The opening sequence of the Panorama film featuring the alleged sexual abuse of children at Duncroft lingered on a huge and imposing set of Victorian iron gates.  Half open, they conjured up an image of a peek inside a forbidden and forbidding world. A world where children were routinely abused in a manner which our intrepid reporters were about to reveal…it was shades of Haute de la Garenne and a dozen Hammer horror films. It was an emotive image.

It has stuck in my mind for no other reason than that, once again, I had no memory of those gates. For once I have no criticism of the film crew, it was a good shot and set the scene for what was to follow. I have no criticism here of the Panorama research team – their idea of attention to detail is not the same as mine, I accept that. Still, I couldn’t get those gates out of my mind. Was it possible that this was another entrance, one I had never seen. We mustn’t forget that Duncroft was then was a locked facility – we weren’t wandering round the grounds, far from it. I went to the trouble of tracking down the builder who converted Duncroft into luxury flats in the 1990s, flats which today sell for in the region of half a million pounds – to residents who must be utterly thrilled with their new found notoriety. He was kind enough to check his records this monring, and sadly, it was 20 years ago, and they no longer are able to confirm where those gates came from.

It is an utterly irrelevant detail to the vast story of Savile’s undoubted predilection for underage girls. But my focus has never been on ‘immature and ageing pop star prefers to have sex with immature and unquestioning girls’ – that is a story as old as the hills and one that will no doubt continue. It is illegal, it is utterly wrong, but the present media fest won’t stop it. No, my focus was always on the question of whether the original story which focussed heavily on Duncroft was wrongly prevented from appearing – or not. Heads have already rolled over the question of why it wasn’t transmitted, millions (our millions!) will now be spent on public inquiries trying to answer that question, and inevitably, many people who appear to be disconnected to the story – those apartment residents for a start – will be made to pay a price for the decision which made Merion Jones throw his toys out of his pram and allege that there was a concerted cover-up of Jimmy Savile’s reputation and that ‘his story’ was rock solid.

The truth of that orignal story matters more than ever, so forgive me as I pick at every stich in it.

I have already demolished Bebe Roberts account of how ‘girls were hiding terrified behind doors’ as Savile rampaged round the building seeking fresh victims….. unfortunately Bebe was 23 by the time Savile visited Duncroft, and had left the school by some 9 years, so her account of being molested by him aged 14 was, er, total nonsense. Does that matter? Surely there are always going to be some who come forward in the wake of such a witch-hunt as this who are going to make false allegations. Yes, it does matter, if for no other reason than that Bebe, poor fool, must now go through the rest of her life having been publicly labelled a liar, having proudly produced her photographs to make sure that all her neighbours recognised her…she is a victim of all this too, though your immediate sympathy may not lie with her. She will go in the same box along with John Gibbon of Redcar who also proudly produced photographs of himself standing in front of Savile’s car and gave a vivid account of how he ‘was lured’ into the back of Savile’s car, and assaulted. He ‘grabbed the door handle and lept out’…I have lost count of how many car dealers have now come forward to complain that the photograph clearly illustrates a 1977 Rolls Royce Corniche which has a padded parcel seat in the back and two front seats which must be folded down to get into and out of the back – and no rear doors to grab a handle of…he’s another one who will be trotted out in defence, to prove that you can never trust allegations of pedophilia. And this helps genuine victims how? The media have a lot to answer for when it comes to helping genuine victims.

What of Karin Ward? I have taken a lot of schtick over the past few days for daring to question any part of her story. Or indeed, that of Bebe’s initially. It seems that if you were a resident of Duncroft who claims to have been abused you must be believed, protected, defended. If you were a resident of Duncroft who was not claiming to be abused – then you can only be ‘muddying the waters’, or ‘have an agenda to prevent the truth being known’ – because such is the power of the media, that ‘everyone knows the truth’. If only. There is only one story in town.

I had some evidence of this before I started, I detailed my initial attempts to talk to some in the media. ‘Commercial suicide’ and Career suicide’ were phrases said to me by two top flight investigative journalists when I attempted to point out where the evidence could be found that would disprove some of what was being put around. They didn’t care to open that box…

Since then, I have been approached by The Times:

I’ve just been reading your posts, Past Lives and Present Misgivings. Very moving and interesting, and naturally enough I’m very intrigued by what will be in the next chapter. . .

It makes me wonder whether I could have a chat with you about the possibility of you writing of your Duncroft experience for the opinion pages of The Times. What do you think?

Mr G is framing that one for me as we speak…needless to say, when they saw from the next chapter that I wasn’t abused by Jimmy Savile – they lost interest. Ditto, Radio 4 who wanted to fly a journalist over to France hot foot before I revealed what happened when Jimmy Savile visited the school, a scoop for them, er, lost interest when they discovered I was not claiming to have been abused! I am not alone getting in this reaction, far from it, for I have finally this morning tracked down, shall we say, an elderly member of staff from those Duncroft years. We chatted for hours on the phone. I am not going to reveal who she is, for very good reason. She is waiting patiently to make a statement to the Police. And that is going to put the cat firmly amongst the pigeons.

She has no interest in speaking to the media, not because she is old, or infirm, or uncooperative – but because the media have already had ample opportunity to speak to her.  The Daily Mail, the Sunday Telegraph, the Independent were among those whose names she remembered from the days when, after some ‘helpful person’ had fed her address to the press, she found herself besieged by so many journalists and camera crews that she was unable to leave her home, nor were her neighbours; finally this elderly woman was forced to vacate her home and stay with friends. Nothing wrong with that you say, it is right that those in a position to throw light on this matter should be rigorously questioned by the media. I would agree – had any of the media been interested in what she had to say. Had even one of them quoted her. But you see, she didn’t make the girl’s story stand up either, in fact what she had to say was in direct – and provable – opposition to some of the claims – and they didn’t want to know! There was only one story in town.

I didn’t think I could still be shocked by the British media. I can. Here was someone who had direct and in many cases, documentary evidence, that the media were chasing a stuffed rabbit rather than a hare, and they just looked the other way. Her testimony will be damning. And damaging.

Damaging because more people will be proven to be liars. Just because they were blinded by the lure of five minutes of fame. They will have to live with that, and it saddens me; already damaged lives will be further damaged. Some will say – ‘serves them right’ – but I don’t hold with that view. I would rather say, it serves all of us right. We have the media we pay for every time we buy a newspaper or pay our television licence. We encouraged them to make a living out of feeding us pap – and they obliged.

The media, quite rightly, consider Jimmy Savile to be their own creation, as was Garry Glitter; now they delight in taking him down. Despite my knowledge of specific allegations being false, I think on balance, that I accept he was a man of many sexual preferences – mostly illegal. There are too many allegations now to think that they can all be without foundation.

Karin Ward undoubtedly met him, as a 14 year old at her children’s home in Norfolk, and possibly again when he visited Duncroft in ’74. She was certainly in a party of heavily supervised children (these were mainly children who had been locked up to prevent them from running away!) from Duncroft which visited  the set of Clunk-Click, not the dressing rooms, not Top of the Pops at all. She was 16 on March 25th 1974. The media persist in saying she was 14 when on Clunk-Click. The first episode which she attended was the one featuring Olivia Newton-John – can anybody tell me the date of that? She was quite possibly one of a small number of children who were allowed in groups of three to take ‘a short trip round the block’ with a member of staff in the vehicle in Savile’s Rolls Royce as a special treat.

It remains entirely possible that she met up with Savile again after leaving Duncroft.

There have been many people working in the background of this story. Somebody forged the letter that Fiona produced saying the investigation into Savile was being dropped due to his age. Somebody, I am alarmed to tell you, set up a Facebook entity in the name of a former member of staff encouraging former residents to tell them their story. How many children – now adult – felt safe communicating with what they thought was a trusted member of staff? It took a high level call to a Director of Facebook before that entity was taken down – it has never been established who set it up. Certainly not that member of staff. The entire Facebook group which had been urging girls to come forward with tales of abuse was taken down just before the broadcast of the story. I am not alone in having received threats for having ‘dissed’ the tale of ‘institutional child abuse over a number of years’. Someone in the background has had a keen and determined interest in building this story.

Why were the Home Office records of girls who had been sent there by the justice system, handed to Barnardos, a private charity? Why were later records, of girls who were sent there under the auspices of the mental health regime, handed to Barnardos, a private charity? Why are they still listed as safely in the possession of the National Archive? Who has seen them?

Savile did spend one night on the premises. He was opening a fete in the area the next day. It can’t have been pleasant for him. He was billeted in a spare room in the newly built staff quarters, not the cosy headmistress’s flat – the other side of the secure unit which had been built by MIND by that time to house girls whose behaviour was considered exceptionally challenging. The corridors leading to and fro that area were permanently locked – not to protect the girls, but to protect the staff sleeping there, and that included Savile who would surely not have got a minutes sleep that night, when you think about it, if all those girls had been able to access him during the night – I must admit, so great were the allegations that he might have had access to the girls that I had never considered his fate had the girls had access to him!

Miss Jones did indeed stay on to 1974ish. The answer should have been obvious to me – I had always believed that she left when it ceased to be an approved school and became a secure unit for girls with far more profound mental health issues. Of course, the nature of the school might have changed overnight with one fell swoop of the bureaucratic pen, but her dedication to her experiment didn’t. There were still girls there in the old part, finishing out their allotted time in her charge as determined by the courts, and so she remained – until the last of her charges had gone their way into the world. Typical.

MIND built her a house in the grounds, Duncroft was no longer the comparatively cosy environment it had been, where she could sleep in a room next to her girls. Her sister did visit her there; she brought her young son, 7/ 8 years old with her.

Little Meirion, getting his first peep – from a distance – of the place that he was to turn into the ‘story that any journalist would want’.

Of such slim pickings is a media storm created.

* I have now amassed a body of documentary evidence. I am not handing it to the media either. It is going straight to the Police, and I remain ready to make a statement as do several other people.

Edward Quentin
Waliser December 8, 2012 at 13:11

May I thank you for your Blog, I have been trolling around the sea and got
lost in the foam of the virulent MSM!

Although your memories do not change the fact that something is going on
with the Savile PSYOPS, your personal experiences eliminate one area wherein
you were esconced years ago and makes one wonder what is really happening?

There are many civilian investigators of paedophilia one comes across and
one I cannot remember dealt with the Isle of Man, and, like most, tie such
back to the Royal Family + people in high places, as do many comments re
Savile infers.

If this is true it’s possible Savile has been thrown to the wolves to get
the legal age reduced in UK to 13 yoa giving such paedophiles some immunity?
Just a thought. This would tie in with comments already made herein with
earlier puberty, perhaps.

However, Savile’s themetune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gPc8JX0k8 leaves me in no
doubt the BBC allowed such obvious perversion to continue when his audience
consisted of under-aged children.

To translate with pretty obvious interpretation:

Edited by Anna: I’ll let my commentators make their own mind up
about that youtube piece thank-you Edward, no need for your translation.

Jerzy Pullova
November 2, 2012 at 00:25

Personally I’m more interested in how Savile became the Caligula of
Broadmoor . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGWglgGG_aE

belinus November
1, 2012 at 12:34

I have just listened to an interview with a New Zealander who claims to be
connected to intelligence, he said that the secret societies compromise
upcoming people in all walks of life to paedophile acts which are then
photographed and or video made.

That it is these compromised people who are then almost immediately
promoted to a position in all walks of life, specifically the Judiciary.
he
said the current Judiciaries of the western world are basically huge
paedophile networks, full of compromised people who will act according to the
dictate of the secret societies.

He says because paedophilia holds the most shame it is therefore the
greatest means to control of our civil systems by the shadow power base, the
secret societies

If this is the case then the only way for the people to get anywere in
removing the shadow networks would be to offer full and complete forgivness
and amnesty for all those trapped in this manner who came forward and spilled
the beans.

Not only that, but if this is the case, then each time we have an episode
like JS exposed, it furthers the grip by the shadow networks over those
compromised, to continues the silence, and more importantly, a continuation of
the implementation of the secret society agenda.

Ho Hum October 31, 2012 at 23:35

Far be it from me to wish to derail the Savile discussuion, but really,
Belinus…. ‘If this country ceases to act within the protection of the
constitution’?

The UK does not have a constitution, in the conventional use of that term,
to be usurped by anyone or anything. Those whotsits in Parliament can do
whatever they like. The only backstop we plebs have at all, and for which we
should be grateful, is the European Court of Human Rights which, in its
upholding of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides us with the
closest thing we have to any fixed rights at all.

I agree that fascism, as truly defined, is a real issue. In short, the most
dangerous ones we have today are probably those to be found being bummed up
in, and by, the Daily Heil and similar parts of the media, for the
insuffereable delectation and diversion of the idiotic masses.

As for the rest, well, taking as an example, ‘History has shown me that the
history of these Isles has been one of the destruction of the White Goddess,
the heaven influenced spirtit that encompassed the matriarchal system, whose
last bastion in Britain was the land of the Brigantes. She would move through
Constantine to Rome and would become the doctrines of the early Church in
Rome. She would come back to these Isles in her true form, not to Iona, but to
Northumberland with Oswald’; I do hope that if you are using any sort of
medication, it is of the legal variety.

Ho Hum October 31, 2012 at 23:38

Sorry about the misplacement. I don’t comment on these things too
often

That was meant to be a response to Belinus @ 22.36

belinus November
1, 2012 at 00:07

So we are agreed, we either choose the British realm or the corporate UK
realm…
Not big on medication but I am partial to what history throws up…I
am of course still learning….
And who knows, I might end up believing, as
I percieve you do, in the fact all mankind up to the the release of
Theosophy, were superstitious idiots, a foundation upon which a great nation
was born, I leave it to you to decide which nation that would be…

Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 20:23

Harking back to the post from someone who wanted to know if the red-head in
the photo with Savile, now removed from the internet, was Fiona. No. Another
girl entirely.

lleweton October 31, 2012 at 17:26

Congratulations on this series. Your integrity and love of truth shine
throughout it. And it has the ring of truth. As a now long retired news agency
journalist I think it is the epitome of what good journalism should be.

belinus October
31, 2012 at 16:56

So what is Teach First?

https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/10/teach-child-corporate-charitable-trust-empire-royal-support-big-return/

Tatty October 31, 2012 at 13:43

Almost speechless. THIS…all 6 posts to date of it…illustrates the honesty,
integrity and hunger for Truth of a Liverpudlian soul.

Please accept from a “plastic scouser” a “Very well done, Our Kid ”

Brandon October 31, 2012 at 11:52

I see one of your former house guests has found a new political stamping
ground:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-19635837

Dr Kapur said immigration from Eastern Europe was a concern in the
constituency. “How I would sort this out is a little bit more complicated but
I would do my best.”

Good that he’s making a fist of explaining his policies to his would-be
constituents then!

Peter Principle
October 31, 2012 at 11:50

Have noticed that a number of media outlets are reporting an interview with
a former nightwatchman at Leeds infirmary who states he recalls a number of
occassions when Savile took “teenage” girls into his private quarters during
the night.This is being presented as evidence of further sexual abuse on young
girls be Savile.
Now I’m no way condoning sexual abuse but what is
noticible by its absence in these reports ( apart from what actually happened
once inside, but lets accept for the sake of argument..) is any evidence that
any of these “teenagers ” were under the age of 16 since “teenager” can apply
to anyone in the 16 to 19 age group and unless they were forced against their
will, and again no evidence is presented that they were, any sexual contact
that took place is perfectly legal.
Again this is sloppy reporting more
akin to a hystetical witchunt than an active search for the truth.

Brandon October 31, 2012 at 13:22

Locate the posts from Twiggster on the thread below, posted shortly after
Savile’s death – don’t get much sense that his activities here involved
consent by the other parties…

http://www.motforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25096

Peter
Principle October 31, 2012 at 14:42

My point is not to excuse Savile but to point out that not every
instance involving him and females would necessarily have involved sexual
abuse. For that to be established in each instance we need evidence. The
story doing the rounds today contains no such evidence yet is being touted
as such.
This is at best sloppy reporting or at worst a deliberate
attempt to muddy the waters by creating a narrative of “trivial” reports
with the result that genuine cases do not get the attention they deserve.
In my opinion it is likely that saviles relationships for want of a better
word comprised of both wanted and unwanted advances. It is the unwanted
ones which merit investigation on the basis that there is actual credible
evidence of this occuring. Failure to do this leads to massive fishing
expiditions which waste valuable investgative time and resources.

Peter
Principle October 31, 2012 at
23:28

Looks like the Media have busted their own story.

Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 14:38

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224750/Jimmy-Savile-banned-BBC-Children-Need-creepy-sort-character.html
Huge
story there. For the BBC it looks like curtains. The Mail has a BBC governor
saying parts of the BBC itself could not be trusted.

Nothing to do with proofs about Savile any longer: that he was “creepy”
is enough to make this this governor feels self-satisfied enough to make him
want the world to know. The story is moving on and the newspapers have their
real quarry at ground now. The BBC has not lifted a finger in its own
defence. Best to give it a bullet and end the suffering.

Nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of the Duncroft
background.

Brandon October 31, 2012 at 11:38

Thinking about how Savile was allowed anywhere near the pupils at Duncroft
by Ms Jones or anyone else for that matter… sometimes smart and intelligent
people make very poor judgement calls… I’ve just been reading your account of
allowing first Kapur and then Withers to stay at your house. Ouch!

belinus October
31, 2012 at 10:31

Teach First is a national charity, independently governed and run.

