Perhaps we should be renaming the BBC; instead of the friendly ’Aunty Beeb’ conjuring up a safe pair of trustworthy womanly hands, would ‘Uncle Beeb’ with all the connotations of the furtive, fiddling Uncle, whose lap you avoid sitting on, be more suitable? It would appear that the BBC is solely responsible for every recently discovered act of Paedophilia in existence. Procurer-General. Funded by the taxpayer to lure into sin by criminal acts every last innocent child of the nation, via a techicoloured Pied Piper.

Do I think that illegal acts may have taken place on their premises? Almost certainly! It would be decidedly odd if, the BBC having taken to throwing their stuffy image out of the window in order to regain the audience they were losing to the Pirate broadcasters, didn’t discover that in addition to welcoming this brave new uninhibited world of disc jockeys and long haired rock stars, they had also inherited the new sexual mores of the time – sex, with whomever, whenever. Broadcasters were stuffing cocaine up their noses, puffing on cannabis at every opportunity, why would they start demanding birth certificates from the willing girls who mobbed them? No, I am not excusing them, just wondering why anybody would imagine they should have been so careful not to cross one legal line when we knew they were crossing so many others?

They will now, of course, the BBC I mean. There is no defence against a tort of negligence if you have been warned of the risk – so I confidently expect the BBC lawyers to insist that cctv cameras are installed in every dressing room, toilet doors removed, birth certificates supplied at the door before entry, CRB checks carried out on anybody who needs to be in the building when children are present, random drug tests on all and sundry, quite possibly breathalysers on every floor – had you ever noticed how all paedophiles waft either ‘foul’ or ‘stale’ breath over their victims?  – and for sure sacrificial heads will roll as proof that they are terribly, desperately, heart rendingly, sorry they didn’t do all this before.

Does that solve the problem? Not a bit of it, for I respectfully suggest that there is a perversion far more sinister and damaging at large inside Beeb headquarters. One that Jimmy Savile is usefully drawing all the attention away from. Let us step back from the world of ‘there must be veracity in all these claims, so many have come forward now’ and ‘is the BBC a fit and proper organisation to hold a broadcasting licence’ – and go back to basics. That Newsnight programme, the ‘pulling’ of which has set this hare running.

We find a BBC producer hunched over his computer – in a dingy basement at the BBC or in his home, we know not. His name is Meirion Jones. He hadn’t had a decent story for some months, but now Jimmy Savile had died, and he had an idea…he tapped some words into Google; what were they? Well, we know it wasn’t Jimmy Savile, and we know it wasn’t Karin Ward – we know that because Karin Ward was writing under the pseudonym of ‘decrepitoldbag’ and had never mentioned Jimmy Savile’s name in her on-line literary efforts. No, you see Meirion had met Jimmy Savile, in the company of someone he knew well, and my guess is that he either tapped in the name of the place where he had met him or the name of the person who introduced him.

Bingo! He came upon Karin Ward’s fantasy autobiography. And Lo! and behold, she referred to ‘JS” in the context of sexual abuse and Duncroft, the genre she had been writing in for some time. Could he be that lucky, could she be referring to Jimmy Savile? He fired off an e-mail to her. What did it say? Perhaps ‘it will be our little secret, you can talk to me in confidence’ or ‘we will take this at your pace, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do’…I don’t know but I have fired off a FOI request to find out this morning. We shall see.

That e-mail ended up on the computer of a girl who could not be more vulnerable, the very definition of vulnerable. Frightened – she had cancer. Alone – she had little contact with most of her family. Confused – she was in the midst of psychotherapy, trying to exorcise the demons of childhood abuse from her mind. Indeed, the jumble of her life story and that of other ‘victims’ she had met along the way were all running together in her head and emerging as that story on a fantasy web site that Meirion Jones had chanced upon. What little self confidence she had oozing away by the hour as her hair fell out in clumps. The ravages of a lifetime of abuse floating before her eyes as she contemplated the end of her days – Today? Tomorrow? Who knows when you are having chemotherapy, you dwell in the company of people who look reasonably hale and hearty at 12 o’clock, stone dead at 6pm – tell me about it, I’ve just been there and I know how it messes with your head.

Had she been trying to repair severed relations with her scattered family? I don’t know, but it would be unsurprising in the state of mind she must have been in. Had she been successful? I don’t know, but how soothing must the interest in her by this important person, a BBC producer no less, have been to her shattered ego. What sympathy and solace did he offer her when she phoned him back? How important it was that her voice be heard? ‘Closure’, that ghastly American term, offered on a plate; a chance to strike back at her tormentors, it must have seemed like a jug of water to a man crawling from the desert – step this way little girl, everything you have dreamt of….

Was it? What was Meirion offering her? The chance to see justice and her alleged abuser behind bars? Hardly, Savile was stone cold dead – and those Google terms had never occurred to Meirion whilst he was alive, or if they did, he had not acted upon them. The opportunity to prevent other victims being hurt? Hardly – Savile was stone cold dead. Perhaps Meiron had been overtaken by a fit of conscience at reading of her terrible life and wished to help her in some other way? A good Samaritan to this terrifyingly frail and vulnerable girl? No, what Meiron was offering her was the chance to bare her shattered soul, expose her balding head to the world at large and star in a few minutes of prime time television – the main attraction in his next ‘great story that any journalist would want’. She wasn’t a ‘great story’ Merion, late night entertainment to a salacious audience – she was a walking train wreck who should, deserved to be, protected from predators like you.

Predators? That popular term in the paedophilia thesaurus? Yeah, predator – for you see I can only slip the very slimmest of fag papers between you and Jimmy Savile when it comes to preying on the vulnerable. The fag paper that says what he allegedly did was against the law – but morally, ethically, I can discern nothing between you. You were both in powerful positions, you both should have known better, you both took advantage of her circumstances. You didn’t tell her that it was your aunt who had kept her locked up all those years, in fact you didn’t tell anyone until another Duncroft resident produced a photograph of you and your Mother and your Aunt standing outside Duncroft – then you made the admission that would have had everyone screaming ‘conflict of interest’. At least I can just about say that Savile might have been driven by testosterone forces beyond his control, not much of an excuse, he should have controlled them – but what can I say about you? That you were driven by the desire for your next big story, your career? Or was it even bitterness at the rift between you and your Aunt?

I haven’t been that angry since that despicable character Robert Green was dragging that poor Down’s Syndrome girl round the country to be the star exhibit, gloated over as every detail of her genitalia was discussed by those who have a prurient interest in poring over such things. I can’t even get a fag paper between you and Robert Green, other than your own wise counsel which prevented you going after this story whilst Savile was alive. You too wanted to parade the victim – look at this folks, pay attention, never mind flicking through the Radio Times, and here’s a picture of the dirty old sod wot ‘ad her,  gave ‘im a wank in the back of his Roller she did, disgusting innit! A ‘great story that any journalist would want’ – is that so? Not exactly the usual Newsnight fare is it?

I know journalists that wouldn’t have touched that story with a barge pole, would have realised that exposure could do nothing for Karin. Old school types, mind you. The sort that might have found that story and flicked past it on their more callous days, muttering ’poor girl’ to themselves. Or might have got in touch to check that she was receiving help, or offer support, or friendship or any manner of things other than exposure for the sake of their careers. Even ones that might have thought the Savile story was important, and would have concealed her face, disguised her voice, still let her voice be heard, if they really thought there was no other way to bring out the story. Ah, but that wouldn’t have been such ‘great TV’ would it?

So, to be sure, I want to see heads roll at the BBC. Not trustees, or the Director-General, token sacrificial lambs. I’ll start with the despicably dishonest Meirion Jones. On a pike. Outside BBC headquarters. Then I’ll have the scalp of each and every person involved in that half baked Newsnight programme, aye, cameraman, sound man, the lot. Each and every one of them could have stood up and said ‘ this will do nothing for this girl, she is vulnerable, protect her, don’t exploit her’. They didn’t. Too frightened for their careers. Isn’t that what they said about those who knew of Savile’s activities? Does it make any difference that she appeared to be willing, enjoying it even? Isn’t that what they said about Savile’s victims?

When I’ve finished stringing them up – I want the man responsible for overseeing them all. The man who hires them, trains them, who should realise that ethics and morals have long taken a back seat in favour of titillation and juicy ‘scoops’ – that’s not what we pay our licence fee for.

Victims voices should be heard. In private, by trained people who know how to help those tormented by past demons. Anybody who comes into contact with them should move heaven and earth to help them get that help. They are NOT, absolutely not, fodder for a flagging career, or filler between the stairlift ads and the entreaties to sue the council when you fall down a pothole.

If the BBC can’t sort that one out, they are wasting their time ensuring that they don’t get sued again when a rock star demands a blow job in his dressing room from the nearest handy underage groupie.

Would somebody care to explain why both the BBC and ITV are still trawling for new prime time ‘exhibits’ on the web page of an organisation dedicated to those who have been abused? And why such an organisation is letting them?

Perhaps Leveson will report soon and tell us when we can expect to have a ‘news’ organisation for our money….

Moor Larkin November 25, 2012 at 12:55

Just for the record there’s an early Mail piece dwelling on Meirion’s BBC
position at the time:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220802/Meirion-Jones-BBC-war-astonishing-claims-reporter-aunt-saw-Savile-abuse-school.html

And here, earlier in the year, he’s extensively quoted:
http://cpshaw.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/investigative-reporting-is-it-still-a-staple-of-the-modern-press/
“When
asked what factors determined whether a subject should be investigated, Nick
Davies maintained that, “it’s dictated by a moral agenda: You have to select
subjects that deserve to be investigated” (2011). This sentiment was also
supported by Meirion Jones, who claims for many it is a fact of “justice and
injustice, if you know what I mean? It’s not party political. [Investigative
journalists] tend to have a very strong feeling that something is unjust and
therefore something needs to be done about it.”(2011)”

I noticed that Nick Davies in a link posted in the comments was talking
about the “sheer scale of child sexual abuse in Britain”. Some of his
mathematics seem to have an Ickeian scale to them:
“Which means that today
in Britain, there are probably 1.1 million paedophiles at large. Other studies
suggest that the figure is very much higher.”

Given this level of “belief” in what is presumably a fairly tight group of
“investigative journalists”, the level of press paranoia seems less surprising
that it otherwise might do to the average Briton living in the unmolested real
world.

Anna
Raccoon November 25, 2012 at
13:00

Moor, that is a most interesting observation, most interesting.

Mewsical November 25, 2012 at 15:31

Self-appointed guardians of British morals? Journalists?? Oh, please.
Spare me.

Mina Field
November 25, 2012 at 16:46

Nickhttp://www.anorak.co.uk/305686/news/nick-davies-is-looking-for-peados-in-murdochs-wapping.html/

Davies has a lot of form for this:

Moor Larkin November 26, 2012 at 11:12

@ Davies has a lot of form for this: @

He’s not the only one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/11/facebook-daily-mail

Moor Larkin November 21, 2012 at 22:19

@ staff were delegated to chaperone the girls. I would imagine that one at
least was Janet Theobald, who got on very well with the girls, being only
about ten years older than they were. @

That rang a bell. In Karin’s account she mentions being supervised by
“Theo” to clean and polish Jimmy’s “low-to-the-ground-sportscar “, and in the
section about meeting Savile in his dressing room before the show, she writes:
“JS laughed and joked with Miss Jones, Theo and every girl close enough to
speak to” In this account Karin confidently asserts that there were eight
girls and that all the others of the school were ‘home for the weekend’.

I came across this reference to another old Duncroftian who was also at
that now-infamous Clunk Click recording day:

“Jeni Hooker, 54, attended the institution between 1972 and 1975 and was
one of a number of pupils to appear on the Clunk Click television show with
Savile and convicted child sex offender Gary Glitter. Ms Hooker, who now lives
in Barnstaple, Devon, said: “I was on the Clunk Click show with Gary Glitter
on March 16, 1974 and, of course, Jimmy Savile. “Generally there were about
five or six of us from Duncroft who went along each time to the show and we
all went up several times.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2122883_jimmy_savile_at_school_as_freely_as_he_wanted
“I
just thank God that I wasn’t pretty enough [to be abused]. I am so grateful
for that.
“I would like to know how Jimmy Savile was able to get away with
it for so long. I can remember him taking the girls out [from Duncroft] in his
car. He was allowed to drop in as freely as he wanted.”

Clearly she was not touched herself, but what is perhaps more surprising
(if the stories were true) is that she seems to have remained unaware at the
time that anyone else was being touched, which seems unlikely in such a
tight-knot social circle as Duncroft evidently was, regardless of the era a
person was there.

Mewsical November 20, 2012 at 23:26

I doubt MJ spent ‘hours’ with Savile, who she didn’t really like. She told
me she found him to be very odd, and her mother was frightened of him. She has
said herself she found him irritating, but put up with it because the girls
wanted to see him – as far as encouraging girls to drink in his ‘dressing
room,’ Savile didn’t drink himself as far as recountings would have it, and I
just can’t imagine Margaret Jones allowing the girls to drink either. “Maggie”
my rear-end, she’s not a “Maggie” she’s a Margaret. As far as Karin and her
‘autograph book,’ well, having spent a delightful (not) year in the company of
the women from the period during which Savile was coming around, not a ONE of
them has ever mentioned any other celebrity, except for the wretched Glitter
and poor old Freddie Starr. As far as I am aware, they all find Kari’s story
to be highly embellished – got that in writing too.

