Ping! went the computer in the middle of the night as a rash of correspondents e-mailed to warn me that yet another Savile report was out. Several pointed to the Guardian headline published a dutiful couple of minutes after the report’s embargo deadline of midnight.

“Police could have stopped Jimmy Savile in the 1960s, says official report”.

Don’t tell me that the Bebe Roberts spurious Daily Mail article had been accepted as fact, surely not! No link to any report of course, they wouldn’t want we plebs actually looking at the source and checking facts would they? It took half an hour or so to track down the report, since it was only available to the public at midnight and Google was a bit slow in finding it. The main stream media get it hours beforehand, so that they have a chance to get their agenda straight.  Consequently I haven’t had a lot of much needed beauty sleep…

Once I had the report in my hand, it didn’t take long to track down the offending paragraph, page 7 actually; it is the only part of the report that could possibly be twisted into that categorical statement that ‘Savile could have been stopped’.

It is impossible to state categorically that a prosecution would have resulted, if all these links (including the MPS intelligence) had been made known, not only to all the investigating teams but also to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

OK, the Guardian headline is true only in the sense that if today’s guidelines for informing alleged victims of the presence of other alleged victims had been in place back 50 years ago the CPS might have taken a different view, and might have acted differently, and it might have resulted in Savile being taken to court, and that might have resulted in a successful prosecution? Not that this redefinition stopped a rash of commentators landing on the Guardian web site saying ‘knew it all along, protected by the mighty and the powerful, da dum, da dum’.

So what are the 1960s allegations that would have ‘stopped Savile’ – by which I presume they mean a successful prosecution, a life wasted away in a dingy Wormwood Scrubs cell, or chemical castration at the very least….after all, what else would stop a rampant paedophile from defiling an entire generation?

Drusilla Sharpling, author of the latest Savile report, is one of the Merry Knives of Winsor; Tom Winsor, author of the report currently decimating the Police ranks has a cutlery box full of them, who is the sharpest of them all, we know not.  ’Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC)’  are charged with making the independent inspection of the Police which resulted in the report on pay and conditions  which has so upset the rank and file.

Last November, following the hundreds of ‘Yewtree’ allegations that emerged, the Home Secretary formally commissioned HMIC to review the recording and investigation of the Yewtree allegations by police forces across England and Wales. The entire British Isles, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) and Jersey Police managed to come up with seven mentions of Savile’s name. Seven. Our Drusilla has trawled through e-mails, and intelligence reports, notebooks and incident reports, across all 43 Police forces, liaising with Jersey and Scotland, looking for all those reports of people going to their police station to report abuse by Savile and evidence of top level cover ups, favours being called in by senior officers, phone calls from prominent politicians, to prevent Savile being brought to justice…and she ended up with seven examples to base her report on?

Best look at the seven examples closely then! Actually there are more than seven examples, since Ms Sharpling includes allegations of reports as well as reported incidents somewhat confusingly, and gives them all the same credibility.

The earliest allegation of a report not being taken ‘seriously’ and not recorded we are told, was a Cheshire male in 1963. Interestingly, since this was 3 years before homosexuality was legalised; Ms Sharpling doesn’t dwell on the details, nor even point out whether the man was legally a child at that time or not. Rape, and male rape is a particularly unpleasant crime for which there is now some redress – but in an age when the victim would have been prosecuted as well as the perpetrator, it might have been kinder for Ms Sharpling to have pointed out that the advice given to him by the police – to ‘forget about it’ and ‘move on’ – was not as callous as might be seen with hindsight. The law on homosexuality would have had to be changed back in 1963 for this to be one of the occasions when Savile ‘could have been stopped’.

Then she moves onto another allegation of a report not being taken seriously and not recorded – a man claiming his girlfriend was assaulted on Top of the Pops. Also not one of Ms Sharpling’s seven incidents ‘when Savile could have been stopped’.

Finally we move onto the first five of the seven.

A 2003 MPS crime report based on the complaint of the victim who stated that Savile had indecently assaulted her in the 1970s (the 2003 MPS report);

A 2007 Surrey crime report based on the complaints of three victims who stated that Savile had indecently assaulted them in the 1970s and 1980s (the 2007 Surrey report);

A 2008 Sussex crime report based on the complaint of a victim who stated that Savile had indecently assaulted her in 1970 (the 2008 Sussex report).

Well, none of those ‘could have stopped Savile in the 1960s’ could they? They were all reported 40 years after the 1960s. Must delve deeper.

What have we here? An entry in the Metropolitan Police Services Paedophile Intelligence Unit from 1964. So these matters were taken seriously enough in 1964 to warrant an independent unit eh?

“BATTERSEA BRIDGE ROAD, (WA) – 4 older girls & youth named [name] (? Homosexual) live at – Jimmy SAVILLE (sic) well known disc jockey frequents –used by absconders from DUNCROFT APP SCHOOL”.

Wow, that’s odd. 1964, just the time when I was first an absconder from Duncroft – and living in Battersea Bridge Road! In a house rented by four older girls, who ran the fan club for The Animals, and one of the girls was Don Arden’s secretary and frequently on Top of the Pops… couldn’t be the same house could it? Had I managed to miss being mauled by Savile yet again?

I doubt it, for on the next page we find:“DUNCROFT APP SCHOOL – Absconders – Vice Ring.

[Name] ….living on (sic) immoral earnings of [names of two females identified as DUNCROFT girls].2 yrs imp.[Name]…Charged with [name] as above, also further charged with harbouring [female‟s name] – failed to appear…on 20/10/64 having estreated his bail & thought to be in Holland.

[Name], [address]. At CCC (Central Criminal Court) on 5/11/1964. Charged with living on (sic) earnings & procuring [two female names]. Found NOT GUILTY. No connection with [name and name] above, but all DUNCROFT girls.

The address (sic) used by [name and name] were [address given]. All men were coloured. [Name of female] (ex-Duncroft) introduced the girls to the men concerned.”

“All men were coloured.” Nope, must have been another group of Duncroft girls, the house I was living in was definitely not being used as a brothel, nor were there any coloured men anywhere near it. Odd that we never bumped into each other though – perhaps they were much older than I.

Still, we know that Savile was a visitor to a house of ill repute, no mention of any under age children though – could that have been enough intelligence ‘to stop Savile in the 1960s’? Is being a disc jockey and friendly with a pimp sufficient to lock someone up for life, or castrate them? I doubt it:

We have considered whether the MPS had an opportunity to intervene and halt Savile’s offending in the 1960s. We cannot say for certain, but on the basis of what we know now, there appears to have been, at the very least, an opportunity to investigate his behaviour then, although it is impossible to say whether such an investigation would have led to Savile’s prosecution.

Presumably a house of ill repute would have been under surveillance for some time? Do we have a note of all other visitors to that house, should they all have been investigated as potential paedophiles?

Then we have the seventh and final occasion on which ‘Savile could have been stopped in the 1960s’. It is an anonymous letter received in 1998. A full 38 years after ‘Savile could have been stopped in the 1960s!’ So the evidence we are left with for the Guardian’s headline is that Savile was a visitor to a house lived in by a pimp and ‘four older girls’ where some ex-Duncroft girls had at one time resided…

So much for the headlines. What of the rest of the report? Well, there is the 2003 15 year old girl who claimed that Savile ‘put his hand on her bum’. Should have been better investigated screeches Ms Sharpling, could have been tied in with the 1964 report that he was once seen going into a house of ill-repute, any fool could have seen that he was a paedophile from that alone, and what about the anonymous letter claiming he was ‘into rent boys’ – a definite pattern of behaviour emerging here…

Then there was the 2007 Surrey Police investigation into the ‘Duncroft allegations’, well, if only the CPS had known then that he had once been seen to have gone into a house in Battersea Bridge Road, and as for patting a 15 year old girl on the bum, well they would have seen the light and acted very, very, differently. It’s all the fault of the Police for following their guidelines and not telling all and sundry that this disc jockey went to a house of (adult female) ill repute even though he was into rent boys…

So says the Independent Inspector of Constabulary in the report that hardly anyone will bother to read.  Absolutely clearing the CPS of any blame in the matter.

Handy that, for you’ll never guess who was Head of the CPS for the metropolitan district at the time – oh look, Drusilla Sharpling, now Independent Inspector of the Constabulary.

Would you ever!

*My apologies to my readers who are bored stiff with this subject, but I am determined to get these things down as a matter of record – one day people will look back and ask how it came about that an entire nation was groomed…and not by Savile! The apologies are necessary for after an hour or two’s sleep, there will be a second post today – this is not the only piece of shite to come out regarding Savile today…spelling errors will be amended then, too tired right now. Feel free to sub-edit in the comments.

rabbitaway March 15, 2013 at 13:41

To Jonathan and Moor
I think JS was well aware of what psychiatrists do
and don’t do. The GQ magazine comment ‘burn in hell’ was possibly the result
of spending alot of time seeing first hand some of the damage that some of
these so called professionals do ! I assume paitient ‘care’ or rehabilitation
was at the centre of the agenda of the task force assigned to Broadmoor in the
late 70′s/early 80′s ? The interview with Anthony Clare was just that, an
interview commisioned as part of the radio series ‘on the couch’. At one point
Jimmy asks Clare something like ‘am I odd ?’ and in time honoured pysch’
fashion he says he will answer him later (which he doesn’t – although he does
provide a sort of summing up in the introduction to his article). I don’t know
where a paedophilia assessment comes into all this ? but I’m confidant that
Jimmy was interested to see what the eminent Doctor would make of him and
better still, how he (JS) would equip himself intellectually during their
meeting.

Moor
Larkin March 15, 2013 at 13:46

@rabbitaway

Q magazine.

Good point! Savile was involved in both Broadmoor and Ashworth so was
very familiar with psycho-doctoring;
I hadn’t joined those particular
dots……..
Many
Thanks!

rabbitaway
March 15, 2013 at 14:13

@Moor
My pleasure – Great page you have there yourself Keep up the
good work I can’t do one of those smiley things !!

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 17:32

@Moor Larkin
Yes, good work on your own page/blog. Its coming
along nicely.

Jonathan Mason
March 15, 2013 at 17:27

Good points. In fact it has only just occurred to me that Savile must
have had a great deal of contact with paedophiles and rapists at Broadmoor
during his sojourns there and involvement with the management of the
institution, and must have sat on management committees with psychiatrists,
thus knowing them on a social and working basis, not just from the
perspective of the “psychiatrist’s couch”.

One wonders whether any of the people who complained to Yewtree could
have been from Broadmoor.

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 17:29

@ One wonders whether any of the people who complained to Yewtree could
have been from Broadmoor. @

At least one of them was, as I recall. She was a He by the time the
complaint was made however.

Anna
Raccoon March 15, 2013 at
17:33

I can cope with Ms ‘A’ becoming Ms ‘B’ and ending up as Ms ‘C’ in yet
another report – do not fry my brain by telling me that I also have to
follow Ms ‘D’ through the traumas of becoming Master ‘G’…….or even Ms ‘F
1/2′ in the mid way point! Enough I tell you!!!

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 17:45

@ Jonathan Mason
As Mod says, we heard of the one with the sex
change, and I seem to recall that yes, there were some more. It all got a
bit stupid (surprise, surprise) because on the one hand there was a very
sensible ex Broadmoor worked on 5 Live describing the type of heavy
chaperoning that was in place, and on the other there was a rabidly angry
Scottish bloke accusing not only JS but some of the doctors of being ‘in
on it’. On the plus side the Yorkshire Ripper said it was all
codswallop.

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 17:46

That was meant to say, ‘as Moor’ says.

Jonathan
Mason March 15, 2013 at 17:57

The Yorkshire Ripper might have a bit of a thing about women, but
since he is a fellow Yorkie I would take his word any day over a
Scot.

It would rather undermine the credibility of Savile’s accusers if a
significant number of them have been determined by a court to be
criminally insane.

Mina
Field March 15, 2013 at 18:12

I was pondering last night (yeah, sad) on JS’s unfortunate remarks
about girls/leg over/ etc and it occurred to me that, just as he lived
in a time warp in respect of his clothes and his decor and everything
else, so was his conversation and humour, which was straight Sid James
and the Carry On films. I may not be describing this too well but if
you think of the Have I Got News For You quip – ‘Whoever I could get’
you might see what I mean. Same thing with the answering the phone
with ‘she told me she was 16′ greeting. In his own head he was
hilarious.

Jonathan
Mason March 15, 2013 at 18:28

“Well, she was just seventeen
You know what I mean?”

[The Beatles]

“With my little stick of Blackpool Rock, along the promenade I
stroll
In the ballroom I went dancing each night
No wonder every
girl that danced , stuck to me tight
Every day wherever I stray the
kids all round me flock.
A fellow took my photograph it cost one
and three.
I said when it was done, “Is that supposed to be
me?”
“You’ve properly mucked it up the only thing I can see
is
My little stick of Blackpool Rock.””

[George Formby]

There is a kind of northern tradition of crude sexual comedy,
exemplified by the postcards of Donald McGill. Savile may have grown
up in that tradition.

Mina
Field March 15, 2013 at 18:39

@ Jonathan Mason
Yes, thats the sort of thing. God knows how
folks of that generation found stuff like that hilarious but they did.
Those seaside postcards too. Very Blackpool and Scarborough.
Poor
bloke. If only someone had been forthright enough to drag him into the
21st century instead of pretending to laugh, it might have all been so
different.

Lucozade
March 15, 2013 at 23:20

Jonathan Mason,

Re: “It would rather undermine the credibility of Savile’s accusers
if a significant number of them have been determined by a court to be
criminally insane”

No but he targeted the criminally insane because the were
vaulnerable, you see…?

Or so the story goes….

I never imagined before that many men would think of Broadmoor as
an ideal place to go to get their leg over, but there you go, it seems
I was wrong….

rabbitaway
March 15, 2013 at 19:16

@ Mina – that was some photo oppotunity Frank Bruno had the day he
opened the gym or whatever it was at Broadmoor ! I couldn’t believe my
eye’s, Suitcliffe looked like a waxwork model and Jimmy looked like he’d
just agreed to treat them all to fish and chips at the caff after (watch
the Andrew Neil documentary on utube ‘is this your life’ to see what I
mean – tight sod !

Mina
Field March 15, 2013 at 20:59

@ rabbitaway
‘Looked like he’d just agreed to treat them all’
made me laugh. That is a perfect description of the look of distaste
he appears to wear in that photo. Yes, weird to see Sutcliffe looking
like that. For me though it was a shock to hear that telephone
recording of him and he was so, Normal. Stupid of me I know, but did
find it startling. Plus the fact that his was the lone sensible voice
in a world gone mad.

rabbitaway March
15, 2013 at 21:25

@Mina field – blimee I’ve just listened to Sutcliffe – I never knew
that recording existed ’til you mentioned it – surreal !

Duncroft Girl
1970+ March 15, 2013 at 13:30

It seems that you ALL care that Jimmy Savile DID NOT go to Duncroft before
May 1974. LOL at you, The headmistress has told you a few fibs and you believe
what you want . you chose what to believe from MSM if and when it suits you.
You all owe Bebe Roberts an apology as it is now obvious (and documented) that
Savile had contact with Duncroft before May 1974. You are naming people
implying that they are criminals, saying that it has all beem “concocted” and
they are only after compensation. You are all wrong as it looks like you are
only trying to protect the reputation of your old APPROVED school. You all
committed crimes and yet those people sent there when it was run by NAMH are
all wrong. I too have emails from care leavers reunited where Sally Stevens
(Mewsical) posted something very different. No one has lied to the police yet
you feel as if you should name people who were assigned letters for their
protection. You do not know who ms’s A,B,C etc are and those who do ignore
your blog, except to make the police aware of your latest accusations. I am
aware that you know who I am due to the fact that my email address is not a
secret, however it is time that you either start to justify your comments or
stop making such ludicrous judgements over a group of women who have chosen
NOT to even read or engage with anything on this blog. No one is going to give
you any information and I suggest that you keep guessing as that is what you
have been doing and very wrong are many of them.

Anna
Raccoon March 15, 2013 at 13:37

No dear, Savile had contact with someone who had contact with someone who
had once been to Duncroft.

That is not the same as Savile had contact with Duncroft.

Nice try.

Further more, with reference to Bebe Roberts – I believe the evidence of
my own fair eyes, I was in Wedgewood dorm in 1965 – Savile wasn’t – neither
were you. No apology forthcoming. She is lying.

The only person who sees your e-mail address (or anyone elses for that
matter) is myself and I don’t reveal them to anyone. so no one here knows
anymore about you than that you chose to call yourself ‘Duncroft Girl
1970+’.

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 15, 2013 at 15:35

“a group of women who have chosen NOT to even read or engage with
anything on this blog” – then why are you posting here? For your
information, I and most girls at Duncroft during nty time were there for
‘care and protection’ and had not committed any crimes. Obviously things
may have been different when you were there.

mewsical
March 15, 2013 at 17:25

If you had committed any criminal acts in the early 60s, you did NOT
go to Duncroft! There were other institutions that were equipped for
that sort of problem. From what I understand of the 70s crowd, by their
own admission, there were druggies there, and women who had in fact
committed quite serious crimes. Margaret Jones was not happy that she
was being expected to take in girls of that caliber, as it was not the
original intention of Duncroft to become a repository for the mentally
disturbed and/or criminal offenders.

Anna
Raccoon March 15, 2013 at
17:30

My offence was a criminal act in that the suicide act wasn’t passed
until I think 61 – later that year. I suspect they were more lenient
with me in that they knew that the act would come into force soon.

Lucozade March 15, 2013 at 22:50

‘”Duncroft Girl 1970+,

The signing of the visitors book, which by what he had written in it
would appear to be a first signing and the Daily Mail claimed was 1974 and
that woman’s letter that the papers claimed she had written to her social
worker saying “guess who came to tea on the 21st of January?”, apparently
dated 31st of January 1974, again, by what was apparently said in the
letter, it would appear to have been the first visit this girl was aware of,
would suggest he never started visiting Duncroft until very early 1974 –
this information is coming from the media as well.

What are people supposed to think…?

mewsical
March 16, 2013 at 00:20

Lucozade wrote: ‘”Duncroft Girl 1970+,

The signing of the visitors book, which by what he had written in it
would appear to be a first signing and the Daily Mail claimed was 1974 and
that woman’s letter that the papers claimed she had written to her social
worker saying “guess who came to tea on the 21st of January?”, apparently
dated 31st of January 1974, again, by what was apparently said in the
letter, it would appear to have been the first visit this girl was aware
of, would suggest he never started visiting Duncroft until very early 1974
– this information is coming from the media as well.

What are people supposed to think…?”

Nicely done, Luco. As to what people are supposed to think, they are
supposed to embrace the tissue of lies and deception created by the
Duncroft women with the aid of Meirion Jones and Mark Williams-Thomas,
bolstered by the usual hue and cry by what passes for the British press
these days! Let’s not fact check, fellers! Publish and be damned!
Fortunately, most if not all people don’t believe it any longer.

The big clunking smoking gun was the Bebe Roberts fiasco, followed
rapidly by the forged letter and then the denouement of Fiona by myself,
Wendi, Ellen and Francoise, who confirmed suspicions about the veracity of
Ms. Scott-Johnson once and for all. When I spoke with MWT a year or so
ago, after being alerted to the trawl for ‘victims’ on the FRU site, I
asked him to please not name Duncroft – oh SILLY me!

I had no idea then that Meirion was a co-conspirator with these women
and MWT to embarrass his aunt, capitalize both financially and
career-wise, and spread general calumny. I have never been so relieved
after a year of enduring attacks from these creatures on Careleavers and
on Friends Reunited to get an email from Wendi saying “have you seen
this?” with a link to Anna’s blog post about Bebe. Game changer, as we
like to say here!

mewsical
March 16, 2013 at 00:58

Thought you might enjoy this light relief c/o E.B. White – excerpted
from the New Yorker magazine.

The ABC’s of Security:

Said Mr. A to Mr. B
I doubt the loyalty of C
Said Mr. B to Mr.
A
I’m shocked and stunned by what you say
We’d better check on him
today

And since you’ve brought up Mr. C
I feel that I must mention D
I
rather doubt *his* loyalty.

rabbitaway March 15, 2013 at 12:07

This has just come to me –
Now i really am feeling sorry for old Jim !.
In 2008, at the age of 81 he’s fending off the Sun who threaten to associate
him with Haut de la G, the following year (or less) he gets called in for an
interview. Bearing in mind Nick Vaughan Barrattt ‘s emails re planned obits
for Jim at the BBC 18 months before he died can one not see a semi causal link
tween his ill health and the shananigans going on behind his back ? No wonder
he spoke so defensively (bollocks to my legacy and all that). He was (rightly)
sticking 2 fingers up to the lotta them. Well done Sir Jim !

Moor
Larkin March 15, 2013 at 12:22

@ No wonder he spoke so defensively (bollocks to my legacy and all that).
@

He said that in 2001.

rabbitaway
March 15, 2013 at 12:33

Thank you for that – I stand corrected but the rest ?

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 17:07

Thank you for that – …….. but the rest ?

I think he had been dealing with that sort of whispering campaign for
a very long time. You only have to recall the dance of the dead that his
old “pal” Gambaccini performed, to appreciate what might have been going
on all those years, with all those sexual ego’s bouncing off the studio
walls. Savile is quoted someplace as declaring he is not only not a
paedophile, and he wasn’t queer either….. I’ll bet the “queer” word won
him no friends at the BBC either….

I don’t think the ongoing slurs would have made him feel ill though
but perhaps they did – I would not want to pretend to know the inside of
his head…..

Personally epaking, my impression is that he would have reveled in
not letting the bastards grind him down. He was a Yorkshireman at heart
after all…..

Mina
Field March 15, 2013 at 17:28

@ Moor Larkin
Oh dear, I’d managed to forget the Paul Gambaccini
contribution, and now you’ve reminded me. Vile, vile man
(him, not
you)

rabbitaway March
15, 2013 at 23:01

@ Moor Larkin 17.07 15th Mar
Just seen your post – totally agree
– I felt my fist moving towards the screen at Gambaccini’s bit ! all
that crap about the difference ‘tween floor 5 and 6 or whatever it was
– what a creep ! Shame old ‘Fluff’ hadn’t been still around (tho he
gets a battering himself by the pitch f**kers..). Aye you’re right
about the northerner thing too – he knew the cretins didn’t like him –
and couldn’t care less ! Cheers …!

miss mildred
March 15, 2013 at 10:53

When a man who previously had open access to young females when a younger
DJ ages, he has a problem. Does he grope more mature women….who would probably
handbag him if he groped them? Or does he still hanker after what was freely
on offer before he got the lined face/funny hair/ silly shell suits and
irritating sayings. He ponged of cigar smoke and was naff to say the
least….yuk. It must be very hard for an aging individual habituated to feeling
where he is invited to go on the young female anatomy, when he becomes
supremely unattractive to most sensible young ladies. We have developed this
more recent culture where anything goes in the bonk department and the high
street late at night. Let there be a whisper of ‘underage’ shock horror and
all hell breaks loose. What a lot of hypocrits so many of us have become over
the last few PC/CCTV/CRB ridden years. Brainwashed occures to me. I am close
to JS in age so I have witnessed this whole process and I do not like it one
bit.

mewsical March 15, 2013 at 00:37

On thinking about how Savile got to Duncroft in the first place, it looks
as if the catalyst was the Duchess of Kent, even though she died in 1968. Her
daughter, Princess Alexandra was about 32 at the time of the 1974 visit, and
would have been in her mid-to-late 20s when Savile first rose to prominence
via TOTP. She would likely have been interested in rock music at that age, and
I would imagine met Jimmy on the charity circuit at the very least. They were
not that far apart in age either. Jimmy had the common touch, which allowed
him to interact at all levels of society. That’s a real gift.

So, I speculate that Jimmy’s being recommended to the school by someone’s
Mum might be a tad suspect. One of those red herring thingies. Some days, I
wish Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple could stroll into this rat’s nest!

Just posting for discussion purposes.

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 15, 2013 at 12:31

No Mewsical not correct. Margaret Jones said he was introduced by the
mother of one of the girls and there is nothing wrong with her memory.

Wendi March 15, 2013 at 14:34

True Ellen. However, at this stage, with all that’s been (and being)
written on Savile, Duncroft et al, with virtually every sentence and
paragraph being analysed and placed under a magnifying glass, I get
confused myself as to facts we’ve ascertained as being the real facts our
end – like my ‘duh’ Princess Marina Duchess of Kent query of yesterday,
under the influence of blinding toothache and fully fledged cold and
spending an hour and a half reading all the comments on this blog and
asking myself ‘when is all this going to end already -I’ze really getting
lost in the translations?’

I’d like to wring Fiona’s neck myself at this stage, along with the
Meirions, MWTs and inept journos who’ve fomented this entire witch
hunt.
Up until a few years ago I’d forgotten all about Duncroft and
would have been happy it remained that way (one moves on throughout life)
but, with the advent of Friends Reunited I was curious to see if Duncroft
was listed (along with my prior boarding school and the English School in
Cairo,) found Duncroft and saw that other women had registered there, the
only one I knew personally being Mewsical. When I read the Fiona
‘call-out’ I was livid, it was just so off the wall and just didn’t fit.
I’d also discovered and read the Karin/Kerry story, which read as fantasy
rubbish and emailed her via Fanstory politely requesting that she please
use pseudonyms for the members of staff, as she had with her peers.
Needless to say I got no response, nor did Mewsical who had requested the
same. How Meirion Jones can say her story gave ‘a perfect description of
the Duncroft staff as I myself remember it’ or words to that effect in the
Pollard Review, proves to me he has bloody terrible recall and is full of
crap!

That was how the whole Duncroft fiasco started, with Ellen, Mewsical
and myself up in arms at the way Duncroft and the staff were being
depicted and the suggestions that they would be part and parcel to
allowing any of the girls being placed in a position to be abused, none of
us buying the abuse claims to begin with. Old Sir Jim dies and nasty posts
flying back and forth between 60s and 70s girls on the social networks,
the Newsnight programme gets canned, MWT uses the base (he’d been working
on with his long-time buddy Meirion in the original Newsnight piece) and
gets his ‘Other Side of…’ on the air, presumably pocketing a few more
bucks than the GBP500 for his ‘investigative work’ (didn’t seem to be very
successful at getting any info from his prior place of work for some
reason) for the BBC and, somewhere around here, Anna starts her Duncroft
story (on seeing the Bebe Roberts piece and thinking wtf is this rubbish I
think.) Mewsical’s also written her ‘take’ on her own blog and from that
point, the whole Savile thing goes viral and the man’s said to have been a
necrophiliac, paedophile (both sexes) and the devil incarnate all over the
British tabloids – and these stories are reproduced in foreign media!
Thank krist the Raccoon blog is widely read by people with a few neurons
or Savile’s life and reputation would probably have been hung, drawn and
quartered with no-one having the balls to query the veracity of the
hundreds of claims: the various Inquiries and Reviews would have been
published but your average Joe Public would never have thought to read
such boring stuff and try to tally up the truth behind all the mayhem.

