occurred.   Such frail foundations.

First up we have Miss ‘A’. (I will stick to the labels given by Alison Levitt to save you scrambling your brains with alphabet soup). Alison Levitt didn’t actually ‘interrogate’ the four witnesses she physically met, she merely showed them what they had said in 2007 and invited them to comment if they wished to change anything.

Miss ‘A’, in 2007, had told the police that she was a member of Jimmy Savile’s fan club. In 1968 she had seen him on television saying that he needed a holiday and asking if anyone could put him up. She was 20 years old at the time. She wrote to him offering her Mother’s B & B as a suitable venue for his proposed holiday. Months later she received a reply from a member of his staff declining the offer. Two years later, now married and aged 22, Savile was appearing at her local town hall. Whether she had written to him again, or whether an efficient fan club secretary had remembered her previous letter is not known, but Savile’s Rolls Royce and chauffeur was despatched to her home address to see if she would like to see Savile ‘live’. Her husband encouraged her to go – although curiously doesn’t seem to have accompanied her.

Now armed with a CFA and ATE agreement and represented by the top personal injury lawyers Russell Jones and Walker, this account has become ’2 years later claimant was told SJS (Savile) was in Worthing and wanted to see her’. She has also now become ‘approximately aged 19‘ at this date….

She must have been very excited to arrive at this crowded live venue in Savile’s own Rolls Royce because ‘the next thing she remembered’ (in 2007) was not the show, nor the crowds, but Savile’s arm around her leading her to his caravan parked outside the Town Hall. The account to the High Court in pursuit of civil damages now says ‘SJS urgently put his arm around C and urgently took her to his caravan’. No mention of the very public place where the caravan was alleged (in 2007) to be parked.

In 2007 there was no mention of a locked door, but now Miss ‘A’ remembers that ‘SJS locked the door’ and said he ‘would like to lock claimant in his cupboard and take her with him’. In 2007 he had apparently said ‘you are lovely; I’d like to lock you up in a cupboard and you’d be with me all the time’. In 2007 he also said he’d like to buy the house next door to her, and then he’d be happy all the time.

However, Savile is not so loquacious with the CFA effect applied; now he ‘pounced on’ her, with her on ‘her back and him on top‘. Conjures up a grim picture, doesn’t it – back in 2007 he was ‘lying beside her‘ paying her compliments. The detail of him allegedly putting her hand on his crotch remains the same, but he is no longer fondling her breasts over her clothing as he allegedly was in 2007, now he has ‘put his hand up her skirt‘. The rather touching detail from 2007 of Savile asking her if she was on the pill, and her reply that ‘she didn’t do that sort of thing’ has turned into ‘SJS shouted at her and asked if she was on the contraceptive pill’. At least she still agrees that Savile lost interest in sexual activity with this fully adult woman once he knew that pregnancy might be a possible complication. There is no mention now of that other touching detail; Savile giving her a crucifix with a good luck charm attached – something she still carried with her in 2007 – or ensuring that she had the bus fare to get home again. I know that memories can be fallible following ‘child’ abuse – but surely things you remember saying to the police in 2007 should still be there following a TV programme in 2012?

Miss ‘A’ would now, 42 years later, like the High Court to award damages for ‘injury, including psychological injury’. Her solicitors propose to obtain a medical report to confirm that she has been thus injured – for the purpose of lodging the claim, they only have her assessment that she was…

Russell, Jones and Walker are also representing one of the more fascinating of the Duncroft claims. I can’t name her, but have reason to suspect that she is the same individual called Miss ‘G’ by Alison Levitt. It is difficult to tell, because as Levitt belatedly admitted, she was unaware when interviewing Miss ‘G’ that Miss ‘G’ had already appeared on one of the TV programmes telling a far more exotic account to camera than the one she later vouchsafed in the more sober surroundings of an interview with Alison Levitt QC….I shall call her Miss ‘G’ for the purpose of examining the claim of Russell, Jones and Walkers ‘other’ client.

Miss ‘G’ is alleging that aged 14 Savile took her to an ‘outbuilding’ in the grounds of Duncroft. An ‘outbuilding’ eh? Are you getting visions of spiders webs, discarded paint cans, rusty tools and possibly the remains of the gardener’s bottle of whisky? I suspect you are intended to – it sounds horrific. This outbuilding had a name. Not the Hanoi Hilton, nor the Black Hole of Calcutta – it was known as Norman Lodge! I shall allow a short pause at this point for previous residents of Duncroft to stop laughing and compose themselves.

Yes, the ‘outbuilding’ that he allegedly took this 14-year-old girl to, was the very same modern two storey, purpose-built hostel for working girls aged over 16 that those of us who know what we are talking about, as opposed to the credulous army of lawyers who will be reading these claims, know perfectly well that no 14-year-old from Duncroft would ever have been given unfettered access to. That accommodation the other side of the grounds where the working girls kept their clothes, make-up, cigarettes, spare change and all the other things we would dearly have loved to get our hands on. Not only that, but he allegedly removed this 14 year-old from the locked facility (who unlocked the door?)of Duncroft to the wonderland of Norman Lodge for the purposes of ‘making a phone call to her sister as sister was a fan’.

This is risible nonsense on stilts with its eyes popping out. I have great difficulty in believing that Ruth Cole, Bridie Keenan or Margaret Jones would have reacted with anything other than a derisory snort at the suggestion that any 14 year-old girl be allowed to make an unsupervised phone call from one of the many telephones inside Duncroft on the basis of ‘my sister is a fan of this visitor’, but will allow for the unlikely occurrence that they might have weakened sufficiently to allow a supervised phone call from inside Duncroft – but unlock the door so you could go swanning over to Norman Lodge on your own with a male visitor?

A visitor who then put ‘his hand up our claimants blouse, and pushed his other hand hard into her trousers’. And when our claimant returned from swanning around this outbuilding Norman Lodge and told the staff what had occurred she was then ‘confined to her room for the night’ (how did the other girls in her dormitory get to bed that night if she was ‘confined’ in her room, we didn’t have single rooms?) and had all her privileges removed. Naturally she is also claiming to have suffered psychological damage as a result of this ‘trip to an outbuilding’. Not that her solicitor had actually expended any money on getting a Doctor to confirm this at the time of lodging her claim.

Miss ‘G’ claimed to Levitt that she was 17 and resident in Norman Lodge and had been asked to make Savile a cup of tea by Ms Jones. She claimed that Savile had asked her to ‘give him a blow job’ in return for a job at Stoke Mandeville as a nurse (she was allegedly training to be a nurse at the time). She refused to do so.  What Alison Levitt was unaware of was the Ms ‘G’ had already burst onto our television screens making considerably more lurid allegations than ‘indecent suggestion’.

Remember I asked you yesterday to keep the sad history of Mary Bell (I am not saying that Ms ‘G’ was Mary Bell – she wasn’t) in mind as indicative of the sort of girls that MIND were asking Duncroft to educate and keep safe – and the public safe from? And ask yourself again how likely you think this tale of the wandering 14-year-old is.

She alleges she reported this heinous incident to the staff but no action was taken – I hope she is alleging that it was to one of the members of staff now deceased, otherwise Karin Ward will not be the only person getting sued for malicious falsehood. The surviving members of staff are pretty damn angry.

A few more writs for slander and malicious falsehood might just see an end to the Savilisation of our media.

*Oh, there are more, I shall be serving Ms Beef Biriani next, but I’ve had enough for the day. I’m having a hard time with some anti-allergic medication in preparation for another bloody scan on Thursday, so you’ll just have to be patient. Hard to believe, but there really are some things more important in my life than this nonsense.

Resuming tomorrow….

Mina Field September 3, 2013 at 21:00

@ Jonathan Mason 20:07 3.9.13

No, I’m illustrating no point. Details are discussed by professionals in
the course of work. I do it myself every day. However, there would be concerns
if a professional appeared to derive some personal satisfaction from hearing
or taking part in such discussions, and actually enjoyed it so much that they
did it on the internet in their spare time – even in discussions where no such
details are required. As I said, it is not the words which are creepy in
themselves, but your satisfaction in writing such.

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 21:13

Mina, I asked the question about the physical matters. I am sorry. Let’s
move on.

