My first reaction on seeing this appeal was that it could well be yet another forgery – I know that many of you were of the same opinion. Such is the level of suspicion and paranoia that the events of the past year have engendered, since that night exactly one year ago today, when television executives decided that child abuse was a suitable subject to fill the gap between lucrative advertisements rather than a profoundly serious matter for the Police to investigate.

I have checked it out throughly, and I am totally satisfied that it is genuine. E-mails have been sent to the address given and replies received from genuine police officers. The telephone number given in the original appeal has been checked out. Further, enquiries were made amongst retired senior officers from Surrey Police force – and Inspector Matt Durkin will be relieved to know that he is ‘highly thought of’ as an ‘honest and diligent investigative policeman’. I was even given a different number which enabled me to speak to Inspector Durkin himself. Apologies Inspector Durkin for our lurking doubt, but the media have frequently told us (or been told themselves) that newly minted police constables, fresh out the box, have been in charge of child abuse investigations in the past…people need to be sure who they are talking to.

I realise that this still only means that it is I who is vouching for its authenticity – if you have any doubts at all, and you are entitled to them, then make contact via your local police station or via Kate Roach at Barnardo’s if you were a Duncroft girl.

Please, please, do make contact with Inspector Durkin by whichever route you feel comfortable with, if you have any information whatsoever which can throw light on events which may have taken place in Duncroft or were connected with Duncroft 40 years ago, whether you were a Duncroft girl or not. If you are aware of anyone who does not have internet access – then print this page and post it to them.

Now I, (and others!) took him to task for the wording of this appeal; the wording suggested that he was only interested in hearing from any ‘former pupil who might have been a victim or witness to abuse’. He assures me that he wishes to ‘investigate all aspects’ of that period when Jimmy Savile visited Duncroft – and that includes knowledge of any subsequent events that have made so many of you reluctant to come forward.

I have not, I would not, I will never, break your many confidences – you need to step forward now of your own accord. Please don’t e-mail me – I shall not be here and it is no longer appropriate. There is now a senior police officer and supporting officers currently investigating the events at Duncroft and you need to support them – for everybody’s sake.

I totally understand how difficult it is – the media are under the impression that the only people who find it difficult to speak out are those who believe they may have been subjected to child abuse.

I would say that the ‘Savile affair’ and subsequent press coverage has reaped many hundreds of victims, not only of child abuse – in some cases, victims of traumas that have been genuinely life threatening, and life ending.

I don’t mean only those ‘celebrities’ who have seen their lives and reputations sent up in flames by press coverage of their arrest or subsequent charges even when cleared – but also those who have been the subject of endless unfounded speculation and innuendo on the Internet.

I don’t mean only those members of Savile’s extended family, who, utterly innocent and blameless, have seen their good names and lives torn apart by the media’s desire for yet another story with the word ‘Savile’ in it.

I don’t mean only the charities denied funding they had believed would support their future plans because of legal action for compensation.

I don’t mean only the BBC employees who lost their jobs in the shambolic response to the ‘spiking’ of the original ‘Newsnight’ programme.

I do mean, specifically, the many girls who passed through Duncroft’s portals in the 60s when they were subject to court ordered ‘care and protection’ orders, the 70s when MIND took over the educational facilities to provide a community home and education for young girls with mental health problems now required to have a full time education up to age 16, and the 80s when it became a Barnardo’s home with educational facilities.

For many of you (‘us’ even) Duncroft represented a chance to put behind us the demons of an unhappy childhood and have a fresh stab at life. So many of you have successfully done that. You have become fine upstanding members of your communities, wives, mothers, grand-mothers. Some of you have middle aged children who have no idea that they may once have had earlier siblings of whom they have no knowledge – and it is bloody hard to admit to a partner or middle aged child that you have harboured secrets all these years, that you have been less than honest. I do understand the secret fears that have kept you awake at night wondering if your carefully constructed new life is about to come tumbling down round your ears – it isn’t!

What you are being asked to do is talk to Inspector Durkin, tell him what you know, instead of telling me. If you believe you were abused, he needs to know, not a television company.

