Evening all; pull up a chair and pin your ears back.

I have, this evening, had a long talk with Miss Margaret Jones, headmistress of Duncroft for many years. It was almost 50 years since we had spoken directly to each other, and it was riveting. She was as corruscatingly honest and direct as I remember. Anybody who is under the impression that because she is 91, she might be slightly short on the marbles is in for a shock. Her power of recall is exceptional – and will prove to be devastating. As sharp as a box of scalpels – I can’t say that I am surprised; if anybody was going to stay on the ball, she was always a good candidate.

Until this evening, only a couple of old girls had her phone number. I was not one of them. She sent word to me this evening that she would like me to phone her because things had happened today – and because she has also been following my blog for the past week. I am still not in a position to prove that I have told the truth, and the whole truth, but I now have the private satisfaction of knowing that she has told me that she asked me to phone her because she knew I was speaking the truth and applauded me for having done so. I have taken a lot of schtick over the past week for speaking out – a lot of it from people who have never met me, but imagine that they know all about me. This statement will do nothing to change their mind, and frankly I couldn’t care less; their opinion of me is meaningless, Internet chatter. What my husband thinks of me – and Miss Jones – is what counts to me. I wouldn’t have had the life that I have, and by extension, wouldn’t have the husband that I have, were it not for her.

I am saying this now, for, as my regular readers are well aware, I also have cancer. I have just undergone a six month revolutionary treatment, and in the next couple of weeks have to decide whether I am going to have more treatment in the future. That is a major decision that my husband and I must make together in peace and quiet. Sadly, as a result of events today, he has been forced to divulge a secret that he had been hugging to himself for some days. Last week was our 20th wedding anniversary, and on Friday he had booked a rather wonderful hotel in Paris for us, planning to whisk me away to some peace and quiet, to talk of the future and get away from all this. He only told me because he thought that with the seriousness of what is happening and the amount of press enquiries that I am fielding, I might prefer to stay here. Not a bit of it – my husband and my health are more important than a squalid little press story. We will be leaving here early on Friday morning, and I will be turning moderation on at that time which means no ones comments will be released until I return. I am making a point of saying this now, so that those who know me and trust me will understand – those who only wish to denigrate my attempts to get at the truth will no doubt have a field day saying that I have ‘run off’.

So what has happened today? As I said, only two girls had her phone number, and only her family – including Meirion – and the Panorama team knew her address, despite many claims to the contrary. Somebody, one of those people, gave that information to the Daily Mail, and thus Claire Ellicott of the Daily Mail, she of the totally erroneous report detailing Bebe Roberts’ claim to have been assaulted on Duncroft premises 9 years before Jimmy Savile ever set foot in the school, turned up on Miss Jones’ doorstep. Armed with a concealed tape recorder.

The only other person from the press who has ever approached her was Emily Plowden from Panorama, who approached her two days before transmission of the ITV programme – and almost a year after her nephew Meirion first tried to put together his Newsnight programme. Until Emily turned up, Miss Jones had no inkling whatsoever of claims of illegal behaviour. She and her nephew had not been in communication for many years.

She has not been contacted by any police officers in respect of allegations made of assaults that may have happened to girls in her charge. Ever.

That is not to say that she has had no inkling of what has been going on though – with her ex-girls, not with Savile, I hasten to add.  Merely that she had no idea that a television programme was being made about it – or at least about the version of events it attempted to portray. She is totally aware of who is who behind all the false identifies; who has obtained confidential information from girl’s pasts that should never have been in any ‘civilian’ hands, what pressure has been put on people to speak in a particular way – or that information would be revealed. She knows precisely who has a relationship with each television company and with which newspapers – I have laughed and cried with her for over an hour.

I wish I could share it with you, it is an extraordinary tale – but I have given my word that I won’t. For good reason. She is still a canny old bird, a tad deaf, but the marbles swirling with the efficiency of Colossus 11.  She is waiting to see who hangs themselves with which piece of rope. Then she will strike.

It won’t be to the media. She has talked at length to her legal advisors – not to protect herself, but in view of her age… She has no faith whatsoever in the honour or ethics of any of the media. ‘They don’t check their sources’ is what she said. My sentiments exactly. She is happy to co-operate with the police. (As is the other ex-staff member I have spoken to at length this week).

She has given no interview to the media. She was presented by Claire Ellicott with a list of nine christian names, no surnames, of girls who claim to have reported assaults by Savile on themselves to her at Duncroft. She told her that she had no comment to make. She did answer a couple of questions. Then she spotted the concealed tape recorder. Now she waits to see what the Mail version of this encounter proves to be.

God help anyone who doesn’t stick strictly to the truth.

She is, she told me, 91 years old, she doesn’t know how much longer she will live. She has no family left that she is close to, or whose reputation she cares to protect.  I can understand that frame of mind, unfortunately I share it myself at the moment. It gives you a strength that would not be understood by those who seek their five minutes of fame and fortune. Photographs sold, confidences broken, for a few bucks.

Blimey, I could write a book after that phone call – damn shame I’ve given my word to keep quiet. I’ve just had the interview the media would die for.

Comments will be on until the early hours of Friday. Don’t know when I shall be back – Mr G won’t tell me. I knew something was up – its the first time in 20 years he hasn’t asked me at least three times by a Wednesday – what I was cooking for Sunday lunch!

*Edited to add: Two items of interest that are not breaking any confidences. Both concern cigarettes.

One, I said earlier that we were given cigarettes each week. I had not appreciated, or had forgotten, that the school leaving age was 15 in 1964. Hence when I arrived, I was past school leaving age and no longer entitled to a full time education. (I did say that education was limited and afternoons only). We were free to go out to work legally – except that we couldn’t, we were locked up. Hence the requirement that we spent our mornings cleaning the buildings, working in the kitchens and the laundry. For this we were allocated a minimal pocket money which was never actually handed to us. It could have been saved up, but if we wanted cigarettes or sweets, the staff would buy them for us. In other words, we were buying our own cigarettes rather than being bribed for good behaviour in the way I may have implied.  Obviously the more ‘work’ we did, as opposed to misbehaving, the more money we had for more cigarettes. The Home Office generosity certainly didn’t extend to supplying cigarettes for us. Bang goes my claim for my 20 a day habit! Ah well….

Two – Miss Jones was considerably amused at my powers of recollection as to the various brands of cigarettes smoked by the staff, vis a vis our obsession with collecting dog ends….seems my memory is damn near as good as hers. Bridie Keenan did smoke Piccadilly No 6 unfiltered, and Miss Jones did smoke Craven ‘A’. Neither brand is still available I believe, but I can describe the packets perfectly – and even though I have such a clear memory of the packet design, I have ever smoked either brand. So much for the ‘plain packs’ campaign. 50 years later.

Daphne
Wayne-Bough November 12, 2012 at
19:38

Anna, I have been on this site every day since I discovered you via Indigo
Jo Bloggs. I am an incorrigible conspiracy theorist but even I couldn’t have
thought up one as tortuous as this. Everything you say makes sense, and I
admire your courage in debunking all the sensationalist crap that the meedja
are churning out – and sadly the BBC too. Living abroad, I have a touching (no
pun intended) faith in the Beeb, and am saddened to see that they are
resorting to “la nostalgie de la boue” along with the Mail, Sun etc. When this
story first broke, my first questions were “Where were News International when
we needed them?” and “The headmistress must have known – why is this guy
putting a member of his own family in the frame?” Your blog, and others that
you have linked to, have helped to answer those questions and others that have
cropped up since, so many thanks for your brave stand.
Character
assassination is the oldest trick in the book. After the gruesome paedophile
murders in Belgium (where I live) back in the 1990s, a raft of unsavoury
rumours started circulating about various members of Belgian high society and
clergy, including the King himself (!), and the progressive head of the
Belgian Catholic church was (wrongly) vilified by an English-language paper
here. I did a bit of research and lo and behold the trail led back to the
extreme right-wing and racist Flemish separatist party Vlaams Belang who are
famous for their hatred of the Belgian royals and support of conservative
Catholicism. The editor of the English paper they duped (but who never
apologized) is now working with UKIP. Surprise, surprise. A qui profite le
crime?
My flatmate – who is even more of a conspiracy theorist than me –
has been muttering about Murdoch and his legendary hatred of the BBC …. I
initially thought he was over reacting, but the way things are going, I’m not
so sure now.
Keep up the good work Anna!

Gadjo
Dilo November 12, 2012 at 06:19

Hello Anna – a fascinating piece. I was directed to your blog by the
estimable Daphne Wayne-Bough. I live a loooong way away (in Transylvania to be
precise) but a scandal story (which I didn’t quite understand) about the BBC
actually made it (in Romanian) onto our local radio station this morning – is
there much sense being shown or is it turning into quite a witch-hunt??

Mewsical November 11, 2012 at 15:55

Ex Duncroft 72 said: “Mewsical, I have watched you change sides several
times during the past few months and bully anyone who does not follow your
self appointed lead, as you strive to dominate any discussion of Duncroft that
you can find.

I do not believe this is acceptable behaviour.”

Hi ho. Here’s what I don’t do, I don’t change identities, I don’t lie, and
I don’t care what you think. Some of you Duncroft women think that this entire
Savile matter is all about you, when it isn’t. You think it’s okay to
misrepresent facts, forge documents, bullshit people about who you really are,
lie to the press, put people’s addresses on this site to make sure the press
knows where to find them, harass former staff members, steal a database that
belongs to Duncroft and bother people on it without their permission, and on
and on??? Come on, you’ve got to be kidding!! Is THAT acceptable behavior? Er
– not even close. So, trot along and tell the ‘acceptable behavior’ police
about it. I’m sure they’ll be absolutely FASCINATED.

Ex Duncroft ’72
November 13, 2012 at 01:11

Never mind what “other people” do, you do not control other people’s
choices and behaviour ( though, I suspect, not for want of trying) you only
control your own choices and behaviour.

You *choose* to bully anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You *choose* to
dominate any discussion. You *choose* to stir things up behind the scenes,
changing sides and contradicting yourself whenever it suits you, you
*choose* to consistently reinvent reality to suit yourself…and whatever
anyne else does, or does not do, does not make *your* behaviours and choices
any less unacceptable.

Mewsical
November 13, 2012 at 01:51

Backatcha.

Anna
Raccoon November 13, 2012 at
06:40

Right, that is enough, the pair of you.
You are welcome here to
debate the issues illustrated in my posts, but this is not a Facebook or
Friendsreunited forum, you are not welcome to abuse other commentators.
It’s boring, it’s childish, and it’s time you grew out of it.
So tuck
your hankies into your blue serge knickers ladies and get on with living
with the grown ups.

Wigner’s
Friend November 13, 2012 at 08:38

Reaches for axe handle under bar just in case!

Mewsical November 10, 2012 at 19:30

Tracie said: “Mewsical thank you for maintaining her privacy, which is more
than the Duncroft facebook did . No i never saw him at duncroft, which was
just as well as my relatives abuse pre dated my stay at Duncroft, If I had
seen him, it wouldnt have been a blow job that I would have given him, it
would have included a very sharp instrument and I proberly would have ended up
in Holloway. I cannot remember when I arrived but should be getting my notes
soon so will have a better idea then.”

The Duncroft file can be quite an eye-opener, btw! I’ve had mine for a
couple of weeks now.

What I wasn’t liking about places like the Duncroft FB page, and CLR, was
that some people would do or say anything to prove their point, even going to
the extent of saying who your relative was, although she had said she was not
going to go public, along with other dubious activities such as giving out the
whereabouts of former staff, who had been kind to them. When you have this
sort of thing going on, the whole business becomes suspect, you must admit.

So, sounds like Savile had taken himself off by the end of 1976, which is
when Barnardo’s took over. Were they the administrators when you were
there?

Tracie November 10, 2012 at 19:32

Yes it was all Barnardos while I was there

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 19:34

Did you stay on after 1980? I think that was when MJ and her staff
left, right? And something about a fire in Queen Anne, a short closing of
the school, etc.?

Mewsical November 10, 2012 at 18:32

Tracie said: “Mewsical the investigation involved another 14 year old who
had no contact with duncroft herself but itvwas bought to light during the
duncroft complaint. Her abuse did not take place at duncroft . It was made
very clear in news reports that there were two historic complaints made to the
surrey police . I have seen the letter from the cps that she recieved and it
stated that no further investigation due to lack of evidence. Child abuse is
so difficult as by its very nature there are no witnesses.”

When you say “another 14 year old,” I assume you mean a woman now in her
50s? Could you perhaps provide a newslink to buttress your claim about two
historic complaints? And when you say “I have seen the letter from the CPS
that she received …” could you let us know under what circumstances that
occurred? If this additional victim was revealed during the Duncroft
complaint, doesn’t that confirm that the initial complaint was made solely by
a Duncroft woman? And why would a completely unrelated victim come forward,
i.e. “brought to light,” as a result of what I assume was a confidential
police investigation. How did this “come to light” exactly?

Tracie November 10, 2012 at 18:42

Mewsical i am not going to provide a newslink, im sure that you can dig
around and find that yourself, the fact that she refused to be interviewd by
mwt or the newspapers tells you that she doesnt want the limelight on her.
The surrey police sent letters to the girls who were at Duncroft in the 70s
asking them to contact them ref a hisorical complaint. I knew who they were
talking about before I even called them. I also knew of the abuse that my
relative had inflicted on her from JS, maybe not as serious as some that I
have read but still abuse. I spoke to her before I called the police and she
gave me permission to give the police woman her name and address, from there
the police took her statement. You sound Suprised that you didnt know all
this, but really there was no reason for you to know, your interest was in
girls from Duncroft.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 18:53

Hm, yes, well MWT says there were two, but nobody confirms it, so I’ll
take that with a large pinch of salt. The police don’t mention two,
either.

Oh, so you weren’t AT Duncroft!! A RELATIVE of yours was at Duncroft,
the police sent letters to girls who were at Duncroft, but somehow YOU got
a letter from the police (why exactly if you weren’t there?), you have
READ about abuse, and so on, and so on.

Tracie, everything you say has a lot of smoke and mirrors going on.
Since when was my interest in ‘girls from Duncroft’? I’m interested only
in this entire tangled web.

At the bottom of this heap of horseshit there may be a pony, but I
seriously doubt it.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 18:56

I wanted to add that if this ‘second’ victim didn’t want to talk to
MWT or the papers, she’s to be congratulated. But why exactly? If she
didn’t talk to MWT, how does he know that there was ever a second
victim? Because someone told him there was? He and Meirion are two peas
in a pod. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 19:03

Mewsical I was at duncroft I left in April 1978 . My relative who was
abused by Js wasn’t at duncroft, sorry i thought i had made that clear.
How would i have got a letter from the police if I hadn’t been at
Duncroft. Where did I say that I had Read about abuse. The only reason i
replied to you was because you told Lisa that nobody believed her about
the police investigation. The investigation was very real and the
complaints made during his lifetime not after his death. Your interest
seemed to be just in the Duncroft girls as I haven’t seen you mention
any other victims, not even from the documentary, maybe I have that
wrong, apologies if i have.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 19:11

I think I know who your relative is, as she has been mentioned in
this last year, but of course if she didn’t want to speak to the press
or MWT, then we probably need to continue to protect her privacy. I’ve
actually talked about the other women, i.e. Coleen Nolan, but as this
series of blog posts began as a result of the Bebe Roberts fiasco,
I’ve tried to limit it to Duncroft just to stay on topic. Btw, did you
ever see Savile while you were there? I can’t quite figure out when he
stopped coming around with any frequency. I know he was there to
assist at some sort of fete in 1979, and another woman has said she
saw him there but never heard anything about him behaving badly. It
seems as if it was just for a couple of years, 74-76, and then it was
very infrequently indeed. Do you remember?

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 19:19

Mewsical thank you for maintaining her privacy, which is more than
the Duncroft facebook did . No i never saw him at duncroft, which was
just as well as my relatives abuse pre dated my stay at Duncroft, If I
had seen him, it wouldnt have been a blow job that I would have given
him, it would have included a very sharp instrument and I proberly
would have ended up in Holloway. I cannot remember when I arrived but
should be getting my notes soon so will have a better idea then.

peter November 10, 2012 at 09:37

Not a comment, a bit of sixties ciggie nostalgia . There was a brand called
Piccadilly no. 7 but No. 6 was Players.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/sets/72157611304343162/?page=2

Vlad the lad
November 10, 2012 at 02:41

I have years of indirect exposure with the social working world. One of my
brother’s work mates hung himself after false allegations. (Here, an
allegation gets people suspended immediately until proven innocent). Quite a
few ineffectual accusers like this power they have over their carers. In this
case it was a step father and she was well known to be mentally ill and a long
police record of false rape allegations. But claims have to be treated
seriously.

My anecdote is about not being realistic with a story. I am writing this
because the Saville claims read as over the top. People are claiming he
molested them in plain view of others. Everybody in TV would have to be guilty
for this to be true. As one TV personality stated, everyone heard the rumours,
but no one claims to know.

My brother was a social worker ~15 years ago and showed me a professional
book they were reading about street kids having multiple personalities induced
by “secretive groups”. A few kids always had stories revolving around 1: alien
abduction, 2: sex, murder and satanic rituals, 3: secret survivalist training
armies in the NSW forests, 4: sexually abusive groups of rich men, and various
others. But all similar enough that a researcher took it seriously. It was
thought that the children had multiple personalities deliberately induced to
hide which was the true story. If they remembered too many different things no
one would believe them. So, which one was the true story?

We personally concluded that 1: abused and confused children, 2: very
likely comes from a family with a history of mental illness (who else treats
children so bad they have to run away that young), 3: like taking drugs at
every opportunity during their brain’s formative growth period, 4: neglected
and so will do anything for attention. They most likely have mental
illness.

