Along with several other interested parties, I have spent the afternoon digesting the Pollard report on whether the Newsnight ‘Savile’ programme was pulled from the transmission schedule because of ‘pressure from above’ or not.

Watching Twitter on the subject, the phrase that has been lept on with glee has been that Peter Rippon’s decision not to permit transmission was ‘seriously flawed’. What seems to be missing from any of these tweets is the follow up that this was ‘done in good faith’ and NOT  ‘for inappropriate reasons’.

As a result of that decision ’in good faith’, the senior management at the BBC seem to have gone into ‘headless chicken mode’, often making decisions on flawed information, and generally more concerned with watching their own back than with sharing information and being transparent.

I am not concerned with the bulk of the report dealing with the failings of the BBC to deal with the outcome of that decision. I shall leave that to others.

Now that it has been decided that Peter Rippon didn’t make his decision as a result of management pressure to protect the reputation of a BBC star, I am concerned with why that decision was made.

Peter Rippon could only act on the information he was given by his investigative team. His own view was:

‘The extent to which we had to rely on the testimony from [[R1]] was stark. She was the only victim in vision we had and would be the face of our allegations and I remained concerned about how well her testimony would stand up to the scrutiny it would get. I was also concerned with the way we had collected the additional evidence from other victims and witnesses, The women were to remain anonymous. The interviews had all been done on the telephone. Some of them were done by a junior researcher who was with us on work experience who I had never worked with. I was also concerned that the evidence could potentially be undermined because some of the women had already discussed the claims amongst themselves via a social networking site. In my personal experience, the strongest testimony from victims of alleged child sexual abuse has to be collected individually, face to face, on neutral territory, with trained interviewers used to not asking leading questions. This was a long way from what we had done.
For these reasons I emailed Meirion on 30th November saying I wanted to pursue the CPS angle on the story to its end before finally deciding on publishing…’.

Rippon was right to be concerned at relying on the testimony from the one woman they had on film, for Meirion Jones own view of the women was:

In another e-mail to Mr Williams-Thomas, on 22 November, Mr Jones offered some candid observations about the ex Duncroft residents. He said that while ‘most’ were intelligent, ‘most’ were also ‘emotionally damaged’ with a ‘criminal background’ as well as being ‘suspicious… extremely manipulative [and] difficult to deal with’.

In his evidence to Pollard Mr Jones rather played down this description of the residents, although it was obviously his private view of his ‘witnesses” expressed as he thought at the time.  However, another of the women had vouchsafed the information that there had been a 2007 investigation into these allegations which had been dropped ‘because Savile was old and infirm’.  She claimed to be in possession of a letter proving this. That information obviously significantly strengthened the extent to which Rippon felt that he could rely on the ‘compelling testimony’ from the one witness they had on film and the telephone conversations via a junior employee on work experience – he was indeed happy at that point for the investigation to continue.

We will never know who the author of that forged letter was. Fiona was the last person known to have handled it, before handing it to a reporter from the Daily Mail, who quickly established that it was a crude forgery – however, crucially she never did give it to the Newsnight team. That forged letter has subsequently become the crux of the breakdown of trust between Peter Rippon and the investigative team headed by Meirion Jones.

On 25 November Mr Williams-Thomas told Mr Jones that Surrey Police had confirmed to him, off the record, that they had indeed investigated Savile. That was a big step forward. First, it was confirmation that the police had taken the allegations seriously enough to mount an investigation. Second, it demonstrated that those residents who said they had been spoken to by the police had indeed done so. It reinforced their credibility. 
Mr Jones immediately passed the news on to Mr Rippon: ‘Off the record Surrey Police have now confirmed that they did investigate Jimmy Savile about sexual abuse of minors and that they interviewed the girls from Duncroft as part of that inquiry. The Head of the Paedophile unit is now going to dig out the files and hopefully tell us more on Monday.’

Rippon was nervous about putting the BBCs reputation on the line on the strength of the uncorroborated evidence he had seen/heard so far, and when it appeared that there was no corroboration of the story that had been pitched to him – i.e. that the women had been let down by an unsatisfactory police investigation abandoned for the farcical reason that Savile was ‘too old and inform’ he withdrew his support for the transmission.

Rippon asked Meirion in an e-mail dated 5:26pm on 7 December:

‘What is the latest….did the CPS get back?…There is a limit to how much time it is sensible to continue chasing this.’

Meirion Jones replied:

… still waiting for CPS…As you know I already think story is strong enough – and danger of not running it is substantial damage to BBC reputation – but no point having that discussion until I have final word from CPS.

Sadly, as those of us who have followed this story closely have known all along, that information was incorrect. The letter purporting to come from Surrey Police conveying this information was a forgery, and in fact the Surrey Police investigation had been dropped due to lack of evidence.

‘Following an investigation by [Surrey] Police, the CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence’. The statement added: ‘As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken’.

Pollard says:

I think it is clear that, at this stage, Mr Rippon would have broadcast the story if there was clear confirmation that the CPS had dropped the case against Savile because of his age. That could either have come through the appearance of the ‘old and infirm’ letter or by the CPS confirming that fact themselves. If that had happened I do not think Mr Rippon would have been able to resist the pressure to broadcast. Indeed, the story would have passed the threshold that he himself had set so he would have had no reason to oppose it, although he clearly had considerable other doubts too.

That Meirion was placing great store on the ‘old and infirm angle’ himself is shown by his draft for the transmission.

On 27 November Mr Jones drafted a version of the ‘cue’, the lead-in that would be read by the presenter just before the filmed story was played out on the programme. This was:

‘When Sir Jimmy Savile died in October, Prince Charles led the tributes to a national treasure. But there was a darker side to the star of Jim’ll Fix it. Newsnight has learnt that he was investigated by police for sexual assaults on minors but the crown prosecution service decided in 2009? that he was too old and infirm to face trial. Now some of the girls who say they were assaulted by him in the 1970s when they were 13, 14 and 15 have talked to Newsnight. They say Savile was an evil man who should rot in hell and that his charity work gave him cover to get young girls. They even claim that some of the abuse took place after BBC recordings and involved other celebrity paedophiles who appeared on Savile’s shows such as Gary Glitter.
Liz Mackean investigates …

Early in Mr Jones’ draft was a quote from an interview with Mr Williams-Thomas (although the interview had not yet been recorded it was clear what line it was anticipated he was going to take) in which he was expected to say ‘but in 2009 the CPS decided that Savile was too old and infirm to face a trial and dropped the case – I have to say I don’t think that is acceptable – and why was it all hushed up?’ Mr Jones accepted that this story, with the CPS angle prominent near the start and talking of ‘hushing up’ the abuse, was the story he was hoping to put out.

I have always maintained that what has happened to the BBC in the past few months were as a direct result of Meirion ‘throwing his toys out of his pram’ when he wasn’t allowed to run with a story that would have directly impacted on his elderly aunt with whom he no longer enjoyed good relations. Not that Meirion had had the good manners to either inform his Aunt that he was investigating a story in which she would have been an obvious interviewee, or even told his bosses at the BBC that he had a personal and emotional involvement in this story.

Two days later, on 23 November, Ms Boaden spoke with Mr Mitchell. She was not aware at the time that Mr Jones’s aunt was the Head of Duncroft, nor that he had been considering the story for some time while Savile was alive. She said that she would have been ‘quite concerned’ about such a personal involvement or emotional connection.

From this point on, relations between Meirion Jones and his executive editor appear to have totally collapsed.

There was a further factor involved too. It is clear to me that the relationship between Mr Rippon and his investigation team had all but broken down. I accept that there were not screaming matches and open rows but, as it became obvious that the story was not going to run, an element of personal antagonism crept in. It comes across clearly in the personal e-mails sent by Mr Jones and Ms MacKean to their friends and in the exasperated way Mr Rippon describes, in particular, Mr Jones’s methods of working. He thought Mr Jones was over-selling the story, literally ‘like a salesman’ he told us, and was prematurely passing details of the investigation to other parts of the news department to try to build up an assumption that the story was going to go ahead.

Stories started to appear in the press reflecting Meiron’s view that ‘his’ programme had been abandoned because of managerial pressure to protect Savile’s reputation, rather than his Editor’s feeling that the story needed more corroboration.

The complete distrust of Mr Jones which I referred to above extended to the News PR team. Ms Deller and Mr Feeny were, by this stage, evidently concerned about the continuing leaking of material to the media, of which they assumed Mr Jones to be the source. The pair had taken the view that this should lead to disciplinary action against Mr Jones and even his dismissal. In an email exchange later that night, after Ms Deller learned of Mr Jones’s family connection to Duncroft, Ms Deller said to Mr Rippon, Mr Mitchell and Mr Feeny: ‘No excuse. No more discussions with him’, suggesting ’a discreet conversation with HR to establish options.’