Patron
HRH The Prince of Wales
Founding Ambassadors
Stephen
O’Brien CBE
Sir George Iacobescu CBE
Ralph Tabberer
Dame Mary
Richardson
Dr. John Dunford
Lord Andrew Adonis
Jo Owen
Rona
Kiley
Prof. Sonia Blandford
John May

Board of Trustees
Dame Julia Cleverdon DCVO CBE, Chair
John Rink,
Deputy Chair
Lord Andrew Adonis
Glenn Earle
Lou McCrimlisk
Mary
Meaney
Vanessa Ogden
Jo Owen
Tom Ravenscroft (‘07
Ambassador)
Sarah Shillingford
Clare Darley
http://www.teachfirst.org.uk/AboutUs/ourpeople.aspx

Ct October 31, 2012 at 10:26

“I was there and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen”

What you mean and it is all anyone can conclusively state is, “I was there
and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen to me!”

Matthew
Smith October 31, 2012 at 10:07

When I first heard this story, one of my first impressions was that the
claim that Savile was untouchable during his lifetime was nonsense. In the
last 20 years of his life he was a has-been (except on the occasions he popped
up doing charity runs or interviewing with Theroux – which is basically the
mark of a weirdo anyway), and during that time quite a number of men,
including innocent men, were jailed for sexually abusing boys (and girls) in
care homes and other institutions, often on very flimsy evidence obtained by
the police by going to former residents and telling them that their former
school or home-mates had made an accusation and did they want to add to it, as
they might be able to get some compo for doing so. Richard Webster and Paul
Woffinden did an exposé of this in the Guardian in 1998. The evidence required
for a historical case of child abuse was much lower than what was needed to
convict a man of a recent rape. If any of this was true, it could easily have
been exposed any time in the past 20 years.

Also, nobody seems to have asked if any of the ex Duncroft girls making
accusations are of current good character. I was at a special school for
“disturbed” boys (Kesgrave Hall in Suffolk — also ostensibly for the
academically able, in this case boys, and not a locked facility — we were
referred by LEAs, not the courts) and while there are those who have gone on
to make something of themselves, it has also produced drunks and criminals. I
wouldn’t readily believe claims made by my old school “mates”, although in
this case I was there and know what did (and most of what didn’t) happen — I
don’t know that about Duncroft or any other school.

Jonathan Mason
October 31, 2012 at 14:36

I have thought this myself (my own experience of working with juveniles
having been in Florida). Although some children survive the juvenile system
and put their poor start in life behind them, it is also true that adult
prisons are full of graduates from the juvenile system. In the case of
Duncroft, serving a population of girls of exceptionally high intelligence
would suggest that there would have been a higher proportion who had gone on
to lead successful or useful lives, it would be very unwise to assume that
all did.

That is why I am not so sure that Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor who
canned the Duncroft feature, might not have had good journalistic reasons to
hold back on that feature, that might have had nothing to do with the Savile
tributes, as he would have had plenty of opportunity to assess the character
and credibility of the women complaining, including, no doubt, recorded
material that was not planned to be broadcast.

Ct October 31, 2012 at 09:18

i don’t understand why the confusion here? From what I have read is the
model of car had only two doors. Allegedly JS showed the young lad the
interior of the car with them both sat on the back seat. It therefore seems
most likely that the front seats would be left in a forward position still as
just showing the interior and not being chauffeured JS would have to let
himself out. If the front seats are forward and the boy was desperate to
escape it makes perfect sense that he would scramble forward to reach for the
front door to try and escape by the only exit. It seems to me you have a bias
to discredit it.

Peter Raite
October 31, 2012 at 12:49

Except his account is conspicuously lacking those details. We hear about
the (alleged) drinks cabinet, electric windows, the seats they were
supposedly actually sitting on etc., but not having to negotiate an exit via
the front doors from the back.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 31, 2012 at 13:29

Ct

The Mirror reported….
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jimmy-savile-almost-100-victims-make-1365264

“The car had smoked glass windows and a privacy screen. He showed me a
compartment with brandy and whisky and crystal glasses. The seats were red
leather. I was gobsmacked to be in a Rolls-Royce with Jimmy. But he stank of
cigars and alcohol.”

Privacy screen? Red leather seats? Stank of alcohol?

The privacy screen was not in use and passers-by could freely look
in?
Do the seats look red or cream in various photos?
It was
reportedly teetotal until 1998 when he began a liking for Whiskey after
buying his Glencoe cottage.

The local papers would most likely have covered the event and could
confirm time and place also Jack Barclay might have details of cars sold to
Jimmy Savile.

Peter Raite
October 31, 2012 at 13:51

Quite. Those details could apply to any number of Rolls Royces, but
clearly not the Corniche, quite apart from the fact that a privacy screen
is usually a sound-proof glass partition between the driver and the
back-seat passengers – it prevents being overheard by the “staff,” not
restrict view from the outside in. Even accounting for the fact that the
front windscreen couldn’t be smoked, anyway, it doesn’t look like the rear
window is, either.

On the other hand, if someone were asked to speculate what sort of
vehicle they would expect a celebrity like JS would have….

Essex October 31, 2012 at 15:23

The simple fact is the oldest that car can be is a 1977 model, I’ll
even mention the fact it could also be a 1979, 1980, 1981 etc.
Any car
expert worth their salt will know just by this photo, it is glaringly
obvious if you know what to look for.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XSUmhsQfF0…2B2-727926.jpg

Also note in the photo JS has a Jim’ll fix it logo on his tracksuit,
which aired between 1975 and 1994 Some might say JS had the car for a few
years, he might well have had it for a few years after 1977

Lets dispel the privacy screen myth and why Mr Redcar man invented it,
everyone walking past that car would have been ogling it, particularly
because of the owner. Also if the imaginary privacy screen miraculously
did exist, how did he reach the front door handle, wouldn’t he have been
trapped in the back? I can’t be bothered to even wonder how this screen
could possibly be attached, perhaps it was a concertina type that appears
out of the floor with super duper fixings on the soft top roof to secure
it.

By way of a comparison this is a video of a 1974 model, this has grids
under the lights. Also has the English dealers name Jack Barclay
name.
After watching please could someone explain where a privacy
screen would fit, because if one can I’ll be a Monkeys Uncle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPgesCbcgOw

Please don’t point me to the English classic car vid from the
Netherlands on utube the guy has clearly cocked up with the date of the
car.

Essex October 31, 2012 at 15:50

Sorry my link went dopey in the first paragraph
this is the
correct link.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XSUmhsQfF08/Tq9AYHXS25I/AAAAAAAANRE/mUYkn1NI8Bg/s1600/Savile%2B2-727926.jpg

Alan
October 31, 2012 at 17:51

The Phab charity logo under the Jim’ll Fix It one would date the
picture to late 1981 at the earliest. Phab Limited was incorporated in
November 1981 and became a registered charity in January 1982. When
Savile got the car is another matter.

Robb
October 31, 2012 at 18:38

Hi Essex — It occurs to me that the best organisation to get an
authoritative statement from may be the Rolls Royce Enthusiasts
Club.

http://www.rrec.org.uk/About_the_Club/Club_Overview.php

“The Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts’ Club (RREC) caters for anyone with an
interest in the motor car products of Rolls-Royce, including Bentley
cars built from 1933 onwards. From just 11 people at the inaugural
meeting in 1957, membership now stands at 10000 and the Club
celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in style in 2007. Membership is
open to owners and non-owners alike and members are drawn from all
walks of life and from most countries of the world.”

Not many Rolls were made–on the scale of things. I bet someone has
a bio of every one! Not least Saville’s since he was famous.
Enthusiasts’ club like to keep track of such things.

Woman
on a Raft November 1, 2012 at
11:03

A great deal depends on whether an RR Corniche convertible with
that ugly solid bumper could have existed in 1972. Something only a
dealer such as Jack Barclay or the Owners Club could settle, I
suppose. Meantime, here is a video of a white 1972 RR convertible
which has the required ugly mug. Either: that bumper could have
existed in 1972, or the cataloguing at the show is mistaken, which is
possible. I’ve no idea which.

http://youtu.be/vV5mGMYxGAY

Mewsical
October 31, 2012 at 19:54

I don’t think Savile drank, did he?

Essex November 1, 2012 at 05:36

I’m replying to you Mewsical because I can’t reply Robb.

This is why I made such a big point about the privacy screen in the
Rolls Royce

This is what Mr Redcar Man stated……
Below

“He was wearing a silky red tracksuit and white trainers. He asked if
I’d like to look inside the car. I said ‘Yes please’ and we got in the
back,” said John.

“I said ‘Why the back?’ He said he wanted to show me the luxuries
inside. The car had smoked glass windows and a privacy screen. He showed
me a compartment with brandy and whisky and crystal glasses. The seats
were red leather. I was gobsmacked to be in a Rolls-Royce with Jimmy.
But he stank of cigars and alcohol.

Then John claims Savile suddenly leaned over, put his hands inside
his tracksuit bottoms and fondled him.

“I just froze. I couldn’t speak,” said John. “When I grabbed the door
handle and jumped out he didn’t say anything. I found my mum in the
restaurant and I felt safe. I saw Savile about 10 minutes later just
walking around the place.

As Rocky Raccoon noticed as well a few posts back about the interior
of the car.

The bloke from Redcars next exclusive, after I was molested by JS in
1972 I was so traumatised I had to go home and play my Sony Playstation
in my time machine.

Alan October 31, 2012 at 23:21

The blue Rolls Royce strikes again!

‘Abused’ child poses next to Jimmy Savile’s Rolls-Royce in
chilling picture released by lawyers as they appeal for information over
attack by late TV star

The same picture of a boy stood near Savile’s blue Rolls Royce Corniche
has been used to illustrate a different complaint of abuse – the original
being the boy getting molested in Portsmouth in the back of the car in
1972 at the age of 9 despite the car very likely not existing until 1977
at the earliest and the new one being the same boy in the picture being,
at the same location but instead of being abused in the vehicle he was
abused by Savile on Southsea common.

Essex November 1, 2012 at 00:33

And the original story posted 06/10/12 No flies on the Daily
Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jimmy-savile-almost-100-victims-make-1365264

Daily Mirror 31/10/12
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-child-abuse-photo-1410124

No flies on the Daily Mirror. Case of the left hand not knowing what
the right hands doing.

Robb
November 1, 2012 at 02:34

Hi Essex — Anna’s original link for Gibbin was to the Northern Echo
10th October 2012.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/redcar/9975016.Redcar_man_says_Jimmy_Savile_abused_him_in_back_of_Rolls_Royce/

It is clear now this is largely a rewrite of the Mirror 6th
October, while getting a couple of facts wrong:

“John Gibbin, of Redcar, also said he reported the matter to the
Metropolitan Police in the 1980s – but officers did not even call him
back. The 49-year-old said he was at a charity track and field event
in Southend, Hants, in 1972, which was being hosted by Savile, when he
was lured into the presenter’s car and assaulted. Cleveland Police
last night confirmed they had received a complaint relating to “a
historic allegation of sexual assault”.

First, ‘Southend, Hants’ which doesn’t exist. Southsea does. Then
it muddles this (from the Mirror):

“After hiding his ordeal for 40 years, John walked into his local
police station in Redcar, Cleveland, on Friday and filed his complaint
against Savile. In 1980 my GP referred me for ­counselling. I told
them I’d been sexually abused. I just didn’t say who by. I’m so glad
this has come out now…“I never thought about going to ­police
because I thought no one would ­believe me.””

Providing the Mirror accurately reported its interview with Gibbin,
and the NE didn’t re-interview him and was given a different story.
Which seems unlikely, given the poverty of provincial papers.

Now as you point out, a new Mirror report with the same pic–but
minus Gibbin’s name (now all lawyered up)–and fewer details. Which by
now, here, have largely been shredded. If not quite definitively yet.
This is the new bottom line, from Gibbin’s lawyer:

“Once we have established those details we can then see whether the
victim has a case which we can pursue against Jimmy Savile’s
estate.”

Money, as ever.

Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 03:14

Yes, Robb. Follow the money, or even the expectation of it.

I seem to recall Savile on the tele years back explaining
(gloating) how he had bought a tanker-full (road tanker) of petrol.
3000 gallons of it. And buried it as a hedge against price
increases. I wonder if he ever got around to tapping it (or taking
some kiddie to sniff it) and is it still underground? Must be worth
a search I would think.

Amfortas November 1, 2012 at 03:15

Maybe Belinus has sniffed it.

Peter
Raite November 1, 2012 at
08:54

Anyone spouting FOTL nonsense must under the influence of
something!

Dai
Brainbocs November 1, 2012 at
07:43

Did GPs refer people who had been abused for counselling in 1980?
My impression is that this is a more recent likely course of action.
Happy to be corrected.

DJ October 31, 2012 at 06:06

PS just want to make clear on re-reading my post, JS if he did what he did,
is just as guilty even if the girls were drawn to him, not trying to defend JS
just saying what he was doing was on a different level altogether than
Rochdale.

Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 09:29

I think the reason the “Rochdale” case didn’t stay on the media is
because it is an open and shut story. It was sub-judice beforehand. After
the verdict, where is the story after case and sentence is reported? I
certainly don’t want to read any more about the vile things those men were
doing. There was a question about the supervision of the girls homes, but
the press hounding the social workers, who are no doubt doing their best,
wouldn’t help much either.

One reason why the Savile story has such legs is that there can be no
sub-judice because there will never be a trial, and as Meirion pointed out,
there can be no libel case. Another reason for the hugeness of it is because
Savile is a dead famous celebrity, in every sense of the words, and the
great British public are celebrity-obsessed.

The issue here is that the damning charges that lie behind the Savile
case, which relate to Duncroft girls, look wobbly. There is relatively
little known about the other 300 lines of inquiry – probably because they
are sub-judice. A couple that have slipped out such as the Redcar story,
seem doubtful. We do know that two men who are alive and have been named by
the press as being in cahoots with Savile are still at liberty, despite both
of them having been *outed* by the same Duncroft-based allegations. This
suggests the evidence is not substantiated, because otherwise they would
presumably now both be on remand. Only one of them has even been taken in
for questioning.

The Telegraph story complaining the police did not interview Miss Jones
in 2007 suggests the papers will shift “blame” from the BBC onto the police
at the slightest opportunity. The police have been kicked from pillar to
post in the UK over the last few years. I think there is a clear danger that
they will want to offer Jimmy’s head on a plate to appease the mob. What
good are more lies to the victims of genuine child abuse?

Anna
Raccoon October 31, 2012 at
09:47

Very astute of you Moor!

ivan October 31, 2012 at 10:36

Moor, the hounding of the social workers and their bosses is
essential, or do you blindly accept the official line that ‘lessons will
be learned’? Lessons have NOT been learned in the past so why
should they be now?

Until there is a massive shake up of the SS in this country there will
be the continuation of the things we are seeing today.

belinus October 31, 2012 at 10:57

It is not social services in a mess it is the charitable trusts
acting as outsource providers, see MIND 1974 and the entrance of JS to
Duncroft, the very empire now being pushed as the saviour of SS.

They have almost completed this agenda in education under the
Academies.

Moor Larkin October 31, 2012 at 10:58

@Ivan

I accept nothing and question everything. I am no believer in the
Nanny State and I despair of people’s unwillingness to look after their
own children properly, not to mention their aged parents.

I don’t believe the “State” will ever look after children (or anyone
else) properly, but am very convinced that individuals, like Miss Jones
could do so, and did do so, and now even that fact is being trashed in
the stampede to convict a dead celebrity and absolve everyone from their
own individual responsibilities in this matter by creating a mythical
“Paedo-Monster”.

Sorry I have no universal solution to agree with you, but you, and
the world have my very best wishes.

ivan
October 31, 2012 at 12:52

Moor
I was born before the ‘STATE’, as it is today, came
into being and constantly wonder exactly what said ‘state’ is trying
to do or become. I can only assume this lot have never read history or
have convinced themselves that they are better or more prepared than
all the other ‘states’ that have vanished in the mists of time.

The only real solution is to remove the ‘state’ from peoples lives
and control over anything.

dj October 31, 2012 at 21:39

It’s not just SS, it’s the police (one of which was a user of a 14y/o
girl), the whole stinking system. SS characterised these girls as
“prostitutes” – basically exactly the same way the abusers thought of
them. We hear all this “we need a root and branch review of the BBC,
celebrity etc” following the JS affair, but no “mega-review” of SS and
the police following Rochdale. The sentances these guys got were
pathetic, expecially considering these crimes were racially motivated (I
can’t see a distinction personally, the the law says if anything is
racially motivated it’s something like double the sentance – no expert –
happy to be corrected) Some got 3 years, out on tag in 18 months for
sexually abusing a 13 year old girl who has been bullied by violence
into being a prostitute. The media, gave a couple of days focus on this,
and now have moved swiftly on to obsessive coverage of JS.

The people who gave us the utter shithole which now is the United
Kingdom have seen their multiculti policies fail, and are desparate to
keep repeating the lie while protecting illiterate savaged targeting our
forgotten, uncared for youth, itself a product of exactly the same
people, who also have removed child rearing to be a state activity and
encouraging irresponsible parenting at every turn.

I am convinced, as are you Ivan, that this is yet another media
manipulation.

Peter
Raite November 1, 2012 at 08:33

Anyone using the term “multiculti” certainly makes their true
motivations clear….

dj November 1, 2012 at 17:31

That’s right, I am yet another right wing extremist.

sigh.

DJ October 31, 2012 at 06:02

Does anyone remember Chris Morris’ “Brass Eye – Paedogeddon” episode from
2001? A record number of complaints, all by those who have no perception of
satire or irony.

Now, it’s even more relevant even 11 years on.

My view, first and foremost on this issue, is that this is being “promoted”
to cover over the Rochdale scandal – let’s not forget, that is an issue which
might affect anyone with a young impressionable daughter today – whereas Jimmy
Saville cannot abuse from the grave.