He needs to know of the letters some of you received, purporting to come from ‘Surrey Police’ – but which didn’t. He needs to know of the fake identities purporting to be of staff you knew and trusted, but which you belatedly learnt were false and you had unwittingly confided details of your new life to some anonymous internet persona. He needs to know the truth of the memory sticks containing databases of your details that were circulating. He needs to know of the bullying and coercion that has occurred, of the betrayal of trust that has left some of you at the mercy of members of the press unhelpfully armed with all your personal details.

He needs to understand that the word ‘distress’ in his appeal doesn’t even begin to cover the upheaval in 50 and 60 year old lives to be suddenly handed a file from a charity you may not have realised you even had a relationship with, containing family secrets you had no idea existed, or letters that were withheld from you at the time, of relationships with siblings broken forever, of misplaced trust – if only you had known the truth. The entire affair has been utterly unfair on all of you. Kate Roach has done a fantastic job – but I don’t think anyone who hasn’t had the experience many of you have had, of having past lives dumped back on you, 40 and 50 years too late to put right, can truly understand that the word ‘distress’ is hopelessly inadequate.

He needs to understand the pressures that many of you have been under to either say, or not say, certain things – for that is all part of a full investigation of ‘all aspects of that period when Jimmy Savile visited Duncroft’. You need to be heard now.

It is time for truth and honesty to elbow internet speculation and media careers based on shoddy journalism off centre stage.

Be brave! Talk to Inspector Durkin.

What follows is from Inspector Durkin:

Our ref: Op Outreach

1/10/2013

Dear Former Duncroft pupils

I apologise that this letter has not appeared on this forum until now.

“Anna Raccoon” has kindly agreed to allow us to post this letter on her site.

I am posting this letter on the forum on behalf of Surrey Police and Barnardo’s as we are trying to trace all pupils who were at Duncroft School for Girls, Staines in the 1970’s.

Surrey Police and Barnardo’s are working together in order to find out what happened at Duncroft during the 1970’s and to offer support to any former pupil who might have been a victim or witness to abuse. Surrey Police are continuing to investigate this period when Jimmy Savile was visiting to establish as complete a picture as possible.

If you are a former pupil I would like to give you the opportunity to make contact with the Police or Barnardo’s and describe your experiences there. It is important to stress that it is not the intention of the police or Barnardo’s to cause you any distress by making contact. Please be assured that the welfare of victims is the primary concern of both Surrey Police and Barnardo’s. This is a search for the truth and you will be believed.

If you feel that you have some information that you wish to tell police please contact us on any of the below methods:-

By email:- operationoutreach@surrey.pnn.police.uk

We request that you provide your name at the time you attended Duncroft, together with any name you may be using now. Your date of birth and current contact details are also required. This will assist us in dealing with any information we receive.

Alternatively, you may wish to contact Barnardo’s. Making Connections is the part of Barnardo’s which manages the archive of personal child care records, and provides a comprehensive access to records service to all adults who were formally in the care of, or adopted through the organisation. Barnardo’s takes all allegations of abuse very seriously and the Making Connections team will provide you with support following any disclosure of abuse.

Barnardo’s Making Connections team can be contacted on 0208 498 7536; makingconnections@barnardos.org.uk or by writing to Making Connections, Barnardo’s Head Office, Tanners Lane, Barkingside, Ilford, Essex IG6 1QG.

Support is available for those who suffered abuse whilst a child and in care and we would encourage you to contact the below agencies if you feel this support would be beneficial to you.

NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children):-

0808 800 5000

NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood):-

0800 085 3330 – from landline or Virgin, Orange or 3 Mobile

0808 801 0331 from O2, Vodafone and T Mobile

Yours sincerely

 

Matthew Durkin

Detective Inspector

Deputy Senior Investigating Officer, Surrey Police

Delphius1
October 5, 2013 at 23:13

What is utterly depressing is the huge amount of resources that have been focussed on the Saville mythology, when there are literally thousands of kids up and down the land who were systematically abused in council run care homes who have not had the crimes against them investigated.