Mr Mitchell and Ms Boaden were both at pains to point out that the fact that Mr Jones was considered to be inclined to leak did not mean that he was persona non grata within BBC News. Throughout this period he was still being trusted to, as Ms Boaden put it ‘do some journalism’.However, Ms Boaden did suggest that one reason why nobody sat down with Mr Jones to get his version of the underlying facts was that by this point he was ‘regarded as untrustworthy’. Another reason, Ms Boaden suggested, was that Mr Jones would not be the right person to go to:

‘… you have to decide what you think the facts are that you want to explore… So the allegation is a cover-up of a Newsnight investigation. So you wouldn’t necessarily go to Meirion Jones to get the facts on that, since it is suspected that Meirion is the person who has decided it is a cover up’.”

What more can be said? One man’s overweening ego and hysteria at not being able to use the Newsnight programme as a vehicle to vent his private grievances? Somebody’s desire to over egg the pudding by forging a letter? Between them they have engineered the downfall of the BBC’s Director General, The Deputy Director of BBC News Stephen Mitchell, lost the trust of the British public – such as it was – in the investigative integrity of the BBC, cost the BBC licence payers some £2 million just to get the facts straight, and most damaging of all, have put back the quiet patient work of the real police in investigating historic cases of child abuse by years.

That is the real tragedy – all this grandstanding, and out there, tonight, some poor kid is getting unwanted ‘attention’ from a ‘friend’ of his Mother’s. Do you imagine any of these people actually care about that kid?

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 17:09

Oh good, but that only pertains to you and not to the group in general.
However, as David has closed down the Duncroft site – and I hope it remains
that way – they would now have to approach him and further obtain a warrant to
view anything and everything that is there on line. I also have some messages
between myself and another ex-pupil that I have saved to screen caps, which
would further establish the extreme deception on the part of at least that
person It might be helpful for them to view those. You can’t alter a screen
cap.

It’s very unfortunate that there was such a level of deceit going on,
Carol, and I don’t understand why you would be involved in this conspiracy
regarding the Fiona/Susan Melling persona. You didn’t strike me as that sort.

The problem with lying is that the truth always comes out. A tangled web,
indeed.

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 02:12

I saw the Stones many times in their early days, being from the area, and
once attended a full-on concert (snuck in, just wanted to see the Hollies) at
the Guildford Odeon. The place was full of screaming girls and boys not
screaming. Once the Stones hit the stage, it sounded like a jet taking off. I
was completely flabbergasted. A girl came running down the center aisle,
leaped over the heads of the coppers providing a barricade, and affixed
herself to Keith, wrapping her arms around his neck and her legs around his
waist. A police officer hauled her off, getting his helmet knocked off in the
process. Keith continued to play, despite the obstruction and drama, with a
wry grin on his face.

I was standing in the aisle like the rest of the crowd, (the place was sold
out, but I had found a seat which was only a back, without an actual seat, and
had crouched down in it when the ushers came by). For some reason the copper
handed her over to me and ran away. She was a hysterical mess. I got her back
to reality – along the lines of Cher in “Moonstruck”, i.e. “snap out of it!” –
and she stumbled away, sobbing, to find her friends.

The Hollies were great.

Jacqueline
December 22, 2012 at 03:28

It’s funny how you don’t see boys getting that excited over female
singers…

I love the BBC
December 21, 2012 at 20:53

I see she has added ‘animal communicator’ to her many talents http://shaman-beverli-rhodes.blogspot.co.uk/

Mind you she is currently strangely quiet https://twitter.com/LaindaRhodes

She feels hard done by over 7/7 compensation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8055222.stm

She has also worked as an actress, model, etc………..

I love the BBC
December 21, 2012 at 20:37

There is one woman who claims she was raped by Savile when very young, and
that her own father pimped her out at parties which he and others attended.
Her story was published in the Sunday Mirror I believe, but only in the
printed version. It never appeared on their website and I wonder if that was
because someone did some much needed checking up, belatedly, while the paper
was at press.
Her name is Beverli Rhodes and to say her story is odd is
understating the matter by a wide margin. She was apparently working as an
anti terrorist consultant on her way to a meeting about the Olympics when she
was caught up in the 7/7 bombings and ‘seriously injured’. The only photo
available appears to show her after minor cosmetic surgery. Even an
established press photographer has tagged her photo on a public account as 7/7
‘victim’, with added inverted commas. She later claimed the incident made her
psychic when she had no interest in it before. A simple check shows her
advertising her services as healer and spiritual consellor years
beforehand.
She has a ‘degree’ from a mail order degree factory in South
Africa, where she lived at one time, but her claim about her job stopping the
bad guys from blowing us up appears to be true.
May be she channeled their
bad energies away or something,who knows.

In any case, despite copious internet ramblings she had never once made any
claims to be an abuse survivor that I know of until a few weeks ago.

Mina Field
December 21, 2012 at 21:24

Wouldn’t surprise me if she wasn’t representative of a large cross
section of the ‘hundreds of victims’ cited by the police.

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 01:53

Sounds the reclusive, elusive Andrea Davison, who claimed she was at
Duncroft.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) December 22, 2012 at 10:08

Despite Beverli Rhodes being a ninth generation Shaman her spiritual
journey began in 2005/06 yet….

“My light destiny was show in my 4th year as a child.” http://shaman-beverli-rhodes.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/my-light-destiny-explained.html

On various websites she describes herself a survivor but only of the 7/7
bombing no mention or suggestion of child abuse by her step dad and being
passed around amony 60 men when aged 13 – 14. On Nov 25 the Sunday Mirror
reported….

“Beverli Rhodes alleges she was raped by stepdad Patrick Rhodes at the
age of 13 and passed around up to 60 of his evil cronies.
She also claims
he took her to the BBC’s Wood Lane television studios in the early 1970s
where she recalls being raped on three different occasions by men in
dressing rooms….” http://business.highbeam.com/4522/article-1G1-309832060/my-savile-paedo-party-hell-abused-evil-stepdad-and

In her own writings, at that age this was happening in her life…

“At the age of 13, I moved to being a star soul, connecting to my light
destiny before innitiation. I was given the Spirit paq called “Da ‘ar”, whom
was released as being the guiding Spirit of one before me upon her death.

I have since taken a long standing personal shamanic vow, at the age of
16. I have agreed to devote all my spiritual powers, healing and
abilites.”

Maybe she blocked out her experiences when aged 13.

And then there’s the little matter of her vow of 35 years ago compared
with what she reportedly sain in July 2012…

“She believes a strange side-effect of the injuries she suffered in the
terror attack is an ability to connect with people.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4415776/77-bombings-left-me-with-psychic-power-to-help-others.html

Am I missing something but is she reluctant to say who she was working
for in July 2005?
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/beverli-lainda-rhodes/5/b82/794

Anna
Raccoon December 22, 2012 at
10:55

Having had a good look at that website and the photographs, I have to
say she does bear a remarkable resemblance to the pictures I have of
Andrea Davison on this site…..

Elena ‘andcart
December 21, 2012 at 18:47

@ Dai Brainbocs. As late as the early 90s, Buggery of a woman was still
only considered to be Sexual Abuse, and not actually Rape. Not sure why, but
probably something to do with the unlikely event of impregnation. And I have
no idea of when the Law was changed.
As it happens, I worked for a while
for a Rape Crisis Centre, and found them all without exception to be a bunch
of raving, men hating nutters who were very rarely called upon to help any
poor woman, thank God.

Jacqueline
December 21, 2012 at 23:37

@Elena: I think forced buggery would probably be a lot worse than
traditional ‘rape’. Though maybe they did see the risk of pregnancy as an
important issue…

Wendi December 21, 2012 at 07:52

Would LOVE to see a Monty Python sketch on this whole saga, they would have
had a ball!

Elena ‘andcart
December 21, 2012 at 08:17

Don’t. I would wet myself laughing. And it really isn’t funny. Well, not
a lot. The only really funny thing is that Jimmy Savile hasn’t got a clue
about what is going on.

Wendi December 20, 2012 at 22:35

‘…another of the women had vouchsafed the information that there had been a
2007 investigation into these allegations which had been dropped ‘because
Savile was old and infirm’. She claimed to be in possession of a letter
proving this. That information obviously significantly strengthened the extent
to which Rippon felt that he could rely on the ‘compelling testimony’ from the
one witness they had on film…’ – but Meirion Jones never saw said letter for
himself? Surely he wouldn’t go by the heresay of women he had already
described as ‘‘emotionally damaged’ with a ‘criminal background’ as well as
being ‘suspicious… extremely manipulative [and] difficult to deal with’…”?

So, via Williams Thomas, Meirion Jones tells Rippon ‘Off the record Surrey
Police have now confirmed that they did investigate Jimmy Savile about sexual
abuse of minors and that they interviewed the girls from Duncroft as part of
that inquiry…’ As part of that inquiry??? Supposedly, the Duncroft women were
the ones that went to Surrey Police in the first place – or I’ve missed
something. As for the police investigation – it apparently took them over a
year to locate and interview potential witnesses – and, mira por dónde, it
went no further due to ‘lack of evidence’!

Who came up with the ‘old and infirm’ tag? Bertrand Russell was imprisoned
when he was 89 for attending an anti-nuclear demonstration, so I highly doubt
Savile would have been saved imprisonment for far graver, purported deeds – if
proven. Deeds that were reported to the Police more than thirty years after
they supposedly took place.