Moor Larkin November 20, 2012 at 23:41

Miss Jones, in her interview in the mail on Sunday, refers to visiting
the BBC to satisfy herself it was a “safe place” but she did not go to the
event[s] herself, but the book has her there, in the dressing rooms and
personally allowing the girls to go with men to god knows where, with stern
instructions to the men bring the girls back in time for the leaving……..

This tale is so easily contradicted, it’s incredible how it has all come
this far and very wrong that it is not being dismantled now it threatens to
ruin so many real lives. Karin may be entitled to tell her story however she
wants, to exorcise her own demons, but the so-called journalists who have
amplified this into the mass hysteria that has been provoked are quite
iniquitous. Within her text she says. “I can only refer to him as JS
(because although he recently died and I have been plagued by reporters
demanding my story, I do not wish to tell the truth about him……” It really
is just the same scenario as happened with that poor fellow, Messham.

Mewsical
November 21, 2012 at 01:46

MJ would have gone ahead to check the location, of course, but other
staff were delegated to chaperone the girls. I would imagine that one at
least was Janet Theobald, who got on very well with the girls, being only
about ten years older than they were. I’ve had some peripheral exchanges
with Theo, as she is generally known, and she’s eminently sensible. I know
she is very hurt by all this and feels betrayed. She had remained friendly
with a fair amount of the girls from her era, i.e. the 70s, but now has
cut off all contact.

All of this book pretty easy to shoot down, and I agree that Karin has
been exploited, like Messham. The first exploitation came at the hands of
Meirion Jones and Mark Williams-Thomas, but there were other interested
parties in the background who were pushing Meirion and Mark along as well.
Every Trilby has their Svengali, and in Newsnight’s case, it was Fiona,
based on my own exchanges with Fiona in her guise as “Susan Melling.”
Karin herself said that it all began as a journal which she was encouraged
to keep by her therapist. So how did we get from her ‘book’ to
communications from Fiona to everyone on her purloined database to rally
round the flag, boys, as it was their “last chance.” Last chance to what,
pray tell?? Got my attention when I was alerted to it.

The British press should really be ashamed of themselves in this
instance, and so should the British public for stooping so low as to
believe this crap. At least the Sunday Mail reneged on some of their
misreporting by publishing the visitors’ book showing when Savile first
came to the school, but like the Andrea Davison/Bebe Roberts nonsense,
another case of don’t let pesky ol’ facts get in the way.

Moor Larkin November 21, 2012 at 17:48

There’s an Old Duncroftian here:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2122883_jimmy_savile_at_school_as_freely_as_he_wanted
who
says she was actually at the notorious “Clunk Click” event, but she
evidently was NOT privy to the “Dressing Room” incidents.

I wonder if she specifically remembers the Duncroft party being
broken up because this would go against what Miss Jones expected to
happen. This report goes back to Oct 24. I don’t recall it being picked
up in the Annals so far however.

Moor Larkin November 21, 2012 at 17:51

There’s an Old Duncroftian here:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2122883_jimmy_savile_at_school_as_freely_as_he_wanted
who
says she was actually at the notorious “Clunk Click” event, but she
evidently was NOT privy to the “Dressing Room” incidents…

It’s annoying that she doesn’t seem to have specifically remembered
the Duncroft party being broken up because this would go against what
Miss Jones expected to happen, or if she didn’t recall the girls being
split up, then this would really prove that the alleged events with
Glitter and Starr never even occurred. This report goes back to Oct 24.
I don’t recall it being picked up in the Annals so far however.

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 10:42

“The cannibalism within the BBC took a further twist today with former
Today editor Kevin Marsh revealing that the Savile story was pitched to
Panorama on the same day as Newsnight.
Writing in his blog, Marsh said the
BBC had confirmed this morning that Newsnight ‘Savile’ producer Meirion Jones
had sent a short email to Panorama editor Tom Giles on 31 October 2011.
The
email, sent two days after Savile’s death, stated that Jones’ aunt worked at
Duncroft and he believed he could gather evidence of Savile’s abuse of girls
there.
Jones had been considering the idea since June 2011, but Savile’s
death prompted him to pursue it in earnest.
According to a source, Jones
stated in his 4-line email to Panorama that because Savile was dead, the BBC
no longer had to worry about libel – which raised alarm bells for
Giles.
Jones also wrote that he did not think the investigation was
necessarily a Panorama and may work better as a documentary.
At the time of
pitching the idea, Jones was employed by Newsnight and gave an extensive pitch
to his editor Peter Rippon, in contrast to Panorama.
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/savile-investigation-was-pitched-to-panorama/5048183.article?blocktitle=Most-popular&contentID=-1

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 14:50

Well, that’s really bizarre. Hedging his bets, I guess. He has a great
deal of explaining to do at this point. Continues to sound as if he was
cooking up a story here, grabbing at the most ephemeral of facts to bolster
his suspicion of Savile and throwing his aunt under the bus in the process.
Lovely person.

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:27

Not bizarre at all, Panorama would have allowed for a much longer
programme, Newsnight is very rarely devoted to a sole topic, and any piece
wouldn’t have been much more than 10 minutes.

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 19:46

Anthony, with all due respect, Meirion needs to explain things, not
you. That’s just your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but you can’t
speak to what his intentions were. That goes to the operation of someone
else’s mind.

Dai Brainbocs
October 29, 2012 at 13:33

Anna: I don’t doubt most TV reporters/producers/editors are quite happy to
prey on people if it suits their purposes, in any context. BUT having said
other journalists/outlets “might have thought the Savile story was important,
and would have concealed her [Karin Ward’s] face, disguised her voice, still
let her voice be heard, if they really thought there was no other way to bring
out the story. Ah, but that wouldn’t have been such ‘great TV’ would it?” – do
you know for certain that this wouldn’t have been the case if the original
report had been broadcast by Newsnight, as it should have been?

As far as anyone knows, the report was near completion but never properly
finished. Therefore, she could have been “anonymised” in a final cut. By the
time Panorama came around, it would appear Karin Ward was happy (perhaps
“prepared” is better) to waive her anonymity. For your criticism of Jones to
stand up to the maximum extent, Newsnight would need to have refused her the
opportunity to appear with her anonymity protected. Did it?

Furor
Teutonicus October 30, 2012 at 00:57

XX Anna: I don’t doubt most TV reporters/producers/editors are quite
happy to prey on people if it suits their purposes, in any context. XX

Of course they are. They are the filthiest, crawling scum this earth has
to offer.

Furor
Teutonicus October 30, 2012 at
00:58

As are ALL “Jornalists”.

(Sorry missed that out first time around.)

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 01:16

And where would we be without them? At least they are willing to wade
into the mire and report back to those who have to determine what they
have fished out.

Furor
Teutonicus October 30, 2012 at
01:48

They are all lying pieces of, mostly commy, shit, that report only
what, their boss (read “Government”,) or their share holders tell them
to report.

If there was no money in it, they would not bother.

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 01:54

Commy? Let’s hear more about that.

Furor
Teutonicus October 30, 2012 at
02:12

XX Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 01:54

Commy? Let’s hear more about that. XX

Oh. So you do not deny the rest? Interesting.

Ask any fledgling political group/party that is further right wing
than Mother Therseas left tit, about Commy bastard journalist
scum.

GDL, EDL, REP, Pro Deutschland/Bayern/NRW/Berlin, DVÜ. Ask Thilo
Sarrazin, Marine Le Pen, Heinz Buschkowsky, Geert Wilders, Pim
Fortuyin, etc etc, etc.

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 01:14

I was a press agent for many years, here in Glitter City, and you have to
feed the beast, i.e. manipulate the media. But there has to be some sort of
story to build the interest. This seems to be an interesting case of the
media manipulating the media.

Karin looks a lot better in the Panorama show than in the Newsnight
interview. So if nothing else, I am happy to see she is recovering from her
ordeal with cancer.

Smoking Hot October 29, 2012 at 10:34

Glitter arrest is the green light for police to begin their ‘showtime’ …
all played out on the MSM.

Londonexplorer
October 29, 2012 at 02:50

First things first anna I wanted to say how enlightening your blog is.

I had started to become concerned about Meirion Jones’ role in the
Newsnight investigation as soon as I discovered that his aunt has been head of
Duncroft. The words “conflict of interest” sprang to mind immediately, and
this was before I discovered that he has been estranged from his aunt for a
number of years. .

A close family member of mine has served in local politics for many years
and I know how scrupulous he is about removing himself from Council
meetings/decisions should there be any personal connection. I just couldn’t
understand how Meirion Jones had been allowed to remain anywhere near this
story by his editor.

I decided to post here now as a result of just having read the following
from The Scotsman.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jimmy-savile-investigation-mark-thompson-denies-being-briefed-about-abuse-allegations-1-2603396

It was the final paragraph that I found most interesting:

“It was also reported yesterday that Newsnight editor Peter Rippon, who has
been moved aside pending an inquiry, is considering suing the BBC for
defamation. He was heavily criticised for calling a halt to the Newsnight
Savile investigation, which he was reported to have told friends had been
“horribly botched”.

I don’t generally set much store by unattributed indirect quotes but I do
think this offers an indication of the bigger picture.

Wishing you every success in your detective work & thanks for keeping
at it, anna.

Observor October 28, 2012 at 23:59

It’s difficult to ascertain but are the books by Karin Ward which some say
are ‘fantasy’ tales about sex with children ?. In some countries like
Australia that is classed as child pornography and to order and possess such a
book would get you charged.

To me a Pandora’s Box has been opened which may claim unintended ‘victims’
as these witch hunts (and this has all the elements of a real one) do
including the the accusers. I believe the Savile families own statement is
evidence of a media witch hunt . I doubt they had a choice and a lawyer would
have advised them to make it.

Imagine if all this happened 3 years ago when James Murdoch announced that
the Beeb should go ?.
But if we must examine a culture ( as the promoter of
sex tales Max Clifford claims) where young men jumped into bed with girls
without asking for ID etc we may have to look into who promoted such an
atmosphere-like The Sun for instance that at times published barely legal aged
and sometimes under 16 year aged topless teen girl photos in erotic poses.

When a fully fledged Witch Hunt begins the accuser must be careful or they
can find themselves, as Sen Joe McCarthy did, flung onto the bonfire as
well.

Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 00:40

I have nothing more to add.

Anthony October 29, 2012 at 21:32

For god sake, no Karin Ward’s stories were not “‘fantasy’ tales about
sex with children”, the efforts to slander this lady are getting absurd.
She simply wrote on a site called ‘fansite’.

Moor Larkin October 29, 2012 at 21:57

She’s all over Amazon too.

one of her reviews:
“This is the best book i have ever read. From
the first page to the last it had me absolutely gripped.
It’s
definately a must read and i can’t wait to read her next book.”

Glancing around this nether-region of Amazon seems to also show there
are many fans of this new literary genre.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/KERI-KARIN-S…=pd_sim_kinc_1

macheath October 29, 2012 at 22:39

It’s about 15 years since the misery memoir genre arrived here in
the form of ‘A Child Called It’ – initially rejected by British
publishers because they felt that kind of thing wouldn’t go down well
on this side of the Atlantic.

In the intervening time, we have reached a point where bookshops
carry shelf labels such as ‘Painful Lives – showcasing individuals
triumphing over adversity’ and weekly magazines describe harrowing
experiences in handy, bite-sized pieces. A generation of readers have
honed their expectations on this kind of thing, pursuing yet more
extreme examples as their sensibilities are blunted, ensuring a
growing market.

Most worryingly, from what I have observed, girls of 11 or 12 are
reading these books on a regular basis; this may be a ticking time
bomb in future years with disturbed women blurring the boundaries
between what they have read and their own personal experience – in
much the same way that stories of alien abduction in the US snowballed
after science fiction popularised the idea.

There’s a certain irony in the current situation, given that the
BBC has done its bit to promote at least the more respectable end of
the misery memoir genre as part of the media circus that accompanies
the publication of any celebrity’s new book.

Dave October 28, 2012 at 22:26

I’ve been reading your account with avid interest as it unfolded.
My gut
feeling is that this is nothing to do with Savile, who is dead, or Peel
(ditto), or Gadd (already convicted so must by default be a wrong ‘un) or
Jonathon King (ditto).
I think this is Murdoch’s revenge. Any organisation
will have skeletons in cupboards. Choose your moment and open the door. Find a
few rent a quotes and wind them up and let them go.
From now it doesn’t
matter who did what to whom and when. The BBC is mortally damaged. It will not
continue in its present form. Any day now some talking head will float the
idea that giving billions to a thoroughly corrupt organisation is a bad thing.
Wind them up, let them go.
As I said, Murdoch’s revenge. But you won’t find
his fingerprints anywhere

The Blocked Dwarf
October 28, 2012 at 14:11

Back in the late 80′s I was a CSV in a Secure School. Just about everyone
smoked , boys and teachers alike. The boys had to buy their own though, I
assume the cigarette ration had long since fallen foul of the (Self)Righteous
and the governmental Cloth Cutting of the Era. Most of the boys had serious
criminal records and many of them came from abusive backgrounds. The boys
weren’t allowed to smoke in class or in certain other areas…like the dining
room but aside from that the boys’ smoking was never an issue for us of the
Care Staff…we had more important things to worry about…like stopping them
taking drugs, stabbing people or helping them come to terms (for want of a
better phrase) with what had been done to them and what they had done to
others.