I also just want to mention regarding the supposed perverse practices of
Roman Emperors (Claudius) that we don’t know how true such histories are.
Then, as now, a convenient way to discredit somebody- particularly
posthumously- was to accuse them of repellent practises and desires.
Damnatio memoriae, and all that.

Mina Field
September 3, 2013 at 21:30

@Ian
I stated quite some time back that the lack of physical
evidence had been dealt with in court already – the girl had been examined
and was totally undamaged. However, the prosecution stated that it didn’t
matter if she had not been raped in the true sense of the word – a little
girl might THINK that she had if there had been a simulation that came
close.

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 22:12

Mina Field,

Re: “I stated quite some time back that the lack of physical evidence
had been dealt with in court already – the girl had been examined and
was totally undamaged. However, the prosecution stated that it didn’t
matter if she had not been raped in the true sense of the word – a
little girl might THINK that she had if there had been a simulation that
came close.”

So the girl was still believed to be a ‘virgin’, is that what they
were trying to determine?

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 22:23

“Simulation”?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 22:56

Day One seems to be here:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-michael-le-vell-trial-5829188

charlotte
September 4, 2013 at 00:22

@Mina. What then constitutes rape under the law?

Mina
Field September 4, 2013 at
06:29

@Charlotte
Oral rape. The complainant says that this happened
and that this was the worst thing. Physically can’t be disproved.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 23:31

Seems like Suetonius is the culprit in his master work The Twelve
Caesars. One has to admit that clearly he was no great fan of Claudius,
whose reputation, like Savile’s took a beating posthumously. Claudius was,
however, promoted to the position of god, a fate Savile seems unlikely to
share.

Warning: strong language and sexual content.

Book Three XLIII onwards.

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Suetonius3.htm#_Toc276122058

Lucozade
September 4, 2013 at 00:53

Ian B,

Re: “I also just want to mention regarding the supposed perverse
practices of Roman Emperors (Claudius) that we don’t know how true such
histories are. Then, as now, a convenient way to discredit somebody-
particularly posthumously- was to accuse them of repellent practises and
desires. Damnatio memoriae, and all that”

That’s a great point, the same thing happened to both the likes of Anne
Boleyn, who was accused of cheating on the king with a string of men –
including her own brother (the icing on the cake) and Marie Antionette,
who was accused of all sorts of weird sexual practices, including
lesbianism and the icing on the cake (the one that upset her the most),
molesting her own son – and her son was actually kept in the bastille and
bullied into making the accusation against her apparently, though I think
they eventually dropped that one when they could see it was upsetting her,
as she was still going to be beheaded anyway.

It looks as though this game is as old as the hills, lol…

Jonathan
Mason September 4, 2013 at 01:09

@Lucozade, @Ian

I agree that Suetonius may have traduced Claudius, however my
underlying point is that there are all kinds of perversions that normal
people don’t know about and could never imagine, but which are familiar
to the courts that deal with sex offenders and that given the vague
language that is allowed to be reported, we as readers of newspaper Web
sites and blogs cannot always be sure what is being talked about. Hence
jurors are in a much better position than we are to judge the truth of
allegations, and indeed to know what has been alleged.

Due to the factors outlined in another of my posts, I can see a
situation arising where the jury dismisses the charges and then there is
a huge press outcry on behalf of the “victims” who were not believed.
The Barrister Blog takedown of the recent Polly Toynbee article just
shows how extreme this process can be.

Ian B September 4, 2013 at 10:03

Catherine The Great, and the horse…

Gloria Smudd
September 3, 2013 at 19:33

You’ve got the tail of this tale well and truly gripped twixt your
incisors, Ms Raccoon. Brava!

And you’ve the option on a toothless kiss for good luck for Thursday,
though I know you’ll be keen to pass on that one!

carol42 September 3, 2013 at 18:05

The whole story sounds like something she has read, sure I heard the Teddy
story before. I believe in the earlier allegation there was no physical
evidence, I would expect some damage if she was raped as a small child. I
would also expect her mother to have picked up obvious signs during bath
times, maybe I am too cynical but after the Savile allegations I don’t believe
any of the recent cases. Funny how it is only people with money who are being
accused! very surprised that none of the really famous stars like Paul
McCartney or Mick Jagger etc. have been accused, they must have had underage
groupies throwing themselves at them and they have a lot more money.

Jonathan Mason
September 3, 2013 at 18:23

You are spot on, Carol. If she was raped at six years of age, very likely
there would have been blood, perhaps on her undergarments or bed linens and
here would be questions as to whether the mother saw it, what she did, and
why she didn’t go to the police.

Probably all this comes under the heading of restricted evidence.

One can see why there is restricted evidence as one does not want a trial
to become a kind of pornography fest for those who get a kick out of that
kind of thing. But on the other hand this goes back to why organizations
like the BBC are not really qualified to deal with these matters. If they
cannot repeat the kind of evidence that courts restrict, then they are
confined to vague generalizations like “and then he put out the light and
sexually abused me” which would be the starting point in court, not the end
of the story, and which lends itself very easily to innuendo and
manipulation of TV (or print) journalists who probably don’t want to get
into interviewing the allegators in depth about sexual “abuse” and matters
like blood on the sheets for fear of tarnishing themselves in the
process.

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 18:34

Couple of points.

Firstly, something that bothers me. I am not a doctor, nor have any
expertise. But I have always been under the impression that a child’s body
cannot tolerate a normal penetration without damage- particularly anal, as
is often claimed in child abuse cases- without damage. It’s not something
one relishes contemplating, but I wonder what the truth of it is. My only
experience here is a (very distressing) examination I had as a child due
to bowel problems. Apparently the specialist only had one finger up my bum
but it felt like a whole hand. Still makes me feel queasy. I just wouldn’t
think it possible for an adult male to rape a child in either area without
causing physical tearing, etc? Does not the vagina enlarge at puberty
specifically to make it sexually functional? I appreciate by the way that
this is a bit near the knuckle and apologise for this.

Secondly, it seems ridiculous to censor court cases “in case somebody
gets off on the evidence”. This seems to me to be of the same water as
“you can’t film your children’s sports day in case a paedophile sees it
and is aroused”. This means all we get are these euphemisms. It is getting
literally as bad as Victorian speech, with women referring to everything
between the neck and the knees as “the liver”. Everything now is just the
word “abuse”. Which could mean anything.

Mina Field
September 3, 2013 at 18:56

The court dealt yesterday with the issue of the lack of physical
evidence of rape. They agreed that a child might mistake a close
encounter for ‘the real thing’. Sorry for the prudish terminology here,
but whilst gritty details are not a problem in my working life, I draw
the line when it comes to my personal computer and the keystrokes in its
memory.

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 19:09

I wonder how old the “child” actually is now anyway. I had the
impression at one time they were over 20 now but might be wrong.

Just on the subject of suppressed information though, it really is
a nonsense anyway sometimes. I recall that in the horrible Daniel
Pelka case they made a huge mystery over whether the sibling who tried
to protect the poor kid was male or female, then the Daily Mail
published a pixellated photo of the two of them, but only pixellated
out the *face* of the older sibling and not the big bunches of clearly
blond female hair. It’s really all a matter of creating mystery I
think, where the CPS try to make the case look so awesome and
*important* by probably very inconsequential “redactions”. Piffle and
legalististic paffle. I doubt there is any actual “physical evidence”
whatsoever in this matter. It’ll just be a story that must not be
roughly challenged for fear of hurting the feelings of the [alleged]
victim.

carol42
September 3, 2013 at 20:39

Meant to add, good luck with the scan Anna, I get my results on
Friday so having another bout of scanxiety, I will let you know if
all is well.
Carol

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
19:36

@ Moor

I wonder how old the “child” actually is now anyway. I had the
impression at one time they were over 20 now but might be
wrong.

I think if you look carefully at Mina’s posts on this thread, you
will find the information you seek and a great deal moor.