We (finally) had a proper commission into state abuse of children over
here. The commissioner recounted how Canada tried the same enquiry earlier,
and mentioned compensation early on. By the end of it Canada had to pay as
much money to families of falsely accused suicide victims as the abuse
victims. So, none of that, ours just dealt with facts, found some criminals
and but was surprisingly small in the numbers of victims.

Ex Duncroft ’72
November 10, 2012 at 21:08

Vlad, could you give details of the research you read?

It just rings bells with me for a very different reason and I would love
to get a look at it, thanks.

Frankie November 9, 2012 at 18:29

With unerring regularity, it seems that ANOTHER alleged ‘victim’ of
historical abuse has got his facts badly wrong… per the BBC.

MAN SORRY OVER SEX ABUSE ERROR

A former resident of a north Wales care home has apologised after he made
allegations of sexual abuse against a Thatcher-era senior Conservative
politician, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity.
It comes as the
solicitor for Tory peer Lord McAlpine threatened legal action against those
who linked the peer to the historical child abuse.
Steve Messham, who
appeared on Newsnight, said: “I want to offer my sincere and humble apologies
to him and his family.”
“After seeing a picture in the past hour of the
individual concerned, this not the person I identified by photograph presented
to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph
was Lord McAlpine.

Nice of Mr. Messham to lay the blame for his negligent statements at the
door of some unnamed policeman. After all, its tradition. Its ALL the fault of
the police. Everything. Unfortunately for Mr. Messham, the irate and innocent
Lord McAlpine is very much alive and is presently sharpening his expensive
legal team’s claws… “All the better to sue you with, my dear”.

Anna
Raccoon November 9, 2012 at 18:31

Jesus wept!

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 10, 2012 at 21:10

I had a similar internal response to that Anna…

“Ooops – wrong ped…er…peer…er person…s-orry”

Jonathan Mason
November 10, 2012 at 00:08

This is getting ridiculous now. Those who think that people who complain
of historical child sexual abuse must be listened to are getting hoist by
their own petard when it turns out that those who make the complaints are
fruitcakes. I’m not suggesting that sexual abuse in childhood didn’t happen,
in fact I know for a fact that it did because Old Albert our school janitor
used to have boys measure his penis with a ruler in the cellar, and the
six-inch rulers were inadequate for the job, but one has to think about what
kind of people would want to go public at such a late stage in the game and
why. This guy Steve Messham now has ZERO credibility.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 01:39

I was ‘sexually abused’ when I was about 13, by a man who came to view
our house for sale. My mother was elsewhere at the time, I was there on my
own. He was okay at first, but then we got to the top of the stairs, he
tried to pin me against the wall by one of the bedroom doors. I kneed him
where it counts and pushed him away with everything I had, and he nearly
fell down the stairs, which would have been potentially fatal for him,
like I cared. He ran. Did I complain to anyone? No. I dealt with it, and
that was that. I knew that the police would probably yawn and snore
anyway.
So, I understand your frustration, JM.
When it comes to
Savile/Duncroft, Margaret Jones is likely right when she observes that to
discontinue Savile’s visits would have meant the end of all the fun,
dangerous though it may have been. So, the girls did not organize and
complain in a group, which would have given the entire situation a lot
more credence. There is a legend that a group of girls broke out, with the
aid of a staff member, and went to the Staines police, who summarily drove
them all back to Duncroft. I think that sort of goes along with the
Largactyl myth, but I’ll be happy to learn more from anyone who was there
at that time, and was in the group that reported to the Staines police. At
one time, the police cadets used to attend the Duncroft Hallowe’en
parties, and the brother of one of the staff was a detective with the
Met.
I also have a problem with the group of girls going riding with
him in the Rolls story as well. First, I’m not sure how long they were
gone – they were tight on time, the Duncroft staff, and you had to be up
and back, so to speak, in the time allotted. I’d love to know exactly how
long they were gone. I think Kari’s book notes that the rest of the girls
sat on picnic benches smoking, while Savile had his way with whoever in
the back of the Rolls. So, we are expected to believe that this lot didn’t
take an immediate opportunity to do a bunk??? Come on. But if any of the
usual suspects have a rebuttal, happy to hear it.

Moor Larkin November 10, 2012 at 09:18

Messham was undoubtedly a victim in that Welsh Home all those years
ago. The Waterhouse Report left no doubt. The people who have zero
credibility are the muppets who have now encouraged him into this
invidious position. His sudden retraction startled me, but then I realsied
that once the guy he was being persuaded to accuse became a “real person”
and not some figure in a story, Messham’s own strong conscience has made
him pull the “accusation”. He’s a victim once again; I feel terribly sorry
for him. A “journalist” on Channel 4 last night was pretty much
criticising Messham, as if the poor guy had somehow let “them” all down –
inexplicably lying……

On the BBC last night they were berating themselves about getting it
wrong when they dropped the Savile show, and now getting it wrong by
running the Messham show. Their producer, Peter Rippon got it right for
them by not running that original show but – because the Duncroft thing
now is unchallenged FACT, he remains “wrong”. People on that show kept
saying things like “unlike the Savile case”…. what case? There really is
very little case. Miss Jones is probably beating herself up about Savile
and probably NOTHING HAPPENED !!

What is most shocking about this latest fiasco is that the accused guy
(whose name I don’t even want to take in vain in here) has produced no
proof whatsover; he just made a rebuttal – and the whole thing collapsed
like a pack of cards. Unfortunately for Savile, he’s in no position to
make a rebuutal and nobody cares to make it for him. The “girls” who made
the claims will never have the pang of conscince that Messham has
suffered, because dead men tell no tales.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 16:37

I wish there was a ‘like’ button on this blog, Moor. I just hope MJ
is not beating herself up. Before Bebe Roberts was ‘outed’ for being a
liar about her imaginary encounter with Savile in 1965, and I was
protesting it, among others, I was sanctimoniously informed by one of
the in-crowd that she had given the interview ‘in good faith.’ Wtf does
THAT mean? She told a bunch of lies, nothing in good faith about that.
No conscience at work there, obviously.

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 10, 2012 at 21:14

Earlier this year I realised that I was probably sexually abused by a
medical professional…BUT…

It was feck of a long time ago, I could be misinterpreting with
hindsight, I know women of ALL AGES who would have crawled on broken glass
for a hug from this guy…and…

He is long dead, he had descendents, and LIFE IS TOO SHORT…

End of story…

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 8, 2012 at 17:07

This sounds like one of the people who went to the Mirror in 1994. She had
nothing to do with Duncroft and says she was assualted aged 14 at his
flat.
The reporter refers to her plucking up courage to go public 20 years
later and then at the last moment deciding not to.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=katrina+rose&view=detail&id=1AA9437E99CB76DB4804315C7852B1F619B57E53

m.barnes November 8, 2012 at 16:12

Catching up on my Racconage……. Please pass on my congratulations to MrG for
having the terrific good sense to whisk you to Paris, well done that man!
Won’t ask for the gory details

I have been following the Saville case and the public stoning of the BBC
and anyone remotely connected to this sorry business with an increasing sense
of incredulity. What is it about human mobs, that they can so quickly descend
into swirling hysteria? A few centuries ago it was Witches these days it’s
‘Paedos’ but all must be burned at the stake! I’m pretty certain I have
already said this on another story here: Millers Crucible is never, ever going
to become irrelevant is it? It speaks of something fundamental to human
nashadowy ture. There was a fabulous article by David Aaronovitch in todays
Times about the hysteria surrounding the latest ‘Paedo Ring’: this time
featuring the regular ‘powerful politicans/policeman who are beyond the law’.
Tom Watson is on the case – ye gods – trying to replace the high from Murdoch
with another darl consipracy. Watson has apparantly sent a letter to Downing
Street saying anyone who argues against an inquiry is a ‘friend to the
paedophile’. In his speech in the commons Watson talked of thousands and
thousands and thousands of children abused by this shadowy paedo ring. Had
everyone forgotten Cleveland and Orkney?
And the most dreadful part of all
this fog and confusion is that those who have actually been assaulted, perhaps
by unfamous, unpowerful, unknown abusers, probably a member of their family,
are not listened to or helped.
‘I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil’

Moor Larki November 9, 2012 at 09:45

@m.barnes

Yes, it is strange to see the Hero of Hacking, Tom Watson, becoming as
mad as a box of frogs now. However, he is hardly unique. In the last few
days I have heard the BBC’s Nicky Campbell interviewing a guy who has
historical abuse issues, and talking seriously about the Freemasons covering
it all up. Then last night on the Channel 4 News they conducted a special
programme, “The Past on Trial” pulling together “conspiracies” as diverse as
Hillsborough, Savile and Bryn Estyn, and once again Freemasons entered the
conversation. On ITV we have Gordon the Gopher’s ex-playmate presenting the
Prime Minister of the country with a list of names, and the Prime Minister
gibbers nervously about a gay witch-hunt.

I’m seriously coming to Anna Raccoon’s blog for a dose of sanity just
now. The mainstream has lost it’s marbles. The most insidious thing in my
mind, is that “the Savile case” is now talked of as a “fact”. Given the huge
room for doubt about the Duncroft stories, and the complete lack of any
substantive evidence about Savile, it’s hardly surprising that the media in
Britain has lost the plot. If you predicate everything on what may actually
have been false in the first place anyway, is it any wonder confusion
reigns? Fior those not close to the UK, there are media calls for Savile’s
body to be exhumed and cremated, and the sahes put in the sea, and now there
seems a genuine push to implicate him in the Yorkshire Ripper murders as
some kind of accomplice to Sutcliffe. It’s getting crazier, not calming
down

Jonathan
Mason November 9, 2012 at 11:49

The Yorkshire Ripper thing is a bit silly. I lived in Leeds at the time
and was also investigated, at least up to the point of checking my
passport which showed I had been on holiday overseas at the time of at
least one murder. However 50,000 men in the area were also investigated,
as part of the methodology of the investigation was simply to narrow down
the number of possible suspects by force of numbers. The public were
encouraged to name anyone they could think of to the police as a possible
suspect, so anyone who worked late hours, for example, was liable to be
investigated. I did vaguely know one of the victims by sight as she had
been a patient at the hospital where I worked, but that was all.

Moor LarkiN November 9, 2012 at 12:31

On BBC2′s Newsnight they had Williams-Thomas (who remarkably said
almost nothing), some guy from The Times, and a guy from NAPAC who made
the astonishing claim that one in four children in the UK is a victim of
abuse. He remained unchallenged by anyone, to eprhaps elucidate what on
earth he was talking about.

One in four seems a handy shorthand for most everything. Googling the
phrase “one in four children” gives you everything from one in four
being overweight to one in four suffering from cyber-bullying.

Robb
November 9, 2012 at 15:41

Hi Moor

If it’s last night’s Newsnight, participants were David Aronovich
of the Times (a skeptic), the guy from NAPAC, and Mark Lewis a media
lawyer, famous from Leveson, etc. The NAPAC 1-in-4 claim comes he says
via the NSPCC.

The ubiquitous 1-in-4 is indeed handy. I predicted, a while a go,
it would soon be ‘one in three’–it is! Try Googling it. One site
concerend with violence against women is so sure of the figure it has
named itself after it.

Meanwhile, Newsnight seems to have made another cock-up. Perhaps to
makes up for previous lapses, they interviewed Steven Messham, who
fingered a prominent Tory politician. We internet savvy soon
discovered this was proably Lord McAlpine. It took the Guard scarcely
more time to compare Messham/Waterhouse with Messham/Newsnight–and
conclude it wasn’t that McAlpine at all. Following the Guard’s
findings, the good lord has stepped forward too.

Not only more egg on Newsnight’s face (and I am a great supporter
of the BBC), but this: The new investigations announced by Cameron
were initiated by Messham’s statements. Which turn out likely to be
false! Now what?

Wigner’s
Friend November 9, 2012 at
16:00

Because of what Schofield did, this was discussed on Jeremy Vine
today and the “Children’s Protector was Bea Campbell (http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/jjones.htm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Campbell) – do
they never learn?

m.barnes
November 9, 2012 at 13:28

I’d missed the introduction of the freemasons – it was inevitable I
suppose. Has anyone mentioned the illuminati yet? Oh no, I just have! Well
THAT’s torn it

I completely agree the mainstream has just gone into a feeding frenzy.
Every time it starts to die down someone comes along and squirts a bit
more blood into the water to keep it going.

Have just read Lord McAlpine’s full statement – thorough, to the point
and a damn sight more humane and sensitive towards the source of the
allegations than any of Tom Watson’s pronouncements.

Moor Larkin November 9, 2012 at 16:06

@Robb

Ah! the wrong Mark. I beg everybody’s pardon. It’s easy to see how
information can go wonky very quickly…. [blush]
That would explain
why whoever he was didn’t say very much. What was a guy from Leveson
doing there, talking about Savile and child abuse anyway I wonder? Best
not go there, it’s far too complicated already.

Thanks for the correction.

Robb
November 9, 2012 at 16:19

Hi Moor

He was there because he is a media lawyer. Mind you, the whole
segment was pretty flaccid. It noted that the Guard had named a ‘name’
as an innocent name. No acknowledgement that it itself had contributed
to the frenzy. A bit early, perhaps.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 19:30

A fair sprinkling of the commenters on Digital Spy have made
reference to lizards, the Illuminati, old Uncle David Icke and all. It’s
ridiculous.

Ex Duncroft ’72
November 9, 2012 at 11:42

Because of the dates I cannot help wondering if the whole 5 ring circus
was not at least in part inspired by dim memories of this movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devils_(film) which
achieved cult status in the early 70s (with the “x” certificate that would
make it irresistable to teens).

I am always suspicious about “celebrity abuse” at best, because in my
experience, the perptetrators of most real abuse (sexual and otherwise) are
people you never heard of, and sadly, never will.

Brian November 7,
2012 at 22:53

Of course the Police might have known about Savile’s activities but allowed
him a degree of freedom in order that intelligence on other notables could be
collected for whatever purpose was seen fit by the powers that be, mainly
vetting and blackmail. Please understand that intelligence work is amoral and
that the interests of the State are quite different to the morality of the man
or woman in the street. Sad but true.

Thor2Hammer November 7, 2012 at 22:50

\\The author of a shelved report into abuse at children’s homes in the
1970s and 1980s said public figures were not among names given by
victims.
John Jillings said he did not recall allegations that children
were taken from north Wales homes and abused.
One victim said an
independent inquiry commissioned by Clwyd County Council, on which the report
was based, would have been told of such abuse claims.
Steve Messham
criticised Mr Jillings’ recollection about the names given.\\
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20234776

SO – will the NEW inquiry be told which ‘famous names’ people are expected
to remember?

Moor Larkin November 7, 2012 at 10:33

There’s a very interesting blog here that was written around the same time
as the Newsnight programme was being dropped.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=40946#comment_write

Nothing to do with Duncroft, but those world-wide readers of the raccoon
blog who are unfamiliar with the recent UK history about these issues, might
find it useful to help them put a context as to why the Savile story has
proved such a heady brew here.

Innocente November 6, 2012 at 18:31

With regard to ‘the girl who died at Duncroft’. I have already mentioned
that I was a pupil there from 1971-1972 and know exactly who this refers to.
I’ve seen this rumour before, probably around a year ago. I’m not going to
mention this pupil’s full name here because her Church still mentions her in
their prayers on the anniversary of her death, which indicates that she still
has family. Her initials are TPC. She arrived at the school after I did, and
she absconded in November 1971 with another girl whose initials are LB. They
absconded by breaking the perspex window of the small common room (with the
record player in it). I didn’t think it would break, it took 5 or 6 really
hard whacks with the big, wicker chairs we had in there, but it finally
shattered, and they were gone. A few months later, Mrs O’Sullivan walked into
the same small common room and said “Your friend, xxxxxxx, she’s dead”. She
then sneered, and walked out, leaving most of us there too stunned even to
speak for several minutes. I thought about TPC and LB a lot over the years,
and when I first saw this rumour, I did some searching of my own. I now have a
copy of her death certificate right in front of me – I’ve had it for some
time. Firstly, TPC could not have arrived back at Duncroft sometime after
Easter – she died on January 19th, 1972. Secondly, she died in a hospital, in
her home town, which is in Surrey. Media reports list Duncroft as Staines,
Surrey, but in 1972 Staines was in Middlesex. Even Dee, the lovely lady
currently residing at 15. Duncroft Manor lists her address as Staines, Middx.
TPC’s cause of death is given as: 1a) Inhalation of vomit following
intravenous injection of narcotic drug. B) Chronic drug addiction.
Misadventure. The registrar is BW Sylvester, who dated the registration of her
death on May 25th 1972. The Coroner for Greater London held 2 inquests, one on
26/01/72 (probably adjourned) and the second on 24/05/1972, at which point,
the death certificate would have been issued. TPC would have turned 16 on
December 20th 1971, while she was still on the run. “Following intravenous
injection” would be at odds with the use of Largactil Linctus. And as has
already been mentioned, even if a cover-up was attempted, how many different
agencies would have needed to collaborate in order to facilitate such a
cover-up? All of the Duncroft staff (that’s possible), the ambulance crew, the
hospital staff, mortuary staff, the doctors who pronounced her dead, the
Coroner, the Registrar, and her own family. The very fact that she died in her
home town indicates that she had returned there, and was probably staying with
people she already knew. It was sad enough that TPC died at all. She was just
15b years old when she arrived at Duncroft. If she absconded in November and
died in January, that’s a window of just 2 months on the run. I don’t believe
that she could have become chronically addicted to drugs in the space of 2
months. That would indicate that she was probably already a drug user when she
arrived, in which case…. why was even there??? Duncroft was not a hospital. It
wasn’t a clinic. It certainly wasn’t The Priory. It was an Approved School. If
TPC had a chronic drug addiction, she should never been recommended for a
placement at Duncroft, and she should not have been accepted there either.
Some time after the arrival of the WWW, I saw a link to an old newspaper
article which read “Who Killed T—— C—–? It wasn’t meant in the literal sense,
but rather, who let her down, who failed to save her? I wasn’t the only person
who saw that headline, but I cannot find any trace of it now. I’m busy working
on that, and also on getting a copy of TPC’s inquest report. Yes, she died,
and technically, while still a pupil at the school. But it is sad enough that
she’s gone, and at such a tender age. Let’s please scotch this particular
rumour. TPC died in a hospital in her hometown. If I can get a copy of her
death certificate, so can anyone. It’s all there in black and white. It’s easy
to see how rumours and myths begin, but I really felt very strongly about
this. I wasn’t planning to post here again, but TPC deserves some dignity even
if it is 41 years overdue. Nobody killed her in a squalid ICU cell and I hope
that reading her inquest report will mean I can lay my own particular ghost to
rest.