I remember being really surprised at the coverage of Princess Diana’s
death and her funeral as I’d seen some very narky articles about her
reproduced in the Spanish press (taken from the British press) over the
previous years – she dies in a car crash and suddenly she’s the People’s
Princess and the gooey coverage was almost nauseating bearing in mind
those same papers had previously been knocking her left, right and centre.
Seems to have set the beat for a reverse scenario with Sir Jim…

It’s good to see that some people are making a concerted effort to get
to the truth here – good luck!

Anna
Raccoon March 15, 2013 at
14:41

Wendi,
I think you deserve an award for summing the whole thing up
in a minimum of words… congratulations!

mewsical
March 15, 2013 at 15:34

Duncroft Idiot 70+ wrote: “It seems that you ALL care that Jimmy
Savile DID NOT go to Duncroft before May 1974. LOL at you, The
headmistress has told you a few fibs and you believe what you want .
you chose what to believe from MSM if and when it suits you. You all
owe Bebe Roberts an apology as it is now obvious (and documented) that
Savile had contact with Duncroft before May 1974. You are naming
people implying that they are criminals, saying that it has all beem
“concocted” and they are only after compensation. You are all wrong as
it looks like you are only trying to protect the reputation of your
old APPROVED school. You all committed crimes and yet those people
sent there when it was run by NAMH are all wrong. I too have emails
from care leavers reunited where Sally Stevens (Mewsical) posted
something very different. No one has lied to the police yet you feel
as if you should name people who were assigned letters for their
protection. You do not know who ms’s A,B,C etc are and those who do
ignore your blog, except to make the police aware of your latest
accusations. I am aware that you know who I am due to the fact that my
email address is not a secret, however it is time that you either
start to justify your comments or stop making such ludicrous
judgements over a group of women who have chosen NOT to even read or
engage with anything on this blog. No one is going to give you any
information and I suggest that you keep guessing as that is what you
have been doing and very wrong are many of them.”

Owe Bebe Roberts an apology?? Surely you jest. Three of us were at
the school in 1965, and a) never met Bebe, and b) no Jimmy Savile
anywhere in sight. Let alone she and her mate said they were at
Duncroft for SEVEN YEARS! Don’t make me laugh. You’re completely
pathetic. The country is laughing at you, the police are laughing at
you, the posters on this blog are laughing at you, and the media is
laughing at you. When Fiona Scott-Johnston was found to have been an
egregious liar, i.e., pretending to be someone called Susan Melling,
and making up a fantasy visit with another former girl, going so far
as to send me a looooong completely made up recounting via pm on
Careleavers, which I still have, btw, screen-capped, then the cat was
truly out of the bag. You lot didn’t count on that, did you? Forged
letters, anyone? Jimmy Savile’s signature on a guest book in May 1974,
his first visit to Duncroft anyone? Beef biryani anyone?

You keep acting as if I am hiding behind the name Mewsical, when it
was simply the name assigned by Google when I signed up. If you go
over to my blog where I first posted my thoughts on Meirion’s remark
about ‘minor royalty,’ there I am, name and everything. YOU are the
snake in the grass. You cannot say who you are so you obviously have
something to hide. Do you think anyone here cares if any of you come
over here bleating your egregious nonsense?? Bring it on, I say. I did
my best to give you losers the benefit of the doubt, but once the lies
and deception were revealed by your own stupid actions, then it was
obvious that you were lying about all of it and looking for a pay-out.
As far as ‘committing crimes,’ well, not me and not a lot of the girls
who were at Duncroft on care and protection orders.

I’m with Wendi. I’d like to choke the lot of you. You’ve caused a
lot of trouble and I hope you get nothing for your lies and deception
except the scorn and derision you all richly deserve. Why do you keep
invoking the police? You think they care about what goes on on this
blog? Obvious that it scares you and the rest of the coven though.
Nobody is threatening you, nobody is interested in you – and as for
your specious claims that none of you are reading this blog, oh yes
you are! I know the way you all operate by now.

Btw, what’s the NAMH? Do you mean the NIMH? See.you can’t even get
THAT right. Now, run along and call the coppers, dear, and boo-hoo
that the nasty women over at the Raccoon Arms are picking on you
again!

I love the BBC
March 15, 2013 at 00:21

My comment above was meant for Linda’s comments about grooming, which I do
agree with. While many of the teenage ‘pop fans’ would not have required much
grooming to be available, some would – and possibly he enjoyed that aspect of
it, some men do. The thing is that he also seems to have groped and forcibly
French kissed girls he had only just met, on a fleeting whim.

Again, it’s the sheer variety of behaviours which are attributed to him
which convinces me that they cannot all be true. And that was really before I
found that many of those featured most heavily in the press have some
decidedly dubious accounts.

Moor
Larkin March 15, 2013 at 09:32

@I love the BBC March 15, 2013 at 00:21
While many of the teenage ‘pop
fans’ would not have required much grooming to be available, some would –
and possibly he enjoyed that aspect of it, some men do. The thing is that he
also seems to have groped and forcibly French kissed girls he had only just
met, on a fleeting whim.”

Not seeking to be argumentative but really that grooming comment is a
little ridiculous. Even the worst of the stories about Savile make no
suggestion he made any attempt to seduce (groom) any of the “victims”. Most
of the tales involve the girls pursuing him and then getting more than they
say they bargained for. Even the [barmy] accusations of his abusing
pre-pubertal children involve no attempt to seduce them with gifts; he
allegedly grabs them off the street and takes them into hotels. It’s more
like an outtake from Fritz Lang’s 1931 movie, M.

Your second comment about inappropriate touching (groping) and forced
(unexpected) French kisses is more cogent. But Savile allegedly behaves more
like an idiotic teenager than a devious sexual predator – especially as
nothing then ever seems to have happened subsequently. Take the story of the
Duncroft sister who was the choir-girl: she never seems to have ever come
across the man again in her life. She might have been unexpectedly
French-kissed by more than one man in the many years since but they
obviously would not have made the impression that being tongue by a celeb
made, but even then, are we to believe this “kiss” lasted more than a
fraction of a second if it happened at all? So far as I can recall the girl
was in the process of getting on the coach home or something. It’s not like
we’re expected to visualise a “Gone With the Wind” prolonged and forced
embrace. Further to this, one of the women alleging a two or more year
sexual affair with Savile complained mostly about the “lack of romance” –
presumably she meant a distinct lack of a bit of nice kissing…….

mewsical March 15, 2013 at 00:10

I wanted to add to the post regarding Princess Marina, D of Kent –
somewhere in the wilds of the comments thread – that Princess Alexandra, who
was a friend of Jimmy’s and also came to the school in May 1974 for her first
visit, is the daughter of Princess Marina. Margaret Jones got Savile’s first
signature in the Guest Book in May 1974.

rabbitaway March 14, 2013 at 18:57

I’m still trying to get my head round ‘ornament’ ….so hard to follow Miss
A, B etc. I thought that it was interesting how JS agreed to be interviewed
under caution without a solicitor present – advice from legal bods welcome
here please !

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 20:05

@rabbitway
I’ve just read ‘ornament’ and it seems that as the police
had insufficient grounds to arrest him they therefore were not entitled to
compel him to be interviewed at all, let alone under caution. He would have
been told this fact but he nevertheless agreed to it anyway, knowing what he
was going to say and knowing that there would be no questioning of his
answers. I bet they felt pathetically fortunate that he agreed to be
interviewed, considering by then they’d spent a full 12 months ‘trawling’
and come up with………… zilch.

rabbitaway
March 14, 2013 at 21:17

Thanks again Mina – I must re read – his refusal to attend would have
made for an interesting scenario !

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 00:02

@ rabbitaway
Seems the interview happened at his own office rather
than a police station, again because they had to take what they could
get.

Lucozade
March 15, 2013 at 11:51

Mina Field,

Re: “Seems the interview happened at his own office rather than a
police station, again because they had to take what they could
get”

It seems he acted the way anyone else would act “if you want to
talk to me, come and see me in my office at Stoke Mandeville”, he was
a fairly busy man and bear in mind that Stoke Mandeville hospital
would have been easier for them to get to than his homes in Leeds or
Scarborough.

There are a lot of people out there that would just have ignored
the letter, though, knowing what’s happened and been done to him now,
with hindsight, if I was him, I have taken some satisfaction in
telling them to stick their letter (though that would have been used
against by the media too), lol

Lucozade
March 15, 2013 at 11:15

Mina Field,

Re: “I’ve just read ‘ornament’ and it seems that as the police had
insufficient grounds to arrest him they therefore were not entitled to
compel him to be interviewed at all, let alone under caution. He would
have been told this fact but he nevertheless agreed to it anyway, knowing
what he was going to say and knowing that there would be no questioning of
his answers. I bet they felt pathetically fortunate that he agreed to be
interviewed, considering by then they’d spent a full 12 months ‘trawling’
and come up with………… zilch”

I know, and now we have people speculating “why did they meet him at
Stoke Mandeville hospital?”, “why didn’t they make him go to the
station?”, “Why was it on his terms and not theirs?”, “they must have been
blinded by his celebrity”. Lol, I thought (though it’s age’s since i’ve
read the CPS report and I haven’t read the Ornament one yet) that the CPS
had advised not to bother interviewing him at all? But they decided to
anyway just to give him a few words of warning (fair enough), but i’m not
sure at that stage they had been given the power to arrest him, so I think
he was being quite reasonable letting them meet him at Stoke Mandeville,
given that your average pleb they probably usually have to deal with would
just have ignored the the letter, and if they were issued a warrent for
their arrest – would probably have to go looking for them – “blinded by
his ‘celebrity’, I ask you….

Also, I found it interesting from Meirion Jones’s Pollard review
transcript that a woman – who by the way they were discussing her i’m
pretty sure was ‘Fiona’ – claimed she had been “interviewed under
caution”, did they think to ask her why that was?

And where are the allegations she made against Jimmy Savile in the ITV
Exposure documentary in the police and CPS reports?

This lot have hoodwinked – anyone one whose daft enough to have been
hoodwinked, lol….

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 13:05

Lucozade @ 11.15 15.3.13
Yes, you’re correct about the CPS not
recommending an interview at all. ‘Ornament’ describes this, and is
complimentrary about the police for going above and beyond, etc. It then
goes on to be slightly contradicting itself, for it says, ‘pity he was
interviewed at a place of his own choosing’ – thus having a certain
amount of control, but then says, ‘as there was no power of arrest it
might have proved problematic getting him to attend at the
station’.
No, you can’t blame him for 1) Being a bit arsey if he
thought they were asking for it and 2) Having a witness present. As you
say, most people would have just got their solicitor to tell them to bog
off if they had even bothered to reply at all.

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 13:13

Lucozade
Yes that ‘under caution’ for Fiona – if it is Fiona, is
odd. A mistake perhaps?

Lucozade
March 15, 2013 at 21:53

Mina Field,

“Yes that ‘under caution’ for Fiona – if it is Fiona, is odd. A
mistake perhaps?”

They seemed to be speaking about this woman in connection with the
fake letter and ‘old and infirm’ claims, so that is what made me think
Fiona.

I thought it was possible she was just being melodramatic when she
claimed to have been interviewed “undercaution”. Which is a bad sign
in itself, but you would have thought the Newsnight people would have
wanted to double check to make sure what she metnt by “undercaution” –
it could have been (for all they would have known at the time) because
they were suspicious of her story and thought she was wasting their
time. I’m mean all that stuff she said on ITV Exposure doesn’t appear
(well i’ve not read the ornament report yet) to have been said to the
police back in 2008/2009…

Though who knows, would she have admitted to being “interviewed
under caution”, if that were the case? She was maybe just getting her
words mixed up. But you’d have thought Newsnight might have wanted to
know why she said that….

Lucozade March 15, 2013 at 10:47

Rabbitaway,

“I thought that it was interesting how JS agreed to be interviewed under
caution without a solicitor present”

I know and they try and cast suspicion on this supposed mysterious,
unnamed guy he insisted on having with him!!

Em, i’d want someone with me too, and with hindsight it probably wasn’t a
bad idea, incase they tried to claim I said things I hadn’t said, which
happens….

Wouldn’t you….?

rabbitaway
March 15, 2013 at 11:49

Perhaps Jimmy did not take the interview very seriously. On page 34 of
the report it maintains that there was no ‘pre disclosure as Savile
elected to be interviewed without contacting a legal advisor or having a
legal advisor present’. It goes on to say that the friend (a trustee of
Stoke Mandeville) attended as an ‘appropriate adult’ ……? (sorry but I’ve
just pictured Dominic West as Fred (no relation) West…….). Ok, so ornament
is an investigation into the historic police handling of allegations
against Sir Jim ! I still DO NOT see what all the fuss is about. Someone
feel free to correct me if I have got this wrong, but the resultant
charging decision ( 28/10/09) found that ‘…..there is clearly insufficient
evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence’. Obviously,
there was much to’ing and fro’ing from the initial CPS meeting on the 15th
July 2007 (‘did not feel there was a case to proceed’) to the letter
asking him to contact Surrey police in June 2009 but all I see here is a
failure on the part of the boys in blue to get their act together,
especially when they chose to ignore the initial decision. Oh dear, I’m
getting a tad lost !

Mina Field
March 15, 2013 at 13:12

@Rabbitaway

I’m not looking at ‘ornament’ right now so could be wrong, but think
you’re correct regarding the delays. IIRC it took 12 m from 2007 to 2008
to do the trawling and then there were some ‘scratch head and what do we
do now, guv’? meetings. Then early in 2009 another convo with the CPS,
followed by some delays in getting a meeting with JS sorted – He did
give them the ‘We must get together soon, I’ll check my diary’ response
at first and they had to contact him again after a time to get a firm
date.

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 13:16

@Mina Field

I read it afresh the other night and you are correct. I think the
interview only ended up taking place at all because “senior officers”
made some waves about it. I expect Surrey Police are very relieved
they did, because to be honest I cannot fault the Force at all for
their report. It’s far superior in ever way to either the CPS (Levitt)
report or that farcical HMIC report where the woman seems to be part
of the Icke forum with her blathering about ….. joining…. the…..
dots……..

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 15, 2013 at 19:14

The ‘friend’ was described as a trustee of Stoke Mandeville Hospital. If
that is the charity then the choice is a Radiologist. someone in the
security buisness, and a former senior treasury civil servant who was a NHS
financial trouble shooter.

Savile was accused of making some odd descisions just before his death
for cancelling funding for an arts project, but Luke Lucas a Stoke Mandevile
trustee said, “His body gave up, not his mind.”

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/local-news/savile_s_change_of_heart_puts_good_cause_in_a_fix_1_3522754

rabbitaway March 14, 2013 at 18:18

To ‘lighten’ things up – have a look on youtube at a lesser viewed video –
tap in ‘jimmy savile – what does she do with the cable boys’ JS has been set
up on the Jim’ll fix it set off ‘air’ but the audience seems to be there – A
very buxom young lady appears to the strains of ‘the stripper’ to attatch a
cable to his eh, trousers ….see how he responds – not a letchful glance in
sight – in fact he barely looks at her – a complete gentleman !

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 18:07

Anna said: “Given the huge cost of defending such an action, and the
resulting unpleasant publicity – ‘BBC call innocent child abuse victim a liar’
etc., etc., Home Office allege child ‘was asking for sex’ etc, etc – I suspect
you will find these cases will be settled out of court with nominal payments
to those who have some evidence of even having met Savile, who will promptly
go to the press with stories along the lines of – ‘fobbed off with £8,000 for
a ruined life after being raped by Savile’.
That’s my prediction
anyway.”

Fobbed off with tuppence ha’penny, and that’s too much for some of these
characters.

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 15, 2013 at 12:24

and hopefully most of what they do get goes in legal fees

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 12:27

@ hopefully most of what they do get goes in legal fees @

That’s what their promoter secretly hope too……………

Mizz Mildred
March 14, 2013 at 13:54

Why can’t we all settle for the fact that JS morphed into a dirty old man.
Possibly a dirty middle aged man. There is a strange lack of complaints from
his younger days. Some of the accusations appear to be false, some dubious. He
is dead and gone, discredited and his memorials removed, street names erased
etc. He has been totally trashed by the media and the police. He cannot defend
himself or sue, he is fair game. People who defend so called child molesters,
I refuse to use that other overworked and misused word, are not in a strong
position against the psycho babble, popular opinion, merchants. They maintain
that a quick grope ages ago has wrecked lives and deserves generous
compensation. Still there are lots of kids within their own families who are
suffering far worse intimate intrusions from close adults. The police should
attend to that. They are playing up to prurient public interest in alleged
celebrity misbehaviour years ago, when the pop scene took off. I thought
anything went with the young ones now. LBC yesterday…a guy said he got off a
rape charge as he photographed his bonk with a girl he met 10 minutes before
their consensual union!!!!!! So much for smart phones. He said he was 22. So
well behaved!!!

rabbitaway
March 14, 2013 at 14:18

Mizz 13.34

Some years ago the State had the sense to end judicial murder. I say
sense because, whilst there are/have been certain individuals I would
happily have pulled the lever on, there were many mistakes including a lady
called Edith Thompson (1922) who was hanged because she had sex with a man
who murdered her husband. Some might and did say, she was ‘fair game’ for
going off the side in an age where such sexual freedom was frowned upon. Why
keep repeating the same mistakes, making judgement based on nothing more
than gossip ( in the case of JS) ? I understand your point that the police
must concentrate on the ‘here and now’ as it were, but, if they cannot show
historic proficiency (and we are only talking about 2009 here) how on earth
can we be assured that current allegations will be investigated properly
!

rabbitaway March 14, 2013 at 12:18

Response to Moor Larkin 14/3/13 at 6.47 am

Another great post Moor – I will read the ornament thing today – first I’d
heard of it.

Plus response to Jonathan – I actually do care about the late Mr Savile –
that’s my agenda. Think, this could be your old man or mine – we must demand
proof for the dead as well as the living. If, such proof be forthcoming I will
readily admit that I was wrong – ’til then – the hare is running ! LOL all
!

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 12:41

@rabbitaway
Its actually lovely to hear you say that you care about
him. Just that one line brings everything thats wrong with this situation
into stark relief for me – that there has been not one shred of humanity
from anyone throughout this episode. Maybe its exactly because he was
nobody’s father or grandfather , but the treatment of him has been
barbaric.

rabbitaway
March 14, 2013 at 13:19

@ Mina comment 12.41

Thank you – also because no other bugger has had the guts to step up to
the plate ! Remember those lovely people who rode them buses through the
deep south in the 60′s and were battered to hell by the bigots and their
police protectors until Kennedy called out the National guard, well, I
kinda feel like this is a similar situation – a matter of principal
really. It’s funny but I feel compelled some how to do this – perhaps like
those white people who did not have to back their black ‘brothers’ and
‘sisters’ up. When will we learn that we should care about everyone in our
society – We must fight ALL forms of abuse wherever we find it PERIOD !
LOL

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 14, 2013 at 09:15

Duncroft Trivia – in March 1944 the contents of the nursing home were sold
off at auction over 5 days, over 1,000 lots, wonder who bought the Aga
cooker.
1952 in a rather odd article on a mix of matters it refers to a
small number of difficult pupils that cause problems at senior girls schools
but they are not eligible for Duncroft.

Oct 1958 an advert appeared for a headmistress at Duncroft, Moor Lane a
Home Office approved school for 36 girls aged between 14 and 17. Psychiatric
treatment forms an essential part of the school regime. Applicants should have
a genuine interest in work of this nature and have training and experience in
dealing with adolescent girls. Pay according to the Burnham scale from which
£175 per annum is deducted for board & lodging.

2 Mar 1961 Duchess of Kent visited Duncroft Approved School. Lady Balfour
was in attendance.

8 May 1974 Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra as Patron of the National
Association for Mental Health visited Duncroft (Community Home). The Lady Mary
Fitzalan-Howard was in attendance.

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 17:05

I think the 1958 ad was the one that Margaret Jones answered, to find her
predecessor, a Mrs. Barber (mother of jazz trumpeter Chris Barber) actually
trying to escape the school via a window to get away from her charges. MJ
took over and ran things without too much trouble – certainly never saw her
trying to escape! – until 1980 when she retired.

The Duchess of Kent visited also in 1963 – I have a photo of her visit,
with some of the girls, including me.

The May 8, 1974 was also attended by Mr. Savile. Margaret Jones told me
that she was in her study with Lady Norman, who was on the Board. Princess A
was also in there, with Lady Mary. The door swung open and there was Jimmy
Savile. Without hesitation, Princess A exclaimed “Jimmy, darling!” and ran
and gave him a big hug. Lady Norman – who was a proper Edwardian member of
the nobility – apparently nearly fainted!

Wendi March 14, 2013 at 21:55

Mewsical – was Princess Marina also the Duchess of Kent back then? I
thought she was Lord Mountbatten’s wife and held the title of Princess
Marina.

mewsical
March 14, 2013 at 22:26

Linda Danvers said: “Yes, you’re right mewsical. Sorry bothering you
all, but it was a nice discussion (at least for me) and you all
certainly brought a new fresh perpectives to the situation. I still do
think Savile was a child abuser, but not in the level the press paints
him to be . I’ll continue following Anna Raccoon’s blog, but not
commenting much.
Best regards!”

It is always interesting to have someone with different views show up
and try to have a cordial discussion from the other side of the table.
Thank you for showing interest and hopefully we’ll see you around now
and then.

mewsical
March 14, 2013 at 22:41

She wasn’t Lady Mountbatten, she was related to the Royal Family by
her marriage to the Duke of Kent (George – son of George V – who died in
the war in 1942) and I believe by blood to Prince Phillip. Hardly a
‘minor royal’ Meirion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George,_Duke_of_Kent

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 08:01

Johnthan Mason,

“Has anyone ever topped 34 raped in the UK”

I don’t know, but there are some that haven’t been caught for years.

However, I do think if Jimmy Savile had even once done (unless the victim
died or disappeared somehow) something as obviously objectionable and against
the law as actual forced rape he would have been grassed in years ago, not
only was he on tv every week for30 years to jog the ‘victims’ ‘memories’,
later on anyway, the papers were always looking for dirt on him.

And why no have no complainants come forward to say they were ‘victims’ of
him in the 1940′s and early to mid 50′s when he was a young man?

Many people who were children or teenagers then would still be alive….

Also, there are many fantasy or spoof stories about many celebrities
online, i’d actually never came across one about Jimmy Savile until this but I
had about many other’s.

And sometimes, when people are writing a stupid or silly story, they will
use celebrities names for the characters. I came across a stupid one about the
Backstreet boys all being gay recently and a good few of people pretending to
have slept with or lost their virginity to popstars etc and the story is
always the same – they turned out to be bastards, and many are obviously just
fantasy…..

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 08:11

@Lucozade
Re – alleged rapes. Apparently one of the ones which the Met
Police/NSPCC joint ‘inquiry’ found solid enough to actually cite involved JS
sweeping a little boy off the street and whisking him into a hotel reception
to do the deed……………… as one does.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 11:27

I think they only cited this as an example of one of the accusations.
And to mention the “boys” since bloggers and conspiracy theorist were
accusing the police and journalists of ignoring the “boys”. Isn’t this
accusation from the same year of the alleged male raped of the last
report? Are they the same person?

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 11:43

“However, I do think if Jimmy Savile had even once done (unless the
victim died or disappeared somehow) something as obviously objectionable and
against the law as actual forced rape he would have been grassed in years
ago, not only was he on tv every week for30 years to jog the ‘victims’
‘memories’, later on anyway, the papers were always looking for dirt on
him.”

We can’t be really sure of that Jonathan. One of things people most say
about those times is that police didn’t take rape cases seriously, treating
victims worse than the perpetrators, unless there was evidence of much
violence and if it showed the girl fought back. Attitudes towards rape are
still questionable, most rapes aren’t even reported. Of course, most people
express disgust towards it and is regarded as one of the worse crimes, but
what people say and the actual actions when it happens are much
different.

“And why no have no complainants come forward to say they were ‘victims’
of him in the 1940′s and early to mid 50′s when he was a young man?”

Don’t know. It may be because those victims are already dead or too old
to bother. Savile surely had to start somewhere. We can speculate on that,
but it surely doesn’t mean the victims are lying.

“And sometimes, when people are writing a stupid or silly story, they
will use celebrities names for the characters. I came across a stupid one
about the Backstreet boys all being gay recently and a good few of people
pretending to have slept with or lost their virginity to popstars etc and
the story is always the same – they turned out to be bastards, and many are
obviously just fantasy…..”

These stories are called fan fiction and they are around for a long time.
They are written by young girls or women, fantasies about their idol. I’ve
come across one about Bon Jovi once. But I’m not sure how this fits in this
scandal, which is a whole different matter altogether.

Jay March 14, 2013 at 00:56

I am still a bit sceptical about the ledger. It’s not an official record
but a ‘Shady Book’, although it is typed. The ‘Mistakes we Made’ report says
little is known of its provenance and the authors believe it was held in an
archive but they don’t know this. There’s no evidence presented that this was
actually a book about paedophiles. The entry quoted does not actually say
Savile frequented a brothel where the girls were underage. Someone later on
has written the word ‘paedophile’ on the ledger. How much later? Also the
police who investigated this case SHOULD be able to say something about where
this ledger has come from, who first found it and where but they cannot. Let’s
imagine the ledger was sent to the police by someone who said they found it in
an attic and it had been put there by their dad who used to be a police
officer and took it with them when they left because they wanted a souvenir
with a celebrity name in. Their son then handed it in when the Savile scanadal
broke. All wild speculation I know but if rather odd looking documents are put
in the pubic realm by investigators who have no idea where they came from,
such speculation might be legitimate.

Call me ideological if you like, but the fact that the police are now
trying to drag a story about ‘coloured’ pimps into the Savile saga-well I want
to see a bit more proof of all this.

Anna
Raccoon March 14, 2013 at 06:51

Absolutely Jay – comment of the week as far as I am concerned!

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 06:53

Yes, Jay has identified What We Must Be Told….

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 00:34

Linda Danvers said: “if I was molested as a teenager? No, but a man
sexuality assaulted me when I was a child. Mewsical, I’m not talking about
Duncroft women here, I’m talking about middle-age men with teens girls, how it
could be morally wrong.

You’re right. I don’t know nothing about Duncroft but what I read here and
in the press. I know you’ve been at Duncroft in the 60′s and never witnessed
any of the things that supposedly happened there in the 70′s. I told you what
I think it happened there. Fiona is the witness to that incident? I thought
she was “Ms. G” of the report. And the other wouldn’t be Deborah Cogger, would
be? (correct me if I wrong, but think that is the women of the corridor
story). I though she left Duncroft by 1976. And why the story about the
television room is ridiculous? Yes, I know Fiona and some of the others were
critical of Keri, I read this here,”

Aha! Now you’re starting to see the tangled web for yourself. No, Fiona is
not Ms. G!