This will be a wee bit controversial, but surely a pop star, adored by his
legions of fans, would have had many teenage girls who wouldn’t have objected
to his interest? This is in stark contrast to the poor care home girls in
Rochdale, who were pimped to have sex with hundreds of men, and receiving
beatings for non compliance, and was covered up by the authorities. That,
should have been the focus for the previous 4 weeks, not this non-story

ivan October 31, 2012 at 10:28

DJ, you are saying exactly what I have been saying.

I have sent comments to that effect to the Mail on the various stories
they have run – most of them are stories without facts – and every time I
have been censored – nothing that disputes the official cover up is ever
printed.

dj October 31, 2012 at 21:24

Wow, you seem to be finding the nerve. Keep waggling the knife around,
censorship in itself can tell the greatest story…..

Observor October 31, 2012 at 02:03

And the role of the media in all this from the 1960s onwards ?

In true form (and one reason why I am glad to be out of the sordid business
of British tabloids) Britiain’s tabloid media (including TV) has written
itself out of the story and avoided mention of it’s own complicity in
promoting a culture of wink wink, grope grope, type of sauciness and that
includes actively promoting Jimmy Savile (and I have no idea if he was guilty
or not) which encouraged the very activities that Savile is accused of.

At the very least they turned a blind eye and this is confirmed by an
ex-Sun editor who proclaims he knew all about Savile but could never expose
him because he was powerful and rich.
That doesn’t explain then why The Sun
and that same editor and all other tabloids promoted Savile’s charity runs and
fundraising and so on.

Elena ‘andcart
October 31, 2012 at 00:43

Am I the only person who is seriously upset by this all? And way beyond any
thing that Jimmy Savile might or might not have done. Families that allowed
their underage daughters to wander the streets late at night and to put
themselves at risk. And have we thought that the dissolution began last week,
or even last year? Are we a society who has just locked up a man for thinking
that some silly girl who went willingly, is entirely to blame? Are we the
society who gives birth control injections to thirteen year old children and
then blames some man for taking what is willingly given? Are we the society
that wants to decimate a dead man because he appears to have groped a few
silly girls who wanted to be groped? Only 300? Oh My. he certainly missed out
there. Thousands of them were throwing themselves at him. And if all they can
come up with is 300 then this might be a measure of his restraint, and the
pathetically small number of the bums he groped.

Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 01:00

I’ve been seriously upset since I first found out what game was afoot. I
am more than seriously upset at the role that liars are playing in this, who
attended the same school I did. So is Anna, and so are at least three other
Duncroft women from the 60s. You probably noticed that.

Besides Jimmy and his perhaps willing partners, the picture is much
broader though. When should the real age of consent occur? Spain has it at
13. Some states in the US allow marriages of 14 year olds. I am ancient
enough to remember Jerry Lee Lewis being asked to leave England because he
had just married his 14 year old cousin, completely legally under the laws
governing the state of Louisiana.

Elena
‘andcart October 31, 2012 at 01:36

I don’t think that the age of consent matters all that much. If The
State is pumping birth control injections into girls of thirteen then that
is the age of consent. Argue me that one. I could make minced meat out of
anyone who said otherwise. “Xcuse me, Your Honour, this child has been
given birth control by The State. What did The State think she was going
to do with that when it wasn’t at home? Or was it just for a laugh in
passing?
So, these same girls were either getting the same advice
thirty years ago, or Mr. Savile somehow failed to impregnate any of them.
Very strange that he doesn’t seem to have loads of illegitimate
children.
Lies? I don’t know, Love. I only ever wanted Proof.

Jonathan
Mason October 31, 2012 at 02:45

Of course the age of consent is relevant, because that is what the
law states, and girls of less than 16 are not deemed legally capable of
giving consent.

Yes, it is certainly known that delinquent girls have been prescribed
the pill when underage for their own protection ever since the pill was
first available, and now it is Depot Provera injections that are more
commonly used. This makes sense when it is known that the girls are
prostituting for money or drugs, for example, and that they are out of
control, but that does not mean that any man who has sex with them is
exempt from legal liability for HIS actions, and when the man is a great
deal older, he tends to be held more responsible. Suppose the man passes
on HIV or some other venereal disease–is he less liable to be charged
with rape just because the girl is on birth control pills? Absolutely
not.

Elena
‘andcart October 31, 2012 at
03:18

And what might you say about a girl that looks to be at least
sixteen? It is the age of consent that is wrong. And No, I do not
approve, simply because I believe that it is harmful in the long term.
But her Mother should be telling her that. And I’ll tell you what, old
and cynical as I am, I would not blame any man for taking what is
thrown at him. It is the nature of The Human Race. What the hell do
you think Sex is all about? Sex doesn’t have principle. It’s there to
procreate, and it doesn’t much care about how it does it.

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 08:38

I agree. As does this writer and another sensible Beeb identity Joan
Bakewell who makes the point that attempting to explain why things
happened in a previous era is almost impossible. ie : the 60s thru to
80s.
which doesn’t forgive people but also people should not be
condemned for accepting the morals of the time.
I doubt Savile was
the most intelligent person either. Clever maybe and cunning.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q-u8Q_av6C0J:www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Alan October 31, 2012 at 10:31

Elena ‘andcart said: “Very strange that he doesn’t seem to have loads
of illegitimate children.”

Perhaps all the cycling rendered him infertile.

Robb October 30, 2012 at 22:59

A note on Liz MacKean on Panorama:
“We’d spoken to people who
collectively deserved to be heard–and they weren’t heard. And I thought that
was a failure….I felt we had a responsibility towards them. We’d got them to
talk, but above all we did believe them. So then for their stories no to be
heard–yes, I felt very bad about that. I felt that I had let them down.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20031733

Unnoticed in this is the admission that, apparently, some of the accounts
of abuse Newsnight heard had never been reported to police. This led to
criticism that the BBC had not passed them on. Which begs several questions.
Why didn’t Liz? For a start.

Many more once you start poking into the ‘responsibility’ of reporters to
their subjects or sources.

MacKean appears to be a decent reporter. But this is self-serving. Really,
she wanted to get the–her–story out. As reporters do. If concern for those
people to be ‘heard’ was paramount, there were many ways to do this–police,
newspapers, internet, etc. Even ITV…

Turns out it wasn’t. Paramount. Just another story–except it was a really
big one that got away.

Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 00:54

Precisely. When you hear of a crime being committed, you generally
respond by notifying the authorities, unless of course this action might
queer your pitch.

Anthony October 31, 2012 at 00:58

But Savile was then dead? As far as she knew the report was going to be
broadcast, and other victims could then come forward. Since he was dead it
wouldn’t necessarily have occured to her that there would be an
involvement from the police, as there now is.

Mewsical
October 31, 2012 at 01:07

I assume that the BBC employs a full complement of lawyers, who would
have been endlessly consulted as to the legal appropriateness of this
proposed action.

Chris Barratt October 31, 2012 at 09:29

“Panorama”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Zow4aEinU&feature=channel&list=UL

Brandon October 30, 2012 at 19:05

Hi Anna

I’ve said before elsewhere what an admirer I am of your blog, and your
recent six-part biographical epic. And I sympathise that you have found
yourself on the end of so much abuse for providing a thought-provoking account
that, in places, goes against the current ‘perceived wisdom’. You write,
eloquently, and with conviction.

However, a couple of things do jar. I’ll mention them if I may. First,
there is a sense that in your need – which I find understandable – to
represent Duncroft as you knew it, and to defend Ms Jones – clearly an
important figure in your development – against what you regard as misleading
accounts, you are perhaps resistant to acknowledging that the institution of
the mid-sixties was a different beast from that of the mid-seventies. I went
to a London school in the eighties which was at that time held up as a paragon
of the inner-city comprehensive; a decade earlier it was regarded as so
dangerous that security guards were employed to patrol its corridors. A decade
is a long time in the life of many institutions.

The second thing which I find slightly concerning is the vehemence with
which you have set about Meirion Jones. You seem to be attributing to him
petty, parochial and vindictive motives in his pursuit of this story, without
that much evidence. I get the impression that you don’t know him, so am
second-guessing that your views of him may be second-hand ones influenced by
his aunt, who, perhaps feels betrayed by his decision to make her former place
of work a central motif in his documentary. This is just speculation on my
part, of course. But I can’t help feeling that this particular focus of your
enquiry is not serving the bigger arguments that you have made in the way that
they deserve.

Just a few musings.

Cheers,

Brandon

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 19:34

Brandon,

Timing is everything!

What first drove me into print on this matter, something I was deeply
unwilling to do, was Bebe Robert’s account in the Daily Mail, coupled with
comments left on Friends reunited to the effect that Miss Jones had presided
over systematic abuse for many years – from 1965 (the Bebe Roberts account)
to 1974 from as yet (then) unnamed interviewees.

From which you may correctly deduce that if Bebe Roberts hadn’t jumped on
the bandwagon with a nonsensical account of things which couldn’t have
happened, I would still be lurking in the undergrowth, following the story
with interest but not exposing myself to the opprobrium I have done for
speaking out.

I was not trying to defend Miss Jones reputation, merely incensed that
the Daily Mail should be printing such garbage.

When that continued into Fiona’s account of the ‘forged letter’ I was
already ‘in for a penny’. That then continued into Karin Ward’s rather
jumbled juxtapositioning of events which may have happened to her, or other
people, over a period of time, during some of which she may have been at
Duncroft. That is as politely as I can put it.

Following which, ‘mewsical’ who I haven’t heard from in 20 years, and
several other girls that I have never communicated with before, came forward
and agreed, first and foremost, that Bebe was totally incorrect and then
offering information filling in some of the gaps.

From a position of a week later, all those events are being viewed as
one, that is now being construed as a concerted effort to defend Miss Jones’
reputation, and a joint – what was the word used? Rota? to ‘muddy the
waters’.

My views of Meirion are not even marginally influenced by his aunt, I
have never in my life discussed him with her.

They are influenced by looking at a journalist who doesn’t even bother to
contact his aunt to tell her that he is about to ‘position’ her centre stage
in an attempt to prove institutional child abuse – merely sends an assistant
to doorstop her the night before transmission, and who doesn’t reveal to the
world at large, merely one editor on a rival programme, that it is indeed
his aunt that he is exposing in this manner. I find that despicable and will
keep saying so loud and clear.

That when he is stopped from transmitting a programme that relies on so
many incorrect facts and uncorroborated allegations, he throws his toys out
of the pram to the extent that he has, then I find him totally, utterly, and
irredeemably despicable.

Any of my regular readers will tell you that they are as gobsmacked as I,
at my finding myself in the position of inadvertently defending the BBC – an
institution I have railed against for years. Had they transmitted this
uncorroborated tale – I should have been the first into print the next
morning complaining about it – had I never heard of Duncroft before in my
life.

My personal connection with the school merely put me in a position to
argue with some of the allegations in that original Daily Mail article.

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 01:33

Again real participants who were at the centre of the ‘action’ are
being questioned- which is how it should be.
But some will have
differing views, some will tell the truth and some will lie.

Those who lie generally can be caught out in a trial as lying under
oath and in the full glare of a court is the most difficult thing of
all.
To date I have heard the lurid tales and it’s all anecdotal but Ms
Raccoon sounds like she is prepared to back up her view of the truth with
hard evidence such as dates , ages and so.

As a Fleet Street survivor I can assure you that tabloid tales pervert
, promote and exagerate a narrative to fit a sensational headline.

That is evident in today’s Daily Mail whcih proclaims in bold type
:
Two more celebrities ‘to be named soon’ as Savile sex abuse
detectives widen their net

Celebrities among names given to mediator Mark
Williams-Thomas
Alleged victims have not yet spoken to police
Gary
Glitter questioned over the weekend in connection with
investigation
More arrests expected as police warn accomplices ‘we’re
coming for you’

These all imply guilt before even questioning let alone trial. Any
famous person now even spoken to will have their career dashed for
ever.
These are disgraceful headlines that should never be
permitted.

Jonathan
Mason October 31, 2012 at 02:58

“As a Fleet Street survivor I can assure you that tabloid tales
pervert , promote and exagerate a narrative to fit a sensational
headline.”

My own experience of working at newspapers, where I had some limited
opportunities to write or change headlines, was in the USA, but for what
it is worth, it was always a case of writing the story first and
composing a headline at the last moment, never the other way around,
because the exact wording of headlines always depended on the space
available on the page, which tended to depend on the photos used, the
size of font used, and so on.

Certainly the journalist who wrote the story would provide a working
headline, but that rarely matched what was published.

It might have been different in the days before newspaper pages were
laid out on computer screens–I don’t know.

Robb October 30, 2012 at 21:16

Hi Brandon– I too an admirer of Anna’s blog. And I too criticised her
attack on Meirion Jones. The ferocity seemed unmatched by the evidence she
provided. Indeed that blog was mostly speculation. Most unlike her. Her
reply to you–on Meirion–I find no more convincing.

Anna’s original complaint, if I remember rightly, was that Ward was
vulnerable and that Meirion exploited her. Without knowing the details of
what went on between them–which are not established so far–I am not so sure.
To put it at its bluntest: a journalist has an obligation to make fine
judgements about person’s mental state before reporting their freely offered
story?

That asks too much. In some exceptional circumstances, maybe. I cannot
see they have been established here. Not least because Ward had been
blogging about this stuff for some time and was about to publish a book.

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 21:25

Meirion Jones found the blog and book excerpts on line, like everyone
else. Because he had a personal connection to Duncroft, like Anna, myself
and other women here, in his position as a respected investigative
reporter, he obviously was intrigued and presumably met Karin Ward and
Mark Williams-Thomas, etc. Where I lose some respect for Meirion is that
he knew Duncroft was his aunt’s school and that he had been there himself.
Armed with that, I believe he had to conduct a fair investigation which,
to my way of thinking, should have included a telephone call to his aunt
at the very least, asking for her opinion on Karin’s book/blog posts, and
to let her know he felt he had an obligation to pursue the allegations
made by Karin. Instead, it appears that he then went actively seeking
other women who were prepared to join in with the allegations. Miss Jones
didn’t know about any of this until it hit the papers. Hence, here comes
the bus and under it goes Miss Jones, without so much as a honk of the
horn.

Robb October 30, 2012 at 22:29

Hi Mewsical — “Meirion Jones found the blog and book excerpts on
line, like everyone else.” Is that attested to, or supposition? If it IS
known, I apologise. Difficult to keep up with every detail. But for the
rest:

“presumably met Karin Ward and Mark Williams-Thomas, etc… I
believe…to my way of thinking…it appears”

Supposition and value judgements (which you are entitled to make).
But, as yet, we don’t actually KNOW. Hence my criticism of Anna’s post
about him. Seemed unevidenced and premature.

Take Mark Williams-Thomas: what was his role? On Newsnight, later on
ITV? It is far from clear. On Panorama (now vanished from the iPlayer)
Liz MacKean described him as an expert who had helped. Can’t recall the
exact words. There seemed to be no implication he had led the
investigation, rather advised. As an expert. Seems like he then ran off
with what he had learned to ITV.

I know! “Seemed, seems.”

As with Meirion Jones, we can have our suspicions, but we don’t know.
Whether MW-T will be captured within the BBC investigation net remains
to be seen. He is not a BBC employee, after all, and the investigation
has no subpoena powers…

Mewsical
October 31, 2012 at 00:48

Hi Robb – I read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be
true, right??
However, it could be that he was trawling sites like Friends Reunited
and perhaps Careleavers Reunited as well. My point is that he came
upon it by innocent means – I do want to give him the benefit of the
doubt here, though he may not be entitled to it. But, I’m sure he was
very intrigued, and as a good journalist, he pursued his lead. I’m
also going to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he, like many
BBC staffers, had heard these rumors for years about JS. Now, fate
delivers JS into Meirion’s hands, courtesy of his aunt’s former
pupils. What to do, what to do? No brainer. Gather some accusers, and
get this out to the public of course. Oh bugger, can’t do that, it’s
the Beeb, and I work here. Hm. Let alone Newsnight is tanking in the
ratings, unlike the mighty Panorama.

Now, Mark. Mark was consulting on the Newsnight segment only, he’s
never concealed that. He is a person experienced in the field of child
exploitation, and was instrumental in bringing Jonathan King to
justice. You can google him. He continues to be involved in the Maddie
kidnapping investigation. When I found out, via alerts from the
Duncroft alumni, that this situation was occurring, I was, like
Meirion, very intrigued. So, I figured out who Mark WT was and called
him, while he was still working on the Newsnight piece. We had a long
amiable chat, I expressed my doubts, he acknowledged I was entitled to
them. His interest is much broader than just what happened at Duncroft
– that was his fulcrum.

So, this Newsnight to ITV to Panorama and back to ITV for Mark’s
follow up is just a brilliant parlay, imo, but doesn’t consider who is
getting mashed up in the wheels of ambition (Meirion) and a continued
crusade (MWT).

I’ve stayed involved ever since, have met the 70s accusers at least
on line – not Kari as far as I know until very recently, and have also
met Bebe Roberts on line. I am very disappointed in Bebe, and I don’t
know why she made this decision. She must have known that at least
three of us from that time period would immediately challenge her,
which we did. And then Anna La Raton Laveur (that Francais for
Raccoon, btw) got wind of it, which Bebe did NOT count on. Then
another plot was uncovered regarding a false identity, and the thing
keeps unraveling.

Kari recently posted to a now-disabled FB site that she was afraid
that Savile had followed her to Duncroft, after she met him at her
Norfolk school. She claims she was holidaying in Jersey and they
visited Haute de la Garenne to socialize with the children and there
he was again.