Innocente November 6, 2012 at 18:36

*15 years old, not 15b – my apologies.

Mewsical November 7, 2012 at 16:15

Thank you for clearing that up at last, and I’m sure this poor girl
appreciates your kindness in doing so. However, I did want to say that a
heroin addict can become addicted very rapidly. I’ve seen it myself with
friends of mine. If she was out there on the run, she may have picked the
habit up while she was out there, so I don’t know if we can impute any blame
to Duncroft particularly. That was very insensitive of Mrs. O.

Innocente
November 7, 2012 at 18:51

Mewsical – your efforts to maintain the image of the school and its
headmistress are indeed valiant, and I commend you on your resolute and
dogged determination to ensure that the reputations of both Duncroft
School and Margaret Jones remain untarnished. But…. the cause of TPC’s
death would have been determined by somebody I assume is better medically
qualified than both you and I. The cause of her death is listed as Chronic
drug addiction. The medical definition of ‘chronic’ is: chron·ic
(krnk)
adj.
1. Of long duration; continuing: chronic money
problems.
2. Lasting for a long period of time or marked by frequent
recurrence, as certain diseases: chronic colitis.
3. Subject to a habit
or pattern of behavior for a long time: a chronic liar. The fact remains
that a 15 year old girl was handed over to the care of Duncroft School,
and a few months later she was dead. The school’s reputation and that of
its headmistress are of little consequence here. TPC was somebody’s
daughter, she came from a Catholic family so I would think it fair to at
least presume that she was somebody’s granddaughter, sister, cousin,
niece, possibly even an Auntie, I was at that age. She was, even at 16,
still just a child, one who would never see adulthood. The system failed
her and her death is incredibly sad. That is irrefutable. Where is your
sadness? Where is your compassion?

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 20:23

I know what chronic means. Look, she ran away. Not a good idea. She
o.d.’ed. This was yeeeeaaaaars ago. And why we’re discussing this is a
bit beyond me, frankly. I’m not trying to protect anyone’s reputation,
I’m simply getting tired of misrepresentations and downright lies.
Duncroft wasn’t Butlins – girls kept running off and getting into big
trouble out there, and this was NOT the responsibility of Duncroft. You
smash windows and run off, how is that the fault of Duncroft? You stick
a needle in your arm (and you apparently were sticking needles in your
arm before coming to Duncroft, i.e. chronic drug addict) you assume a
risk that has NOTHING to do with Duncroft. 16 is not a child, under law.
Stop trying to use this girl’s unfortunate death as an excuse to bash
me.

Ex Duncroft
November 7, 2012 at 17:20

Hi Innocente,

Thank you for that, and now you give details it sounds (as I have
suspected before since I saw this mentioned elsewhere, which information has
gone forward with all the other information) as if there may have been two
seperate deaths, as the death I heard spoken of by staff and girls in 1972
was very little time before I arrived there (even days), and happened on the
premises in my memory, all these years.

This isn’t evidence, but though (and perhaps even because) I did not know
her, her name was constantly mentioned I would have known it well (until
time erased it) and I would have THOUGHT a single initial would be enough to
trip a memory…and “TPC” isn’t doing that. “Cat” is floating around in my
head for some reason (I mention it because it is obviously a nickname not a
real name), but I am not sure why.

I am only interested in the facts of what happened…not any particular
agenda. Since the matter is now in the hands of the proper authorities it
should all be dealt with.

I believed then, and I still believe now, that Duncroft was a nightmare
of subtle mental and emotional abuse that should never have happened, but
whether as part of a system that was all in the same mould, or standing
alone, I have no idea.

I also wish to confirm that at least until the local authority shake up
(and probably later) Staines was MOST DEFINATELY in Middlesex.

Wendi November 7, 2012 at 18:53

Do me and others a favour and ‘leave it out’ and – move on all ex
Duncroft gals! Enough already!

Innocente
November 7, 2012 at 19:01

The girl I knew was known by her name, not by a nickname. I didn’t know
her middle name until I received her death certificate, so I only knew her
as TC up until that point. But she was most definately not a ‘Cat’, nor
anything even remotely like it.

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 10, 2012 at 23:08

Innocente, “Cat” might mean absolutely noting, it was just a name
that came back to me when I saw your post and was trying to recall the
name that was said over and over again at the time…I mentioned it in
case it rang any bells with you at all.

It may be two seperate people and two seperate deaths…regardless, the
whole matter is in the hands of the proper authorities now and if
subtantiated will become part of the overall picture.

Wendi…refresh my memory, *who* exactly approached me out of the blue
to get me involved in this discussion, long after I had “moved on” – I
forget?

John, I have *NEVER* suggested anyone was overdosed on largactyl…to
the best of my knowledge, like valium, it has a ridiculously high
overdose level. What I said was that she was forcibly medicated with it
and did not wake up, and that, as I recall the death was ascribed to
choking on her own vomit for which an overdose is never a
prerequisite.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 23:24

A couple of you have said that either the staff or Margaret Jones
told you all about this death, so I hope you will accept that Margaret
Jones very recently told someone that NO GIRL EVER DIED at Duncroft.
For her to lie about such a thing, when there is some vague accusation
of ‘proper authorities’ and ‘if substantiated’ going on, then she
either has a lot to answer for (and just where was the body buried in
the grounds, for example!), or someone is pumping up the ‘facts’ a
bit. Or a lot.
I wouldn’t be surprised that the runaway girl died
from a heroin overdose, that sounds plausible to me, but it really
couldn’t have been the responsibility of the school that she chose to
take off and continue to use drugs, which sounds like she had been
possibly doing before she came to Duncroft to begin with.

Jonathan Mason
November 7, 2012 at 17:49

A rather different story from the allegation that a girl was dosed with
Largactil, placed in the isolation room and never woke up again.

A woman I knew very well died about 10 years ago the second time she took
heroin, from an overdose. She was in her early forties. She told me about
the first time she did it and when I expressed horror, she said “it’s not
really dangerous if you know what you are doing.” Her autopsy revealed that
she had combined heroin with Xanax and Flexeril.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 19:01

Have it on good authority that no girl ever died at Duncroft.

Mewsical November 6, 2012 at 18:01

Just wanted to let everyone know that most of the eyeballs on this blog are
coming in from Digital Spy – since I posted my last blog post a couple of days
back, I noticed that the daily visitors were back to about normal, 40 or so.
So, just out of interest, I posted the second installment link here yesterday.
Now I have ten times the traffic, and of course I can see where the traffic is
coming from. I’d say 85% is the Digital Spy forum. Otherwise, as far as
Duncroft is concerned, I’d say the party is over, and even over there
conversation is starting to turn in another direction.

Mewsical November 6, 2012 at 01:37

@ Moor regarding the unsubstantiated reports of the death of a girl at
Duncroft, after having thorazine administered and being put in the ICU, when
she allegedly returned to the school under the influence of LSD. The thing of
it is that not ONE girl who was there in 1972 has so far provided anything
other than an accusation. If someone had died on the premises, it would be
somewhat difficult to get their body out of the school without at least a few
of the girls noticing something, i.e. ambulance arriving, police, etc. The
dormitories faced out to the front of the school and any official vehicles
would have pulled up in the front. I’ve heard nothing about that at all.
Choked on her own vomit? Shades of Jimi Hendrix. Margaret Jones said herself
that she wished that Meirion had at least consulted her when Newsnight was in
pre-production, as she was well aware of the mental condition of some of the
girls, and in my own experience, I’d say that might’ve been a good idea,
Meirion, if you’re out there reading this. However, family problems are family
problems. And that’s not our concern here.

I was hoping that psychiatrist Pamela Mason might grant an interview as
well, and she came close, cancelling right before Margaret granted her second
interview. May yet happen. May not be necessary.

I’ve done a second blog post, sort of a wrap up, in hopes this Duncroft
angle has been played out, leaving the way clear for investigation of the
other victims. http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2012/11/duncroft-jimmy-savile-and-i-part-two.html

Once again, thanks to Anna Raccoon for her indefatigable search for the
truth. This time, I think we might have found it, at least as it concerns
Duncroft.

Ex Duncroft ’72
November 6, 2012 at 19:55

Well it is very hard to understand why Margaret Jones would have referred
to her death more than once in front of some or all the girls unless it had
really happened?

Don’t be so melodramatic, no one has tried to claim that her death was
completely concealed, like some kind of murder (or the fairly regular
abortions in Chelsea), that would be idiotic, she has a death certificate
and her body was legally disposed of, but it was never properly investigated
and the procedures that caused it were never examined and revised to avoid
it happening again…oh and as a trivial afterthought, it probably shouldn’t
have happened in the first place?

Anyway that information is now in the hands of a formal investigative
team on it’s way to the Police, and hopefully the proper examination of the
facts that should have happened at the time will happen now, and the truth
will finally become a matter of record.

Mewsical
November 7, 2012 at 17:23

Happily, we now have the story from someone who cared enough to look
into the details and tell the truth. How refreshing! Here’s my thoughts on
what happened to T. She went on the run, she did not die at Duncroft, but
of what appears to be a heroin overdose, self-administered, and passed
away at a local hospital. A thorough investigation was conducted, so no
more need to exploit this poor girl’s death in pursuit of your need to
vilify Duncroft for everything. If she’d stayed there, she’d be alive
today in all likelihood. We make our own decisions and then we have to
take the consequences of those decisions without constantly trying to
shift the blame onto someone else.

Ex Duncroft
November 7, 2012 at 21:36

Tell me Mewsical…have you ever managed to find a corner of the world
where everybody around you thinks what you tell them to think, remembers
what you tell them to remember, says what you tell them to say, and does
what you tell them to do?

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 20:13

Nope, and wouldn’t want to. Conversely, have you managed to find a
corner of the world where everyone believes that anything said by
former pupils of Duncroft from 1966-1974 is the truth? Of course not.
This entire series of blog posts originated because of a lying former
pupil by the name of Bebe Roberts who was there in 1965, as was I, as
was Anna, as was Ellen. Margaret Jones has confirmed that Savile first
started coming to the school in 1974. You have probably seen the entry
in the visitors’ book, signed by Savile. Therefore, opinions from
ex-Duncroft women who were not there in 1965 and not there in 1974
onwards are nothing but opinions.

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 11, 2012 at 03:47

Mewsical, I have watched you change sides several times during the
past few months and bully anyone who does not follow your self
appointed lead, as you strive to dominate any discussion of Duncroft
that you can find.

I do not believe this is acceptable behaviour.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 7, 2012 at 21:16

Hello Ex Duncroft ’72,
What is this formal investigative team you
mention?

“Anyway that information is now in the hands of a formal investigative
team on it’s way to the Police…”

Ellen
Coulson November 9, 2012 at 15:07

Spoke to Margaret Jones last night. She told me that no girl died in
ICU or anywhere else in Duncroft for that matter.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 20:14

More nonsense, Rocky.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 20:15

And just what is a ‘formal investigative team’ anyway? Boy, what a
load of cobblers.

James November 6, 2012 at 00:48

Sincere thanks – a wonderful diary.

Hope you enjoy your holiday!

Mewsical November 5, 2012 at 19:20

@ Richard de Lacy – the Sunday Mail is a separate paper from the Daily
Mail, though obviously owned by the Mail. The reporter who covered this latest
piece doesn’t know Claire Ellicot except by name. I think the Sunday Mail were
pleased to be able to get a more measured and thoughtful interview, and were
very professional in how they went about getting it. It would have been better
if the Ellicot piece never ran, but it is what it is.

Innocente November 4, 2012 at 19:15

Ellen – sorry, there is no ‘reply’ link under either of your comments. No,
I was not christened at St. Mary’s – I was Christened in my local Methodist
Church as a young child, and I was confirmed into my local Church of England
before I ever went to Duncroft.

Ellen Coulson
November 4, 2012 at 20:30

Thank you. Obviously not who I thought you were.

Mewsical
November 7, 2012 at 18:03

I have a sneaking suspicion that “Anne” is the person you thought
Innocente was!

Mewsical
November 8, 2012 at 15:46

Isn’t Bebe’s middle name Anne, come to think of it?

Mewsical November 4, 2012 at 20:35

Same problem I had with trying to respond to your answer about how you
got into the flats during your visit. That makes sense, that one of the
residents gave you the grand tour!

Ellen Coulson
November 4, 2012 at 19:09

And before they get deleted lets have them on record . I believe they are
on USA time on Voy:

Date Posted: 15:12:42 08/09/12 Thu
Author: Rochelle louise
(Happy)
Subject: Re: duncroft approved school staines
In reply to:
carole allen ‘s message, “Re: duncroft approved school staines” on 14:46:27
04/23/08 Wed

>hi carol i was searching duncroft because my mother went there between
1974 – 1976 ,her name is deborah cogger her nickname was dee , she remembers
all the names that u speak of also yourself ,do u have any memory of her??

Date Posted: 14:16:40 08/09/12 Thu
Author: Deb Cogger
Subject: Re:
Duncroft approved school stains

Hello r
Everyone . I just found this site .!been digging around trying
to find you lot to talk about this jimmy business ,I was at duncroft 19 74
-1976 my dorm was queen Anne , my best mate was Caroline budd , I remember so
many of you ! Ann timms Carole Allen ,Jill merando .deirdre who swapped me a
Georgous navy coat .jacquie rollo ,carol Bonnington ,, omg ,so many girls so
many memories theo the minibus , Carole talbot letting the gong off in the
middle of the night to frighten Anne o Neil resident drunk,! I would love to
here from any one who remembers me , what about Julie Saunders ? Janet brown
,Tonia Townsend , Anne Lawson do you remember when we put on the show ,dancing
to the trammps ? I sang solo amazing grace ! love deb xx

Mewsical November 4, 2012 at 20:33

Deb, I believe the CLR site will be back up this coming week, so probably
you’ll have better luck getting back together with your old mates there.
But, is Rochelle Sheperd your daughter?

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 20:37

Oops, sorry! I thought that Cogger had posted over here! Could Anna
just delete my comment, please? I didn’t realize that Ellen had reproduced
the Voy posts! Duh.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 5, 2012 at 12:52

There was a Rochelle Shepherd who was interviewed for the Newsnight that
appeared in the Panorama programme, at no point is it said what her
connection was to Duncroft. She looked in her 40′s Debbie Cooger’s
daughter?

Debbie had google and found a ‘sell your story’ website.
http://sellyourstoryuk.com/2012/10/18/deborah-cogger-appears-in-bella-mag/

Mewsical
November 5, 2012 at 18:49

Well, that shows the proper integrity, doesn’t it? (Insert eye roll
icon.)

Ellen
Coulson November 6, 2012 at 13:58

Yes read the story. She says “went to live at Duncroft Approved
School for Girls in Surrey. It was a boarding school”!

Says it all!

Mewsical
November 7, 2012 at 16:11

By Cogger’s time it was a ‘community home,’ not an approved school,
and as I’ve said many times, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s
still a pig. The term ‘approved school’ was changed in 1969 by general
mandate, but it didn’t change what the school was.

Ellen Coulson
November 4, 2012 at 18:50

ith reference to Rochelle Shepherd, I have just re-watched relevant part of
Panorama programme – she did not say she was at Duncroft – what he reiterated
was the girls did this, the girls did that – but no attempt was made to
explain who or what she was – WHY?? Her mother is believed to be Debbie Cogger
(again appearing in the Daily Mail) who said Savile abused her. In fact from
postings on Voy Forum it would appear highly suspicious and would indicate
that both of them concoted this story!

Moor Larkin November 5, 2012 at 12:21

Interesting to see Freddie Starr working at proving Savile gulity.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/-freddie-starr-says-police-1415841

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Freddie that if HE is innocent, so
was Jimmy, because the Duncroft allegations wrap Starr, Gadd, the BBC and
Savile in the same abuse package.

Mewsical November 6, 2012 at 17:17

Yes, that Rochelle Shepherd business is very odd. She’s obviously
Cogger’s kid, so who cares what she has to say? Another lying loser. The
more this goes on, lie upon lie upon lie, any small kernel of truth from
these women will be treated with extreme suspicion by the authorities at the
very least and probably dismissed in the future. Thanks to Bebe, Fiona,
Rochelle, etc., for ruining it for others, let alone the extreme hostility
that any questioning of their stories is greeted with, along with open
threats against Margaret Jones on this blog, and veiled threats that have
gone on on sites like Careleavers is enough to cause any thinking person
grave doubts about the veracity of any of their tales. And now, here comes
“Anne” with her tarradiddles and inaccuracies. I feel sorry for women like
Innocente, Ex Duncroft, etc., who have been respectful and polite, but they
have NO idea what has been going on this last year, fortunately for
them!