I always get that ‘you weren’t there in the 70s’ b.s. thrown at me, but I
WAS there with the exact same group of staff, and I can assure you that they
were strict for the great part. Let’s look at the joy-riding with Jimmy stuff.
Here’s what all Duncroftians know. The recounting is that he took several of
them in the car, pulled into a lay-by and had his evil way with whoever, while
the rest of them sat around smoking. Don’t make me f-ing laugh. They would
have legged it if they were left unsupervised long enough, especially as the
chaperone was otherwise occupied. We’ve all had a good laugh at that. And
let’s not forget the downright lies told by Bebe Roberts, with the support and
encouragement of the 70s battalion, btw. When that first came down,
Careleavers was still on line. I went on and called Bebe out about it, then
one of the 70s women came back at me, saying “She did it in good faith,”
whatever that’s supposed to mean. Bebe lied about a lot of stuff, and I
suppose we should feel sorry for her. I don’t.

Linda, you’re being yanked big-time by the majority of these fibbers. The
‘man’ who created the blog post about how he beat Jimmy up – oh please! Walter
Mitty at work. And yet you decry Savile for saying he would take matters into
his own hands in the boiler-room, but praise this criminal (by your standards)
for his assault. Both Anna and I work or have worked in law for a long time.
It’s precisely because of her legal training that she is able to take a mess
of innuendo, bad reporting, downright lying, misrepresentation and attempt to
point the way to an obvious truth. That this is a grab for money, no more, no
less, and to take advantage of a money-pit represented by the Savile Estate,
Barnardo’s, the Home Office, NIMH, the BBC, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

I want to say that I’m sorry you had to experience something unpleasant and
unfair when you were younger. Don’t confuse that bum with Savile.

And yes, I did meet Jimmy under professional circumstances. I was not a Top
of the Pops fan particularly (more about Ready, Steady, Go!), but there was no
denying that he was very much liked, knew his music, and the music business.
Not my cup of tea, but he was nothing but business-like and easygoing when I
experienced him. I was, I hasten to say, about 20 at the time.

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 01:15

Mewsical,

I thought the guy or guys coming online bragging about the time they beat
Jimmy Savile up were at it too, lol….

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 01:43

Well, if Fiona is not Ms. G and she is Ms. B, who is Ms. G? Because the
report mentioned she appeared in the TV. documentary (or it was an
interview?). And the other, is she Deborah Cogger? I remember her interview
and it was one of the interviews that convinced me that the “abuse”at
Duncroft may have been exaggerated. She described a sleazy character who
enjoyed groping and kissing girls, but she also said he had his “favourites”
(didn’t she said they were the older ones?) and that they all were very
happy when he came around, that he remained at Duncroft (I don’t remember
she mentioning car rides and spending the nights there) and his visits were
sporadic. She enjoys talking to the press, and the interview had the
dramatics (it was tabloid), but has some details. About the car rides,
didn’t Miss Jones told that she allowed the girls to go in unsupervised car
rides with Savile at least once? I remember reading something like this in
that article by the Daily Mail. Yes, I agree with you about Bebe Jones, you
all did a good work in exposing her and others.

About the man who beat JS, it wasn’t from a blog I took the story. I
think I know which blog you’re talking about, that man reposted the story he
took from somewhere else. It first appeared in a football forum (of Leeds
United), in a thread created just after Savile died. It is from an old
poster and this poster is respected there. Anyway, the story seems true to
me. And Savile had bouncers at his clubs. He had back ups, he could beat
these kids without worrying about them . In the other instance he was alone
and the bouncers were not his friends. I work at law as well (but I work at
courts, not as a lawyer or solicitor), and I know how lawyers work when they
want to discredit a story.

I know many people had good stories about Jimmy. When I read the Mail
piece about his death there were a lot of comments of people who met him and
had a good opinion of him. This could mean something, but it also couldn’t
mean much. The met him once or twice, it doesn’t mean they knew him.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 08:07

Linda_Danvers,

Ms B (of the CPS report) said she would have been 14 in 1978 (I
think)….

Linda_Danvers March
14, 2013 at 11:49

Ah, okay. So Ms. B is not Fiona. Because Fiona was 14 or 15 in 1974.
She was part of the mid-70′s group, wasn’t she? It is said she even
appeared at Clunk Click.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 14:11

Linda_Danvers,

Good point, though, if that is the case, and what is said in the
Ornament report is correct, she may not be Ms G either? If, as it says
in the ornament report, Ms G (called Ms G in the CPS report, not the
Ornament report) didn’t start Duncroft until 1976, then she couldn’t
have been there in 1974 when the last series of Clunk Click was aired,
unless it was another show she was on and she did start in 1976?

I will say one thing, unless the Ornament report has it’s details
wrong, Ms G (as she is referred to in the CPS report), is said in the
Ornament report to have been born in 1960? Which, if she was Fiona,
would have made her around 52 when the Exposure programme was filmed,
do you think she looked 52? I thought she looked older….

They could turn this into a board game….

Linda_Danvers March
14, 2013 at 15:21

According to IMDB Clunk Click ended in 1974. But who would be Ms. G
then? It is stated in the report she did interviews for television (at
Exposure?) and the only Duncroft women I remember at TV interviews is
Fiona, Karin, and the girl he assaulted at the motor home. Could it be
her? I forgot her name. It is not stated she was part of mid-70′s group,
she only talked about the assault. Did the report mentioned other
things,?I read almost two months ago. IRRC, it was said Ms. G stated at
the TV interview Savile made her do sexual acts with him, but she what
she talked to the police investigator is that he just propositioned her.

Yes, Fiona did indeed looked older than 52. But she could have aged
badly.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 17:04

Who ever Ms G (of the CPS report) is, she must have went to
Duncroft and done a television interview, claiming a little more than
“being asked for a blowjob” – I thought Fiona fitted the description
pretty well – but the dates don’t fit, then again, they might just be
getting the dates wrong, but then how hard would it have been for the
police to check…?

I think Alison Levitt claimed to have watched the ITV Exposure, The
BBC Panorama. and the ITV Exposure update, perhaps she was referring
to someone in a tv interview other than was shown in those…?

Though if she was, I missed it….

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 21:28

Mina Field,

Yes, I feel there wouldn’t really be too much support for the poor old
sod…

But I don’t personally believe he’s guilty – I think if some of the
accusations are ‘true’ (or have any truth in them), they’ll be the tamer ones
that could probably have been on the spectrum of ‘normal’, but have been
exaggerated to sound worse than they are.

I think if he was a ‘serial sex offender’ a man of his profile would have
been brought to justice years ago – he was on tv every week for about 30 years
for God sake.

I also find the lack of complaints from before the age of 30 suspicious
and, if there was any serious dirt on him, why did the ITV Exposure programme
have to be filled with such questionable accusations….?

Mina Field
March 13, 2013 at 22:20

@Lucozade
I agree, and don’t believe any of it either, for the same
reasons. The only saving grace is that he was well aware of the Icke-like
insinuations and the weirdos who made false accusations even whilst he was
alive, and wouldn’t give a stuff what they say once he died. Except to look
at the leadership of the country and think, ‘ffs, has nobody got a brain’. I
liked his quip, ‘it could be worse – it could be true’!

rabbitaway
March 13, 2013 at 23:24

Yep Sir J was smart alright – he was well aware that the ONE thing that
really protected him from prosecution was the fact that there was NO
credible evidence that would lead to conviction. He could and did
rightfully invoke the law against any scum paper that threatened running a
story that would ruin him. Once again I say, that I do not believe for a
minute that rags such as the screws or the Sun etc would have hesitated to
print a libelous story, had they felt confidant, that is to say, if they
had some pretty good evidence. No, they knew they had nothing and
demonstrated this by ducking out of a bout with George Carman QC at the
Old Bailey after the Jersey photo thing. So the abuse of children was of
lesser importance than the miserable millions they would forfeit WHEN they
lost.

Lucozade
March 13, 2013 at 23:58

Rabbitaway,

Great point, if there was any substance to those allegations their
would have been a very serious risk of the tables being turned on him,
as happened with Oscar Wilde, yet he showed no fear in confronting the
papers with the law.

The Sun were after him that year, they failed with Haut de la
garrene, and nearly succeeded with the Sussex women they persuaded to go
to the police in the hope others would follow suit – and they could sell
newspapers….

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 12:02

You mean the Sussex woman, not women. The Sun did the right thing
saying she should look for the police first (not that feel any warmth
towards the paper). And journalists and colleagues said most of them
were well aware of the rumours and explained why they couldn’t print
them (though they almost did in some instances). Libel laws protected
him.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 13:13

Linda _Danvers,

Libel laws only protected him because the stories were false and
the papers knew it, why else were they so keen to settle out of
court?

You can see what Rabbitaway has said above – ditto!!

Usually i’d say yes the papers were right to advise the woman (and
yes I meant to say ‘woman’, not ‘women’ it was a mis-spell) to go to
the police and she should have gone to the police and not the papers,
but not in this instance.

You read the complaint, she was 22, it was 38 years ago and it was
not really a sexual assault, if it even happened….

They wanted her to go to the police in the hope it could be
publisised and them maybe “others would follow” – which is what has
happened now more or less.

They couldn’t publish spurious false claims for fear of libel – but
Jimmy Savile being arrested for a “sex offense” would have been a
better story anyway wouldn’t it?

It was motivated by a selfish desire to make money selling
newspapers – note what Rabbitaway says above, the thought of loosing
money was more important to them than the imaginary “child abuse” they
claimed to have evidence of so they ducked out and settled out of
court.

Jimmy was happy enough to go ahead.

You might have heard what happened to Oscar Wilde during his libel
case? It backfired cause the otherside was able to show he was guilty
and the up shot was he ended up being tried for gross indecency. This
would have happened to Jimmy Savile had anyone had any evidence – and
it wasn’t even a newspaper (who should be good at finding evidence)
that Oscar Wilde tried to sue – it was his boyfriends dad….

Suing for libel can only get you so far, if it can be shown that
your guilty (i.e with evidence – it will backfire on you).

Yet it was the Sun and not Savile that never wanted to let it go
that far….

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 15:07

Lucazode,

Actually, the Sunday Mirror (I think) almost ran a story about JS
allegedly sexual abuse, the journalists said they believed the women, but
their legal advisors suggest not do it.I would suggest the same thing.
Historical abuse cases are difficult to prove (but not impossible) JS would
have the best lawyers working for him, a trial would be emotionally draining
for the women and everyone involved, they probably would suffer verbal
abuse. And he could win in the end, even if he was guilty. Justice is not
always done (working at courts, I know that well). As for JS, he would
possibly suffer emotional abuse as well, but remember he was a high profile
charity fundraiser, who worked on a children’s show making their dreams come
true, mates with Prince Charles, etc. I think the public would be on his
side. And the women are just the women.

“I also find the lack of complaints from before the age of 30 suspicious
and, if there was any serious dirt on him, why did the ITV Exposure
programme have to be filled with such questionable accusations”

I don’t find that suspicious. He would have had to started at some time.
And the only questionable accusation I find from ITV documentary is from
Fiona. I find the other two women very credible, if you ask me.

Moor Larkin March 14, 2013 at 15:21

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 15:07
Actually, the Sunday Mirror (I
think) almost ran a story about JS

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?q=SUNDAY+MIRROR

Linda_Danvers March
14, 2013 at 15:52

They two stories have their similarites. But also their differences,
the first one they talked to the press, not the police. It was a
relative who first talked to them, and in this story it seems both were
abused, not one. And we are not sure if it was Duncroft the “children’s
home”.And I wouldn’t call Duncroft “children’s home”

What strikes me in the report about Duncroft is how tame the story
was. It was sexual assault, but it was far from being a life shattering
event. He hardly touched the girl. Even Ms. C didn’t think it was a big
deal, IRRC. I’m not sure they would get much compo for that. If they
wanted money, why not create a more abusive story? In which both were
abused? I believe what happened at Duncroft was exaggerated, and many of
these girls were willing. Let’s wait the civil lawsuit results. I hope
Pannone, which is obviously using the press to search for pontential
“clients” (hello Rolls Royce boy), don’t get a penny.

Moor Larkin March 14, 2013 at 15:59

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 15:52
And I wouldn’t call
Duncroft “children’s home”

HMIC obviously see it so because that’s why Savile has now been
linked to sex with children in police files as early as 1964….
You
begin to see how this game works?….

Anna
Raccoon March 14, 2013 at
17:20

Given the huge cost of defending such an action, and the resulting
unpleasant publicity – ‘BBC call innocent child abuse victim a liar’
etc., etc., Home Office allege child ‘was asking for sex’ etc, etc – I
suspect you will find these cases will be settled out of court with
nominal payments to those who have some evidence of even having met
Savile, who will promptly go to the press with stories along the lines
of – ‘fobbed off with £8,000 for a ruined life after being raped by
Savile’.
That’s my prediction anyway.

mewsical March
14, 2013 at 18:02

Linda Danvers said: “Following his comments, I found another one
which also mention this (I need to find something to do)”

Yes, Linda, you really, really do. You’re a young woman, who
should be out with friends enjoying herself, not squatting over a
computer, projecting some unfortunate childhood incidents and a
love-affair with a middle-aged man – which I assume didn’t work out
– onto Jimmy Savile. My advice – stay away from snake-pits like
Digital Spy (there are few okay folks over there, but otherwise it’s
peculiar), and also, though it’s been nice encountering you, and
discussing your opinions on the Savile situation, you are banging
away about stuff that we already know about, as someone else said,
which makes it all a bit tedious. You aren’t going to change any
minds over here, but I hope that you do realize that this is a very
serious situation and you cannot constantly take the word of the
press or the police when it suits your agenda, then try and ram it
down the neck of those who have spent a lot more time examining this
situation from the inside, and KNOW it’s mostly poppycock,
invention, and an attempt to get either money, attention or
both.

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 18:57

Yes, you’re right mewsical. Sorry bothering you all, but it was
a nice discussion (at least for me) and you all certainly brought
a new fresh perpectives to the situation. I still do think Savile
was a child abuser, but not in the level the press paints him to
be . I’ll continue following Anna Raccoon’s blog, but not
commenting much.
Best regards!

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 16:13

Linda_Danvers,

Re: “JS would have the best lawyers working for him, a trial would be
emotionally draining for the women and everyone involved, they probably
would suffered verbal abuse. And he could win in the end, even if he was
guilty. Justice is not always done (working at courts, I know that
well)”

I would have thought that The Sun or The Mirror would have been able to
afford some pretty damned good lawyers aswell, no?

And in the case of the Mirror A.) The legal advisors clearly weren’t
convinced enough (yes, I am aware of the problems with some historic cases
with being able to find enough ‘evidence’, but we do not no all the
details here) and B.) Despite what they said recently about the women not
wanting money for the story, I don’t believe that for a second, and there
is no reason why I should as lots of lies are and have been told in the
media about this, and although I don’t think being a drug addict (which
apparently one of the women was at the time) should go against you in a
court of law, it does call into question her motives for wanting to sell a
story. Could it have been to make a quick buck to spend on drugs?

Also with the Haut de la garrene thing, as the detective in charge
himself said back in October “there had been no specific allegations of
abuse made against the BBC presenter” at that time, so it was basically
just rumor and speculation put about by the Sun Newspaper in a bid to
blacken a man’s name an encourage people to come forward with spurious
accusations….

Re: “And the only questionable accusation I find from ITV Documentary
is from Fiona. I find the other two women very credible, if you ask
me”

As it says in the bible (Proverbs 18:17): “The first to present his
case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him”….

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 21:28

Linda Danvers said: mewsical, “I think I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t mean
“young women” when I wrote “above 16″. I meant teenage girls, 16, 17, 18. From
what I read about JS, he did make clear what his preferences were. Even the
producer of “Jim’ll Fix It” said so, and I don’t think he made that up. Just
because a teen is above the legal age of consent it doesn’t make it ok a
middle-age man sleep with these girls. Not illegal, but morally questionable.
A person doesn’t magically become an adult just because they turned 16. Of
course, some girls, even lower than 16 may be more mature than an adult
person, but these examples are not the rule.”
I’m not sure if you’re
writing from within a convent or something, but girls are considered
marrigeable by 16, even in stuffy old England. Some women like men who are a
little older as well. Teenage boys can be a real nuisance sometimes – not
experienced at all. And this constant tut-tutting about younger women and
‘middle-aged’ men is getting boring. I absolutely disagree with you, and what
women choose to do once they are considered to be of age is not illegal, not
immoral, and none of anyone’s business but theirs and their partner’s. This is
just a lot of lace-curtain twitching, imo. It must be nice to be so pure and
above reproach that one can sit in judgment on everyone else.

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 23:27

I agree with you Mewsical, if it is so morally wrong for someone over the
age of 16 to go out with someone old enough to be her dad then why have no
laws been passed to stop it?

Is it because the people who made the laws consider that over that age
you should be entitled to make your own decisions on the subject?

My cousin is married to a man old enough to be her dad and I remember my
dad pointing out that she’d probably out live him by a long way (they got
together when she was 17 – years ago), but if their happy, their happy, hes
a least 20 years older than her, but it’s not nessiserliy
set in stone
he’ll die long before her and most relationships are just casual and not
thinking as far ahead as marriage, kids etc

So the way I see it live and let live, if they are happy together and
enjoy each other’s company, thats what should matter more than how old each
of them are.

Moor Larkin March
13, 2013 at 20:33

@ There needs to be a change in the law to protect the dead @

Oh God don’t, you’ll start them off about the Necrophilia next…………..

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 18:24

Mewsical, perhaps they feel the need to wade in if they see their mums
being dissed, but then most of the dissing has really been at the expense of
Jimmy Savile, others arrested and the BBC etc

However, they can’t expect everyone to have an identical opinion – if they
have put themselves in the public eye, as with celebrities – people talk.

Most of the talk has been in their favour though…

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 17:41

Blimee – I’m getting carried away with all this. Ok, maybe I’m being a bit
hard on the PA – just goes to show how the hacks go after the easy pickings.
After all, she did appear on the second program – so called ‘update’ ……as I
recall this was some months after the original by which time Sir Jim had been
well and truly f**k’d by everyone – she shudda declined like the headmistress
did. Anyway, no harm meant to her – I just want some ‘justice’ for Jim.
Regards to all.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 17:10

Moor – to me she aided and abetted MWT in that program. To be fair, she did
say that she had not witnessed any inappropriate behaviour but her story was
further ammunition for the prosecution. She was certainly (and understandably)
upset at her dismissal after 30 or so years of service but she knew what the
program was about !. What I find hard to understand was why she retained so
many of Jimmy’s personal papers – his diaries and so on…..in her garage !
?

Moor
Larkin March 13, 2013 at 17:21

The forum order is beginning to break down now, so this is a reply to
this Post:
@ rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 17:10
Moor – to me she aided
and abetted MWT in that program.

I felt that way at first, but then I re-watched and I think she thought
she could “set the record straight” with MWT by taking part, but of course
she was edited to make MWT and the *scandal* look good.

I really hope she keeps her garage secure. I’m not sure I was so
surprised she had all that memorabilia in her garage but rather that the
“control-freak” Savile, had allowed her to have it all….. it left me
concluding he was not really so “controlling” after all, and seemed entirely
un-bothered about what might be seen in his files…… And he was evidently
curiously disinterested about all his pictures with al those “powerful and
important people” who enabled his offending all those years….. /sarcasm

rabbitaway
March 13, 2013 at 20:45

Response to Moor 17.10 comment
Hi Moor I concur – I’m not sure that
the woman (his PA) really understood what she was getting into – plus
didn’t she agree to let MWT have the library or did I mishear that ?

SO right about the control freak bit – aye exactly why was his stuff
doing in her garage. JS kept everything – his auction included every item
of clothes he ever wore on TOTP and every postcard from HRH etc…….!

Mina Field
March 13, 2013 at 20:55

@rabbitaway
re: auction. The Dan Davies (have I got the right
name?) mentioned elsewhere on here, was tweeting like a kid in a sweet
shop on auction day. He wanted to buy Anything, so besotted was he with
his hero.

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 16:30

Just going to say this once more, because I was there. There were “working
girls” at Duncroft in the 60s. The ones I knew didn’t have a problem with the
lifestyle, and they were nice enough people. One of them, in fact, was turning
tricks to pay for her continued education, so she could make something better
of herself. They may or may not have had Jamaican pimps, never said. The one I
know personally did have a Jamaican pimp, but he never had anything to do with
white men at that level – he had plenty of customers among arriving Africans
and the Jamaican population. As well as their music business connections,
Jamaicans also had extremely good weed for sale, as well as being notorious
pill peddlers. I remember being at one of the ska clubs back in 1965 or so,
and the police raided the place. There were pills all over the floor, people
dumping them off, and the cops pulled the ceiling off (false ceiling) and were
showered with leapers! It was pretty funny really. I managed to sneak out
through the back, so wasn’t arrested, but I heard quite a lot of people
were.

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 15:00

Good point Anna.

He said in one interview he was a “not again child” and never spoke much
because nobody would have listened anyway, that can’t be great for a kids
confidence…

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 13:48

Moor, as annoying and, perhaps even uncomfortable, that incident might have
made that girl feel, you can’t really say that that sortvof of behavior is
only restricted to a small few that are severe sexual deviants – unfortunately
guys that behave like that (occasionally) are 10 a penny, though doing it
public is far worse, though to be honest you couldn’t really see what he was
doing, she was sitting down wearing tights or trousers and a turtle neck and I
didn’t see him go for anywhere too private…

In the audio recording of him horsing around with the young girl, it’s
impossible to know what was going on, how old the girl was, though on second
listening it seems like maybe the girls mum and dad are actually present
too.

One thing I will say is that when me and my sisters and cousins were
little, we loved it when our Grandpa woud visit because he’d put us on his
knee and tickle us mercilessly, we usually begged him to do it, so we had to
wait for him to “finish his fag first”. What would an audio recording of that
have sounded like if the listener never knew what was going on? There is a
video of him tickling my cousins right enough, lol…

Jay March 12, 2013 at 23:51

The ‘Mistakes we Made’ report title is certainly apt if wikpedia is to be
believed. ‘Rocky Raccoon’ helpfully supplied a web page showing that ‘WA’
refers to Battersea police station: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collar_number. As you can see
Battersea is in Wandsworth and all the Wandsworth police stations begin with
W. So far so good. However according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Wandsworth,
Battersea only became part of Wandsworth in 1965.

Ok, this report is meant to date ‘approximately’ from 1964. So it could
have been 1965. But did the collar number start with ‘WA’ from 1965 to
present? I’m still a bit sceptical about this record. Something here just
doesn’t ring true. I’d love to be able to see the original. Is it actually on
yellowed paper from 1964 (or 1965) with ‘WA’ written on it in fountain pen?
How did the enquiry come to acquire the ledger? Who found it? The only way a
1964 ledger would be in an electronic record would be if it was scanned in. In
which case an electronic search facility would not have found Savile’s name.
OK, maybe Savile had a manual file. But was it preserved from 1964 until the
next lot of allegations were made-a 1998 anonymous letter about a celebrity
which little could have been done about wthout some hard evidence? After all,
celebrities always get hate mail. It’s a bit hard to totally condemn the
police for not launching a big investigation over this.

Yes, Savile was an abuser (putting your hand up a woman’s skirt when she
obviously doesn’t want you to do it=abuse) but I am a bit dubious about all
the details here. Anna said a while ago on this blog that she was in Battersea
in the mid-1960s and afterwards this strange document appears in a police
file. It really is a bit of a coincidence.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 08:18

@ putting your hand up a woman’s skirt when she obviously doesn’t want
you to do it=abuse @

Is it? I can see how it would reasonably be termed assault, but unless
the man was doing it repeatedly, on several different occasions, to an
unwilling woman I’m struggling to see that it could be labelled “abuse”. You
still haven’t told us what incident exactly you are talking about, but I am
assuming it is the 18 year-old on Top of the Pops. So far as I can tell from
the footage the woman was a good arms length from Savile and he was
surrounded by a crowd of laughing women who all seemed to think that
whatever was going on was hilarious – so presumably he may thought, not
unwelcome. Savile never even turns to check he is touching the right girl,
so if it was his hand, he didn’t even know WHO he was “feeling up”. Not
until she jumped anyhow, and I’m still puzzling how Savile must have had
arms like a chimpanzee to have done what he is supposed to have been doing
in that crowd.

Was it even his hand that was doing whatever was being done? I recall at
school that I and my mates would take some delight in pulling the right-hand
pigtail of girl in front of us when we were on the left, and then the boy on
our right would likely get the blame. The fact that the girl was convinced
it was HIM made him no more guilty than the volume of her clamour. Watching
Savile’s body-shape in that clip makes me wonder how he generated so much
leverage with so little shoulder movement – to have done what has been
alleged in the last months.

Of course, if a woman is utterly convinced that a celebrity has been
abusing children, it’s quite understandable that she might want to add
whatever fuel she can, to his bonfire, even if it means she has to chuck on
some accelerant of her own, more recent invention.

Woman on a
Raft March 14, 2013 at 21:18

Is it?

Yes. Are you seriously in any doubt about the rule about keeping your
hands to yourself? If not, let me illuminate. The behaviour is more
properly graded as ‘habituation’ which is a testing strategy.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 13, 2013 at 13:40

Here’s a video of the Collattors ledger 1963 – 1981, which has the
printed title ‘Shady File & Policy Book’
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-12/documents-show-savile-was-known-to-police-in-1964/

Deciphering the report isn’t easy, for example does ’2 yrs imp.’ mean two
years imprisonment?
Could the entries be various cases rather than just
one, for example the name associated with the Central Criminal Court is said
to have no connection with two other people, one of which was thought to be
in Holland.

A trawl through court papers & local press may shed some light on the
matter.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 13:45

Yay!! Spindler’s back!! I wondered where he had got to…..
Interesting
1963-1981…. means that scrawl on the front was written in……. 1981…

Anna
Raccoon March 13, 2013 at
14:55

Mmmn, and that was Book Two – so book one maybe shows Savile in 1943,
aged 4 1/2 going into a sweet shop in York, where the owner was later
arrested for?

carol42 March 12, 2013 at 23:27

I find all this quite fascinating Susanne, what an interesting life you
have led. I just wish someone somewhere in the media would say these are
allegations and demand some evidence however little. You brought back memories
of London in the 60s, these awful bedsits with snow coming in the window at
times but as teenagers I don’t think we even felt it or suffered from living
on chips to keep our money for cigarettes and a drink, happy days.

Cassandra March 12, 2013 at 18:16

Sorry – I was replying to wrong post, and I find I’ve repeated some of your
points in this one. Anyhow this and the TV licence refusenik story do make you
wonder about what kind of testimony Yewtree was receiving. But that, I guess,
we’ll never know.

mewsical March 12, 2013 at 18:08

Wasn’t that the place where you met Art Sharp from the Nashville Teens,
Anna? He ended up working for Don Arden for many years. Parenthetically, Don
has a daughter called Sharon, who is better-known these days as Sharon
Osbourne, wife/manager of Ozzy. Don has passed on.