Mina
Field September 3, 2013 at
19:41

@Moor Larkin

‘I wonder how old the child now is’

She is 17. she was 15 when she first made the allegations.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 19:04

These are good points, Ian. I have worked in the sex offender
industry and used to own textbooks of the literature of the subject, but
you simply don’t find this kind of information available even to
professionals. However one point should be remembered, which is that the
legal profession does not always use words like “rape” in the same sense
as a lay person, and since the evidence from these cases is apparently
restricted to the press, then we don’t always know what they are talking
about. For example I have read that the Emperor Claudius used to like to
be “entertained” by unweaned babies that were used for sexual purposes.
This might meet the definition of “rape” and “penetration” under UK law
without involving the vagina or the anus. My ten-month old daughter has
repeatedly experimented with sucking my nipples, so far without any
success whatsoever, and puts everything in her mouth. However if anyone
did anything sexual to her, I would kill them on a matter of
principle.

In the kind of situation you are talking about damage might depend on
issues like whether a lubricant was used, and how well-equipped the
offender was, and how deep the penetration, and how carefully the
orifice is dilated. My four-year-old step daughter passes fairly decent
sized turds in the toilet, that might be similar in diameter to an some
adult penises, if that is anything to go by. However the anus is
designed for one way traffic, (though persons of a certain persuasion
might argue the point).

I hope this is not encroaching too much into the area of restricted
evidence. Anna, delete it if you think it is not appropriate.

But, yes, I think bleeding would be very likely be associated with
penile penetration of either orifice, though one cannot be certain that
would be the case every time.

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 19:50

Jonathan Mason,

Re: “My ten-month old daughter has repeatedly experimented with
sucking my nipples”

She must have mistaken you for her mother, a lot of babies do that…

Mina
Field September 3, 2013 at
19:56

@Jonathan Mason

Not sure why you seem to relish all this graphic sexual content
stuff. To me its a bit creepy I’m afraid.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
20:07

@Mina

I was just responding to another poster and I said that if Anna
thinks it is out of place, she can delete it. As a broader point, I
don’t think the majority of the public understand the detailed
evidence that courts have to deal with in these kind of cases. And as
an even broader point you are illustrating my thesis that most people
are too squeamish to be able to address these kind of matters
objectively, which, after all is why we apparently have restricted
evidence, and yet these are the kind of details that medical
professionals, investigators, etc. have to deal with daily.

It is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you
have given information on this blog that has enabled me to identify (I
am fairly sure) the names of the allegator and the allegator’s
mother–but I am discreet enough not to spell them out.

Wellwisher
September 3, 2013 at 19:18

I agree with your comments, something doesn’t sit right with this. If
a young child is sexually abused it is well documented that they would
act out…meaning that her mother or teachers would notice a change in
behaviour or more sexually provocative play with toys or school friends.
It’s something that would be noticed at such a young age and teachers
are very experienced at what signs to look out for. The schools and
teachers have to be so vigilant and mst report any unusual change in
behaviour etc directly to Social Services, even if a child is bullied at
school social services are now informed. So, I find it quite peculiar at
what has been tweeted in way of testimony today especially from the
mother. Le Vell does not seem to be the outright ‘religious’ type in my
opinion and I could be wrong but when the defence stated that the mother
was into spiritualism and then referring back to the girl stating that
le vell “was getting rid of the evil inside” It does make me wonder.
Also, being a mother myself I would take my child straight to the police
station and make a complaint rather than taking her to a ‘healer’ as my
first port of call.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 23:13

@Moor

OK, I have thought about this and here goes.

Le Vell (Turner) was married for 25 years to an actress and had a son
and daughter with her. Shortly after the marriage ended in 2011 he was
accused of raping a child.

From the evidence in the court it seems that the child was under the
same roof at night as Le Vell over a period of several years during
which time he was married. The court evidence printed by the press
nowhere says what relationship Le Vell had to this mother and daughter,
or how he met them. Apparently this is considered restricted evidence.
The allegator is exactly the same age as his daughter. Is it possible
that this is really all about an incest allegation that the public is
being kept in the dark about? The jury will know, but we won’t.

carol42
September 3, 2013 at 23:38

If this is indeed the case it casts a possible new light on the
case. It is far from unknown for vengeful ex wives to make such
accusations and convince the child to make such complaints. usually to
prevent contact with the father. It will make it very difficult for
him as he has to accuse his own daughter of lying abetted by his ex
wife if indeed it is them. I had been puzzled as to how he could have
access to a child to commit the alleged offences, if so it may go some
way to explaining why the initial case was dropped for lack of
evidence, at the time of the divorce? then, with all the recent
publicity after Jimmy Savile the idea that having another go might
just pay off. If this is the case and it is not true I cannot think of
anything more evil than a mother doing that to her child het alone her
husband.

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 23:47

Jonathan Mason,

Ah got you…

And also a newborn has a hole in it’s skull so that it’s head can
squeeze together to make coming out easier…?

Moor Larkin September 4, 2013 at 09:25

@Jonathan Mason
How do you do it Holmes? …..
My
godfathers.
Now I understand your other comment about the huge
deceit being perpetrated on the British public.

Moor Larkin September 4, 2013 at 11:54

Guess I should have joined the dots much earlier……
” ‘It’s the
worst time of his life’: Michael Le Vell and wife split following
child sex abuse allegations”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2049408/Michael-Le-Vell-wife-Janette-Beverley-split-child-sex-abuse-allegations.html

Anna Raccoon September 4, 2013 at 12:05

Very surprised that The Mail haven’t taken that down – will it
last the day?

Be careful commenting…

Moor Larkin September 4, 2013 at 12:29

Mumm’s the word. Do you have any behind the bar?

Jonathan
Mason September 4, 2013 at
12:26

@Moor

The dog that didn’t bark in the night?

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 23:27

Ian B,

Re: “Does the vagina enlarge at puberty specifically to make it
sexually functional”

I would imagine so, but more importantly probably to make it big
enough for a baby to pass through – that is what it’s there for
afterall, lol…

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
23:35

I will probably get hammered for saying this if it offends people,
but I believe that around the time of birth a woman releases certain
hormones that help to relax the ligaments of the pelvis so that the
baby’s head can pass and also helps to make the vaginal tube more
elastic. The main hormone concerned is called Relaxin.

Giles2008 September 4, 2013 at 03:26

Oh we have all seen the “Teddy Bear” routine before.
The BBC also used
it on their report of the British Airways pilot in Africa.
From the
Damien Day school of reporting!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2bvR3BT_g

Jonathan Mason
September 3, 2013 at 18:01

In the case of LaVelle a long serving soap opera actor, the trial started
yesterday, which is why it is so topical. Google his name and Daily Mail for
various articles.

Jonathan Mason
September 3, 2013 at 18:16

Sorry, Michael Le Vell is his correct stage name, and he has his own page
on Wikipedia.

Mina Field September 3, 2013 at 17:56

So, is anyone getting in touch with Paul Connew? Has he been asked to speak
with Alison Levitt, or to those who carried out the Pollard Inquiry? Would he
be prepared to communicate with Anna?

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 17:49

Back with Savile, regarding particular allegations, I remember in the
initial tranche of TV testimony there was a woman with a story of being raped
in his caravan on holiday, along with a girl she had made friends with. I
recall finding her testimony rather convincing (purely emotionally). Do we
know any more about that one?

Just having typed that, is it just me or are there a surprising amount of
caravans involved in all this?

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 17:53

@Ian B: there was a woman with a story of being raped in his caravan on
holiday, along with a girl she had made friends with. @

I’m convinced it’s bullshit. The woman was another Activist.
See what
you think:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/its-jersey-but-not-as-you-knew-it-jim.html

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 18:20

Moor, thanks. I remember spending half an hour or so in Photoshop
fiddling with that image of Jimmy to read his tracksuit slogan at the
time, and discussing it somewhere on the internet as fixing the picture as
1976, but can’t remember where I discussed that now. It was because my
“alarm bells” were clanging off the wall once Haut la Garenee was woven
into the story. It’s now one of those places in the “abuse mythos” like
Roswell for UFOs.

Didn’t know that she was a “survivor”. I tend to treat all members of
that movement with extreme suspicion because it’s basically a cult. Like I
said, at the time I found her testimony convincing (and that is no test
anyway, of course) but if she’s used to sitting around in consciousness
raising sessions that would be second nature anyway.