Bored.com November 9, 2012 at 07:41

I can assure you they are not even related. The only common denominator
is they both went to Duncroft. Debbie in mid 70′s Rochelle towards the
latter part of the 70′s. I am not sure where the notion of them being mother
& daughter came from.

Bored.com
November 9, 2012 at 08:11

Just seen the post below from Voy. The author of the post was Rochelle
Louise. I can now see where the confusion may have come from. Didn’t
anyone think that Debbie Cogger could have a daughter called ROCHELLE. I
stand by my previous post regarding Debbie Cogger and Rochelle Shepherd
NOT being mother & daughter.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) November 9, 2012 at
10:24

I guess you know Rochelle Shepherd and that’s how you know she was at
Duncroft in 1979.

Panorama never stated what was Rochelle Shepherd’s connection with
Duncroft, she didn’t seem to indicate she had been or had seen abuse,
just that she accepted there had been abuse.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 20:03

Rochelle would be about 47. Another former Duncroft woman, who was
there in 1979 also, has said that she saw Savile at the school at the
time, he didn’t come around much, and she heard no bad reports of him
at any time from any of the girls.

Wendi November 4, 2012 at 17:21

I read that blog article earlier and thought it a fair and reasonable take
on the subject!

Mewsical November 4, 2012 at 16:30

Try responding to the second interview Matthew.

Matthew
Smith November 4, 2012 at 10:09

Posted my response to this and to the ‘interview’ with Jones here: Jimmy Savile at Duncroft: Who to Believe?

Moor Larkin November 4, 2012 at 18:09

@ matthew smith
Very interesting in relation to the way the case
against Savile seems to be proven with almost zero factual substantiation.
Left a reply there as this issue is not necessarily pertinent to
Annaraccoon’s blog purpose.

@everyone else
I think the ‘friendliness’ of the Mail to Miss Jones is
testament to the success of Annaracoon’s work. I hope that when I am 91 I
have friends like the raccoon lady and her raccoonettes, especially Sally,
whose blog made me know it was safe to take this one seriously. In the
blogosphere we all need corroboration as well as collaboration
sometimes.

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 19:17

Thank you, Moor. I was very glad to find Anna also at work to try and
get at the truth. Complete coincidence that both she and I started
blogging within a day or so of each other.
The Mail has been suspicious
about the veracity of some of the accusers since the discovery of the
forged letter, and in person interviews they conducted. That doesn’t
include the dubious Ellicot, who first brought us Bebe Roberts and her
pack of lies, and then hustles her bustle down to Wales to intrude on Miss
Jones. Fortunately, Miss Jones agreed to grant today’s interview after a
professional series of requests from the Sunday Mail, and so there it
is.
I was interested in Matthew’s response to the first interview, so I
hope he didn’t take it wrong when I asked for his opinion on the second
interview.

Bill
Sticker November 4, 2012 at 07:01

Anna, with regard to the bad behaviour of your visitors from the
lamestream. John Bunyan had them nailed way back in 1678:

“This done and after these things had been somewhat digested by
Christiana and her company, the Interpreter takes them apart again, and has
them first into a Room where was a Man that could look no way but downwards,
with a Muck – rake in his hand. There stood also one over his head with a
Celestial Crown in his hand, and proffered him that Crown for his Muck-rake;
but the man did neither look up, nor regard, but raked to himself the straws,
the small sticks and dust of the floor.”

It seems little changes.

BTW: Price of popcorn futures is way up. Hope you’re enjoying Paris.

Jonathan Mason
November 4, 2012 at 01:51

Here is the follow up interview with Margaret Jones in the Daily Mail. Here
she is a bit less defensive and comes across as very genuine (in my opinion).
She admits to making mistakes in giving Savile access, but reminds us that he
was an OBE and that she had no idea of any kind of suspicions about him.

Given that she would have been born about 1921, that would make her a
little older than my mother and while women of that generation weren’t all
innocents and lived through World War II as young adults, they were still of a
pre-pill (and of course pre-Internet) era and probably had little idea how men
like Savile (a man of her generation) might behave.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227464/Jimmy-Savile-called–fell-love–I-wonder-legal-20-wives-Saviles-comment-scandal-school-visitors-book-sickening-clue-abuse.html

Mewsical November 4, 2012 at 00:40

A much better version from the Mail, than some doorstepping creature. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227464/Jimmy-Savile-called–fell-love–I-wonder-legal-20-wives-Saviles-comment-scandal-school-visitors-book-sickening-clue-abuse.html

Lisa November 10, 2012 at 11:54

Mwesical I tink you just proved my point with your reply,

Lisa November 10, 2012 at 11:56

And three abuse victims at duncroft, you really have no idea do you

Lisa November 10, 2012 at 12:13

Oh and as to the forged letter, yes she was silly to do that but
unlike you i have an original so please do not tell me that there was no
investigation

Ellen
Coulson November 10, 2012 at
15:33

Its a wonder you all didn’t try to sue for breach of contract.

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 16:44

Silly??? And, no you don’t have an original, so stop it, all of
you. Nobody that I know of believes any of it, Lisa. You’re on a
slippery slope, so I’d put the brakes on and step out of the car while
you still can. And what Ellen said.

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 17:23

Mewsical. Why do you feel so strongly that Lisa hasnt got a copy of
the letter from the police. Just because one woman strangly forged a
letter ( for whatever reason) oesnt mean to say that the investigation
didn’t take place. Certainly by forging the letter she didnt help the
case but please dont tar all the other people involved in the
investigation with the same brush

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 10, 2012 at
17:33

Hi,
If she knew others had a letter why didn’t she just borrow
one as proof?

I was reading on Digital Spy that Fiona kept a photo album in which
there were photos of her and Jimmy Savile laughing and joking
together. Why would anyone keep photos all these years of the person
who had asked them to stick their finger up his anus and had sexually
abused them?

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 17:38

Rocky the investigation did not just involve complaints from
Duncroft so doubtful that she would have known the other people
involved. I have no idea why she forged a letter and forged it so
badly at that or her reasons for keeping photos of Savile or even
allowing herself to be filmed, one persons actions does not mean the
police investigation didn’t happen .

Mewsical
November 10, 2012 at 18:07

Tracie said: “Rocky the investigation did not just involve
complaints from Duncroft so doubtful that she would have known the
other people involved. I have no idea why she forged a letter and
forged it so badly at that or her reasons for keeping photos of Savile
or even allowing herself to be filmed, one persons actions does not
mean the police investigation didn’t happen.”

Since when did it involve anyone else, Tracie? Please provide
evidence other than, “I heard,” “Someone told me,” etc. The Duncroft
group were hopping up and down about this investigation for quite some
time, as if just one woman was involved and she was ex-Duncroft. The
same one who dispersed emails to ex-Duncroft women saying “this is our
last chance.”? The same one who came over here and threatened Margaret
Jones? The same one who appeared on television, surrounded by forged
diplomas? The same one who claims to have a doctorate? The same one
who keeps photos of themselves with Jimmy Savile (not the first time
I’ve heard this)? Shall I go on?

Rocky said: “If she knew others had a letter why didn’t she just
borrow one as proof? I was reading on Digital Spy that Fiona kept a
photo album in which there were photos of her and Jimmy Savile
laughing and joking together. Why would anyone keep photos all these
years of the person who had asked them to stick their finger up his
anus and had sexually abused them?”

Precisely. This sort of stuff is why Margaret Jones felt she should
have spoken with Meirion before he launched into Duncroft as part of
the Newnight investigation.

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 18:14

Mewsical the investigation involved another 14 year old who had no
contact with duncroft herself but itvwas bought to light during the
duncroft complaint. Her abuse did not take place at duncroft . It was
made very clear in news reports that there were two historic
complaints made to the surrey police . I have seen the letter from the
cps that she recieved and it stated that no further investigation due
to lack of evidence. Child abuse is so difficult as by its very nature
there are no witnesses.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 10, 2012 at
18:52

Hello Tracie,
If you have the letter sent in 2007?

Does it state the reason the case against Jimmy Savile was dropped
was because of his age and health?

Tracie
November 10, 2012 at 18:54

Rocky, no it doesn’t say anything about his health , it says lack
of evidence

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 10, 2012 at
20:36

Tracie thank you for the reply,

I’m a wee bit confused, there were reports of a complaint by one
individual to Surrey police in 2007 and as a consequence 22 former
residents of the girls’ school and the children’s charity Barnado’s
were spoken to by the police but not staff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20147834

Then in 2009 Sussex police recieved a complaint of an assault by
Savile in the 1970′s. As a result Surrey police passed details of
three alleged victims to the CPS bringing the total to 4 but the CPS
said that none of the alleged victims would support a prosecution. It
was reported by The Guardian that Savile was interviewed by Surrey
police in October 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/22/jimmy-savile-cps-sexual-assault-2009

‘In a statement, the CPS said: “A file was submitted by Surrey
police to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 after a complaint was
made by a woman who said she had witnessed an indecent assault by
Jimmy Savile in the 1970s. Police conducted further enquiries and as a
result the file which was submitted to the CPS also referenced three
further potential offences involving Jimmy Savile.

“The original allegation was that Savile had indecently assaulted a
girl under 16 at Duncroft children’s home in the late 1970s. The three
further potential offences were an alleged indecent assault on a girl
under 16 at Stoke Mandeville hospital in or around 1973; an alleged
incitement of a girl under 16 to engage in a sexual act at Duncroft
children’s home in the late 1970s; and an alleged indecent assault on
an adult in Sussex in 1970.’

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 10, 2012 at
20:54

Take Two:

Tracie, sorry forgot to ask what is the date on the letter you have
seen?
—————————
Re Fiona’s fake letter something that concerns
me is that it was said to have been signed by Surrey woman police
officer Angela Sullivan if you search that name a newspaper report of
a woman with that name appears. This Angela Sullivan, aged 36 was on
trial for alledgedly having sex with a 12 year old boy, coincidence or
sick joke?

“Single mother had sex with boy, 12, almost 200 times… and marked
each encounter with a star in her sordid diary.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244367/Single-mother-36-faces-jail-seducing-boy-12-having-sex-200-times.html

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 23:26

To Innocente – a tiny church down the lane? St. Mary’s? Not ‘ardly! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s,_Staines ; also,
interested in your visit to ‘the house.’ The recent Panorama episode clearly
shows a security phone mounted on the exterior gates. Don’t think the
residents of these pretty expensive flats want a bunch of ‘old girls’ from
Duncroft’s former life wandering around the grounds gawking. Did someone
invite you to come in, or …?

Eyeball November 5, 2012 at 22:41

You sound doubtful that innocente was really at Duncroft this summer (
July 21st) just to confirm this, I was the other party she referred to.
Photos supplied if you wish!
I also have no axe to grind, just backing up
a good friend!

Mewsical
November 6, 2012 at 17:04

Eyeball, we’ve experienced so many fake personalities in the last year
since Savile died and the Newsnight piece did the same, that for the sake
of accuracy we need to make sure that some of the new posters over here
are not part of the coven who have been mostly lying to the media to get
themselves some money and notoriety. The more they do that, the worse they
look. Thanks for backing Innocente up, sure she appreciates it!

Lisa November 9, 2012 at 23:23

Mewiscal do you know for certain that money is the reason that they
have come forward now. I dont think money was the reason when the police
were investigating in 2007 , in fact . i know for certain that money was
not even on the agenda then and it certainly wouldnt be now. I find some
of your comment towards these women cruel and unjust. There is no way
that you can know what these people went through 10 years after you left
the school. Any abuse victim reading your comments would certainly think
long and hard before being brave enough to come forward knowing that
this is the kind of response they can expect. Do you honestly think that
ALL the Duncroft victims agreed to be in the media. I think if anything
you have put many abuse victims back into the shadows and used Anna’s (
brilliantly written) blog to force your views of Duncroft ans Ms Jones
onto everyone and tried to discredit anyone that disagreed with you. I
thinki am even ashamed to say that I went to the same school as you

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 23:48

There is a forged letter in existence, in the hands of the press,
that puts the lie to any investigation, on letterhead with a crest
that has not been in use by the Surrey police for a long time, and
says that the date of the complaint was 2006. That was the first big
problem with the truthfulness of the Duncroft women. Money – hm, let’s
see. Kari/Keri/Karen has a publishing deal and was selling her book
beforehand. If ALL (and how many are actually proven true at this
point) the Duncroft women didn’t want to speak to the media then all
they had to do was say ‘no thanks.’ Dee Cogger just ran at the “sell
your story” site. Sell implies money to me. I am unsure about Bebe
Roberts’ reasons for lying the way she did, because the Mail obviously
didn’t give her any money. She at one time claimed to be at Duncroft
for seven years, which wasn’t legally possible, and that she used to
see Savile coming to the school and hid by the tennis courts – none of
us know anything about any tennis courts. Do you?
There appear to
be perhaps three Duncroft victims, and you should probably be aware
that most of the 70s women who were there at the time that Savile was
visiting do not believe Kari’s story either – I have all this in
writing from those concerned. If you are ashamed to say you went to
the same school as me, you didn’t. We weren’t candidates for padded
cells. In the 70s, it appears there were girls there who were
disturbed enough to warrant such a thing. Miss Jones said in her
second Mail interview that she wishes that Meirion had contacted her
when he first thought to do the Newsnight segment, as she wanted him
to be aware that SOME of the girls were quite seriously mentally
disturbed. Not emotionally disturbed. Mentally. Big
difference.
We’ve pretty much shot down the “a girl died at
Duncroft after being injected with Largactyl and put in a padded
cell,” story, and all we are left with is a story about a girl who ran
away and died of a heroin overdose. Sad of course, but nothing to do
with Duncroft, who did not break a window in the small common room
(used to be the Senior Common Room) and push them outside.
All the
insults in the world are very dull and repetitive, btw. I know you
guys have had your playpen at CLR suspended for another three months
at least, because of this ongoing nonsense. Good thing, too. I hope
David never opens it again, personally. You can all go off and chat
with each other in private, but I’m sure that’s not NEARLY as much fun
as hair-pulling on a public forum, and proving Margaret Jones right
again.

Lisa November 3, 2012 at 15:31

Can i just point out that Duncroft in the 1970 s was a Community school ,
not an approved school and very different from the Duncroft of the 60s that
has been portrayed. Most of the girls were placed there under a care order
(not for any criminal activity) coming from dysfunctional families and removed
from thier homes under a place of safety order. Margaret Jones was possibly
the worst person to be left in charge of vunerable teenagers and seemed to
take pleasure in making the girls feel very inferior especially in group
meetings, not the ideal way to raise a girls confidence.

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 16:22

Lisa, I don’t know who you are, but I would be very cautious about what
you put in writing at the moment. There are eyes on this blog right now.
And, to be accurate, the term ‘approved school’ was dropped in or around
1969 on a general basis, but it did not change what the school was set up to
do. I wasn’t there for any ‘criminal activity.’ None of the girls were.

Lisa November 3, 2012 at 16:57

Mewsical, why should i be cautious about what i have written, its my
opinion , your opinion of Margaret Jones is obviously very different and
you are entitled to that. Maybe with the school changing so much within a
decade she wasnt as devoted in the 70s as she was in the 60s . Just my
opinion.

Mewsical
November 3, 2012 at 17:30

Last sentence duly noted.

Ellen
Coulson November 4, 2012 at
18:46

. Most of the girls were placed there under a care order (not for
any criminal activity – I am assuming this sentence was meant to refer
to the girls who were resident in the 60s because by the 70s there
were a lot of criminals/drug offenders at Duncroft which is why the
local authority had the ICU constructed – it was not needed in my
time

Eyeball
November 6, 2012 at 21:08

That’s my opinion of Miss Jones too, Lisa. She seemed distant and
disinterested in all but a couple of girls when I was there in the very
early 70 s. I think she said a few sentences to me in all the time I was
there. And, yes no one was there for any criminal activity, being ‘ out
of parental control’ seemed to be the most common reason, a couple of
girls were there for bunking off school, and a couple who should never
have been there at all, they needed professional help, but never got it.
I had family problems, but was never given ANY help whatsoever. The
psychiatrist I saw was a sandwich short of a picnic, and the rest of the
staff were like rejects from a St trinians film. I’ve had a good life
despite that place, not because of it! On a positive note, I made a life
long friend there (innocente) she was my saviour at Duncroft, we arrived
within a day of each other, a little bit if sanity in a mental
world!

Mewsical
November 8, 2012 at 15:42

I’ve asked a couple of times about these ‘groups’ that MJ held at
Duncroft, and have gotten nothing but answers that don’t address the
question I asked. So, let’s see if Eyeball or Innocente could answer.
Eyeball notes that she had very little contact with MJ during her time
there, so does that mean that there weren’t any ‘groups’ during their
time there?

Ex Duncroft
November 3, 2012 at 22:03

Can I just confirm all that you have said Lisa? Not least the viciousness
of those group meetings that really were no more than officially sanctioned
bullying.

I have seen the mail article, and while I believe she told the truth,
almost word for word as I would tell it, the callous pretentiousness of
Maggie Jones makes chilling reading all these years on….WHAT WAS ANYBODY
THINKING to give her near life and death power over vulnerable
teenagers?

What could she teach but snobbery, bigoty, malice and spite (which would
stand them in good stead while they drew their plans to milk the media for
attation and the BBC for compensation)? There was no kindness, humour or
humanity the good things you can learn to make life worth while, at Duncroft
at all

Lisa November 4, 2012 at 22:55

Ellen I really do not understand this constant battle that you seem to
have going on many sites between the 60s and the 70s girls. So uneccessary
, so nothing further to say on the subject. Anna while I may not agreed
with the contents of your blog, i appreciate good writing and hope you are
well rested after your weekend away

Mewsical
November 5, 2012 at 00:05

Can you shed more light on these ‘groups’? We didn’t have those in the
60s. What was the purpose?