Cassandra March 12, 2013 at 18:07

Some other oddities in the HMIC report. One Yewtree claimant says he
reported being raped by Savile to Cheshire police in 1963 but was told to
‘forget it’ and ‘move on’. An unlikely phrase for 1963. And an odd reaction
for a time when all gay sex was illegal and police were often zealous in
prosecuting gay men, particularly if they were famous.The Duncton memo is
interesting but I can’t remember any of the media interviews with ex-Duncton
women mentioning a house in Battersea, ‘coloured’ men or absconding. Maybe I
missed something.

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 08:19

that was odd considering the police went out of their way to pursue
‘celebs’ like the Rolling Stones and The Beatles who were far more famous
and powerful.
This is a re-write of history- police hated long haired
celebrity rock’n’rollers.

rabbitaway March 12, 2013 at 17:43

Oh no – another Savile investigation or not actually. The torygraph latest
attempt to keep Jimmy in the headlines – ‘Hillsborough and Jimmy Savile
investigator probes nhs deaths’ I couldn’t resist posting my own comment
……

Moor
Larkin March 12, 2013 at 14:46

@ Savile clearly did abuse some teenagers, it was even filmed once. @

What? Do you mean that footage of the 18 year old in a crowd of other
girls? I think “abuse” is rather over-egging the pudding.
Or do you mean
something else?

Elena ‘andcart
March 12, 2013 at 14:54

The girl who was laughing while the unseen, supposed abuse was going on?
Yep, I thought that was funny as well.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 02:42

Not abuse, I agree. But he did sexually assaulted that teenage girl in
national television. Why did he do that? And all she could do was nervously
laugh. No way a presenter would survive that nowadays.

Anna
Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 07:43

Linda, would I be right in thinking that you are aged around 30?

Linda_Danvers March
13, 2013 at 11:34

Yes, I am.

Anna
Raccoon March 13, 2013 at
11:56

I didn’t mean to ‘put you down’ by that question – it just explains
a lot to me of your perspective. For instance, take the matter of
‘coloured people’ in a house in South London – in 1963 that was still
such a rarity that it would be memorable, especailly outside of
Brixton, as in ‘I had a black neighbour’, whereas today it is so
common it woulnd’t be memorable. In ’63, virtually every lodging house
had a sign saying ‘no blacks, no irish, no unmarrieds’ in the window –
often it was how you knew that they did rent rooms!

Linda_Danvers March
13, 2013 at 12:40

It’s ok. I understand. I can’t really tell an honest account of
racial relations and sexual attitudes back in the 60′s or 70′s, because
I wasn’t there. I take my opinion from what other people say. Some
accounts from different people (especially regarding sexual attitudes)
are contradictory, but I can tell groping and pinching were almost
acceptable back then. What got me in that video footage was the gall
Savile had to do that in national television. I don’t care much if the
girl enjoyed, found funny or was embaressed (my theory), but his
actions.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 12:59

@ What got me in that video footage was the gall Savile had to do
that in national television @

He was definitely touching them, you are right.
My memory from
watching the footage was awry.
He wasn’t doing it to just the one
young woman though.
He evidently got the girl in front of him too,
it’s very clear in this clip – you see her dress move.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKrYbTiiaME
Were
the girls watching themselves on a big screen? The one to Savile’s
left especially seems to be staring upwards at something.
The woman
who has taken recent offence seems to be sitting down too?

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) March 13, 2013 at
14:02

@ Moor Larkin
There would normally be monitors hanging down from
the lighting grid. Jimmy Savile seems to rub his knee against the girl
in front so her dress rises.

@Linda Danvers
People may look back and say oh my god, but think
of Vic Reeves character on Shooting Stars rubbing his hands up down
his thighs and his dealings with the females on the show. More
recently there’s the Avid Merion character who is allowed to get away
with allsorts mainly with female guests. Create a comic character that
is tactile with females and your laughing, for many Savile was a comic
character which allowed him to do things publicly and it was seen as a
laugh?

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 14:12

@ Rocky Raccoon (no relation)

You reckon Jimmy is sitting too?
OMG!! No blankets around I
hope………

Keith Lemon was proposing to be the new Jim not so long ago….
“On
Lemonaid he will be helped each week by a different celebrity.
He
said: “I’m very excited to be in t’living rooms of the lovely ITV1
viewers with me new telly show. Solving people’s problems and making
dreams come true, making me look nice like Cheryl Cole, like when she
went out to t’troops.

“She’s lovely in’t she? Not as fit as Kelly Brook though! If anyone
has ever dreamed of meeting her, let me know – I can hook you up, I
know her in real life.”

ITV entertainment commissioner Claire Zolkwer added: “We’re
absolutely thrilled. He’s been entertaining the ITV2 audience on
Celebrity Juice for six series and his unique brand of naughty but
nice is going to bring some colour and fun to family Saturday evenings
on ITV1.”
Jim’ll Fix It ran from 1975 to 1994 and BBC bosses, who
brought it back for a Boxing Day special with Shane Richie, are
considering commissioning a new series.”
http://celebjuicefan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/keith-lemon-to-host-jimll-fix-it-style.html

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 15:12

Yes Moor, she was sitting. I think she even said that in an
interview. I think they were watching themselves, the studio may have
had a TV screen up there. I can’t watch the video right now because
I’m at work . And Rocky, I’m not so sure if groping a teenage girl on
national TV was acceptable back then. Maybe people were ok with some
touching, Savile did that a lot. But in that instance the camera
zoom’s on Savile’s face, as if to not show what was happening.

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 08:15

look you are saying strange things…there is no film of Savile abusing
someone on TV.
There is footage of a girl jumping which could have been
him poking her in the ribs but reaching under her backside?..and knowing
he was on film?
I suppose anything is possible but it does seem
improbable.

And remember the same complainant said her life was ruined and caused
her marriage break-up 35 years later.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 11:39

@ No way a presenter would survive that nowadays. @

Being insultingly disgusting about shagging an old bloke’s
grand-daughter doesn’t seem to have done Wossy & Bwandy’s careers much
harm.

The supposed assault on the 18 year-old has cropped up just below this
lines of comments too, in case you haven’t spotted it. This *forum* gets a
bit cluttered as the posts mount up….

Jay March 12, 2013 at 14:29

The personal account given re. Duncroft here is fascinating. I personally
believe that all allegations of abuse need to be taken on their merits. There
is a hell of a lot of abuse out there but allegations must be investigated
properly before condemning someone. Savile clearly did abuse some teenagers,
it was even filmed once. However, allegations against Savile also seem to
implicate living people, for example in terms of neglect of a duty of care. So
it is only right for all the allegations to be examined thoroughly.

One thing I am interested in re. the Battersea Bridge Road allegations:

On one page we see that the police have intelligence about a house used by
‘older’ Duncroft girls. The age of consent back then was 16 wasn’t it? But the
police at some point seem to have thought this was something to do with
paedophillia as the record is held by the Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit.
The stuff on the next page about pimping says nothing about Savile and does
not indicate that it is talking about the house referred to on the first page,
so this entry is not very enlightening one way or another. The only link is
Duncroft- it could be about other Duncroft girls living elsewhere who never
met Savile.

I am fascinated by this record Anna (if you don’t mind me addressing you
directly and assuming you actually read this post!). After all the police
report says that Savile went there. If you were staying there around that
time, wouldn’t you have known about this? Could it be that Savile only started
visiting the house sometime after you left and you just didn’t get to hear
about this on the grapevine? The police report says of the ledger ‘little is
known of its provenance’. I think the police should say what this ‘little’ is
however. Presumably this was found in some archive of police records
somewhere. The usual implication by those sceptical about some of the Savile
claims is that some people may be putting forward false allegations to get
compensation or for some sort of deep-seated personal reason. This can hardly
apply to police finding a report in an archive. So I find this ledger very
interesting. The police were convinced Savile was going to this house and it
was something to do with paedophilia but you never heard of him going there. I
do think a good way of starting to resolve this issue would be for someone to
make a Freedom of Information request to find out a bit more about which
archive the ledger was found in and when it was likely to have been put there.
Was there an MPS paedophile unit in 1964. Or was this ledger taken from some
other archive (e.g. vice) and transferred to this archive later on.

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2013 at 15:05

As I explained to an earlier poster, I don’t think it can have been the
same house. Hell of a coincidence being the same road, same time, mind.

The house I lived in, flat actually, was rented by two girls who were
very respectable secretaries, and there were absolutely no coloured people
there – (I have strong memories of the racism of that time!) They did run a
fan cub for the Animals who were a major group at the time, and one of them
worked for Don Arden (major league record producer) so it is not impossible
that Jimmy Savile might have visited THAT house at some time – or even
‘intelligence’ that Jimmy Savile visited ‘a’ house in Battersea Bridge Road
at the time – it could be faulty reporting. (I have seen a social services
report which claims that I was a dancer with the famous Bluebelle troupe in
Paris – I have two left feet and have never donned an ostriche feather in my
life!). I am quite, quite certain that neither of the girls I lived with
were ex-Duncroft either.

So, it is possible that there were other ex-Duncroft girls living in
Battersea Bridge Raod at the time, that they were known prostitutes, and
that Jimmy Savile was a visitor to the house where their pimp lived (not
necessarily the same house on careful reading of the entry) but it
definitely wasn’t the same place where I was! Since these other two girls
were self evidently adults, otherwise they wouldn’t have been ‘ex-Duncroft’
then they would have been older than me, and I wouldn’t necessarily have
known them even if we met in the street. I have never, ever, met Jimmy
Savile!

What does occur to me is that whoever wrote that intelligence in 1964,
might have been aware of the incident where I was found to be living in that
street and subsequently ‘escaped’ on route to Battersea Police Station and
decided to embellish the evidence against the pimp by claiming that ‘it was
known that Duncroft absconders stayed in the house’.

Given that Duncroft was such a very small establishment, and given my
experience of being termed a ‘Bluebelle dancer’I wouldn’t be in the
slightest bit surprised. Someone must have been a bit pissed off to have
returned to the station without me, having been given the address I was to
be collected from.

Duncan
Disorderly March 12, 2013 at 15:17

Would it be usual to have the name of the school so prominent in such
crime reports when it is not (apparently) directly relevant? I wonder if
Duncroft has appeared in earlier police intelligence that makes it
relevant.

I feel that the full story about Duncroft is just ready to be told, and
it just needs someone to investigate properly.

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2013 at
15:19

According to Ms Sharpling – that 1964 report is the earliest known
indication of a connection with Duncroft. Bloody odd, since that was
precisely the same time I was found to be living in that road……

Ellen Coulson
(nee Dunn) March 12, 2013 at
15:34

Actually having looked at entries again there is no reason at all
to suppose that Savile had anything at all to do with the second
entry. Strange they couldn’t spell his name correctly in the first
entry!

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 16:18

The pimp I am aware of was a bartender at the Oxford and Cambridge Club
at the time.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 12, 2013 at 16:20

Re the MPS ledger entry, I suspect “Battersea Bridge Road (WA)” refers
to the police station and police division, the address of the house of ill
repute was just located somewhere in Battersea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collar_number

Elena
‘andcart March 12, 2013 at 16:43

So how did “Duncroft Girls” get into this? It sounds to me as though
someone has joined up the wrong dots and got the Horse’s Arse instead of
the Asse’s Tale.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) March 12, 2013 at
17:06

Having recently witnessed a crime and provided information to the
police I’m aware how it can change, despite what they’ve written
down.

If Drusilla Sharpling is so concerned about ‘joining up the dots’
wouldn’t she be able to check CPS/DPP and court records regarding the
second entry and put it to bed?

Maybe Anna could write to Drusilla and ask if her name appears in
the ledger entries on those pages?

I love the
BBC March 12, 2013 at 18:57

Anna I think the only reason these girls were ‘ex Duncroft’ is because
they were absconders. Although if they had been under age one would have
expected the police to remove them back to Duncroft.
I’m thinking that
your musings about the entry could be right. It makes a good deal more
sense than there being another house in close proximity where Duncroft
absconders were also living.

Elena
‘andcart March 12, 2013 at 19:28

I don’t want to put ideas into people’s heads, especially as I could
be wrong. But it sounds like someone has been trawling and jumped the
gun. Anna wasn’t a Duncroft Absconder when living in Battersea Bridge
Road. but she was removed from a Flat in that road at somewhere around
the pertinent time, but was at Duncroft later. Two and two make ten, so
“Duncroft Girls living in a Brothel in that area” is just a stretch of
the imagination. Entirely in my opinion, of course.

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 19:35

There really were Duncroft girls who were on the game and on the
run at that time. However, ironically, we were right behind the BBC
White City when I was aware of it. Not me, hasten to add, but I did
know one of them. She’d done a bunk a couple of times in the twelve
month period leading up to this Battersea Road business. The pimp was
Jamaican, from St. Kit’s. I’ve noticed in my records that there is a
tendency to either muddle things up, or outright misrepresent. I do
know one of the girls, in fact, I have a photo of she and I taken in a
photo booth at Waterloo while we were waiting for the pimp to come and
get us. He then accompanied us to Folkestone, so I could find my
b.f.

I love the BBC
March 12, 2013 at 14:02

Can someone tell me if it is a common trait in human sexuality to be
attracted to both sexes and all ages and to be prepared to use violence to
obtain sex with them? It strikes me just as likely the cops couldnt reconcile
the idea of a man using rent boys at the same time as surrounding himself with
young girls.

Mina Field
March 12, 2013 at 18:33

@ I love the BBC
No, I’m fairly sure its unheard of. Yet not a murmur
of this has been heard from any one of these ‘inquiries’.

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 08:03

I just made a posted a similar query. It’s not something I have heard
of.

But what does this say about me : Savile never crossed my mind in all the
years I saw him on TV- neither interested or dis-interested but the times I
read an interview with him I thought he must be celibate.

Mina Field March 12, 2013 at 13:05

Thank you Anna. On days like this I’d be banging my head against a wall
were it not for the Raccoon Arms and its common sense antidote to all this
tripe.

Elena ‘andcart
March 12, 2013 at 12:40

Bored with it all? Not a chance. Riveted in fact. And I know that what you
are saying is true, having heard most of it straight from the horses mouth
some considerable time before any of this cropped up.
How many
“Journalists” have been reading this Blog since it did crop up? Quite a lot it
seems. Oh My, what a Scoop they have missed, although probably Politically
Incorrect, so bugger The Law.
Loved the bit about Homosexuality, that was a
good spot, so “Forget it” was good advice. I was actually involved in trying
to help a recalcitrant Homosexual friend at the time, so I was very much aware
of what went on. And I wouldn’t mind a Quid for every time I met him out of
prison.
Off to decide whether to laugh or cry, although my immediate
reaction on reading The Mail this morning was to spit tin tacks.

Fancy you being at the actual Battersea Road House. You seriously could not
make this up.

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2013 at 13:38

Given the description of the men involved ‘all coloured’ – it can’t have
been the same house, still, same road, quite a coincidence given how many
roads there are in Britain, and only 20 girls at a time in Duncroft!

Elena
‘andcart March 12, 2013 at 13:52

Were there any girls actually left residing at Duncroft at that time?
Or were they all residing in Battersea Road at some house or another? Such
a pity that The police didn’t seem to notice. They could have rounded you
all up in one fell swoop.

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 12, 2013 at 15:18

I was still at Duncroft. Were you one of the girls that absconded
friom church Anna? Was Betty R who claimed she had an affair with one of
the animals with you in Batteresea?

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2013 at
15:27

Actually, now I am more awake – I wasn’t even a ‘Duncroft
absconder’ at the time of Battersea Bridge Raod – http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-one/

Nope, don’t remember a Betty R. Do have strong memories of hiding
behind a settee (I wasn’t supposed to be there, I think I am correct
in saying that the Animals actually paid the rent on the place, but
could be mistaken)one night when one of the Animals turned up
unexpectedly with a girl, and demanded the use of the front room to
have very noisy sex with her – it has always stuck in my mind because
it was the first time I had any inkling as to what sex actually was –
and I can’t say I was that impressed by the performance (and extremely
cold and uncomfortable!) put me off the whole idea for several years,
at least until legal, if it created that much need for squealing and
grunting!!!! Didn’t sound like fun, that’s for sure. No idea what it
looked like, was far too well embedded behind the sofa for that…..

Anna Raccoon March 12, 2013 at 15:30

I must get some sleep -back in a couple of hours if anyone else
is looking for an answer.

Ellen
Coulson (nee Dunn) March 12, 2013
at 15:41

Have been reading the report of Operation Otrnament and have
found:

“It is apparent that there was good use of the social
networking site ‘Friends Re-united’ as it became clear that some
residents of Duncroft School had connected on the site. Often in
current-day investigations the use of social media as a source of
information and evidence is overlooked. This would have been even
more so back in 2007/8 and it is of note as good practice for now
and in particular back then. DC1 made a basic post on the site in
May 2008 to connect with former residents inviting them to contact
her. Eight former residents responded resulting in two new
complaints in Ms C and Ms D.”

Surely this is proof of collusion going back to 2008!

Moor Larkin March 12, 2013 at 16:01

Poetic name for the author……….
http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf
Care
was taken about how to approach these witnesses and victims to
ensure that it was not seen as ‘trawling’ and so attract
criticism on the methods of contact and also undermine the
credibility of any witness ………. Page 6

mewsical March 12, 2013 at 16:20

Let alone the “last chance” missive that went the rounds in
2011 – got my copy – courtesy of Fiona.

I love the
BBC March 12, 2013 at
18:44

Actually Ellen I think the correct name for that is
‘trawling’.
The dangers of the practice have been recognised
for years, thanks very largely to Richard Webster.

Linda_Danvers March 12, 2013 at 21:34

No it isn’t. You know that. There is no evidence of that. The
police posted there, they responded. The only evidence is that
they used a social network site.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 00:04

Re Trawling…. @ The only evidence is that they used a
social network site. @

But the police only posted there because they had already
read what was being said. It seems moot that to then enter the
forum to ask for people to come forward is exactly what
trawling is. It would seem NOT trawling if they had simply
suborned the conversations already there and then questioned
those involved if necessary.

I have been wondering what happens when you ask 60,000,000
people about Jimmy Savile, after telling them that you will
believe anything they tell you, which is effectively what has
happened in the last months. I fancy it might be the biggest
trawl since Moby Dick.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 02:34

And the police didn’t find the forum suspicious and
nobody made secret about it. It means there was no evidence
the colluded, at least on the forum.

The problem I have with it is that they didn’t look for
the press when the collusion supposedly took place. We don’t
know if they knew there would be this huge scandal., they
certainly din’t predict Savile’s death The press only came
into the picture years later They didn’t look for the police
either. The Newsnight reporters said most women didn’t even
want to be indentified. Fiona may be one, but the some of
the others don’t look like attention seekers to me. And we
can’t be sure they were thinking about compo when Newsnight
journalists were after them. We need evidence to be sure of
collusion, and all we have is a few print screens which
don’t say much.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 02:39

BTW, I’m sorry for the typos. It’s too late and I’m
sleepy.

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 14:27

“I have been wondering what happens when you ask
60,000,000 people about Jimmy Savile, after telling that you
will believe anything they tell you, which is effectively
what has happened in the last months”

Spot on Moor, totally agree with you, they can tart it up
anyway which way they like, but the reality is plain as
day.

I’m actually surprised there hasn’t been more complaints,
600 out of 60,000,000 actually seems fairly modest doesn’t
it? It could easily have been far worse.

With the man not being here to defend himself, your more
or less relying on peoples good nature to be honest (and can
that really be relied upon?)

They could test this theory out by getting another well
known personality to volunteer in the experiment (one known
to be clean living) make up a few false claims about him,
heavily publicise them, hint that there could be ‘many, many
more…’, and if you know anything to contact the Suns news
desk etc, and lets see how many more come forward claiming
to be ‘victims’.

It’s trawling on a National scale, surely?

Cascadian
March 12, 2013 at 17:12

Aah-haa! at last, the reason for the great sex scandal cover-up at
the BBC has been revealed.

Her Majesty, Betty R having sex with an Animal in Battersea Bridge
Road. I have to say that I would have suspected Margaret.

That should knock the Kardashians and Towie off the front pages.

Anna Raccoon March 12, 2013 at 17:49

Funny you should mention Margaret, for one of the girls went on
to have a long affair with the man who famously posed for Princess
Margaret on a beach in Mustique with several beer mugs balanced on
his……John Bindon…if you’re reading this J or D, make yourself known
by e-mail, I’d love to catch up with you.

Oscar
March 13, 2013 at 08:25

wow. He was a regular customer in a shop I ran in Kings Road so
I think I know who she is having delivered goods to his then
home.

Ellen
Coulson (nee Dunn) March 14, 2013
at 15:10

Thought Bindon was with model, Vicki Hodge (a baronet’s
daughter) for years. Used to see them often in the Bricklayers
Arms, Putney.

Anna Raccoon March 14, 2013 at 15:35

Vicki Hodge came later…J was the early model!

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 12, 2013 at 15:20

I was still there! Were you one of the girls who absconded from
church one Sunday morning Anna? Was Betty R who is supposed to have
slept with one of the Animals with you in Battersea?

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 16:47

My recall is that Anna was off like a rocket on the day of her
arrival, with a couple of other girls. Bridie Keenan was almost
admiring of the chutzpah of Ms. Raccoon!

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 18:05

I was there as well. We didn’t have a lot of absconders, to be
honest. I read in my reports that I found it amusing to have girls hide
in cupboards, etc., and then tell the staff they’d absconded. I don’t
remember that, but it shows how bored we were! I also allegedly hid John
John, Miss Cole’s white poodle in a cupboard. But as far as ‘colored’
pimps, like I said, I know of at least one.

Ellen Coulson
(nee Dunn) March 15, 2013 at
15:21

Don’t think Anna absconded on the day of her arrival Mewsical.

Anna Raccoon March 15, 2013 at 16:50

No, that wasn’t me!

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 08:00

I really have never heard of any person with such a range of sexual
activity as Savile is alleged to have engaged in : the very young, the
medium young, teenagers, the middle aged, the old, the incapacitated, the
deranged, men , boys , women , children and the dead !!!

But someone please enlighten me if there was another in history whose
tastes where so diverse.

GildasTheMonk
March 12, 2013 at 12:21

An impressive piece of work Anna.

jerym
March 12, 2013 at 11:52

That should have read “Just another facet of the woes and impulses that
beset us imperfect creatures”

jerym
March 12, 2013 at 11:41

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21670819
Just another
facet of the woes that beset us imperfect creatures

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 12, 2013 at 11:25

I know the new thinking for the police and CPS is automatically believe the
victim but does that now apply as a defence for the media in libel or slander
cases? No need for investigations or trials someone saying they are victim
will only tell the truth.

The news media seems to have sunk to the level of the showbiz/gossip page
where the truth is whatever a PR person is paid to say.

To read the report you’d think the Cheshire story had been investigated and
confirmed but it appears not. We know many Duncroft women claimed the CPS had
dropped a case against Savile because of his age and health and despite a fake
letter was shown to be incoorect.

In the current climate I don’t see anyone accused of a sex offence having a
fair trial.

Moor
Larkin March 12, 2013 at 12:12

@ In the current climate I don’t see anyone accused of a sex offence
having a fair trial. @

Be interesting to see how this one pans out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291669/Graham-Ovenden-Internationally-acclaimed-artist-sexually-abused-young-girls-nighties-blindfolding-them.html

Mudplugger
March 12, 2013 at 14:15

Interesting that one notably keen collector of Ovenden’s questionable
‘art’ pictures was one Lord MacAlpine……spooky !

Moor Larkin March 12, 2013 at 14:23

Not to mention the Tate Gallery …………
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/graham-ovenden-1730
who
actually display this child porn on the internet!! ….
Call
for MWT!!

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 12, 2013 at 16:51

In the recent CPS report by Alison Levitt where she looked again at the
2009 file she had, ‘reservations about the way in which the prosecutor
reached his decision’ and in her view…”On the face of it, the allegations
made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised
this and sought to “build” a prosecution.”

Then Alison looked again at a 2011 CPS file where a case had been
dropped against another celebrity, with the same evidence she overturned
the previous decision and that person has been charged. Did she change her
mind with the current climate in mind. Just look at today’s reporting,
where an incident was definately reported to the police despite there
being no records.

Moor Larkin March 12, 2013 at 16:57

@ Rocky Racoon (no relation)

There is no doubt the CPS has reconfigured it’s approach.

“Le Vell was first arrested in September 2011 after the girl, now a
teenager, claimed he had sexually assaulted her from the age of
six.
Three months later prosecutors said there was insufficient
evidence and the charges were dropped. Then came the CPS review.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291227/Michael-going-hell-Le-Vells-sisters-talk-Coronation-Street-stars-shock-child-sex-charges.html#ixzz2NLThTQ6G

Bonjour March 14, 2013 at 12:14

Rocky Raccoon (no relation), is it not pure naivety to think that you can
automatically believe the accuser over the accused – no-one can possibly
know whether the accuser is likely to be telling the truth until the
accusations are investigated.

I’ve known some people who have actually made false claims of rape before
(one in particular the aim was to try and get her own way and turn people
against the person she accused – it hasn’t worked thankfully), luckily these
two incidents never made it to court (one wasn’t even reported to the
police) – but people do lie about these things, not everyone, but one of
these women is actually a compulsive liar who lies about everything for her
own gain, and you get people like that.

For the authorities not to recognise that seems ridiculous to me – they
must deal with liars all the time?

rabbitaway March 12, 2013 at 11:03

Great Anna – in the middle of the night – I admire you. This thing won’t go
away until – ‘the other side of the other side of Jimmy Savile’ rears it’s
ugly, that is, someone steps up to the plate and presents an argument for the
‘defense’. Your last paragraph – ‘an entire nation groomed – and not by
Savile’, spot on. Let’s jump 2,5 or ten years time and take a look at the
headlines guys and gals ! ‘Sick journalists caused this’ (with a picture of
Sir Jim’s headstone less grave) or ‘ I always knew Jim was innocent ‘ from
some ‘friend’ out to make a bit more money out of this. Then they’ll be the
hundreds of 60/70 year olds who had sex with Jim and, heaven forbid enjoyed
it……! oh dear.

Moor
Larkin March 12, 2013 at 11:16

@rabbitaway

Here’s one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

rabbitaway
March 12, 2013 at 12:35

Oh yes, this lady did know Sir Jim insofar as Alison Bellamy’s book
indicates that she was his ‘partner’ on and off for 40 years plus ?
Several women claim to have been long standing ‘friends’. Not sure why she
and his niece did this interview – they surely could not have been aware
of Sir J’s ‘other side’. Whatever, they ain’t been seen on telly since ……!
There are several interesting interviews on the tube inc one called ‘is
this your life’ with Andrew Neil. Give it a gander ……excellent basis for a
psychological study !