Margaret Jervis
September 3, 2013 at 16:23

Just as I linked http://www.markpendergrast.com/ the man himself has joined us
@markpendergrast Any Raccoonistas a dab hand at precis to oblige?
Where is
the definitive 1000word overview of #savilisation for unsuspecting aliens? Any
suggestions? Anything in the mainstream press? Must be somewhere.

Mark
Pendergrast September 3, 2013 at
16:06

I am new to this blog. I’ve written about false allegations of sexual abuse
and am interested, but I live in the USA and haven’t followed this case. It
would be very helpful to anyone new to the blog if you would post a good
summary and intro to each case you’re talking about. It would give context to
the detailed on-going coverage. As it is, I don’t have time to read through
all of this and try to figure out what’s actually going on.

Duncan
Disorderly September 3, 2013 at 16:21

Mark,

I actually read your book ‘Victims of Memory’ a few months ago and I was
very impressed with it: I am interested in the subject matter. There are two
cases being talked about on this blog posting: the main one is that of Jimmy
Savile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile), dead TV
presenter and charity fund raiser, and somebody who supposedly abused
hundreds of women, boys and girls. ‘Anna Raccoon’, and largely everyone
commenting here regards this as grossly unfair, as no proper investigation
was carried out and there are many inconsistencies with stories that are in
the public.

The other story people are commenting on today is that of actor Michael
Le Vell, who is on trial for allegedly sexually abusing a girl from the age
of six. This may well be a case of Recovered Memory, although it is not
clear at this stage from the details we have.

Margaret
Jervis September 3, 2013 at 16:25

Thank you Duncan – had forgotten the wiki use.

Margaret
Jervis September 3, 2013 at 16:35

@Duncan ‘recovered memory’ is rarely claimed in UK trials – no
limitation period to overcome by ‘recent discovery’ – it would spoil the
party – does happen in civil claims though – where there is a limitation
period that has to be tolled.

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 16:32

Not sure it’s exactly a precis, but it’s where I began formally last
December.

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/introduction.html
This
Blog will become a meditation and concentration upon what seems the oddest
combination of UK media and politics that I have ever experienced. It’s a
matter that has almost no importance when set against the monumental events
of the 21st Century so far, such as 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, but
in it’s very triviality lies it’s fascination. Why has it been deemed of
such importance that every organ of the British state seems to have been in
complete concurrence over it. There has been no questioning of the new
History that has been written in the barely two months since “the Savile
Allegations” first fully hit the mainstream press and broadcasters in
October 2012.

rabbitaway
September 3, 2013 at 16:40

Read this – good introduction – no short pracis will suffice I’m afraid –
the subject matter (Jimmy Savile) is too important for that !

https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 17:09

@ no short pracis will suffice I’m afraid @

In the case of Savile, it’s not really a case at all; it’s a social
phenomenon.

rabbitaway September 3, 2013 at 16:06

Another interesting article from Ms Hewson here – get ya comments in guys
and gals ….

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-cps-bends-over-backwards-to-help-complainants-in-child-sex-abuse-cases-its-kind-but-is-it-fair-8794716.html

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 15:48

Meanwhile, in other news, the NSPCC are making a blatant punt to run school
sex education-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10282145/NSPCC-Girls-think-they-have-to-act-like-porn-stars-to-be-liked-by-boys.html

Ms Perry writes,

““Rather than putting one more set of responsibilities on the shoulders of
hard-working teachers, it should be possible to encourage schools to develop
working relationships with the many excellent charities and organisations that
used trained experts to deliver the right messages to young people in
appropriate and high impact ways.”

Hmm.

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 17:08

https://www.change.org/petitions/david-cameron-bring-sex-and-relationship-education-into-the-21st-century-bettersexeducation?alert_id=SECnKicaLu_krVWqfarjs&utm_campaign=33084&utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert
Why
are they leaving my generation to learn about sex and relationships from
online porn and ‘selfies’? Please sign our petition and tell the Prime
Minister to bring sex education into the 21st Century.

corevalue September 3, 2013 at 17:15

Ian B, don’t you mean “no sex” education? Since when did the little
darlings ever get instruction on how to please a partner, rather than just
how to avoid nasty social diseases and pregnancy? The NSPCC holds the
feminist view that boys and men are just rapists-in-waiting, and that girls
and women of any age are wilting delicate flowers with no agency at all. At
least viewing porn, they get to see the mechanics which parents and teachers
are not very good at explaining.

The current thrust of these “charities” is that adolescents should have
no sexual activity at all, and that even a French kiss, taken on the eve of
your 16th birthday, is likely to ruin your whole life from the deep,
disturbing psychological impact of such intimacy. The girls are taught that
even if a boy looks at you in a way you find undesirable, it is equivalent
to an act of vile aggression.

That’s what we have with poor Jimmy. The metamorphosing of “a friendly
uncle” who puts his arm around you into a caricature monster of depravity,
thus publicly setting the standard for the unwashed masses to follow. The
idea is that men should have no contact whatsoever with children, and that
women are helpless damsels who need their decisions taken for them.

What man would now want to be a teacher, or a care home helper, or even a
DJ or a pop star?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 17:33

They’re going to be kept at school until 17 and very soon until 18, I
was reading, so being over the age of consent, perhaps Upper Sixth sex
orgies could be convened – with appropriate adult supervision and
“Practicals”, as we used to express it……….

It’s gonna be brave new world m’dears……

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 17:44

They’re keen to edge up the age of consent to 18- in line with the
USA- anyway. 16 is an anomaly, as far as they’re concerned. Hence the
ridiculous portrayal of their junior activist “Yas” as a “17 year old
schoolgirl”.

All the comment threads at the Telegraph were deleted within a couple
of hours, due to the universal chorus of disapproval.

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 18:52

@ They’re keen to edge up the age of consent to 18 @
This would
probably be a very logical thing to do. It does seem bizarre that we
think people under 18 can handle sexual relationships but a pint of
beer would be way too much for them to deal with….

More importantly for the average man in the street, I have come
more and more to conclude that the whole paedo-panic of the late
Nineties stemmed largely as a reaction to the push to equalisation of
gay sex ages to 16. The average Joe thinks about all this very
differently to the Metromen and women and I think this is where the
grass-root support comes from. They cannot work against the gay age
alone, if for no other reason than that they would probably be deemed
homophobic and be prosecuted, so they’d rather see a rolling-back of
the whole thing to 18, where they would feel happier that their young
sons must really know their own mind, and in these days of equality,
what’s sauce for the gander must be sauce for the goose.

It dawned on me a while back that bizarrely it has been the Tories
who started this trend to lowered the male age of consent with Edwina
Currie of all people. I suspect that in the Collective Conscious of
the un/working classes this has been identified as a sign that Tories
were after the “young boys”, (especially as they’re identified with
“public schools”) and this is why the Haters keep banging on about
Tory paedophilia going back to ‘fatcher. Labourites have been only too
happy to jump on this populist bandwagon too of course, for their own
straightforward political reasons and everyone has forgotten (or are
too frightened to say) what it is that they’re really all scared of.
If my social analysis is correct it’s a sweet irony that the current
panic about protecting young girls is really a displacement of the
wish to protect youngish “boys”.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
19:11

That is a great point, Moor. I must say it had never occurred to
me, but yes, the law now makes sixth-form boys legal prey for adult
men, which was never the case when I were a nipper.

Ian B
September 3, 2013 at 19:19

Moor-

This would probably be a very logical thing to do.

Only logical in producing a whole new cohort of “offenders” to deal
with.