I found the Newsnight and the Panorama programmes pretty unconvincing in
content for the media mayhem they caused and can’t imagine how much taxpayers’
money has been and is still being spent on all the various investigations, let
alone police hours spent on this sorry debacle. Williams Thomas and Meirion
Jones are both culpable for not doing their due diligence, as is the rest of
the media for irresponsibly jumping on the bandwagon: the BBC execs for
running around as Anna says ‘like headless chickens’ with the tributes to
Savile programmed for an adoring public and Meirion wanting to reveal a not
very well substantiated ‘Other Side of Savile’ – the BBC execs between a rock
and a hard place. The Newsnight programme was shelved and the tribute shown
and the shit hit the proverbial fan this October.

I have neither heard nor read of one single woman claiming she was actually
raped by Savile in her adolescence or early teens – claims of touching and
Fiona’s ‘knicker fumbling’ yes, the source of the latter being highly dubious.
In fact all the publicized claims to date are pretty dubious. Where is there
any hard evidence and where would there be after nigh forty years, why would
those Duncroft girls place abuse claims as late as 2007 if they supposedly
happened in the early 70s? And why didn’t Meirion seriously question their
motives before launching himself and the BBC into the story and, at the very
least, talk to his aunt and gracefully pass the programme on to another due to
a conflict of interests should he think there were in fact bases to these
women’s claims?

Peter Rippon appears to have made the right decision in 2011 with the
information he had, considering important information he did not have!

Mina Field
December 20, 2012 at 22:58

Well according to the spokesman for Yewtree there are 31 rape
allegations.
Somehow a myth has been perpetuated that no victim would
have ever dared to complain or report such an assault. I say myth because
thats what it is. Its true that some rape victims shy away from reporting
but to say its universal is utter nonsense. If a man raped once he might be
lucky, and maybe even a second or third. But not the 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th……………………22nd, 23rd,……………………….31st.
I am reeling in disbelief at the
mentality of our police, press, media and government.

Jonathan
Mason December 20, 2012 at 23:12

That’s right. It is reported that there are 31 rape allegations, but
there is nothing (yet) in the public arena that conclusively nails Savile
as a paedophile. Of course the police MAY have some decent quality
evidence, allegations, or information that they are sitting on that we,
the jury don’t yet know about.

Moor Larkin December 20, 2012 at 23:34

Operation Yewtree opened in October: “in excess of 400 lines of
enquiry have been assessed and over 200 potential victims have been
identified.”
Operation Yewtree concluded in December: “in excess of
500 victims have come forward and we have recorded 200 allegations of
sexual assault.”

So between October 2012 when the Exposure programme was first aired
and December, when Operation Yewtree was wound up, it seems there was no
significant change in the numbers. 200 is the only important number, and
that hasn’t changed. How you can have over 500 “victims” and only 200
allegations I have no idea, but then I’m not a senior police officer
with time on my hands.

I will be curious to hear more about the boy scout though. Maybe in
January, when Spindler of the Yard has collated his files.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20686219

Dai Brainbocs
December 21, 2012 at 10:22

IIUC the act that Karin Ward says she performed on Savile would if
under duress constitute rape as the law now stands, but did it at the time
it allegedly happened? It would always have been a disgusting sexual
assault, but in compiling the statistics are today’s legal definitions
being applied to a different era?

Jacqueline
December 21, 2012 at 17:16

@Dai Brainbocs: I think quite a few changes were made to the law in
England in 2003. Where as before some consensual sexual activity was not
technically illegal for people who were under 16 but over 13 (?) the law
was changed in England in 2003 which technically made all sexual
activity, including kissing, illegal for under 16′s, regardless if both
parties are under that age, though i’d guess the law is probably only
enforced when one party is significantly older than the other depending
on what actually happened…?

I wondered myself about the legality or illegality of what Savile did
with these girls back in the 1970′s if they were over a certain age (not
necessarily 16), there was no penetration and it was consensual (though
I think these days oral sex is counted as penetration – has this always
been the case…?), though I guess you could argue offering them rewards
to do it is bribery and perhaps paying them for it, but the law has
changed over the years – particularly in 2003…

Dai
Brainbocs December 21, 2012 at
17:53

I was leaving out any considerations of consensuality or age. At
the risk of being a bit too anatomical, just wondering if you could in
precise legal terms commit rape even by forcing oral sex on a
woman/girl as long ago as these alleged events occurred. I have an
idea the definition was broadened at the same time as it became
possible in legal terms to rape a man, which is relatively recent and
could well be as recent as 2003.

Wendi
December 21, 2012 at 18:30

Bearing in mind that girls’ first menstruation generally starts
between the age of 10 to 12, to wait until 16 to legally kiss seems a
little excessive! In Spain consensual sex is still legal as of 13
although there would be an uproar if a 13-year old were to be found
having ‘consensual’ sex with a male much older and there have been
attempts to up the age from 13 to 14, so far to no avail. However, I
think this is a question of national attitudes. The Spanish seem to
have a much healthier attitude towards sex and nudity in general and
family units themselves are much closer than they are in Britain,
giving the children a wide support cushion of close and distant
relatives. It’s nice to see!

Doesn’t the story of the alleged fellatio performed on Savile in
the back of his Rolls with four of the girl’s Duncroft peers sitting
on a bench at a picnic table chatting away until ‘it’ was ‘over’ seem
a little surreal? If it was ‘forced’ – he would be physically
outnumbered with 5 physically healthy adolescents clawing away at him
and screaming blue murder! She could also have done a Lorena Bobbitt…
It all smells of collusion and I would like to know why, after so many
decades have gone by. The whole thing just doesn’t add up.

And thank you Mewsical for pointing out yet another typo earlier in
my ‘heresay’!

Mina
Field December 21, 2012 at
18:32

My own suspicion, and of course it will have to remain just that,
seeing as JS is not here to answer any questions, is that these girls
might well have tried offering favours in return for,say,introductions
to pop stars (JS himself said that girls flocked around him in the
hope of getting to meet their idols). And I honestly can’t imagine
this leading to anything other than him being frightened to death of
and ultimately steering clear of them.
Karin Ward would have been
ringing round the red tops years ago instead of resorting to cheque
book fraud if she had really had a story to tell.

Wendi
December 21, 2012 at 19:14

Absolutely Jacqueline, nail on head! Of course they’d want to
inveigle Savile to get access to their pop/rock idols if they had
the chance, as would many non-Duncroft adolescents back then. Savile
was definitely on odd character, but he was obviously not a stupid
man and would hardly risk a scandal for a blow-job from one
adolescent in full view of four of her peers on the promise of a
trip for all to Top of the Pops and a packet or two of cigarettes! I
know society in the UK was more lax and, thankfully, way less PC,
back then but… I don’t think so.
Watching a documentary on the
Stones the other day I was reminded of the fan hysteria that went on
back in the days. Brian Jones (RIP) was saying how they could see
the urine running down the aisles of theatres where they were
performing in the early days – the fans were in a state of mass
hysteria and peeing themselves – and the band never got to finish
their concerts as the stage would be attacked and they’d have to be
rushed out the back door!

Elena
‘andcart December 21, 2012 at
19:41

Good God. What an awful thought. I can remember being a bit
ecstatic, but I don’t remember ever having lost control of my
bladder. And I don’t suppose that these girls did either. I expect
that they just couldn’t be bothered to go to the lavatory in case
they lost their places in the thick of things.
Jimmy Savile,
Paedophile? Sorry, I don’t buy it, and I never have. And I am not
going to go into another explanation of how I feel about Groping.
Been there, had that done a few times, and had completely
forgotten until this came up.. And if I had ever had a daughter, I
would have told her to knee the bugger in the Bollox if she didn’t
actually feel like telling him to sod off in a very loud
voice.
And please don’t doubt that I was a trifle emotionally
deprived myself. But if you don’t like it then you don’t like it,
and you don’t put up with it. You just remove yourself, even if
only in a polite way.
This is all going to come to absolutely
nothing. And it will do sweet bugger all for the children who are
being seriously abused because they aren’t being abused by a bunch
of Rock Stars at The BBC.

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 03:27

I don’t know that I’d give credence to just any old statement
that Brian made myself.

Jacqueline December 21, 2012 at 21:40

Lol, I reckon it was probably a mixture of both excitement and
having to hold it in either cause they didn’t want to lose their
friends/place or it was too crowded to either get to the toilets
or the toilets were too busy, but they could have warned people
when buying tickets ‘remember to bring a spare pair of knickers –
you’ll need them’, lol…

I don’t think it was illegal in Scotland to receive oral sex
from a 15 year old girl until about 1995. I think until then the
age of consent of 16 was only for intercourse (although it would
have been 18 or 21, I don’t know which?, for homosexual anal
intercourse). Other sexual activities, including oral sex, were
illegal with individuals who were below the ‘common law age of
puberty’ which was 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy. I think in 1995
they changed the law for girls and made these activities illegal
with girls under 16 but kept the law as it was for boys (the
common law age of puberty). It was only in December 2010 that laws
that said a man could legally be ‘raped’ as such came in I think
(though I dare say before then the law probably just had another
name for it e.g ‘sexual assault’ perhaps? – I can’t imagine it
ever being ‘legal’ as such…?), but it was only in December 2010
that the law was made the same for boys as it was for girls – e.g
other sexual activities, such as oral sex, illegal with anyone
male or female under 16.