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 14:23

A lot of the discordance has come from the way the “authorities” have
decided to play this matter out. There seem to be several very distinct
claims about Savile.

“1 – child abuser… ie pre-pubertal cildren
I don’t think there is a
single instance where a charge we can know a little about in this regard
makes any sense at all. The scout story changes and the Rolls Royce story
was laughable and the hotel tale just seems to beggar any willingness to
believe.”

I believe in Denise, from the second Exposure show. She seems credible
to me at least, but she could be lying. As for the others stories, I
agree. It would nice to read about the other 23 accusations of child abuse
to see if they are credible.

“2 – sexual ‘predator’, which term seems based on the notion that he
would hunt prey
I actually have seen no case that seems to indicate he
hunted (or groomed) anyone. All his predations were opportunist if it was
kiddies alleging, or girls sought him out and then he allowed one thing to
lead to another in caravans and such-like.”

In the first Exposure show, the two non-Duncroft girls who were
interviewed, I would call what happened to them grooming. His actions at
Duncroft, if they are true, would count as predatory, even if the girls
were willing.

“3 – sexual ‘opportunist’,
This term seems almost to contradict the
charge number 2 but generally seems to tally with Spindler’s idea that
Savile spent “every waking moment” thinking about sex. This is just
balderdash when you take the slightest look at Savile’s incredibly busy
life-style.”

I think a person could be two things, they are not mutually exclusive.
But I do think Spindler words were didiculous. Even the Mail called him on
it.

“4 – liked “young girls” – post pubertal but not too fussy if they were
under 16
This is the core of the original Duncroft allegations and
there has been a lot of doubt cast over the veracity of what he might have
done. Much of the Duncroft matters concerned groping, and the BBC kissing
incident was another case in point. There was also a rash of allegations
from young women then claiming to have been seduced by him but pretty
consistently they were all in the realm of being post-pubertal, but they
said under 16 when full sex first occurred. Many of these accounts then
say that the girl/woman continued some kind of affair perhaps until they
were 18.”

Well, I do believe he like young girls. And my opinion of Duncrot is
that whatever happened there happened mostly with willing girls. IRRC
(correct me if I’m worng) that interview with Deborah Cogger in which she
said Savile´s “favourites”, those who were very happy to see him, were the
older ones.

“Number 4 is especially interesting to me because Savile’s own memoirs
often refer to “young birds”. What is significant about this is Savile’s
age. He was nearly 40 when he “made it big”, so all the girls were “young
birds” to him. They would all be around twenty years younger than he was.
Plainly he had achieved middle-age as a bachelor, and women of his own age
at that time would largely have had no interest in “pop music”
anyway.”

Yes, I remember the intervew with Jim’ll Fix It producer in “This
Morning” where he said Savile was fond of teen girls, but these girls
could very well be 18.

“Coming back to Duncroft and those girls who were all nearing 16 if
they were not already there – one question that might be asked is why the
Beef Biryani girls were planning to play the game if they were not
complicit in it. Who might have been seducing who? This question is the
one that so vexes modern women it seems. It is almost as if the modern UK
woman wants to place herself in an invisible burkha. To even admit that
young girls/women might have sexual urges towards a man of any age seems
to frighten the pants off them. There is a strange puritanism in the air
and it leads to some very panicky and extreme views about things and the
motivations of a man.”

My biggest issue with it are not girls behaviour. They should have sex
lives if they want it. I don’t mind age difference that much, but an adult
man should know better that have sex with a teen girls, even if she is
after him or teasing him.

Moor Larkin March 14, 2013 at 14:32

@Lind_Danvers
My biggest issue with it are not girls behaviour.
They should have sex lives if they want it.

But they cannot. It is illegal until they are 16. These girls are now
the sexual property of the State….

I don’t mind age difference that much, but an adult man should know
better that have sex with a teen girls, even if she is after him or
teasing him.

With the exception of Karin who seems to claim a two year affair (if
her book makes any sense) none of the girls at Duncroft had sex with
Savile. There is the story of the activity in the Rolls but that has
largely been debunked. The Beef Biryani thing seems all that is left. It
could equally be that this was a game whereby they grabbed Jimmy. What
was he to do? Shout for Miss Jones and get the “bad girls” into trouble?
If he was a nice guy he’d push their hand quietly and perhaps feel
slightly complimented the “young birds” fancied him….. and say no more
about it; but perhaps then he stopped going to Duncroft because it was
all getting a bit out of hand….. just a theory….

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 18:56

@ Linda Danvers
I’m not at all sure about the ‘liked young girls’
claim. As a young girl myself during his TOTP heyday I saw all that as
just an act – the flamboyant and embarrassing uncle sort of behaviour
that was typical back then of most ‘loud’ men. He had all the patter,
overt and over the top flattery, to boost a young girl’s confidence in
her budding womanhood yet make her cringe with horror at the same time.
His remarks about girls, even in his books, seemed 100% tongue in cheek.
Hence his books even making it into print and being received back then
in their proper context. When speaking more seriously he used to
acknowledge that young girls gravitated to him because of their hopes of
getting closer to their idols. As my elders always warned me, its the
quiet ones you have to watch.
I have seen someone else suggest that
some girls, perhaps some of the ones at Duncroft, might have been wild
enough to try to tempt him with ‘favours’ for their own gain, and this I
agree would almost certainly have happened from time to time. But my
opinion is that he would have run away every time, and that his fairly
short lived Duncroft association was one of these ‘too hot to handle’
scenarios.
For the record, I was no fan, not at any time. But I was
able to perceive him in real time from the perspective of a young girl,
and although I wouldn’t have fancied being stuck in a lift with him it
wouldn’t have been through any fear of impropriety.
Sadly he carried
on the ‘sex mad’ persona too long. By the time he did the Louis Theroux
program it was completely inappropriate to be talking about condoms. It
was this kind of thing which served to feed the Ickeite CTs and to set
the scene for the false allegations. But that was him, stuck in his own
time warp for many many years.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 19:53

Mina Field,

Re: “As a young girl myself during his TOTP heyday I saw all that
as just an act – the flamboyant and embarrassing uncle sort of
behaviour that was typical back then of most ‘loud’ men. He had all
the patter, overt and over the top flattery, to boost a young girl’s
confidence in her budding womanhood yet make her cringe with horror at
the same time”

I think I know what you mean – like I remember once going into the
living room in my nightie when I was 12 and my mum’s friend going
“look at those legs”, he was a ‘loud’ so and so as well, and no one
thought anything about it, and it was no doubt for the reasons you’ve
just gave and I no doubt felt the same as you’ve just described (I
think the phrase ‘I wish entered my mind, lol), but that sort of thing
from Jimmy Savile would get twisted into ‘he used to ogle us in our
night ware and make creepy comments’, as if any harm was ment by
it.

I think the world will become a much colder place, if things like
this Jimmy Savile hysteria continue and spread….

Mina
Field March 14, 2013 at 20:20

@Lucozade
Haha, yes that strikes a chord, and its funny how many
friends of that kind our mothers always had. No fear of anything like
that for today’s young girls, and I can’t decide if thats a good thing
or a bad thing really. We were made to blush sometimes but at least
Jackie magazine didn’t bombard us with techniques for blowjobs. Hadn’t
even heard of such things before the age of 16.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 20:54

Mina Field,

Re: “at least Jackie magazine didn’t bombard us with techniques for
blowjobs”

I know, that is actually really annoying, I don’t mind been told
once, but has Cosmopolitan not exhausted the subject by now? They’ve
tried to tell anyone who’ll listen every month the past god knows how
many years, they should print something educational for a change,
lol….

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 20:57

Mina and others,

I just wanted to say (it may sound like flattery) it was great. We
may not agree on everything, but it was very informative and reading
all the comments all over again this late afternoon, I’m ready to
believe this whole affair was wildy exaggerated by opportunists. I may
not have changed your minds, but you made me regard all this with a
critical eye. I hope the liars are exposed for what they really are,
and if there are any victims in all this, they are treated fairly.
Savile, IMO, was a groper (I may even call him a lecher), and liked
young girls (didn’t ask for their age), but I’m not so sure anymore
about rapist and even child abuser, with I was 100% sure when I
arrived here.

Duncan
Disorderly March 12, 2013 at 11:16

On Moor Larkin’s blog there is a delicious smackdown of one Dan Davies
who writes for the Mail. He wrote two stories almost a year apart. The
first, written just after his death, was a panegyric in honour Jimmy Savile.
The second was basically ‘I always knew he were a nonce’. As you suggest,
will there be a third article from Dan Davies in a few years time?

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/21st-century-schizoid-man.html?showComment=1363082843643

rabbitaway
March 12, 2013 at 12:21

Aye, this Davies fella was editor at esquire and apparently
‘researched’ Sir Jim for several years interviewing him many times. His
long awaited book ! is now (post allegations) due out at the end of NEXT
year ! Maybe someone should get there before him and stick a rod up his
arse.

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 15, 2013 at 12:35

I still have the message he sent me via Carekeavers on 17 July 2012
asking for information.

rabbitaway March
15, 2013 at 12:49

@ Ellen 12.35

My, this book is gonna be some epic ! I see another yarn is to be
published shortly according to amazon – ‘Savile the beast’ my word,
the rats and vultures are scurrying for their pickings !

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 16:15

Dan Davies came over to the Careleavers Reunited site and signed up. He
was able to do a lot of research until we requested that the
administrators give him the heave-ho.

rabbitaway
March 12, 2013 at 16:25

Was that before or aft the allegations – me monies is on the latter –
what a git !

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 16:45

Oh, after of course. I’m constantly puzzled that these
‘investigators’ keep banging on about Friends Reunited, but NEVER
mention Careleavers, which was a lot more colorful. Even though the
administrator closed the public Duncroft page before Christmas last
year, he’s got to have it archived somewhere. All the infighting you
could possibly want, false identities (probably members of the working
press), and more hate speech among Old Duncroftians than one would
have thought possible. Lots of information though. It was through
their site that we were able to ‘out’ Fiona Scott-Johnston, who was
posing as someone called Susan Melling (probably her birth name before
she was adopted by Sir Alastair). I have some good screen caps from
private messages fortunately!

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 23:08

That doesn’t mean much. Savile had just died, he was writing his
biography, why not write nice things about a man who just has died. And
the “I always knew he was a nonce” is not what he wrote. I quite liked the
article. He only gave evidence of Savile’s suspicious behavior towards
young girls and Savile’s persona.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 23:19

Why say in one article he met him in 2002 and in the second say it
was 2004? He’s supposed to have done *research*.

Liar Liar Bum’s on Fire comes to mind, and bums are very much in the
news at the moment……

ITV quote from HMIC letter = “He is……. a paedophile”
Raccoon
comments quote from HMIC letter = “I’ve been for a run. Now for some
bum”

Says it all really……………..

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 16:52

“Raccoon comments quote from HMIC letter = “I’ve been for a run.
Now for some bum””

*sniggers* . You know, I have to admit sometimes I understand why
you are all so skeptical of Savile being a child abuser. If this is
the best evidence MWT can think of (he said so in his twitter), then
Savile was only an old man with silly clothes.

Anna Raccoon March 14, 2013 at 17:15

Linda,
Just for the record, I’m not skeptical of ‘Savile being
a child abuser’- I have no direct knowledge of his preferences.
I
am skeptical of the original Duncroft allegations, based on direct
knowledge.
There is a vast difference between those two
statements.
So far I have seen nothing substantial to give me any
reason to condemn Savile or exonerate him – I know no more about his
sex life than I do yours.

Jonathan
Mason March 14, 2013 at 17:12

Linda, you have raised an excellent point. This is what got me
interested when the whole issue of Newsnight came up and whether it
should have aired its allegations. If you are going to blacken the
name of a knight of the realm and a popular entertainer, whether it be
Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Lord McAlpine, or any of those
comedians called Jim, then for heaven’s sake put forward your A team
witnesses, not people who have already done prison time for fraud. I
think the original Newsnight decision was the right one, but when
there was such an uproar about it, common sense went completely out of
the window and in a total panic, they aired the Messham allegations,
when even the most cursory check would have revealed that he was, to
be polite, an unreliable witness who had been trying to sell this
story for two decades and had been discredited several times.

That is why, when it comes to an official report like the Yewtree
Report, ones expects to see some real facts evaluated by experienced
professional investigators . If the authors of the report have sworn
affidavits from 34 women who say they were raped by Savile, we would
like to see at least a sample, even if that means having to redact
some details of names and places to preserve confidentiality, and some
discussion as to what the common factors of his modus operandi were
that could not have been the result of collusion.

If Savile had still been alive, would they have sent the Yewtree
Report to the Crown Prosecution Service as a recommendation for
action? I hardly think so.

Mina Field
March 12, 2013 at 18:37

@rabbitaway
I feel sure that one day the truth will out. It usually
does.

rabbitaway
March 13, 2013 at 19:17

Thanks Mina – you are right but as Paul Foot used to say ‘we must never
let the b**tards get away with it’ and that’s just it – they are …..On a
positive note, it’s great to read the comments here. Some people are
making a big effort to get the other side of the story out !
Plus
you’re right about Alison Bellamy especially after writing that book – she
must have been gutted ! Shortly after the story broke another YEP
journalist presented a nice balanced piece about Jim – and got short shift
from the commentators.

Mina Field
March 13, 2013 at 18:47

@Linda Danvers.
You see, this is the difference between you and I.
When I read those articles you link to I see: 1) The journalist lady doing
what everyone has had to do, and what I and lots of Raccoon Arms followers
despair about – she is saying, ‘oh dear I always liked him and was thrilled
to be able to meet him, but now I have to go with the flow and say, ‘horrors
it must be true’. 2) An old lady being hysterical and silly and the
newspaper printing it because they can, and because all the newspapers have
very much profited by printing exactly these silly things. 3) Someone being
very dodgy on a comments page – probably some mental health issues, but the
comments pages and internet forums are full of such types.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 20:04

1). She didn’t need to write the article. I found it to be an honest
account of her feelings and her opinion on the matter. I don’t think she
is going with the flow.
2) You’re judging her without evidence, how do
you know that? . Did you watch the interview she made for the Telegraph?
She is far from being hysterical and silly. What she witnessed was a
serious thing, not “silly stuff”. It would haunt me as well if I did
witness it.
3) Again, how do you know she has mental issues? You want
to give Savile the benefit of the doubt but doesn’t do the same to other
people. What she wrote certainly doesn’t seem dodgy to me. Her account
seems honest and palusible. It differs from some other comments (blogs
such as Aangirfan are full of then) about it.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 20:28

I agree that comments on blogs can be enlightening:

Tom, Norfolk, on October 31st, 2011 at 8:47 am Said:
I first met
Jimmy when I was a local reporter in the 1970s and he’d been booked to
open a new club. The official opening took place in the afternoon, but
the management had given the impression Jim would return to spin the
first disc in the evening. He said it wasn’t part of the contract, but
after negotiation (probably over an addition to his fee), he agreed to
return “so all these good folk won’t be disappointed”. He duly did, and
stayed for an hour or so.
http://louistheroux.com/blog/jimmy-savile/
In the
meantime, though, he went to a nearby village to visit a young woman
who’d written to him. She’d been born without arms and said she’d like
to comb Jim’s flaxen locks with a comb held in her toes. What a photo
opportunity for a publicity-seeker like Mr Savile, you would think. But
Jimmy never mentioned a word to us newsmen. As far as he was concerned
it was a private visit and he had no intention of turning it to his
personal advantage.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 23:18

Indeed. Here what I found in another, which was written just after
Savile’s death ( almost year before “Exposure”) http://www.motforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25096
:

Re: Jimmy Savile Dies
by Twiggster on Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:00
pm

Impatient fekkers!
CUR jimmy saVILE was a voluntary porter at
the LGI, in the early 70′s Meaning he had a pass key to the student
nurses’ dorm.
My ex wife (then fiancée), was a student nurse at the
time and had lodgings in one of the student rooms there, which she
shared with 3 other students.
HOW many times, did that perv saVILE
“accidentally” use his keys to enter their room, at an hour when the
girls would be in various states of undress. Not just their room, but
almost EVERY room in the student quarters.
Going into the shower
room at the end of the girls’ shifts to “clean” – funny how he never
went in there at times they were working – just when he knew he’d be
able to perv on teenage girls in the showers.
Complaints were made
about his behaviour frequently to the board of the LGI, but were
hushed up or just ignored, cos of “who” he was.
The girls in my
fiancées’ room were realy getting scared of him, so one evening me and
another of the girls’ boyfriends sneaked into their room after the
girls came off duty. He used his master key to “accidentally” walk in
– and me and the lad were in his face. He went white and ran out. 2
mins later he was back with security to have me and the other lad
thrown out. (No male friends allowed in student nurses rooms
rule!)…
He warned the girls if owt was said, they would lose their
jobs. He never went back to their room again, but continued doing the
same thing in other student rooms.
Moving on 6 months…
Student
nurses Xmas ball at Leeds Poly. I was one of the DJ’s for the mobile
disco they hired. Was a great evening with everyone having fun. In
walks saVILE and wants to take over the turntables! He was told to
fekk off in no uncertain terms.
So he goes on the dance floor. I
was on the wheels at the time and one of the other dj’s pointed to
saVILE dancing close to my fiancée, who was a bit distressed with his
attempts to dirty dance her. Mate took over and whilst I was walking
towards them, I saw him grope her hard. She slapped his face, he
slapped her and I went for him. I had him on the floor in a second and
began beating the crap out of him. Now, I’m no fighter but I had the
red mist and he was begging me to stop.
Luckily the two bouncers on
duty were mates of mine and let me pummel him a good while, until I’d
calmed down a bit. They finally pulled me off him and threw him out,
giving him a few more kicks along the way. I walked back onstage to a
round of applause.
SaVILE tried to bring assault charges against me
and the bouncers but there were a LOT of witnesses who saw him grope
my girlfriend and it was all hushed up.
Hushed up, like his
attempted rape of another student nurse, who was only saved as an
ambulance man happened to be in the vicinity and heard the lass
scream. SaVILE laughed it off as “a bit of fun”. Lass too scared to
make a police statement. Again, all complaints were hushed over and
ignored…”you can’t accuse a saint like jimmy – he is working here for
free”, was the reply from the top.
My PERSONAL experience of the
twot.
Then you have a mate of mine (yes, ok, not my personal
experience – but I have heard this from his daughter’s mouth), after
the lass (8 at the time) was on Jim’llfix it, at the studios.
“When
Daddy went to sign some papers, Jimmy was stroking my leg and was
trying to touch my nickers”…
He admitted he held her leg to
“comfort her as she was scared”. She never actually did the show, as
she didn’t want to be near him.
Jimmy saVILE was a horrible and
detestable pervert, which was glossed over as he was a media darling.
Untouchable for those who he abused.
I am happy I got to kick the
crap out of him.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 23:20

Have fun with your copy/paste functions. I’m off to bed………..

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 00:07

Be my guest. He is probably lying for attention and money as well,
even if he talked about it way before any scandal happened.

Moor Larkin March 14, 2013 at 06:47

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 23:20
Have fun with your
copy/paste functions. I’m off to bed………..

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 00:07
Be my guest. He is
probably lying for attention and money as well, even if he talked
about it way before any scandal happened.

Good Morning Linda_Danvers. “probably” is like “possibly” I
suppose. If we discount all the stories being told then none of this
would be happening would it. We would be left with Jimmy Savile,
eccentric with a good heart and the world would be turning much the
same as it always had. One of the curious things about the internet is
how one person can quickly dominate a group discussion providing they
are willing to post and post and post. Not necessarily win any of
their arguments, but they very quickly attain status as the focus of
the whole forum, with others either attacking them or agreeing with
them. This seems to be part of the attraction of the internet for
many.

One of the curious things about the current Savile controversy is
the way there is very little attempt to leaven the tales being told by
anyone who in the past has told a nice story about him. What I am not
sure about is whether that is because the people are frightened of
somehow identified as possible “paedophiles” themselves and becoming
part of the witch-hunt or whether the editorial side of the media is
simply blocking their access. That people were writing about the “dark
side” of Savile before ‘Exposure’ is something of a truism. The police
were investigating Savile back in 2007 and despite an obvious
willingness to proceed within the force they could not get anyone to
testify and indeed several of their witnesses were shown to be liars
when they claimed more recently that they were willing. Operation
Ornament puts it more diplomatically:

The Daily Telegraph having contact with Ms F who stated that she
was
willing to support a prosecution at the time of reporting to
police.
Subsequently Ms F’s signed statement was shown to her where
it states
that she was unwilling to support police or court action.
She accepted
this and that her memory was incorrect about how she
felt at the time.
http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf

I found Operation Ornament to be one of the most cogent and
thorough reports, next to Pollards. I would recommend you read it if
you haven’t already done so. It is far from partial to Savile and
indeed veers towards an acceptance of the publicly official line. One
of the main thrusts of Anna’s blogs is that we all pay more attention
to the most authoritative sources we can. You have a strong personal
conviction about Savile already but I have already seen on the
internet views expressed that Mark Williams-Thomas is an agent of the
Freemasons and his programmes are covering up the scandal in higher
places than Savile, by ensuring all the focus is upon a dead man. The
world is full of opinions and on the internet we can all track down
one that suits us.

There are cases pending in the real world however that should shed
much more light on all of this. Gadd and Fowell are still facing trial
on the core allegations made in Exposure and we have several other
celebrities approaching their day in court. I sense that the Vicky
Pryce case was balanced on a knife-edge first time round and wondered
why the judge in that first trial had insisted on a Unanimous verdict.
I think I can grasp his wisdom now. He might just be viewee as one of
the unsung heroes of the judicial system of the UK one day; the man
who first raised a barrier to the tidal wave of Unreason viz-a-viz
sexual politics in this nation.

Moor Larkin March 14, 2013 at 13:39

@ Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 12:49
it is good to have
discordances in a discussion

Of course. My own blog is as discordant as I can make it, without
telling bare-faced lies…..

A lot of the discordance has come from the way the “authorities”
have decided to play this matter out. There seem to be several very
distinct claims about Savile.
1 – child abuser… ie pre-pubertal
cildren
I don’t think there is a single instance where a charge we
can know a little about in this regard makes any sense at all. The
scout story changes and the Rolls Royce story was laughable and the
hotel tale just seems to beggar any willingness to believe.

2 – sexual ‘predator’, which term seems based on the notion that he
would hunt prey
I actually have seen no case that seems to indicate
he hunted (or groomed) anyone. All his predations were opportunist if
it was kiddies alleging, or girls sought him out and then he allowed
one thing to lead to another in caravans and such-like.

3 – sexual ‘opportunist’,
This term seems almost to contradict
the charge number 2 but generally seems to tally with Spindler’s idea
that Savile spent “every waking moment” thinking about sex. This is
just balderdash when you take the slightest look at Savile’s
incredibly busy life-style.

4 – liked “young girls” – post pubertal but not too fussy if they
were under 16
This is the core of the original Duncroft allegations
and there has been a lot of doubt cast over the veracity of what he
might have done. Much of the Duncroft matters concerned groping, and
the BBC kissing incident was another case in point. There was also a
rash of allegations from young women then claiming to have been
seduced by him but pretty consistently they were all in the realm of
being post-pubertal, but they said under 16 when full sex first
occurred. Many of these accounts then say that the girl/woman
continued some kind of affair perhaps until they were 18.

The most serious opprobrium would apply to number 1, which I’m very
sure is actually untrue.

Number 2 seems equally untrue. Savile seems not to have *pursued*
or *groomed* anybody, by any sensible understanding of the terms.

Number 3 is probably true insofar as any single man might take an
*opportunity* for sex/affection. But the rub here is that the
opportunities came to Savile through his work, not through his
“private life”. In other words the women were coming to him.

Number 4 is especially interesting to me because Savile’s own
memoirs often refer to “young birds”. What is significant about this
is Savile’s age. He was nearly 40 when he “made it big”, so all the
girls were “young birds” to him. They would all be around twenty years
younger than he was. Plainly he had achieved middle-age as a bachelor,
and women of his own age at that time would largely have had no
interest in “pop music” anyway. By his own behaviour he obviously
welcomed female company, notwithstanding as many rumours about him
being queer or liking dead bodies as there ever were about his liking
“little girls”.

Coming back to Duncroft and those girls who were all nearing 16 if
they were not already there – one question that might be asked is why
the Beef Biryani girls were planning to play the game if they were not
complicit in it. Who might have been seducing who? This question is
the one that so vexes modern women it seems. It is almost as if the
modern UK woman wants to place herself in an invisible burkha. To even
admit that young girls/women might have sexual urges towards a man of
any age seems to frighten the pants off them. There is a strange
puritanism in the air and it leads to some very panicky and extreme
views about things and the motivations of a man.

Lucozade
March 14, 2013 at 15:08

Moor Larkin,

Re: “I have already seen on the internet views expressed that Mark
Williams-Thomas is an agent of the Freemasons and his programmes are
covering up the scandal in higher places than Savile, by ensuring all
the focus is upon a dead man”

Funnily enough it was a comment I ‘tweeted’ him under a comment
someone else had ‘tweeted’ under a slanderous ‘tweet’ of his about
Jimmy Savile, that said Jimmy Savile was a ‘Freemason’ – saying “He
was quite open about being a Catholic, Catholics aren’t allowed in the
Freemasons, nice try #agenda, that caused Mark Williams-Thomas to
block me from his Twitter….

Mina Field
March 13, 2013 at 20:33

@Linda Danvers
As I said, you see things through different eyes.
No problem. But you will have gathered that neither I nor many others
that enjoy Anna’s blogs treat newspaper stories – and stories are what
they are, you can’t deny it – in the way that you do. This is not
Digital Spy.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 23:13

I enjoyed many of Susanne’s post here, though sometimes I don’t
agree with her. She seems like a lawyer, picking on some things and
scrutinizing, ( I deal with lawyers daily), but not picking on others.
You know, I came to know of this blog through DS, that’s why we may
have different views.

Mina
Field March 14, 2013 at 08:00

@Linda Danvers
Yep, Anna peruses the reports and, as any lawyer
would, strips back the hyperbole to identify what actual facts they
contain. This can only be a good thing for any reader who wishes to be
properly informed. Make no mistake, all of the organisations involved,
including the police and CPS, have done exactly the same thing, but
the show of ‘taking things seriously’ they feel, has to go on.
I
know I’m not alone in my gratitude to Anna for her work and for
providing a place where rationality and common sense trumps tabloid
fed misinformation and pitchforking.

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 12:58

Mina

“Make no mistake, all of the organisations involved, including the
police and CPS, have done exactly the same thing, but the show of
‘taking things seriously’ they feel, has to go on.”