I don’t think we worried about their smoking at all, as long is it was just
tobacco. Seems a little inane to worry about a possible cancer risk 40 years
down the line when you’re dealing with children so abused that they had killed
and who were predestined almost at birth to end up on crack or, back then in
Scotland, H. We were probably more worried that the only local shop would run
out of Whisky and Regals…for the Staff not the kids.

Niels Duhot October 28, 2012 at 14:06

It seems peculiarly comforting that both serial BBC denier Mark Thompson
and Anna Racoon were both schooled in the Quaker-belt ‘Garden City’ areas of
East Herts (both devoutly religious schools: Anna at St Christopher’s,
Thompson at Stonyhurst). I personally think Anna should stand as an
Independent MP in East Herts (may be worth having a word with local hero, Jim
Thornton). My money is on Thompson though. Looks like he set the BBC up on
this one. A little bit of bait and switch. The US looks like the best place
for the Jesuit-schooled Thompson if Romney gets in. I wonder if he’s got an
accent yet? Of course Savile was dodgy, but why has this happened only now?
Looks like Thompson unleashed quite a substantial beast upon his departure. He
couldn’t have made it look any more like a cover-up than if he’d left a big
fat Savile cigar up Entwistle’s arse as he passed through Heathrow.

Wendi October 28, 2012 at 14:25

I suspect you haven’t done your due diligence Niels. Anna clearly states
in Part Three that she changed schools and homes on a yearly basis, ergo you
can hardly say she was ‘schooled in the Quaker-belt ‘Garden City’ area of
East Herts.’ based on one year at St. Christopher’s!

Elvera October 28, 2012 at 13:10

It would be a real shame if the massively important issues surrounding the
Savile exposure ie. his influences within and links to various powerful
institutions and those within them, whether police, politicians, hospitals,
charities, church , media and on and on is sidelined by minutiae….imho.

Engineer October 28, 2012 at 15:31

There is currently a media storm surrounding the Savile allegations (as
they properly are at the moment). There may well be substance to many of
them. Other people may be complicit, too. However, if justice is to be
served, it must be on the basis of fact, established beyond reasonable
doubt. Facts are not minutiae. Trashing the reputations of innocent people
is worse than holding the guilty to account.

Anna has shown that some of the allegations being made cannot be shown to
be factual beyond reasonable doubt, since some of Savile’s activities are
alledged to have taken place in 1965 involving girls from Duncroft, and as
Anna was there at the time and knows that Savile had no involvement with
Duncroft at that time, those allegations cannot be true.. She makes no
comment about other allegations involving Duncroft in the 1970′s, since she
wasn’t there and consequently doesn’t know.

That’s the problem for those of us who are impartial, uninvolved
bystanders. What amongst all the ‘stuff’ being reported in the media, and
swirling around the internet, is fact, and what not? The police currently
have the task of sifting the factual from the not factual, and will no doubt
bring charges in due course if they find the facts point in that
direction.

The BBC have questions to answer. They’ve set up enquiries to try and
answer some of them. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t – covering up seems
to be part of the BBC’s DNA. Many people seem to think that the BBC has been
‘turning a blind eye’ for many years. If so, maybe it deserves a thorough
shake-up. (My personal view is that the BBC has become far too narrow in
it’s outlook, too arrogant for it’s own good, and too tolerant of some sorts
of bad behaviour – drug-taking, for example – and is well overdue a
sort-out; but that doesn’t address the question at hand.)

John
Pickworth October 28, 2012 at 15:39

To quote the BBC News website: Police described former BBC DJ Savile
as a “predatory sex offender”.

Oh well, saved the cost of a trial then!

Engineer
October 28, 2012 at 15:51

Well, we can’t try Savile since he’s six feet under, but some of
those alledged to have been involved are still alive. We may yet have to
fund what would almost certainly become a sort of show-trial; a sort of
equivalent to the ritual humiliation dished out to News Corporation
types over phone hacking.

Funny how it goes, isn’t it? The BBC relished the Leveson evidence
sessions. Wonder if it’ll relish Savilegate as much….

Elena
‘andcart October 28, 2012 at
16:03

They can hardly have a Trial because they haven’t got a Defendant, or
any Witnesses. Unless someone is prepared to come forward and say they
saw him do it, whatever. Someone without a vested interest that is, and
I can’t see that happening. So what will it be? Another Leveson type
Inquiry? Heaven help us all if we have to sit through that, with
countless middle aged women describing exactly what part of their
anatomy he gropped. Not to forget the poor soul who has to oversee it
all. It hardly bears thinking of, presuming Britain can afford to pay
someone enough to do it.
However, I’m up for it since I haven’t got
anything pressing to do at the moment.

Chris October 28, 2012 at 11:33

A message to Anna and Sally, I have been watching what has been unfolding
on Digital Spy with horror and want to warn you about what is happening. The
various savile threads have been in existence for some time and the main
contributors have declared it their own private fiefdom as often happpens on
forums. If you join “their” discussion and go in with humility and deference
and a tale of your own abuse, you will be accepted but if you go in with
actual facts and confidence they will attack, I’ve seen it before. They do not
want fact unless it is their own, collected from the internet (of course) and
they certainly don’t want you coming along and spoiling their fun by
challenging their well-established forum “truths”. My advice would be to walk
away, you will not win and every single post you make will be picked apart,
every word you use will be questioned and you will just add to the feeding
frenzy. This blog is a far more civilized place for discussion, Digital Spy is
a scrum – the like-minded will come over here, the rest will continue to
believe what they want to believe and stay over there and to be honest it’s
the best place for them! Pity really, for a while there it was a great
resource but inevitably it gets taken over by the Swinetowns of this world who
have their own axes to grind.

Anna
Raccoon October 28, 2012 at 11:54

Dont’ worry Chris, but thank you for your concern – I started life as a
moderator on a Madeleine McCann forum, seen it all before, and shouldn’t be
in the slightest surprised if some over there are the very same people with
new user names, I certainly recognise the circular arguments followed by the
‘you’re all the same person’ line!!!!

Elena
‘andcart October 28, 2012 at 12:28

Are you Gerry? I’ve been accused of that once or twice. It’ll be “Are
you Jimmy” in a minute.

Chris October 28, 2012 at 13:31

Glad you know what you are doing, having been on the receiving-end
myself in the past I know it can be bewildering. For the record there are
quite a few of us who enjoy your posts, it’s just a shame you are being
constantly derailed and drowned out by the morons who feel threatened by
you as I feel you and Sally both have much to contribute and are not being
heard, at least not on DS.

Mewsical
October 28, 2012 at 18:21

I was a bit taken aback by the sudden attack and “I’m going to report
you to the admin, you and Sue are the same person” from that Swine person.
Whut?

John Pickworth
October 28, 2012 at 15:36

I guess you might call me a founding member of DS, I certainly devoted a
hell of a lot of my time helping the forums become a hot site in the early
days. But as you stated, they have the habits of rabid dogs which can
quickly turn upon their own. In my case I was banned from the site over a
silly post about the Big Brother TV show of all things. A lone voice at odds
with every other contributor (but perfectly behaved) I had my account
deleted. A few weeks later, my contention was proven correct but I never did
get an invite back. Their loss, I wouldn’t return anyway.

I prefer to think of it as the place where The Sun readers who can type
frequent. As opposed to those on the newspaper’s own forums.

davidb October 28, 2012 at 15:47

Oi! I resent the suggestion that I ever read The Sun, and also the
ludicrous notion that I can type. Although I am up to 3 fingers on a good
day. I think you should withdraw those slurs.

Mewsical October 28, 2012 at 15:55

Thanks Chris, I have walked away! Amazing to me that those people sit up
until the wee small hours bashing away. But, I did come away with a nugget
of new information. Miss Jones told me a story about Savile coming to the
school, and shocking the very respectable Lady Norman (Board of Governors)
with his appearance and ‘nah then, nah then” stuff. However, Princess
Alexandra was there and was delighted to see him (may have even invited
him), which Lady Norman also found very odd. It seems that this event took
place in May 1974 and was some event for the NAMH of which Princess A was a
patron. So, a bit tricky for MJ to dispose of Jimmy Savile, whether she
wanted to or not, as he was introduced and given a clean bill of health by
Princess A, during the time that the NAMH and MIND were running the school.
NAMH more than likely oversaw Broadmoor as well, and saw fit to give Savile
the keys to the place.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 29, 2012 at 11:29

Chris there is always the alert button on DS.

Agree, it seems 4-5 people think it is their forum and people are only
allowed to enter on their terms and woe betide anyone that says something
that hints at casting doubt on their facts. What is even stranger is if one
their ‘facts’ (usually from the Icke site) is shown to be untrue, soon after
a horde of contributors arrive referring to well researched truth on the
Icke site. The way these ‘reasearchers’ talk I imagine them sitting at their
computers in white lab coats.

Regarding Bebe Roberts article, being polite, I think she is mistaken. I
believe Jimmy Savile first visited Duncroft in 1974 as he was friendly with
Angus Ogilvy and Princess Alexandra who at the time was a patron of a hostel
for girls in care….let me guess…mmm

I’ve been reading the various Duncroft forums for some time and it struck
me the girls in the 1970′s appeared to have a different experience than
those of the 1960′s. That some of those from the 1960′s look back at is as a
finnishing school, there’s no mention of Jimmy Savile and no mention of
abuse.

Here’s an entry from Friends Re-united, under school rules posted over a
year ago….

“”BeBe Roberts
was still approved school in 1966 cos i was an
inmatelol, went to norman lodge for few months after but i have fond
memories of duncroft, bridie keenan mrs o sullivan and less fond ones of
miss jones and the day james robertson justice came visiting. such fun was
the punishment i was happier there than at home. took my gce’s there our
french teacher was spanish guy called mr nieto. i was in wedgewood
dorm….””

Other posts by that person on Friends and another forum are in similar
vein, no indication of Jimmy Savile.

What checks did Claire Ellicott of The Mail make? Did she verify when
Bebe had been at Duncroft, did she verify with others they had also
witnessed Savile freely roaming the home in the mid 60′s, had she bothered
to check any official records?

Moor Larkin October 29, 2012 at 12:27

@rockyraccoon I’ve been reading the various Duncroft forums for some
time and it struck me the girls in the 1970′s appeared to have a different
experience than those of the 1960′s.

That’s not backed up by Karin’s own words:

Karin was moved to Duncroft Approved School when she was about 12 or 13
years old.
She said: “It might sound strange because we were locked up
at the school and rarely went out but I actually felt more safe at
Duncroft than I did anywhere else before in my life. The staff were strict
but there was no abuse, nobody did anything awful to you.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2012/10/06/oswestry-woman-tells-of-abuse-at-the-hands-of-jimmy-savile/

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 29, 2012 at
17:47

If as stated in the article that the girls were locked up at the
home, when they went to the studios and there were 8-10 girls from the
home in the dressing room where was the supervision by thoses whose care
they were under?

Something I don’t understand is the vicious nature of the attacks
thrown between the two groups of women who are in their 50′s and 60′s, I
might understand if they’d been there together and were habouring
grudges but they seemed to be from different eras.

Maybe a newspaper or television programme can bring them
together.

Anna
Raccoon October 29, 2012 at
17:57

The ‘supervision’ drove them to the studio, and watched them at all
times – these were girls who were prone to ‘disappear’ if given half
the chance, that is why there was more than one supervisor. The
‘supervision’ never went to any dressing rooms….go figure.

The vicious nature of the attacks between the two groups appears to
be based on those who wish a particular version of events to be
believed, versus those who are outraged at seeing themselves dragged
into a scenario they cannot recognise as being even partly true. Some
of the e-mails I have received defy belief, even taking into account
that those who are now in their 60s were mostly there for truancy and
obviously in the 70s after it became a secure unit for MIND, ala
Venables and Bell et al, there was an entirely different category of
problems being dealt with there.

Mewsical
October 29, 2012 at 18:30

Being as I am one of the women from the 60s who has been
consistently vilified, slandered and libeled by a small number of
women from the 70s, I can certainly say that I have NO interest in
meeting any of them at any time. They aren’t honest or straightforward
enough to even use their real names, they create false identities on
public websites, open up Facebook pages using the name of others, open
Facebook pages run by committee, open up Facebook pages in the name of
staff members, and pretend to be members of the staff on who they wish
to wreak their personal revenge, etc. But, as Anna notes, there was a
different caliber of girl there in the 60s. Ne’er a whiff of Thorazine
or a padded cell when I was there. But then, we were a Home Office
establishment.

As far as other women from the 70s, who tried to remain positive,
well, that’d be nice, but pointless from a media standpoint. I wish
them well and I’m sorry they are having to endure this media shit
storm.