I was always under the impression when I was at school that the
age of consent of 16 only applied to intercourse (and anal
intercourse) – no-one ever suggested any different, not even in
‘sex education’ – such as it was, lol…

Elena
‘andcart December 21, 2012 at
21:56

Good Heavens. Are we actually discussing such ghastly
practices? I am quite sure that this never happened around the
horses. Think of the damage it could have done.

Jacqueline December 21, 2012 at 19:42

@Wendi and Mina: I’ve heard of the odd teenage girls doing that –
offering sexual favours

Wendi
December 21, 2012 at 20:07

Sex has been a tool for leverage to some degree or other from
time immemorial!

Elena
‘andcart December 21, 2012 at
20:39

This is what it is basically all about. And you can’t stop
silly girls from doing that. Or is it the other way around?
But
you certainly can’t bring back my sort of naivety of those days of
my young life. I only remember that I was nailed to the floor,
although I was totally unaware of for why. So ultimately I do have
to blame the parents.

Wendi December 21, 2012 at 21:02

Good lord Elena! Nailed to the floor? There’s bad parenting
and sadistic parenting – this sounds like the latter! I trust
the parent/s in question got their come-uppance at some stage…
Bloody hell!

Elena
‘andcart December 21, 2012 at
21:39

Yer, they did get their cummupance, although I was
exaggerating, albeit only slightly. I tend to mock my worst
experiences. It’s wot keeps me going.
I just up and walked
out one day. Actually, I ran away to sea, but that’s another
story. But at least I am not left with horrendous guilt
complexes about that one. I have more than enough guilt
complexes on other fronts. Although that could well have been
the start of it all. C’est la Vie. If it doesn’t get you one
way then it will get on another. But I am the only person
behind my eyes, which I find quite remarkable.

Jacqueline
December 21, 2012 at 18:42

@Dai Brainbocs: I can’t find any information on this, but if I was to
hazard a guess I would say that this is a more recent development in the
law and back in those days, if it was forced, it would have been more
likely termed ‘sexual assault’ or something similar (that’s what I
thought it was till round about now, lol)

Did you know oral sex is still technically illegal in a lot of states
in America and sometimes classed as ‘sodomy’?

Moor Larkin December 20, 2012 at 22:08

I was wondering who this Nick Vaughan-Barret guy is, who much of the media
is making a big thing of, as he wrote to Entwistle about Jimmy’s “dark side”
an how he didn’t think the beeb should even do an obit for savile. Was Jimmy
was a Jedi Knight, if not a Freemason? Anyhow, in lookiong for references to
the double-barrelled guy (he seems to have been the guy who organised Children
in Need and royal coverage) I was amused to find this article.

BBC2 cleared its schedule to screen the Michael Jackson memorial service
live tonight.
Nick Vaughan-Barratt , head of BBC Events, said: ‘Michael
Jackson is one of the most influential pop stars of all time and we’re pleased
to have brought BBC viewers coverage of this important event.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1198159/BBC2-clears-schedule-screen-Michael-Jackson-tribute.html#ixzz2FdGfmz56

I guess there are dark sides and then there are….. dark sides…..

Moor Larkin December 20, 2012 at 22:36

I notice the other executive who reportedly echoed Vaughan-Barrett, Jan
Younghusband, was also the person behind the idea of showing all the old
TotP shows again in BBC4, just last year…..

“BBC commissioning editor for music and events Jan Younghusband said:
“You realise that it was most successful as variety. People take it is a
chart show but really it is a variety show.”
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/tv_and_showbiz/s/1416750_back-to-the-70s-top-of-the-pops-returns-to-bbc

Guess whose face headlines the report……
…. Always looking on the bright side of life…..

Mina Field
December 20, 2012 at 22:42

Haha, methinks Mr Vaughan-Barratt should be made to answer for his
covering up whatever he was covering up for whomsoever he was covering for.
In fact he should be arrested for being an accessory. All the ‘victims’
could have got their comp……..er, I mean closure, years ago if he had told
‘what he knew’.

I think the above is correct. Trying to get the hang of this ‘out the
paedo ring’ lark.

Lucy December 20, 2012 at 19:08

And still Meirion Jones and Liz Mackean only yesterday in the guardian
refer to Peter Rippon’s decision as flawed when it was their approach to the
investigation that was flawed. How can they think it is acceptable for a work
experience person to interview potential victims of abuse. Seems to me Peter
Rippon made the right decision based on what they presented him with and it
was their inability to work professionally that got in the way. Guess they
didn’t realise how people with integrity make decisions.

Mina Field
December 20, 2012 at 19:22

Hopefully all right minded folk that read the report, including
journalists, will consider Peter Rippon’s behaviour to have been no more and
no less than that of a responsible editor, and find Pollard’s comments just
rather silly.

Wendi December 21, 2012 at 07:55

Ditto.

mewsical December 20, 2012 at 18:04

In a way, it’s a good thing they slipped up so stupidly, because that was
the cat getting out of the bag. Until then, and until the Mail was handed this
sloppy forgery, it was all ‘ooh, Jimmy Savile’ is a serial pedophile’. Now
there is more than enough reasonable doubt to dismiss the entire story as
being the construction of some extremely dishonest and emotionally disturbed
(and btw that phrase about Duncroft was the creation of Susan Melling/Fiona
herself) women who still resent Margaret Jones and the staff at Duncroft.
Fiona has a GREAT DEAL to answer for and I sincerely hope that when Yewtree is
wound up, that they send her a bill from the taxpayers.

Jacqueline
December 20, 2012 at 18:31

Do you know if Fiona was actually involved in the 2007 investigation and
actually gave her complaints (the ones she talks about on the ITV Exposure
documentary) to the police at the time?

mewsical
December 20, 2012 at 20:42

My first inkling that there was something afoot was when I was alerted
to a message disseminated on Friends Reunited, posted by Fiona, on or
about December 30, 2011. This is an excerpt from that email, which I think
gives you the general direction this was headed in. “I would therefore
urge you to take this, our last chance to get the many people who
exploited us. We know who they are and if you would rather contact Mark
directly then I think that is correct (if you want his email address or
further details then please ask me!). Please, please take this last chance
to do the right thing. even if you know nothing.” Last chance?? Even if
you know nothing?? Get many people who exploited us?? At that point, I was
fascinated by the strong smell of rats, figured out who MWT was, and
called him.

This email indicates to me that yes, indeed, Fiona was involved in the
2007 complaint. She further indicates that she has been receiving all
sorts of emails from women who were at Duncroft – why exactly I have no
idea – and becomes the sole organizer of this attempt to ‘get’ the people
who exploited her – oh, sorry “us.”

Jacqueline
December 20, 2012 at 22:46

@Mewsical: God, and the reason Esther Rantzen and people took what
was on the ITV Exposure documentary so seriously and said things like
‘the juries no longer out’ was because she thought all the women had
come forward individually with similar stories having never met each
other, never spoken to each other and nothing to do with each other…

How are you supposed to ‘take this last chance to do the right thing’
and contact Mark Williams-Thomas ‘even if you know nothing’? And how
can

Jacqueline
December 20, 2012 at 23:03

(continued): a woman who made up a story about being molested nearly
50 years ago by a man who only recently passed away and went to the
papers with it have done so ‘in good faith’? Unbelievable, wonder what
the police make of it all?

Elena ‘andcart
December 20, 2012 at 16:06

I am still at a loss to see what else The BBC could have done in the light
of what we now know. Neither can I understand why anyone was stupid enough to
not only forge that letter, but actually think they could get away with it.
Although without this Blog they might well have done.

Dai Brainbocs
December 20, 2012 at 16:04

Another thing striking me is the poor judgment in ever letting “a junior
researcher on work experience” conduct phone interviews around such a
sensitive issue, when someone of Rippon’s experience feels “the strongest
testimony from victims of alleged child sexual abuse has to be collected
individually, face to face, on neutral territory, with trained interviewers
used to not asking leading questions. This was a long way from what we had
done.”

I wonder if this was someone from the Bureau of Investigative
Journalism?

Ellen Coulson
December 20, 2012 at 15:59

Actually I wonder if Fiona met Meirion when she was at Duncroft, where he
often visited. Meirion certainly met Jimmy Savile at a garden party at
Duncroft so its very feasible that he met her and/or Karen. One reporter who
interviewed Fiona at home said that her home was full of fake certificates so
she probably did fake the letter as well as the certificates. She has
certainly faked certificates in the name of Susan Melling and published them
on Facebook and probably Careleavers too!