I’m sure they did. And they are sure Savile was a sexual predator,
they wouldn’t say that if they didn’t come across convincing evidences
(i.e corraborating stories on his MO). As there is a civil lawsuits
happening, I fear the Met can’t release them to the public right now.
But they wouldn’t say things like “apparently” if they had doubts and
people wouldn’t raise eyebrows.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 12:49

“Good Morning Linda_Danvers. “probably” is like “possibly” I suppose.
If we discount all the stories being told then none of this would be
happening would it. We would be left with Jimmy Savile, eccentric with a
good heart and the world would be turning much the same as it always had.”

Yes, I agree.

“One of the curious things about the internet is how one person can
quickly dominate a group discussion providing they are willing to post and
post and post. Not necessarily win any of their arguments, but they very
quickly attain status as the focus of the whole forum, with others either
attacking them or agreeing with them. This seems to be part of the
attraction of the internet for many.”

I agree with this too. But, you know, it is good to have discordances
in a discussion.

“One of the curious things about the current Savile controversy is the
way there is very little attempt to leaven the tales being told by anyone
who in the past has told a nice story about him.”

Savile always had nice stories about him. He had negatives too. But
appearing and treating people nice is not a testimony of character. I read
once someone mentioned the book Justine, by Marquis de Sade, which could
be read as a warning: be careful with “do gooders”. Not always someone is
what he or she appears to be.

Have you read his biography by Alison Bellamy? I got the feeling when I
read it even his closest friends didn’t feel they really knew to him.

“What I am not sure about is whether that is because the people are
frightened of somehow identified as possible “paedophiles” themselves and
becoming part of the witch-hunt or whether the editorial side of the media
is simply blocking their access.”

But the media printed dissonating voices. I read some articles
defending Savile, saying he couldn’t answer the accusations, that he was
dead, innocent until proved guilty, etc. The Mail wrote about the fake
letter. And they had support. I also saw people criticizing these
articles, but didn’t witness any witch hunt or hysteria (of course, not
counting comments in papers such as the Mail, but they are always
hysterical). What I witnessed was papers beating the BBC up because of it
with some glee, like they were hungry for some sort of revenge. And I do
not like the police handcuffing people like David Lee Travis or Stuart
Hall, connecting them with Operation Yewtree, and exhibiting them to the
press, but I don’t blame the public for it.

I think they treat carefully the victims stories, not taking care of
questioning them, because they can’t accuse (or suggest) these people of
being liars without much evidence. These things happened 30, 40, 50 years
ago, memory play tricks, they may misremember, the can forget some facts
and make them up, people can dramatize their experiences. There are many
explanations a story isn’t 100 % factual or perfect. I know that by
personal experience. What people most remember is the shame of what
happened, some physical things, some tactual feelings, the pain. I can’t ,
for example, say for sure what year or month my assault happened. I think
I was 8, but I’m not 100% sure. I know it happened at school and the man
was the father of a friend.

“That people were writing about the “dark side” of Savile before
‘Exposure’ is something of a truism. The police were investigating Savile
back in 2007 and despite an obvious willingness to proceed within the
force they could not get anyone to testify and indeed several of their
witnesses were shown to be liars when they claimed more recently that they
were willing. Operation Ornament puts it more diplomatically:

The Daily Telegraph having contact with Ms F who stated that she
was
willing to support a prosecution at the time of reporting to
police.
Subsequently Ms F’s signed statement was shown to her where it
states
that she was unwilling to support police or court action. She
accepted
this and that her memory was incorrect about how she felt at
the time.
http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf”

It doesn’t mean she is lying about what happened. There is this huge
scandal, people asking why this didn’t came out before, asking why the
victims didn’t speak when he was alive, why they didn’t look for the
police, why they didn’t accuse him when he was alive to defend himself. It
is understandable she felt wary of saying she wouldn’t support
prosecution.

“I found Operation Ornament to be one of the most cogent and thorough
reports, next to Pollards. I would recommend you read it if you haven’t
already done so. It is far from partial to Savile and indeed veers towards
an acceptance of the publicly official line. One of the main thrusts of
Anna’s blogs is that we all pay more attention to the most authoritative
sources we can.”

I know. I try to use good sense when reading the press stories and
internet comments. I believe in only a few, but I try to give them the
benefit of the doubt (like I did with Kevin Cook’s story, before he
changed hi story). I like the work you’ve done with Ann’s story. At first
I believe it, but when I read again I was not so sure.

“You have a strong personal conviction about Savile already but I have
already seen on the internet views expressed that Mark Williams-Thomas is
an agent of the Freemasons and his programmes are covering up the scandal
in higher places than Savile, by ensuring all the focus is upon a dead
man. The world is full of opinions and on the internet we can all track
down one that suits us.”

Ah, Icke and his gang of anti-semites and homophobes. Always fun

“There are cases pending in the real world however that should shed
much more light on all of this. Gadd and Fowell are still facing trial on
the core allegations made in Exposure and we have several other
celebrities approaching their day in court. ”

Yes, we shall wait and see. I also hope the NHS and Dame Edna’s one
shed some lights on it too. I do think he was a child abuser, but ready to
believe Savile was a man who only enjoyed teen girls and hoped they were
of legal age. I think this is the only thing we can be a bit sure of.

Mina Field
March 14, 2013 at 13:09

@ Linda Danvers

We can’t be ‘a bit sure’ of anything. JS might have liked only small
boys, or only dead people, or only disabled people, or adult women, or
men, or young girls, or simply not been interested in sex at all (which
happens to be my opinion). Its tiresome of people to seek to tone down
their pitchforking to levels they think will be more reasonable by
saying, ‘oh I’m sure it was just under age girls’. You either believe
your own hype or you don’t.

Linda_Danvers March 14, 2013 at 13:56

We all have opinions, Mina. Ok, I’m sure Savile was a sexual
predator and his main target was young girls . It is obvious to me JS
enjoyed young girls, that is blantant even his body language in TOTP,
others video and audios footage, people who saw him with young girls,
witnesses of his demeanour towards girls, his own employees and
friends (see the interview with Ray Teret), his own words in his
autobiography if you forgot (Savile would lie about that too?) and so
on.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 12, 2013 at 11:01

I did think the following was a coincidence…..

“I lived with two female friends of his in a flat in Battersea. Joss went
home to his Mother, and appeared occasionally, but not much. I was still very
much a virgin – if you need to know – just working hard, paying my way and
keeping my head down.

One day, two policemen came to the door. It was me they were looking for,
having followed Joss to the address several times. They marched me off down
Battersea Bridge Road towards the police station. As we were halfway there, we
neared the post office. Three men came running out of the post office pursued
by the post master…’you stay right where you are Susanne’ said my policemen
and took off in hot pursuit. Needless to say, I was off round the corner like
a bloody greyhound.”

Is there a way to find details of the Central Criminal Court case in
October/November 1964?

Anna
Raccoon March 12, 2013 at 11:12

If you can find one, please let me know – would love to know who those
Duncroft girls were! The girls I lived with were most definitely not working
as prostitutes. Categorically. They were just very ordinary girls working as
secretaries and spending their spare time running a fun club. Mind you,
Battersea Bridge Road is a very long road and in those days was full of
bed-sits. Still, one hell of a coincidence that made me sit up and take
notice. ‘The times I missed getting mauled by Jimmy’ will have to be
written…..! Strangely enough, I went to bed last night with the title ‘DJ
Jimmy and the Giant Prawn’ in my head, but that’s going to have to wait for
another day now, still got another blog post to get out today…

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 16:13

I think I know who at least one of them was.

Linda_Danvers
March 12, 2013 at 21:29

Anna, you know, this is a report linking Savile (of ALL people) to
girls suspected of being prostitues, and they were from Duncroft (of ALL
places) ten years before it he supposedly set a foot on there. It may be
only a few words, but it does place an interesting angle in the story, I
said that at DS. These are records from a police unit specialized on child
abuse. I doubt they would make it up. It may be nothing, my, it may be a
misuderstanding, but we can’t ignore it. These are not notes from
middle-age women, there is no compo there, no Merion Jones, or attention
seeking people. This is evidence. One of the few official records of
Savile being a child abuser has the Duncroft name in it. I admire the work
you’ve done here, though I don’t agree with everything you write (for
example, I’m positive Savile was a piece of shit who abused children), but
this small badly-written piece may casts doubts on you and some commenters
here. Not that I doubt you. But many people will seize on that, just as
many bloggers would seize the homophobic anonymous letter to justify their
homophobic views.

Moor Larkin March 12, 2013 at 23:53

@ These are not notes from middle-age women, there is no compo there,
no Merion Jones, or attention seeking people. This is evidence. One of
the few official records of Savile being a child abuser has the Duncroft
name in it. @

So after four months of a national Hue & Cry by the entire
Media/Legal establishment, we’ve finally got something you think is
convincing? And that is it?

As pointed out elsewhere, the record is reported as “held” by the
Paedophile Unit but plainly there was no *paedophile unit* in 1964 so it
has come from elsewhere (most likely some kind of Vice Squad). The
report then says,

“It is difficult to assess the significance of the 1964 MPS ledger,
given that so little is known of its provenance. However, its existence
suggests that, by 1964, Savile was known to MPS officers investigating
sexual offences against children.”

That seems to imply that the police were aware that “children” were
being prostituted and coppers back then did nothing about it?

I don’t believe that would be the case. As “Duncroft Absconders” they
would surely be far more likely be over 16 (and still liable to
supervision until 21) and so whilst there may be some suggestion that
Savile was visiting some kind of minor brothel, although even that seems
quite tenuous, I certainly fail to see any connection with “children”
whatsoever, unless the police are accusing their old 1964 colleagues of
deliberately leaving minors inside a house of vice, and then reporting
they have done so officially, which would seem an even more bizarre
thing for them to do. I think the author of that report might have some
explaining to do, if anybody reads it properly.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 00:52

Actually, I was convinced Savile was a child abuser way before
this. Anyway, I’m not saying it is convincing, but it is evidence, you
can’t deny that. A report from the “vice squad”, whatever people
called, anyway, the police, has an official record connecting Savile
with girls who were or had been at Duncroft ( children or not) way
before 1974. This report, as small as it is, has it’s significance. It
could have been any other place, but it says Duncroft and it says
Savile. It may show when exactly Savile first knew about Duncroft. It
could be even before 1964. Or it may be nothing. People won’t ignore
this whenever they talk about Savile’s activities at Duncroft, that’s
for sure. And, frankly, I’m disappointed with Susanne’s response on
this. People may casts doubts on her motivations in writing about
Duncroft.

We don’t exactly know what happened after the report . They may
have investigated and it led to nothing. They may have returned the
girls to Duncroft, if they were still there. We don’t know. I doubt
Met will pursue this anyway and we can only speculate

Anna
Raccoon March 13, 2013 at
07:28

Moor,

From the little I know – or remember – of pimps and brothels in the
1960s – it would be an unusual pimp who had the girls ‘working’ in the
same house he lived in. Far too likely to have resulted in a charge of
‘living off immoral earnings’. As I read the report, Savile was known
to be a visitor to the house where the pimp lived, and also where
absconders were known to have visited or even lived.

You can’t construe from that that it was also the girl’s place of
work, or that Savile was visiting for the purpose of sex with the
girls – most of the sort of non-usefully employed Jamaicans (and there
were few ‘coloured people’ around who were not Jamaican) in the 60s
had some sort of connection with the music industry. Savile could
perfectly well have been visiting to collect records which used to
arrive from the US by all sorts of ‘private routes’ in the 60s, he
could have been acquiring ‘purple hearts’ which were regularly sold by
such men.

I always seem to find myself in the position of ‘defending Savile’
simply because I object to people taking half a fact and construing it
as proof. It is possible to draw dots between Duncroft, prostitution,
Savile, Jamaican pimps, but it doesn’t make it truth. It is equally
possible to draw dots between Savile the disc, Jamaicans who probably
had a connection with the 60s music scene which was very much
controlled by Jamaicans with little respect for law and order, to put
it mildly, drugs, and the fact that some ex-Duncroft girls as adults
quite likely drifted into prostitution, and may well have stayed in
contact with younger girls absconding from Duncroft and looking for
somewhere to stay.

What is happening at the moment is that people are going ‘whoa,
Duncroft’s name mentioned, Savile, prostitution, that brings sex into
it – well there you go, that’s the proof that Savile was a paedophile,
couldn’t possibly be any other reason to join those dots…

It’s very, very, similar with what happened in the McCann case
where people went – ‘whoa, they’re Doctors, well they’d know how to
embalm a body, that proves they did away with her’. I still remember
the furore when a document was unearthed that claimed ‘a
preservative’, and ‘a bloody towel’ were found in a barn within the
triangulation area of a mobile phone mast known to have conducted a
text message from Gerry McCann. Game, set and match as far as the
armchair detectives were concerned. Doctors, preserving fluid, bloody
towel, all dots joined.

Until it turned out that the original document was French, and the
French for a condom is preservative…..and it wasn’t embalming fluid
that had been found at all, but a used condom and a towel with blood
on it…..That, to me, has always encapsulated the dangers of all this
armchair detective work and trial by media.

All you have at the moment is ‘an address’ lived in by a pimp
(later prosecuted for living off immoral earnings by two girls who
were -ex-Duncroft) which had also been visited by Savile, and by some
under-age Duncroft absconders – not necessarily all at the same time!
It’s interesting, bloody interesting, but not proof of anything.

We were under licence until 21 – Barnardos hold all the records; if
ex-Duncroft girls were convicted of prostitution and there was a
Savile connection, it would be in those records – do you not think
Barnardos, of all the children’s societies would not have been chiming
in support of this connection if there was something in it – what
possible reason could they have to keep quiet? Yet we haven’t heard a
word from them!

mewsical
March 13, 2013 at 00:39

Linda, I’ve already said that there were a couple of girls who were
prostitutes who attended Duncroft. I personally knew one of them, and
also her Jamaican pimp. And, btw, if you think that the police and the
authorities are above ‘making things up’ you’re a little naive! Jimmy
Savile did not come to Duncroft as an official visitor, or any kind of
visitor, until May 1974. It should also be noted that ‘colored’ pimps
did not pimp to white men in early 60s London. Further, Jimmy Savile had
no need to pay women for sex – he had it thrown at him. Try and think
this through before pouncing on Anna – and I quibble about ‘badly
written.’ You may not agree with the subject matter but AR is a fine
writer, imo. This entire situation must be hashed out in public forums,
and Anna, myself, Wendi and Ellen were all at Duncroft in the 60s.
Wendi, Ellen and I have spent the last year debunking a lot of the
nonsense being reported by the Duncroftians of the 70s, directly. They
are after money. That’s it. They’re taking advantage of the fact that
Savile visited Duncroft when they were there, and twisting their roles
in it to their financial advantage. They had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to go to
the staff, en masse, and say they didn’t want him coming to the school,
because he was interfering with them. They did not. Instead, they lined
up for the opportunity to go to the BBC, and hang out with him. I
believe they did that when they were on home leave as well. If you had
ever encountered any of these women, I think you’d be as suspicious as
we are. Stick around, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, kiddo, but we’re
after the truth and nothing but the truth.

mewsical
March 13, 2013 at 01:09

I should further point out that these Duncroft ‘prostitutes’ were
over the age of consent. One was nearly 18, the other 17. They were
released and went back to their lives.

Most importantly let’s not forget that there was a letter from the
Surrey Police, alleging that they had investigated Savile but that he
was old and infirm. As we now know, that was a forgery. What’s not to
say that this ‘report’ isn’t another forgery? A journalist visited
with one of the accusers, and said her house was a gallery of forged
documents.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 02:12

The “badly written” part wasn’t about Anna’s writing, but the
police report. I didn’t pounce on her, I just said I was disappointed
with this part, since I was expecting her words on it and it was
basically “I’ve been there, nothing happened, etc”. I don’t think
police would bother to make up this report. It doesn’t seem made up to
me, anyway. I’m aware of allegations Savile didn’t visit Duncroft
until the 70′s, but we have this report saying he may have been with
Duncroft girls in the 60′s, and because of this people will surely
question even more Savile’s connections with Duncroft.

About Savile and Duncroft, I will tell my opinions on it. I’ve came
here because people said it gave a different and convincing insight
about what had happened at Duncroft. And left even more confused. I
think Anna made a wonderful job exposing Bebe Roberts and other
“victims”( such as the “Rolls Royce boy”). But what happened at
Duncroft in the 70′s is a mystery to me. I understand what you and the
others are doing and it was enlightening in some parts, but the parts
about what really happened in the 70′s I cannot take at face value
because you weren’t there. I count most as speculation. And to
question the character of all 70′s girls from Duncroft who made a
complain as money hungry women and/or attention seekers is not nice.
Some may be liars, but all of them ? I don’t think so.

I agree Fiona is not a realible witness (not so sure about Keri),
she seems to have serious emotional and psychological issues. From
some of others women’s claims, I get the feeling Savile groomed not
only some of the girls, but part of the staff and Miss Jones. I do
think something happened at Duncroft. Quite frankly, what a man
rumoured to be perv who made no secret of his interest in teenage
girls would do there? I don’t think Savile went there out of goodness
from his heart. But I also don’t think Savile made of Duncroft his
“personal brothel”, I think it is just one of the many places he
visited. IMO, most of the girls there who did “something” with him
were willing. Some of them may have felt abused later, and these ones
were groomed somehow and he may have assaulted a few others. But I
don’t think it was this big thing people made out to be (like that
paedophile sweetshop thins, come on! ). Anyway, the hospitals
accusations, for me, are the most serious ones against Savile. These
were the one which most shocked me.

mewsical March
13, 2013 at 02:30

@ But I also don’t think Savile made of Duncroft his “personal
brothel”, I think it is just one of the many places he visited. IMO,
most of the girls there who did “something” with him were willing.
Some of them may have felt abused later, and these ones were groomed
somehow and he may have assaulted a few others. But I don’t think it
was this big thing people made out to be (like that paedophile
sweetshop thins, come on! ).

Anyway, the hospitals accusations, for me, are the most serious
ones against Savile. These were the one which most shocked me.”@

And we’re not hearing anything further from Stoke, etc. Just the
dreary ol’ Duncroft thing. I agree with you wholeheartedly that most
of the girls who did ‘something’ with him were willing.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 11:31

I read some things about Leeds General Infirmary and what
supposedly happened at Duncroft pales if compared to what
supposedly happened there. I don’t blame NHS about it, but whoever
managed that hospital in the 70′s has something to answer for.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 07:40

Linda,

“I just said I was disappointed with this part, since I was
expecting her words on it and it was basically “I’ve been there,
nothing happened, etc”.

I do think I’ve made perfectly clear that I don’t believe it was
the same house in Battersea Bridge Road, so don’t quite get your
‘been there and nothing happened’.

It has also been pointed out that the words ‘Battersea Bridge
Road WA’ more than likely apply to the Police Station, rather than
being specifically a house in Battersea Bridge Raod itself. There
are lots of roads in the area….

Sorry to disappoint you and not be saying ‘yes, I
remember Jimmy fondling me in Battersea Bridge Road’. Believe me, my
life would be a whole lot easier (and wealthier) if I could say
that…why, I’d be the toast of Fleet Street instead of being a pariah
who has to constantly defend herself.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 11:26

You didn’t disappoint me not saying that. I knew you weren’t
going to say that. I believe you when you say you never met
Savile. I just thought you were going to do some good analysis of
that small report and what might be behind it.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 11:45

I thought I did allude to what might be behiund it – Like the
Surrey Police report asying that they had done everything
according to the book (at that time) and it was the CPS who
decided not to proceed – along comes Ms Sharpling, who
coincidentally happened to be in charge of that particuylar CPS
desk, but is now an independent police ‘supervisor’ to write a
report completely exonerating the CPS and pointing out how the
police could have given the CPS more to work on if only they had
been more efficient…..and you don’t think that is what is behind
it?????

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 12:15

It may be. Actually, that may be the case when I think of
it, these things are not uncommon among police forces. It was
a surprising report ( at least for me), in a way it wasn’t
really expected. From what I’ve read in that report, I felt it
was more “conclusions and suggestions” of how to deal with
police data and be more efficient than a report on Savile’s
activities. Now that I’ve read all the comments this morning I
feel they could have made up that report (which, IMO, would be
incredibly stupid, but not unheard of), but now I agree with
yours and others conclusion that isn’t a proof of anything. In
a court of law, it may have been used as a evidence, but not
to the point of proving serial sexual abuse happening at
Duncroft.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 12:30

Made up may be rather unfair. Look at the way these
things arise, for a start they don’t expect it to ever come
to light in this way.

Then take a busy CID office, maybe 20 odd people working
in the same room, phones ringing everywhere. Someone shouts
out ‘who’s Jimmy Savile’ (remember he wasn’t a household
name in 1963) ‘Dunno mate’ reply three people – but the
fourth says ‘he’s a disc jockey I think, why?”Might be
nothing, but got him down as a visitor to that house where
we nicked sambo for living off’ (and believe me, that is how
they would have spoken back then!) ‘isn’t that the house
where we found that Duncroft girl’ ‘dunno, might be, the two
who were working for him were ex-Duncroft’, ‘better put it
all in and be on the safe side’.

No conspiracy, no particular incompetence, nobody trying
to cover anything up, just people trying to tie up a job
they were doing before getting out on the next bank raid or
something equally exciting.

But now its subject to forensic examination.

Talking of forensic examination, don’t you find it
fascinating that when Ms Jones ( a remarkably informed
source) said ‘They weren’t all angels you know’ the world
was up in arms – how could she speak of innocent children
like that, victims who must be treated reverently?

Suddenly an official report comes out saying Savile
should have been nicked years ago and its all the police
fault, oh and actually some of the Duncroft lot were
prostitutes and nobody minds in the slightest, in fact they
are quite happy discussing which of them were prostitutes
and which not…..I don’t see any headlines saying ‘Callous
remarks of the police intelligence unit saying some of the
girls were prostitutes’…..

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 02:49

When I said “groomed part of the staff and Miss Jones” it wasn’t
intended to be an attack on the character of these individuals. I
meant as an emotional grooming, Savile using his charm and façade to
win their trust. IF something happened at Duncroft, I don’t think the
staff and Miss Jones were aware of it.

Oscar
March 13, 2013 at 07:42

When I was 16 in the 1960s I was picked up by the police who had
been told by my mother that I was taking drugs supplied by my then
(older) girlfriend who she didn’t like.
No amount of me talking to
the cops would convince them otherwise (I drank alcohol but didn’t
take drugs nor did my girlfriend). The cops were convinced she was on
the game as well because of how she dressed- yet she was extremely
prudish.
I would place no store in what any policeman said during
the 60s- they were as riven with old fashioned prejudices as most
people were.
In fact- the police seeing a white girl with a black
male would be enough for them to convince themselves she was either a
prostitute or being ‘raped’ and so on, “on drugs” etc.
Anyone who
thinks differently is fooling themselves.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 07:52

That’s why I posed the question to Linda regarding age – a lot of
this is being judged by people who have no knowledge of those days
and judge everything by modern day standards. Sure you can describe
a disc jockey running his hand down a teenage fan’s back as ‘sexual
assault’ and legally it could be – but you can’t assume that those
who witnessed such a thing in the 1960s are guilty of some giant
cover up for not having said anything at the time – they wouldn’t
have said anything for the boring reason that they wouldn’t have
seen anything wrong!

Oscar
March 13, 2013 at 08:32

yes and I as a young and pretty youth was ‘goosed’ regularly in
West End nightclubs- today it would be regarded as an
assault.
It is hopeless judging things by today’s moral
outlook.

That doesn’t excuse the past but explains it. We cannot
re-write history using today’s morals but if we do then let’s
start with Rupert Murdoch and his infamous Page 3 girls, some who
were under-aged and topless and who a generation of factory
workers were exhorted to oggle their breasts.

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 09:26

@ I as a young and pretty youth was ‘goosed’ regularly in
West End nightclubs- today it would be regarded as an assault
@

Or a compliment….
It
depends on what you go to nightclubs for……….

There was an interesting case around the time of the Savile
furore erupting. Louis Walsh faced a case where a young man had
also sold his story to the ‘papers about how Louis assaulted him
in a nightclub. In due course Louis was able to prove he wasn’t
even in the same country on the night in question; but he had to
go to court to prove it. Imagine the cost of all that court time
on such a fatuous allegation, when it would have been so easy to
demonstrate beforehand with the minimum of *investigation*. But
‘victims’ must be unquestioningly believed.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 09:39

That neatly illustrates one of the problems Moor – in
Louis’ case there was a specific date, but now we are told
that we mustn’t expect victims to remember things like dates
accurately, if the offence was ‘sometime in 1973, or it might
have been 1974 – how on earth would anybody ever be able to
prove ‘that they weren’t there on the date in question’?

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 10:38

Strangely enough – I’m compiling a data base of dates
that I know JS was in a certain place at a certain time.
It’s early days but I am sure that at least some of the 214
‘crimes’ could be ‘solved’ if the police would but
investigate these claims properly.

Bonjour
March 13, 2013 at 10:01

“And, btw, if you think that the police and the authorities are
above ‘making things up’ you are a little naive!”

Quite right Mewsical.

Linda, have you seen the film “In the name of the father” with
Daniel Day-Lewis based on the book by ‘Gerry Conlon’, one of a group
of people wrongly imprisoned for years because the police decided to
set them up for the Guildford pub bombings? It’s a good film…

This was not a one off, they did it too others aswell and the main
reason seems to have been response to extreme public pressure to be
seen to be ‘doing something’ – never mind whether these guys actually
did it or not…

In that respect I can see similarities with this case.

And it has to be said, the whole Jimmy Savilso-so-called ‘scandal’,
is totally irregular – a witch trial for the 21st century, involving a
dead man, and hopefully, in years to come, the people responsible for
this will look back and be embarrassed – maybe even ashamed, as with
what happened a few years after the Salem witch trial…

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 10:24

@ have you seen the film “In the name of the father” @

I’m not sure believing in the movies is quite the way to address
the veracity of the past. The movies also gave us “The Magdalene
Sisters”. That the coppers in 1964 would have delighted in banging up
a long-haired, noisy DJ is probably true enough however.

Just as a matter of interest one of my Blogs picked up on the
police attitude to the emerging “new culture” at the time:
“When I
first read this story, and realised that Savile used to run daytime
dances for coffee-drinking teenagers, I did pause to think Ann’s story
seemed to tick some of the boxes marked “credible”. But then, I read
further into Dave Haslam’s history of the Dancehall scene in
Manchester and how the police in Manchester had ‘gone to war’ on the
teenage culture there, not in 1966, but in 1964.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/when-im-64.html

rabbitaway March
13, 2013 at 10:30

Well said Mewsical ‘nothing but the truth’ is all we want.
Yesterday, the bbc news site showed a video of a woman telling her
story of how she and her mam were in a bank when Jimmy Savile appeared
and pinned her to a wall – yes in a bank, in front of her mother. I’m
sure it was before the banks had cctv but wow – some story. I’m
getting to the point where I don’t blame these people for having a go
for the compo/attention etc but for the beeb to use this sort of
material……!
Correction, I do object to every false story – what
hope is there for any real victims of abuse if time and effort (and
money) is diverted to these fantasists.