As to the paedopanic, it is not some spontaneous public phenomenon.
It dates back to the 80s and even before that, as a reaction by
particular groups against the new sexual “liberalism” of the 1960s+,
in the USA- particularly, on the “Right”, religious fundamentalists
and on the “Left”, the Second Wave Feminist movement which arose
entirely as a reaction against sexual liberty. Added into the mix was
the Therapy Movement, with a useful model that all adult psychological
disorder is caused by childhood traumas of a Freudian (sexual) nature,
providing a ready source of “victims”, a liberal sprinkling of nutters
and conspiracy theorists and, perhaps most crucially, the new media
channel of revelatory shows like Oprah. You then add in law
enforcement agencies eager to bolster a threatened “mutaween” role as
old sex offences like homosexuality and pornography were falling away,
leaving moral cops with nothing to do. There was even a risk of
prostitution legalisation- basically the whole First Wave Feminist
legal structure of sexual controls was collapsing. There was also, in
the 1970s a New York DA looking for a crusade, which started the
“CHild Porn” panic (small numbers of tatty books from the Netherlands,
a tiny industry- I had an article about all that but regrettably
didn’t keep it out of the fear a lot of us have here of having things
on our computers- but IIRC a cottage industry most republishing nudist
photos with youngsters in, with a tiny turnover, was hyped up as a
billion dollar plague of child porn).

So you’ve got all these constituencies with a common interest, thus
uniting bizarre bedfellows like rabid Moral Majority Fundies with
marxist lesbian feminists. It gave them all an “issue” to fight back
with, and we got Satanic Ritual Abuse and everything that came after
it, and it was spread across the Atlantic to us, our activists and
media joined the bandwagon, and here we are. As with most of the
culture war, it basically comes down to us doing things because the
Americans do. It doesn’t really have a local, British, origin as
such.

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 19:30

@ It doesn’t really have a local, British, origin as such @

Origins are always an endless chain, but why this obsession with
“age” alone. Nobody has any big issue about sex – just age.

Ian B
September 3, 2013 at 19:49

but why this obsession with “age” alone. Nobody has any big
issue about sex – just age.

Oh, but they have. They regrouped around “child protection” as one
of their old strategems from the Victorian/Progressive Era, but the
movement is generally anti-sexual, hence we’ve got the old
anti-prostitution and anti-porn stuff, and trying to convince girls to
only have sex within marriage, except they’ve crossed out “marriage”
and written over it in crayon “a committed relationship”.

They’re very good at what they do, the Progressives, because
they’ve got lots of practise. You always push from a bridgehead, one
step at a time. Child porn is the bridgehead against all porn, and
sexual abuse is the bridgehead against all “loose” sexual morals. This
is why they’re so desperate to discredit the 1970s, because it
represents a brief period when they lost their moral hegemony, so
they’re desperate to prove that it was, as a consequence, a period of
endless sexual horrors.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
19:53

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if what Mina has said in an
unrelated post is right, and I think it is, then this case is not
about age at all but about something much more serious, and the great
British public is being massively misled and has been for some
time.

Ian B
September 3, 2013 at 19:56

Johnathan Mason,

What has Mina said? I’m afraid I don’t know what you are referring
to

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 20:02

@ They’re very good at what they do, the Progressives @

They are the ones I perhaps meant by “Metromen and women”. My
intended rumination was why there is such a groundswell of support
from the general public, down to the great unspelt/unwashed. I’m not
sure they are against sex but they do seem to have become very
paranoid about age all of a sudden. I agree that it has all the
ingredients of the “perfect storm”, combining interests from all
flanks.

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 20:19

Moor Larkin,

Re: “It does seem bizarre that we think people under 18 can handle
sexual relationships but a pint of beer would be way too much for them
to deal with….”

Most 16 year olds can handle a pint of beer, but I do actually
believe it is a lot easier to remember to take contraception daily and
remember to use a condom than work out what your limit is with things
like wine and spirts which can often result in a few embarrassing
drunken episodes before that is worked out. And your mental ‘age’ goes
out the window when when seriously under the influence of alcohol
anyway.

I think drinking sensibly requires a lot more responsibility than
having sex sensibly and don’t feel that the two things are
nesseseraily comparable.

Same goes for voting, to know who the right person to vote for
requires some knowledge of politics, to know how to have sex safely
just requires knowledge of how babies are made (almost everybody over
12 knows this), where to get contraception and that there is a risk of
STI’s, so how to try and prevent/go to get them treated.

I don’t see how something as simple as that can be placed in the
same ball park as knowing how to handle your drink or learning to
drive/driving safely – the risks for the latter 2 are a lot greater
(in my opinion) and there is a lot more to learn about them.

Also sex is natural, those other things are man made and most girls
are finished with puberty by 16, I never met one that wasn’t when I
was that age. Most will have had to deal with their periods on a
monthly basis for about 4 or 5 years by this point…

I think it would be almost unbelievable to have a law in place that
forbade 17 year olds from having sex if they want to with whomever
they chose over that age just to ‘protect’ a tiny minority that are
for some reason in need of ‘protection’, most 17 year olds are not in
need of that kind of ‘protection’ at all, and I don’t think they’d
want it…

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 20:27

@Lucozade
In his autobiography, Jimmy Savile writes:
“I have
a disjointed sort of theory that all girls, in relation to their male
opposites, are 2,000 years old when they are born. They might not know
what makes a car go but they certainly have a very shrewd and
intuitive idea of what makes a man go. Or stop.”
An interesting and
very short last sentence, I thought…..

Lucozade
September 3, 2013 at 20:47

Moor Larkin,

Re: “In his autobiography, Jimmy Savile writes:“I have a disjointed
sort of theory that all girls, in relation to their male opposites,
are 2,000 years old when they are born. They might not know what makes
a car go but they certainly have a very shrewd and intuitive idea of
what makes a man go. Or stop.”An interesting and very short last
sentence, I thought…..”

I can’t speak for boys because I have never been one, though I
sometimes get the impression that they are cannier than girls in many
ways, girls often seem more ‘sensible’/less willing to take risks…

Ellen Coulson
September 3, 2013 at 13:55

Drilly (Miss Draycott as she was) categorically denies that Saville ever
went to Norman Lodge. In fact no one would have been allowed to just walk into
Norman Lodge. Even if a door was unlocked which is doubtful Miss Harris would
have been close by and so far as I am aware the only telephone was is the
office which was next to dining room. Indeed if Miss Jones askeds Miss G to
make JS a cup of tea it was more likely to be in her own house which was next
to Norman Lodge.

As for Miss A did JS have a Rolls Royce in 2000 and did he use it to tow a
caravan? Why did she keep the crucifix?

Chris
Retro September 3, 2013 at 14:38

The thought of JS towing a bloody caravan with his Rolls is perhaps the
most absurd assertion of them all.

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 14:56

For what it’s worth, Keri/Karin describes Savile arriving in a
“low-slung sportscar” so presumably someone showed her a picture of his
old e-type from back in the day. An e-type towing a caravan sounds even
moor mirthful…….

Sally
Stevens September 4, 2013 at
00:55

I also loved “I had the autograph book full of signatures of all the
celebrities I met at Duncroft,” bla bl, but she somehow ‘mislaid’ it.
What celebrities, dear? Is this where Meirion got hold of this ‘minor
royalty and celebrities’ rubbish? There were NO celebrities beside Jimmy
Savile in that time period, and when I was there, just James Robertson
Justice and John Gregson, who were personal friends of Margaret Jones
and Dr. Mason. One of the girls did note that Nyree Dawn Porter visited
once. I saw the Duchess of Kent personally, and have the photo of her
visit, and I know that in 1974 her daughter, Princess Alexandra, was at
a fund raiser at the school, which Jimmy came to. Princess A was a
patron of MIND I believe and continues as the same 40 years later.
Margaret Jones has noted that Princess A was gushing in her greeting of
Jimmy, and obviously held him in high esteem.

Bebe Roberts tried to whip up a campaign about J. R. Justice being a
molester, and I immediately contacted MWT, expressing my outrage. He
emailed me back that he was ‘not interested’ in JRJ. Course not, dead
and broke when he died in 1975. Not interesting to MWT on those grounds
alone. Let alone there was a phalanx of 60s girls ready to take that one
on!

I have yet to hear from any of the 70s women why they did not
immediately correct Bebe Roberts when she lied so blatantly.

Jonathan Mason
September 3, 2013 at 13:54

British culture has been infused with tea drinking since the occupation of
India made the narcotic “weed” a major import trafficked to the dismal isle in
fast moving “clippers” that could easily evade the customs luggers of the
time. Having consumed all the tea in China, the Brits started to grow it in
plantations in northern India and then forced the Chinese to smoke opium
instead of tea.

