Innocent until Proven Dead; and the secrets you will never know.

January 26, 2015, 1:00 am

≫ Next: Black, White, and Fifty Shades of Grey.

In this age of Internet trial, the dead are truly Damned. The slurping sound you can hear on the cyber waves is the sound of a thousand career conspiracy theorists licking their lips at the thought of the new culpa scandal they can brew.

Leon Brittan is dead. Long live the Leon Brittan scandal. He is about to join Jimmy Savile as the pantomime paedophile icon of our age.

Out in Twitterland, the message is that “Survivors feel angry and fear the truth may never come out” – really? Surely now they are free to broadcast their version of the “truth” that they have been too shy to tell us before?

And that is the version of the ‘truth’, the ‘untested in court truth’, the ‘undefended truth’, that they demand ‘#we believe’, that will go down in history as it is written by our fearless main stream media. The articles written by hacks in the thrall of the career conspiracists will be quoted and requoted, you will be urged to ‘retweet’ them, and eventually your children will read them and believe them to be ‘the truth’.

Those truths have no more force or veracity than me claiming David Cameron is really a Koala Bear called ‘Fair dinkum’.

Leon Brittan’s ‘alleged victim’ was interviewed by Police in America recently; he was given every opportunity to repeat the internet rumours and instigate an investigation – he declined to do so. His friends were interviewed, to see whether they could come up with corroborating evidence that would substantiate the rumours and instigate an investigation without his involvement – perchance he was still too scared to ‘see the truth come out’ – they were unable to do so.

That won’t silence the army of sycophants in Salford bedsits who believe they ‘know the truth’ – what does the alleged victim know anyway, what do his friends know? What are they compared to the army of politically inspired activists who have gained meaning to their life by fighting for ‘the truth to come out’ – their truth.

What I have to say next IS important, and I hope you will retweet it to those who can carry on this fight for truth and justice. Ms Raccoon can do it no longer, my life is ebbing away and just getting through the day is taking all my strength now – I don’t propose to waste any on the Internet.

Last week I had a lengthy chat with Claudia Glover. Claudia is one of the solicitors at Osborne Clarke who has been evaluating the claims against the Savile estate. We have spoken before; I put her in touch with those Duncroft girls that I have been in contact with who were actually present when Savile’s alleged offences were said to have occurred; she was helpful and friendly.

Those Duncroft girls are the only people in the world able to legitimately comment on the veracity of some of the claims that have been made in respect of Duncroft. If someone is claiming that ‘Savile dragged them into the sewing room next door to the dinning room’ they are in a position to say where the various rooms were and on which floor. Because of their importance to judging the claims, I made the decision that I would have no further contact with them – I didn’t want to risk them inadvertently telling me anything that I shouldn’t know. I hope, when they read this post, they will understand why I have kept my distance from them.

However, that hasn’t stopped me being aware of information leaking out of the surveillance process. Not, I reiterate, from the Duncroft girls – but there are other sources involved in the process. I had telephoned Claudia in respect of one particular claim, that I understood was, shall we say, in ‘some difficulties’ in respect of being accepted. What some of you might, in your non-legal way, refer to as ‘laughed out of court’.

What she had to tell me, stunned me. I couldn’t possibly comment. In fact, she told me, she understood that a letter was en route to me from Slater and Gordon, telling me just that. It hasn’t reached me yet.

It seems, that whilst the claimants against the Savile estate are free to waive their right to anonymity and fill the airwaves with lurid stories, the actual claims are covered by a blanket confidentiality clause in Justice Sales judgment that means they can never be identified.

‘But some of those claimants are now being investigated for fraud’, I said. ‘And they belong to people who have waived their right to anonymity by appearing on the TV sofas’. ‘Doesn’t matter’, she said. ‘You cannot identify the claims or their outcome. You will be in contempt of court if you do so’.

This is a ridiculous state of affairs.

A Producer called Ollie Lambert from Minnow Films is making a documentary for the BBC “interviewing victims of Jimmy Savile” – or claimants against the Savile estate, as those of us who are sticklers for the facts would describe them.