Bonjour
March 13, 2013 at 11:15

“I’m not sure believing in the movie is quite the way to address
the veracity of the past. The movies also gave us “The Magdalene
Sisters”

Yes ok, bad example, as the film does take some artistic liesense
and condenses and mixes up a lot of what is in the book to fit time
retrictions, make it more watchable etc, but never wanted to suggest
to her reading a book or watching documentaries she may find boring,
though I found the ones on You Tube (which were shown on tele years
ago) about the Birmingham six, ‘Who bombed Birmingham?’, and their
interviews when they had just been released from prison, and from
watching those (and the In the name of the father film), it can
encourage those who might find it interesting to read or learn a
little more about it…

I have been reading some of your blog Moor (it’s a lot to get
through), it’s very impressive though – I wonder if MWT has stumbled
across it yet? Lol

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 11:34

@ Bonjour

Thanks for the comment.

I don’t quite see why anyone would have any doubt that “the police
lie all the time” since the Media are telling us this almost every day
– and when they are not telling the police are lying they are telling
us the police are incompetent idiots.

I’m convinced that one reason for the current nervous breakdown the
coppers are having is as a result of their own embarrassment about
their performance during the 2010 rioting season, and the vilification
they endured over the revived “Hillsborough” controversy not so long
ago.

Bonjour
March 13, 2013 at 12:32

“I’m convinced that one reason for the current nervous breakdown
the coppers are having is a result of their own embarrassment about
their performance during the 2010 rioting season, and the vilification
they endured over the revived “Hillsborough” controversy not so long
ago”

No doubt these things play a part, they seem to be allowing
themselves to be almost bulliedover the Jimmy Savile thing, which I
think is rather unfair, given as I think it is actually debatable
whether or not there was actually all that much wrong with the way
they handled the Jimmy Savile complaints, and whether most of these
so-called ‘mistakes’ they are supposed to have made are, in fact, just
in. the likes of MWT’s head or the result of the negative spin he
seems determined to put on the whole thing…

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 07:35

“Actually, I was convinced Savile was a child abuser way before
this.”
By what ? Gossip or actual proof ?.
Gossip is self
perpetuating and eventually myth becomes ‘fact’ especially where a celeb
is concerned.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 11:56

Oscar, it would be incredible difficult to all those and women and
men to make up all these allegations. And first-hand accounts is not
gossip. I know there are false stories and some people may be taking
advantage of this for money. However, rumours about Savile date way
before this happened. Witnesses, television colleagues, journalists
have came forward. Are all of them lying? Just take a small stroll on
the Guardian’s comment section, or even the Daily Mail’s comments and
there are reports of his behavior (which, I know, not all are true,
but paints a good picture). He sexually assaulted women on TV (make
not mistake, that was sexual assault) and girls on radio. There are
his words on his auto-biography. Even some of the press stories seem
very convincing. I don’t think there is a witch-hunt and hysteria
(btw, I hate those words).

In the end, there are these two options: Savile was innocent and he
was a healthy male who enjoyed girls of legal age. He may have slept
with some underage girls, but that doesn’t make him a predator. All
that 500 complainers and witnesses are liars after money or attention,
even though only a minority from it talked to the press and has a
lawyer.

Or: Savile was a sexual predador who managed to remain undetected
thanks to a mixture of police incompetence, his own celebrity,
attitudes regarding women and sexual abuse, small cover-ups,
misinformation, and so on. There were always rumours about it, but
press didn’t have the guts to investigate them.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 12:00

Or Savile was no different to say one of the Rolling Stones,
about whom there have always been rumours regarding sleeping wwith
under age girls, excpet that of course Savile is dead….

You could also comapre him to say Cliff Richard, about whom there
have always been rumours on account of him not being married, not
flamboyantly gay, having priests for friends and reading the bible –
defintiely a wierdo – oh, but then he is still alive too….

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 12:56

Funny you mention Cliff Richard, he is the other one, along
with Savile, people said things would come out after his death.
Not that I believe. I guess Icke followers are not easy on him
because he is gay. I do believe Savile was a predator, though. The
difference of Savile’s behavior compared with the Stones behavior
is that Savile’s strikes me as predatory, and the Stones girls
were mostly groupies. I do think Savile had his share of groupies,
but, IMO, his behaviour was in a whole different level.

Anna Raccoon March 13, 2013 at 13:06

You know what I think?

I think he had that typical Catholic hang up – sex is bad out
side marriage. Could only contemplate sex when accompanied by a
hypothetical novena….some good work at the same time. ‘It’s OK
to feel randy right now because I’ve just run five miles for
charity’, that sort of thing. Add in a monumental inferiority
complex – nobody is going to take any notice of me, I need
platinum blonde hair, and a big cigar, and lots of money, and a
Roller, otherwise I’ll get overlooked, and you have a man who
will feel a lot more comfortable with inexperienced girls – note
I am not saying children, just women that won’t know any better
and won’t laugh at his fumbling – the sort of man who today is
notorious for taking a meek and mild Thai bride who laughs at
all his jokes because she barely understands the English….. and
I think you will find Savile in a nutshell.

To qualify as a ‘predator’ I think you need a sort of
confidence, a self belief to entitlement, that Savile didn’t
have in my eyes, his was all bluster and bravado. I find the
idea of him being some bogey man with bulging eyes and the great
and the powerful in his pocket hysterically funny and totally
unbelievable.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 14:08

You’re pretty much on the money here Anna. When I think of
Jimmy Savile I see a man with serious ‘issues’. Remember that
poignant moment with Louis Theroix when he admitted to having
feelings but being very ‘good at masking’ them ?. Jimmy
appeared to like Louis by the end of their time together and
opened up a bit. Why oh why would such an intellegent man
repeatedly risk his reputation taking part in interviews that
always resulted in that question – the elephant in the room ?
No I don’t buy it – never will – there’s a rabbitaway
somewhere !

Moor Larkin March 13, 2013 at 14:13

More pertinently, Louis liked Jimmy…..

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 15:05

I really wish Savile wasn’t a predator and just enjoyed
younger girls because of his inferiority complex. But Savile
seems to me a psychopath and not a man with an inferiority
complex and Catholic guilt. A nomandic lifestyle, his
interview with Anthony Clare (“I have no feeelings, etc”) ,
other interviews (see here: http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/kids-cant-be-kidded-they-smell-the-truth-26252044.html),
his seemingly lack of guilt, his constant need to control
everything and everyone, his selfishness , his promiscuity,
his “grandiose sense of self-worth”, how manipulative he was,
his superficial charm, and so on. The interviews with his
former girlfriend and his PA shows a man whose friendships and
relationships had to be made only his terms. Savile also was a
criminal, and I not talking about his sex life.

And even if the girls Savile slept with were above 16 and
willing, that doesn’t make his behaviour ok. Of course, it is
not as bad as a child abuser. But he wasn’t a 20-something guy
touring with a rock band. He was a middle aged man and he
should have known better than to take advantage of young
girls, even if they teased him or were after him. I know you
are not saying it is right, but even if this is the true, it
shows his mindset.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 15:51

Linda – ‘Savile also was a criminal’ please tell ? Jimmy
may well have been ALL the things people ‘accuse’ him of –
but surely everyone deserves more than the ‘no likey no
lighty’ approach to Justice ! His PA – do me a favour –
check out what she said when the ‘allegations’ first came
out and how she changed her story when it suited her. So he
did not want a wife – lots of unmarried people in the
graveyard with headstones above them !

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 16:31

If they were over 16 and consented thats up to them. End
of.

It doesn’t matter whether his lifestyle meets with your
seal of approval or not. There is nothing criminal about a
man of any age having sex with women over the legal age of
consent who are willing, nor should he have to apologies to
the likes of you or MWT for living a ‘nomadic’
lifestyle.

Have so many of his recent critics bothered looking in a
mirror and judging themselves first? Seeing if they have any
room for improvement? The saintly Karin Ward? or MWT?

Doubt it.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

We all have problems. Jimmy Savile was human, like the
rest of us, and he was clearly no Fred West.

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 16:59

“He was a middle aged man and he should have known better
than to take advantage of young girls, even if they teased
him or were after him, I know you are not saying it is
right”

Your talking about girls over the age of 16 (the legal
age of consent).

‘Take advantage’ of what? The fact they wanted to do the
same as him? (if they were ‘after him’ or even if they
simply agreed to it), he hardly left a trail of illegitimate
sprogs in his wake, I don’t get the problem..

If Jimmy Savile was still living like a 20 something in
his 50′s i’m certainly not saying thats not ‘right’, it’s
was his life…

Mina
Field March 13, 2013 at
18:28

Now now. Its silly for People On The Internet to start
labelling people as psychopaths, isn’t it.

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 15:31

Very well summed up.

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 16:38

That remark was directed at Anna’s description of
Savile’s personality, btw. However, I need to add that there
were middle-aged men out on the road with the young bands,
who also behaved a bit inappropriately, judging by today’s
standards. I really find it tiresome, Linda, that you
continue to argue the toss here when you weren’t even a
twinkle in your father’s eye – or just about – when all this
was going on. Those were different days. As far as older men
and younger women, that’s still going on, tut-tut. The women
are just as culpable as the men, imo, and if they are of the
age of consent, I don’t really see that it’s anyone’s
business but theirs.

Duncan
Disorderly March 13, 2013 at
13:30

Linda,

I think the issue is that the process to determine that Savile was
guilty of so many offences was poor. There are reasons why we do not
show documentaries on television, or stories in newspapers, before a
trial of a living person. Remember Christopher Jefferies? He was a
peeping Tom, a sex pervert and a known associate of paedophiles.
Except he wasn’t. After due process and analysis of the facts,
Jefferies turned out to be innocent of any murder and he was released.
The stories the papers published turned out to be either made up, or
were not checked properly. The problem with Savile is that he is dead:
he will get no due process, and the papers do not even have to check
their sources because they will not get sued for libel. I bet many
journalists know that the stories they are writing about Savile are
nonsense.

You cannot try a dead person, but you can carefully examine the
evidence against him. This has not happened. Rather, all the
allegations against him were put in a pile and a decision was made
that he must have been guilty of everything. I certainly do not
dismiss the possibility that Savile could be guilty of some of the
allegations: I accept it is highly probable he is guilty of something.
I just want a quality investigation.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 14:10

I understand Duncan. I personally think the “Giving Vicitms a
Voice” a joke. Only statistics and no voice whatsoever. But what made
me convince of his guilt? Well, one person was Alison Bellamy. She is
a journalist who works at the Yorskshire Evening Post and a friend of
Savile who heard of the rumours regarding him before, but chose not to
believe it. She later wrote a biography. Later, in the wake of the
scandal, se wrote a compelling piece and now believes he is guilty:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/betrayed-by-my-good-friend-jimmy-savile-1-5072056

She says she was convinced after she personally heard first hand
stories. The women she talked to must have been convincing for a
journalist and friend of Savile, who didn’t believe the rumours about
him, change her mind.. It is also heartbreaking to read what some of
his friends are feeling right now.

Then we have June Thornton:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9968467.Ex_York_nurse_saw_Jimmy_Savile____molest____patient/

This is her COMPLETE story (what appeared in other media outlets
were only the salacious details). She was recovering from a surgery
and she tried to to tell a nurse what happened, but was ignored. She
didn’t work for LGI apparently and couldn’t do much. Say what you
will, I don’t believe for a minute this old woman is lying. She still
shaken about what happened and feels guilty for not doing more. The
other story (the girl assaulted on a trolley) seems believable to me
too.

Then I came across these comments. Here http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/local/breaking-news-savile-s-title-to-be-stripped-1-5076892
:

“Jimmy Savile almost cost my late father his job – my Dad and a
co-worker both saw Savile behaving inappropriately with a young girl
and he reported it to his boss – I can’t tell you exactly what my
Father did for a living, he worked for the NHS , as it will compromise
the investigations but I can tell you that when my Dad and his
co-worker made their report, they were told that no-one would believe
them and they may even be made to resign – that was over 37 years ago
. So Mr Renshaw Woods, your impressions of Savile remain unsullied but
that only reinforces my view and the view of others of just how clever
Savile was, you have to be clever to carry out a master deception like
child abuse on a grand scale – you were duped Mr Woods ,like millions
of others and if you want to go on believing your fantasy, who am I to
dispel those fantasies . I wish could sue Savile’s estate if only on
behalf of my late Dad who fretted and in fact grieved over what he had
witnessed probably because he had a daughter of the same age (me) He
wasn’t given much choice in the matter so he chose his livelihood over
his principles because, as a poor man with a wife and children to
keep, he had no choice. I won’t sue the estate , how can one dead man
sue another ? But I want to see the body exhumed and burned, I want
those people affected by Savile to get recompense for his crimes , I
want him stripped of every honour ever given to him even though he is
dead . It may be petty revenge to you and revenge is dish best eaten
very cold (i.e.dead) – if your life had been threatened or affected by
Savile or what Savile did to someone you loved either directly or in
my case, indirectly, you would be singing from a very different hymn
sheet , believe me .’

Later she says:

“I don’t doubt that many false claims are being made , bandwagon
jumping , lawyers with much to gain but I sincerely hope that these
false claims will be rooted out and the real victims can be counted
and hopefully helped . My Dad is beyond help now – but he had a loving
family who did believe him and his co-worker (who is still alive) and
if there is any kind of divine justice , the at least my Dad isn’t
suffering Savile’s company now . Thanks , your comment was very kind
and very understanding. I have played it down until now , not wanting
to say much probably because the fear of being believed is still
haunting me all these years on . Those of you who gave this a thumbs
down – you have no hearts at all , no compassion and are tainted ,
much like Savile himself – shame on you all and God help you”

And then:
“Thank you Renshaw and bananaman – you will never know
how much courage it finally took on my part to finally reveal my hand
in public albeit 37 years on, the hurt it caused my family and the
family of my Dad’s co-worker is nowhere near as raw as it was for us
but for my Dad it was a wholly different matter . I also think that
people who leap on the bandwagon in the hope of compensation should be
hung up , it diminishes the pain of the people that were really
affected , I don’t count us in that category , we were just collateral
damage but save your real pity and empathy for that child my Dad saw
him molest in her hospital bed ”

She made (I think is a sge) other comments before finnaly revealing
this. She may be lying, yes. But I don’t think she is. She still
emotionally connected by what happened to her father and what Savile
did to that girs, which corraborates with June Thorton story regarding
his MO. And I believe these women. There are other stories and
testimonies but I won’t bother you posting them here. Not only the
stories, but number of people who came forward and what others said
does paint a conving picture.

Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 15:17

Again, sorry about the typos.

Jonathan
Mason March 14, 2013 at 23:32

Linda, I didn’t know about Alison Bellamy, but I took a look at
your link.

She was the Yorkshire Evening Post’s (Leeds-based regional paper)
beat reporter for Jimmy Savile for many years and it is obvious that
he used her for PR for his current projects. She claims they were
friends, but it looks like a business relationship to me. She was his
AUTHORISED biographer, so it is unlikely she would have tried too hard
to get the dirt on him.

I can understand her being piqued and humiliated, because no sooner
was her book published than it became completely obsolete due to the
revelations and accusations that were only very lightly touched upon
in her book. You can read Amazon.uk reviews of the book. In the
article you linked to she mentions having heard first hand accounts of
women who were sexually abused by Savile, but I cannot find any such
accounts via Google linked to her name or under the Yorkshire Evening
Post.

Here is a video of her making something of a fool of herself,
unfortunately, in retrospect.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/video-interview-alison-bellamy-remembers-leeds-s-own-sir-jimmy-savile-1-3947005

Jonathan
Mason March 14, 2013 at 23:33

Here is a video interview in which Bellamy makes a number of
remarks that in retrospect she must find embarrassing.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/video-interview-alison-bellamy-remembers-leeds-s-own-sir-jimmy-savile-1-3947005

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 11:48

@Jonathan Mason March 14, 2013 at 23:33
Here is a video
interview in which Bellamy makes a number of remarks that in
retrospect she must find embarrassing.

What do you make of Jim, making himself popular as ever with his
1990 remarks about the psychiatric branch……

“We should burn shrinks! Burn the bastards. If a psychiatrist would
think that I was strange, it would take me absolutely no effort at all
to completely unsettle him and maybe show that he himself needed some
treatment.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/tears-of-clown.html

Jonathan
Mason March 15, 2013 at 12:26

Moor, I don’t think Savile really understood what psychiatrists do.
Usually they see someone either after a suicide attempt, or an arrest
for some kind of out of control behavior, or for assessment AFTER
arrest for a crime. So when an assessment of the risk of future
offending is done, that is when the person is already before the
courts. Psychiatrists only offer theoretical diagnoses of members of
the general public for fun, that is not their real avocation. So a
person is not really going to be diagnosed a psychopath until they
have done something, so the whole process is rather circular.

You certainly can’t diagnose someone has having a paedophile
paraphilia without very, very strong evidence, usually a conviction or
an admission. It is almost unheard of (more likely unknown) for people
to voluntarily present themselves to a psychiatrist to complain of
being a kiddy fiddler. For one thing the psychiatrist would probably
have to report this to law enforcement.

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 12:42

@ Psychiatrists only offer theoretical diagnoses of members of the
general public for fun ‘

Savile’s session with Anthony Clare (and what Clare said about it
later) is now widely used by the media/internet as a diagnosis of
Savile’s psychopathy. The interesting thing I found about the timing
there was that Savile made that comment the year before he did the
Clare thing. It was almost as if Savile was seeking Clare out to prove
his challenge to the science. I wonder who actually approached
who.

I think it’s fairly common for people old enough to have lived
through “the war” to be innately suspicious of the sort of Analysis
undertaken in California initially, but now seen prevailing in our
sink estate culture, and all around the rest of us, in the form of
“Counselling”.

In the case of Savile, this amateur mental sleuthing seems to lead
many to assume they can climb inside his head and interpret him for
themselves, rather than paying any attention to things he actually
said. It’s an interesting phenomenon that as people have less and less
generalised personal contact (living in cars etc), they judge one
another more and more harshly – hence the nasty things people seem to
want to say about other people and the mob rushing to judgement,
following the lead of “trusted” sources….. those trusted source being
anyone who claims to have “suffered”, just now. I’ve lost count of the
number of times I’ve seen the sort of comment that “they wouldn’t say
this sort of thing if it wasn’t true”.

Moor Larkin March 15, 2013 at 12:47

sorry, the last bit dropped off…………………

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the sort of
comment that “they wouldn’t say this sort of thing if it wasn’t
true…..

……………..and yet they can read acres of forums and official media
where UNTRUE things are being prattled every single hour!!

Jonathan
Mason March 15, 2013 at 13:02

@Moor re psychiatrists

I didn’t see the Clare/Savile interview, though there is a short
section here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iHMVGtyvxY

This is not a standard psychiatric diagnostic interview. It is just
TV entertainment like Parkinson.

Duncan Disorderly
March 12, 2013 at 10:53

The anonymous letter the police received in 1998 is startling evidence that
Savile had, er, a lot of energy:
“Regularly, he runs for the Life charity
in Roundhay Park in Leeds, he would say ‘Now I’ve had a run, I feel like some
bum’. And would then later in the evening go where the rent boys hang
out.’”

‘Now I’ve had a run, I feel like some bum’

The wonder here is that the letter wasn’t immediately thrown in the
bin.

Driftwood
(@Angleseydrift) March 12, 2013 at
10:51

I’d like to draw your attention to the similarities with what your saying
and what I’ve been saying about the north Wales “scandal”. (South Wales has
managed to avoid the required attention thus far)
1. Reports and the media-
does anyone still breathe who can’t see the wood for the trees in this country
and who isn’t aware of how the Main Stream Media (MSM) act as the
dissemination squad of each governmental department facing the constructed
lime-light at any given time? Do folk still adjudicate on the basis of what
the MSM are feeding them? I’m afraid I might know your answers.
2. Hidden
Agendas- or not so hidden if one has a brain function outside the realms of
Jeremy Kyle world. There’s always someone who’s got one. A player, an
opposition target. Could be a long running political issue. Could be a
historical working knowledge of someone involved, or their families actions
over a land deal in the 60′s. But sure as rain falls from above, there’s a
hidden agenda on one or both sides of this type of theatre and they always
have a personal goal. Up here it was Malcolm King/Dennis Parry et al.
3.
Personal – Why oh why oh why do we try to tell people who aren’t even in the
same room that things aren’t what they are presented as by the Government
controlled MSM? What’s the point of it/us/others constantly giving the time we
could spend more constructively to try and enlighten, what would seem to be, a
fat lazy sloth like society? I know not.

Please accept that I can’t accept that JS wasn’t a serious procurer of
young folk for others who were “at it” so to speak. I’ve read too much to
believe otherwise. One day we might meet at a suitable junction on the subject
until then I’ll leave JS to the vultures.
Don’t forget the next “Report” is
due soon too. The Mcaur Report will no doubts be disseminated in the usual
fashion. Wonder who’ll be on the publish button at mid
night?
Regards
(http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/macur-review?collection=moj-matrix-dev-news-meta&form=news&profile=_default&sort=date&query=!padrenullquery&meta_C_phrase_sand=News-PressReleases-MR&num_ranks=2000&meta_N_sand=2013jan)

I love the BBC
March 15, 2013 at 00:06

Is there any actual evidence that Savile was procuring for others? I
haven’t seen anything you could call reliable about that just yet.

Moor
Larkin March 12, 2013 at 10:22

“Duncroft has cropped up again!! Savile’s name was noted in connection with
the school as early as 1964 – we are told. Is this the Remand School girl
Savile wrote about in his own autobiography? I think we should be definitely
told. Perhaps Anna Raccon has more to say on this one. I hope so.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-idiotic-in-pursuit-of-absurd.html

Thanks Ms. Raccoon….

Casting my mind back to comments within your Duncroft Posts, I recall
Mewsical saying she was “pumped for information” about Duncroft by NotW
journalists way back when she was a youngster. They tried to get her tipsy as
I recall.
…. Join the dots………..

mewsical March 12, 2013 at 16:11

I’m pretty sure I could guess at the name of Jamaican pimp in 1964 as
well. The NOTW reporters wanted to do a follow-up with me, and despite
pouring a considerable amount of Mateus Rose down my 15 y.o. neck, to the
extent they had to carry me down the twisty stairs at the Wig and Pen, I
didn’t cooperate with them. I don’t recall if Savile’s name came up in the
convo, but my sister-in-law, who was with us, was a writer for the Record
Mirror at the time.

mewsical
March 12, 2013 at 17:38

Correction – I was 16 at the time. Wouldn’t want to get the Wig &
Pen in any trouble!

Oscar March 13, 2013 at 07:26

so let me get this right : whatever the truth of this new ‘report’ it
is basically confirming the words of the ex-headmistress of Duncroft who
said the young gels were a little wayward morally and for which she was
roundly condemned by that organ of repute, the Daily Mail ?

Indeed you do well Anna to compile this record (along with the Death
of The Life of Jimmy Savile).

Ellen Coulson (nee
Dunn) March 14, 2013 at 11:05

Actually Mewsical Miss Jones told me that she’d had a girl at Duncroft
who had been a prostitute who was involved in the Profumo affair. Before
my time there so don’t know who she was.

mewsical
March 14, 2013 at 16:03

Profumo was 1963, so I would have been there with such a person.
Nobody I knew ever admitted to anything at that level. They were all
run-of-the-mill types.

Moor
Larkin March 13, 2013 at 10:51

@ I’m compiling a data base of dates that I know JS was in a certain place
at a certain time. @

There’s never been any Media/Legal acknowledgement about the reported
f-f-f-fact, and subsequent police i-i-i-nvestigation, about how Savile somehow
conducted a paedophilic assault on a male, in the back of his two-door 1977
Rolls convertible in…………… 1972.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 14:24

So did a lot of other people – Anyone on for some direct action on all this
?

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 14:47

I also don’t think they made it up, but it is a possibility in light of
what is happening. You know, what you’ve written here may be close to the true
of what went on then.

Yes, nobody raised an eyebrow in calling these girls prostitutes. Now the
dust has settled a little.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 16:14

Straight from the horse’s mouth, Rabbit. When he said he used to the
troublemakers in the boiler room of his clubs, this is criminal activity. Or
in his autobiography where he said he learned of a scam involved his employees
and instead of of firing the men involved, he was angry because he wanted to
be part of it, and eventually was.

This links shows this and much more. The man was indeed a crook: http://thesumpplug.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/don-jimmy-gambino-obe.html

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 16:22

And the PA didn’t change her story, IIRC. I remember that in the first one
she seemed to be angry and in denail, but in the second she said he may be an
abuser. I guess she felt very criticized after that first story and decide to
give a second revealing the most unpleasant parts of his personality. Anyway,
I was not talking about neither, but the very fist one she gave before the
scandal. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2058145/Jimmy-Savile-death-I-asked-Jimmy-away-wedding.html

Moor
Larkin March 13, 2013 at 16:46

@rabbitaway

I’m not sure Janet Cope ever really “turned against” Jimmy. She was given
the appearance of having done so by the media, and just appearing in Exposure
Pt2 suggested she must have done, but then Miss Jones might have appeared in
that show, if she had not had some good friends and advisors….

As to Savile being a “criminal”, that’s just nonsense. He was obviously
street-wise and knew how to handle trouble in his clubs, but he worked for
Mecca and there’s no way they would have harboured a “criminal”. The
boiler-room thing sounds like a perfectly sensible idea on a boozy night in
some speak-easy and he no doubt free-lanced, but his real living was made with
Mecca – a national and well-respected company.

This is his description of how he controlled his teenage disco’s:

“I can tell you that in three and a half years there was never one fight in
the Plaza, Manchester. Not one, ever. Impropriety? Forget it baby! If you
smelt of booze, you couldn’t get in. If you had long sideburns we kept a razor
at the cash desk and if you let my lads take your sideburns off with our razor
you could come in. If you didn’t; piss off. If you came incorrectly dressed,
if your shoes weren’t clean, trousers weren’t pressed, shirt wasn’t clean,
then you were sent home; but I removed the sting by telling them they could
get in for free.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/teenage-kicks.html

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 16:54

Two interesting articles you’ve provided there Anna – thank you. For all
his ‘faults’ Ms Cope appears to have been genuinely fond of her employer. I
just don’t why she had to go on the telly and rubbish a man who meant so much
to her. She should have kept her dignity and the good memories she had –
methinks she was well paid for her ‘stories’. As for the Godfather thing – so
what ? it’s the abuse of children that concerns people – to be labled the
worlds worst preditory paedophile ……..
Second thoughts – the Godfather
thing – again why was this not investigated in the 60′s ? Shame on all those
releasing their expose’s after the fact ….cowards.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 16:55

OOps apologies I meant Linda not Anna ….

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 17:18

“The man was indeed a crook”

So are a lot of people, including MTW, who has been threatening,
blackmailing, lying and god knows what else over all this.