Anthony
October 29, 2012 at 21:37

Re: Anna “The ‘supervision’ drove them to the studio, and watched
them at all times” I take it that is Margaret Jones and Theo’s word,
to be clear? There seems to have been have been a lot of girls from
different places i.e. also Broadmoor, they would no doubt all be
intermingling, it must have been very hard to keep an eye on every
single of the girls from Duncroft, and even hider to find them in BBC
corridors if Savile did take them off.

Furor
Teutonicus October 30, 2012 at
01:05

XX Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 18:30

Being as I am one of the women from the 60s who has been
consistently vilified, slandered and libeled by a small number of
women from the 70s, I can certainly say that I have NO interest in
meeting any of them at any time. They aren’t honest or straightforward
enough to even use their real names, they create false identities on
public websites, XX

And of COURSE, the name on YOUR birth certificate (or was it an
apology letter from Durex?) is “Mewsikal” right?

Two faced bitch.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) October 29, 2012 at
12:05

I don’t know if the name of the school would have been mentioned in the
Newsnight report but after the item was dropped Miles Goslett of “The Oldie”
wrote in February 2012 about the dropping of the item on Jimmy Savile, on 10
Feb 2012 Anita Singh picked up the story for The Daily Telegraph,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9073142/BBC-buried-Savile-sex-abuse-claims-to-save-its-reputation.html

Anita probably lifting information The Oldie wrote…

“All of the women making the allegations were former pupils of Duncroft
Approved School in Staines, Surrey, where Savile was a regular visitor.”

She gave further details of the item, who would leak such details, the
editor, a researcher, the producer, the reporter or Mrs. Mopp?

Meirion Jones had emailed his editor Peter Rippon and warned the BBC
would be accussed of a cover up it it was not aired.

3-4 months later Anita Singh wrote….
“The BBC now stands accused of
covering up the allegations, which were detailed in The Oldie magazine,
because senior executives did not want the corporation’s reputation to be
tarnished.”

In The Oldie, Miles Goslett reported a Newsnight spokesman saying: “Any
suggestion that a story was dropped for anything other than editorial
reasons is completely untrue…”

A BBC News “source” is reported to have told Goslett that this was a
“smokescreen”.

Could we have a frustrated BBC employee throwing their rattle out the
pram because they didn’t get what they wanted for Christmas?

Thor2Hammer October 28, 2012 at 09:31

\\Former pop star Gary Glitter has been arrested on suspicion of sex
offences by police investigating Jimmy Savile abuse claims.
He has been
taken from his home into custody at a London police station.\\
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20114378
[It MAY be pure
chance that a photographer was on hand at the time]

Chris
Barratt October 28, 2012 at 11:10

Ah the good old “dawn raid with media in tow”.
Apparently The Savile
Police didn’t like his hair. Or the clothes he loved to wear.

Messrs Murdoch & Dacre will be loving M.Jones & Mark
Williams-Tosspot right now – rewards will be handsome for the “brave”
individuals at the forefront of this circus I imagine, and The Leveson
Enquiry but a dim and distant memory. Is it me, or does the fact that a
second “Exposed” is currently being made give a rather large indication of
the element of media involvement in this whole circus?
Is it 1974? My
memories of the 70s are all good – but then again I was born when Gary
Glitter was #1 in the charts (eek!!) – and, although I was immersed in TOTP
and pop music from being old enough to talk, strangely enough for those days
of rampant Savilisation of the nations youth, my childhood was also one of
intelligent innocence – indeed, I honestly had no idea about sex whatsoever
til my Dad gave me the “birds and bees” talk when I was almost 10 despite
attending a school with high “council estate” quota, eagerly subscribed to
Smash Hits from the age of 10 reading every word of every issue and was
sprouting pubes by the time I was 11 I never felt any serious pressure to
have sex throughout my adolescence – contrast and compare that to todays
youth in the UK who have effectively been socially quarantined from “bad”
adults and left to play on their X-Boxes & chatter amongst themselves.
Generation M-Cat – sexed up in strange fashions (tiny shorts & ‘slut’
hair extensions anyone?) but, from a male perspective, oddly sexless. That’s
another future blog altogether though….

I went to a circus once, in 1979. I still don’t like them.

Anna
Raccoon October 28, 2012 at 11:18

God forbid that anyone should be discovered taking a quick tenner off the
media for tipping them off….

Mewsical October 28, 2012 at 15:46

Yes, photographers are always wandering the streets of London!

Moor Larkin October 28, 2012 at 08:43

@ Anthony “People are focusing way too much on ages”

The whole “paedophilia” charge relies on the age Anthony. It is the reason
there has been so much focus on this story in the UK. If this story had broken
as “Jimmy Savile pursued teenagers over the age of consent, and sought sexual
favours”, do you really think the story would have become as viral in the UK
as it is?

It is an odd corollary that in France where Mrs. Racoon lives, the age of
consent is 15, and I believe that in Spain it is 13. I donlt want to turn the
comments boxes into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the law, but to
tweak the Savile story from “paedophilia” into “sexual predation” and then say
it is the same story is disingenuous.

Furor Teutonicus
October 28, 2012 at 04:47

XX They didn’t. Too frightened for their careers. Isn’t that what they said
about those who knew of Savile’s activities? XX

Aye. Well that defence flew out of the window in a wee cort room in
Nürnberg.

Strange how all these arseholes crying over ther risk to their pathetic wee
hobbys/jobs, would also be the first to shout “The Germans should have done
something about that nasty little Austrian!”

John Pickworth
October 28, 2012 at 01:04

Anna, first an apology. You’re obviously aware that a great many people
have/are reading your posts but you seemed troubled by the poor initial
responses? Its quite likely though that, like me, many of those people were
waiting to see where the story led before commenting. You might liken it to
not being able to put down a good book. And a very good book it has been, I’ve
been riveted by your tale. Anyway, I’m sure over the next few days your
comments will explode (in a nice way). For keeping you waiting though I’m
sorry.

I personally think you are incredibly brave to share your story and I
cannot applaud you highly enough for it. We live in an age where the truth is
rarely told, fact is, most people don’t want to hear it. They prefer instead
to feast upon celebrity tattle-tale rather than the inconvenient truths of the
perils that face our nation. The whole JS saga is EXACTLY how you describe it…
a circus.

I cannot escape the feeling that we’re in similar territory here to that of
the recent phone hacking outrage. Which, lets be honest here, was little more
than minor royals, footballers and B’ list stars stupidly buying answering
machines and mobile phones but failing to read page one of the instructions
informing the user to change the default access code. Was it any surprise then
that the hacks (an appropriate moniker) might chance their luck and listen in?
Sure, it was illegal and I’d have thought it a better course to have brought
immediate charges. But no, we have to rake through all the sordid details,
have enquiries, propose new laws – even though it was always illegal to both
access the messages and, it goes without saying, bribe officials – and
generally make a public spectacle out of the entire thing. Did we get the
truth? And if we did, are our lives any better for it?

And here we are again. After the half-time show of Hillsborough; our second
act begins with a media/nation gnashing and snarling at a host of pantomime
villains from the good ol’ BBC, to saintly Jimmy S, perennial baddie Gary
Glitter, some chap that used to advise a former PM and even Freddie Star. The
list of supposed offenders is growing almost as fast as the victims coming
forward.

The truth here isn’t what Jimmy Savile may have done, but that we’re
judging past deeds by modern day standards and mores. Lets have some realism
here. And yes, in a way, I am excusing him. These were times when a paedophile
(that’s the term we use nowadays for someone several orders more evil than
Hitler or Bin Laden) was laughed off as a dirty old man. The days when The Sun
thought it acceptable to put 15 y/o topless girls on Page 3 (a young Sam Fox
in one particular case). Lolita was a best selling novel. Mere possession of
child porn wasn’t illegal until 1988 (although distributing or producing was).
We had Benny Hill and Carry-on (as someone as already pointed out above). So
yeah, what JS might have got up to wasn’t right but it was understandable… or
more accurately, he wouldn’t have thought it inappropriate at the time.
Indeed, few others would have thought it too.

Certainly there are questions about his being in positions of trust but the
same might apply to many other persons then. Same too with many other rock or
music stars of the day where banging a couple of young groupies in the back of
the tour bus was a perk. But none of this really matters now does it? The guy
is dead and unless we’re going to dig him up and put his corpse in the dock
what’s the point? It used to be so much simpler not so long ago when the
recently departed was assassinated in someone’s book. A moment of revelation
(whether truthful or not) and that was that.

I wasn’t ever a fan of Jimmy Savile. I hated his show which I imagine
granted many wishes to feed the penguins at London Zoo but quietly ignored the
exciting letters requesting to fly on the Saturn 5 rocket. As a DJ he wasn’t
cool like John Peel or even Tony Blackburn and I found his silly noises
juvenile when I was still in short pants. But, as much as I disliked him, I’m
uncomfortable with the amount of inconsistent accusations which are being
levelled at him, accusations that he cannot contest, accusations that allude
to the most serious forms of sexual abuse but sound suspiciously like little
more than hands on knees type of stuff – yeah, I know, still not right but
hardly justifying the hysteria we’re currently witnessing.

Until I see/hear some actual solid evidence I’m going to do what my common
sense is telling me and treat every allegation with the scepticism it
deserves. Should proof be forthcoming then I’ll join everyone else in
condemning his actions… but not the man. He’s dead, there’s little point
now.

Anthony October 28, 2012 at 01:52

Most men in the 70s hung around children’s homes, hospitals, and secure
mental hospitals under the cover of charity and used that to molest patients
and pupils, and possibly then pass them to other men did they?

Amfortas
October 28, 2012 at 01:59

Most men, Anthony?? What most of the 20+ million in the UK? So, instead
of being at work, earning money to support their families, buy pressies
for their grandchildren or clean out the gutters, most men just hung
around children’s homes, hospitals and secure mental institutions? No
wonder the economy went bust. Sir, someone needs the services of a good
shrink. Ask me for my fee schedule.

Span
Ows October 28, 2012 at 11:37

Amfortas, please note the “…did they?” at the end of Anthony’s
comment: your point is exactly the one Anthony is making to John
Pickworth!

Amfortas
October 28, 2012 at 11:44

You are right, and I was wrong to react before getting to the end
of his short piece. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, Anthony and I see
it the same way and I apologise if he or anyone else took it the wrong
way.

Landlady, pints all round, on me.

Robb October 28, 2012 at 01:32

John — This isn’t really about phone hacking. But you’ve raised the
matter. Trival? In one sense, yes. Gossip, mostly, gained. But you answer
the question yourself:

“I’d have thought it a better course to have brought immediate
charges.”

Me, too! But it didn’t happen–except in the case of minor royals. Those
hackers went to prison. Move on, nothing more here. Yet there was. Much,
much more. As ever, it was the cover-up that did it. That and the sense that
minor royals shouldn’t get a larger dollop of ‘justice’ than the rest of
us.

Mewsical October 28, 2012 at 01:44

A lot to ponder. No, he wasn’t cool at all, and Tony Blackburn was a
co-host of Top of the Pops, to attract the cognoscenti. I was a follower of
Ready, Steady, Go with its great host Kathie McGowan. Savile was pretty
grubby compared.

I’ve been spending a day over on the Digital Spy message boards, where
the hysteria runs pretty high, possibly because it was at least 4 pm in the
UK when I checked in, could be around opening time – the hue and cry began,
and I was even accused of being the Raccoon!

Agree about Benny Hill too. My mother liked him for some reason. The
minute his odious antics began, I would go to my room and play Motown pretty
loudly. I also did that when Harold Wilson made speeches, but beside the
point!

Your observation about the mores of the times is well-taken. Lolita was a
great reference. Roman Polanski’s then-13 year old ‘victim,’ has notified
the court that she believes the charges against him in her case should be
dropped. The Brit cops went after Pete Townshend who did nothing more than
use a credit card to go onto a child porn site, to show how easy it was to
get involved. Wasn’t Tommy inspired by Pete’s own experiences? I always
thought so, from the minute I first heard it.

Saul October 28, 2012 at 01:59

“The Brit cops went after Pete Townshend who did nothing more than use
a credit card to go onto a child porn site, to show how easy it was to get
involved.”

Yes, of course he did. grow up!

Robb October 28, 2012 at 02:39

Saul – Nice sneer! Still you do know, as WikiP (with references) has
it:

“A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of
all of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession
of any illegal downloaded images.[49] The police elected to caution him,
stating, “It is not a defence to access these images for research or out
of curiosity.”[50] In a statement issued by his lawyer, Townshend said,
“I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I
broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have
given me.”[50][51]”

That apart, I don’t know of a single authoritative source suggesting
Townshend has any prurient interest in child pornography. Perhaps you
do?

John
Pickworth October 28, 2012 at 05:38

@ Mewsical

Oh I’d forgotten about Polanski. We should also add Bill Wyman / Mandy
Smith to the list too. Again, its not to say any of these relationships
were right and proper because they were certainly controversial at the
time. But as a backdrop to the way things were they are illustrative and
would allow others like Savile to believe “hey, everyone else is doing
it”.