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 01:50

Trust me, I was a policeman : The role of Mark Williams-Thomas,
self proclaimed expert is troublesome and I note today he claims he is
a sort of go-between with alleged victims and the police- a most
unsatisfactory state of affairs and one that should never be permitted
if true.
The profit angle must be removed from child protection
services and that includes exploiting genuine cases for tabloid &
TV audiences.

Rocky Raccoon
(not related) October 31, 2012 at
02:45

Mark Williams Thomas issued a statement on the 1 October outlining
how the ITV programme came about.

http://flpbd.it/Lo2sO

http://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/252678248725626880

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 01:45

I think it’s most important a real journalist take into account the
emotional and mental state of a source and question their
motives.
However British tabloids are a law unto themselves in these
matters and decide the rules-basically that there are none as long as the
product is flogged.

Robb October 31, 2012 at 14:11

Hi Mewsical, Observor & (not related) — Thanks for all the
interesting info and helpful links.

Robb October 30, 2012 at 18:14

Anna – Re John Gibbon of Redcar: “I have lost count of how many car dealers
have now come forward to complain that the photograph clearly illustrates a
1977 Rolls Royce Corniche.”

You didn’t link to one, so naturally I looked. Here is the best I can
manage: http://www.british-car-auctions.co.uk/Classic-Cars/Previous-results-holding-page/Blackbushe—Tuesday-2nd-Octob/Rolls-Royce-Corniche-convertib/

“This Corniche was originally supplied to Sir Jimmy Savile OBE in 1977 for
the use of his mother, ‘The Duchess’. However, the car was too large for her
to drive personally and was soon returned to Jack Barkley of London.
Subsequently, it was delivered to its second owner and was kept in the family
for the next 29 years. Year of Manufacture: 1977″

It indeed looks identical to the one in the John Gibbon photo. (Lots of
pics of Savile and Rolls via Google. Just not this blue one. Unsurprising,
perhaps, if he bought it for his Mum.)

Apologies if others have noted this before.

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 18:44

Jimmy’s other car looks more full of potential, but so far seems
unascribed, although the Mirror seems to be conflating it with a
“caravan”.
Mention of two Duncroft girls, Charlotte and Jill, in this
piece also.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jimmy-savile-the-caravan-where-tv-star-1364931

Robb October 30, 2012 at 19:12

Hi Moor

Thanks for the link. The point of this Rolls, of course, is that Gibbon
claimed to have been abused in it in 1972. Savile didn’t get it until
1977–so Gibbon must be mistaken (about when his pic was taken, at least).
About other matters too, possibly.

Alan October 30, 2012 at 19:34

“This Corniche was originally supplied to Sir Jimmy Savile OBE in 1977
for the use of his mother, ”

That’s weird. Agnes Savile died in 1972.(Or 1973 according to some Jim’ll obituaries.)

Sam West October 30, 2012 at 20:10

Robb ………. the Duchess (his Mum) died in 1972!

Robb October 30, 2012 at 20:53

Hi Alan/Sam West

Thanks! Here is the thing. Gibbon claims to have been abused by Savile
in 1972 in this blue Rolls (with pic). Anna claims ‘car dealers’ say this
model Corniche is 1977+ vintage. So I look through Rolls Corniche pics,
starting with WikiP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Corniche

Frankly they all look the same to me. So, on to Google Savile’s Rolls.
None look like the Gibbon pic. Except the blue one I linked to above! Did
my best.

Perhaps Anna can clarify who said knowledgeable ‘car dealers’ are. A
small detail, but the basis of her questioning Gibbon’ account. So
important.

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
20:55

No idea who the car dealers are, there are various accounts all using
usernames, so no way of knowing who they are, other than that they all
claim to be car dealers.

Peter Raite
October 30, 2012 at 21:22

Regardless of the year, the issue is surely that Gibbons claimed to
have been assaulted in the back, describing it in a way that
fundamentally conflicts with the fact that the Corniche was only ever a
two-door car?

Robb
October 30, 2012 at 21:53

Peter — Not entirely. The question is: is this confabulation or a 9
year-old’s confused, possibly traumatised, recollection 40 years
later? Anna, without much evidence, plumps for the former.

Gibbon accompanied his story with a pic of him standing in front of
a blue Rolls SJ 247: “ABUSE ALLEGATION: John Gibbin, of Redcar, in
front of Savile’s Rolls-Royce at the age of nine”

“The 49-year-old said he was at a charity track and field event in
Southend, Hants, [in aid of Stoke Mandeville Hospital] in 1972, which
was being hosted by Savile, when he was lured into the presenter’s car
and assaulted…he reported the matter to the Metropolitan Police in the
1980s – but officers did not even call him back.”

There are checkable facts here. Was there such an event in 1972?
Was Savile present? In a blue Rolls? SJ 247–what car did that number
belong to then? (It is seen on other Savile cars later.) Was this car
purchased for Savile’s mother–if not in 1977, earlier? Returned to
‘Jack Barkley of London’ as my earlier link suggested? If so, when?
Etc.

The importance of these questions in establishing the truth is that
they are, in principle, answerable by documents or witnesses who have
no stake in the outcome. Which is not true of those making accusations
of abuse.

Woman
on a Raft October 30, 2012 at
22:38

http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/lifestyle/entertainment/sir-jim-s-goods-are-up-for-grabs-1-4464592

Illustrated by a photo captioned “30th October 1972 Jimmy Savile
with his Rolls Royce at Appleyards”. The registration is JS 954 rather
than JS 247 in the Gibbin photo.

He may have owned the registration JS 954 since the 1950s as he was
photographed with it for Cycling News. (scroll down to bottom
photo).
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/530678/sir-jimmy-savile-1926-2011.html

Presumably he just moved the registrations around.

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 21:42

This photo is labelled 30th October 1972…
http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/lifestyle/entertainment/sir-jim-s-goods-are-up-for-grabs-1-4464592

This is the Redcar car ……
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9975016.Redcar_man_says_Jimmy_Savile_abused_him_in_back_of_Rolls_Royce/

Jimmy had more than one car and more than one number in use possibly.
The geeky stuff about the Redcar car is that if you look closely you can
tell it is a soft-top convertible. Car geeks say these are two-door only
and the redcar story has the boy opening the rear door to “escape”.
Presumably they can also tell the year. This is a close-up of the Redcar
car:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XSUmhsQfF08/Tq9AYHXS25I/AAAAAAAANRE/mUYkn1NI8Bg/s1600/Savile%2B2-727926.jpg
You
can see the *soft-top* front edge clearly.

Anyhow, on the subject of cars, I was reading that the Duncroft girls
were claimimng to have had “rides” round the neighbourhood in Jimmy’s
car, but also that he had a caravan in the grounds…. an unusual towing
combintin, but no doubt technically possible. Also the Mirrot has tried
to make out the “caravan” was actually Jimmy’s Range Rover with
fold-down seats in the back.

Presumably Miss Jones will have some memory of this veritable fleet
of vehicles arriving, all driven by one man.

Alan
October 31, 2012 at 11:44

Savile had a succession of convertible Rollers. Relying on
Wikipedia, the blue one with the ugly bumper is a Corniche 2 and
cannot be older than 1977. The white one in the link Woman on a raft
provided is a Corniche 1 which was made from 1971 to 1977. Before that
Savile had a white Rolls Royce Silver Shadow drop head coupe, a
forerunner to the Corniche and also a two door convertible. And before
that I think he had a Silver Cloud drop head coupe that was likewise a
2-door convertible. After the Silver Cloud left Savile’s ownership
that particular car was repainted and used in the film Blowup so he
didn’t own it by 1966.

The Range Rover Carawagon was made for Savile in 1978. In articles
about it it is described as having spent much of it’s time parked at
Stoke Mandeville for Savile to sleep in when raising money for
charity. Savile reportedly had a room at that hospital so why would he
need the Range Rover? Likewise for Duncroft why would he take a
caravan, motorhome or that Range Rover there to use if he was supposed
to have a room available to him?(Leaving aside the possibility of the
Carawagon being a product Savile was endorsing but didn’t actually
require, or that he did use to begin with and was later allowed to
stay in the buildings.)

Ellen
Coulson October 31, 2012 at
15:26

She remembers the caravan being parked on the drive on one
occasion. I will clarify whether it was the school drive or the drive
to her house next time I speak to her.

Ellen
Coulson October 31, 2012 at
15:59

Have just spoken to Margaret Jones. Caravan or whichever car he was
driving would be parked outside front door of school by his driver. He
usually had a driver with him.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) October 31, 2012 at
20:46

There are newspaper reports of a long time associate of Jimmy
Savile having been a driver for Savile, but he denies the claim.

Looks like the Mirror and a firm of solicitors are having doubts
about the car incident? The name has been dropped and solicitor is
trying to contact the organisers of the event.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-child-abuse-photo-1410124

PS. Are Fiona and the other person from the 60′s or 70′s era?

Elena ‘andcart
October 30, 2012 at 17:32

@ Ivan. Whey Hey, us of the voice of reason are being surreptitiously
censored, since I doubt that The Mail will admit to this. But printing half of
my comment is an admittance in itself. Very stupid if you ask me. Why print
half a comment? They might have done better to ignore me altogether, yet
again.
I have never in all of my life said anything even remotely
actionable, but I might start to in a minute. Perhaps we all need to suggest
that we are being gagged. Free Speach, and all that crap. Sadly, the hoi poloi
don’t seem to be able to spell the one thing they most crave, in the process
of decimating all and sundry without a scrap of proof. Pfft to Free Speech if
that is what it amounts to.

WM October 30,
2012 at 17:05

Savile: Police failed to interview headmistress of abuse school
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9643084/Savile-Police-failed-to-interview-headmistress-of-abuse-school.html

Thoughts please?

WM

Elena ‘andcart
October 30, 2012 at 17:42

Erm, Stupid? Gross Negligence? Don’t want to kill a good story? Heaven
forbid that anyone would ask for proof.
Sorry, I refuse to label what was
probably a relatively harmless Groper as a Paedophile, if he was even a
Groper. I still haven’t seen any proof that he was.

babel6 October 30, 2012 at 19:05

Maybe here?

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

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 21:36

The school was not under the control of the Home Office, thank you. It
was under the control of MIND and the NAMH. If the police didn’t interview
Miss (not Mrs.) Jones at the time of the first complaint in 2007 – or was it
2006, or did Fiona forge a letter and then give it to the Mail – that could
likely be that there might not have been a complaint at all. That forged
letter was a smoking gun. It also makes no sense that they wouldn’t have
spoken with her. A lot of this makes no sense, and generally speaking, when
something makes no sense, it usually isn’t true.

Anthony October 31, 2012 at 00:28

The existence of this supposed forged letter hasn’t been proven by
anybody, the Mail didn’t show it, why not?

Mewsical
October 31, 2012 at 01:03

Good question, and I will be sure to ask them.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) October 31, 2012 at
11:16

Is ‘Fiona’ of the forged letter fame, the same person that was in a
photo which used to be on Friends Re-United of a ginger haired girl
cuddling Jimmy Savile while they stood in front of a bronze coloured
Rolls Royce?

I’ve been told by a third party that a Jaya Narain in Manchester
interviewed Bebe Roberts for The Mail.

Ellen Coulson
October 31, 2012 at 15:22

and frankly why did they wait until 2007 to make a complaint about
something that had happened 33 years before? Couldn’t perchance
Fiona/Smelling fell out with Theo and started to make trouble!

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 31, 2012 at
20:49

Are Fiona & the other person from the 60′s or 70′s era ?

Miss T October 30, 2012 at 17:05

Memory is a very unreliable thing. It’s a bit like the Chinese whisper
game. Each time it is re-examined it is altered in some way. An abuse victim
is likely to re-examine it many thousands of times over the course of many
years so inaccuracies of accounts are not always proof that things didn’t
happen, details are lost and details are skewed. that can implicated the
innocent and also exonerate the guilty. It’s all to easy to pick out one
inaccuracy in a huge wide story and claim the entire story must therefore be
false. I am not making judgements either way, I wasn’t there, i don’t know
those involved. I will say one thing though, when hundreds of people are
making claims even if 99 out of a 100 were false, it only takes one to be
guilty of a crime. I find it very hard to believe all the hundred of people
are ALL wrong.

Ellen Coulson
October 30, 2012 at 16:05

Meirion, by the way, continued to visit Duncroft when he was at university
which is presumably when the photograph of him with Savile at a garden party
held at Duncroft, a copy or the original of which MJ has, was taken.

belinus October
30, 2012 at 13:43

no lizaeds here…

Engineer October 30, 2012 at 13:14

It would seem that this story is attracting the conspiracy theorists
already. Let’s have a look at what we know. We know that many accusations of
improper conduct have been made against Savile (and others) regarding events
that may have occurred during the 1960s and later. We know from the testimony
of many people that the atmosphere surrounding the pop music and entertainment
industry (including the broadcasting of it) was one that tolerated, indeed
rather encouraged, drugs, sexual wildness and generally louche behaviour. We
know that Dunscroft has been linked to Savile by some in the media, and we
know from Anna’s researches that there is significant doubt over some of the
claims made about Savile and Dunscroft. Beyond that, we don’t know very much,
though there is the usual swirl of speculation and gossip that surrounds any
scandal.

Some have suggested that this is Murdoch’s revenge. No doubt he is looking
at all this with a wry smile; he’s a seasoned campaigner, and he knows full
well that what goes around, very often comes around. It shows some of his
tormentors in a rather poor light. However, how is he supposed to have
engineered all this? There is not one shred of evidence that suggests the
involvement of Murdoch, News Corporation or any other ‘driving force’.

There are some suggesting that this is a plot to break up the BBC. I’m sure
there are some who would be delighted to see the BBC’s demise, but it’s hard
to see how this would cause it. There are many of us who feel that the BBC has
become an overlarge organisation with too narrow an outlook, and well overdue
a good shake-up. Maybe this will give the BBC cause to look carefully at the
way it goes about it’s business, particularly in the way it manages it’s
programming aimed at younger people. However, it’s a bit too soon for that; we
don’t actually know the extent of wrongdoing, and who did wrong, yet.

So come on people; let’s keep an open mind, and keep our feet on the
ground. Better to establish the facts, and act on those, not on
speculation.

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 13:25

True, but it is worth bearing in mind that the authorities, police and
MSM are already peddling a conspiracy theory regarding paedophile “rings”,
institutional staff acting as enablers and procurers for said “rings” and so
on, and promoting any claim, however ludicrous, without any scepticism or
reserve whatsoever, and Savile has already been posthumously condemned as
“Britains worst sex predator ever” and a rabid damnatio memoriae is in
progress. The MSM in collusion (is that too conspiratorial a term?) with the
Child Abuse Industry moved instantly to a state of certainty regarding this
“paedo ring conspiracy” and are clearly intensely reluctant to consider any
paradigm of a more moderate type.We don’t know very much, but at least we’re
trying to find out, which is more than they seem to be trying to do.

Take one smidge of data; it took me five minutes twiddling the filters in
Photoshop to read Savile’s tracksuit slogan and link it to 1976, not 1971.
I’m busy working and I had time to do that. None of our intrepid
“investigative” reporters seem to have bothered. Nobody wants any contrary
data. That may not be a conspiracy, but it leaves one with little confidence
that they’re making any effort to get the story right.

We must avoid conspiracy theories, but it must be remembered that we are
already discussing a conspiracy theory; one which, terrifyingly, is commonly
believed by those who rule us and dominate the discourse in our society.

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
13:43

I sympathise Ianb. I have watched the hysteria growing by the hour with
mounting horror. Any attempt to distinguish fact from fiction is viewed as
having ‘an agenda’- and a deeply unpleasant one. It is as though a
collective madness has overtaken the entire population – has anybody
checked the bread?

Elena
‘andcart October 30, 2012 at
14:50

Interesting, but possibly not all that relevant. I have left all of a
dozen Comments on Daily Mail Articles questioning The Witch Hunt, but
only one has been printed, minus half of my comment. And then only after
I pointed out their obvious reluctance to print dissent. That was the
bit they removed.
This from a long term subscriber who more often
than not is in The Top Ten Best Rated on other subjects. Yes, I do check
to see if I have been Red Arrowed and where I have been rated. I think
it is related to Ego, or possibly lack of.

ivan
October 30, 2012 at 16:49

Elena, you are half a comment up on me then – I haven’t had any of
my 14 printed. Maybe I should try once more and mention their not
wanting dissent.

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) October 30, 2012 at
17:20

The tabloid press are probably hoping their own cover ups go
un-noticed.

Has anyone been in contact with the reporter of the Bebe Roberts
piece in The Mail to ask if they checked with others who were at
Duncroft in the mid 60′s?

Bill
Sticker October 30, 2012 at
17:22

I too wonder at the increasing quick tempered judgmentalism on
display. Perhaps it’s something to do with the perceived lack of
personal space in Britain? Whenever I’m back in the UK, I’m often prone
to thinking; “How do they live in anything that small?” Always
glad to get home to BC.

As for the Bread. Has anyone tried the dancing cure?

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 18:32

I have fired off a couple of emails to Claire Ellicot – she
responded to one, hotly denying she had ever tried to contact anyone
on Voy. I then sent her the links to Past Lives, and not surprisingly
she has not responded again. I’m speaking with another reporter from
the Sunday Mail at the moment, and trust me they are not at all
thrilled with things like forged letters, women from the 60s lying
like rugs, etc. This may all unravel even yet.

Rocky Raccoon
(not related) October 30, 2012 at
23:27

Bit odd for Ms Ellicott to deny she was on Voy touting for
buisness, as she left her email address & phone number.