Anne November 6, 2012 at 05:05

Mewsical, you ask about groups. You and your counterparts took over
all sites that had been posted on by any ex pupil who did not attend
Duncroft in the same decade as you. You have stated that you
“tollerated” me and others just as long as we had information for you. I
have given my information to the Police who are aware of all of the
contacts you have made with the press, claiming it was to protect
anothers friend/relatives reputation. I have no wish to revisit the
past. I and no one that I know of have claimed any compensation. I do
not have a book to sell. You complained about copyright of a photograph.
You now print that photograph and you call others hypocrites with secret
agendas. You demanded to know information about the 1970′s. I gave you
limited information as I believed you then. I and several others now
post in a group, you have tried to infiltrate this group but you are not
wanted. Yours is not the only view of Duncroft and I believe that it did
change from the photographs that I have seen, over the decade since you
left. Please leave me and others to remember the abuse and strict regime
that we endured. You posted that Maggie Jones said that you should not
have been at Duncroft and yet you were recalled? We may have been
“delinquents” but you state that it was a mistake that you were sent to
Duncroft. You have hounded others who have disagreed with your views and
I am no longer interested in your attempts to show Duncroft as anything
that it was. A locked place for ‘emotionally disturbed’ girls. many of
which now have all of their care notes. Unlike yourself I need to work
and I have a family who has supported me. You are bitter and twisted
towards anyone who remembers things differently to yourself. I would
like to express appreciation for Suzannes writing ability here even if I
do not agree with all of the content as you so clearly do.

Lisa
November 6, 2012 at 11:01

Well said anne, long time coming Mewsical and i have to agree, you
are not a debater , you are an outright bully and thats the reason
that you keep being banned from each site you go on

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 6, 2012 at
12:53

Hello Anne,
Don’t know if you took part in either of the
television programmes but you may be able answer some things that have
puzzled me.

The reported fake letter shown to The Mail by ‘Fiona’ seems
bizarre, did anyone else get one?

There was a Rochelle Shepherd who was interviewed by Newsnight but
it’s never said what her connection with Duncroft was, would know if
she is the daughter of Debbie Cogger because at the moment she’s a
mystery women and Panorama gave no indication how she is involved.

I understand the anger towards BeBe Roberts but I don’t undertand
the very bitter dispute that appears to have been going on between
others for more than a year and the extreme anger from both sides.

Ellen
Coulson November 6, 2012 at
13:45

Anne – please get things in the right perspective – we were
attacked by you and your friends because we said that there was no
abuse at Duncroft in the 60s when we were there – firstly on Friends
Reunited, then Facebook and Careleavers. Bebe Roberts has been proven
to be a liar which negates the claim of abuse in the 60s but we have
been tendered no apologies from any of you. 10 of you are members of
the Duncroft site on Careleavers headed by Fiona/Melling or whatever
she is at present calling herself. Unfortunately since 3 of you have
lied to the press it is more and more unlikely that any of you will be
believed.

Mewsical
November 6, 2012 at 15:47

Actually, I was asking about ‘groups’ at Duncroft – someone
mentioned those and I wanted to hear from them, not you, whoever you
are. Trust some negative nelly to misunderstand that. Yes, it was a
mistake that I was there and I was only recalled because my mother was
beginning to deteriorate mentally and emotionally. Of course, if you
knew me, which you don’t, you would also know that I lived partly at
Duncroft and partly at home for over a year. I have no IDEA what you
are talking about vis a vis the press. I have not tried to
‘infiltrate’ this group, I imagine the group on CLR. Not interested in
being involved with Fiona/Sue Melling thank you.

I must say that finally revealing her dual identity was one of the
best moments of this year! And then she comes over to this site and
attempts to threaten Margaret Jones. I have my file, so? “Unlike
yourself I need to work,” what exactly does that mean? I’ve worked all
my adult life and still do. Anyway folks, this is exactly what has
been going on on the various forums for over a year now. At this
point, there’s nothing much more to say about Duncroft is there?
Margaret Jones has given two interviews, and based on this sort of
nonsense, you would have to admit she might be more than right about
the mental state of some of the girls under her supervision in the
70s.

Mewsical
November 6, 2012 at 19:23

Oh, I remember that ‘tolerated’ thing. I’ve still got that message
from you, Fiona.

Mewsical
November 7, 2012 at 16:07

Just to keep the record straight, I am not banned from anywhere –
not Friends Reunited (where Fiona is banned, just fyi, for having
numerous online identities, which is against their policies),
Careleavers, or any other public site.
The coven had a FB page,
administered by said coven, and I was not welcome there, but who
cares? Fiona/Susan Melling had her own page at FB until very recently,
when it was suddenly closed down, but I wasn’t banned from there. In
fact, Fiona and I were getting on okay, but when, by one of those
coincidences, I discovered that she had been lying about who she was.
In a way, it was quite funny how we found out, but don’t want to bore
other posters/readers with that.
The coven now has their own group
over at CLR, which is NOT the group I was referring to, btw, and I
have not even attempted to join it because Bebe The Liar is a member,
as well as Fiona, who stops at nothing to inflict her nastiness, up to
and including threats over here against Margaret Jones.
What I
asked, btw, was more information about these ‘groups’ that Margaret
Jones held at Duncroft, which we didn’t have in the 60s. I asked what
was the purpose of the groups, etc., but because the agenda of some of
you is so vicious, you can’t even read or comprehend a simple
question, and turn it into your own personal hate-fest.

Ex
Duncroft November 7, 2012 at
16:56

Once again Lisa, I can only confirm what you have just said…and
thank heavens you said it in clear and simple words.

Mewsical
November 9, 2012 at 21:41

” I have given my information to the Police who are aware of all of
the contacts you have made with the press, claiming it was to protect
anothers friend/relatives reputation.”

Could you please supply me with the name of the police officers you
spoke with, as I would like to contact them myself. If you are wasting
their time with false and misleading information, I would like to
disabuse them of your rubbish. And what members of the press are you
referring to? I think you’re being yanked, dear.

“You have stated that you “tollerated” me and others just as long
as we had information for you. ”

I got a message from “Sue Melling” that she had received a message
from someone else about this. What information do you think I was
seeking exactly and what was I going to do with it? I wasn’t
‘tolerating’ anyone – that’s not the way I play. I either like you or
I don’t. When I don’t, I don’t bother with you. When I found out that
“Sue Melling” was in fact Fiona, then that was that for me. Same with
the dreaded Bebe Roberts. I don’t bother with them any longer, nor any
of their coven. Btw, it was “Sue Melling” who came up with the phrase
“emotionally disturbed girls.” You keep banging on with that phrase as
if you are proud of it.

Elena ‘andcart
November 3, 2012 at 15:03

Just what does Mewsical think she is up to? Schizophrenic seems to be in
ascendence. Frightfully sorry if I have in some way misconstrued.

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 16:18

Anna, thank you for doing that. I think Fiona is going to have a very
unpleasant surprise in a short while.

Elena
‘andcart November 3, 2012 at 19:00

You, Mrs, are the fly in the ointment. And I can see that if no one
else can. But A fly is only ever a fly.
At the moment you are doing
absolutely nothing to help Miss Jones, who probably doesn’t need your help
anyway, but then I doubt that she ever did.
I am really sorry that I
think so badly of you. But how could you ever have believed that awful
article in The Mail? How could you believe that Miss Jones would be so
stupid as to say such things? How could you so despise someone who tried
to help you?

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 16:26

I know a great deal more about what’s going on right now, but I have
no intention of discussing it here. Fortunately, Miss Jones is aware of
who her friends are, and I got a phone call yesterday, after the Myers
interview had completed. I don’t care what you think of me, I care what
Miss Jones thinks and about her welfare at this time. We got that
sorted, after threats over here. Be aware that very hostile people are
over here watching this blog, and your thoughtless remarks and baseless
accusations only make things worse.

Retired probation
officer November 3, 2012 at 14:57

Sorry should have said ‘great disorder of any kind’

Retired probation
officer November 3, 2012 at 14:55

I did a short placement at Duncroft in the 70s partly because it had a good
reputation. I have searched my memory but all I can remember is a relatively
well run, orderly place. Young women smoked but they all did in those days in
residential care. I cannot remember any celebrity visitors or great disorder
or any kind just a calm atmosphere and dedicated staff. Most young women is
those places tended to be quite angry and volatile but usually because of
early abuse, family problems. I deplore the interviewing of a 91 year old or
the posting of her address on this site or anywhere else.

Schizophrenic
November 3, 2012 at 14:24

Wonderful how you removed the address. I ressent your implications btw. If
you do not have the courage to print it I shall ensure others are aware of it.
Why should many old pupils be harrassed and yet this “91 yr old woman” is
entitled to her privacy. She was the person who stated that she was “pawed” by
Mr Savile and I wonder…did she report it?

Anna answers: Keep threatening Schizophrenic – I now have wi-fi
acess again and have stopepd travelling in order to make a statement to the
police. I shall have no hesitation whatsoever in handing your IP address to
the police.

Frankie November 3, 2012 at 19:29

@Schizophrenic: How is it that 99.9% of the contributors to this blog
wish our host well and have realised that she is far from well… and then
there is you, completely at odds with everyone. If the ex pupils of
Dunscroft find themselves in the media spotlight then they only have some of
their number to blame. Added to which, it is fairly self-evident that the
account provided by some of those making allegations do not stand up to
scrutiny. The media may sense a feeding frenzy here, such is their nature.
Exposing an elderly lady to the same frenzy is beyond the pale.

Anna has ‘stuck her head above the parapet’ by making her disclosures.
Very clearly, she is not at her best. If you have no sense of fellow feeling
for another human being I suggest you try another hobby like hang gliding –
over Afghanistan, rather than coming here and attempting to upset everyone
else – most of us only have our host’s best interests at heart.

Begone!

Innocente November 3, 2012 at 13:23

Mewsical, I’m genuinely intrigued! May I please be so bold as to ask which
members of staff, specifically, ever offered you a cigarette from their own
pack? I ask because there really wasn’t much between your stay and mine, just
a couple of years. During the 18 months that I was a pupil at both Duncroft
School and Norman Lodge, there was absolutely never any question that the
staff would give us anything – cigarettes, wages, pocket money, a nip from the
sherry bottle, nothing. I never in all my time there saw Margaret Jones,
Bridie Keenan, Anne O’Niall or any other staff member hand over a cigarette to
any of the girls. Theo didn’t smoke, but I suspect if she had, she may have
been inclined to do so, but we’ll never know now. The only person who ever
slipped us a sly smoke was the wonderful Reverend Sam, one of the truly
kindest and most Christian men I ever had the privilege of meeting, and I was
a regular in his Church. Margaret Jones makes the comment: ‘And you didn’t go
to an approved school unless you were pretty bad. I had to cope with that.’
Hopefully, we can all now admit that we weren’t at Bedales, and move on.

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 16:59

I think it was Mrs. O, on a couple of occasions, when I was working with
her in the laundry. Generally they didn’t do that in full view of the other
girls. Btw, it’s Anne O’Neill. Yes, Sam sounds like he was a riot. I sang in
the choir, but didn’t have much contact with him, just the choirmaster. Do
you remember his name, btw?

Innocente
November 3, 2012 at 17:56

Choirmaster? LOL – there was no choirmaster there in 1971 – it was a
tiny Church down the lane. I also sang in the choir, as did at least one
other of my contemporaries – our Choirmaster was Sam the vicar. We once
sang at one of his weddings, and very beautiful it was too. Mrs O?
Goodness, times really had changed then – she was just a sour old troll
when I knew her. I feel sad for her now, she was clearly deeply unhappy
herself. A friend and I were back at Duncroft this July, and having
visited the house, we walked down the lane to the Church, stopping for
light refreshments at The Bells while we were about it. We had hoped to go
into the Church and find some mention of Sam. Sadly, the doors were
locked, except a very small door at the rear or the church, which was
apparently currently hosting an AA meeting.

Mewsical
November 3, 2012 at 19:54

Not sure how you could visit the ‘house,’ as it has security gates
and one of the residents would have to admit you. The church of which
Sam was the vicar was St. Mary’s wasn’t it? Not exactly a tiny church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s,_Staines

Ellen
Coulson November 4, 2012 at
14:17

Were you christened at St Marys Innocente. I didn’t smoke whilst I
was at Duncroft but Margaret Jones once gave me a glass of vodka but I
may have been in Norman Lodge then.

Innocente
November 4, 2012 at 16:06

If you go to Duncroft Mansion via Moor Lane, you can park your car
in a small car park, behind the new town houses, built where the
education block and hostel stood. There is an archway there, I had
been through it a few years before when I went there with my husband.
The archway leads directly on to the lawn, and you are then free to
wander – until, of course, you get stopped by one of the residents.
The gates are on the other side of the lawn, in Vicarage Road. My
friend and I were very lucky indeed. No. 15 Duncroft Manor was built
where Mrs. Voysey’s kitchen once stood, and is the house furthest from
what was the school itself. We were approached by No. 15′s owner. Her
name is Dee, she is a little older than I am, and she gave up around
an hour of her time to walk around the exterior of the house. She told
us all about the renovation work, and how the house is now, and we
told her about the layout of the house as it was in the ’70s. Before
we left, she let us into the hallway, where my friend and I posed for
photographs on the hallowed staircase, photos which Dee very kindly
took herself. We then went to the top of the staircase for a couple
more, and she also took photos of us at Queen Anne end of the house.
Finally, she invited us in to her home, and lent me the Nicholas King
brochure given to all the Duncroft residents, Nicholas King being the
developer, and I assume, vendor. She also lent me a colour photo of
the house while it was undergoing renovation – I seem to have seen
that online already. I have since returned both the brochure and the
photograph to her, and thanked her again for her kindness. She, in
turn, informs me that she, along with the other residents, were tired
of having the press at the gates. This is not an attack on anything
that Anna has had to say. This is not an attack on Miss Jones. It is
not an attack on Duncroft. It is not an attack on you either. It is
simply an account of one of my many returns to Duncroft School, which,
despite its very nature, I still remember with some affection. When I
first found this blog I assumed it was a forum for objective debate.
However, it appears to be becoming increasingly subjective. Pretty
much anything that is posted here is met with suspicion. Why is that?
I have already pointed out that I have nothing to gain from rubbishing
anyone’s claims – I have never spoken to the press, I do not wish to
speak to the press. I have no wish to file a compensation claim, and
am thankful that that’s the case. I have no book to promote. But I was
a Duncroft girl, and because I was there, I have a natural interest in
what is happening now. That does not mean I am trying, in any way, to
undermine anyone else’s accounts here.

Ellen
Coulson November 4, 2012 at
18:41

I note that you do not say whether or not you were christened at St
Mary’s.

Ex Duncroft
November 7, 2012 at 17:33

…on a gentler note, those few of us (only 4 or 5) on punishment, who had
no leave (I had absconded), in Summer 1972 (maybe August Bank Holiday?) were
brought, one fine afternoon to Ann O’Neill’s house where, for some reason
(perhaps she couldn’t find the teapot?) a bottle of Martini was produced…it
was naughty, but I will always love Ann O’Neill for that afternoon…it is one
of the few good warm memorries I have of childhood and youth…

Sitting in a sunny living room, chatting, giggling and getting a tiny bit
tipsy.

So, I am very much afraid, that, on at least one occasion, the bottle
most definately did come out. Sometimes, in some circumstances, on some
days, sticking to the rules does not work half as well as ignoring them.

Mewsical
November 7, 2012 at 22:30

Everyone is so unkind about Ann O’Neill, I’m glad you found something
kind to say about her. I never had much to do with her, except in passing.
And I couldn’t agree more about your last thoughts. Might have been a
little less running away if there had been more latitude.

Schizophrenic
November 3, 2012 at 12:41

oops sorry Sally Stevens AKA Mewsical That should read. No email given here
or telephone number but if you persist they will be given to ALL of the UK
press.

john2g November 3, 2012 at 14:45

What a thoroughly nasty person you are Schizophrenic!

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 15:00

Persist in what? And who now cares where MJ lives? The Mail has the
story. If YOU persist, I will contact the authorities and provide them with
YOUR information for making internet threats against MJ. I promise you.

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 15:39

I’m not trying to conceal my identity, Fiona. That’s the log-in that goes
with the email account I’m using. Unlike yourself, I have nothing to
hide.

Schizophrenic
November 3, 2012 at 12:38

Enough of this. I am an individual and If Miss Margaret Jones states no one
has her address then I wonder what this is….
Miss Margaret Jones
(Headmistress of Duncroft School)
x xxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx xxxxxx

xxxxx xxxxxx

Sorry did I read that NO ONE apart from her family and a certain few people
had her address…well here it is. LOL

Edited by Anna (on her travels!)to add:This poster claims to be
Susan Melling, may also be Fiona whatsit-Double-Barrelled, but whoever she/he
is, I’m not having the name of a 91 year old woman living alone posted on here
in order that she can be hassled. Utterly reprehensible.

Right, back to enjoying my break and out of this internet cafe!

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 14:56

Oh that’s Fiona all right. There is no Susan Melling. They are one and
the same person. Or is that two and the same person?

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 14:58

I love how these fools just give themselves away. And then are angered
when MJ calls them exactly what they are.

Jonathan Mason
November 3, 2012 at 11:06

Also The Guardian carries the story with a more objective headline, however
this is just a rehash of the Daily Mail story and does not contain any
original reporting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/03/jimmy-savile-accusers-money-headteacher

Anna November 3, 2012 at 10:30

One of your silent readers. Thank you for telling another side of this
story. I have read most of your blog now and on the whole agree with most of
your opinions (hills borough I think you missed the point on) but I applaud
your courage to speak out and defend your right to do so.

Hoping you have a wonderful anniversary break.