At the moment, I’m putting Savile into the sordid and unsavoury class
rather than the truly evil

Anthony
October 28, 2012 at 14:01

So you are again completely ignoring his targetting of vulnerable
people in children’s homes, hospitals and mental hospitals? None of that
could be explained in any way br the culture of ther day.

John
Pickworth October 28, 2012 at
15:15

I’m not ignoring anything… just merely choosing not to retype all
the rumour that currently fills our screens and newspapers. As for his
‘targeting’ anyone, we’re yet to see that proven. That he had access
to these places and may have sometimes taken advantage is something
else slightly removed from predatory, targeting, passing around,
pedo-ring, rape… words that are being cast around with not a single
thought to their actual meaning.

As I’ve taken pains to explain, I’m not here to defend the man. Far
from it, none of us really knows what happened and that includes me.
All I can do is frame how it was back then. They were, for better or
worse, different times with different laws and different levels of
acceptable behaviour. As it is, we are quickly headed for a Trail By
Hearsay with no proof, no accused but lots of faux outrage.

Robb October 28, 2012 at 03:07

John – “The truth here isn’t what Jimmy Savile may have done, but that
we’re judging past deeds by modern day standards and mores.”

Not quite. If I knew how I would post a link on YouTube to Ian Drury’s
cheerfully anarchic ‘Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll’. This is indeed what
much of the music scene is about. That and the money and fame and…

Then as now there is much screwing of young women, most of it voluntary.
Some underage (hopefully fewer now). But Savile seems to have been in a
different category from the vast majority of musicians or DJs. Never married
nor had a regular girlfriend, constantly engineered positions where he had
access to vulnerable young women. That he exploited some, many, seems
plausible. More than plausible, even if some accounts turn out to be false
or exaggerated.

To turn things around. No one (much, if at all) has come forward
admitting to a substantial consensual sexual relationship with Savile. So if
the abuse claims are all wrong, was he asexual? Possible. But somehow vastly
less plausible.

Moor Larkin October 28, 2012 at 12:50

@ Robb No one (much, if at all) has come forward admitting to a
substantial consensual sexual relationship with Savile

That’s just not the case Robb Track this Link to the Daily Mail, and
Sue Hymns.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html#ixzz22k7S4xfY

I’m sure there was another one called Avril, but I can’t find her Link
just now. There was also a woman who claimed to be Jimmy’s illegitemate
daughter. None of these people are likely to be in the press just now,
both for their own reasons, and the media’s reasons.

Moor

Anthony
October 28, 2012 at 14:03

Be aware that Savile had past form in paying women to pose as his
girlfriends.

Moor Larkin October 28, 2012 at 14:10

Anthon,. He was dead.

The story might be false for all I know, but she clearly knew him
socially – hence the photographs.

Found Avril in The Daily Mirror too.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-secret-lover-reveals-870825
Granted
she had a biography to sell.

Mewsical
October 28, 2012 at 15:46

The daughter has disowned Savile and dropped her pursuit of
verification.

Moor Larkin October 28, 2012 at 16:03

There’s a new one to replace her, but this one claims to have
aborted his baby!!
She still claims a 17 year relationship with him
however.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/-jimmy-savile-ex-girlfriend-aborted-1403551

Wendi October 28, 2012 at 18:10

Purely anecdotal but I just read the Sue Hymns article which rings
true. He for once seems to have a relaxed facial expression in the
photo of the two of them together (forget the bling, hair and track
suit.) Chaque’un a son gout!
That article appears to be in sync
with this interview with Hymns and his niece Amanda McKenna on “This
Morning” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg In the
article she says she met him in ’68 but on camera says ’69. (Not a
clue what channel “This Morning” belongs to as I don’t watch UK
TV.)
As has already been noted somewhere in these comments, one’s
chronological memory tends to lack exactitude after various decades
and mistaking a personal event that happened in 1962 for 1963 is
comprehensible. This is why Bebe Roberts’ claims were clearly untrue –
she was years gone from Duncroft when Savile first visited the
school.
Then you have another Savile niece or grand-niece
(depending on the newspaper – is it that difficult to get the facts
straight) Caroline Robinson alleging she was abused by him. All very
confusing, making it difficult to determine who’s been jumping on the
bandwagon and who was genuinely abused, placing the latter in the
unfortunate position of their credence being placed under a microscope
at this point.
The blame for the above clearly lies in the laps of
some members of the British press for irresponsible reporting and the
BBC for the already much-publicized reasons.
I think I shall
continue watching AJ English for coverage of global news and their
excellent documentaries (Frost is pretty jaded these days so stopped
watching Frost over the World a while ago) and reading the occasional
copy of The Guardian thank you.
Wouldn’t the old TW3 team have had
a blast with this!

Mewsical
October 28, 2012 at 18:14

Georgina Ray. Here’s her public statement. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/351409/-Jimmy-Savile-s-a-monster-I-don-t-want-to-be-his-daughter-

Robb October 28, 2012 at 18:09

Moor – thanks for all the links. The first two published soon after
his death are predictably admiring–’tributes’ (as per the BBC). With
hindsight some grim humour:

“Once, Savile was invited to open new offices for the Yorkshire
Evening Post and persuaded Sue to go with him and pose alongside him
wearing a mini skirt and boots. ‘I think he even had his hand up my
skirt,’ she says, laughing at the memory.” OR:

“there was never any mention of a girlfriend, leading to much cruel
speculation about his sexuality. It is to lay such gossip to rest that
Sue has taken the decision — after being tracked down by the Daily Mail
— to break her 43-year silence…After much soul-searching, she has
concluded that it would serve Savile’s memory better to ‘set the record
straight’ rather than allow unkind rumour to tarnish his memory.”

Elena ‘andcart
October 28, 2012 at 12:19

My sentiments also, John Pickworth.

Frankie October 27, 2012 at 22:18

Elsewhere in Part IV of this account, Anna refers to Karin Ward’s previous
ventures into print, apparently writing in the fantasy genre: ‘…accounts she
had written anonymously of sexual abuse on fantasy story web sites (stories
she has now removed – but here is a link via wayback machine, and two earlier
literary efforts of hers still on sale in the US)’.

I have not read any of her material and am reliant on others to verify that
this is so, but does it not strike anyone as deucedly odd that she would do
so, given what she now avers happened to her at the hands of Sir James Savile
and Freddie Starr?

To my mind why would anyone who had allegedly experienced this kind of
abuse at first hand choose to write about it?

Secondly, if she now wishes that her account of matters regarding Savile
and others should be taken verbatim, surely her history in creative writing
undermines her to a certain extent? How can anyone actually state for a fact
that she is telling the truth? I don’t doubt she was around at the time,
but…

Anthony October 28, 2012 at 01:42

You seriously think noone that has survived abuse has ever written about
abuse? Bonkers.

Frankie October 28, 2012 at 20:19

Anthony. There seems to be a lot of this going on in your individual
instance but…once again, you seem to have missed the point.

I am not questioning that she wrote articles, although I have no means
of verifying whether or not they were written from the unfortunate
position of having had such experiences at first hand, I just point out
the fact that this would tend to undermine her credibility.if she created
literary fantasies out of her experiences, then turned round and tried to
accuse a series of then highly respected public figures of historic sexual
abuse.

I don’t know what your background is but from an evidential point of
view I can assure you that such actions would raise a question mark or two
about the veracity of the person making the claims. It gives any potential
defendant’s legal team a golden bullseye to aim at.

Mewsical
October 28, 2012 at 23:05

Karin did say during her Newsnight interview that she began writing
about sexual abuse at the suggestion of her therapist, obviously for
cathartic reasons. Maybe some of those early articles were a part of her
book as it was developing into a complete work. That said, there are
women who went to Duncroft at the same time who have expressed great
doubts about the truth of a lot of it, some dismissing it entirely. For
example, the tennis recountings involving Janet Theobald (Theo). Theo
couldn’t play tennis, apparently. If anyone wanted to contact the
Wimbledon Tennis Club and ask if anyone from Duncroft ever played Junior
Wimbledon in the specified time period, maybe? I also noticed in the
Expose piece, Fiona used expressions from Karin’s book, and was
altogether too slick and talkative. I can’t tell what it is they want to
accomplish with all this myself. However, it’ll probably all come to the
surface shortly. The truth has a tendency to do that.

Wendi October 27, 2012 at 18:58

Interesting read on some Beeb history, the latter-day attitude towards
underage sex, Savile etc. and even comment from Joan Bakewell on the latter
(apologies for the alliteration!):
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment

Robb October 28, 2012 at 01:15

Wendi – Thanks for the link. A very interesting article. O’Hagan tries to
suggest a seamless transition from man-boy child abuse in the 40s and 50s to
man-girl child abuse in the 60s and on. I am not sure this is entirely
correct. It is fair to date a ‘new’ BBC from 1964-1967. First BBC 2 started
and Top of the Pops; then Radio One in 1967–almost to the day when I joined
the BBC. About as far away from the DJ and Pop culture as it was possible to
be. I ended up making science documentaries. We regarded that Radio One and
LE lot as cowboys. Not that we knew much about them nor wanted to.

But something else of significance happened in 1967 which O’Hagan omits.
Homosexuality became legal. It was rumoured to be widespread–at the BBC, the
theatre, arts, amongst politicians, the establishment generally. Being
illegal it was clandestine, in theory if not practice, to those practicing
and those in the know. Those few BBC individuals O’Hagan identifies as
exclusively liking ‘young’ boys were part, I suggest, of the wider group who
just liked ‘boys’. A sub-group of it. Homosexuals.

This is the tricky bit. Since it is non-PC. I will try to be clear, if
only so that those who disagree can argue with what I suggest, rather than
with something I am not. First I distinguish pedophilia as desiring or
having sex with pre-pubertal children. Sex with children beyond puberty is
still illegal in many places–but the cut-off age has varied through history
and indeed across Europe today. Anyway, pedophilia, strictly defined, seems
a different phenomenon from what O’Hagan describes. He talks of young boys,
but not of how young. Presumably post-pubertal, otherwise he’d have said.
Just as Savile liked young girls–all, so far as we know, post-pubertal. A
nasty evil man, it appears, but to call him a pedophile blurs things.

O’Hagan’s shameful three were clearly homosexual–they wanted sex with
other males, if for preference young males, boys. Indeed he notes Joe Orton
and Kenneth Halliwell (clearly both gay by modern definitions) “having
regular sex with 14-year-old boys”. Morocco was a favoured hangout–as many
gay memoirs attest. Age preference–or not–seems just part of the spectrum of
homosexual sex. (That is the non-PC bit.)

All of this is a long winded way of saying that what O’Hagan has
identified is simply a small part of a shady, half-secret homosexual
subculture that existed at the BBC and elsewhere. Had to be. It was illegal.
Within that subculture–and protected by it–was some child abuse. But that is
not primarily what it was about.

The DJ pop culture of the 60s and beyond–and its abuses–was quite
different and bore little relationship to what went before.

Span
Ows October 28, 2012 at 11:32

….very interesting indeed! Thanks Wendi.

davidb October 27, 2012 at 16:50

I have read all the posts so far, with a degree of interest. But in the end
what will be the outcome? We seem to live in a revisionist age. I heard a
headline casting aspersion on FM Montgomery the other day and today I did not
bother to read the story about our wartime treatment of German POW’s.

So now we have another great scandal. Oh goody its got celebs in it. We
have a whole lot of social problems in this country. Vast numbers of people
are emotionally and physically scarred by their personal histories. Well I
suspect it was ever thus. I don’t imagine life has been a barrel of laughs for
many of us since we left the Rift Valley. But in the end the taxpayers will
pay out yet more compy money. A few heads might roll. The society will be
hidebound by another pile of legislation to safeguard vulnerable people, and
we’ll all go back to the misery of working for next Saturday night off.

The BBC certainly needs to be taken down a peg. They have an agenda of
their own which some people find pernicious, leftist and far too PC. Maybe
they will get a bloody nose. But next year there will be more stories of
elderly people being abused in hospitals, of young people in care being
abused/groomed/exploited. We will all be shocked, some opportunist politician
will try to mouth off about it all, and so the cycle will be repeated.

Riveting blog posts Anna, but all our contributions – over 200 indeed on
one of the posts! – however well intentioned wont be changing anything.

wassname October 27, 2012 at 21:24

Up to now, you are proven to be right, now then, now then…………….

Edna Fletcher
October 27, 2012 at 22:05

“but all our contributions – over 200 indeed on one of the posts! –
however well intentioned wont be changing anything.”

You are right to an extent. The fact that there are people discussing
and questioning ‘the orthodoxy’ is the only possible way to ensure another
‘conciousness’ persists- the only possibility of effecting any change is
to increase the latter.

In terms of child protection, where the voices at present are rather
muffled, someone has already predicted that ‘forced adoptions’ will have
an unpleasant ‘throwback’ in a few decades time, where adopted families
are rejected as the adults realise the circumstances of their removal.. So
maybe in our lifetimes we may not see much- except more people being
encouraged to question.