These people have no voice and will get no justice or compensation. Its obscene that malingerers will get any form of compensation by telling lies. It denigrates the lives that have truly been ruined or prematurely cut short thanks to the institutional abuse that went on in some care homes.

charlotte
October 5, 2013 at 21:54

Thankfully through all of your diligent work Anna and with help from commentators such as Moor Larkin we may now find the truth that you have searched for will be published and accepted for all to see. You have moved mountains and should take great pride in what you have achieved.
I so hope that you will recover well from your planned surgery next week and feel well very soon. Like a true Quaker you’ve made a few people quake.
God love you.

goggzilla
October 5, 2013 at 20:54

Ought there not to be anonymity for rape trial defendants?

Sally Stevens
October 5, 2013 at 21:47

Is there a rape trial going on somewhere?

The Ghost of Bill Sticker
October 5, 2013 at 07:30

Anna, good luck with the surgery. Heartily glad you’re still up there and pitching.

Little Ray of Sunshine
October 4, 2013 at 15:05

Listen in to this Radio Station in Leeds (Radio Aire) who will be issuing an apology……..yes, that’s right an a p o l o g y – for putting out a libellous comment on last nights news concerning a member of the Savile family. The apology will be run at 4pm, 5pm and 6pm.

If the apology is not good enough or leaves the listener in any doubt that they lied, then off to OffCom we go.

http://www.radioaire.co.uk/contact-us/

The hare
October 4, 2013 at 13:29

Give yourself a much deserved pat on the back, what a roller coaster of a ride this must have been, and it not over yet. You take care ok.

Miss Mildred
October 4, 2013 at 10:59

I’ve read a lot around these 2 blogs concerning themselves with JS doings as a younger man and into middle age and onwards. As one of those ‘withering Rosemont old crones’ I have lived the eras that JS lived through, all bar ten years. There was a lot of touchy feely going on all down my younger years. Some of it personally very unwelcome. I didn’t know names or attend ‘pop events’ or get incarcerated in a ‘School for young Laydees’ who may or may not have prostituted themselves, I can empathise with what they might have experienced. As a 17 year old cadet nurse I saw young girls from a local approved school going into our VD clinic in OPD. I was told they went up in lithotomy position and had cervical swabs done and blood tests for syphilis. They looked little school girls in gaberdine macks, ankle socks, sandals and gymslips. I felt THEY were being assaulted, especially if they had never been promiscuous. Going back 40- 50 years and dealing with falsehoods and fantasy is a heavy task. Surely the best way is to go into it as far as possible, but with valid doubts that the truth will ever be found for certain. Then let us all leave off. Both sides think of other matters, like saving the next batch of vilely abused TINY HELPLESS CHILDREN, who will never live to sue anyone, or steal money from children’s charities on account of some possible lascivious male fumblings in adolescence. Good luck Anna with the operation and follow up treatment. Do leave off Rosemont…..you come over like a ‘withered infected’ internet twit. Fancy boasting about having the clap…….gosh and golly and heavens to Bessy.

Sally Stevens
October 6, 2013 at 02:27

Well, Miss M, some people don’t got much more than the clap to boast about!

I was also treated with callous disrespect once I arrived in the residential child care stream myself. But I was at least allowed to wear my own clothes when going out and most of the girls went individually, not in a gaggle. That sort of procedure generally occurred at the remand level, for the purpose of reporting to the court on the next hearing.

In fact, Duncroft in many ways succeeded for me when expensive boarding schools failed. The real problem, from my perspective anyway, was that the parents/adults were believed ahead of the minor child. Down the line,that was closely investigated and appropriate adjustments were made, which was the standard of care and protection at Duncroft, I would venture to say that a large percentage of the women were adoptees, which really compounds the issues.

Moor Larkin
October 4, 2013 at 08:27

The BBC appears to be implying the cops are only looking for, “what we might be facing in terms of who’s committed some criminal offences”.
Are ex-staff of Duncroft going to be put in the frame as well now?