It means that those claimants can go on ‘waiving their right to anonymity’ for the rest of their lives, dinning out on stories of ‘how they were abused by Savile’ – and creep back under the legal security blanket when challenged. You will never, EVER, know the truth. You will never be able to judge which of them were speaking the truth, which of them were fraudulently ‘taking a chance’ by climbing on the ‘compo’ bandwagon, which of them were just sad misguided souls attributing some genuine abuse by a lesser known name to Savile in the hope that someone would give them solace.

They could all belong in any one of those three categories, and you will never know which – because I am not allowed to tell you, nor is anybody else.

The case ‘for the defence’ is sealed.

You will be told in due course that the ‘Savile estate has paid out 3 million in compensation’ – and that will be presented as ‘evidence’ that the claims were valid.

I doubt you will be told that it will be going to the solicitors, Slater and Gordon, for their fees now dwarf the estate that should have been going to charity, including those to help victims of abuse…and the solicitors fees take precedence. Any claims against the estate surplus to the funds available are underwritten by the BBC and the NHS.

If there are any genuine claims, it is you who will be paying them, not Savile. You, the single Mothers that the BBC takes to court for not paying your licence fee, and you, the payees into the National Insurance fund that pays for the A & E in hospitals that is so underfunded it is in crisis.

You will never know whether your money was wisely spent or not – because you are not allowed to know.

I hope one of the many barristers who reads this blog takes forward the fight from here; I can do it no longer.

This isn’t about ‘child abuse’ – it is about the nature of Justice with a capital J.

↧

Black, White, and Fifty Shades of Grey.

March 2, 2015, 1:00 am

≫ Next: Grim Fairy Tales…The Savile Allegations.

≪ Previous: Innocent until Proven Dead; and the secrets you will never know.

There was a regular commentator on this blog who used to delight in taking me to task for my ‘privileged’ background, usually in disparaging tones. His assumption was one he was forced to eat for breakfast when I penned the Duncroft series of posts and he realised just how ‘privileged’ I had been…!

Assumptions are dangerous things. They emanate from a view that all is black and white – it rarely is.

When the Newsnight story first broke, my only interest was in whether the BBC really was censoring a story. The media, that is what this blog is all about. When the ‘first brave victim’ gave up her anonymity to tell her version of Jimmy Savile running round the dormitories at Duncroft abusing girls will-nilly, I was utterly gob-smacked.

It made no difference to me that ‘there had been rumours’ around Savile for years, nor whether he was friend of the powerful and famous – nor anything remotely connected to Jimmy Savile, a person I had never met.

What did make a difference to me was that I knew quite simply that the only part of the story in the public domain incontrovertibly could not be TRUE. I was there, I had woken up opposite the ‘first brave victim’ every morning of a life lived in that same dormitory long ago, and I had never set eyes on Jimmy Savile.

Even then, I left a loophole in that first post through which an explanation could have crept – there had been a brief couple of weeks at the end of the year when I was absent – perhaps, I posited, Savile had carried out his ‘abuse’ then, and my dormitory companions had simply never mentioned it. Highly unlikely, I agree – but you see, I don’t make ‘if it’s not black it must be white’ assumptions. Just because I didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – maybe I slept through all the excitement!

Shortly there came a ‘backstage’ explanation – Bebe Roberts was [Quote] ‘just trying to be helpful’ and shore up the story. Why would the story need shoring up, I asked myself? And by a patently false allegation?

I don’t propose to go through letter and verse here of the entire saga, it is all here on this site, every twist and turn, under the Duncroft/Savile tab above the masthead. I have learnt a lot since those early days. I had never heard of ‘corroboration by volume’; had no knowledge of the rash of allegations that had seen families torn apart by allegations that were always remarkably similar in style: there seemed to be a green Book of Tropes where ‘victims’ were concerned.

Nobody ever said to them ‘tell anybody and I’ll knock your head of’ – it was always a whispered ‘it’ll be our little secret’. Their breath always ‘stank of stale beer and cigarettes’ – the perpetrators were never non-drinkers or non-smokers. I came to the conclusion that either the perpetrators or the victims were working to a script. I wasn’t sure which.