Robb October 27, 2012 at 16:42

Anna – I am an admirer. Not least for your evidence-gathering and forensic
skills. Here your anger seems to have let you down. Much speculation about
Meirion Jones, how and why he went about his investigation. You may be
entirely correct. But you rely on almost no evidence. Your sole link to a BBC
story is essentially meaningless. We have heard him complaining about
Newsnight’s cancellation. Little about how he went about his
investigation.

Similarly with Karin Ward. We simply don’t yet know what went on between
the two. Not enough, at any rate, to form a mature judgement. None of us
outsiders can really understand her mental state, I suggest. Doesn’t stop us
opining, of course.

The issue of journalists’ responsibilities to their sources and subjects is
an important one. This is a poor case study. You are angry by what you have
heard. But too much here is still up in the air.

Ellen Coulson
October 27, 2012 at 16:29

I would like to know why Claire Ellicot of the Daily Mail was sending a
message to Bebe Roberts on 1 October fishing for iinformation re Jimmy Savile
when Ms Roberts’ interview appeares in the paper on that day!

Mewsical October 27, 2012 at 19:35

I hadn’t noticed that.

Ellen Coulson
October 27, 2012 at 16:18

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Mark Williams-Thomas is doing a follow
up programme due to be screened mid November.

Mewsical October 28, 2012 at 01:33

Do you have any other info on that Ellen? He recently tweeted that their
were 3 arrests in the pipeline, but declined to give further details.

Saul October 27, 2012 at 15:02

How come, if he died a year ago, it’s all right to start investigating him
now then….now then….now then?

Mewsical October 27, 2012 at 16:02

Because that was then, and this is now.

Saul October 27, 2012 at 17:42

..”and this is now then..now then

Dick the
Prick October 27, 2012 at 23:12

Hee hee

Gloria
Smudd October 27, 2012 at 23:46

Oh, goodness gracious, Saul!

OscarJ October 27,
2012 at 12:21

I have just discovered Miss Raccoon and what a superb writer you
are.
Not just your unique insight into the whole bizarre Savile matter but
the episodes about your life are fascinating. You seem to cut through so much
chaff and get to the nitty gritty but in an entertaining manner (even though
there is obvious sadness there)
I do hope there is much more to come.

Wendi October 27, 2012 at 11:14

I await Part Six (as continuance of Part Four) with baited breath since I
understand heartfelt attempts are being made for Part Five (bless you for this
Anna Raccoon) to ‘be dealt with’ and, hopefully, T’s and I’s will be crossed
and dotted with reputations restored in the very near future.

Chris
Barratt October 27, 2012 at 10:51

Anna, for what it’s worth I offer you my praise and full support. You are
being very courageous and your attention to detail is exemplary, as is your
commitment to truth and (genuine) compassion. I knew there was something
deadly and sinister about this whole charade from the off – sniggering
“journalists” feigning outrage and disgust at “abuse” in print whilst openly
chortling about the debacle on Twitter, the transparent attacks on the BBC by
The Sun & The Daily Heil by bringing the likes of John Peel into the wider
equation, the disrespect of the Rule Of Law, the subservient rolling over by
the BBC, the unquestioning belief that these allegations represent FACT by
virtue of them being in relation to alleged sexual abuse. When you’re
hard-wired to look for truth and expose lies a circus such as this can
suffocate ones senses by virtue of being so utterly absurd and just so…
WRONG.
Incidentally, Mark Williams-Thomas – the self-appointed child abuse
“expert” who made the ITV/Daily Mail programme will not answer (and deletes)
any ‘tweets’ than ask questions that don’t further his own agenda, even
intelligent ones. When sensible intelligent debate is deemed ‘taboo’ it
becomes obvious we’re dealing with entrenched bullshit and hidden agendas way
beyond most peoples imaginations. The country is collectively insane.

Chris
Barratt October 27, 2012 at 12:18

Squirming tabloid journo’s are now alleging you weren’t at
Duncroft.
https://twitter.com/GerardTubbSky

Notice Mr Tubb’s admission in reply to myself there, factual research of
public records is too “time consuming” and – would you believe – allows
‘abusers’ to avoid conviction. So there we have it – to the modern
journalist ‘research’ is a bore and not part of their jobs, and truth gets
in the way of ‘justice’. Especially, one presumes, when “evidence” would
counter the hysterical stories being run by their employers….

Anna
Raccoon October 27, 2012 at
12:36

Thank heavens, for little bloggers, for little bloggers…etc., etc., to
appropriate tune!

Robert
Edwards October 27, 2012 at 14:50

Perfect, under the circs. What I want to know is – who is
Anthony?

Anthony
October 27, 2012 at 16:05

Just someone interested in the truth.

Mewsical
October 27, 2012 at 16:06

I suspect he is the lawyer husband of one of the coven. There was a
lawyer who was allegedly helping to run the now-defunct and not-missed
Facebook page, which closed down suddenly, right before the Expose
piece aired. I was informed of this quite recently.

Anthony
October 27, 2012 at 16:25

I don’t have any connection to any of the people from Duncroft
Mewsical.

Mewsical
October 27, 2012 at 16:43

What do you think the truth is, Anthony? Or what would you like it
to be, more to the point?

Anthony
October 27, 2012 at 17:07

I don’t think Mews, I find.

Ellen
Coulson October 29, 2012 at
12:56

… well you said you were in touch with Fiona!

Alan Douglas
October 26, 2012 at 23:10

I was thinking of putting in a claim of having been abused, and I’m 71 and
very male.
The whole thing smacks of opportunism. Couldn’t be bothered with
trying to concoct
a convincing back-story. Not too long ago a south coast
mob went after a paediatriciam
because it started with “paed…” Insanity.
Well done Anna for standing up to
the mob, and very well written too – I
read all five segments in one go.

Alan Douglas

Frankie October 27, 2012 at 01:21

Well, Alan, apart from perhaps it being a slight matter of fraud, you
might as well ‘fill your boots’! The lack of physical evidence to support
the hundreds of claims, the length of time and the death of the alleged
principle offender will, I am sad to say be no impediment to anyone taking
Auntie Beeb to the cleaners, in this case, as Anna points out.

I have watched the Panorama investigation into Newsnight (how surreal is
it when two TV programmmes working for the same channel tear lumps out of
each other) and it is seemed to me that Merion Jones’ main preoccupation was
to metaphorically kick his immediate boss in the goolies as hard and as
often as he could.

Other senior executives copped for some as well so, Merion, better clear
your desk, old chap, because I think your BBC career is ‘Toast’. Merion
Jones was disingenous in his dealings, as surely the fact that you are
related to one of the persons running the very establishment that is at the
centre of attention in such circumstances must, I would have thought surely
have caused him to think that he should let someone else do this
investigation. As our landlady says, there is a massive conflict of
interest, that should have caused Jones to recuse himself.

I can see this doing for Patten, the present Director General, all of
them. Very sad indeed.

Anthony October 27, 2012 at 02:49

Complete nonsense, Meirion declared right from the beginning his
relationship to the head of Duncroft, it was precisely his own family
witnessing Savile taking girls out unaccompanied which is why he believed
he should investigate what happened

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/savile-investigation-was-pitched-to-panorama/5048183.article

Junican
October 27, 2012 at 03:45

Complete nonsense. Meirion had no right to investigate anything if
there was no criminal offence involved. Taking girls out ‘unaccompanied’
has no implication of malfeasance whatsoever.
What precisely is he
accused of doing to witnesses A, B, C, D, etc?

Amfortas
October 27, 2012 at 03:52

@Junican: “Taking girls out ‘unaccompanied’ has no implication of
malfeasance whatsoever. ”

Today, even a ‘look’ is enough to be accused of some dastardly
crime.

Anthony
October 27, 2012 at 13:12

So you are now saying Meirion should have known no criminal offense
had occurred because you say it didn’t, and he therefore shouldn’t
have bothered to investigate?

Jonathan
Mason October 27, 2012 at 13:33

Men taking unrelated teenage delinquent girls out from a
court-ordered institution alone would have the very obvious
implication that they intended to have sex with them, possibly in
exchange for gifts or money.

Amfortas October 27, 2012 at 14:09

@JonathonMason: “Men taking unrelated teenage delinquent girls
out from a court-ordered institution alone would have the very
obvious implication that they intended to have sex with them,
possibly in exchange for gifts or money.”

Such is the mata-product of a dirty mind, Sir. Maybe it is just
yours. There cannot be an implication is such an act, but you seem
to be making an inference. Without other stronger evidence, that is
unwarranted too.

I myself visited a women’s prison in NSW where an unrelated,
delinquent 16 y/o female client had been incarcerated on remand. I
was allowed to take her out for several hours. We not only consulted
a solicitor but went to a McDonalds. We neither had sex (heaven
forbid) nor exchanged money. It was an opportunity for her to
quietly cry in the company of someone who did give a damn.

Jonathan
Mason October 27, 2012 at
15:27

I worked for some years as the health services administrator of
a facility for juvenile boys and girls in Florida. It would have
been quite unthinkable for an unrelated male to take a minor
female out on any kind of pass–not even with a staff escort–one
obvious reason being that many of the girls had a history of
prostitution or having been sexually exploited by adult males. It
doesn’t take a “dirty mind” to be aware of this. Even to go out
for medical appointments our girls needed at least two staff
escorts, one of whom had to be female.

The legal system in NSW is no doubt very different, but I am
sure there must have been some other circumstances that you have
not related that allowed you to do this.

Anthony October 28, 2012 at 01:48

Good point Jonathan. People are focusing way too much on
ages, if Savile was the type of man that used charity as an
excuse to have sex with girls who had likely been abused
themselves, were mentally fragile, many on drugs, confined away
from their parents, then brought them to meet other older men
for sex, he was a sexual predator, plain and simple. The way
some people above seem to be excusing what he was doing as
normal for the day is absurd.

Jonathan
Mason October 28, 2012 at
04:15

Thank you. I was alive and sexually active myself (when I
had the opportunity) at the time and can assure you that even
in the mid 60′s everyone was perfectly aware that the age of
consent in England was 16 and the behaviour of Savile, a man
of almost 50 at the time he allegedly obtained oral sex from
Karin Ward would have been considered highly abnormal, had it
been known to the public.

I think there WAS some difference in attitudes in terms of
institutions having responsibility for protecting minors under
their care. For example, as I pointed out above, at Duncroft
it was apparently completely routine for underage girls’ good
behaviour to be incentivised with cigarettes, even though
under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, this would seem
to have been illegal.

Quote: “It shall be the duty of a constable and of a
park-keeper being in uniform to seize any tobacco or cigarette
papers in the possession of any person apparently under the
age of sixteen years whom he finds smoking in any street or
public place, and any tobacco or cigarette papers so seized
shall be disposed of, if seized by a constable, in such manner
as the police authority may direct, and if seized by a
park-keeper, in such manner as the authority or person by whom
he was appointed may direct.”

Of course the interior of an approved school may not have
been considered a public place, but it is unthinkable that
there would be the same tolerance today in a situation where
you have care-giving employees in loco parentis.

Robb October 28, 2012 at 05:07

Without wishing to give Savile a whiff of justification
for his actions, it is useful to point out how different
things were back then. Smoking was allowed all over the
BBC–except in the lifts. Ashtrays were helpfully provided
before entering one. And certain technical areas where
expensive and delicate video equipment or, more rarely,
things called computers, resided.

More generally, as I noted earlier, homosexuality was
illegal until 1967. So was abortion. (We might pause here to
thank Harold Wilson). No fault divorce came only in 1973.
Incidentally, the 60s ‘sexual revolution’ is often
attributed to the ‘pill’. In fact, then as now, many other
effective forms of contraception were available. Today we
have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe.
Abortions run (from memory) at 200,000 a year.

Technology and laws have limits in modifying human
behaviour.

Anna
Raccoon October 27, 2012 at
07:26

Very misleading of you Anthony – still spinning a line?
Savile was
a friend of one of the girl’s Mother. Karin had met him before. He
wasn’t visiting as ‘some big celebrity’ taking random girls out. He was
taking out the daughter of his friend – and some of her friends – puts
something of a different complexion on ‘should be investigated for
taking girls out unaccompanied’. Meirion didn’t declare that he knew
that, nor that he was related to Miss Jones to the world at large, or
specifically the girls concerned. A confidential e-mail to his boss
doesn’t count here I’m afraid.

Anthony
October 27, 2012 at 13:15

Anna, you say he didn’t declare he was related to Miss Jones- who
exactly are you saying he didn’t declare this to, and how do you know
that to be the case? Regarding the friend’s mother who supposedly
invited him there, can you name this friend and the mother? If that
were the case, what on earth has that got to do with whether Savile
sexually assaulted these girls, either in his car, or at the BBC?

Mewsical
October 27, 2012 at 19:48

Oh come on, Anthony. Unless you were in the room when Meirion made
this revelation, you can’t simply believe it just because it matches
your thesis. And if I was Meirion’s boss I would have at least raised my
eyebrows at that. I don’t know that I would have let Meirion work on the
show after that either. Couldn’t be objective, for a start. The same
situation with doctors not having their family as a patient.