3 October 2013
More than 100 former pupils at a school in Surrey where Jimmy Savile abused girls have been interviewed by police.
Surrey Police said officers questioned the women, who were at Duncroft Approved School in Staines in the 1970s, as part of its investigation.
A total of 214 sex offences have been recorded against Savile across the UK.
Surrey Police said it was looking into the scale of Savile’s abuse at the school, which shut in the 1980s, and if anyone else knew about it at the time.
Det Supt Jon Savell said they were looking at “what could have been done to prevent that at the time and what we might be facing in terms of who’s committed some criminal offences”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-24381766

Moor Larkin
October 4, 2013 at 09:28

A correspondent has just informed me:

“MWT had a thing about Surrey police saying they’d interviewed 100 ex Duncroft residents on Radio Surrey – couldn’t find the item – maybe just a holding announcement because of the anniversary.”

Join the dots………………… Williams-Thomas, media and police playing the same old tunes I’m afraid.

Sally Stevens
October 4, 2013 at 15:39

Don’t assume it’s a member of the staff, Moor. Might be an ex-pupil, for all we know!

Mark
October 4, 2013 at 07:18

Nice one, Anna

carol42
October 4, 2013 at 02:04

Anna, the work you have done on this has been fantastic, so many people I have told about it had just ‘assumed’ Savile was guilty as charged as none of the MSM have published anything to the contrary, although I do sense a more sceptical attitude in many comments. I hope the truth, whatever it is, finally comes out. Wishing you all the luck in the world with your surgery, I managed to stop smoking for a month before mine but returned happily a month after, but then I never actually wanted to stop! Take care of yourself and I do hope one of your friends will perhaps let us know how you are when it is over. Best wishes to your wonderful husband, sometimes harder on the carer as they can feel so helpless.
Carol

JuliaM
October 4, 2013 at 06:42

Seconded!

Ho Hum
October 3, 2013 at 22:54

I can’t really imagine what this must be like for those of you whose past resulted in you being directly involved in this sort of issue, but as a grandfather who has had some real direct experience in the sort of problems that some of the current apparant paranoia maybe needlessly creates for one’s own children and theirs, please, whatever the truth actually is, stand up and tell it as it was, for the sake of this country’s future generations. We all need to know what is real, and what is not, so that the generations to come can live safely, and sensibly

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 23:02

I agree. Unfortunately much of the stuff on the internet is not real or is in some way manipulated. While some of the stuff posted may be true I think that its veracity needs to be challenged. While he may not live in Surrey there is no Durkin on the electoral rolls in that county nor the adjoining Berkshire at present. Is that officer real? Maybe, maybe not.Just like the rest of the stuff on the internet. If he is real let him and the team get on with it.

Jonathan Mason
October 3, 2013 at 23:17

Looks like he exists, I believe he is based in Camberley. In 2008 he was a sergeant. Here is a link from a reasonably reputable Web site with his name.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11918691

Ho Hum
October 3, 2013 at 23:40

Sure, but you would have more impact, and be more credible yourself, if what you wrote didn’t often sound like one of the milder extracts from some of the ‘Speak Your Brains’ type of forums. There’s a real place for scepticism, satire, irony, off beat humour and just downright disbelief expressed in pretty forthright terms, but it needs to be done with style, not just come across as a bottle of vitriol being splashed willy nilly upon those you deem to be sanctimonious.

And, should you just be trolling, which I really doubt, well, lets just say that that needs to be funny, not just proof of half wittedness

As you might guess, it’s late, and given the subject matter and its real impact, I’m feeling very irritated. If I’m misjudging you, take my apologies as read, and we can make up properly tomorrow

Sally Stevens
October 4, 2013 at 02:19

He’s the real deal. http://surreypf.co.uk/rep/matt-durkin/

At the same time Anna was on the phone with DI Durkin, I was speaking with DC Bambridge (a woman). Thereafter, I spoke with DI Durkin myself, just to say howdy-do. He was professional to the hilt, and I sense he has his doubts about a bit of this. But his job is to seek information, trust the source of that information, but to also verify it. Spoke with Kate Roach at Barnardo’s a couple of times beforehand – I’ve been in touch with Barnardo’s for about a year. I had to provide personal information to DC Bambridge to verify that I was who I said I was – and she was working from a list, I could tell. We had a long conversation. I have sent her some links of interest.

And may I respectfully inquire how much longer Mr. Rosemont is going to continue to try and derail the purpose of this post and comments thread? He has no idea what this is all about, but if he can make it about David and his sordid past, and drag you into it, he’ll try. Please resist the temptation to engage with this lackwit.