Shall I repeat that? I wasn’t sure which!

I am still not sure, despite have unwillingly found myself immersed in the land of paedophilia for nigh on two and half years now. Inevitably I have found myself worrying away at the loose threads of the Savile saga, because the one fact of which I am irrefutably sure is that the ‘first Savile victim’ was lying.

Every time I tug at a thread, I find myself not unravelling the story, but holding onto a short piece of cotton that goes nowhere. I don’t do it to ‘defend Savile’ or because I am a ‘paedo-enabler’, as the popular taunt goes. I do it because I want to find the one piece of evidence that will show me why it was important to ‘shore up’ this story. I haven’t found it yet.

The title of Friday’s piece, ‘Where’s the Meat, Mum’ was no accident. I groaned to myself when that rash of reports came out – I don’t want to do this any more! Such is the climate of fear around the subject of historical child abuse now, that if I don’t, no one else will. I can understand those who put paying their mortgages, supporting their families above searching for the truth.

I, however, will go on reading the actual reports, for as long as I can – and if pointing out that the reports published so far are a long catalogue of allegations of ‘truly awful, dreadful abuse’ allegedly carried out by Savile against ‘vulnerable children in care homes’ who cannot even demonstrate that they, or their parents, were ever, at any time, even in the same country as Savile, for God’s sake; or that there is something terribly wrong when a Policeman reports that, whilst on duty, he saw Savile taking teenage girls onto ‘his boat’ – a boat that sunk when the Policeman was a child, is befitting of the hostility and abuse I am subjected to – well then, so be it.

If Savile was this terrible predatory paedophile that abused thousands of girls and boys, I would expect after three years that at least one piece of incontrovertible evidence, just one, would have appeared, and the ‘story’ would not need to be shored up with forged letters from police forces, false allegations, the only people who ‘knew about it at the time’ conveniently now dead, verbal abuse from retired/fired police constables, or the vitriolic hostility from activists utterly outraged that ‘years of rumours’ are not sufficient for me to understand that I should cease searching for the truth because I’m ‘damaging the cause’.

The Yewtree allegations that Peter Spindler said proved Savile was Britain”s most prolific paedophile have been hidden from view; we have had to take it on trust that there was good reason for millions of NHS pounds, millions of tax payers pounds, millions of licence fee payers pounds, to be expended on investigating this ‘truly awful, dreadful’ abuse.

Now we find that in many cases, money was spent investigating reports ‘that Savile may have walked across the car park of the Maudsley Hospital 30 years ago’. Walking across a car park, the sole allegation, does not qualify as ‘truly awful, dreadful abuse’. There was a reason why these sort of allegations were included in Yewtree – and that reason was to ‘shore up the story’, corroboration by volume.

Now we hear finally from the Secretary of State. He tells us something the Charities Commission are somehow unaware of. He tells us that:

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the value of the Savile estate. A total of £40 million remains under management in his charities. That money will be made available to meet claims made by Savile’s victims, and if it is not enough, the Government will meet any further claims through the NHS Litigation Authority.

Now that is truly odd. The Charities Commission were of the opinion that in 2012 there was:

The general charitable trust’s latest accounts, filed with the Charity Commission in March of this year, show it has funds totalling £3.7m in 2011/12. It had an income of £132,546 and spent £43,866 in the same year.

The Stoke Mandeville charity has funds of £1.7m, according to the Charity Commission files.

It is estimated that Savile raised £40 million in charitable funds in his entire lifetime – and spent it on Stoke Mandeville, amongst other places. Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that he may have raised twice that – and concealed it from the Charity Commissioners? Or does he mean that the sum total of the claims that are expected to result from the amalgamated dross that comprise the Yewtree allegations – now seemingly accepted on the basis that there was ‘no evidence’ to the contrary – is going to cost taxpayers in excess of £37 million, once the Savile estate has been denuded by the lawyers.

Don’t journalists have access to calculators any longer?