Jonathan
Mason October 28, 2012 at 14:02

Reply to Anthony:

Regardless of how Savile first became aware of Duncroft, he
probably became aware very quickly of what seems to have been
incredibly lax management practices. I suspect that because Duncroft
was a kind of “super” approved school for girls with IQs of 140 plus
(i.e. exceptional intelligence) that the regime was probably much more
lax, and certainly Karin Ward’s memoir (the new one) indicates that
the emphasis was on fostering independence on the part of the girls,
with very little attention paid to the original offences that had got
the girls into custody in the first place.

How lax it was is well illustrated by the fact that when Ward was
working in an outside job, her pay was direct into a bank account and
she was given a small weekly cash allowance by Duncroft, with the
intention that the surplus would be saved for her. However Ward
quickly discovered other says to get money out of the account–for
example by ordering a new chequebook–and continued to draw and spend
extra money on clothing as well as stealing clothing from local stores
to build up her wardrobe without attracting any attention from those
who were supposed to be supervising her finances and helping het to
build up substantial savings to fund an independent life.

Actually it is rather interesting that although the school was for
girls of exceptionally high intelligence, (according to Karin Ward) it
offered no pathway whatsoever to higher education, though it did offer
tennis coaching to sufficient standard that she was able to enter
qualifying tournaments for Wimbledon (presumably Junior Wimbledon) and
was even taken to Wimbledon where she was introduced to notables like
Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors, and Virginia Wade in the players lobby.

Clearly a very strange school indeed.

Frankie
October 27, 2012 at 20:25

No… its not complete nonsense, with respect, Anthony.

It is foolhardiness in the extreme not to realise that one’s own
family connection to the story must mean that one cannot investigate it
oneself, for obvious reasons. Added to this, it lays the person open to
accusations of improprietry. What he should have done was disclose the
information to another party and recuse himself from the investigation.
Then there can be no accusations levelled against him and his
information carries greater ‘weight’.

Anthony
October 28, 2012 at 01:39

But it appears other researchers, including Liz Mckean did the
actual investigating and interviewing survivors. The most input he had
was proposing the story, and coordinating it to some extent, I don’t
think that posed a serious conflict.

Alan October 28, 2012 at 11:56

Frankie said: “I would have thought surely have caused him to think
that he should let someone else do this investigation.”

His immediate boss could have insisted upon it. The family connection
would have been an ideal excuse to drop, or at least park, the
investigation. Give time for more impartial eyes to look over it, perhaps
even prod the Police and CPS to find out exactly what they knew.

The reasons for dropping it have turned out to be relatively weak and
confused – the apparently faked letter becoming a critical issue, the
difference between what Peter Rippon thought was being investigated (the
Police and CPS dropping a criminal investigation) and what was being
investigated (sexual abuse by Jim’ll), etc – whereas the closeness of one
of the team would be a cast iron reason even if it was just a cover for
Peter Rippon’s scepticism, reluctance due to the Christmas schedule or
confusion. Even saying something like ‘The BBC is too close to this story
to do it justice’ would have been credible.

I wonder how many other stories the BBC handles as incompetently as
this one and we just never get to hear about it.

Edna Fletcher
October 26, 2012 at 22:21

“Too frightened for their careers”.

This is so very ugly an attitude.. It entails a psychotic relationship with
jobs / positions / power seen in politicians and the institutions of today..
No wonder the vulnerable find no ‘refuge’ and are constantly ‘abused’. The
people who can change things have no morals to do anything to rock the boat
they sail on, for fear of finding themselves rudderless- like those lower down
the hierarchy.

Jim October 29, 2012 at 16:21

Exactly. Those who turn a blind eye to such things are equally as guilty
as the perpetrators IMHO. I can understand only too well why they are afraid
to come forward but they should realise that they are guilty by association
if they don’t. A few of these people should be strung up too “pour
encourager les autres.”

GildasTheMonk
October 26, 2012 at 21:42

Powerful stuff, Anna. I find it interesting to compare and contrast your
life experiences, with all the trauma, pain, and good things too, travel and
love and the saintly Mr G, the wisdom – with our cardboard cut out, clone and
clown politicians. I would rather have a PM who has been through what you have
than a posh boy who has never known what life is like for US (and that goes
for almost all of the present Cabinet, and Opposition Front Bench too).
I
shall reflect on that tonight….

Engineer October 26, 2012 at 22:21

I entirely agree. A return to the days when politics was something people
retired into, bringing half a lifetime (or more) of varied experience with
them, would be most welcome.

GildasTheMonk
October 27, 2012 at 21:20

Thank you, Engineer. A cabinet of Raccoonistas would be an
extraordinary thing

Matt Wardman
October 26, 2012 at 17:55

>I don’t know but I have fired off a FOI request to find out this
morning. We shall see.

I believe that editorial processes and perhaps news are exempt.

zzaphod October 26, 2012 at 17:46

Anna, I find your blog most interesting, probably because I read it as an
alternative to the usual “Angy old men” blogs I tend to frequent. Yours bring
the Woman`s thought process into view; (I have been divorced for 20years), but
I must admit I`m getting a bit lost over the past few days. It seems that you
are directing your ire at the MSM in general, and not the BBC and specifically
Jimmy Saville and his time there.
Although (as you acknowledge)some of the
the girls were no angels, surely Statutory Rape is still Statutory
Rape?
Keep up the good work.

Alan October 26, 2012 at 17:39

Anna wrote: “You didn’t tell her that it was your aunt who had kept her
locked up all those years, in fact you didn’t tell anyone until another
Duncroft resident produced a photograph of you and your Mother and your Aunt
standing outside Duncroft – then you made the admission that would have had
everyone screaming ‘conflict of interest’.”

But not, it appears, at the BBC. Meirion Jones reportedly pointed out his family connection when he pitched
the programme to them 2 days after Savile’s death. I guess Newsnight would
have been similarly informed.

Ellen Coulson
October 26, 2012 at 21:52

I believe the programme had to be changed because of the leak to the
press. One of hus assistants, Eleanor Plowden, had been to see Margaret
Jones and asked her varipus questions during which the existence of the
visitors book was revealed. MJ declined to be photographed or taped. Eleanor
honed her the day before the programme was screened to advise her she would
be featured – she was not!

Amfortas October 26, 2012 at 16:08

I read around, almost promicuously, at a wide variety of blogs, but never
have I seen such depth and topicality mixed with so much personal-historical
detail.

Mrs Raccoon, I think you have set a very high standard here that will be
hard to beat. It would not surprise me at all if some enterprising writer (TV
writer perhaps) doesn’t one day produce some docu-drama based just on the
people and issues in this set of five (so far) accounts. Several outstanding
actors will have to be cast for the main roles (Anna, Elllie’andcart etc) (a
cardboard JS can sit at the side of the set) and many character-role walk-ons
would encompass all the rest of us. (I hope my persona can turn to the camera
and raise an eyebrow occasionally).

Joe Public
October 26, 2012 at 17:07

Why not ask Uncle-Beeb to commission a new series of “Play for
Today”?

“In its time, Play for Today featured contemporary social realist dramas,
historical pieces, fantasies, biopics ……..”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_for_Today

Jonathan Mason
October 26, 2012 at 14:49

I left a comment on part four, but no sure if it was seen.

On reading Karen Ward’s book, it struck me right from the beginning that
she, as a young teenager, was put on a cigarette ration of about 30 cigarettes
per week at Duncroft and that issuance of cigarettes seemed to be used as a
means of social control. (In fact hardly a single page of her book goes by
without some kind of description of use of cigarettes, including in the
company of her mother and grandmother.)

I wonder if you can comment on this aspect of life at Duncroft. Seen from
2012, it seems rather shocking that a Home Office approved school would do
this, when it must have been illegal even at that time to give cigarettes to
such young children. I suppose this is another example of radically changing
standards over the decades, but one wonders whether it might open up
opportunities for litigation over damaged long term health.

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at 14:54

30 cigarettes a week – they wuz lucky! That must have been later years.

We got 10, or 20, depending on behaviour – or none! Dog ends left in
particular places were another form of social control….virtually all the
staff smoked and I could identify them to this day by their brand. Craven
‘A’ for Miss Jones, Piccadilly No 6 for Miss Kennan, I think Miss O’Niall
was Rothmans, but no doubt someone will correct me. I have healthy 20 a day
habit to this day – and crystal clear lungs, so no dice for me!

Jonathan
Mason October 26, 2012 at 15:21

Right, but Karin Ward has been treated for cancer (though I don’t know
what type.)

Anyway my point was that from today’s perspective giving cigarettes to
underage persons would be regarded as almost equally abusive as having sex
with them–never mind using them as a means of social control. In Karin
Ward’s book, she writes about approved school staff using cigarettes as a
reward for good behaviour, a psychiatrist using cigarettes as a bribe for
giving a psychosocial history, and men like Jimmy Savile using cigaretttes
as a bribe to be exchanged for sex, not to mention parents and
grandparents using cigarettes as a kind of pacifier.

(Incidentally I worked for some years in a school and treatment
facility run by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, where we
treated boys and girls who had mental health and substance abuse problems.
Cigarettes were not allowed on campus for residents, staff, or visitors
unless locked in cars in the parking area.)

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at
15:28

Bowel Cancer – and I have just been treated for Ovarian Cancer. We
both seem to be getting over it and getting our hair back!

Mewsical
October 26, 2012 at 16:22

My mother was always after the school about the cigarettes. I see
it mentioned in reports that she was upset about the amount of smoking
I was doing. Ironic in a way, as she was a smoker herself. When I
left, I didn’t smoke nearly as much, but I’d guess that I would’ve
gone on smoking if I’d gone to Duncroft or not! I finally quit for
good in 1979.

Ellen
Coulson October 26, 2012 at
21:47

Personally I never smoked when I was at Duncroft but was always in
demand after I’d cleaned one of the staff rooms because the dog ends
were re-rolled!

karen November 4, 2012 at 17:26

I was in an ‘assessment centre’ just outside Norwich in the mid 70′s
and we had an allowance,which could be spent on fags from the inhouse
shop,loss of fag money was our big sanction too, even worse was having
cigs and no-one letting you have a light,only staff carried
lighters.

Mudplugger
October 26, 2012 at 16:59

Just as they still are in prisons (but now being overtaken by harder
substances apparently), cigarettes were always a pseudo-currency in many
institutions back then.

At my school in the 1960s, more boy-to-boy ‘trading’ was done with
cigarettes than cash. Indeed, there was even a healthy secondary market in
smoking peripherals – such as Embassy and No.6 coupons (which themselves
could be used to buy cigarettes) and cigarette lighters etc. I learnt my
early ‘Del-Boy’ skills trading in all those, repairing and servicing broken
Ronson lighters, buying and selling coupons making a bit ‘on the turn’ – I
eventually paid for my driving lessons with 6,000 Embassy coupons, all the
result of such creative trading.

The school-masters were not above doling out the odd cigarette to
favoured pupils – although exactly why those pupils were favoured may have
some reflection in this current saga. In the more closed setting of
Duncroft, it would have been unusual if the staff did not use the cigarette
incentive system to reward the residents, and even more unusual if the Home
Office actually gave a stuff about it.

Wendi October 26, 2012 at 20:50

What a delightful way to pay for driving lessons – can’t compute the
price of x lessons for z coupons though!

Having learned the driving basics in a friend’s land rover on some poor
farmer’s fields in Kent, I managed to get an international driving
licence. You only needed to take a very basic driving test for a UK IDL
then, a normal UK licence not being a prerequisite. The attitude was you
can run foreigners over on the Continent but you can’t drive here with
that! Unfortunately, when I went back to the UK later to renew it, said
loophole was no longer available.

Mudplugger
October 26, 2012 at 21:00

It was a long time ago – 1968 in fact.
From memory, the going rate
for Embassy Coupons was around £5 per thousand, equating to £30 for a
course of 12 lessons and the Test Fee, at British School of Motoring, in
a Triumph Herald – fortunately that’s all it took to sneak through the
test.
More than a million miles later, on both sides of the road, and
a Competition License, I’m still alive, so maybe it was a valid ‘Pass’
after all.

Thor2Hammer
October 26, 2012 at 22:33

Circa 1969 I was a copper ‘near London’ – and one day got sent to see
a lady who wanted some (undefined) advice. Neat ‘housewife’ in neat
council house near a small Industrial/Trading estate. ” Every lunch-time
chaps knock on my back door – look surprised and ask, ‘Does Sheila still
live here? Are you in the same business?’ When I say ‘NO’ to both, they
are always polite, apologise, and leave. Only thing that upsets me is –
do I look like I’d only charge 40 Senior Service?”

I had to agree that – even for a ‘midday quickie’ – two packs of
non-filter cigarettes WAS rather close to the lower end of the market –
and spent a pleasant afternoon passing the word to Managers &
Foremen in local businesses – causing much amusement when many of them
immediately said “That will be Fred.” &c.

Mewsical
October 26, 2012 at 23:52

Great story, Thor!

Mudplugger October 27, 2012 at 20:46

Related yarn, Thor…….

As a young work-study man in the 1970s (stop-watch, clip-board
etc), I accompanied a utility meter-reader on his rounds. Walking
through the red-light district of a major city one afternoon, two of
the working girls were sitting on their door-step, unoccupied, eager
to earn. One of them called across, “Only 50p, boys”. Quick as a
flash, the meter-man yelled back, “Show us the 50p first”.
The
torrent of abuse which followed was educational.