Jacqueline
December 20, 2012 at 17:37

Ahh, so she has previous for it? Enough said, lol…

Don’t know why so many people were so keento

Jacqueline
December 20, 2012 at 17:49

Ahh, so she has previous for it? Enough said, lol…

Why so many people were so keen to ignore that obvious explanation in
favour of rather implausible conspiracy theories about her being the ‘victim
of a hoax’ or the BBC trying to discredit her I don’t know. It’s like the
accusers of this type of abuse can do no wrong – even when they do do wrong,
and the accused can do no right…

Wendi December 21, 2012 at 08:46

The investigating Police need to seize ALL the historic Duncroft posts
and private messages from Voy, Friends Reunited (prior to its ‘facelift’)
and Careleavers Reunited dot com (and can also be furnished with revealing
emails between some of us) as proof perfect of this whole debacle having
been machinated by one Fiona with others women willing to play along, thus
sparking a nation-wide fiasco and ruining some people’s reputations. I
really hope this Fiona gets her just reward for this foul play.

Mina Field
December 21, 2012 at 13:38

Apologies if already answered elsewhere, but have Mewsical, Anna, and
you, Wendi, offered up these emails, messages and website locations to
any of the investigations?
I’m assuming (especially from what they
have been announcing) that the police have considered nothing but the
unchallenged reports from would-be ‘victims’ in the course of their
‘investigation’ – how 200 plus allegations can be investigated in less
than 2 months beats me ! Presumably without a live defendant and his
lawyer they are not having to consider anything that tends to undermine
their ‘case’.
Vitally important that representations are made from
anyone with evidence of the internet and email communications.

Wendi
December 21, 2012 at 14:19

I think Mewsical would be totally up to collecting the evidence we
have, put it all in chronological order and forwarding it to (if
anyone knows to whom and where this should be sent, perhaps a private
message to Anna would be the ideal) to the appropriate Police
Department along with contact details for the heads of admin of the
various Forums.

Anna Raccoon December 21, 2012 at 14:51

Wendi,

I have in the last few minutes obtained an e-mail address
specifically for this purpose. opyewtree@met.police.uk

There is also a phone number. 00 44 (0) 208 217 6446.

Could you please ensure that Mewsical and all the others receive
this as I am in the process of transferring from one computer to
another and not reliably on-line for the next couple of days (one
bit of the computer won’t be here until Monday morning!)

The Metropolitan Police have said that they are
NOT trying to investigate offences by Savile
himself, the ’200 possible victims’ involve other
living people – not Savile. They have, however, interviewed staff
from Duncroft to ensure that they have factual information as to who
was at the school at which time, what age they were, and have also
accessed all the medical and social records of the girls
concerned…

Oh dear, that little thought should ruin a few Christmas’…when
first we practise to deceive and all that….!!!

A very merry Christmas to all who follow this thread.

Wendi
December 21, 2012 at 15:04

Many thanks Anna and rest assured the contact details will not
be lost in cyberspace.

I THOUGHT the 200 possible victims involved other people – not
Savile! Glad to hear the Met have finally interviewed staff
members and have also accessed the medical and social records of
the girls concerned and would LOVE to be a fly on the shoulder of
those ploughing through that lot! As the Yanks say “What goes
around, comes around”…

Good luck on your computer transfer stuff and Season’s
Greetings to yourself and all your intelligent and literate
readers!

mewsical December 21, 2012 at 16:25

I have left a message at the phone number, letting them know
that I have a lot of emails, etc. they might be interested in, but
more importantly letting them know about Careleavers Reunited, the
closed Duncroft page which probably still exists in archives,
Fiona’s alter ego “Susan,” the Duncroft group, which is still open
over there and needs looking into, and so on. They are already
aware of Friends Reunited, but because the admin there were
constantly removing posts, which I assume were simply deleted and
not archived, they’ll learn a great deal more from Careleavers,
imo. Anyway, we’ll see if they call me back.

Carol
Bonington December 22, 2012 at
16:59

Don’t know about others but I was interviewed by officers
from operation yew tree and gave them my full permission and
details of my various social network profiles to access as and
when they wanted to. Not everyone has an agenda or reason to do
anything but tell the truth. Myself being one of them.

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 17:09

Carol, I have responded, but it’s further back in the
thread.

mewsical December 22, 2012 at 17:25

Post No. 88.

Jacqueline
December 21, 2012 at 13:39

@Wendi: I really hope they do, because now the police are involved
this has become a lot more than just an issue of ‘whether the BBC were
right or wrong not to show the Newsnight piece’. Lying to the police is
a lot more serious than lying to the people at Newsnight. Whats maybe
not important to them should be important to the police. I’d of thought
it was a crime to fake a letter from Surrey Police with the intention of
making them look bad and casting suspicion on someone else and go to the
papers with it…?

Jacqueline December 20, 2012 at 15:30

I hope the police look into the origins of that letter, it’s disgraceful.
My money’s on the woman Fiona being responsible for the letter herself. That’s
why she never sent Newsnight a copy when they asked for it (she hadn’t faked
it yet) and the others couldn’t supply a copy of theirs because they never
really had one. I know the Daily Mail article says she claimed she ‘may have
been the victim of a hoax’ but I struggle to see the motivation for such a
hoax. Someone suggested in the comments section that perhaps the BBC sent her
the letter to try and discredit her but I don’t buy that at all. If what the
Daily Mail article says is right and she was claiming to have been sent the
letter in 2007 then that would have been at least 3 years before the BBC or
Newsnight started getting involved or showing an interest in the story, she
was first contacted by Newsnight on 3rd Nov 2011 and I don’t think Karin Ward
started writing her blog detailing the alleged abuse by Savile until 2010, I
very much doubt the BBC or Newsnight staff would have even heard of her until
around that period (unless they have a crystal ball). Merion Jones’s cue shown
above and extracts from emails between Newsnight staff and Fiona, both above
and in the Daily Mail article, suggest that the staff at Newsnight had been
led to believe by someone (her and ‘others’) that the Surrey police
investigation into Savile had been dropped because he was too old and infirm.
The extract from an email allegedly sent to Fiona from a Newsnight reporter in
Dec 2011 in the Daily Mail suggests that they reached a point were they needed
the letter to go ahead with the programme because by this stage the CPS had
contradicted the notion that the investigation into Savile had been dropped
because of the state of his health and instead stated that the reason it had
been dropped was because they didn’t have enough evidence to proceed. If she
has claimed the letter was sent to her in 2007 then no-one trying to discredit
her could have sent it to her at this stage (or any time after 2007 – and what
reason could they possibly have had to before then?) and no-one desperate to
have the story run could have sent it to her at this stage without her being
in on it too.

We could try and invent all kinds of weird and wonderful conspiracy
theories as to how this letter came into existence if we want, but I don’t
really see the point when, to me, the most obvious explanation is that Fiona
is behind the fake letter (either she did it herself or got someone else to)
and a logical motive could simply be that having the investigation into Savile
dropped because of his poor health lends more credence to her story than it
being dropped because there was ‘not enough evidence to charge’ and if she can
be dishonest and deceitful about that and Karin Ward can be dishonest about
the age she was at the time she alleges the incidents she has complained about
took place (without publicly correcting herself if it was simply a mere
mistake) then what else can these two women be misleading or dishonest
about…?

Mina Field
December 20, 2012 at 19:17

Fantastic reasoning, Jacqueline, and I’m sure you’re correct.

Mina Field December 20, 2012 at 14:10

Stand out items for me were, the fact that Mr Jones described the
‘residents’ as manipulative, criminal, etc; and that it was only after JS’s
death that he felt able to crack on. So we now have confirmation that there
was nothing that would stand up whilst he was alive as no ‘resident’ was
prepared to go on the record.
Also MWT appears to have overplayed his role
to his twatter fans. He has stated that he started investigating at least a
year before the death. Mr Jones has now confirmed that he approached MWT in
July 2011 principally to try to find out if there was any truth as regards the
assertions that the police had investigated. MWT’s investigative powers are
shown up for what they are, for he was only able to elicit this information in
November 2011 – After JS was dead and when such information was less
sensitive.

Moor
Larkin December 20, 2012 at 13:47

I had to laugh when I read these wonderful bits of manager-speak from
George’s statement in relation to his valediction from Pollard.

“The Pollard report also concludes that the main reason the BBC did not
have a wider awareness of the content of Newsnight’s aborted Savile
investigation in the last months of 2011 was the withholding of the item from
the Managed Risk Programme List, whose express purpose is to ensure matters of
corporate concern are brought to a wider internal audience…. Pollard’s report
underlines the fact that any managerial shortcomings relating to Newsnight’s
aborted Savile investigation were largely the result of unsatisfactory
internal communications. These flowed from silos and other structural issues
that I had identified when I became DG and had begun work to resolve. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/19/bbc-report-jimmy-savile-newsnight
Those
who fail to silo are destined to sigh long and low…….

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) December 20, 2012 at 09:14

Regarding the ‘letter’ one might accept a group of the 70′s Duncroft Girls
might believe the police investigation was dropped because of Savile’s age
& infirmity because one of their number had said so, but the Pollard
report has the following…

“Mr. Jones told me that he regards the e-mail as referring simply to the
question about whether there had been a police inquiry at all, but his reply
to Mr
Rippon went further, mentioning that, of the ‘perhaps dozen girls’
who Newsnight knew about, ‘they all got [a] letter saying [the] CPS decided
not to
proceed against ‘the gentleman’ because he was too old and infirm’.
Mr Rippon would therefore have had every reason to think that the police
letter
was going to materialise and that it would play an important role in
Newsnight’s Savile story. At this stage, no-one (including Mr Jones) appeared
to have
suggested otherwise.”