Span
Ows October 30, 2012 at 18:04

Anna, you may be right: you’ll be ‘pleased’ to hear that ergot is
making a comeback! That and many other mycotoxins are rife this
year.

E. R. Got
October 30, 2012 at 18:51

Madness! Madness, I say!

S C
Lerotium October 30, 2012 at
18:59

There may be a grain of truth in what you say.

I. P.
Loughthefield October 30, 2012 at
19:31

Ergot? What ergot?

Ann
Scatter October 30, 2012 at
19:36

Span Ows is right, ergot was rife this year.

Mike
O’Toxin October 30, 2012 at
19:43

I’ve ‘ad more comebacks than Shirley Bassey, me…

Anna Raccoon October 30, 2012 at 20:07

Excellent cook, was Shirley.

J Tull
October 30, 2012 at 20:15

Well, don’t blame me.

E I Addio
October 30, 2012 at 21:47

Single agricultural worker (late 40s) seeks significant other with
view to marriage. Looks unimportant. GSOH appreciated. Replies to PO
Box 47
(That’s enough, Ed)

Peter Raite
October 30, 2012 at 14:16

Sadly, Ian, the propensity of parts of the press not to ask the right
questions – or rather not even knowing where to ask them – is nothing new.
Anna has mentioned the Rolls Royce detail blatently obvious to enthusiasts
in that field, and we are similarly seeing numerous examples where a
knowledge of vintage TV instantly challenges that which the press is happy
to accept without question. In many respects, it seems that the original
“problem” with the Newsnight story is that it didn’t bear close
examination ina way that particularly the print media isn’t interested in
being forensic abot the stories people are telling them.

Smoking Hot October 30, 2012 at 17:50

All Savile’s RR’s were bought at one place without exception and the
old one always put in as part exchange. None had fold down seats to
become a bed. As for the allegation by Gibson … Savile is supposed to
have done this in full view of all the people staring into his
car???

l await the police charging someone with wasting po;ice time. Shall l
hold my breath?

belinus October 30, 2012 at 14:20

Is it possible you misunderstand the concept of the term conspiracy, as
it is clear you equate it as a dirty word?

Or perhaps you could offer your take on the reality that every criminal
case ruling , every political decision, ever, is the conclusion after the
investigating of a ‘conspiracy’ to do wrong against that which it
defends.

Forgive me but your tone is one most associated with an agenda to
divert, to confuse, to detract… those who will be reading this
blog.
Harper and his whole team, which was huge, appeared to me to be
the real thing, unless we the taxpayer have been paying inept detectives
for years?
Of course if you have evidence outside of those high level
Masons who took over the case and quashed it…I would be very happy to
recieve it.
thanks in advance

Simon October 30, 2012 at 11:27

Great piece of investigation. I believe you know Barrister Felicity Gerry
who is an expert of crimes with a sexual eliment. Perhaps you can ask Felicity
Gerry to give an opinion? That would be very interesting for your readers.

belinus October
30, 2012 at 10:59

I am also want to believe that the reason they shifted Miss Jones into a
posh home in the grounds would be to free up the school for their new script
called charitable trust social services. And who wants to come in and rescue
social services…. royal charitable trusts…

And let us not forget that Military Intelligence Marconi (the BBC) is the
corporate crown, as Fox and all private media through GEC are also of the same
crown, therefore in order to demolish the BBC they would have to conspire
scandal.

I see a right royal greasy hand in all this madness with them losing
nothing if they get Teach First in social services, outside constitutional law
of course…

Engineer October 30, 2012 at 12:38

So the Royal family are in league with Murdoch, and have caused all this?
Forgive me while I fall about laughing…..

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
13:04

Mind the lizards don’t get you whilst you’re laughing Engineer –
devious little buggers they are.

Engineer
October 30, 2012 at 13:18

Don’t worry for me! I’m hiding behind the sofa with my tinfoil hat
and clove of garlic. They won’t get me!

belinus October 30, 2012 at 13:50

Perhaps a study of the Alpha Lodges would help curb the laughter
somewhat.
then perhaps, a shufty at the Order of the Garter.
Then
look at the patrons of the RSA from which cometh Teach First…
I do not
deal in speculation unless I state the fact.
David Icke as far as I am
concerned is the biggest shill out there, he pushes nothing but
gnosticism.

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 01:21

To the contrary, Rupert Murdoch has openly expressed contempt for the
British Establishment and it’s institutions like the Royal Family. It
dates back to his father being a war correspondent at Gallipolli and the
actions of what he said were incompetent British generals given their
commissions by virtue of class.

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 19:33

They built a house for the headmistress, not for Miss Jones personally. I
wouldn’t be surprised if Sister Consolata lived there when she headed the
school for Barnardo’s. The quarters that Miss Jones had prior to that were
very small and cramped and I believe she had to share it with another staff
member. The staff didn’t have a lot of privacy, and were mixed in among the
girls’ dormitories. Duncroft expanded with other buildings as well – an
education building and Norman Lodge, which was the hostel for girls who were
working and paid rent there.

belinus October
30, 2012 at 10:42

by the way I do believe the DS thread is now closed…

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:52

It’s moved to part 4.

belinus October 30, 2012 at 19:22

Ooo thanks, not savy with the DS could you be so kind as to present the
link to part 4

Trenchfoot
October 30, 2012 at 23:21

I’m sure Jzee can help you.

belinus October
30, 2012 at 10:40

I believe, at this stage, it is fair to assume, the media is moving up its
own backside in its thrust to lower the age of the girls.

15 year old girls are experimenting, either with boys a year or two older,
with the odd one going all out for a boy five or six years older, we all
remember this from our school days.

The girls in question had an extra bonus during their times of
experimentation in that they had access to stars, and yes from the girls
perspective they would believe it was they who were the lucky ones.

I have been active in the music industry for over 30 years, and one prime
reality when it comes to all musicians who gain success early on, is the fact
they remain like children.

Put the two together, experimenting 15 year olds, and child like
celebrities and this is what you get.

Unless I am missing something… the whole sorry saga appears to be around 15
and 16 year old girls with the press determined to lower the ages in collusion
with certain girls from Duncroft.

This is why I believe Anna’s information is of prime interest.

And let us not pretend for a second that sugar and spice and all things
nice = a female.

It would appear intelligent girls are rebuffing the stories of not so
intelligent girls, which unless a serious account of wrongdoing at Duncroft
before MIND took over, has to be an important point on which this story is
perceived.

Feminist’s can shout all day that males are bad, but it has always been the
prerogative for girly to change her mind, especially is there is an offer of
cash and a little limelight.

First rule in spiritual existence…know your own part played in your entire
life for only then will you become profound in how you live .

Your thoughts….

Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 10:51

I agree with Belinus about the psychological profile of ‘celebrities’ and
young girls, sparse as the profiles go. I would go a step or two further and
point to the childISHness rather than childlike qualities of many of the
‘performers’ and ‘celebrities’ over the past half-century. The ‘Jimmy
Savile’ character – for performance character it is – is well suited to the
Vicar of Dibly character.

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:50

It does not matter if Karin Ward was 16 at one point she travelled to
Clunk Click, in fact we have a date of February, 1974 as the first likely
visit, when she was 15, the point is Savile was targetting girls in a closed
institution and admitted to being their “term time boyfriend”.

Thor2Hammer October 30, 2012 at 10:29

BBC website – “The Road to Hypervigilance” – Mentions ‘Duncroft’ &c –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20093812
\\The Jimmy
Savile case has highlighted how much the culture of child protection has
changed in the last 40 years. But what was behind the
transformation?\\
(DID Mr S have ‘regular unsupervised contact’ which would
have come within the requirements for current ‘Criminal Records Bureau’
checks?)

Thor2Hammer
October 30, 2012 at 11:59

“By the way” – At the relevant dates – was there any ‘evidence’ which
would have caused the CRB to mark his card – even by CURRENT standards?

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 09:35

This may or may not be relevant, and may or may not have been addressed.
But in the photo of Jimmy said to be at Haut La Garenne, which The Sun Says
was in 1971, he’s wearing a tracksuit with the phrase “Love Is An Uphill
Thing” written on it, the name of the book he had published in… 1976.

Elena ‘andcart
October 30, 2012 at 10:56

That’s a good find, I think.

Alan October 30, 2012 at 13:16

Well spotted. His t-shirt says something like ‘superspine’ as well.
Something to do with Stoke Mandeville I expect.

The Daily Mail believed that photo to have been taken in the
late 1960s.

The building nearest the people has been said to resemble a building at
Haut de la Garenne – the one with a pale blue roof here I guess.

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 13:30

Hmm… it’s interesting to note from that article as well that Lenny
Harper, he who headed up the Garrenne investigation that declared a piece
of coconut to be “human remains” and was given the boot for total bungling
(and running up mega expenses in the process) is now a credible expert.
Hey ho.

belinus October 30, 2012 at 14:03

Selective in your beliefs there, Harper would refute that stance
still today, as would the police dog specialising in human
remains.
What are you protecting sir?

Ian B
October 30, 2012 at 14:28

Ah, but the scientists who analysed the coconut would say it was a
coconut, and that is what matters.

Anthony
October 30, 2012 at 17:46

Actually the coconut was probably a piece of wood, but was initially
said to be possibly bone by an archeologist on the site. Regarding the
photo, we know Savile had been visiting the channel islands since at
least 1969, his mother was at some point in the Catholic care home of
Little Sisters of the Poor:

“[Channel Islands] An International Year of the Child ceramic plaque
for Jersey, 15cm diameter; a shield wall plaque for Jersey Battle of
Flowers, 1969; a copper heart shaped plaque, inscribed ‘Jimmy Savile
O.B.E.’, blue velvet mounted with a plaque inscribed ‘To Jimmy With
Heartfelt Thanks For Invaluable Assistance 1969-1979 In Raising Funds
For The Ever Grateful Children Of Guernsey “LUV”, Ladies of Variety,
Tent 55′, 33cm square overall; a stainless steel tray, engraved ‘To
Jimmy Savile O.B.E With thanks for a great walk Easter Monday, 1976 From
Aquila Youth Centre Jersey’, 37cm long; and a printed flier for battle
of Flowers Centenary Special ‘An Evening with Jimmy Savile’”

http://www.dnfa.com/search.asp?view=lotno&auction=13560&lotno=449

Peter Raite
October 30, 2012 at 13:49

The Mail not helping itself there by using an internet-sourced
version of the photograph, with a badly-Photoshopped “sign” with the name
of a TV programme that didn’t start until 1975….

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 08:31

Agreed : the sign is an obvious photoshop job that doesn’t prove
anything. Sadly Lenny Harper making his claim about Savile now can’t be
taken seriously.

Span
Ows October 30, 2012 at 18:01

Ian B, I am not sure that is relevant at all…unless he was in the habit
of wearing clothes with his book titles on them. Far more likely that the
words on his shirt are what he named his book after!

Elena
‘andcart October 30, 2012 at 19:00

Now there’s a good one. I am just about to write a Block Buster of what
will happen to me next year, should I be so lucky. Hopefully it will be a
bit more interesting than what happened to me this year, or even last
year.
Awfully sorry, but by my lites this man is innocent until proven
guilty, and that ain’t ever going to happen. Jimmy Savile will never be
proven guilty.
The Media has gone mad yet again, and is proving yet
again that it needs to be monitored, especially if the best it can do is
to accuse a dead man. Where were they all when “Everyone knew” what Jimmy
Savile was doing?
But never mind me and the forty million pounds he
raised by a large amount of physical effort. Just trash it all on hearsay.
Shut down the Charitable Institutions that accepted money raised by him.
Give it all to the dogs who quite likely better deserve it. For it is
certain sure that no Human Charity is going to benefit from what is going
on at the moment. Who in their right mind would want the huge amount of
money that he raised? So, they are all going to say, “No, thank you, we
don’t want it?” And “Yucky, yucky, what an horrible man?” I don’t think
so, somehow. BUT who will be the first to accept this 40 Million? Or will
it all go to a bunch of silly girls whose parents should have known
better?

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 06:13

So here’s the thing. The MSM are ignoring this. How do we make them pay
attention?

It’s no good if this stays as a best-kept secret of the blogosphere. As
noted by others, the “narrative” is already moving on from the initial
Duncroft claims and if they aren’t debunked now, they never will be. The
Activist machinery works to ensure that their voice is heard (and dominant).
How do we do the same? It’s no good us all just sitting here talking about
it.

Tweeting editors? Emails? What should we do?

Amfortas October 30, 2012 at 04:01

This whole blog series, Anna, has focused on Savile’s alleged crimes – and
rightly – whilest seeking objectivity and balance in the best traditions of
‘Truth-seeking’. And it has exposed coteries of conspiring liars who seem to
have had a life-long non-aquaintance with truth at all. But the emphasis has
been on the entertainment and news media with little illumination of the wider
impact on our society of the complete breakdown of moral standards.

Here is an example:

“”A mother-of-three who drank enough to ‘knock out a bull elephant’ faces
jail after molesting two schoolboys at a friend’s 50th birthday
party.
Amanda Wheeler, 31, kissed and groped a 12-year-old boy on a bench,
rubbed her breasts against teenagers she was dancing with at the party and
performed sex acts on two boys in a bedroom.
Worcester Crown Court heard
the part-time cleaner had been drinking vodka, beer and wine throughout the
evening.””
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223566/Mother-gave-schoolboy-lap-dance-molested-teenagers.html

I have pointed earlier to the epidemic of false accusations that has
gripped our society over the past thirty years of so, and others have pointed
to the mass-hysterical social services fiascos which are driven by the same
destruction of ‘standards’. Peadophilia, sexual abuse, molestation are STILL
reported as being a ‘male’ problem when in fact, as so many page 16, lower
paragraph reports after the local dog-show show, it is widespread and not
gender specific.

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 00:02

A very significant member of the staff is being interviewed today. I am
personally very glad this particular individual has agreed to speak out.

Mewsical October 30, 2012 at 18:51

It’s now going to be tomorrow.

Dave October 29, 2012 at 23:43

I’m with Delphius on this.
Who stands to gain from the BBC being
discredited in this way?

Stand firm Anna!

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 00:33

I’ve no doubt Messrs Dacre & Murdoch are rubbing their hands at this,
but it has no bearing on whether abuses actually occurred at the BBC or
not.

Londonexplorer October 30, 2012 at 04:25

What you say is true but it is the BBC constantly being kept in the
frame, not just by the print media but also by their own reporters. There
seems to be little mention of Savile’s career in commercial radio or the
various ITV companies. I think Dave & Delphius have good reason to
question who stands to gain from the BBC being discredited from from all
of this.

BTW anna thanks for beavering (or racooning!) away on this..

As a trusted campaign colleague once said to me, “Knowledge is
power”

Noise October 30, 2012 at 12:41

Funnily enough when I first heard all this kick off, I was partially
thinking “who is the intended target?”.

It seems that BBC and liberal types took a huge attack on News
Internation.

News International is enjoying being able to freely attack them in
return.

I am slightly concerned that there is almost too much information in this
thread, that someone within the BBC may be issuing a defence by proxy top
murky the waters.

Most evidence points towards the main televised victims being complete
fruitloops though. I’d probably reach the same conclusion mind, the court of
public opinion is perhaps the best evidence that democracy BY the people is
destined for failure.

Smoking Hot October 29, 2012 at 23:21

As far as the media is concerned Duncroft is old news. lt’s served it’s
purpose and the media have moved on to the next stage along with the help of
the police. We’ll see more celebrities and names arrested … and then released
but probably bailed. Their lives will be in ruins by that time as the mud will
stick. It really is like we’ve gone back to Medieval times. Evidence or facts
are no longer of any importance it would seem.

l wouldn’t hold your breath Anna to be asked to make a statement and that
goes for the others you are in contact with. l hope l’m wrong but l fear l’m
not. lt may well indeed fall on your shoulders for these others to be heard.
Alas by doing so, you will incur the wrath of many. l’ve had a taste of this
by simply linking to your Duncroft posts.

l admire your courage to continue to bring forth ‘the truth’ … it’s not an
easy path to tread and certainly not for the faint hearted. l wish you
well.

Observor October 30, 2012 at 07:14

No I have different view. The chances are IF anyone else is arrested
(Glitter seems to be a crowd pleaser of no importance) they will undoubtedly
be very rich with expert legal advice and Ms Raccoon’s investigations could
feature heavily in defense. Or at least open the way for a forensic grilling
of claimants that may backfire on them badly.

Amfortas
October 30, 2012 at 08:54

Rule of Thumb (equivalent to Rule 303): Never speak to a policeman
unless it is to get them working for you. The police will say, at some
point, “what you do say will be taken down and may be used against you”.
They NEVER say, it will be used FOR you.

Dai
Brainbocs October 30, 2012 at
09:08

Does the formal caution not now say “… may be used in evidence”?

Amfortas
October 30, 2012 at 09:31

As with Rule 303 it only works one way.

Tony October 30, 2012 at 14:06

Seems to me Ms Raccoon Aka Suzzane Nundy Aka Suzzane may have some
questions to answer herself about telling the Truth

Read ” Anna Raccoon – taken at face value?

Posted on April 16, 2011 by ianpj

There has in the last few days been the most despicable and revolting
blog post that I have read in a long time.

I am ashamed, not for who I am or what I believe in, but for the
disgusting display of pack animals on the basis of unsubstantiated
allegations by Susanne Nundy (Anna Raccoon), especially from those who claim
to be libertarian.

I am disappointed to the point of being disgusted. Disgusted that so very
few indicated that every story has two sides, and that not one single person
said the words ‘prove it’, or ‘where is the evidence’, and it says more
about the hive mentality of the audience than the delusions of the
writer.