John Pickworth
October 27, 2012 at 19:28

@ Jonathan Mason
“… when it must have been illegal even at that
time to give cigarettes to such young children”

Back in the early seventies, I used to run along to the shops to buy 10
‘Number10′ for a neighbour quite legally at age 10. Incidentally, smoking
behind the bike sheds was a popular activity with the boys at my school and
while it was officially frowned upon it wasn’t unusual to see a master there
too. Strangely, given all this exposure from a young age I didn’t smoke my
first cigarette until age 23.

Jonathan
Mason October 28, 2012 at 13:48

My reading of the Chidren and Young Persons Act 1933 is that it was
illegal to sell cigarettes to underage children. The law has been amended
a few times and the age changed, but I don’t think it could have been as
low as 10 in the 70′s. Clearly it was not enforced, or more likely in a
local corner shop where the shopkeeper, child, and adult were all known to
each other, it would have been ignored.

When I was in my teens in the 60′s, I certainly knew it was illegal for
me to buy cigarettes and it would have been a caning offence at
school.

On the other hand, I also remember drinking in pubs at the age of 16
with friends of the same age without any kind of request for proof of age,
so it must have been very widespread. I think as long as you looked
something like old enough and behaved like an adult, publicans were quite
willing to take your money.

John
Pickworth October 28, 2012 at
14:47

I just assumed, from my experience, that it was legal then. I don’t
recall ever being challenged and it was a fairly large store. As for
age/appearance, I looked like a 12 year old when I was 18. I have to say
though, this was Nottingham, a city then dominated by the John Players
factories.

As for drinking at age 15 (although rarely) we always knew where the
law stood on that issue… so did the local landlord who’d insist we hid
behind a wall in the car park and run like hell if we saw policeman.

Backwoodsman
October 26, 2012 at 14:08

I may be old fashioned, and I find the whole saville saga squalid, but I
think it pales into insignificance compared to the Rochdale scandals.
What
you had there, was the police and social services, the very people the public
trust to protect children, knowingly turning a blind eye to repeated reports
of abuse, because in their judgement ‘community cohesion’ was more important
!
That is unbelievably shocking and betrays the sort of moral perversion
that is beyond belief.

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at 14:08

Quite agree!

Brass Monkey
October 27, 2012 at 13:39

I agree even more than Anna, if that is possible!! In an age where
everyone must be treated equally, (and the Acts of Parliament are there to
ensure this is done) how do so many non-white, non-Christian lawbreakers
repeatedly escape any form of censure, let alone investigation, arrest and
punishment. Oh! Is it because to do so would be “racist”?

ivan October 26, 2012 at 14:23

Ah, Backwoodsman, the problem is that the MSM couldn’t publish anything
about the Rochdale abuses because we have the perpetrators being of a
protected people and everything else is covered by PCism, so the only thing
left is to crucify a white male.

Dick the
Prick October 26, 2012 at 15:12

It’s not just Rochdale, I think that may be the rub. I was an
intelligence analysts and a foster carer for about 7 years in another
northern town (much like any other) and was witness to the lady who ran a
drop in centre for waifs and strays with alcohol, domestic violence, drug,
prostitution issues etc etc saying to the chief inspector – ‘these girls
are being groomed’ to which the copper said ‘not my problem’.

There’s a sobering consideration that it really isn’t the police’s
problem, police aren’t social workers, it’s not their job to take witness
statements from every kid with an axe to grind – plenty of good men have
been sent down because kids want the compo, plenty collude to organise
their stories and bear false witness against a bloke who happened to be a
teacher, a vicar, a scout leader. If social workers don’t do their job
then why should coppers. Councillors are the politicians, they run the
councils, if they stood by their social workers then the politics can be
handled transparently, no race riots, no claims of racism, open and honest
presentations of the intelligence. It goes on in every town, has done for
ages. Trouble is Labour had an open door policy, bought the Asian vote –
or, to be more precise, the Asians bought the local Labour parties, the
local associations. Can’t win in hundreds of wards unless your Labour and
preferably Asian – they probably own about 40 MPs too.

If I was a copper or a coppers boss or a local police commissioner I’d
tell you to sling your hook with tales of taxi firms ferrying young foster
kids around with drugs and vodka to Client 42′s house – none of my
business, chuckles, phone child line, they may care. Justice? Justice? How
very quaint, what’s that, 20 points with a double word score? Bradford
race riots could happen again – hell, look at Mark Duggan ffs. For the
cops to take the initiative and walk into that, well, now that would be a
fantasy story. Nah, just pick off the low hanging fruit, the careless taxi
driver, the take-away worker caught in flagrante delicto, the occasional
brothers caught with a big bag of weed and a 12 year old. Dribs, drabs,
everybody’s happy – lovely jubbly!

Edna
Fletcher October 26, 2012 at
19:38

Apparently the social workers in Rochdale took the view the girls
involved were making a lifestyle choice! So no doubt the police also
decided to take no action either. Echoes of the 60′s and 70′s attitude
here it seems.. Or maybe an excuse to avoid a race issue at local
council level.
Who knows, because getting to the truth when agencies
and people in positions of power are concerned, (that includes social
workers), means you get a lot of make believe to protect vested
interests.

Jeremy
Poynton October 26, 2012 at
15:17

a protected religion. not a protected people. Important
distinction.

cascadian October 26, 2012 at 16:40

But Backwoodsman, the entire investigative journalism ranks of the BBC
are busy-writing stories about being transferred to Salford! How can you
expect them to write about muslim pedophiles? Have you no sense of
priorities sir?

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at
17:01

Well, well, well, the first threatening message received. I wondered
how long it would take. I have taken steps to forward it to the police so
that Miss Jones’ safety and tranquility can be adequately protected.

Mewsical
October 26, 2012 at 18:01

Coven at work!

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at
18:12

Well, I’ve just slipped an extra couple of toads into the dinner
pot…

Gloria
Smudd October 26, 2012 at 20:14

Ah-ha! I thought you didn’t think much of my cooking, Mme R! And
there you are using my tried and tested ‘toad’ method ….

cascadian
October 26, 2012 at 18:26

I’m innocent, ‘onestly landlady, i wuz outside syphoning petrol from
the BBC geezers car when it ‘appened.

JuliaM October 26,
2012 at 13:54

“And why such an organisation is letting them?”

Oh, I think we all know why, don’t we?

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at 13:57

One might have ones suspicions…

Sackerson October
26, 2012 at 13:43

Strewth, an expose of the exposer. I didn’t know of the Jones-Duncroft
connection till I read it here, though having Googled it I now see it broke a
few days ago.

And I’m with you on the Bad Samaritan aspect of the news media, mugging the
victim for the second time.

Ellen Coulson
October 26, 2012 at 13:36

Somewhere Kat said she was doing it just for money and obviously she’s
trying to sell the book

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at 13:41

I must admit that I raised an eyebrow when Anthony directed me to that
Daily Mail piece saying ‘that she had a new book out Monday’…when you have
spent years writing novels about sexual abuse, it was unfortunate timing
just as you are making claims of actual abuse. Personally I would have
demanded the book be withheld at that point if I had been in her shoes,
rather than muddy the waters.

Anthony October 26, 2012 at 13:47

Sorry but I do not see why Meirion should have ignored his concerns, he
likely had heard that girls had gone to The Mirror in 1994 but were too
scared to take it to court. He would have known it was useless to try and
run with the story while Savile was alive. As for taking advantage of
someone vulnerable, abuse victims often are, it is precisely the fact that
vulnerable people are often ignored or not believed which is why abusers
have been allowed to remain unmasked.

Smoking Hot October 26, 2012 at 13:33

The MSM juggernaut rolls on

Ransom Stoddard … “You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?”

Maxwell Scott … “No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes
fact, print the legend”

Den October 26, 2012 at 13:20

Well said/written Anna – I takes me hat off to you.

Mewsical October 28, 2012 at 01:46

Ray Davies already had it down .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DdlUJTycKo

Amfortas October 26, 2012 at 13:20

Too late Anna, it has gone feral. The ‘XCountry has got Talent’ and
XCountry Idol’ is all over the shop now with small warbling children staggered
between fat and skinny ‘adults’ all disporting their total lack of talent for
anything but exposure. Even the back stage people are out front, making snide
remarks as they go on and off stage. And what goes on behind the scenes as
anxious kiddies wait for their moment of terrifying fame surrounded by the
bizarre and the loony, the narcissists and the plain stupid?

You suggest CCTV? They already have that covered, and every second night
there is a collection of unwitting yobs and yobbettes spewing and fornicating,
bashing and crashing for everyone to snigger at. It will only be a short time
before the ‘out-takes’ hit prime time and we get scenes direct from the
dressing room as some little girl gets into her party frock or sits on the
toilet.

Jimmy Savile may well have been in the vanguard of modern ‘Yoof’ TV but
even he had professional forebears who had a penchant for sexual expolitation.
Maybe castrati will make a come-back to a TV station near you soon. Now that’s
what I call sexual molestation. But what the heck, they are only boys. Nowhere
near as scandal-worthy as girls.

macheath October
26, 2012 at 13:53

And don’t forget that old chestnut of ‘the public interest’ vs ‘what
interests the public’; in an era where nearly every bookshop has a shelf
labelled ‘Painful Lives’or ‘Difficult childhood’, it is easy for journalists
to justify their actions to themselves or their editors.

It’s nothing new; a few years ago, Richard and Judy ran a sort of ‘more
abused than thou’ phone-in competition, giving viewers 2 minutes to pitch
their harrowing real-life stories – the prize was a publishing contract
worth £25,000 and, presumably, the chance to have your traumatic past picked
and slobbered over by an undiscriminating readership.

According to the Observer: ‘The personal stories of rape, incest and
addiction duly arrived in their thousands. Viewers who knew what they liked
were then asked to vote from a short list of six for the story they found
most ‘disturbing’ or ‘moving’ of all.’

Anna
Raccoon October 26, 2012 at
13:56

Jesus! Macheath – I didn’t know about that. I am stunned.

Ted Treen
October 28, 2012 at 01:12

One should never be surprised at the depths to which the MSM will
sink, just for ratings, circulation etc. Some of them would make Jeremy
Kyle look like a gentle agony aunt in comparison…

Although obviously, they would not be following that line if the
noble British public did not watch/buy such dross in their millions.

Are these MSM ‘celebrities’ perverting public morals or is it t’other
way round?

Another chicken & egg question, methinks.

Tatty October 31, 2012 at 13:21

Jesus wept. Privacy, dignity and self-respect – For Sale to the highest
bidder. Meanwhile those who will not sell at any price suffer in silence
or risk disbelief and derision if/when…overwhelmed and unable to cope…they
finally do have the courage to speak up, quietly..

I swear that half the world is deliberately insane whilst the other
half go insane trying to deal with all the insanity.

My head hurts …

Ellen Coulson
October 26, 2012 at 13:14

You appear to have overlooked the fact that Mark Williams-Thomas was also
involved in the Newsnight programme.

Moor Larkin November 20, 2012 at 22:54

The quotes from Karin ward’s book might be pertinent here. They haven’t
been publicised within the context of the original Exposure programme or any
of the press reports, so far as I know.

“The room was large and well-appointed. The air hung thick with his foul
cigar smoke but most of us were smoking cigarettes as well so it all combined
into a kind of hazy fog at ceiling height. JS laughed and joke with Miss
Jones….. we were introduced to some of his guests on the show before it
began.”

“The fact that we sat in JS’s dressing room with both of them, being
encouraged to drink vodka, gin or Bacardi rum……”

“I am perfectly certain that most people at the BBC had no idea whatsoever
of the goings-on, although some of the ‘lackeys’ must have had a very good
idea. Stars were not disturbed in their dressing rooms as a rule. The fact
that JS often took us all out after the show had aired – celebrity guests and
all………. Miss Maggie Jones always acceded to requests from all the celebrities
to take girls elsewhere, although she pretended to be be stern with the men,
extracting solemn proises to have the girls back by the time we had to
leave.”

“The list of celebrities I met during the weekends in the company of JS is
a long one. I acquired an autograph book and had almost filled it before I
left Duncroft. I’ve no idea what happened to that book;”

“We were not held exclusively to Television centre when we visited London.
I recall attending at the Theatre Royal one night in the glittering company of
many celebrities, although I cannot now recall how it was we were there. I’m
pretty sure JS must have had something to do with it.”

I’ve also noticed that in her book, she does not describe Savile coming to
Duncroft in a Rolls Royce, but rather,
“He came first time in a smart, low
to the ground, sports car.”

She also records that,
“Miss Jones, the headmistress, spent hours at a
time with JS. I could hear them chatting and laughing from her study……. I
looked forward to JS visiting because it meant pleasant food, rides down the
lane in his sports car and extra cigarettes……..”

She clearly tells the story that she was taken out alone in this sports
car, and that so were others of the Duncroftians taken out alone; and they
then talked to one another about what happeend to each afterwards – a
completely diiferent story to them being taken out as a group in a Rolls
Royce.