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) December 20, 2012 at 08:47

It seems many at the BBC did not trust Merion, including George
Entwistle…

“On 16 October, Mr Jones made a direct attempt to talk to Mr Entwistle.
Mr
Jones requested an off-the-record conversation, which Mr Entwistle
rebuffed,
he explains because any such conversation would have needed to be
on the
record, but also because ‘to be frank, I didn’t trust him to have an
off-therecord
conversation with me’.”

Then there was the reported stand up row in the newsroom with David Jordan,
Head of BBC Editorial Policy in October.

Mark in Mayenne
December 20, 2012 at 06:28

Thanks, Anna

JohnS December 20, 2012 at 03:39

It seems as if Pollard’s main reason for thinking that the Newsnight item
should have been aired is because he found one interview plausible.
I
suspect he is suffering from the common arrogant delusion that someone with
with his experience, credentials and status can’t be fooled by someone who he,
no doubt, thinks is lower down the social scale and therefore not as smart as
him. It can be seen over and over again, often unconsciously amongst many
policemen, lawyers, social workers, scientists and, not least, journalists
when street-smart chancers run rings around them.

Of course if the interview had been wildly implausible that would be one
thing but being plausible without solid corroboration means nothing. After
all, the interviewee in this case had had the opportunity of rehearsing and
honing her story for months if not years and benefiting from the feedback from
the other girls on the social networking site. What chance would a newcomer
have of puncturing her story, especially if they were primed to believe her
because of all the other Savile rumours?

Rippon sounds more and more like the one sensible person at the BBC in this
whole farrago and has been seriously been let down by Pollard. I seriously
hope that Mr Pollard doesn’t normally run such stories himself on such a
flimsy basis.

Anonymous December 20, 2012 at 06:18

Exactly, totally agree and the first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him…

Duncan
Disorderly December 20, 2012 at 09:21

The very lack of credibility of someone alleging sexual abuse can be
regarded by some individuals as corroboration of the allegation, rather than
counting against the allegation. This Alice in Wonderland logic is explained
by the late Richard Webster in chapter 13 of his critique of the Waterhouse
Report:

“…Above all it is clear that the members of the Tribunal treat sexual
abuse and allegations of sexual abuse as a special category which is not to
be assessed in the same way as the evidence of other crimes. The following
comment, for example, is made about the complainant who has already been
referred to above as ‘witness B’ [who, it later transpired, was a certain
Stephen Messham]:

We are satisfied that B has suffered a long history of sexual abuse
before, during and after his period in care and, to a significant extent
until he left care, of physical abuse. As a result he has been, and remains,
severely damaged psychologically; he has been greatly affected also by the
sudden death of his young wife in very sad circumstances on 1 April 1992,
leaving B with a very young child to bring up. A major problem is that the
damage is reflected in B’s personality in such a way that he presents
himself as an unreliable witness by the standards that an ordinary member of
a jury is likely to apply.

What this passage clearly implies is that, whereas inconsistencies and
implausibilities in a witness’s evidence about alleged crimes would usually
be construed as indicating that the crimes might not have taken place at
all, such evidential weaknesses can sometimes actually result from sexual
abuse, and can therefore be construed as evidence that a crime has taken
place.”

The rest of chapter 13 is well worth reading.

http://www.richardwebster.net/waterhouse.html

Anonymous
December 20, 2012 at 12:09

What if the accuser states things that are proven by solid evidence to
be simply untrue and could not possibly have taken place?

Elena
‘andcart December 20, 2012 at 15:58

Really? So if I make something up and can’t support my accusations with
Evidence, this means I am telling the Truth?

Duncan
Disorderly December 20, 2012 at
17:00

To be clear, I was in agreement with JohnS. I quoted from Webster to
show why some people incorrectly think that a lack of credibility
actually supports an accusation of sexual abuse, rather than detracts
from it.

Jacqueline December 20, 2012 at 18:16

It’s scary isn’t it? I’m mean there has to be some understanding of
people with mental health issues due to abuse or otherwise – but
that’s no excuse to give people like that cart blanche to make up
whatever old cobblers they like and deny anyone the right to question
them for it. I’m mean it’s fairly obvious that a lot of people use
these attitudes to their advantage, whether they’ve really been abused
or not in the past, to make false claims against people for their own
gain and assume no-one has the right to question them. Its not a
healthy message to give out…

Anna Raccoon December 20, 2012 at 18:24

Jacqueline, I don’t have the reference in front of me right now –
but this whole thing started in California (where else) with a
doctor saying that young chidlren don’t have the ability to lie
about sexual abuse, which seems a reasonable proposition – however
that has been translated into ‘sex abuse victims don’t lie’ – even
when they become 60 year old women who have kept quiet for 40 years,
lied about everything else in their life, and find the only
‘closure’ acceptable to be a payout from the criminal injuries
board…..
What else could Pollard say other than he found her a
‘credible witness’ – can you imagine the outcry if he had
said the opposite – “who are you to decide, you haven’t heard all
the evidence, you’ve only heard a short clip of film…….” whereas
nobody questions these things if he says she is credible…..!!!

Jonathan
Mason December 20, 2012 at
19:04

He could have said that since he is neither a psychiatrist, nor
a detective, nor a lawyer, he has no direct experience of
evaluating the likely veracity of this kind of testimony.
(Although I personally have spent much of my professional life in
the company of women with personality disorders, criminals, etc. I
would not care to offer an opinion on the veracity of Karin Ward’s
allegations on Savile without seeing her subject to cross
examination by a trained lawyer, testimony from other contemporary
witnesses, and so on. However claims from her book such as that
she played tennis at junior Wimbledon or that she was drugged and
raped by a man who ran an art gallery in Staines could be examined
to see if contemporary records were consistent. Of course she
could say that these things were fictional exaggerations or
fantasies based on what might have happened, or something like
that.)

mewsical December 21, 2012 at 00:39

I think she did say that she had embellished some of it to
make it more interesting, because otherwise it’s dull, and the
only reason for writing it seems to be to point the finger at
Jimmy Savile and Duncroft.

Anna Raccoon December 21, 2012 at 01:01

I deserve a medal for having ploughed all the way through
it…

One point I did note, don’t have the page number handy at
the moment:

So much huullaballo about the allegation of abuse, which I
accept technically it would be, regarding giving Savile a blow
job at age 15 – yet not one word said in the media about
‘Bridie Keenan giving her an injection of largactil’? Jesus,
I’d have had every lawyer in the country on a retainer if
Bridie had come anywhere near me with a hypodermic needle –
the woman wasn’t medically trained!!!! She was able to hand
out medication prescribed by a Doctor as ‘in loco parentis’
but give an injection – that would have required the Doctor
coming in or a trained nurse… and if it didn’t, why isn’t she
suing for assault and battery?

The sort of thing that would have come out if anybody had
bothered to double check these stories with a staff
member…

mewsical December 21, 2012 at 02:10

From a review of my own records from Barnardo’s, Pamela
Mason, the consulting psychiatrist from Maudsley, was on
constant call 24/7. Not a one of these girls received any
medication without her direct order and/or attendance. She
wielded considerable authority, because she had a license to
practice medicine. which she needed to protect at the very
least. Dr. Mason is still living. At one point, she agreed
to be interviewed, then opted out because of illness.

A brief google of Largactyl would have revealed that it
was not recommended for use with minors. But, don’t let a
lot of pesky FACTS get in the way of a good story that sells
advertising or boosts ratings or serves ambition or exacts
revenge. I’ll be very interested in the report from Yewtree,
and how they scramble out of the “why didn’t you talk to the
staff?” question.

Sex, Lies and The Internet. Oh brave new world, that has
such creatures in it!

mewsical December 23, 2012 at 00:00

Bridie has gone to her reward a while back, but if she’d
been living at the time this rubbish was printed, I can only
imagine her reaction.

Mina
Field December 20, 2012 at
19:07

I agree Anna, but Pollard went further and stated that Rippon
should have viewed it and been impressed by it, the inference
being that Rippon ought to have proceeded on the strength of
it.

mewsical December 20, 2012 at 22:16

I think you’re referring to the McMartin Pre-School business in
the 80s. The clinical psychologist involved was actually British.
After all was said and done, and after a grueling investigation
and trial, nobody was convicted, and it was found that the
children were extremely easy to manipulate. Interesting reading,
though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

Jonathan
Mason December 21, 2012 at
01:14

Yes, I remember that case well. Before the days of the
Internet, of course. It all started with a delusional
schizophrenic woman making bizarre allegations, and then other
people jumping on the bandwagon. A perfect example of how a
witch hunt can seize a population and make lots of people
completely irrational. Especially people who have no knowledge
of the history of these things to give them a degree of
immunity.

And then the legal system can’t back off, because who could
ever drop a case of horrific harm done to little children?

I lived in Bermuda at the time and not long afterwards a
mentally retarded boy disappeared. He almost certainly fell from
some dangerous rocks near his home and drowned in the ocean, but
there was a fundamentalist preacher stirring up people to
believe that he had been abducted by Satanists. Bermuda is a
pretty small place and it would be hard for Satanists to remain
incognito.