Earlier I referred to her access to private and confidential
documentation, because in each case she seems to have obtained or at least
had sight of private or confidential documentation that is certainly not in
the public domain, and in the case of Hollie Greg documentation that was
sealed, not even available to the family. Just how does Susanne Nundy gain
access to such confidential documentation unless she still works for
government, or it is being fed to her.

I would call this a set-up simply because Susanne Nundy has a history.
Wherever there is a story of abuse by officials, especially when it relates
to children or paedophilia, up pops a swathe of names including Anna
Raccoon, Susanne Nundy or under her maiden name Susanne Cameron-Blackie ,
all ready to ‘assist’, yet strangely the outcome is never the one that those
originally abused, or their campaigners envisaged. More often than not they
are ripped apart, labelled as nutters and thrown to the pack in the manner
we saw with her post about Andrew Withers yesterday. Its almost as if she is
a professional Trojan Horse.

As others have said “let’s face it, there’s no more cruel a kick than the
kick of a Trojan Horse”.

Susanne Nundy is just as baffling a proposition. For those unfamiliar
with the story, Susanne Nundy is the name used by British Libertarian
blogger, Anna Raccoon, more popularly known for her posts about the
Madeleine McCann and Hollie Greig stories and a favourite of the Nbrado-run,
Chaos Raptors website

Nundy and Greg Watkins are alleged to have co-managed a disinformation
campaign around the Hollie Greig case by an equally dubious set of Greig
supporters (the kind that give Andrew Marr all the amunition he needs to
make sweeping generalisations)

Why did ‘Susanne Nundy’ use the email address
courtofprotection.co.uk?

Read more at PJC Journal http://parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/04/16/anna-raccoon-taken-at-face-value/

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
14:33

I wondered how long it would be before someone posted that piece of
shit on here.

Right, all the information posted regarding Hollie Greig – supposedly
confidential – was freely obtainable on the Internet, in my original post
on the Hollie Greig hoax, I linked to each and every bit of it. Nonsense
to say it was not obtainable. See link to original piece here.

‘Especially when it relates to children or paedophilia’ – Hollie Greig
is the only such story I have torn apart. It annoyed a Hell of a lot of
people, especially those collecting money for their campaign!

Susanne Nundy used the courtofprotection.co.uk e-mail address for the
‘far too simple for you’ reason that she worked there – hence her long
standing interest in Court of Protection matters. In common with many
women, I have been married more than once!

Ian Parker Joseph has run a long campaign of disinformation against me
– obsessively so, but you should know that he founded the Libertarian
Party. I published a long post showing the various ways in which
money was being fraudulently extracted from members, including myself, of
that party – with the end result that after many months of wrangling, the
party virtually imploded. I imagine he is rather sore, quite apart from
being a well known conspiracy theorist!

Please note that I could have just deleted your attempt to smear me –
but I shan’t. I would much prefer that people know why these things have
been written about me on the Internet in an attempt to shut me up – and
just what they are based on. Please do your research.

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 14:48

This might be a good place to add in a smidge of conspiracy
linky-linky Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon nudge nudge Area 51-ery.

Karin Ward’s therapist is the same therapist who investigated the
Hollie Greig thing on behalf of the Scottish waddayamacallit government
or whoever. I’d give the name, but since I read the first few free pages
of Keri the other day, with the thanks to said therapist, then googled
the name, the Amazon “look inside” thing has stopped working beyond the
front cover, so I can’t.

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
14:55

Whaaaaaat!

Ian B
October 30, 2012 at 15:07

Well Anna, if you’ve got a Kindle and £1.60, take a peek… I haven’t
got either :’(

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 15:09

The link is still available from my location. I have copy/pasted
the prologue’s opening paragraph

“This book is dedicated, firstly, to Dr. Carolyn McQueen. This
extraordinarily gifted and empathic psychologist picked me up when I
was entirely broken — and painstakingly put me back together in order
that I could function in some semblance of normality. In fact, if not
for her, this book would never have been written at all. “

Woman
on a Raft October 30, 2012 at
16:02

Double ID check required. Might be two separate people. This one
isn’t a doctor. Or maybe not.

The consultant psychologist Ms Carolyn McQueen employed to write a
report on Hollie for Shropshire County Council stated that Hollie’s
claims of sexual abuse were unsubstantiated.
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1944/vast-sums-of-money-to-write-reports-on-clients

Woman
on a Raft October 30, 2012 at
16:16

I think this is the right Carolyn McQueen, listed as Dr with the
BPS.

http://www.bps.org.uk/bpslegacy/dcp?frmAction=showUser&Mem_MemberKey=50746

Ian B
October 30, 2012 at 16:28

WOAR, I’m confused. Are they different people? Are there two
different Carolyn McQueens who are psychologists dealing in child
abuse?

Also, I wasn’t suggesting that McQueen (if the same one or not) is
part of the Greig bandwagon. I was myself a few days ago just
interested in how Ward got noticed, and the psychologist- if
sufficiently involved in the Abuse bureaucracy to be writing reports-
might have been the conduit.

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 17:05

Meirion’s story is that he just found Karin’s story on the
internet, via that fantasy site. If he was googling “Duncroft” it
wouldn’t have been difficult to spot it, and then the JS acronym in
her writings. She is a very impressive writer – clearly Duncroft was
still a place for intelligent girls, even in the 1970s.

Span
Ows October 30, 2012 at
17:54

I doubt there are many consultant psychologists that are not
doctors.

Woman
on a Raft October 30, 2012 at
18:11

@IanB – just checking because the precise job description and title
matters in the field of psychology. Some of the descriptors are
legally protected, some of them mean ‘lady did evening class’. I was
puzzled by the inconsistency in the title. That can mean sloppy typing
by someone, or it can mean two people or, sometimes, it means a person
whose qualifications mysteriously change.

In this case it is one person who is sometimes doesn’t use their
title but who is a reliable accredited therapist. It’s likely that she
was approached in that capacity. The fact that she’s now in bad odour
with the Hollie G campaign suggest that she’s not easily co-opted in
to a circus.

Ian B
October 31, 2012 at 03:28

Moor-

Meirion’s story is that he just found Karin’s story on the
internet, via that fantasy site

This is the bloke who forgot to mention his aunt worked there and
he’d been a personal visitor, yes?

I’m a bit confused about the timeline. As I understand it, Anna
reports that a group of Duncroftians were liasing on a message board
and offline, apparently synchronising memories or what have you. When
was this occurring? Before Merion Jones randomly found Karin Ward’s
writings on the internets? Or after?

If before, doesn’t that imply some premediated desire to do
something with their shared abuse stories?

Like I said, getting a bit lost as to what happened when here. My
cynicism was aroused by the MSM uniformly portraying Ward as having
reluctantly been drawn from the shadows and bravely waving her
anonymity, only to discover that she had been already writing books of
Survivor memories, and the second was due out to coincide (apparently)
with the documentary broadcast, and she’d tweeted about “expecting
lawsuits”.

So my speculation was whether she came to the attention of the
abuse investigator policeman bloke and the MSM via a therapist with
abuse bureaucracy connections. I must add here that having been
following this stuff for years, since my youthful Dawkinsian proactive
atheism drew me to an interest in the SRA panic. I have a deep
cynicism towards abuse therapists who tend to be part of a general
pattern of teaching their patients to believe anything that comes into
their head as true memories and so on.

Ian B
October 31, 2012 at 08:38

http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk/?q=system/files/Exposure%20-%20The%20Other%20Side%20of%20Jimmy%20Savile.pdf

According to Mark Williams-Thomas, the Duncroft Girls got in touch
with him independently of the Newsnight investigation.

GildasTheMonk
October 30, 2012 at 21:48

Well, having met the urbane, witty and kind hearted (though not to be
messed with – I apologise about the incident with the tennis ball and the
wolf hound, Anna, and also “Smuddgate”!) and having a mere 30 years of
experience of dealing with both the good (rarely) and the utterly
sociopathic (often) because of my job, I can happily tell you that Anna is
one of the beacons of honesty and probity in this world – and blessed with
a meticulous forensic mind.
I am forced to encounter and consider
people (I use the word in its loosest sense) like you quite often. It is
always a depressing and disagreeable experience, and always ends the same
way. Given enough time and resources, you will leave the room railing
against the result. It is almost piteable. Almost, because it is necessary
that in a free and open society, you and the filth like you are subject to
sanction.
You are quite probably, no almost certainly,suffering from
acute paranoia and delusional psychosis. Please get some form of therapy.
Simple medication will probably not be sufficient. You may wish to ask
your GP to help you be “sectioned”, and leave the rest of the world get on
its way for a while. I rate your chances of recovery as poor to low, but
at least you won’t pollute my atmosphere for a while, or, more
importantly, insult a good and kind person who tells the truth, even at
her own risk of being attacked by what I understand are called
“trolls”.
Like you.
Go back to the darkness that awaits
you.
G
Anna, you may wish to moderate this reponse!

Saul October 30, 2012 at 22:38

It’s not like you to sit on the fence Gildas, say what you mean.

(ermm, care to expand on “Smuddgate?”

Elena
‘andcart October 30, 2012 at
22:57

Oh gosh, can I second that without fear of censure? But who cares
anyway. Most of us know where we are at. But I have to say that I worry
about my own disintegration in the realms of The English Language. Where
I am at? God help me.

Observor October 31, 2012 at 01:18

there is also the problem that under English law you are not generally
invited to speak to the police, rather arrested and then questioned.
The
arrest gives the impression of guilt.

Paul October 31, 2012 at 02:24

@ Observor

Not necesarily as true these days, even when an offence is suspected.
In some cases you are invited to go along to speak to them, even using
your own transportation to get you there! I’m told that every arrest has
now to be attended by about 43 separate pieces of paper which the Police
have to complete. So in some cases you are invited to attend to discuss
things. The implication (or indication) is that you will however be
arrested if you decline that invitation.

Elena
‘andcart October 31, 2012 at
02:55

Just keep your mouth shut when you get there. 99% of people implicate
themselves. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are guilty. The
Police will do you given half a chance. Sorry about that, but it happens
to be true. Which is why the more stupid get done. And those with a good
Brief often don’t.
They knew that they never had a hope in hells
chance of catching Jimmy Savile, especially as they never had any
Evidence. That’s the thing you see. No Evidence.

Jonathan Mason
October 29, 2012 at 22:25

Anna, is not quite clear what you are saying. Are you saying that your
phone conversation with the former employee provided all the information about
Savile only having stayed the night one time, a short ride in the car, one
visit to his TV show, and not to Top of the Pops, and so on?

If so you are rather confirming my suspicions in earlier posts that the
version of Duncroft portrayed by Karin Ward, which seemed to me ludicrously
lax in terms of the level of supervision provided, is not really an accurate
one and the quotation below could not be true.

“In fact, on the SEVERAL OCCASIONS when he chose to take me out, he often
tried to press me to ‘go further’ than simply fondling him and allowing him to
grope inside my knickers and at my almost non-existent breasts.  He
promised me all manner of good things if I would give him oral sex. In fact,
when he vowed one day, that if I gave him oral sex, I and a few other girls
could come to BBC Television Centre and be on his television show, I
agreed.  Fortunately, due to the lithium I was taking, I have very little
recollection of that event, although I do remember gagging violently and JS
reaching across to fling the passenger door open and urge me to vomit ‘outside
the car’.”

Ward, Kat (2012-10-13). KERI KARIN: the SHOCKING true story of a child
abused, CONTINUED (child abuse true stories) (Kindle Locations 527-534). Child
Abuse True Stories. Kindle Edition.

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 00:32

Anna says “The first episode which she attended was the one featuring
Olivia Newton-John “, indicating the Duncroft girls went to more than one
episode. Regarding Anna saying any of the girls’ trips in Savile’s Rolls
Royce or their movements at the BBC were always accompanied by a member of
staff, I assume this is what these former members of staff have told her,
which is somewhat predictable that they would do so now, is it not,
considering they had a legal responsibility towards them?

Jonathan
Mason October 30, 2012 at 02:53

I just don’t know. On the one hand we have the “things were different
in them days” argument, but on the other hand we have the idea that even
30 or 40 years later staff are aware of negligence in the past and try to
cover it up. I get the impression that Anna’s memories of Duncroft lean
more towards the idea that there was fairly strict supervision and an
awareness of staff’s legal responsibilities–tolerance of and encouragement
of underage smoking not withstanding.

Incidentally, my first impressions of Karin Ward’s most recent book was
that it was almost a diary of smoking cigarettes, so much is the subject
obsessively discussed, but on reaching the end of her book, there is a
rather poignant mention that she finally gave up smoking in 2011 after
being diagnosed with a smoking-related disease (bowel cancer).

Anthony
October 30, 2012 at 17:24

“I get the impression that Anna’s memories of Duncroft lean more
towards the idea that there was fairly strict supervision and an
awareness of staff’s legal responsibilities”

Anna, or perhaps it was her friend, Mewsical, has stated that the way
things were run at Duncroft changed significantly after it ended being
directly controlled by the Government in 1970, falling into local
authority control, and then by MIND and NAMH in 1974, with Margaret
Jones then taking on a more administrative role and liasing with
parents. Taking that to be an accurate picture, it surely cannot have
been Miss Jones was able to be the one who would keep an eye on Savile’s
behaviour, so she cannot possibly vouch that nothing untoward went on.
Mewsical has also stated that the girls who came after 1970 were of a
‘different caliber’ and that Margaret Jones was happy to retire.

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 18:44

Margaret Jones never changed her role, Anthony. When visitors came
to the school, she was front and center. She was the headmistress and
it was her role to welcome visitors and show them around the school,
at the very least. They would have been entertained in her study, not
among the girls, and when she had her own house I imagine – because I
wasn’t there – she had the guests at her house for at least a cup of
tea and a chat. In a situation like Savile driving a few girls and an
accompanying staff member around the block in his Rolls, she certainly
would have been watching that. I NEVER believed that any girl was
allowed to go off alone with him – that just doesn’t track with me at
all. It seems certain that there was no Jimmy Savile before 1974 as
well. The girls also went home on home leave, and at least one has
said that JS gave them his phone number at the BBC. When you were
home, you were in the custody of your parents or guardian. I believe
Karin Ward has additionally said that she liked being at Duncroft and
felt safe there.

Paul
October 30, 2012 at 21:38

You’re trying to find anything that will support your theories,
whether or not the balance of probabilities suggests the truth (or
untruth) of any statement made. It is to be hoped you never sit on a
jury in a court of law, because I suggest that the evidence presented
would come a poor second to your pre-conceived version of events.
Nobody here is suggesting Savile was entirely innocent. What people
are saying is that no real proof has been presented and it has been
virtually proven that some of the ‘evidence’ is false. This then casts
doubt on a lot of the other evidence, at least that by the liars.
That’s how the law works and is consistent with reasonable human
nature and the interests of justice. Though not for some it seems.
There’s nothing new in this either of course. We have all heard of and
imagined baying lynch mobs many times, legal process be damned. The
huge precedent for this would be in the matter of Witchcraft, which
was surely responsible for the most horrendous miscarriages of justice
in history, thousands of times over. It is to be hoped that we do keep
our legal system and its processes because they are definitely one of
the hallmarks of civilisation. You may imagine they never ‘come for
you’ for any offence, as you are obviously without sin, but I would be
quite concerned if I were you, because the world of Men is an ironic
place and the most terrible ironies do occur.

Anthony
October 31, 2012 at 00:46

You are contradicting your own statements Mewsical, you wrote on
the digital spy website:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=61946218#post61946218

“On the contrary, they seem to have become a good deal more strict,
with padded cells, Thorazine, etc. This may have been because of the
supervision by MIND and NAMH. Miss Jones did tell me that she was
being expected to accept girls who were not of the same caliber as the
girls she had in the 60s, and I certainly got the impression she
wasn’t exactly unhappy to retire! She delegated a lot of the daily
administration and supervision to the staff, and spent a lot of her
time dealing with parents, social workers, etc., so rather than
continually turn whatever went on to her, consider she had a fairly
large staff, some residents and some coming to the school every day
from outside.”

NOTE “She delegated a lot of the daily administration and
supervision to the staff”

And as for Savile not being able to mix with the girls, this was
clearly false as the photo shows him with his arm around them on a
chair in what looks like some kind of common room. He notably
described himself as their “term time boyfriend” in his 1974
autobiography.

Trenchcoat October 31, 2012 at 10:56

Anthony are you Jzee on Digital Spy?

How old must the people over there, for them to think a woman
having a maiden name and a married name is regarded as someone having
something to hide?

Observor
October 30, 2012 at 07:10

Sorry but I’m not buying that at all.
Just because of the time
period I do not believe a group or one girl would be permitted to go
unaccompanied with Savile or even the Queen Mother to a TV studio or trips
in a car.

And saying it is “predictable” for staff to say that (and if they did
it’s also evidence) is a slur that carries no greater or less importance
than Karin Ward’s claims or anyone else’s but does indicate that the worst
is preferable to a far lesser and more mundane truth.

Anna
Raccoon October 30, 2012 at
07:27

Observer,

I have already allowed for the possibility that ‘staff would say
that’ – but what staff will also say is who else was in the
car/school mini bus depending on which incident you are talking
about…..they will not be so easily dismissed as ‘they would say that
wouldn’t they’….

Fur will fly, trust me – and these girls will not be dismissed as
‘wasn’t even there at the time’ – they were there!

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think middle
aged women, as we all are, would expose themselves to the sort of sly
innuendoes that we have over the past few days for the mere sake of Miss
Jones’ reputation. We do it because the truth does matter. Far more than
Miss Jones even. We don’t have a book to sell!