Well done and keep doing what you’re doing.

Richard de Lacy
November 3, 2012 at 10:26

I would like to thank Ms Raccoon for an outstanding blog and wish her well
at what must be a very difficult time; I’d also like to thank the others on
here for their informative and entertaining comments.

I am no-one important – just someone who occasionally rants against bent
journalism, and I would not miss the BBC one bit if this Savile episode led to
the organisation’s downfall, but I admit that the story described above
supports the decision to axe the Newsnight feature, and it certainly seems
like a 91-year-old lady is having her name dragged through the mud in an
appalling and cowardly fashion.

Just two things bother me – “Miss Jones on the record” I do not believe the
Daily Mail quotes from Miss Jones. I will apologise on here if it turns out
her words were quoted accurately and in full, but I think we should be very
sceptical until the lady confirms this.

Secondly, whilst it is good to have dissenting voices in the comments
section, I have to ask why some of them are anonymous, in particular the
regular male contributor. I can fully understand why these girls from
unfortunate backgrounds – now ladies, of course – would wish to remain
anonymous later in life while making some point about this subject, especially
now we have a full-on media feeding frenzy, but why would any male keep his
identity hidden?

Anyway, thank you once again, Ms Raccoon, for your courage and tenacity,
and I hope you turn pages one and two of this blog into a book – it is like
John Buchan at his best.

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 14:55

Having spent three years in MJ’s company, this sounds like her. Besides
the reporter (Claire Ellicot I assume) obviously taking notes, as you can
see in the photo, she also armed herself with a tape recorder which MJ
spotted shortly after Claire was invited into the house, and was then
invited out of the house.

Richard de
Lacy November 4, 2012 at 02:43

Thank you, Mewsical

My suspicions were aroused by the lack of a clear denial about the two
claims in the article that Savile committed crimes at the school in the
period 1971-73, while this blog, if I recall, says Savile’s first visit to
the school was in 1974. Having read the article again, however, I realise
that it is not clear whether those specific claims were put to Margaret
Jones.

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 16:59

In the second interview, she provides proof – irrefutable, in
Savile’s own hand.

Richard de
Lacy November 5, 2012 at 09:41

She certainly has. Thank you, Mewsical, and it seems I owe the
Daily Mail an apology – at least they’ve published the guest book
entry, even though it pretty much refutes many of the paper’s more
lurid claims.

Wendi November 5, 2012 at 20:47

It’s quite possible that the ‘male’ contributor is in fact ‘female’!

Elena ‘andcart
November 3, 2012 at 08:46

I am taking that Daily Mail Interview with Miss Jones with a large bucket
of Rock Salt for the time being. It doesn’t sound very plausible to me. Miss
Jones might be old but I doubt she is a fool.

Jonathan Mason
November 3, 2012 at 14:45

I don’t get it. Which of her reported remarks come across as foolish?

She says:

1. A lot of the girls were willing to exchange sex for cigarettes or
treats. (This is actually confirmed by Karin Ward’s book in which she agrees
to give Savile a blow job in exchange for a visit to the TV studios.)

2. Delinquent types frequently have a knack of telling people what they
want to hear. Having had some years of experience working with juveniles
(both male and female), sex offenders (all male) and prisoners (all male), I
would say that this is a very well known phenomenon, and anyone who works in
that kind of environment will be well aware of it.

3. The former pupils who are now making claims via TV and print media are
looking for money from the Savile estate. This seems entirely plausible.

4. The girls did not report sexual molestation by Savile to Duncroft
staff at the time. This is disputed in one case, but in the case of Karin
Ward it seems to be true, as per her book.

5. Placing a girl in isolation could only be done on the say-so of the
psychiatrist. Based on my personal experience of working in mental health in
the UK at that time, I would say this was probably accurate (although I have
no personal experience of approved schools). A person in seclusion would
have to be either under continuous observation, or at the least observed at
regular intervals and paper records would be kept.

6. She didn’t care for Savile, but had no idea he was a pervert.

7. She doesn’t remember why he stayed overnight, but he was not in a room
close to where the girls slept. She thinks he asked to stay overnight
because he had appointments in the area the next day. Since Savile’s main
residence was in Leeds and Duncroft was located in Staines, just outside
West London where BBC TV studios were located, this seems reasonably
plausible.

8. She allowed a group of girls to go out for a ride on two occasions in
Savile’s Rolls Royce. At the time she had no suspicions of Savile and
assumed that because the girls were in a group, there was safety in
numbers.

Dave November 3, 2012 at 00:19

Well your memory is not quite as sharp as you think it is – regarding
cigarette brands there was no such brand as Piccadilly No 6 plain. There were
Players No 6 plain or filtered and Piccadilly were a filter cigarette

Jonathan Mason
November 3, 2012 at 00:07

Well, well, well. Miss Jones did talk to the press after all and a lot of
what she said makes sense too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227086/They-angels-Headmistresss-cruel-dismissal-girls-abused-Jimmy-Savile-claims-told-to.html

Daily Mail
Reporter November 3, 2012 at 13:17

“Well, well, well. Miss Jones did talk to the press after all”

I’ve worked for the Daily Mail and Mail Online in the past, never
again.

Doorstepping someone with a hidden tape recorder isn’t an interview and
doesn’t constitute talking to the press: Knock knock, the door opens, the
photographer gets the shot from the footpath. The reporter says hello, my
name is X Y and I’m from the Daily Mail, then they ask a question. Then
another then another. “It’s better to talk to me so you can get your side of
the story over before other reporters turn up” can I come in?

That’s not an interview. That’s not talking to the press, that’s
doorstepping. Hijack a few quotes and selectively build those ‘quotes’ in to
established ‘facts’ and you have a story. Get it right you get a byline. Get
it wrong in the eyes of the news desk and the story gets attributed to Daily
Mail Reporter.

Mewsical
November 3, 2012 at 16:55

She has granted a second interview, which was professionally requested
and was not a doorstep job. The reporter was invited in, there was a
photographer who shot several poses, and Miss Jones had a friend there
with her. I understand everything went well, and Miss Jones is feeling
better altogether. The reporter was extremely impressed with Miss Jones
and rightfully so.

And to all the Duncroft women gathering round to spit venom, I say this
to you. Get a life. Put this behind you. If you keep this up on the
internet, there will be consequences. Talk to a counselor or psychologist
at this point and resolve these issues with professional help.

Ellen Coulson
November 4, 2012 at 14:04

Unfortunately Miss Jones naively invited Ms Ellicott in.

Bored.com
November 6, 2012 at 13:47

Miss Jones Naive? you do not give her credit for her perceptive
demeanor.I am sure she doesn’t need or would appreciate anyone making
excuses for her interview, she is a very capable woman, regardless of
her age who is obviously happy with what she has said. Not sure everyone
agrees with everything she has said but we all have our own
opinions.

Ellen
Coulson November 7, 2012 at
16:26

She is not happy with what Claire Ellicott said.

Mewsical November 2, 2012 at 23:50

Miss Jones on the record. Frankly, I don’t find her remarks ‘cruel’ myself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227086/They-angels-Headmistresss-cruel-dismissal-girls-abused-Jimmy-Savile-claims-told-to.html?ito=feeds-newsxm

JuliaM November
3, 2012 at 06:12

Typical ‘Mail’ hatchet job…

Jonathan Mason
November 3, 2012 at 10:59

No, the interview itself is fair enough, but the Daily Mail copy editors
tried to put a spin on it by using the word “cruel” in the headline,
probably so as to cut off any suggestion that the Daily Mail itself was
casting aspersions on “victims”. One has to read between the lines a
bit.

The other point of note is that the Daily Mail disabled comments on this
piece, probably to forestall a flood of support for Ms. Jones dismissal of
her former charges as money-seeking ex-delinquents who are manipulative
enough to tell the listener whatever the listener wants to hear.

On the other hand, all credit to the Daily Mail for publishing an
alternative viewpoint at all

Mewsical November 3, 2012 at 14:52

Sorry for the double post. The servers were crashing for a while
there.

Mewsical November 2, 2012 at 23:49

Miss Jones on the record. I don’t find any of her remarks “cruel” at all.
But then I was at Duncroft, and, as usual, she speaks very plainly about the
condition of some of the girls who were there. She was there for 30 years, not
20.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227086/They-angels-Headmistresss-cruel-dismissal-girls-abused-Jimmy-Savile-claims-told-to.html?ito=feeds-newsxm

Anthony, very occasionally, the staff would offer you a cigarette from
their own pack. Otherwise, as usual, you’re chasing a stuffed rabbit.

Mewsical November 2, 2012 at 18:06

I would also like to add my best wishes for an enjoyable stay in Paris to
Mr. and Mrs. G.

Moor Larkin November 2, 2012 at 15:32

From the Met’s website
“As we have said from the outset, our work was
never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile. What we
have established in the last two weeks is that there are lines of inquiry
involving living people that require formal investigation.”
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Operation-Yewtree-Update/1400012396517/1257246745756

I think this can of worms will stay closed as far as the police are
concerned. Jimmy was the only celebrity to visit Duncroft in relation to the
allegations made by the itv Exposure show, and Jimmy is dead and beyond
prosecution; so the police are not going to involve themselves in how accurate
or not, all those initial allegations were. If they find someone else to
prosecute in realtion to all the other 200 allegations, they may take
action.

If it’s just a contradiction between what someone says happened
thirty/forty years ago and what Jimmy may or may not have done – the matter
will go no further. All this may have some relevance to Civil Claims in the
pipeline, but I suspect all the bodies that may need to defend themselves
would rather pay an out-of-court settlement and be done with it. Why should
they pay lawyers to effectively defend Jimmy Savile? There’s no profit in that
for anyone now.

Give it ten years though, and someone can write a book.

Mewsical November 2, 2012 at 16:46

All very good points, Moor. I saw in the Mirror that some of the women
involved in the Duncroft situation are apparently getting ready to launch
themselves legally at the Home Office, but I don’t think the Home Office was
involved any longer by the time Savile showed up. They were certainly in
charge in my day, but Savile wasn’t there then. When he was coming around,
in 1974, it was the NAMH, local authority and MIND. If anyone is stupid
enough to try and sue the Home Office over something that never happened in
1965, I will be happy to provide an affidavit to the defense!

Roy Fernley November 2, 2012 at 02:37

A fascinating 7 part series which was a great read.

Enjoy your time in Paris and best wishes for your health.

Mewsical November 2, 2012 at 01:21

To Innocente, when you went to Duncroft you were expected to behave
yourself as much as possible – and if you screwed up, you were punished. Or
didn’t you get the memo? LOL!

If we’d had responsible and caring parents and we misbehaved, some sort of
punishment would have been meted out by them as well. I do want to note,
again, that I have received my Barnardo’s file with all my records from
Duncroft, and there are several notations that my mother was concerned about
how much I was smoking. Ironic, as she smoked like a chim-chim-chimenee
herself. I used to pinch her cigs, Kensitas. My grandmother smoked Craven A –
I blame their packaging for my continued fondness for black cats!

Smoking was considered to be so glamorous and grown up in those days.
However, in 1979, I stopped smoking simply because I didn’t want to end up
looking awful – nicotine takes all the collagen from your facial tissues at
the very least, what else it does is well-documented. In my case, vanity saved
the day, I guess.
What Sue started this discussion for was to question the
account of Bebe Roberts, who lied like a rug to the Daily Mail, regarding Mr.
Savile’s presence at Duncroft in the 60s, so I’ll veer back in that direction,
because it’s also a discussion of the mores of the times.
In the late 60s
and early 70s, it was Liberty Hall when it came to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’
roll. I’ve worked in the music business for most of my adult life, so I think
I’m qualified to comment. In the UK, Savile was front and center with Top of
the Pops, which featured all the top rock artists of the day and wielded
considerable influence in their careers. As a result, a bucketload of pretty
girls show up in Savile’s life. Somehow, he is supposed to turn into a saint,
lecturing them on their morals and checking their birth certificates, etc? In
the raffish rock music world, he would’ve lasted ten minutes. And, if the
girls at Duncroft had complained loud and long enough, what would have been
their fate? No more fun at the White City, no more ciggies, no more rides in
the Rolls. Just think about it, please.
Did Savile take advantage of the
emotional condition of the Duncroft women? More than likely.
Power is a
tremendous aphrodisiac, though. I live in Hollywood, have done for 40-odd
years. It’s always been the way of it here, and it still goes on.
What
really concerns me is that Savile appears to have taken advantage of truly
helpless people – at Stoke, at Leeds, at Broadmoor, and elsewhere. And as a
friend of mine recently pointed out, if the actions taken by the Duncroft
women have helped to assist these real victims, then whatever their
motivations, this has been a good result.
I’m of the impression that the
burning question is “Why did they wait until he died?” Bebe Roberts would have
been laid to waste by Savile’s defense, at the very least.
Here in America,
Jerry Sandusky was brought to justice for his crimes against young boys. He
had the entire Penn State legal machine behind him, but it couldn’t save him
from a dreadful fate for his crimes.

Jonathan Mason
November 2, 2012 at 15:47

Reasonable points, but by the mid 70′s Savile was a man of about 50 years
of age and would have had lots of opportunities to meet attractive young
women and have sex with them, however he seemed to make a point of seeking
out the very young and the vulnerable–or girls like the Duncroft residents,
some of whom may have had past records of juvenile prostitution. In
retrospect the mobile home (or caravan) that Savile used was probably
deliberately acquired as a prop for illicit sex to avoid having to register
at hotels or enter his own homes with underage girls–likewise the rooms to
which he had access at hospitals.

I don’t think there was a need to check birth certificates as few people
carry them (does anyone), but to ask girls their ages before having sex with
them– yes. that is a basic precaution if there is any doubt at all. I was a
teenager in the 60′s and we were certainly well aware of the age of consent
of 16 at the time.

Jerry Sandusky didn’t have the whole Penn State legal machine behind him.
Sandusky was defended by a rather hapless single lawyer called Joe Amendola,
who himself got a 16-year-old client pregnant in the 1990′s and later
married her. The defense was very weak, underfunded, and did little to
attack the credibility of the witnesses.

Mewsical
November 2, 2012 at 16:41

I stand corrected on Sandusky’s defense. I thought the University would
have provided him with at least someone adequate, but apparently they were
disgusted enough to let him twist in the wind. I didn’t follow the trial
very closely, as it just looked as if the prosecutors were going to
prevail, and the enormous boatload of witnesses must have been
overwhelming for any sole practitioner without the benefit of the big law
firm machine behind him. Hi ho.

Good point on the “caravan.” However, if Savile had wanted to engage in
shenanigans at Duncroft he was allegedly ‘staying in an upstairs flat,’
according to Toni, while a member of the staff has him staying once and it
was in an area not accessible to where the girls dormitories were. I am
not familiar with the lay-out of Duncroft once Miss Jones was moved to her
own residence and the education building and the hostel were in full use.
But the remainder of the school was the same, and I am pretty darn sure
that he didn’t stay in the upstairs flat, Miss Jones’ old quarters,
because my guess is that, given the need for room, that was already
utilized as quarters for other members of the staff, at the very least –
two bedrooms and a sitting room. Can’t image that this ‘flat’ remained
empty after MJ moved to her own house on the grounds. The recounting of
the staff member has more credence for me. But once again, I wasn’t
there.

Yes, Savile did have access to real women, but his preference appears
to be for those who were underage. Should he have asked for proof of age –
well, yes, but was he going to, er no. Did these girls look 14, not a bit
of it. They looked 16. I have a photo on my blog, and I was only 14. Did I
look it. No. Did I want to look it. No. And did any of the girls say,
“Hey, I’m only 14 you daft bugger. Leave me alone or I’m going to the
police.” Er, no, apparently not, and they complained only to the staff.
One woman I’ve communicated with on line told me that she said something
to her social worker, and the social worker simply said to tell the staff.
That seems a little odd to me.

Phil
Edwards November 4, 2012 at
12:37

Remember Savile’s reply on HIGNFY when Paul Merton (I think)
expressed puzzlement about his living arrangements:

What do you do in your caravan?
“Anyone I can get my
hands on.”

It’s a bizarre remark – it’s playing up to the image as a serial
sexual predator which he didn’t officially have.

But yes, the caravan would have been a much safer & more discreet
base than a borrowed flat. In that respect the original Duncroft
allegations have a kind of “double or quits” quality to them – the only
way they could be entirely true is if Miss Jones was in it up to her
neck, so you reel in a corrupt public institution along with your
corrupt dead celebrity. All good fun, unless of course they’re
not entirely true and an innocent elderly woman is being
defamed.

Mewsical – surely “tell the staff” would be the first and most
obvious thing for a social worker to say, given that the staff were in a
position of responsibility (at least morally – and legally for under-age
girls, I guess). When a kid goes back to her social worker repeatedly
and says “I told the staff, nothing happened and it’s still
happening/I’m still worried about it/I still think something needs to be
done”, then they might set the wheels in motion. But that second or
third approach probably never happened. I think one of the things we’re
more aware of now about vulnerable young people is that they’re quite
easily discouraged from seeking help, and need careful listening to when
they do.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) November 4, 2012 at
14:11

Regarding Savile’s response on HIGNFY, it got a huge laugh and
applause from the audience.

PS. It was Ian Hislop who asked the question. Diane Abbot (on the
opposite team) despite raising her eyebrows, smiled at the
comment.