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 21:29

Whilst some on this post will not welcome this I must be honest and admit that I had not read all threads (Not enough time). Therefore Madame Rac I do wish you the very best and sincere support. In fact I do know something about the subject; perhaps more than some here. I won’t however give details. Suffice it to say I will repeat what somebody very dear to me said, and wrote “Pray, hope and don’t worry”. At the same time I admit to being a sad old git with some imperfections. The reek of sanctity (and this is mostly to do with some correspondents) is however something I can’t stand and neither can plenty of people I know. I’m bowing out but the best of luck. I do however note that unlike some I use my real name and don’t hide in the shadows.

Robert Edwards
October 3, 2013 at 18:29

No little words of mine can convey how moved and impressed I am by this initiative, Madame; the very fact that this blog has now become a conduit for what appears to be an official and revised investigation is an extraordinary development, surely?

When you recover from the forthcoming unpleasantness, (which of course you will), you should at least be offered the role of honorary Chief Constable of Surrey Police, if there is such a role.

As for Mr. Rosemont, here’s an idea – why don’t you fuck off?

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 21:06

What an elegant turn of phrase!

Sally Stevens
October 3, 2013 at 21:12

David, give it a rest. You’re little attempt at scornful humor completely negated any points you were trying to make. As someone who was at Duncroft, I don’t appreciate your comments one bit. This is exactly the sort of negativity that keeps people from coming forward. If you can’t add anything to the discussion except misplaced humor in dubious taste, then perhaps this isn’t the time for you to comment.

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 21:31

I’ve just done that Mr E good night!

Sally Stevens
October 3, 2013 at 18:21

My Duncroft records are not particularly accurate. They have eliminated some incidents that I remember very well, and have added incidents that never happened. It’s very naive to think that there would be any accuracy, and what the Surrey police need to do is not look at Duncroft records, but to speak to former Duncroft pupils, look at the now-defunct Careleavers Reunited message board (hopefully still on the servers) and also firmly establish the impostors who impersonated staff members, other pupils, etc.

And David, you’re a putz.

Jonathan Mason
October 3, 2013 at 19:05

That’s a pity if what you are saying is that all the individual records would be unreliable. Obviously the police would only be able to get them from the women concerned, but it would certainly be interesting to know if any women were put in the padded room for anything related to Savile or if there are any contemporaneous records related in any way to allegations that are already out there. For example there might be management daily log and communication books still archived and in existence somewhere that would mention key events such as celebrity visits, admissions and discharges, use of padded room, punishments, trips offsite to the doctor (or a TV studio) and so on. Or maybe they don’t exist any more or were never archived. Margaret Jones would probably know.

However I know from my own experience of auditing medical record charts that it is not unusual for staff to write entries in the wrong chart, for documents to be filed in the wrong chart, for similar names to be confused, addressograph page headers be stamped with the wrong card, sticky labels with the wrong identifying information be attached to pages, etc. Why does this happen? People are tired at the end of a 12-hour shift, they need to complete their documentation before they go home, so they rush it, or their concentration is interrupted by something else happening and when they get back to what they are doing the chain of events is broken, or various other reasons.

Sally Stevens
October 3, 2013 at 19:30

There was always a discussion about something called “the day book,” which the 70s women seemed to think was being kept vis a vis daily events concerning the entire school. There were logs for separate pupils, and I have mine, but there is no record of any “day book.” All the records from Duncroft were initially stored up in Liverpool, under very tight control, and then Barnardo’s ultimately requested them all, because Liverpool needed the room and Duncroft was nothing to do with Liverpool anyway. Kate Roach has told me that she has never seen and is unaware of any such “day book,” so I think we’ll have to assume it never existed. Margaret Jones submitted extensive material to the Surrey police some time ago, including the visitors’ book, containing Jimmy Savile’s signature and comments from his first visit in May 1974. The DC told me that they are sure that Jimmy was never there in the 60s, so that takes care of Bebe Roberts and her rubbish. What we do know for a fact is that he was at the school starting in May 1974 and appears to have stopped visiting in 1976. His visits were few. He did return in 1979 to assist in a fund-raiser, and Fiona has noted that she was approached by Margaret Jones to contact Jimmy to see if he would be available. This is pretty significant, imo. Obviously, she is either lying – possible of course – or the school had completely lost touch/interest in Jimmy and possibly vice versa. Barnardo’s came in and took over in 1980. The school was closed for a time, and then re-opened going through the 90s, during which time Sister Consolata was the headmistress. It was then closed for good and developers came in and turned it into high-end housing, which it still is.