He was acquitted of blackmail in 2003, perhaps ‘mistakes were made’ with
that case too.

A lot of Jimmy Savile’s accusers have criminal records too. Why are you
singing him out for harsh judgement?

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 17:28

@“The man was indeed a crook”

So are a lot of people, including MTW, who has been threatening,
blackmailing, lying and god knows what else over all this.

He was acquitted of blackmail in 2003, perhaps ‘mistakes were made’ with
that case too.

A lot of Jimmy Savile’s accusers have criminal records too. Why are you
singing him out for harsh judgement? @

My little b.s. meter is telling me that Linda Danvers has some sort of axe
to grind here. Perhaps her mother was at Duncroft? Fiona SJ told me that a few
of the children and grand-children were wading in without revealing that’s who
they were. Interestingly, I was also informed that the mothers of these young
women – mother having been at Duncroft – were thoroughly disinterested in the
whole business, and simply wanted to put the past where it belonged. However,
their kids were not allowing that and keep stirring the sh-t over on the
social sites.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:42

“A lot of Jimmy Savile’s accusers have criminal records too. Why are you
singing him out for harsh judgement?”

Erm, because he is being accused of abusing hundereds of kids and
researching his past would show what type of person and character he was. I do
think he what I showed count as a criminal behaviour, BTW. We may have
different opinions, but don’t think he was exactly a nice guy.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:24

Stree-wise is one thing. But nothing justifies this type of violence, tying
people and beating them. This is assault and a criminal behaviour. Savile was
not a judge. If some kids were after trouble, it was his job to kick them out
of the club, or keep them locked until the police arrived. The link I posted
showed that it would be very difficult for Savile to be a club manager if he
didn’t have some shady connections and a certain type of personality.

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 19:24

Rabbitaway,

What do you mean by ‘direct action’? lol

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 19:31

Linda_Danvers,

Have you seen the way some bouncers feel they have the right to act these
days?

Plus a lot of these tales could have been exaggerated for bravado, a lot of
men want to be seen as tough, getting into fights etc

It might not be right but he wasn’t in the same line of work as Mark
Williams Thomas – who probably has a few skeletons in his closest himself…

Moor Larkin March
13, 2013 at 20:24

@ Linda_Danvers March 13, 2013 at 19:24
“The link I posted showed that
it would be very difficult for Savile to be a club manager if he didn’t have
some shady connections and a certain type of personality.”

So every Club Manager in Manchester was a criminal back then? You sound
like a copper from 1963……..

I’ve re-read that Link you left and all that blogger has done is much what
I did, but he has cherry-picked Dave Haslam’s book and spun it his way. One
thing he doesn’t make clear is that Savile explained in Haslam’s book that the
“Rolls” wasn’t a Rolls, but a cut-about old Bentley, which Savile had had a
Rolls grille welded to, to make it *look* like a Rolls. If you click on the
pic and look at the close-up you can see that the car is not what it appears
to be, at a thumbnail glance…

The blog says Savile ended up a “director” of Mecca. I’m not saying company
directors cannot also be criminals, but really…… Savile’s name has just been
pursued through the entire database of the UK police and nothing ‘criminal’
has come up from “the past” other than an implication that he might have paid
for sex back in 1964, and the HMIC has felt the need to spin that into “sex
with children”….. In 1964 the Manchester police “went to war” on the
Manchester Club scene but there’s not a sniff about Savile….. even though the
GMP have recently seen fit to label Big Cyril as a paedo, they’ve left Savile
out of it.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:32

mewsical, I think I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t mean “young women” when I
wrote “above 16″. I meant teenage girls, 16, 17, 18. From what I read about
JS, he did make clear what his preferences were. Even the producer of “Jim’ll
Fix It” said so, and I don’t think he made that up. Just because a teen is
above the legal age of consent it doesn’t make it ok a middle-age man sleep
with these girls. Not illegal, but morally questionable. A person doesn’t
magically become an adult just because they turned 16. Of course, some girls,
even lower than 16 may be more mature than an adult person, but these examples
are not the rule.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:39

No, mewsical. I’m not related to any of the Duncroft women. You shouldn’t
toss accusations just because I disagree with some things here.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:44

Mina Field,

Not really, if that person showed many signs of being one.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 19:52

Hi rabbit,

She may have been paid, but I don’t think she is a liar because of that.
IMO, Janet liked him. I think they had some good moments together and tried to
bury other aspects of him that hurt her.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the “Godfather” thing. I just thought it
could be intersting to determinate Savile’s personality.

Mina Field March 13, 2013 at 19:54

@Linda Danvers
Oh, didn’t realise you knew him personally and are
professionally qualified. If thats the case its different.

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 20:27

Linda_Danvers,

“A person doesn’t magically become an adult just because they turned
16″

A person doesn’t ‘magically’ become an ‘adult’ just because they turned 21
either – experience of life is required, finding out what you like and don’t
like, things won’t always go to plan, but if you try something and decide it’s
not for you, at least you’ve learnt from it.

Most 16 year olds (though I doubt all) don’t really want to have sexual
relations with middle aged men, unless they look like Johnny Depp, anyway,
thats probably the main reason why it is not the ‘norm’.

By 17 many have been out of school a year though and will probably be at
work, college or university, mixing with people of various ages – lots of
older men tried to chat me up when I was 17. You might not know everything at
that age, or 20 for that matter, but I think you can say yay or nay to a man
of whatever age – it’s only ‘taking advantage’, if it’s actually ‘taking
advantage’ – you know, exploiting someone’s stupidity, which isn’t most men’s
intention when they chat up a woman or a girl, most men are actually put off
by gullibility or naivety, and like a woman to know what’s what regardless of
her age. It’s only ‘taking advantage’ – if that’s what you’ve set out to do –
most men don’t just seek to ‘use’ women for sex.

corevalue March 14, 2013 at 18:17

I’ll call you out there. Show me where Roger Ordish (Jim’ll fix it
producer) said anything like that about Savile.

rabbitaway March 13, 2013 at 20:28

Hi Luco – I guess I mean doing something as opposed to just talking about
how unfair all this is. Start up a campaign to lobby parliament – set up
protests around the country – There needs to be a change in the law to protect
the dead – The Police should be forced to investigate these accusations
properly. I wonder if anyone else here feels as strongly ?

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 21:04

Rabbitaway,

What can you do? Write a letter to someone in charge?

Mina Field March 13, 2013 at 21:05

@rabbitaway
Laudable sentiments, but I fear not the right time. Every
MP, every senior police officer, every man, woman and dog, is too scared of
the label that will attach to them should they not be seen to be handwringing.
Things might change gradually as some of the false accusations unravel and
word gets leaked. The Met police will end up being the scapegoat for leading
the whole police service down the garden path – and will deserve it. There
will be a re-shuffle within the DPP’s office, and the BBC will air a
documentary titled ‘Just who is M-W-T?’

Bonjour March 13, 2013 at 22:21

Linda, not being a ‘nice guy’ doesn’t make you a paedophile though. There
are lots of unpleasant guys out there and we can all be unpleasant at times.
Not being a ‘nice guy’ is not a crime. He still did a lot of good.

The recent accusations of historic paedophilia aside, those other ‘crimes’
you mention pretty small in the grand scheme of things and can’t be evidence
of ‘paedophilla’ at all.

And just because someone tends to bottle their feelings up doesn’t mean
they are nessiserliy a ‘psychopath’ – and it can be a sign of low self
essteem, as can having a chip on your shoulder and blowing your own
trumpet…

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 22:55

Mina, it’s a theory he is a psychopath. It’s only my opinion. Some
psychologists said as well. He fits the descriptions.

Lucozade:

Exactly, that was what I meant. But I’m not talking about the girls
behaviour here, I’m talking about the men’s. If a middle-age man have sex
teenage girls (or boys) and this is a regular behavior, they are taking
advantage of them for sex. Why have sex with teenagers, and not women? These
girls, for the most part, are immature, they want to act older, be older, but
they are naive and could be easily swayed. Especially teenage girls with low
self-esteem. There may not be consequences for most of them later, but some
may feel abused. I’m not saying teenagers don’t know sex and shouldn’t have
sex lives, just that middle-age men should know better than taking advantage
of a teenage girl.

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 23:02

Yes, as far as I know, these assaults may be small crimes and they are not
evidence of paedophilia, I agree, only his character.

And there are evidences of sexual abuse, Bonjour. First hand accounts and
witnesses accounts are evidence. They may not be proof, but they are evidence.
Most court cases of rape are judged by these type of evidences alone.

Bottled up feelings are not the only evidence Savile was a psychopath. He
fitted almost all descriptions. Manipulative, nomadic lifestyle, a grandiose
sense of self-worth, superficial charm, shallow emotions, and so on.

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 23:09

Linda Danvers said: “No, mewsical. I’m not related to any of the Duncroft
women. You shouldn’t toss accusations just because I disagree with some things
here.” Well, I’d expect you to say that, regardless. You’ve got an agenda,
though. Were you molested by a middle-aged man when you were a teenager with
low self-esteem? You take up cudgels energetically on that issue. If you’re
talking about the Duncroft women, which I believe you are because you NEVER
mention any other victims at all, this had nothing to do with low self-esteem.
They went out of their way to lie and in my experience if you lie about one
thing, you’ll lie about anything. You know nothing about Duncroft except what
you’ve read in the yellow press. You’re talking to women who were at Duncroft
on this blog, and not a one of us thinks that Jimmy Savile did anything
legally or morally wrong as things stand at the moment. One of the main
accusers, the beef biryani woman, has also, on the record, said that Jimmy
Savile made a grab at her in the corridor at Duncroft. She says she slapped
his hands off and told him to leave her alone. He did and didn’t bother her
any further. Then, along comes this ridiculous story about blankets and
television rooms, etc. Of course, Fiona is the witness. So, what happened to
the ‘leave me alone’ scenario, pray tell? See what I mean about the stories
changing all the time? It might interest you to know that these women were
critical of Kari Ward, said she was a liar as well.

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 23:38

Linda,

How old is ‘middle aged’ though?

My sister did go out with a man who was 34 when she was 17, and we never
thought much of it at the time, we didn’t think he took advantage of her,
she’d left home by that time too…

Lucozade March 13, 2013 at 23:45

Linda,

I’ll tell you, I was probably a silly girl at 17, but i’ve met lots of 17
year olds since that seem a lot savvier than I probably was at 22!!

It’s probably down too different upbringings though….

Jonathan Mason
March 14, 2013 at 00:17

Probably he felt sexually inadequate and was scared of having a sexual
relationship with an older woman.

In itself I don’t think that age difference matters a great deal as long as
the couple can self-support economically. I was once married for 10 years to a
woman 15 years my senior. I am now 61 and my wife is 25 and we have small
children. Some women reach their full level of mental and emotional maturity
very young, especially if they are not bound for collage and a professional
career.

When it comes to casual sexual hookups, as they are now known, all you can
say is that it takes two to tango and I imagine that Savile’s fame, or
notoriety, his money, his Rolls Royce, his acquaintance with the Beatles and
other popular musical performers, might have made him a useful bedpost notch
for many a council-estate teen with little going on in her life.

No doubt he led a very sleazy lifestyle, but whether he was both Britain’s
most prolific rapist and Britain’s leading paedophile as has now been claimed,
has yet to be proven. Remember he is of the same generation as Coronation
Street’s Bill Roach who claims to have slept with 1000 women, or is it
2000?

Incidentally I lived in Leeds from 1975-79 and knew many nurses, some of
them very promiscuous, albeit across town at St. James’s Hospital, not LGI and
I never remember hearing ANYTHING about Savile from anyone who had ever met
Savile in those 4 years, although in retrospect it appears that his Roundhay
Park flat where he died was only 10 minutes walk from where I lived. (I would
never have wanted to meet him anyway and certainly would not have sat on his
knee to be fondled!)

Oscar March 14, 2013 at 01:42

you are really expressing your own moral code. Yoy are entitled to it but
so are others entitled to theirs
I have yet to find this ‘book of rules’
about sex and what the prescribed rules are- apart from legal ones about age
etc which should be adhered to if one doesn’t want to end up in court.

I look at couples all the time and ponder :”what on earth do you see in
each other as I wouldn’t touch either of you with a barge pole ” and I presume
others think the same about me.

It’s impossible to claim that a 60 year old with an 18 year old is wrong,
right. suspect or otherwise. It just is.

mewsical March 13, 2013 at 23:24

Linda Danvers said: “as far as I know, these assaults may be small crimes
and they are not evidence of paedophilia, I agree, only his character.

And there are evidences of sexual abuse, Bonjour. First hand accounts and
witnesses accounts are evidence. They may not be proof, but they are evidence.
Most court cases of rape are judged by these type of evidences alone.

Bottled up feelings are not the only evidence Savile was a psychopath. He
fitted almost all descriptions. Manipulative, nomadic lifestyle, a grandiose
sense of self-worth, superficial charm, shallow emotions, and so on.”

So far, all you are doing is parrotting what you read in the papers. He
didn’t have a ‘nomadic’ lifestyle, for example. Lived pretty much in either
London or Scarborough. What do you now about his emotions? He did have a big
ego, but as far as his self-worth, he did a lot of work for charity, so that
made his worth something to the recipients of his efforts. Go read some
serious papers on psychopathy. Then get back to us. Once again, you weren’t
there in the 60s and 70s, so all your opinions are based on what you read, not
what you KNOW. In fact, with all due respect, you were a schoolgirl in the
1990s weren’t you?

Bonjour March 14, 2013 at 00:12

Linda, you really don’t know he had ‘shallow emotions’, but that could
describe a lot of men. ‘Nomadic’ lifestyle counts for nothing.
‘Superficial
charm’ in his case looks to me to be simply a slight awkwardness in social
situations and I don’t know if he was ‘manipulative’ – but MWT and Meirion
Jones sure as hell are and Meirion described many of them involved in the axed
Newsnight piece as ‘manipulative’ too – maybe their minor (or not so minor)
personality flaws will be used against them in a Kangaroo court trial one day
too?

Linda_Danvers
March 13, 2013 at 23:49

If I was molested as a teenager? No, but a man sexuality assaulted me when
I was a child. Mewsical, I’m not talking about Duncroft women here, I’m
talking about middle-age men with teens girls, how it could be morally
wrong.

You’re right. I don’t know nothing about Duncroft but what I read here and
in the press. I know you’ve been at Duncroft in the 60′s and never witnessed
any of the things that supposedly happened there in the 70′s. I told you what
I think it happened there. Fiona is the witness to that incident? I thought
she was “Ms. G” of the report. And the other wouldn’t be Deborah Cogger, would
be? (correct me if I wrong, but think that is the women of the corridor
story). I though she left Duncroft by 1976. And why the story about the
television room is ridiculous? Yes, I know Fiona and some of the others were
critical of Keri, I read this here,

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 00:00

He did have a nomadic lifestyle. He live in London, Scarborough, Leeds,
Glencoe, that motorhome, etc. And it wasn’t only me who called him a
psychopath, psychologists said that as well, not that this is very important
right now. Yes, I was a schoolgirl in the 80′s and 90′s .The fact I didn’t
lived in the 60′s or 70′s only counts when talking about the sexual politics
back then. As far as I know, none of you met Savile. We are all speculating on
the motives and characters of people (and I’m not talking about Duncroft) and
what really happened. And it happened, 30, 40 years ago. I personally find
extremely improbable that 500 people are lying. I know some are, but not
all.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 00:04

Lucozade, middle age for me is a man in his 40′s and 50′s. I’m not saying
all adult-teen relationships would fall into that category I mentioned, I know
some teen girls are more mature than many adults out there. As you said
upbrigings counts.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 00:25

Well, when I said “shallow emotions” I took partly from this piece: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2012-11/08/jimmy-savile-scandal-interview

I found this part very interesting:
“I’ve never encountered anyone so
charismatic yet so cold. He was completely detached, free of concern to the
point of pathology. To save effort he never used names, just ‘my friend’, or
‘our pal here’”

Well, many people described Savile as manipulative, using words like
“master manipulator” etc. Merion and MWT may be manipulative people, but that
don’t make them criminals or bad people. What we know about them is very
little and it is hard to make a judge of character with so little info. Some
witnesses may have been manipulative (I thought only Fiona was described that
way) but that doesn’t mean they are lyings.

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 00:40

Linda_Danvers,

I’ve not read the ornament report yet but I thought Fiona was Ms G too.

But I also remember Ms G alluding to the police an incident in the ‘tv
lounge’, but not going any further.

I also gathered from the CPS report that police got Ms E’s complaint before
Ms G’s, but by the time they spoke too her sister, Ms D she’d already found
out about the investigation on Friends Reunited because she said Ms G had been
talking about it – which made me wonder if she had in turn heard from Ms B –
the original complainant from Surrey.

But I shall have to look at the Ornament report as that sounds more
detailed….

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 00:50

Jonathan Mason,

“I would never have wanted to meet him anyway and certainly would not have
sat on his lap to be fondled”

I should think not, lol….

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 01:04

Jonathan, I don’t care much for age difference. When I was 21 I fell in
love for a 54 year old man. My problem is not the years between, but someone
taking advantage of immaturity.

I do think Savile had his fair share of groupies and enjoyed them. Sleazy,
that he was for sure. I know many people from Leeds never heard a thing about
Savile, but many others did heard. I’m not sure he was Britain’s leading
paedophile or the countries most prolific rapist. I do think he is guilty of
many of the things he is accused of. Either way, Savile’s image is as dead as
he is. There is no way it is ever going to recover from this.

Jonathan Mason
March 14, 2013 at 02:02

“I’m not sure he was Britain’s leading paedophile or the countries most
prolific rapist.”

No, but that is what the Yewtree Report claimed as a matter of fact. Has
anyone ever topped 34 rapes in the UK? And the fact remains that there still
isn’t really any evidence in the public domain that Savile ever raped anyone
or had sex with a minor. Quite possibly he did, but the evidence isn’t out
there, because we just don’t have the details.

For example, since there are no claims of his having impregnated under age
girls, did he use contraception or were they on the pill or was he infertile?
In spite of complaints from 4 or 5 hundred women and a few men, we aren’t even
close to knowing anything of this kind.

I also agree that Savile’s reputation will never recover. Not that I care
in the slightest about J. Savile, but I am more interested to see what will
happen in all the other cases that are pending that involve media
personalities from my youth. I must say that I will be really, really
disillusioned if Stuart Hall, of all people, the cheery presenter of Look
North in my teens, is found to be a kiddy fiddler. I shall never watch TV
again!

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 02:08

Disagree, but thanks for the input.

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 02:12

And he’s supposed to remember everyone he ever met??

Anna
Raccoon March 14, 2013 at 06:55

Some of us know a great deal about Merion and MWT, and some of us are
learning more each day…..don’t forget that some of us were at Duncroft when
Merion was visiting – and not in the 70s either….

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 02:21

“Disagree, but thanks for the input.”

You’re welcome!

“And he’s supposed to remember everyone he ever met??”

Not really. It was the “He was completely detached, free of concern to the
point of pathology.” that really got my attention.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 02:41

Yewtree Report shouldn’t have claimed this with only these allegations and
not proving the corroborative evidence needed. That report was very
disappointing and it was obviously hurriedly put together. Even this last
report, with less info, is more informative than that one. About pregnancy, we
have this piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212032/Jimmy-Savile-raped-I-16-year-old-virgin-mother-illegal-abortion.html

And in the comments I found this:

I believe this woman 100% because I know a girl the same age who suffered
the same thing by Savile in 1965. He even used the same “it’s not possible”
excuse to her when she told him she was pregnant with his child.

Following his comments, I found another one which also mention this (I need
to find something to do):

Well that makes at least two then! In 1966, I went out with a girl who also
had a daughter with this man. And from what I saw of his behaviour in
Manchester at that time, there are probably several more. There is much to
come out in this story – he wasn’t always the saint he appears to be to many
people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074463/Jimmy-Savile-love-child-Georgina-Ray-40-claims-2-5m-fortune.html

Well, of course, this may not be true. There may be his children around,
though if I was one of them, I wouldn’t want people knowing he is my
father.

I also hope most of these accusations are misunderstandings . Rolf Harris
seems to be such a gentle soul. I would be very disappointed if it was
revealed to be true.

Duncan Disorderly
March 14, 2013 at 09:07

What concerns me is the announcement that the CPS are now going to “build
cases” against the accused. This sounds highly troubling to me, as though they
are now going back to use the techniques discredited after the David Jones
trial in 2000.

Mina Field March 14, 2013 at 06:51

Yes Linda, that impressed you , as it was meant to, because there is a
certain type of person who laps up such bolleaux. The man lived for over 80
years and mixed considerably with senior doctors, MPs, royals, media bods, but
to the avid tabloid reader tv psychoblurb rules.

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 08:21

Oscar,

“It’s impossible to claim that a 60 year old with an 18 year old is wrong,
right, suspect or otherwise”

If both parties were happy, why would anyone feel the need to complain at
all?

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) March 14, 2013 at 09:46

Something that gets overlooked is how so many women thought the CPS had
dropped the case against Jimmy Savile because of his age, even Karin Ward who
did not go to the police was aware of that claim.

Yet on the other hand we are told Savile was a sort of gangster figure, who
took the law into his own hands.

Yet there’s no evidence Jimmy Savile forced the Duncroft girls to do
anything, Karin Ward wrote there were no threats.

Yet in accounts from others that Savile threw them down and raped them,
others claim he seduced or groomed them.

There are numerous accounts of him kissing females and him using his tongue
yet others in relationships with him over time said he didn’t bother
kissing.

All rather confusing as to how to build up a picture of him?

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 11:08

“Yet there’s no evidence Jimmy Savile forced the Duncroft girls to do
anything, Karin Ward wrote there were no threats”

Rocky, “sexual abuse” does not always involves forcing anyone to do
anything, or raping them. “Grooming” involves that, when the child or teen is
immature or has self-esteem problems. They lavish the child with attentions
and use them in a sexual manner, making them think they want it too. Only
after some years they realize what happened. Grooming for some people has
effects even more devastating than rape. I won’t say nobody here has ever been
sexual abuse, maybe you were, maybe you don’t. But I think none of you were.

“There are numerous accounts of him kissing females and him using his
tongue yet others in relationships with him over time said he didn’t bother
kissing.”

The forced kiss is a sexual assault, a way of saying “I had you”. A power
play. The pure sexual act, without kissing or foreplay, is a quick act to
satiate his desires. Anyway, the non-Duncroft women at “Exposure” (were they
lying as well?), never said there weren’t any kiss. They said it was a
quickie, without much romanticism.

Lucozade March 14, 2013 at 14:23

“Something that gets overlooked is how so many women thought the CPS had
dropped the case against Jimmy Savile because of his age, even Karin Ward who
did not go to the police was aware of that claim”

I think one of the reasons everyone involved (apart from the police, the
CPS, and those who had actually been informed of the real reason) thought that
is because it had been broadcast for anyone to see on Friends Reunited, it
says that in Meirion Jones’s interview for the Pollard review too….

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 11:12

Is he lying too? The writer actually met with, spent says with him,
witnessed him doing his charity work and formed an opinion on him. And people
can’t say he lied about meeting and talking to him, he was writing a book that
was released before Saviles’s death. This is not a tabloid piece, Mina. I
found the piece very well written and founded.

“The man lived for over 80 years and mixed considerably with senior
doctors, MPs, royals, media bods, but to the avid tabloid reader tv
psychoblurb rules.”

This is not a tabloid piece.

Linda_Danvers
March 14, 2013 at 11:15

Above I meant “spent time with him” when I wrote “spent says with him”

Mina Field March 14, 2013 at 12:32

@Linda Danvers.

The writer you are talking about met JS once. The part of his piece that
you alluded to earlier and seek to use justify your own internet diagnosis as
‘pscycopath’ is subjective opinion only (not to mention that is an opinion
offered only in a piece written apres Mark Williams tosspot etc). Surely you
can see this, and understand the difference between facts and opinions. You
are turning into the ‘sad big brother fan’ of The Raccoon Arms, I’m afraid –
bombarding us with links to articles which we’ve all seen already, and which
are irrelevant. Its easy to see that they are relevant to you and that you set
great store by them, and thats fine. To some of us though, I’m afraid what
you’re doing is insulting our intelligence.

mewsical March 14, 2013 at 17:16

Of course, if JS had the mumps as a child, then having children would NOT
be possible. And he very well may have. It was a common disease when he was
born.

I love the BBC
March 15, 2013 at 00:14

I can agree with most of that but what I can’t really believe is that his
sexual tastes were as wide as the allegations suggest. men, women, boys and
girls.
The anonymous letter brands him a homosexual who prowled for ‘bum’,
but he was best known for openly groping teenage girls. I’m thinking such a
veritable smorgasbord of sexual attractions must be pretty rare?

Bonjour March 15, 2013 at 14:15

“I won’t say nobody here has ever been sexual abuse, maybe you we’re, maybe
you don’t. But I think none of you were”

Well perhaps it also depends on how you define abuse? Others may also react
slightly different to situations that some might consider ‘abuse’…

I’d hazard a guess that a fair few have had experiences similar to the kiss
outside Stoke Mandeville or even the one about the woman who claims to have
lost her virginity to him when she was 16 (who incidently I don’t believe),
obviously alot of people aren’t going to know exactly what to expect the first
time they have sex or do anything, especially if they are not used to doing
that sort of thing with men.
She contradicts herself though, says she told
him he wasn’t “going all the way”, yet complains “there was no foreplay”.

I’m not saying if something like that did happen just the way she said
(which I doubt), it wouldn’t be a liberty and could be it could be classed as
rape I suppose, but mis understandings can happen in the bedroom aswell,
especially if one party lacks experience, and if she didn’t say ‘no’, some may
just construe it as a misunderstanding…

I’m not entirely convinced you’ve ever been genuinely seriously abused
yourself either to be honest, alot of what you are saying sounds like
generalizations from books, the internet etc, I don’t think theres a one size
fits all reaction everyone will have to any of the things discussed in the ITV
Exposure programme…

And we’ve probably all gone out with someone and later looked back and
thought “what was I thinking?”, at what point in our lives do you think it is
appropriate to stop being the “victims of abuse”, and instead, look back and
think, “god, you weren’t you silly?” At what age can you no longer accuse the
other person of “abusing” or “grooming” you? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen,
but I think sometimes the phrase can be mis used slightly…

Linda_Danvers
March 16, 2013 at 03:38

Okay, I knew that I said I wouldn’t write in this thread anymore, but I’ll
reply this. I don’t consider myself a victim of abuse, but a man sexually
assaulted me when I was 8. Did it destroy my life? No. Do I still suffer the
consequences of it? No. Do I consider myself a victim? No. It wasn’t even
close to what some kids go through. But I took 20 years to tell someone what
happened, and I still feel some shame. What I said about what I remember is
true. I don’t even remember the age I had when I happened and what I most
remember is the sensations and what I felt after the “deed”. Maybe is not the
same for all, but it was like that for me.