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 16:39

I disagree that ‘tell the staff’ was the most obvious thing to say.
“Have you told the staff?” would be my question, and then when the
girl responds “Yes, but they don’t care,” then what you said. However,
you can see in the photo of the girls and some staff with Savile that
one of the girls is scratching his horrible head. They liked him
coming around, imo, Phil. Much more than Miss Jones liked him coming
around. She has distanced herself about as far away from him as she
could in the photo. The fact that her mother reacted with strong
dislike may have tipped her off, but though Mrs. Jones obviously
realized what sort of person he was, it was her daughter’s school to
run. And I do believe that if the girls had presented a united front
and gone to Miss Jones as a group, asking that he not come to the
school anymore (which would have meant no more treats, no more trips
to the BBC, no more ciggies, records, money), I can assure you – and I
was at Duncroft with Miss Jones – she would have asked him to stop
coming by, especially in that cavalier, arrogant way, just showing up
when he felt like it. She was probably looking for an excuse to show
him the door, but because the girls liked him, she showed more
forbearance.

a curious yellow
November 1, 2012 at 22:34

thanks, Anna for your many lucid posts I suppose I’ve been guilty of being
one of the “silent ones” in the past, but I do want you to know you are
appreciated have a great anniversary break and dont let the buggers get you
down!!!!!!!

Dick the Prick
November 1, 2012 at 21:00

This is all very well and good, nice bit of research debunking both the BBC
and the meeja in general but I think the most serious part of this chronology
has been left behind, ignored, forgotten almost – what is Mr G having for
Sunday lunch? All the best you 2, hope you have a lovely time.

Brandon November 1, 2012 at 20:57

Thank you for the latest instalment. Chapeau. Fare thee well in Paris with
Mr G, Anna. You deserve a break from all this. By the way, I think it’s
Eleanor, not Emily Plowden. I believe I went to school with her, as it
happens.

Innocente November 1, 2012 at 20:07

I am a former Duncroft girl – I arrived somewhere between Anna Raccoon and
Jimmy Savile. Whilst on remand, I was informed that on my arrival at Duncroft,
I would be allocated 10 cigarettes a day. I wasn’t. I was put into Grade 3,
and that allowed me 10 cigarettes a week. After a few months, I was promoted
to Grade 2. Rather than give us 15 cigarettes a week, we got 10 one week and
20 the next – I can only assume this was because it would have been too much
like hard work for the staff to split the packs. Finally, I arrived in Grade
1, and was allocated a full 20 cigarettes a week. Serious misdemeanours saw
girls downgraded to Grade 4, punishment level, with a loss of pretty much all
privileges – cigarettes, outings in the mini-bus, home leave, etc. Instances
of violence, or absconding resulted in a trip to the ICU where you were
removed from the rest of the girls and kept in isolation. Far from
discouraging under-age smoking, cigarettes, combined with medication (often
the dreaded Largactyl), was considered a valuable method of keeping us under
control.

Jonathan Mason
November 1, 2012 at 21:03

Interesting again. Administration of Largactil (as chlorpromazine was
known in the UK) would seem to have been inappropriate (at least seen from
present day perspectives) due to the fact that it may cause irreversible
side effects such as tardive dyskinesia, cause weight gain, not to mention
symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease. It can also cause Neuroleptic
malignant syndrome, a potentially fatal complication, and interfere with the
menstrual cycle. It is SO not recommended for administration to minors to
control behaviour.

In any case it is really only suitable for treatment of psychosis such as
schizophrenia. Ativan (lorazepam) might have been a better choice if it was
available at that time.

Against the horrors of cigarette and chlorpromazine administration,
having to provide a bit of sexual entertainment to a middle aged BBC
performer was probably a minor concern, and actually Karin Ward states in
her book that the Savile episode seemed like no big deal at the time.

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 17:32

Thanks for pointing that out about thorazine for minors, Jonathan. I’ve
always seriously doubted that Dr. Mason would recommend such a solution.
Of course, to capitalize (literally) on the Savile accusations, the
accusers have to make things as dramatic as possible, i.e. padded cells,
thorazine, etc. I’d like to hear from someone who was there at the time
who didn’t have any encounter with Savile, never were locked in padded
cells, never were sedated with thorazine. Not holding my breath of course,
as there is this small core group who are up to no good and persist and
persist, and if you so much as disagree with them, they make threats
against Miss Jones and put her whereabouts on a publicly-viewed blog.
What’s the motive? Attention? Money?

I don’t think anyone ‘had’ to provide sexual entertainment. Nor did
they ‘have’ to smoke.

Bored.com
November 6, 2012 at 13:14

1. I was there in the time frame you talk about
2. I was not
abused by Saville
3. There was a padded cell, never personally was
put in there.
4. I was given Largactyl on 3 occasions, have written
confirmation from my 2 files
5. I am not for or against Miss
Jones
6. I do not make threats to anyone if my opinion differs from
others
7. I didn’t have to smoke, it was my choice
8. I never
provided sexual entertainment to anyone whilst I was at Duncroft, nor
after I left.
9.

Anthony November 2, 2012 at 01:10

So it appears cigarettes were indeed given out at Duncroft as rewards for
good behaviour, contrary to Anna indicating they were only ever bought with
pupils’ own money.

Jonathan
Mason November 2, 2012 at 11:32

Either that or there was a radical change of policy in between the
approved school under the Home Office in the 60′s and the Community School
in the 70′s. Also note that Karin Ward describes being given cigarettes on
arrival at the age of 14, so she would still have been in full time
education.

Jonathan
Mason November 2, 2012 at 11:40

Of course, since it seems the staff where themselves smokers, it must
be entirely possible that they were milking the cigarette distribution
system to their own advantage too, particularly since the financial
aspect of funding the smoking it does not seem to have been transparent
to the girls, or possibly to the higher authorities.

Innocente
November 2, 2012 at 18:13

I think there was at least one system being milked financially. Our
routine was to be woken at 7am, and we then worked, for an hour, until
breakfast at 8am, followed by education in the school block. There
were probably around 25 girls there during my time, which was the
early ’70s. Every girl, regardless of age, and some were as young as
14, cleaned the house. It’s a very large mansion, and beautiful too in
its day. So you had approx 25 girls all cleaning for an hour – between
us we kept the house clean and tidy. We were not ‘paid’ for this…
there was no financial sum set aside as payment for work, we worked
because we had no choice. The cigarette allowance was not a return for
our cleaning services. The Home Office were still in charge while I
was there, and it would be interesting to know if Duncroft ever
claimed for the services of professional cleaners, because none were
employed – we did that. Imagine… the shrewd Miss Jones fiddling her
expenses, long before it was ever fashionable! Of course, that’s not
an accusation, merely a supposition on my part

Observor
November 3, 2012 at 12:41

I see. One poster pops in and claims to be from Duncroft and you write
off Anna’s claims which she says she can back up with evidence.

Why do I get this funny feeling your intention is to sow doubt in an
ever so polite and friendly way?. For that is what you seem to eb
doing.

Innocente
November 3, 2012 at 17:03

Firstly, I should like to point out that I have absolutely no agenda.
I did not meet Jimmy Savile. I have no blog, and I am not trying to
publish a book. I do not wish for 15 seconds, let alone 15 minutes of
‘fame’. I attended Duncroft School, while it was still an Approved
School. I am not particularly proud of that fact, but neither am I
especially ashamed of it – I couldn’t get in there today if I tried –
I’d be hard pushed to get as ASBO for what landed me in Staines in 1971.
I have not, at any point, attempted to discredit or write off any of
Anna’s claims. I have no need, and certainly nothing to gain from doing
such a thing. But… there have been a few inaccuracies, and I have simply
posted my personal recollections from my time at the school. I stumbled
across this blog by chance. I totally applaud anyone who is in search of
the truth, as Anna appears to be. But if you find it, you must accept it
all – the ugly truth along with all the saccharine-coated palatable
sections of it which happen to suit you personally. And thank you for
the compliment – I have never been anything but polite – I had a good
education, you know

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 3, 2012 at 14:07

I cannot remember the exact grades (I was one of two girls who did not
smoke) but you were not “given” cigarettes, you were allowed to *BUY* the
relevant amount of cigarettes with your allocated pocket money (cigarettes
cost less than 25-30p for 20 then). 10 and 20 alternate weeks rings
bells…and I know that, in the punishment grade you were not allowed to buy
cigarettes at all. Cigarettes were used as a means of control in many
approved school/community homes at that time, there was nothing unusual
about it. Remember between 14 and 17 many of the girls were of a legal age
to smoke.

As for Chloropromazine (Thorazine in the States), girls were regularly
dosed with linctus (forcibly if needs be) if they returned in a state that
suggested they had been taking drugs (usually LSD which was the drug of
the day). One girl was returned some time after Easter, 1972 dosed with
linctus, locked in ICU and never woke up again. The practice of dosing
with Thorazine Linctus was not discontinued as a result.

I gave Mark Williams Thomas this and other “important background
information about the girls and Savile.” of the kind he chides Margaret
Jones for not providing, but everything I had to say was too boring to
bother with, because being a first hand, eye witness, from a very slightly
earlier time convinced me that, whatever Jimmy Saville did, or did not do
elsewhere there was absolutely no chance of him being allowed to take out
Duncroft girls unsupervised, if only because the staff would have been
concerned for him, in case any of the girls abused the privilege in any
way, and legal indemnity in the event of even a minor motor accident.

Mark Williams Thomas was only interested in doing a hatchet job on
Jimmy Saville. He did not have one iota of interest in the truth,
Duncroft, or even and ongoing pedophile issue I mentioned to him. I
responded to him because I have nothing to lose in case he was genuine
enough to address the real issues (he wasn’t). Margaret Jones would want
to be off her rocker to say anything to him at all, because he would
ignore anything he could not twist to suit him and I do not think any of
the truth falls into that category.

Duncroft was a terrible place that bent young lives completely of of
shape, often for good, but then so was the entire care system, (and my
spies tell me that, at adolescent institutional level it has not improved
to this day…) the only thing that distinguished Duncroft was the relative
intelligence and sophistication of all involved – Duncroft girls got bent
out of shape in more complex ways.

In the past two days I have watched a real live human being utterly
broken at the age of 69, beyond recovery…the same human being I saw ex-
Duncroft girls apparently conspiring to “feed to the Sun” as a means of
upgrading the image of the school. (I have screenshots and I went straight
to the police). I have a feeling that all it would take to save him is for
Karin Ward to find a conscience and tell the truth.

I wasn’t there, I have no way of knowing for sure what happened in
1974, but what I do know for sure is that Duncroft either inadvertantly
fed precocious teenage girls to celebrities, or fecked their heads up so
badly that a few of them are prepared to spend years ruthlessly conspiring
to create the illusion that had happened, for attention and compensation.
There is no third possibility.

If we go with the former, then all we have to do is lynch a few
scapegoats and pay off a few victims (with or without paranthesis), and
everyone can go back to convincing themselves everything is fine and that
some ephemeral “they” will always take best possible care of or
disadvantaged/delinquent teens, and we don’t need to think about it, if we
go with the latter, then it opens a whole can of worms on what really
*DOES* happen to young people when they cannot and/or will not, fit in, or
are not issued with a “good enough” family at birth in the usual way.

I am not sure society can handle the truth of the latter.

…and the snowball rolls through battalions of people who can make a
case that they once spent a few minutes alone with a celebrity as a golden
ticket to a chance of compensation, who’s lives are otherwise about to be
ruthlessly pushed off a cliff by Tory austerity and/or Atos origin…I can’t
even blame them…I am only surprised there are not more.

I am not sure society can handle the truth of *THAT* either.

Jonathan
Mason November 3, 2012 at 21:47

Interesting post, particularly how you mention that one girl was
killed in isolation by a dose of chlorpromazine (possibly due to
complications or interactions with other drugs, of course). As I
mentioned in my post above, that was a risky practice. Today that would
be a MASSIVE scandal on its own, never mind Savile’s sex games.

Mewsical
November 4, 2012 at 21:14

I think the dead girl is the Duncroft equivalent of an urban legend
at this point. Nobody has ever been able to corroborate it, provide a
name to this girl, or do anything more than repeat it over and over,
as if somehow that makes it a fact. I do want to thank Duncroft 72 for
an otherwise thoughtful post.

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 4, 2012 at 21:45

We were told she inhaled her own vomit. I do not know how true it
is. I have mentioned it to several members of the press as well as
Mark Williams Thomas. So far, nobody has even bothered to dig up the
death certificate. Not glamourous enough, obviously

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 5, 2012 at 09:43

No Mewsical, that girl really died…there should be a death cert to
prove it, there should also have been an inquest but I very much doubt
if there was, it is long overdue that somebody dig out the facts and
find out what really happened.

Jonathan
Mason November 4, 2012 at 00:00

“In the past two days I have watched a real live human being utterly
broken at the age of 69, beyond recovery…the same human being I saw ex-
Duncroft girls apparently conspiring to “feed to the Sun” as a means of
upgrading the image of the school. (I have screenshots and I went
straight to the police).”

Who are you referring to? Freddie Starr or someone else? And these
screenshots of a conspiracy to feed him (whoever you are referring to)
to The Sun are from where? Since the police are usually working on
behalf of the prosecution, this evidence of a conspiracy might be of
much greater interest to the defence side, for example the executors of
the Savile estate, than to the police.

Ex Duncroft
’72 November 4, 2012 at 21:50

It is very simple, I have no way of knowing the general innocence,
or guilt, of the person in question, so that I did not want to
formally align myself with anyone.

I also felt that these, potentially horrifying discussions needed
to be viewed with a totally objective perspective.

The Police are trained, and employed to find as much of the truth
as possible, not take sides, it seemed to me they were to only
appropriate place to go with this.

Amfortas November 5, 2012 at 09:06

@ExD72: “”The Police are trained, and employed to find as much of
the truth as possible, not take sides””

And the sun is green, Voltaire wrote for the News of the World
and my waist is less than 100cms.

Mewsical November 5, 2012 at 19:16

I have to agree with Amfortas in this case. Savile had many
friends on the police force, let’s not forget!

Mudplugger November 5, 2012 at 20:21

As an aside, in the 1960s and 70s the Leeds City Police (then
a city force, not the wider West Yorkshire Constabulary) were
notoriously corrupt and corruptible (I write from experience
having been wrongly arrested by them in 1970 and, as a result,
suffered/observed some of their ‘creative crime resolution’
tactics from a tad too close a viewpoint).

Savile started out around that time, in that place. When that
is your model, you follow what you’ve learned. Straight-forward
cash payments or generous donations to their favoured charities
usually did the trick – why change a winning formula ?

Brandon November 6, 2012 at 12:28

I recall seeing it noted somewhere that Savile’s ‘Friday
Morning Club’ included as many as 20 former and current police
officers over the years. The only one I have seen named is one
Mick Starkey, who did stints chauffeuring him around in his
Rolls. Seems fairly clear that Savile’s MO involved
cultivating close relations with the boys in blue from a
fairly early stage, based on various anecdotal evidence,
including his own!

Observor November 6, 2012 at 03:35

Yes the coppers can be as star-struck as the next person and
many have been as corrupt as sin.

However I doubt that Savile (despite apparently being the
Most Powerful Person in Britain) could really influence cops to
stop an investigation unless he paid bribes.
The flip side is
that cops love a big name bust no matter who the person and
would relish a take-down of someone like Savile.and Fleet Street
would have only been too happy to join the party. Not forgiving
Savile if allegations are proved.

Brian November 8, 2012 at 10:44

The is the possibility that the Police knew about Savile’s
activities but did not prosecute in order to find out about
others engaged in the same. Intelligence gathering of this
sort has been the bread and butter of Special Branch and
Security Service work for ages, as it is useful in vetting and
blackmail. Sometimes intelligence is gathered simply because
it always has been. The interests of the State, ie its
self-preservation, are amoral and should not be compared with
ordinary morality.

Brian November 9, 2012 at 15:05

Apologies for duplicate posting of my #208 comment.

Smoking Hot November 6, 2012 at 09:15

lnteresting … would you say Savile was bigger than the
Stones? Jagger and Richards were convicted of drugs and got 3
and 12 months (later turned over on appeal). The 60′s culture
did not have a good relationship with the ‘establishment’ at
all.

Mewsical November 7, 2012 at 16:38

No, not really. I remember the Stones trials well. Keith
did some time, if I recall rightly, but Mick didn’t. And no,
we didn’t have a good relationship with the establishment,
they hated us. Constantly trying to frame rock stars was the
name of the game with the cops.

Ex
Duncroft November 5, 2012 at
22:21

Well unfortunately the Police are the closest thing to
impartial available, so that is where I took this.

Robb
November 5, 2012 at 19:12

This for Mewsical and Ex Duncroft ’72

“that girl really died…”

A question, surely, for Miss Jones?

Moor Larkin November 5, 2012 at 20:19

The death will surely be in that Duncroft Archive that Annaraccoon
first blogged about – the archive that none of these current “forensic
investigators” have even attempted to refer to in the last several
years (apparently – the 2009 police reports are now being requested by
the UK government) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/24/jimmy-savile-dpp-2009-evidence

It’s perhaps not surprising that a ten year age gap leaves big
differences in the perception of Miss Jones, but the ‘security’ at
Duncroft that served to protect the vulnerable seems backed up by both
opinions – whatever the perceived motive of the school.

Anon November 22, 2012 at 20:29

Wow . . . that is so true.

lleweton November 1, 2012 at 19:14

Amen to all the good wishes you have received on this thread.

Brian November 1,
2012 at 18:08

Mrs Raccoon, I hope you and Mr G have a great time in Paris, and look
forward to your return to the Raccoon Arms in your good time. Would you have
any objections to being nominated for the 2013 Orwell Prize for this series of
posts, which is clearly head and shoulders above the work of so-called
professional journalists?

Magwitch November
1, 2012 at 16:49

Anna, hope you & Mr G have a wonderful time in Paris.
I’m usually
sitting quietly in the corner at the Racoon Arms but I’d just like to say
thank you for all your wonderful posts. I’ve found the recent series
particularly riveting. Come back relaxed, refreshed and ready to tackle the
next installment.