The effect of the drug is to give the addict the superhuman ability to
tolerate and overcome adversity such as night bombing, Test Match Specials, or
Bank Holiday weekends for which Britons are renowned, also known as the
Dunkirk spirit.

More than 99% of Britons are known to use the drug, usually prepared by
pouring boiling water over chopped leaves in a special container called a
“pot”, then covered with a “cosy”, while the intoxicants leach into water
which turns brown or green forming an elixir that ifs usually sipped mixed
with “silver top” cow milk extracted from the glands of domestic cattle, and
sugar cane crystals. A frequent invitation to participate in the drug may take
the form of the question “Shall I put the kettle on?” which refers to the
boiling of the water to make the infusion. If a person of either sex asks
“Shall I be mother”, this indicated that they wish to pour the prepared tea
into individual cups.

After taking a dose it is normal to remark “Ah, I needed that! Nothing like
a good cuppa!” Medically, a cuppa may be prescribed for treatment of
post-traumatic stress syndrome, death of a close relative, loss of a limb,
failing ‘A’ levels, etc.

[from Wikipedia].

charlotte September 3, 2013 at 23:46

Please don’t do a similar reply again Jonathan. It’s not good I should
laugh so heartily. I’ve had to put the kettle on, I need tea to calm me
down. Only peppermint tea though.

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 12:51

Just regarding the “why” thing, when the Savilocalypse first broke, I
pretty immediately did a websearch for Karin Ward, found her book, took a look
and, it read to me like a typical recovered memory tract- the relentless and
lurid tales of constant abuse and, in particular, a dedication to a particular
therapist, and so on. Besides all else, if the life story in it were true,
Freddie Starr making a joke about her tits would be, by comparison, like a
concentration camp survivor remembering stubbing their toe as significant
injury. That was one of the things that set my alarm bells ringing on all
this, because I’ve been interested in all this kind of thing since SRA and
watched it develop.

It seems to me that despite the “debunking” of SRA, we have a major and
growing “therapist” problem in this country, with “abuse”, “trafficking” and
so on. So maybe that is at the root of things here.

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2013 at
12:53

As you will see tomorrow, the Keri saga gets more and more
interesting…

Margaret Jervis
September 3, 2013 at 13:02

@Ian Well I don’t know about the absolute collapse of SRA myth if you
check accounts at ‘one in Four (london)’. Charity commission. Seems the
charity, the Met and Sinason are working together and have been for a while.
Think it begins on the accounts around 2008 – think I didn’t go beyond 2009
– now based in Surrey. Run by Christiane Sanderson – psychologist – heavy
duty veteran of ‘recovered memory’.

However, #savilisation does continue to unravel, but not sure we’re at
#savilocollapse yet. #savilocolypse? Is that NOW!?

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at
13:03

Spindler is on record as saying that if people say they were
satanically abused then we must believe what people are telling us

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 15:50

Margaret-

Interesting. I’ve been skeptical that SRA had ever really been
debunked, just changed form, as I said before. It’s interesting to see
what you’ve said. Thanks.

Margaret
Jervis September 3, 2013 at 15:57

Think it may be time to link to Victims of Memory, 1996 Harper
Collins. http://www.markpendergrast.com/.

Rocky Racoon (No
relation) September 3, 2013 at 22:37

Keri admits that due to medication she fabricated much of the detail
about Duncroft, for example she’d recall the gist of a meeting and created a
conversation based on her perception.

Re Keri’s reaction to Freddie Starr in interviews she referred to being
‘humiliated’ by his alleged comments about her breasts. In her book she
describes whilst at Duncroft going to work at a metal factory, where she
claims a group of men again made comments about her small breasts. The fact
she remembered the factory incident 40 years later indicates something?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 22:50

@ The fact she remembered the factory incident 40 years later indicates
something? @
Reading Pollard it seems clear that her insistence that
she’d visited a show called Clunk-Click that the BBC wallahs had never
heard of, rather than Jim’ll Fix It, which they seemed sure she must mean,
seems to have led to her holding them even moor in thrall, as to her
recall……… I think……..

Ellen
Coulson September 4, 2013 at
15:09

Her account of the hells angel/biker is also untrue. I am informed by
another ex Duncroft girl that he (Tramp) was the boyfriend of another
inmate of Duncroft, Janice, who kept a photo of him and they were
arrested while trying to go to Ireland!

rabbitaway September 3, 2013 at 11:33

Here’s another thing that needs to change : strict reporting restrictions
should be applied on cases of this nature. Sky news is running ‘Live’ updates
from M Le Vell’s hearing. Whatever the outcome here, he is buggered for life.
They’ve now got to the, he smelled of alcohol bit, really do we need to know
this NOW ? I am quite disgusted

http://news.sky.com/story/1136459/live-michael-le-vells-child-rape-trial

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 11:42

Ooh… Thanks for the link. Today!
I’m tending to think that in these
cases the more we know the better. They’re just onto “exorcising the house”
now and how Le Vell seemed like he was “possessed”. Jesus H!
No wonder
the poor fellow reportedly has his head slumped on his arms.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 11:53

Sounds like the girl’s mother is a lunatic, er, vulnerable. Interesting
to see if the mother is called as a witness.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 11:58

But important that the case is being covered in full, rather than all
the testimony being covered up as is all too common with the UK press. If
you read Barrister Blog, it now seems that based on the court transcript,
almost all the remarks about barrister Robert Colover saying a girl of 13
was “predatory in all her actions” are false reporting and that The
Guardian’s Polly Toynbee article on the topic a pack of lies from
beginning to end.

It is the lack of proper verbatime reporting that makes these kind of
travesties possible and credible.

http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colover-unfair/

Duncan
Disorderly September 3, 2013 at 12:03

If all that comes out of this trial is that Le Vell enjoys a drink and
does not rape children, he will not be ‘buggered for life’. The details
revealed here by Sky News are rather, well, revealing:

10:53 – Alleged victim: I have had so many flashbacks in the past few
weeks.
11:03 – The girl says that despite the first alleged rape being
“extremely painful” she made no noise

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at
12:43

12:39 PMTwitterTom Parmenter @TomSkyNews
Victim’s mother in witness
box but not behind a curtain. We can’t identify her though for legal
reasons.
CORRECTION Alleged victim’s mother in witness box but not sat
behind curtain – we can’t identify her for legal reasons

Hilarious to see such journalist twitchiness………

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 12:45

They’ve even edited the first tweet now. I didn’t know that was
possible……
I’d
edit mine but I’m suspended…………

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
14:55

Girl’s mother continuing her evidence – not all of it
reportable, Michael Le Vell still regularly shaking his head in the
dock #LeVell

If the evidence is not reportable, how can it stand as
evidence?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 14:58

@Jonathan Mason
TwitterTom Parmenter @TomSkyNews
It is quite
normal to have reporting restrictions in place for cases involving
young people or sexual allegations.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
15:02

But she already has anonymity! You mean she can be anonymous AND
give secret evidence, or at least evidence that nobody outside the
court is allowed to hear or read? This is positively Kafkaesque!

Anna Raccoon September 3, 2013 at 15:15

Why does the cynic in me think that its probably the bits like
‘actually I was lying’ or ‘it never happened’ that we’re not allowed
to hear…..

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
15:34

Maybe so. I am lazy, but has it been explained to the court how
Turner was involved with this family and sleeping in their house,
or they in his house?

Or could the evidence be something about the mother or daughter
being in a mental hospital at some time?

I guess it doesn’t matter if we hear the evidence, as long as
the judge and jury get it all, but you can see why often there may
be a huge disconnect between what newspaper readers think they
know about the facts of a case and what the jury actually sees,
hears, and knows.

Ian
B September 3, 2013 at
15:52

Well, it does matter. It used to be a basic principle of the
law that courts should be public so that everyone could see that
justice is being done. All that’s seen as old hat now, of
course.

General
Mayhem September 3, 2013 at
16:31

It comes down to the quality of the defence, really. If they
are up to the job then they should be able to show the other
side of the story and if the evidence is wanting make sure the
court gets the full story.

Margaret
Jervis September 3, 2013 at
16:49

Agree up to a point @general. But there’s also the judge –
and disclosure and why are the CPS and police hellbent on
getting results in these dingbat cases anyway?