It would not greatly surprise me if the Savile case turned
out the same. I am not saying that he may not have copped a BJ
from the teenaged Karin Ward, but a lot of the allegations may
turn out to be copycat inspired by dreams of compensation riches
and the allegations of orgies in his BBC dressing room sound a
bit McMartin pre-schoolish to me.

Jonathan
Mason December 21, 2012 at
01:19

Regarding the orgies in the BBC dressing room: It just
sounds like the kind of thing that a naive person would dream
up with the intention of being sensational, without really
calculating the probabilities. Would these men like Savile,
Starr, and Glitter really have sex in sight of each other on
BBC property? Of course anything is possible, but it suggests
a kind of homosexual ambience, because generally men don’t
want to be watched having sex with other men, and you have to
consider how a group of three or more men could have
established a degree of comfort with each other that they felt
able to do this. Also note that Savile did not drink and does
not seem to have been a drug user, so anything of this kind
would have had to occurred in cold blood.

Mina
Field December 21, 2012 at
07:11

I am constantly enjoying the irony of the same groups of
people saying on the one hand that JS was very solitary and
without real friends, and on the other that he was ‘part of
a ring’.

Jacqueline December 20, 2012 at 21:37

@Anna, Jonathan and Mina: Good points, couldn’t agree more.

The statement ‘kids don’t have the ability to lie about sexual
abuse’ was probably true, for the most part (unless coached by adults)
when that doctor said it, apart from lack of knowledge about sex, they
don’t really have much reason or motive to lie about it either but
that’s certainly not true of adults who, not only know about sex, but
these days, can probably think of a whole load of advantages to lying
about sexual abuse, there seems to be a whole industry surrounding it,
anyone who has the nerve to question their claims will probably be
shamed and even if they are proven to be lying about it, most people
won’t (or won’t admit they) believe it and they more than likely won’t
be punished anyway. There are many reasons people lie about this kind
of thing these days and their not all financial, in fact most of them
are not…

Jacqueline December 21, 2012 at 02:30

@Jonathan: Apparently the Freddie Starr incident and the Gary
Glitter one didn’t both happen on the same day after all…

Do you know how far in advance those Clunk Click episodes were
filmed before they were shown on tv?

Robb December 20, 2012 at 00:35

On an only partially irrelevant note: Just watched a Culture Show interview
with Lee Child, whose Reacher novel Is quite enjoy. He opines that Birmingham
is like American cities, what with being new and devoted to the motor car and
all.

“So you felt like an American before you even got there?”

“Yes I did, from about the age of four.”

The relevance here? If you believe that, you will believe anything.

carol42 December 20, 2012 at 00:06

I still haven’t seen any evidence that Savile was any more than an
unpleasant groper of rather young women, not children, indeed he was quite
public about it.. If there is any truth in the hospital and Broadmoor claims
that is a different matter but I will wait to see what comes out. From what I
have read the decision to delay the programme seems quite sensible in the
uncertain circumstances.

Lucy December 20, 2012 at 00:01

Wow – I tried to read the pollard report and my goodness you have set it
out much more clearly! MJones seems to avoid negative publicity at all in the
wider world – is that because he is a journalist? Is there an unwritten rule
on ‘lets not speculate about one of our own’? It seems fairly clear that Peter
Rippon was being lined up as the fall guy aided by MJones giving him
misleading information. And even now the press are getting confused between
the decision being made in good faith and the decision being flawed. It can’t
be both – Pollard says it was made in good faith so I am confused as to why
journalists continue to say it was flawed. Seems to me that Peter Rippon is
one of the few that had any journalistic standards.

mewsical December 20, 2012 at 01:29

If Peter Rippon knew that Meirion was related to the former head of
Duncroft, then there was an immediate ethical problem. If I was Meirion’s
boss, I would have asked him if he thought it was a good idea for him to
stay on as producer, and I’d also strongly suggest handing the story on to
someone who had NO IDEA what Duncroft was, and letting that producer handle
it, with no input whatsoever from Mr. Jones. But, he didn’t. Meirion had the
responsibility to mention it and let Rippon decide, but Meirion was
unethical because he had an axe to grind with Margaret Jones. Let alone,
ratings were in the tank with Newsnight, so this was a real scoop for them.

I received a message from one of the Duncroft women, in response to mine
to her, in which I protested the Bebe Robert’s story, and was told that Bebe
gave the interview “in good faith.” Wtf does THAT mean?

Moor Larkin December 20, 2012 at 09:35

@ Meirion was unethical because he had an axe to grind @

This appears to be the nature of the progressive version of
Investigative Journalism

“When asked what factors determined whether a subject should be
investigated, Nick Davies maintained that, “it’s dictated by a moral
agenda: You have to select subjects that deserve to be investigated”. This
sentiment was also supported by Meirion Jones, who claims for many it is a
fact of “justice and injustice, if you know what I mean? It’s not party
political. Investigative journalists tend to have a very strong feeling
that something is unjust and therefore something needs to be done about
it.”. It appears that impartiality is less of a factor in investigative
reporting; one has to get a tad subjective in order to understand the
consequences of any wrong-doing. ”

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/who-investigates-investigators.html

Dai Brainbocs
December 20, 2012 at 10:49

I can’t begin to grasp why Meirion Jones wasn’t removed instantly from
any further involvement with the story, wherever it was going, as soon as
it became clear he was a close relation of someone who ideally would be a
key witness. And if there was the slightest delay in him making Newsniught
aware of the conflixt of interest, assuming the Duncroft connection was a
penny that dropped only once he had started investigating Savile,
considering disciplinary action. It wouldn’t matter if he was the best
investigative reporter at the BBC – he may be – or in the world, it’s
still inappropriate. If depicted in a TV drama, you’d spot it immediately
as a massive hole in the plot in terms of suspension of disbelief.

Anna
Raccoon December 20, 2012 at
11:11

Yes, note question in Mitchell’s e-mail to Rippon, a question which
was never answered.

Mr Mitchell’s reply at 1.37 p.m. was brief. He was on his way to
Belfast, but
could talk later. He asked two questions of his own: ‘…
you mentioned [the
woman] who ran this place, found her? Do any of
the victims say they
approached staff?’.

So Rippon patently didn’t know that there was no need for Meirion ‘to
find’ the woman in charge – he’d known her all his miserable life!

mewsical
December 20, 2012 at 17:56

It’s really a HUGE problem for me that Meirion was not removed
immediately the decision was made to go forward with this piece.

Anna Raccoon December 20, 2012 at 18:09

Why would they remove him? They didn’t know he was Margaret’s
nephew!

mewsical
December 21, 2012 at 01:13

This is where the proverbial ball was dropped. Mitchell should have
pushed for an answer, imo. It really appears that these guys had their
heads elsewhere – in the clouds, up their arse, you name it. Meirion
lied by omission as to ‘the woman who ran the place,’ as you say.

I was interested to learn that Yewtree is in the wrapping up stages
as to Savile directly. The boys were just on a two-day discussion with
a person that they SHOULD HAVE INTERVIEWED a year or more ago. You
know, ‘the woman in charge.’ Bloody hell.

Ho Hum December 19, 2012 at 23:45

I hope, it definitely not being my intention to do so, that I don’t offend
anyone here who has contributed to this or past posts in this series, in
respect of their own experiences at Duncroft, their knowledge of all those
directly involved either as residents at Duncroft, its staff or as
participating in forums elsewhere, or from their informed professional
opinions in respect of such evidence as they have seen put forward in the
programmes etc aired, but I should like to ask, if I may, a fairly simple
question.

I have read the whole body of the report, and while Nick Pollard may be
being as circumspect as might be necessary on some matters, although he does
seem to acknowledge that some genuine concerns about the veracity of the
participants did exist and were part of the reasons for the original
investigation’s cessation, at no point does he state that the investigative
information originally put together really was, put simply, utter hogwash.

In fact he makes a number of quite definite statements which seem to
indicate that he came to the opposite conclusion, from evidence emanating from
former Duncroft residents, such as

p97 para 18 ‘However, it has to be said clearly: There is no doubt in my
mind that Mr Jones and Ms MacKean were right about Savile – their belief that
he had a history of abusing young women was correct. They provided Newsnight
with cogent evidence of this. The programme could have broken the story almost
a year before the ITV documentary revealed it’

p97 para 20 ‘There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Rippon should have viewed
the interview with [R1] (or at least the key extracts from it) and read the
notes of the interviews with the other Duncroft residents before making his
decision. I have seen the full uncut interview with [R1] which lasts just
under an hour. To me she seemed credible and compelling. The Newsnight
investigators obviously thought so too.’

So if, however, we turn the whole issue around, and look instead some of
the things stated in, and below, these posts, why should anyone like me
reading many of the apparently contrary statements here really be convinced
that they should be treated as more compellingly credible?

Just asking….

Engineer December 19, 2012 at 23:54

Suggest you read all of Anna’s posts on the subject of Duncroft from the
first one. All will then become clear.

Robb December 20, 2012 at 00:22

Hi Ho Hum!