Richard November 1, 2012 at 14:37

Anna,

Firstly – thank you for continuing to reassure me that there are still
decent people in the world. You gave your word and you’re sticking with it.
Bravo!

Secondly – I hope your Paris trip is as much fun as it sounds it’s going to
be – 20 years is worth celebrating and this story should rightly remain tucked
away, forgotten until your return.

Thirdly – wishing you 20 and more years ahead to celebrate.

Cheers,

Richard

Jonathan Mason
November 1, 2012 at 12:28

Thanks for clarification about the cigarettes. This seems to contradict
what Karin Ward says in her book, but is much more in line with what I would
have thought. In Karin’s book it is quite clearly stated she arrives at
Duncroft at the age of 14, is taken to seen Miss Jones and told she will be
put on “level 3″ and will be allocated 20 cigarettes per week. She is then
told (on the same day) by another girl that if she does not act right she will
be downgraded to “level 4″ and will get 10 cigarettes per week.” Of course
this is at a different time and not under the Home Office regime. I am
inclined to think that Karin Ward’s memory is faulty here, which of course
also calls into question a lot of the rest of her memoir.

Marianne shrugged.  “They’re used to that.  They’ll search while
we’re having supper.  If they find anything not listed, you’ll be in
trouble and get down-graded.  So will I.” “Down-graded?” “Yeah.  If
you go down Grade 4, you only get ten fags a week … and hardly any time
outside at all.” Inexplicably, I felt tears pricking

Ward, Kat (2012-10-13). KERI KARIN: the SHOCKING true story of a child
abused, CONTINUED (child abuse true stories) (Kindle Locations 184-187). Child
Abuse True Stories. Kindle Edition.

Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 12:11

Talking and not talking to the Police.

A Lawyer and a cop tell their side.

OK, it is the American experience but the principles ramain the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=relmfu

Basically, DON’T.

Whatever information or expression occurs, it will not be for your
benefit.

JuliaM November 1,
2012 at 11:46

Here’s hoping you have the break you deserve in Paris, Anna – and I’ve no
doubt the Savile bandwagon will, sadly, be trundling on when you return!

Robert Edwards
November 1, 2012 at 11:42

Have a wonderful time in Paris – it really is the most civilized place.
After this epic series of posts, I’m sure you deserve to recharge the
batteries.

And let others quake for a while, which I am sure they will…

Engineer November 1, 2012 at 11:02

Anna – give ‘Withers’ hell. Fight all the way -the thoughts, support and
prayers of many are with you.

(For those who don’t understand this comment – and it not about a person –
you’ll have to read the archive.)

Ian B November 1, 2012 at 10:34

Anna/Suzanne, so sorry to hear about your illness. My thoughts are with
you.

Regarding the issue itself, this is purely my personal opinion here, but I
feel a little nonplussed at this stage. I am not entirely convinced as to the
wisdom of staying away from the media. This thing is a media phenomenon. The
authorities- police, etc- are not going to be rushing to find evidence
debunking the claims made so far, not with Operation Yewtree under the NSPCC
auspices in full swing. As such, just about every vested interest in this will
be primarily interested in burying, or ignoring, anything contrary. By the
time what you have written and discovered “comes out” it will all be too late
if you are passive.

Dick Puddlecote on the previous thread said he was surprised that this
hasn’t gone viral. I think part of the reason for that is that most people
would be reluctant to be seen to defending pantomime villains like Savile- let
alone Glitter, the country’s most hated pervert- without something solid to
base it on. Nobody wants to be stuck out on a limb if it turns out that the
allegations are all, or mainly, or even partially, true. And if the media and
Plod start to get wind that the initial Duncroft allegations are dubious, they
will as a matter of strategy want to rapidly move on to finding some others
that are more solid and forget about them. So if this contrary position
doesn’t “get legs” now, I don’t think it ever will.

I am no expert on the media. I had in my younger days considerable
experience in the entertainment industry and thus know that there are no doubt
many old skeletons lurking in cupboards, some probably of an illegal nature.
Indeed, talking about this with somebody close (from the same industry) the
other day, I got confirmation of one rumour from the past which, while not in
the least illegal, would cause a firestorm in the media if it went public
since it would confirm the past homosexual activities of somebody
constitutionally significant. But then, you’d only have my word for that.

Which is the problem we’re all left with really. We only have your word for
this, and so it is hard for anyone else to come out in definite support. We
can say we believe you, and what you say Margaret Jones said, and so on. But
that’s all. If I were sitting on this, I’d be looking to find somebody
media-connected who could “get the story out”, and as quickly as possible,
before it’s too late.

As I said, that’s just my opinion. But it seems to me that if you sit on
your hands waiting for Yewtree to come looking for information that will
undermine the very existence of Yewtree, your hands are likely to be pretty
numb by that time…

Anna
Raccoon November 1, 2012 at 10:53

I do understand that Ianb.

However, I have given my word, and that is that, whatever the outcome.

I would just point out for the final and last time – that I have never
been about defending Jimmy Savile, I have no way of knowing whether most of
the later allegations are true or not.

I have been about pointing out that some of the initial ‘Duncroft’
stories printed in the papers in the early days, were untrue and could not
be true from my personal knowledge. If they were untrue, then the Newsnight
investigations was rightly pulled because the stories could not be
substantiated.

The original story, if you remember, was that the Newsnight story had
been pulled because Savile was being ‘protected’ by those high up. That fact
seems to be forgotten in the current welter of ’300 victims have come
forward’.

I could sell what Miss Jones told me last night a 100 times over – but I
won’t, for the same reason I wrote this series in the first place – because
truth and honesty do matter to me. ‘Tis hard being a Quaker sometimes, but I
am, and that is that.

Now my husband has got fed up with the phone ringing, and is whisking me
off several hours early – so moderation is going on now; apologies to all my
regular readers.

Lastman Jack
November 1, 2012 at 10:25

Have a wonderful time in Paris. I hope it is a lovely long break. You
deserve it!

We will wait patiently for Part 8!

Gloria Smudd
November 1, 2012 at 10:11

These last seven posts of yours have indeed been riveting,
wonderfully-written stuff. Despite your initial reluctance to tackle this
story, you have seen it through from beginning to end with dedicated attention
to detail and more than a little dogged sleuthing along the way, to bring us
this important latest installment. A challenging job, very well done and very
much appreciated. Three cheers!

Now, step away from the keyboard, start packing your most cosmopolitan
outfits and don’t forget a slinky little number suitable for dinner (at
Maxim’s maybe?). Buzz off and have a wonderful time in Paris, Mr & Mrs G,
and don’t give us or the interweb another thought!

Dave November 1, 2012 at 09:58

I assume that you won’t be reading this until after your return. I do hope
that the break did you good.
I may now be changing my theory.
I
originally thought that we should look at who stood to gain most from the
BBC’s behaviour.
Perhaps it should now be a case of self
destruction?
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make
mad.”
The BBC was set up by Reith as a broadcaster of Christian values.
Since they have long abandoned Christianity, perhaps god is exacting his
revenge?

Wendy November 1, 2012 at 09:31

Absolutely enthralling. Bon chance in Paris.

bilbaoboy November 1, 2012 at 09:10

A coffee with fresh croissant
Quay D’Orsay (if you like
impressionists)
Hand-holding (if that’s your thing) along the river
bank

And I’m keeping fingers crossed for sunshine

Enjoy.

Relax

Both of you

Wigner’s Friend
November 1, 2012 at 08:47

Hope that you can put this sordid stuff behind you in Paris and concentrate
on what is important – your future.

Woman on a
Raft November 1, 2012 at 08:27

Have a lovely time in Paris and then write us all about it.

Observor November 1, 2012 at 07:50

Again..the passion of your writing almost brings me to tears!

The is a very important matter hear and I suspect Ms Raccoon & Jones
think likewise- that age is a wonderful defense against lies and you get to a
point where you will scream from the rooftops what is the truth because you
are protected by your (old) age.

Have a wonderful time in Paris !!!

John November 1, 2012 at 03:46

Anna,

What an astounding series of blog posts – I genuinely applaud you for
making such an effort, which has no doubt been a drain on you.

While I have never met you, I have followed your blog for several years –
there is no doubt to my mind that you are a woman of integrity and
honesty.

Best of luck, and have a fantastic break.

Single Acts of
Tyranny November 1, 2012 at 19:00

+1

Frankie November 2, 2012 at 19:01

+2!

Profiter de vos vacances en Paris… la Ville de l’amour!!

Mewsical November 1, 2012 at 01:47

Those seeking closure might find it here in Part 7.

Londonexplorer
November 1, 2012 at 01:15

Paris awaits you – have a wonderful time

Thanks for all the hard work and for updating us on latest developments

Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 00:51

Enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of Paris, Dear Lady. Recuperate.
Celebrate. You will need to schedule quite a few hours on your return just to
clear the backlog of posts in the moderation file. It takes me half an hour
every morning and that is just from what has been posted overnight here.

Jonathan Mason
November 1, 2012 at 00:38

“She has talked at length to her legal advisors – not to protect herself,
but in view of her age.”

Sorry to be a bit thick. Are you saying that she has deposited sworn
affidavits with her lawyers to be released to police in the event of her
death?

Den November 1, 2012 at 08:45

“Sorry to be a bit thick”: Don’t be so hard on yourself, people die in
strange circumstances nowadays, cf Dr David Kelly. Though not sure about
release to police – perhaps to alternative media?

Hysteria November 1, 2012 at 00:20

Have a lovely time in Paris – hope the weather is kind to you.

Lysistrata November 1, 2012 at 00:20

Have a wonderful anniversary trip, and the odd Calvados from me.
Oh, and
thank you for your pure journalism. I trust what you say.

cascadian November 1, 2012 at 00:13

Very sensible man-MrG, considerate too. I should stick with him for another
twenty years if I were you my dear.

I wish you both continued good health and happiness together, enjoy
Paris.

As for the Savile fooforah, I understand and support your insistence on
facts. Given the source of the stories I will recycle my cynical comment from
the Megan Stammers story that had all the same nonsensical elements-” I’m
trying to understand this latest newspaper-induced outrage” Mostly misplaced
feminist-of-a-certain-age dogma in an effort to promote a third-grade fiction
book.

Zaphod October 31, 2012 at 23:23

I’m a bit nonplussed by the LACK of links, pointing to this saga, from
other blogs that I read.
I’ve been busy lately, so I’m not up to date
everywhere. Apologies to the exceptions.
Many might use the excuse that
it’s not in their readers’ field of interest?
No. I’m not
convinced.
Consequences? Is that the problem?

Smoking Hot November 1, 2012 at 00:01

Ah but we linked mate. We got abusive e-mails and comments but it was a
small price to pay.

Enjoy Paris Anna. Reminds me of years ago when we had French students
visiting our establishment. A member of our staff got into conversation with
one of the female students and asked her where she was from. She said
“Paris” but in French it obviously came out as “Paree”, our member of staff
replied “Never heard of it”

dak November 1, 2012 at 08:49

My readers here in The Republic must be a bit more genteel. It’s been
top post on my blog since part 1 and no-one has complained.

Smoking Hot November 1, 2012 at 10:10

Maybe that’s because many here miss the days of burning witches and
anyone who defends them.

Demelza October 31, 2012 at 23:19

Many thanks for this series of articles, Anna, it has been fascinating yet
depressing reading.
Hope you have a good break.

Chalmers October 31, 2012 at 23:13

Have a great weekend, you both deserve it!

Carol42 October 31, 2012 at 23:04

Thank you for doing this Anna, it has been very enlightening indeed. I am
so very sorry to hear you are still unwell, I had thought after your last
report of a clean scan some time ago that you were doing ok. You have made me
realise just how lucky I am to have survived two years after surgery without
problems so far, well at least until the next scan in January! Have a
wonderful time in Paris, I have very happy memories of my last visit with my
late husband of 30 years. I will look forward to reading your wonderful blog
when you return. Take care. Carol

Dick
Puddlecote October 31, 2012 at
23:03

Why this hasn’t gone viral yet is anyone’s guess, perhaps the hive mind of
not wanting to be seen to have been gulled. There’s a lot of it about.

Enjoy your break, Anna.

Danny October 31, 2012 at 23:27

Can’t see any links from your blog, old boy?

Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 22:43

Williams-Thomas is turning the screw on the police already – as reported by
the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20147834
Seeking to fault the
police for what they did not do five years ago – without mention that he
didn’t do it either this year – and Meirion didn’t do it last year.

Perception Management is everything. I hope the police can use your Blogs
to take some of the pressure off themselves by knowing there is more to this
than has been made apparent to them by the interested parties. I too trust the
police, but they can only do their job if they are given all the
information.

Bon Voyage and rest easy.

Anna
Raccoon October 31, 2012 at 22:54

I’m losing count – are the number of alleged victims now surpassed by the
number of people who could have said something but didn’t?

Paul November 1, 2012 at 08:52

This is the nature of the beast. Because there are so many claims (and
by the time it’s finished the numbers will be astronomical), the idea that
no-one ever saw, heard or was told anything is unlikely.

Therefore it ‘logically’ follows that people must have been told and
ignored it or kept quiet.

Or more accurately that at least 90% of them are making it up for
money.

Interesting article in the news about Savile’s Estate being frozen so
that the fraudsters can claim from it (probably more than half of it will
go to lawyers). Of the £4.3 million only about £600k is actually going to
friends/relatives ; the remainder is held for charity via his trust.

So these people are stealing from charity.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 31, 2012 at 23:52

Mark Williams-Thomas said…

“She [Ms Jones] could have provided important background information
about the girls and Savile.”

Can’t that be taken two ways?

Apart from telling him she had not been spoken to by police, I assume Ms
Jones said nothing else to him or he is saving that for the ITV follow up
programme.

Observor
November 1, 2012 at 07:57

that is an example of a “when did you stop beating your wife”
question.

WM October 31,
2012 at 22:41

Yes, I, too, am sorry to hear about your condition – all the very best with
that.

Please enjoy Paris, both of you.

WM

Den October 31, 2012 at 22:35

Have a great time in Paris. Give my regards to the Orsay.

Engineer October 31, 2012 at 22:32

Anna – you are absolutely right to allow Mr G to whisk you away to Paris,
where I hope both of you savour every moment!

Fred Thrung October 31, 2012 at 22:22

I trust you will both have a lovely time in Paris, Anna – the second
(equal) nicest city in the world. Thank you for this series of posts. Look
forward to your thoughts after you return.

GildasTheMonk
October 31, 2012 at 22:22

In the words of Lord of the Rings – at least the fllm – You have my
sword.
G

JuliaM November
1, 2012 at 11:45

Oo-er!

Joe Public October 31, 2012 at 22:22

Still riveting.

Thank you Anna.

Your readership awaits part 8 …………………..

Chris
Barratt October 31, 2012 at 22:19

Sounds very promising! Hope you have great and therapeutic break away from
being in the centre of this ‘Media Storm’ (well, a media storm with a media
that don’t want to hear what you’ve got to say). Going by Twatter it looks
like Mark Williams-Tosspot (ably assisted by Mr Tubb) will be padding their
second sensational volume of “Exposed” with their analysis of JS’s ‘Desert
Island Discs’ from 1985 and a 1986 Radio 1 documentary about his career – real
fresh ‘cutting edge’ stuff I’m sure. In the meantime, you may force a chuckle
from this spoof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Zow4aEinU&feature=channel&list=UL

Anna
Raccoon October 31, 2012 at 22:42

Prat by name, prat by nature, another allegation bites the dust….http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20156576

Ex-hospital porter Terry Pratt said Savile would arrive at Leeds General
Infirmary in the early hours and take the girls to the nurses’
accommodation.

But Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said it believed Mr Pratt was
“mistaken in his comments”.

Police are investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Savile over many
years.

In a statement, the trust said: “We have investigated his claims today
with other staff who were around at Leeds General Infirmary at the time and
we believe he is mistaken in his comments.

“Mr Pratt appears to have been talking about a period in the 1980s
before he started work at the hospital in 1990 and not from first-hand
knowledge.”

Peter
Principle October 31, 2012 at 23:24

But Anna, they were dressed to the nines, dressed to the nines with
lipstick and everything I tell you !

Observor
November 1, 2012 at 07:55

who was? Mr Pratt ? were these gels being frog marched ?

Bill
Sticker October 31, 2012 at 22:15

I am investing in popcorn futures. Riveting stuff.

Anna
Raccoon October 31, 2012 at 22:28

Sorry about the price you had to pay – I had inside information and got
in early! Forget gold – popcorn is the future.

Bill
Sticker November 1, 2012 at
04:42

You sneaky old Raccoon you, but I am already well stocked with my own
popcorn machine. Will be watching avidly. Best wishes as always.

Wendi October 31, 2012 at 22:09

Again – nicely done Anna! Leave the laptop/iPod/android phone behind, don’t
buy UK newspapers and have a peaceful, relaxing time in Paris. Enjoy!

Anna
Raccoon October 31, 2012 at 22:18

I fully intend to leave them all behind! We only get the papers a day
late here anyway.

Backwoodsman
November 2, 2012 at 08:17

Dear Anna, hope you and Mr. G have a wonderful time this wekend. I’m
sure I speak for all your regulars on that. Stay strong and come back to
us safe and well !

Furor
Teutonicus November 2, 2012 at
17:36

I would like to add my name to that sentimnt, if I may?
)

Go and enjoy yourself lass!

Robb October 31, 2012 at 22:09

Anna — I hope the contents of your conversation, and of Miss Jones’ head,
are recorded somewhere safe. And I hope–as I am sure most do here–that Paris
is lovely.

Paul October 31, 2012 at 22:04

Excellent work. Let us now see what transpires. A good idea to get away in
any case and I urge you to be careful because this is big and who knows what
forces are in play.