Anthony
October 30, 2012 at 17:30

“but what staff will also say is who else was in the car/school
mini bus ”

Of course they would say girls were always accompanied, they
doesn’t mean that they were. We know that Savile was able to bamboozle
people for decades that he was an upholder of morality and Christian
values, a man devoted to charitable works.

Mewsical
October 30, 2012 at 18:48

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony – I was at the school. You weren’t. I
agree with what Anna said. We have no books to sell. There was no WAY
the girls went ANYWHERE without a member of staff present. You can
twist it with all the pretzel logic you want, but that’s the truth. On
top of which, what if one of them tried to abscond while with him
alone? Easy to do, just hop out of the car and start running. That
would create a huge problem for him. So, not only to protect the
girls, but also to protect the visitor. Think about it. Really.

Paul October 29, 2012 at 21:17

Found the gates, they are modern you can the entry phone.
51°26’15.16″ N
0°31’05.01″ W

Paul October 29, 2012 at 22:13

see

Michael October 29, 2012 at 20:58

“…my focus was always on the question of whether the original story which
focussed heavily on Duncroft was wrongly prevented from appearing – or
not.”

I find this point interesting. On the one hand the suspicion is that the
Newsnight story was canned because of the embarrasment factor. The picture
painted is of tireless brave journalists working hard to uncover the truth,
which is then cruelly supressed by a bunch of chinless managers, fearful of
reputational damage.

On the other hand, you have an image of corrupt, self-serving journos with
the worst of motives who make stuff up, and are then held in check by their
wise leaders.

Sadly, I get the sense that the worst part of both of these statements is
nearer to the truth than the best part of either of them.

belinus October
29, 2012 at 20:50

Well bloody done girl, I have only just met you but I had faith in your
stance from the get go…

Robert Edwards
October 29, 2012 at 20:37

Bon courage, Madame…

The Filthy
Engineer October 29, 2012 at 20:29

Well done Anna. Nice to see that there is a flip side to the story.
Both
Mrs FE and myself are wondering why, after all this time, so many people are
jumping on the band wagon? After all there has always been underage groupies
throwing themselves at celebrities.

Carol42 October 29, 2012 at 20:28

All this reminds me of Cleveland, Orkney, Nottingham and Lanarkshire. All
false and what happened then really was child abuse that no compensation could
make up for. I was slightly involved in that area at the time and I just
couldn’t understand why apparently sane people could believe any of it, wonder
what the vested interest is in this case.

Delphius October
29, 2012 at 20:19

I’m firmly of the opinion that some person or organisation is driving the
Saville issue. Its had a life way beyond what one would term natural in the
media, so the assumption is there is something or someone pushing the
agenda.

To what ends its hard to say: it could be to hide other news, like
deflecting the heat from an errant MP, or it could be an attack on the BBC in
an effort to finally break it up.

The most likely scenario is its a driver for legislation. Watch for the
various enquiries to dovetail in their reports, findings and most importantly
recommendations. Most likely is that the recommendations (whether the
enquiries find hard evidence of illegal practices or not) will include include
draconian legislation which will extremely rapidly be enacted and made law. If
there is no evidence, then the reports will use the “what if” scenario,
basically we need to protect children from this happening even though it
didn’t happen in the first place.

The thing is, no matter how bad, wide-ranging, authoritarian or puritanical
the legislation that comes out of this, not one MP will stand up against it,
because to do so will make them labelled “paedophile and sex offender
supporter”.

The violent pornography law (that makes pictures of something entirely
legal like stills from a BBFC certified film actually illegal to own) was made
law in just the same way.

This is how bad law is made and freedom is eroded , using emotive subjects
that cannot be argued against in order to quell opposition.

At a guess I’d say the end game is the establishment of increased powers of
the state over and above the rights of parents to govern their children. I
could be wrong, but I’ve seen for a long time that the court’s insistence on
the rights of parents over the rights of the state to be a source of national
and local government irritation. Removing the parent from the equation would
allow government direct access to children without interruption. From
home-schooling to sending your son/daughter to sea at 16, I reckon parents
will lose what power they have.

Ian B October 29, 2012 at 20:54

Well, the best model perhaps for understanding this is to remember that
Activism is a very large machinery kept on constant standby. If we take
another wing- the Greens- they know that if they sit and wait long enough,
an environental disaster (e.g. oil spill) will occur; at which point the
whole machinery roars into activity. Likewise, the Abuse wing can sit and
wait for some claims like this to arise, knowing inevitably that they will,
and then the machinery roars into life. They have spent several decades
putting that machinery in place. But it is basically reactive; there is no
“conspiracy” as such. Creating an environment in which claims will be made,
and that machinery can be activated, is sufficient.

When that machinery does activate, it has pre-programmed goals,
particularly legislative ones. They will certainly be looking for a
Lawrence-style enquiry, legislative recommendations, and legislation in
accordance with the programmed goals of the activist machine. At each stage,
with each panic, they creep (or lurch!) closer to an ultimate goal- the
banning of porn, or the social exclusion of males- and a reformation of
institutions (especially the police and legal system) to bring them under
more control of activist objectives; again, the Stephen Lawrence business
was a perfect example of this.

To be cynical, the Activists are probably still smarting over the Tories’
cancellation of the “safeguarding database” ContactPoint thingumajig, so
they’ve been itching for something like this to happen, one would imagine.
Proving “institutional paedophilia” is the key thing here, as with
“institutional racism”.

Engineer October 29, 2012 at 20:57

That just sounds too much like conspiracy theory, and far too complicated
a theory to work predictably.

My suspicion is that this is just one of those stories that ‘takes off’
for some not entirely understood reason. The Leveson inquiry was set up on
the back of outrage over the supposed hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone, and
deletion of messages on it by journalists. The deletion of messages by
journalists was later shown not to have happened, but by then the story had
run out of control.

In this case, I suspect that the BBC has been ‘turning a blind eye’ to
all sorts of goings-on involving it’s employees and ‘talent’, and the
build-up of filth has overwhelmed the dam of self-rightous arrogance and
denial that held it in. The BBC has been overdue a shake-up for a long time.
Maybe this will give it the kick up the fundament it needs.

Ian B October 29, 2012 at 21:09

Hmm, the problem with “just takes off” is this; we are discussing human
actions here, and human actions are always willed. Nothing “just
happens”.

It is a simple matter of historical fact that activist movements have
been using every tool at their disposal to create “social change” for nigh
two centuries now, and a rabid, hysterical media is a part of that
machine. The story of how we got the age of consent itself is interesting;
the Reformers had been trying to raise it legislatively for ages, on the
basis of an invented moral panic about “white slavery” (in which only they
believed), but each time the law was not passed. The “first tabloid
journalist”- W T Stead thus took it upon himself to engineer the abduction
of a 13 year old girl, and reported it in his newspaper in lurid terms as
“The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon.”. It thus fixed in the public mind
that the White Slave Traffic was real, and the law was passed in the
hysteria.

It then came out that Stead was reporting his own actions; he
had hired a procuress, who lied to the girl’s mother that she was going
into maidservice, and then himself abducted her, drugged, to a brothel to
“prove” his story. He went to court, and then to prison for a short term.
It was all a pack of lies. But, the law had passed and the belief in White
Slavery successfully planted in the public mind; his prison term a small
price to pay.

These things don’t “just happen”. People make them happen. They are
human actions, not acts of God.

Engineer
October 29, 2012 at 21:27

Ian B – I was replying to Delphius, not to you.

I hear what you say about certain ‘special interest’ pressure groups.
However, the scandal seems to be unfolding on their own doorstep this
time. I suspect that may give them cause to pause.

Peter Raite
October 29, 2012 at 21:15

It was certainly notable that when it was reported that it was Colin
Stagg’s phoen being hacked the week before the MD revelation, nobody was
interested.

I think Ian is right, though, as regards the system being reactive,
rather than conspiratorial, and gun control is a very good example of
where this has actually happened. If you look as Home Office publications
pre-Hungerford and Dunblane, it’s clear they were champing at the bit to
tighten the legislation, but didn’t have any justification to do so until
two obligingly psychopaths handed it to them on a plate. A couple of years
ago, a Home Office consulation document was published which strongly
recommends tighter controls on shotguns and their ammunition, even though
the “evidence” presented in it doesn’t support or merit such a policy.
Don’t you so, but you heard it here first….

Engineer
October 29, 2012 at 21:24

Some have suggested that the Home Office, for reasons beyond my
understanding, would like to completely disarm the public
(notwithstanding the extreme inconvenience that would cause for many
perfectly legitimate activities, such as preditor control and livestock
management). In respects such as this, the Civil Service is far more
dictatorial than almost any government.

Ted Treen
October 31, 2012 at 13:19

“..Home Office, for reasons beyond my understanding, would like to
completely disarm the public ..”

The reasons are all too clear. Look across the Atlantic – ignoring
the hysteria about murder rates, as that’s an indictment of their
society, rather than the available tools…

The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution to
protect the freedom of the people.
I accept that the Dep’t of
Homeland Security is eroding that freedom rather too much, but
over-ambitious rulers are kept in check by the thought of an armed
populace.
Why do you think our ruling elite here in the UK are so
vehemently opposed to any kind of arming of the electorate?
Concern
for our well-being? – If so, it would be the first time ever!
To
save us from ourselves? – see comment above!
To ensure that armed
bad guys can’t hurt us? – ask any cop involved in Trident how
effective that is.
To prevent a serious rising by a pissed-off
electorate? – getting warmer!

Amfortas October 31, 2012 at 13:30

The US Constitutional ‘right to bear arms’ was to enable a
Militia as at the time it did not have a standing Army.

Ted
Treen October 31, 2012 at
17:56

Enabling a militia to ensure the freedom of the people:
ensuring their freedom from external OR INTERNAL tyranny…

Mewsical October 31, 2012 at 21:35

Now it’s an excuse to carry an AK47 into a classroom, place of
work, etc.

belinus October 31, 2012 at 14:35

It is much easier to activate fascism with a disarmed
population.
Fascism being a position by which the corporate realm
merges with the domestic systems.
Mussolini said fascism should
really be called corporatism.

Ted
Treen October 31, 2012 at
17:59

Yup, but in those days the corporate was generally a National
organisation, with its interests mainly in one specific country.
(By ‘interests’ I do not mean purely its property etc.)

Nowadays, corporates are global with generally no specific
loyalty to any individual state or country.

Wither mankind?

belinus October 31, 2012 at 18:40

Those same corporations of which you speak had an overdiing
umbrella of control, the East India Companies and the committee
of 300.
Back in the day each nation saw only the committee’s
national representative, they failed to recognise the global
overlord. After the second world war we began to witness its
size as it removed all that were deemed national corporations to
their new playground in the east.
Thatcher began the
incorporation of our civil system in the privitisation of the
utilities, Brown and his muppet Blair scooped the rest leaving
the coalition to secure the rest in readiness for a lighter time
for the next planned coalition and the Lib-Lab-UKIP pact.
I
mean, if you are want to have a third world war then you need an
enemy for NATO, and we can see this building in the middle east
shift to all things China and Russia..

Blair demolished the political party that was Labour as
Cameron and Clegg are demolishing the conservative outlook as a
political movement for the British people.

Clever these bankers.

dj October 31, 2012 at 21:48

Genuinely, tell me more. Are you saying they are destroying
our political identity for reconstruction…..interesting to
hear your view on this as I can’t quite exactly work out what
“they” are doing, but I know “they” are definitely up to
something….

belinus October 31, 2012 at 22:36

What I have found is a position whereby we suffer a clear
usurpation of the constitutional realm and its common law
which offers all the rights for its citizens, limits the
power of government, and protects the systems set up within
its doctrines from all outside threats.

After the bankrupcy declerations in 1930, all went cap in
hand to the fund set up by the wealthy houses connected by
the East India companies, and the Virginia company, each
holding the wealth from all the revolutions, wars, opium
running and slavery. That fund was The Bank for
International Settlemtns, from which we get the World Bank
and the fund thereof, the International Moneatary
Fund.
In order to recieve the credit, governments secured
the people as collatoral. Once signed Europe required
another world war in order to destroy Germany and Britain as
a culture and religion, in order the programme created to
benefit from the 1930 agreement could be implemented
immedietely after the war.

This is why labour offering a serious contradiction in
terms, and, defeating Churchill took a landslide victory
after WWII.
The contradiction came in the offer of full
employment and a huge welfare state, the former of course
cancelling out the latter. We cannot of course hold the
beliegured peoples to task for missing such a contradiction
having suffered war like state since 1914.
Out come the
social security numbers as the registration of births
shifted to the creation of a corporate legal person as a
mimic of your Christian name and owned by the corporate
United kingdom.

The trick from that point was to programme the
populations to identify their humanity as that fictitious
legal person, therefore breeching crown copyright and
commiting a fraud, while keeping that bit a secret, and for
your trouble, given only a legal person can sue and be sued,
for breech of crown copyright, you will be hit with whatever
statutes they aim against the person you are falsly claiming
to be the liable agent for.
In this way the people of
Britain have through tacit agreement, rebuffed their god
given rights under constitution, and chosen unwittingly, to
be governed by commercial statutes because they claim to be
a corporate entity, the legal person, created at the
registration of your birth.
The legal person is denoted
in the uppercase, uppercase first letter of first and
surname, and with the titles, Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master and
Squire.

This can only be so because the act of treason is from
the very top, and I recieved a document last year that
claims Queen Elizabeth II did not take the correct oath as
that taken by her predecessors, the consequence of which
means the British realm has had no monarch since 1954.
Elizabeth II was only the British monarch from the death of
her father until taking a different oath in 54. Should this
be the case.

This places the entire raft of constitutional realm
office holders in an act of treason, while from the oath
they took they are in fact upholding the realm of Queen
Elizabeth II, it just happens not to be the realm we believe
it to be.

That is what I have found and needs to be either
disproved or shown to be the case. But when it comes to the
question as to why the realm has not worked …it is the
answer staring us all in the face…

In truth all this began in Burgundy in 909 AD, when the
Benedictine Monastic Order was taken over and the doctrines
reversed, by the Carolingian warlords, at that time, and
still today, parading as the Merovingians. The Carolingians
of course are the bastard lines. They shifted the
Benedictine doctrines from one of not owning property and
land, to full ownership by the aristocracy that would grow
within the Benedictine order as they became it in its
entirety. From this move would be born the Feudal system
that William the bastard would instill, first move into
Scotland through the St Clairs then across the country.

This is what Henry VIII was attacking with the disolution
of the Monastaries, unfortuneatley he threw the baby out
with the bathwater, allowing the Zionist monster that was
Cromwell to remove the laws on Usuary, an act that required
the death of a king as he was the upholder of the
constitution and the laws on usury.

In came the money lenders and made base in london, after
a war with Holland, a plague and the great fire.

History has shown me that the history of these Isles has
been one of the destruction of the White Goddess, the heaven
influenced spirtit that encompassed the matriarchal system,
whose last bastion in Britain was the land of the Brigantes.
She would move through Constantine to Rome and would become
the doctrines of the early Church in Rome. She would come
back to these Isles in her true form, not to Iona, but to
Northumberland with Oswald.

This would not do and so commenced the atacks by the
Carolingian warlords history calls the Viking, just to keep
the new fledged system supple enough for a 1066
invasion.

dj
October 31, 2012 at 21:45

Fascism is the most twisted word in modern usage, as is
Liberal. I am often told that Conservatives wishing to diminish
the size of the state are fascist.

It’s turned into a term for “I don’t agree with you”

belinus October 31, 2012 at 21:54

Mmm, it is more the fact people believe fascism to be jack
boots and swastika when that is what happens after the political
system that is fascism is fully implemented, if it be the wish
of the big houses.
If this country ceases to act within the
protection of the constitution, then we are at the mercy of the
corporations without any rights whatever. We are Babylon.
It
is clear that the corporate education programme for the mass of
children under the academy agenda is moving more and more to a
military type system, while the schools push to take full power
of attorney for the children having gained swathes of
permissions, by deception, in the many agreements and outright
demand for medical powers of attorney.

It worked for the Third Reich and it is clearly working for
the Fourth.
Fascism first… (merging of the private corporate
realm with the civil system…then the insanity cometh.

Delphius October 29, 2012 at 22:15

Not so much a conspiracy, but its very easy for calls to be made and
the story to be nudged along. Stories like this tend to have a shelf life
and this one tends to be transcending what you’d consider normal.

Its then quite easy for inquiries that are set up to be steered to
provide the required output.

Its then also just as easy for legislators to knee-jerk into action to
“be seen to be doing something” to quell the menace of something that was
manufactured out of thin air by the media.

Look through the archives and see how Liz Longhurst’s campaign over
violent pornography was promoted from one mothers crusade, to legislation.

There was no need to bring in a law for something that was already
covered by the obscene publications act, however there was a complication
in that the members of juries trying OPA cases failed to agree with the
state as to what was actually going to “corrupt and deprave”. Also the
“Publications” part of the act meant you could only go for the publishers,
not the readers. So, Liz Longhurt’s campaign was raised in profile, by
amongst others , ACPO and the home office, both keen to change
legislation.

The law is bad: how can something that is quite legal to watch like a
properly BBFC certified film be made illegal when images of it are taken
and used in a particular context? The images should be either legal or
illegal irrespective of context, but this asinine law defines the same
image as both. It also removes the jury, changing matters of public taste
to state defined strict liability, with wording so vague and wide-ranging
that it can be used to censor just about anything, not just porn..

I fear the increased hype over the Saville case, despite the
contradictory evidence as set out here by Anna in one chapter of it, shows
there is an agenda at work here.

Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:57

There is truth in what you say : both the ‘strategy manager’ (what’s
that?) for the NSPCC and Harriet Harman have linked the Savile scandal to
the recent change for teachers remaining anonymous before being
charged,
Yet there is absolutely no correlation between the
matters.
And the BBC is most definitely a target and whilst we all have
gripes against it, it’s loss or break-up would be a supreme success for many
and a targedy for Britain.

DJ October 31, 2012 at 05:48

I hope to god the DOES break up the BBC. Vile, odious organisation we are
forced to fund. I hope the liberal bastards are all out of work and can try
selling their stories about the NHS, the poor downtrodden public sector and
“look how brilliant Chinese Communism is” to people who are not forced by
court order to pay, and then we’ll see who the real journalists are.

Amfortas
October 31, 2012 at 08:12

@ DJ: “I hope to god the DOES break up the BBC. Vile, odious
organisation we are forced to fund. I hope the liberal bastards are all
out of work ……….. ”

There is no ‘perfect’ organisation whether we are forced to fund it or
not. The BBC is a reflection of as well as a participant in the decline of
Britain as a whole. Yes it has its vile aspects but let us not forget it’s
successes. It started well and has produced much that is of incredibly
high standard. It has had many very fine people within its ranks.

The entertainment industry has moved into a very dark place and I agree
there are vile aspects. Maybe this is one more event that is needed for a
general revulsion to bring about significant change.

When Heracles cleaned out the Augean Stables, he swept away a great
deal more than just the horse shyte. I would not like to see the BBC
totally destroyed. And I am pretty sure that this episode will not bring
its destruction about but as the King chappie said to Heracles, “The shyte
has to go”.

davidb October 29, 2012 at 20:06

Still a gripping read.

Regarding the press, I have been involved in a handful of reported things.
Its never accurately reported. I long ago took a decision to never speak to
anyone from any branch of it. I did once believe the Times to be a good
newspaper, but I heard first hand from someone they misquoted at the time of
the Robin Cooke matrimonial debacle. And I have heard the later BBC reports on
the radio of interviews I heard live being selectively edited to tell us the
story they want to report, not the actual story I heard from the horses
mouth.

The Police are an untrustworthy lot, but you’d be better speaking only to
them, and never, not ever to the press.

I’m always curious why people crave that 15 minutes of fame. I don’t even
like being incidentally photographed.

Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:47

I’m a retired journalist who has worked on both British and Australian
tabloids (mostly News Corp) and all I can say is I am so pleased I got out
ten years ago.I saw the writing on the wall long before others but many
aspects of the industry appalled me and whilst I was never involved in
criminal investigations I witnessed the truth being manipulated and made fit
not just a deadline but an angle.

I would never ever EVER speak to a journalist under any circumstances
(nor the police without a lawyer) and the last time I did over a charity I
was involved in the hack defamed the charity president and stole photographs
for their story/ (and this in 2010). It took me tricking my way into the
newspaper’s fortress like building and threatening to deck the journalist
right there and then to get the photograph back and an apology. The editor
wisely decided not to call security when I stated I would simply go to a
rival tabloid and the police over the matter of the stolen pics.

The pressure journalists are now under that include the possibility of no
job in 12 months are immense. They will bend and twist the truth.

Again : Ms Raccoon is wise tos end everything staright to the polcie
(with copies of cours ereatined safely)

Dai Brainbocs
October 30, 2012 at 08:58

As Neil Young sang on Greendale: “It ain’t an honour to be on TV. And it
ain’t a duty either.”

jonseer October 29, 2012 at 19:37

May I say thank you Anna for a tale equally as gripping to this humble
mortal as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”.
I hope & pray you are
equal to the task.
Good luck & win for Truth’s sake.

johnpd November 4, 2012 at 19:45

Indeed for Truth.
The most valuable thing on this planet, on which all
trust & progress is built.
Thank you Anna.
JD.

Ian B October 29, 2012 at 19:23

There are too many allegations now to think that they can all be without
foundation.

They can be. Satanic Ritual Abuse- the progenitor and template for this
entire panic- was constructed from clouds of allegations which were all
entirely false.

JuliaM October
30, 2012 at 05:31

Well, there was real abuse at the heart of them. There nearly always is.

Just not of the ‘Satanic’ flavour.

Ian B October 30, 2012 at 09:57

No there wasn’t.

Moor Larkin October 30, 2012 at 12:41

The controversy resulted in an official inquiry established in August
1991, chaired by Lord Clyde. The inquiry published its report in October
1992. It described the successful appeal against the first judgment as
“most unfortunate” and criticized all those involved, including the
social workers, the police, and the Orkney Islands Council. Social
workers’ training, methods, and judgment were given special
condemnation, and the report stated that the concept of “ritual abuse”
was “not only unwarrantable at present but may affect the objectivity of
practitioners and parents”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ronaldsay_child_abuse_scandal

Peter
Raite October 30, 2012 at 13:28

It’s rather sad that even today, there is no room for the concept
of malice being the reason for a false accusation against an adult by
a child. Even where they acknowledge a child may not be telling the
truth, it is effectively excused on the grounds that it is probably an
indicator of actual abuse elsewhere. As if that’s a reasonable
justification for ruining the lives or careers of innocent teachers,
carers, etc.

Joe Public October 29, 2012 at 19:06

Thanks for another exciting, in depth, episode Anna.

Not so much a “Who dunnit?”, more a “Who wasn’t it done to?”

ivan October 29, 2012 at 18:19

Anna, all of this begs the question, what are they trying to hide?

This bottom feeding extravaganza has all the hall marks of a cover up of
something. Is it to cover some ‘important’ person or religious group or are
they trying to divert attention from some political move?

Maybe it is more prosaic, the MSM no longer has journalists that are
capable of doing in-depth investigations.

Anna
Raccoon October 29, 2012 at 18:22

Fiddling whilst Rome burns?

Backwoodsman
October 30, 2012 at 12:20

bbc ‘spoiling’ operation ? Confuse the issue with loads of
unsubstantiated tosh about a place which is nothing to do with them ?

Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 19:15

There is one feature in the works, which of course gives the journalist
much more time to research facts, verify stories and so on. Until now,
they’ve been running at the story against deadlines. No deadline involved
with this.

Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 18:10

I don’t remember those grand gates either, Anna. Just these wooden things
that were actually open most of the time. When we barricaded ourselves into
the Junior Common Room in February 1964, some of us wandered out into Staines,
corralled a couple of teenage boys on bikes, and brought them down to Moor
Lane to buttress our claims that Duncroft was in fact a girls’ approved
school. They lingered about by the open gates, and we went back down the
driveway, all of which would have been a bit tricky if the gates were locked.
The gates shown in the Panorama piece were obviously put up by the builder
during the gussying-up 20 years or so back. We weren’t that grand!

I was speaking with Barnardo’s this morning on other issues, and the
subject of the boxes came up. They are in the possession of Kate Roach there.
At this point in the proceedings, they cannot be given to anyone other than
the police, because they are the subject of a criminal investigation at this
point. But I hope the police do go after them. Lots of good info in those day
books, if they still exist, of course.

Miss Jones was there until 1980, btw. She certainly worked for Barnardo’s
who came in in October 1976. She told me that she didn’t really like that
arrangement, at least as she informed me.

One question regarding Meirion. Did Miss Jones’ sister marry a man called
Jones? I know it’s a very common name but just wondering.

I’m pretty sure that I know the staff member you spoke with, and I had some
communication with her myself. If it’s who I think it is, there is a certain
redheaded former Duncroft pupil who should start packing her bags and heading
for the hills. She’s caused enough bloody trouble for everyone.

Anna
Raccoon October 29, 2012 at 18:17

Jones is a very common name in Wales – it wouldn’t be unusual for a
‘Jones’ to marry a ‘Jones’ – but then again, there are those within the BBC
that I have heard refer to Meirion as a ‘complete bastard’. Don’t know.

Mewsical
October 29, 2012 at 19:29

That’d be Complete Bastard Jones, then.

Dai Brainbocs
October 30, 2012 at 08:51

I once knew a North Walian whose four unrelated grandparents were all
called Jones at birth, could easily happen.

Ellen Coulson
October 31, 2012 at 11:13

No Margaret Jones’s brother was married to Meirion’s mother, Irene who
was deputy headmistress of a grammar school in Surrey. She apparently was
jealous of MJ and came over often with her daughter or son to meet the
celebrities/minor royals etc!

Surreptitious Evil October 29, 2012 at 19:32

Hang on. Didn’t Kate say she was a member of staff at Liverpool Uni? Not
at Barnardos? So this gets really complicated. Some stuff which,
legitimately, should be in Barnardos’ possession and a lot of stuff that
should be in an appropriate public (rather than publicly accessible) archive
is in the possession of Barnardos but managed by a public archivist?

And s29 DPA only permits data which is processed for the purposes of the
“detection and prevention of crime (etc)” exemption from s7 (Data Subject
Access). Not data which is processed for other purposes but has been
disclosed to law enforcement under s29.3 (or court order or anything else.)
Noting that Barnardos are not a data controller subject to s29.4.

Mewsical
October 29, 2012 at 19:43

Kate Roach is an employee of Barnardo’s, and is in charge of the entire
Duncroft archive there, as well as all archives of all the Barnardo’s
schools going back to the good old days in the East End, circa 1880. She
is NOT a public archivist. Duncroft was a Barnardo’s school from the end
of 1976 until it closed and the developer stepped in. Therefore, they are
entitled to their records from those days, and agreed to accept the entire
Duncroft archive from Liverpool, as it was taking up room. It’s all in
their possession and under their control pursuant to relevant law
regarding Data Protection, I imagine.

Surreptitious Evil October 29, 2012 at 20:47

I misremembered – it was Katy _Gribbin_ who was the Liverpool
archivist.

I’d just note that organisations that don’t want you to see things
often have, or pretend, a very different understanding of Data
Protection law than is justified either by the statutes or by extant
case law.

Ellen
Coulson October 31, 2012 at 15:06

Sonya Maddieson is the Senior Archive & Administration Officer at
Barnardo’s now not Kate.

Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 17:31

Actually, it looks like she was in the editions for 09/02 & 02/03/74,
as well, but the BFI does list the one for 23/02, which she may have been in,
as well.

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/679653
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/679657

Woman on a
Raft October 29, 2012 at 18:47

Wiki: In 1974, Newton-John represented the United Kingdom in the
Eurovision Song Contest with the song “Long Live Love”. The song was chosen
for Newton-John by the British public out of six possible entries.

Possible dates from calendar from 1974 based on sequential Saturdays. Can
anybody remember if they did one or more songs per show, or how the run-off
was done? I’m guessing one per week, a compendium show, voting, and then a
show for the winning song (which was rightly beaten by Waterloo on 6 April).
But can only confirm if someone has the Radio Times archive. Based on
episode 3 being given correctly as 23 February :

February Saturday
9, Episode 1
16, Episode 2
23 Episode
3
March Saturday
2, Episode 4
9, Episode 5
16, Episode 6
23,
Episode 7 (relevant birthday thought to be 25 March)
30, Episode 8

If this is correct, the first date of O-NJ on Clunk-Click is Saturday 9
February 1974, or the studio day if it was recorded. Well, you DID ask.

Anna
Raccoon October 29, 2012 at
19:15

WOAR! Respect!

Woman on
a Raft October 29, 2012 at
19:22

BFI data:
9 February – two songs from `A Song for Europe’
sung by Olivia Newton-John, `Long Live Love’ by Valerie Avon and Harold
Spiro and `Someday’ by Gary Benson and David Mindel.
16 February
– three songs: `Someday’ by Gary Benson and David Mindel, `Angel Eyes’ by
Tony Macauley and Keith Potger, and `Hands Across the Sea’ by Ben Findon
and Geoff Wilkins.
23 February -[presumably the remaining song
plus re-cap others]
2 March – In this edition the results of `A
Song for Europe 1974′ are given.

So it needn’t have run to more than 4 shows, for which we all ought to
be thankful. Hope this establishes the key date of Sat 9/2/72

Woman
on a Raft October 29, 2012 at
19:22

1974! Grr.

Peter Raite
October 29, 2012 at 19:52

Somewhat fortuitously, the only copy of the RT I have from those
months is 23/03-01/03. For the Saturday, the listing is (literally):

“(as it happens)
‘I’d like to be the first one to interview Jesus
Christ when H comes back – in the flesh. I would like to have a chat
with Him. I think he’d be very interesting.’
Tonight Jimmy
Savile invites viewers to select Britain’s entry for the Eurovision
Song Contest 1974
A Song for Europe 1974
starring Olivia
Newton-John who tonight sings all the six songs…”

Peter
Raite October 29, 2012 at 20:01

Forgot to mention that the listing also states that votes (on a
postcard, naturally) had to be received “not later than first
post, Thursday 28 February…” If they were due to give the results on 2
March, it was probably the case that the programme was recorded either
late on the Friday, or early Saturday. It may even have been live – if
it wasn’t usually – or had a live insert for the results. I may be
able to find out whether the general practice was live of
pre-recorded, and how far in advance, on Thursday.

Woman
on a Raft October 29, 2012 at
20:03

Now THAT’S impressive. 38 years and you get to the patch of data
within 30 minutes. Cool.

Peter
Raite October 29, 2012 at 20:13

Also, it looks like the series was supposed to start on 2 February,
but the first episode was cancelled, “because of industrial action by
studio electricians at SHepherd’s Bush over meal-break payments.”
(The Times, Thu Jan 31 1974)

Peter Raite October 29, 2012 at 17:27

Clunk Click 16/02/74

“In this edition Olivia Newton-John sings songs from `A Song for Europe
1974′, including…”

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/679656

Woman on a
Raft October 29, 2012 at 17:46

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/679656?view=transmission

BFI, above, confirms transmission date of 16 February 1974. Don’t know if
the programme was live or if it was recorded, but if so the date can’t have
been much in advance of that.

Roger Ordish, the producer of Clunk-Click, flew back to give an interview
on 16 October 2012 regarding the later programme, Jim’ll Fix It which he
also produced.

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/roger-ordish-saviles-jimll-fix-it-boss/

Amfortas October 29, 2012 at 17:24

It gets better by the episode, m’dear. Scandals such as this have a habit
of destroying many, many lives, even those of the liars and bandwagon
passengers.

Keep this up. I am sending links as fast as I can to any who will
listen.

Observor October 30, 2012 at 06:26

There seems to be two sides to the Savile matter- a real side where he
took advantage of sex on offer from legal and possibly under aged females
(and note that one woman has said she had a consenual long term affair with
Savile- and aborted his child , and another strand involving a conspiracy
with two or more people to jump on the bandwagon with the possible
compensation angle in mind.

That could lead to very serious legal consequences for those involved- if
the police bother to follow it up. Given the police have already tried and
convicted Savile, that maybe unlikely but the MSM needs feeding constantly
so may turn their guns on false accusers, to keep the story alive.

It appears to me that the arrest of Gary Glitter has the elements o f
authorities trying to look like they are doing something and he is an easy
target. Other so-called celebrities may have much tougher legal briefs to
fend of false accusers.

There is a touch of tabloid revenge as well over the whole hacking
scandal with “Fleet Street” desperate to prove it’s role and like a wounded
beast at it’s most dangerous, is avoiding it’s own role in promoting Savile
with all those corny stunts he pulled. Blowback can be most dangerous.

Anthony October 30, 2012 at 17:14

“note that one woman has said she had a consenual long term affair with
Savile- and aborted his child ”

As I stated below, Savile had form on paying older women to pose as
girlfriends, I would not put it past some of his friends or family to do
so now as some sort of desperate measure to prove his ‘normality’

Observor
October 31, 2012 at 01:11

and your proof of that is…?.
so she lies but all others to the
negative tell the truth ?. Sure you aren’t a tabloid hack?

Mewsical
October 31, 2012 at 01:23

You’re reaching, Anthony.

Anthony
November 2, 2012 at 01:07

Not at all, Savile set up a fake engagement to Polly Browne, lead
singer of PickettyWitch in 1972

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223400/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Investigators-look-BBC-accomplices-flagship-show.html

Paul October 29, 2012 at 17:12

clunk-click 1974 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000556/

Woman on a
Raft October 29, 2012 at 17:12

The IMDB entry for Clunk Click Oliva Newton-John
gives a date of Season
2, Episode 3 (23 Feb. 1974)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0543472/

Data is only as good as the volunteers who uploaded it, so not necessarily
100% although IMDB is regarded as reliable as fans care very much about
detail.
I assume this is the transmission date but have not found a way to
cross-reference that I can’t see an episode list. An archivist might be able
to confirm.

Mewsical October 29, 2012 at 18:33

That’s the same time as Miss Jones found his signature in the visitors’
book. February 1974.

Moor Larkin October 29, 2012 at 17:09

Wise words from Mark. Copies secured – maybe duplicate originals for that
matter. The police over here are bloodied and beaten after expose after expose
– from recent Information Payola’s with News International to long-term
cover-ups about Hillsborough. They may well want to give the clamouring masses
what they want too, this time. After all what harm is it to a dead man?

Policemen (and women) are only human too.
Good Luck, or should I say Bon
Chance.

Moor.

JuliaM October
30, 2012 at 05:28

They want to be careful when they climb on the back of that tiger. It can
turn on them just as easily…

Mark October 29, 2012 at 16:51

Evidence? Copy it first.

Wendi October 29, 2012 at 16:50

A brilliant ‘Slam Dunk’ – chapeau Anna!

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) October 30, 2012 at 17:43

According to former Surrey police officer and now presenter of ITV
Exsposure…Mark Williams-Thomas.

“Police failed to interview the headmistress of a school where Jimmy
Savile allegedly abused emotionally vulnerable young girls.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9637823/Police-hunt-absconded-paedophile-suspected-of-committing-new-attack.html