Congrats on reading all of Pollard. I think his judgement on the
reliability of [R1] evidence may depend on who she is and when she was
there. Do we know? Certainly the ‘evidence’ of one Duncroft girl has been
comprehensively trashed here–she wasn’t even around when Savile visited. So
it may depend on who she was. If it is that trashed person, then Anna etc
have good grounds for trashing Pollard in turn. In which case, I hope they
will.

mewsical December 20, 2012 at 01:12

Karin Ward’s book was out on the internet before Newsnight contemplated
involving her. I think for a couple of years. It has been rewritten since
its first publishing. I believe that Meirion may have found it or had his
attention drawn to it.

I began following this situation back in late 2010 via Friends Reunited
and later Careleavers Reunited. Over time, the other women who were
interviewed, particularly Fiona (Susan), began to express their doubts about
the veracity of Karin’s stories, and stopped supporting her version. Karin
misrepresented many things about Duncroft, i.e. that she played tennis with
one of the staff on a constant basis, when that member of the staff doesn’t
know one end of a tennis racquet from another. I’d love to call the
Wimbledon Tennis Club and see if Karin Ward played Juniour Wimbledon, as she
claims. Karin herself has said that she has had a very unfortunate life as
it involves her relationship with men – I believe she has five children from
different fathers, some of whom ended up in care homes themselves. A
trier-of-fact (as we call judges and juries here) generally tends to
discredit testimony from someone who has lied and has been proven to have
lied. So, I had to do the same thing. You’ll lie about one thing, you’ll lie
about another, in my experience. Like the forged letter, the claims that
Savile wasn’t hauled into court because he was ‘old and infirm,’ and so on.
And the ridiculous claim that these women sat on a picnic bench in a lay-by,
smoking and waiting for whatever was allegedly going on with Savile and some
girl in the back of the Rolls to get over with- though Karin has never
mentioned a Rolls, only a ‘low-slung sportscar’. Unless Savile handcuffed
them all to the benches, this lot would have run for the hills at the first
opportunity.

I have personal emails and communications confessing to lies on the part
of some of these women.

Also, an impeccable source has recently told me that Operation Yewtree is
well aware of the lies, especially by a woman from the 60s who told the
Daily Mail she was molested by Savile, when of course he wasn’t anywhere
near Duncroft in those days. Yewtree is hot on the trail of the Duncroft
situation and is now in possession of a lot of documents they didn’t have
before.

I appreciate the opinion of the Pollard report that they found Karin Ward
“credible,” but then they haven’t spent the same year I have. The BBC was
the end-game, revenge on Miss Jones was a close second. And both the
ex-girls and producer Meirion Jones were agreed on that. He wanted to
believe them, instead of stepping back, forgetting he ever had an aunt who
was the head of this school for 30 years, and bringing some objectivity to
the situation. MWT just exploited it all for his own ambitions and more than
likely, money.

mewsical December 19, 2012 at 23:33

Savile has not been accused of rape, far as I know. Groping/inappropriate
touching. And, far as I’m concerned, none of it is substantiated, the
character of some of the accusers is dubious to put it mildly, let alone Mark
WT and Meirion Jones and their motives.

Robb December 19, 2012 at 23:04

I haven’t followed today’s events as closely as some. But I do note a woman
lawyer’s remarks (unchallenged) on Newsnight just now. Essentially she was
complaining 430 (mostly children, etc., at the time) had been denied closure,
or something, for almost a year because the original BBC report on Saville had
not been broadcast.

This makes little sense. There is no evidence the ‘delay’ caused
significant further suffering. Many of the alleged events having happened
decades ago. And few knew the Saville ‘revelations’ had been delayed or even
existed–until the ITV programme a few months ago.

Still, such distinctions are lost in the rush. Meanwhile, I think the
current alleged rape count is 31. At what ages? What are the other 400
allegations and how serious are they? Quite apart from how true? We have no
idea, and may never have.

Meanwhile Savile is established as the greatest paedophile ever. So the
police have said. Without us having the facts.

mewsical December 20, 2012 at 15:59

That wasn’t the police, that was Mark Williams-Thomas. And I wouldn’t
believe him if his tongue came notarized.

Engineer December 19, 2012 at 23:00

In large organisations, when wrong is done, deputy heads must roll.

When there are so many managers, and so many layers of management, it
becomes almost impossible to pin down exactly where responsibility lies. They
all look at you with wide-eyed innocence and tell you that they genuinely
believed it to be somebody else’s pigeon. The astute middle manager will, if
something controversial lands on his desk, move it on with alacrity. A team of
scrum-halves. Therein lies part of the BBCs problem, and changes resulting
from the Pollard report won’t begin to solve it. They’ve just played musical
chairs, that’s all. The same thing could happen again in a few months.

Frankie December 19, 2012 at 22:36

Merion Jones and Liz MacKean’s position at the BBC should be untennable now
they have publicly attacked their employers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/19/liz-mackean-meirion-jones-newsnight-bbc

It is one think to commission a report into procedures, but quite another
to launch into an attack of one’s own. Jones in particular may feel he has
been vindicated to some extent but this does not excuse him and MacKean
jumping on the bandwagon to heap approbrium on the head of Peter Rippon et al.

This may not be a wise employment choice, in the long term.

JuliaM December
19, 2012 at 21:26

Excellent post!

GildasTheMonk
December 19, 2012 at 21:08

“Done in good faith” is the modern “meeja” and political classes version of
absolution by the Catholic Church

“Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te
absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspensionis) et interdicti in
quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde, ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine
Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”

Hey Presto! The slate is wiped clean!

GildasTheMonk
December 19, 2012 at 21:44

Although that comment is slightly off topic and something of a hobby
horse of mine, so may be safely dismissed and parked under the “He’s off on
one again” *wink”* label….

Joe Public December 19, 2012 at 19:35

Another riveting analysis of a sad situation.

And by a “mere” foreign-based Blogger, without the formidable resources of
any of the UK’s mainstream press.

Thanks Anna.

I love the BBC
December 19, 2012 at 19:21

Is Meirion Jones still employed by the BBC? If so, how on earth is anyone
expected to work with him?

Anna
Raccoon December 19, 2012 at
19:27

An excellent question!

mewsical
December 19, 2012 at 20:21

Meirion left Newsnight and then popped up at Panorama, right before
they aired the shelved Newsnight story as part of their Savile piece,
which was the interview with Karin Ward before she recovered from cancer.
He’s probably still at Panorama.

Moor Larkin December 19, 2012 at 18:45

The notion that Savile was old and infirm in 2009 is so absurd. Check him
out in April 2011, flirting with the lady from The Sun:

Incorrigible … Sir Jimmy, 84, flirts with The Sun’s Kate Jackson
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3528404/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-talks-to-The-Sun-about-TV-Britains-Got-Talent-and-his-legacy.html#ixzz2FLMJbmTF
“A
lifelong bachelor, he is still a compulsive flirt. It’s harmless enough,
though slightly unnerving when you’re told to “walk away slowly” by a man old
enough to be your grandad. But at the spinal unit the patients have a lot of
affection for their benefactor and he tries to charm any woman nearby.With
every wheelchair-bound man who passes, he jokes: “This gentleman here is the
only man better looking than me in the country.”

mewsical December 19, 2012 at 18:56

Well, having been an ongoing witness to and participant in the entire
discussion between the Duncroft women of the 70s, and their vicious behavior
towards anyone who disagreed with them – which we have also witnessed on
this blog (6 and 7 of Past Lives, Present Misgivings) – I can assure you
that the ‘old and infirm’ claim went out the window way back. Many times the
women concerned, i.e. Fiona and her little gang of supporters, stated
unequivocally that the police had stopped the investigation because the
claims could not be substantiated, after Savile was interviewed under
caution.

I hope the Yewtree group have contacted Careleavers Reunited and arranged
to view Duncroft page over there. They’ll learn a lot. The page was closed
down a couple of months ago, but I’ll bet the cops can go have a look with a
warrant in their possession.

Nicely done, as usual, Anna. Now perhaps people will begin to understand
a little of what was going on during the ramp-up to Newsnight.

Jonathan Mason
December 19, 2012 at 18:14

Thanks. Interesting article. I can’t see that Rippon did much wrong. His
reasons for pulling the item seem pretty reasonable and even if his blog was
not 100% accurate, it may not have been diplomatic to state so openly that the
sole witness was not totally reliable. It wasn’t that he was opposed to
publishing an item about Savile’s deviant sex life, just that this wasn’t good
enough to publish and had no evidence that went beyond the evidence that
Surrey police had decided was inadequate.

JohnS December 21, 2012 at 13:10

I was struck by the fact that one woman who apparently had a relatively
long running sexual relationship with Savile was insistent that he didn’t ever
“do kissing” while it’s become a cliche since that Savile constantly inflicted
slobbery smelly French kisses, often on the instant of meeting. There were, if
I recall correctly, even contradictions about this in the first ITV doc which
contained the “no kissing” woman and another woman who claimed to have walked
in on Savile with his tongue in a young girl’s mouth.
Of course it’s gone
way beyond the point where any mainstream journo would risk pointing out such
inconsistencies.

Mina Field December 21, 2012 at 13:30

^ John S
Excellent point.