Point taken about sloppy record-keeping – I certainly believe that to be the case!

Ellen Coulson
October 5, 2013 at 15:13

Why would Fiona have his contact details by the way – did she pursue him after she left Duncroft?

Anna Raccoon
October 5, 2013 at 16:50

What an utterly exquisite point Ellen!

One that should be made loud and clear and frequently to DI Durkin……..

Sally Stevens
October 5, 2013 at 19:49

I dimly recall that she also had a framed photograph of herself and Jimmy at her house. Surely one doesn’t keep framed photos of your abuser?

Rocky Racoon (No relation)
October 5, 2013 at 21:09

Fiona had photos and news clippings of Savile, herself and others at Duncroft carefully mounted in an album which she showed MWT. Why would she keep something she associates with bad memories for so long? Also the photo that was on Friends ReUnited site of the gingered haired girl snuggling up to Savile just moments before it’s claimed he sexually assaulted her, why would someone keep a momento of something distressing?

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 21:09

Krauts never had a sense of humour did they?

Sally Stevens
October 3, 2013 at 21:26

Are you drunk?

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 21:33

Churchill to that lady MP!

Ellen Coulson
October 4, 2013 at 10:28

and surely Sally with their sophisticated computer system they can very easily establish who posted what on the 1970Duncroft forum!

Sally Stevens
October 4, 2013 at 15:43

I would imagine they can hack into that pretty easily, and garner IP addresses, etc. More power to them if they can.

Joe Public
October 4, 2013 at 20:15

Or just ask the NSA

Bunny
October 3, 2013 at 18:03

Best of luck Anna and I hope it goes well, I have enjoyed reading your blog. Just best of luck, I cannot think of anything more to say.

Duncan Disorderly
October 3, 2013 at 16:56

“This is a search for the truth and you will be believed.”

Does a search for the truth equate to unqualified belief in what anybody says?

Moor Larkin
October 3, 2013 at 14:58

Seeing NAPAC referenced in that letter makes me feel behoven to point people to one of my blogposts, which acts as an archival summary of the way the memory of Peter Saunders, NAPAC’s founder, has “developed” in the public sphere. I had never heard of any of these people nor would I ever have taken an interest if it was not for this Jimmy Savile farago. The blogpost is here http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-insistence-of-memory.html None of the archival source opinions, they are factual records of his own interviews.

The necessity to always believe “a Child” has become utterly perverted into always believing “an adult” in these historical abuse cases. Grown-ups who make historical claims need to be subject to grown-up laws and grown-up investigation. It’s often commented that British society is becoming infantile – this whole disaster shows the dangers of childish behaviour being encouraged by the law and the law-makers and the law-keepers. The journalist profession just wants to make money by flogging whatever dead horses they can find. Something needs to change and reading Anna’s brave words leaves me hoping others can see the corruption of truth that only they can help expose. I pray they will make the right choices.

David Rosemont
October 3, 2013 at 14:04

Ivan, that’s terrible. Why does everything these days have to be oh so serious, humourless and black and white? It may not be PC or a la mode but I and quite a few think that problems of this sort are frequently caused by more than just one person or side. I’m not at all sure how much will be gained by chasing a few octogenarians around in ever decreasing circles and it’s perfectly possible that those that suffered won’t really gain much from raking over the coals either. One thing is ceratin and that is the lawyers will benefit enormously.. The next thing will be chasing former headmasters for psychological damage inflicted by frequent bare arsed caning which was a virtually daily occurence at schools in the fifities. Mind you you would probably argue that that is what made people like me what we are. It was hell at St Cakes and dropping soap in the showers was definitely not recommended!