Sally
Stevens September 4, 2013 at
01:53

I did a little research on counsel for Starr. He’s more
than adequate. Been with Freddie since the first bail in
February.

Mina
Field September 3, 2013 at
17:38

@Jonathan Mason

The questions you pose are answered behind the veil of the
reporting restrictions. Acrimonious divorces sometimes get very
nasty indeed. These two sentences Are Not Related.

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at
18:13

Thanks Mina. Glad to here that they are currently
unrelated.

Jonathan Mason September 3, 2013 at 18:36

But presumably the jury will have all the information
that is being withheld from the public? Which, if true,
makes the whole thing even more of a complete travesty as
far as reporting goes.

Jonathan Mason September 3, 2013 at 18:41

Sorry about that typo. I am so embarrassed. For some
reason my fingers often run ahead of my brain and type
“here” and “there” in place of “hear” and “their” and I
don’t always catch it before hitting the submit button.

Margaret
Jervis September 3, 2013 at
16:53

You mean ‘I can’t remember’ ‘I am telling the truth’ – ‘I don’t
know’… Judge – ‘do you need a break?’

Duncan
Disorderly September 3, 2013 at
15:41

Jonathan, we are most likely not allowed to hear the details of any
alleged sexual assault.

rabbitaway September 3, 2013 at 15:42

@Moor how do u know that they’ve edited your first tweet – how can
you see your tweets cos we can’t ….. ?

Mudplugger September 3, 2013 at 16:12

I understand that in the particular situation of this case,
reporting the mother’s evidence verbatim would effectively identify
the alleged victim, hence the lack of reporting.

charlotte
September 3, 2013 at 23:36

shouldn’t she be called ‘the complainant?’

Peter September 3, 2013 at 11:31

‘Savilisation’? Savilation / Savilating might fit better.

rabbitaway September 3, 2013 at 11:21

I wonder WHAT made these women go to the police in 2007 ? I can’t remember
if anyone has sussed that one out yet, and is this the ONLY time these women
have done this ? I think that there will be a statute of limitations applied
in due course, after all, the law has already brought in the ‘success’ fee ! I
believe that ‘victims’ SHOULD be heard at the time that they are being abused
not 40 years later and certainly NOT if the perpetrator is dead. This is where
the real help and support needs to come in. No one should be afraid to stand
up to any bastard bully where ever they find them. Tell me that these
charities etc really do offer support and not just an out of hours “get lost”
message on an answerphone !

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2013 at
12:18

Miss ‘B’ who claimed to be a witness, not a victim, was the one who went
to the police with lurid tales in 2007, and then insisted that they contact
the other girls she named – one of whom was moved to say she would like to
punch Ms ‘B’ and ‘wanted nothing to do with Friends Reunited’ – why she
should have mentioned Friends Runited where Fiona had held sway for some
years I really have no idea…..

rabbitaway
September 3, 2013 at 12:26

Thanks Anna – why is ‘Miss B’s’ identity being protected ? if she is
not a ‘victim’ ? No matter, we will know who these people are in due
course ! Still, I’m intrigued as to, why then, why 2007, I’m sure the
FReunited files are safely hidden somewhere as evidence ?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 12:39

@rabbitaway
I don’t feel I need to know “who these people are”
other than their relationships to one another and their long-standing
associations. They can be as anonymous as I am, but that anonymity
should be consistent. It is also shambolic that the top law officers in
the land either don’t know the obvious linkages or are wilfully blind to
them. They seem to have entirely misunderstood the allegory of the
blindfold on that Old Bailey woman. The way things are going they should
add earplugs to the statue….

rabbitaway September 3, 2013 at 13:24

Why Aye Mr Larkin – ‘Natural’ Justice appears to have disappeared
from our ‘justice’ system. BTW I DO want to know these people’s
identities because, only then can I be assured that these people
actually exist and that each of them is a seperate entity. I for one
do not trust any of the people running these sham ops !

Mina Field
September 3, 2013 at 13:05

@rabbitaway
I too have wondered what happened in 2007. Was it just
an idea that arose out of all the get-togethers on Friends Reunited,
perhaps? Is it just a case of Fiona (if it was her that approached the
police – and we know she had the forged letter) being a limelight
seeking fraudster, maybe?

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 13:10

According to Paul Connew a story was brought forward back in 1994
and the reasons sounded very similar.

“One curious thing about Connew’s story is that he seems to be
describing “two women” who share the same attributes as those behind
both the 2007 police investigation of Savile and the 2012 itv Exposure
show. Looking back to 1994, Connew describes the events thus: a
relative of a woman in her mid-30′s, makes the initial approach to the
newspaper. The woman in question was alleged to have been abused at a
certain “childrens home”, when she was aged 14 to 15. Connew then says
the Mirror tracked down another woman (the only person the first woman
had kept track of). He goes on to say that the motivation of the first
family stemmed from the fact that Jimmy Savile was “in the news” at
the time. (This might relate to when he received his Kinghthood).
Connew also says that “one of the women had drug problems” and so the
newspaper lawyers were aware that this would hinder her making her a
good impression in court, should a libel case be pursued by Savile.
This story seems to bear a basic structural similarity to the story
explored by the Levitt Report, in which a series of events between a
Ms.B and a Ms.C are discussed”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/hitching-ride.html

Mina Field
September 3, 2013 at 13:06

quote = rabbitaway ‘I’m sure the FReunited files are safely hidden
somewhere as evidence ?’

Are they?

Rocky Racoon (No
relation) September 3, 2013 at
22:13

Miss ‘B’ instigated the 2007 Surrey Police investigation as a witness
not a victim, she described a scene involving a code word which the
victim, who wanted to punch Ms ‘B’, had no recollection of. By the time of
the Exposure programme Ms ‘B’ had herself become a victim.

Ian B September 3, 2013 at 09:48

Pardon my idioticness here, but what is alluded to by the term “working
girls”? Does it just mean girls at Duncroft who had outside jobs, or, er,
“working girls” in the euphemistic sense, or what?

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2013 at
10:35

There may have been some ‘doubling up’ going on!
I use the term in the
sense that these were girls who had reached school leaving age – 16 at that
time – received sufficient psychiatric treatment (Duncroft was the province
of MIND at that time) and had been found a suitable job in the local town of
Staines. They had a freedom we could only dream of – not only could they go
out into the open world every day by virtue of their job, they were allowed
money and could buy clothes and cigarettes (our perennial obsession!) as
they wished. They could even bring boyfriends back to Norman Lodge to meet
‘Drilly’ and co – but not up to bedrooms of course.
This made Norman
Lodge a haven of all manner of things contraband to us – and out of the
question for a Duncroft girl to have been allowed out to wander round there
at will. Apart from anything else, the Norman Lodge girls would have
complained bitterly!
Which suggests to me that the complainant was a
Norman Lodge resident herself…

Jonathan
Mason September 3, 2013 at 11:48

As I recall, according to her biography, Keri/Kerin was still at Norman
Lodge when she was working at the factory and skipped work to visit the
older art gallery owner in Staines who drugged and raped her. I wonder why
HE has never been identified. Fortunately she was able to recover in time
to get back to Norman Lodge for tea.

Moor Larkin September 3, 2013 at 11:51

@ Fortunately she was able to recover in time to get back to Norman
Lodge for tea. @
How very British………

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2013 at
12:15

I hadn’t forgotten that – Keri will make her appearance
tomorrow….!

Lucozade
September 4, 2013 at 08:31

Jonathan Mason,

Re: “As I recall, according to her biography, Keri/Kerin was still at
Norman Lodge when she was working at the factory and skipped work to
visit the older art gallery owner in Staines who drugged and raped her.
I wonder why HE has never been identified. Fortunately she was able to
recover in time to get back to Norman Lodge for tea”

My she has had mighty bad luck where rape and sexual assault are
concerned hasn’t she?

You’d think someone with that much bad luck must have some kind of
curse on them or something…

Mina
Field September 4, 2013 at
08:42

@Lucozade.

haha. By now you’ll have seen the excellent ‘part 3′. Unlucky
indeed.

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 09:33

Thank you for the concise dissection and for confirming my own conclusion
that MsG and Fiona were one and the same.