SamB
October 3, 2013 at 23:19

The work done by your website and Anna Raccoon has been quite remarkable as it is factual based and not hysteria.

None of any of the postings on either site prove or disprove claims about Savile. What they do show is that a lot of people appear to be lying, jumping on a (financially rewarding) bandwagon and so on. Indeed the very manner in which the word ‘child’ has been used repeatedly in the media when in reality we have numerous middle aged woman (and some men) making claims apparently for compensation has created much misinformation.

There are great principals at stake here : criminal compensation is a necessary and useful state function but the amounts on offer for say a terrible physical and life changing injury (lost limb or eye) incurred during a crime are minimal compared to the so-called psychological damage claimed by those abused as a child.
And if someone were horribly injured during a car or work accident and made the appropriate insurance claims they will be made jump through endless legal hoops before any just settlement is reached.
Yet we are being asked by lawyers and the media to holus bolus accept claims involving millions of pounds against numerous organisations ( BBC etc) or Savile’s estate without any formal investigation. As exampled by the media and various lawyers bitterly attacking Savile’s estate and heirs as though they should simply hand over money because a claim ahs been made. Savile’s executors have no legal (and probably moral) power to do this. Their role is to act upon Savile’s wishes. In reality we know the estate will simply be eaten up by legal fees.

One person making a fraudulent claim diminishes genuine victims but they may escape attention but if there has been a concerted effort by a number of people (even if some claims about Savile were proved) to present a false scenario for the purpose of financial profit it is a serious and criminal conspiracy to defraud .
It simply cannot be allowed to stand. the police owe to all genuine victims of crime to investigate and discover if such a conspiracy has happened.

Fat Steve
October 3, 2013 at 13:47

I know this cause is important to you Anna but can I suggest that you think a bit about whether or not the main cause in your life NOW is your and your husbands welfare. You lit the touch paper when others were afraid to go near the firework —it will go off I am sure—truth outs eventually though it comes out slower when there is no one like you to kick things off as well as you did —-sit back a bit —look after yourself so when the firework goes bang you are in good enough health to enjoy it. Your many fans (of which I am one ) value the Raccoon for who she is and what she has done —-more than what she might yet do.

Anna Raccoon
October 3, 2013 at 14:12

Steve,

I entirely agree with you – and the last thing I wanted to do this week was another post and open the comments again – however, I was mindful of the effect if I didn’t put this official appeal up……..

Surgery next week, and this will be the last thing on my mind.

Jonathon will be pleased – I’ve even given up smoking to maximise my chances…..!

Edited by Anna to add: As I posted this comment, WordPress flashed up a sign to me to say that this was the 65,000th comment on the blog….talkative lot aren’t you?!!!!

Jonathan Mason
October 3, 2013 at 15:49

The very best of luck with the surgery. Lowering the carbon monoxide levels of your blood should make it all go better. Hoping to hear from you again before too long.

Fat Steve
October 3, 2013 at 16:32

Well Anna from experience women always agree with one —-and then do exactly what they want —Life would be really dull if they didn’t—I know my comment won’t stop you completely —but I just hope you might hesitate before jumping back in now and giving it your all as you appear to have done with most things in your life. —This time Anna give your all to yourself and your husband.
PS I sent an e mail to Mr G (probably just one of many many thousands no doubt ) wishing you well and I suspect its got lost in the wash —-I suggested a project to him that that you and he might find fun —-and when you are round from the surgery next week and making your way back if you would like me to put it in motion I will be really pleased to so do. I think you have my e mail

lleweton
October 3, 2013 at 20:56

Wishing you well.

Jonathan Mason
October 3, 2013 at 13:16

Sounds hopeful that a proper investigation will be carried out that will make up for the disgraceful shoddiness of the Yewtree Investigation.

Having been thinking over this business over the last couple of weeks and re-reading the total of Appendix 12 of the Pollard Report, it does seem to me quite possible that Savile did have some kind of sexual relations with girls at Duncroft (perhaps not full sex), although not necessarily the same girls (now women) involved in the seemingly fictionalized versions fed to the media.

a) After all, there were a lot of girls at Duncroft who had a history of prostitution, S