“Is Ms.G actually Fiona? A couple of blogs ago I thought Ms.G might be the
most famous Duncroftian, Keri/Karen Ward. This is the trouble with anonymity,
individuals can become Legion.

The CPS Report says this about Ms.G: ‘I did not know at the time I met her
that Ms G had participated in a television programme about Jimmy Savile.
During that programme she made a number of allegations which go considerably
further than those she made… in 2008. When I met her she made reference to
having given him a “hand job” but said that she had refused to give him a
“blow job”.’

If only the eminent QC had actually watched the TV show that had prompted
her investigation in the first place, she would presumably have recognised her
subject. The Law is never that simple it seems. Anyhow, one of the final words
on Ms.G from the Levitt Report is tantamount to calling her a fibber.

Ms G’s evidence was that she did not go to Duncroft until after her
fifteenth birthday (in fact, given that she says that she was living in Norman
Lodge at the time, the likelihood is that she was sixteen or older; she has
now confirmed that she thinks she was seventeen). I’m going for a lie-down. I
have been invited into someone’s house – possibly a respected professional
person and somehow I have ended up challenging her probity. But I seem not to
be the first to do so, the CPS has done so if Fiona equals Ms.G. Is she? I
think we should be told.

Even if they are different people Fiona’s story seems unbelievable anyway,
just as she herself feared it would be. Nobody believed her in the past
because originally she never told anyone, and now it seems more than possible
that everyone she has told the story to since, has been told a different
story. One thing about lies is that they are very hard to keep consistent,
whereas the truth is, perhaps quite tediously, always the same. It’s 38
minutes and 35 seconds into Exposure and I still have about ten minutes of
this dreadful stuff to sit through. Apparently Fiona is saying that she makes
no abuse allegations against Gary Glitter. Well, she wouldn’t do that would
she, after all – that celebrity is still alive.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/exposition-pt10.html

Joe Public September 3, 2013 at 09:24

Just thanks, Anna, for your riveting contributions towards our system of
Justice.

Ian
Hills September 3, 2013 at 08:35

Not while it distracts our attention from endemic moslem grooming, Mark.
That’s why the police keep framing elderly white celebrities.

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at 09:36

@Ian Hills
The BBC are on the case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632247
British
Sikh girls are being preyed upon by gangs of Muslim men who subject them to
horrific sexual abuse, a BBC Inside Out investigation has uncovered.

Ian
Hills September 3, 2013 at
09:50

It makes a nice change for the BBC not to blame the white victims…..oh,
I see!

Chris
Retro September 3, 2013 at 08:27

What a disgrace. I’m sure all the beleaguered fans of TOTP will also be
interested to know the who, what and why of why we’ve had 17 editions locked
in the archive forever that should have been repeated in the past 11 months
and possibly cancelled at the end of the year, and I have to cover another
“banned” JS edition this week – so I will be including links to these
articles.

This is the kind of thing Private Eye should be doing – if they were
actually doing the job they claim to be doing

JS September 3, 2013 at 15:58

Private Eye has become essentially toothless and irrelevant even when it
isn’t completely wrong..
Once upon a time it was the only regular source
of information on what the mainstream media weren’t reporting and fulfilled
a valuable function but post internet it pales beside a multitude of blogs.
PE looks far too close to the Westminster bubble and toes conventional
knee-jerk lines on too many of the controversies of our age.
On Savile,
as well as too many other recent issues, PE has avoided the real stories and
simply prodded round the edges, getting even those scraps wrong as often as
they were right.

Joe Public
September 3, 2013 at 17:42

Ian Hislop is firmly part of the “Establishment” now, and as such derives
a substantial proportion of his income from Beeb game shows.

Mina Field September 3, 2013 at 08:16

Hmm, as you say, Anna, Miss G seems a conundrum. Does her claim document
the fact that she ‘went to the police but they wouldn’t prosecute’? I’d have
thought that this, if she were Miss G, would be mentioned – you, know….. to
add to the severity of her ‘trauma’.
I hope you start feeling better, and
good luck for the scan.

A tweet this morning from the cleaning operative amuses me:-

Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 40m
Morning 04.30 start – filming
in Lancashire today. Looks like a nice dummy day ahead.

Mark September 3, 2013 at 07:56

I wonder if the eventual exposure of this crock of nonsense, if it happens,
will make the mainstream press less likely to cover allegations of child abuse
by senior public figures?

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2013 at
08:01

Sadly, I think the end result of this use of child abuse as mainstream
entertainment will be that the media will shy clear of child abuse
altogether no matter who it is committed by. Children will be the ultimate
victims, twice over.

Duncan
Disorderly September 3, 2013 at 10:23

I do not subscribe to the ‘alternative’ conspiracy theory that Savile was
set up to be knocked down and so damage the credibility of accusers against
senior public figures. As always, the evidence against people must be
examined on it’s merits.

In any event, the press have proved themselves incapable of critically
analysing claims against any named person. We will not miss much if they are
cowed into not reporting anything.

Moor
Larkin September 3, 2013 at
10:39

Given that it has been accepted for decades that the vast bulk of
“child abuse” happens within a family or within a “care-home” then all
this naming/shaming will have no relevance to the reporting of that child
abuse anyway. The issues of non-reported abuse and historical reportage
all comes back to the emotional ties of the people at the time – the
father has to accept the mother he loves is being abusive to his child,
and vice versa, the granny has to recognise/accept the grandchild is not
just making up stories and her own son is doing the unthinkable – the
care-worker has to believe the worst of a colleague they have related to
for months…… etc etc and on-infinitum.

This crap NSPCC campaign is really all about “stranger rape/abuse”,
which everyone would report if they heard the slightest whisper of it, and
this has always been the case. The bullshit idea that a fellow DJ would
ignore Savile “raping teenagers” is just that – bullshit.

All the newspaper reportage of celebrity sex will make not one jot of
difference to the woman looking at the man in her bed and wondering, “can
it really be true?”….. perhaps after she has heard him questioning their
young child in the other room that evening, asking her about what’s in her
pants maybe….. – as per the current NSPCC “bright idea”. It really is a
dreadful mess and getting worse by the day because of all the lying going
on.

John
Pickworth September 3, 2013 at
16:56

The bullshit idea that a fellow DJ would ignore Savile “raping
teenagers” is just that – bullshit.

Quite an important insight if you think about it. Was Savile so loved
– or feared, as the official legend would like us to believe – that his
colleagues or co-workers wouldn’t, or daren’t, report him? The
professional world of the DJ, radio, TV and the entertainment business
in general is just like any other… someone would have seen a chance for
advancement by alerting their bosses to the fact Savile has been helping
himself to company paper-clips from the stationery cupboard, or worse.

Like you, I don’t believe for a moment that over 40 odd years no one
would have seized an opportunity to do Savile down or to profit from his
fall from grace. Unless of course they had nothing on him? Either he
wasn’t the lecher we’re told he was or his behaviour was no worse than
that of his peers… and bearing in mind we’re talking about the swinging
sixties and beyond, perhaps this was the case.

Mina
Field September 3, 2013 at
17:47

@John Pickworth

‘Was Savile so loved, or feared that….’

If you haven’t already done so, you might care to read Moor
Larkin’s articles on exactly this question. He reveals BBC documents
that show that JS’s status with the BBC was anything but that of a
VIP.

John
Pickworth September 4, 2013 at
01:29

Thanks Mina, I had read Moor Larkin’s articles… and I agree with
the VIP theory. However, even if Savile had held an exulted position
within the industry, someone eventually would have ratted him out and
probably even more so if up on a pedestal. Gossip is a great career
killer and I cannot believe there weren’t some who hated (or were
jealous of) Savile enough to end his reign. The fact this didn’t
happen leaves us with the obvious question, why?

And lets remember, that while the likes of Gary Glitter and
Jonathan King etc had their adventures off the reservation; Savile was
supposed to have been stalking the corridors of schools, hospitals and
the BBC. If true, why did no one squeal? Or, might it just be that
these events just didn’t happen?

Sally Stevens
September 4, 2013 at 01:49

Same hear.

Sally Stevens
September 4, 2013 at 01:50

@ J Mason.