This isn’t about trying to prove Savile innocent; it is about trying to understand how on earth Miss Jones’ nephew getting his knickers in a twist over his grand-mothers will, could possibly have led a country buckling under austerity to denude the NHS of £37 million; it is about trying to make sense of an insane situation.

It is about making public the steps that led us to this dark place.

So, tough love – there will be more reports tomorrow and the next day, we need to know what Yewtree actually amounts to.

You are wasting your breath sending me more e-mails – it is watery bile off a Dux back.

↧

Grim Fairy Tales…The Savile Allegations.

March 5, 2015, 1:00 am

≫ Next: Savell on Savile.

≪ Previous: Black, White, and Fifty Shades of Grey.

I was struck by the number of people – allegators – in the past series of Savile reports, who had contacted Yewtree merely out of a wish to validate other reports of abuse.

In plain English – although they had no evidence of abuse themselves, or were fabricating it, it was out of a sense of solidarity with abuse they were convinced had taken place. Every single one of them had come to the decision that this was the right thing to do (or even the most profitable thing to do) in the wake of a television programme that stated as fact that Savile was a paedophile – a programme that based its evidence on a) material which was not considered substantial by the BBC, and b) has itself not been corroborated by the extensive investigation into the Duncroft girls claims by Operation Outreach, and c) would most certainly have been the subject of a massive defamation tort had Savile still been alive.

The Emperor not only has no clothes – but is standing on a bed of quicksand.

There has been much talk of those other unfortunate individuals who have been caught up in Operation Yewtree, vilified, defamed, and spat out with no charges. Their names are legion.

In one sense, their, and Savile’s, ruined reputations is partly at the own hand – because they had made their living by their very celebrity.

Yet there is another, much, much, larger group of people who have equally been defamed, and irretrievably damaged, by the media obsession with the Savile saga, which has encouraged these grim Fairy Tales.

They are in no particular order:

First and foremost – those 90% of victims of abuse within their own family, who must now queue up behind the ‘Yewtree chancers’ and wait their turn for a weary police officer to take them seriously, or a harrassed social worker to remove them from danger, or a therapist to help them make sense of their lives.

Then there are the children currently in care, who have been told daily in the news that their carers are a useless bunch; they might seem like cheerful, helpful, souls who have their best interests at heart, but without the threat of imprisonment – they couldn’t be trusted to tell anyone that their charges were being abused. That is one Hell of an insult to a group of people who have a pretty thankless task as it is.

There are the Duncroft staff, one of whom passed away never knowing that their names had been cleared of some dreadful accusations, and another who has had her advanced years blighted by hurtful libel as reward for having worked so hard to get what was in its day the most advanced and liberal scheme ever imagined to give girls a second chance of independence and a rewarding life.

There are the other Duncroft girls, who have given up their anonymity and rebuilt lives – and make no mistake, 100s of us did take advantage of what was then a unique opportunity to get our lives back on track from difficult beginnings and have made a success of it – and have had to read and explain to our families the appalling lies told by the media of how we were emotionally deprived helpless waifs living under a dreadful regime of uncaring incompetence. We weren’t.

There are the thousands of NHS staff who, the media would have us believe, are so feeble and morally incompetent, that a few gold chains round the neck of someone who spins records for a living is sufficient to blind them to appalling abuse to helpless children in favour of not upsetting a ‘celebrity’ – a reticence they can only be cured of by threat of a prison sentence.

The same goes for the hundreds of BBC staff, who, surrounded by far greater celebrities than Jimmy Savile, are painted as equally feeble and morally incompetent once catching sight of that track suit, and ignoring the pitiful pleas of abused children under their nose.

All these people have children of their own, are normal, everyday, folk – yet they have been defamed as monsters who wilfully ignored the distress of children. I simply don’t believe it.

What I do believe, is that if mandatory reporting had been brought into legislation as some wished, then it would have been open season on every care home in the country. Disgruntled ex-residents would have been queuing up to claim that they were abused and had reported it, as this past series of reports has shown they are perfectly capable of doing so. Then the lawyers would have simply shown that there was no record of the abuse being reported – as there wouldn’t be when it hadn’t happened – and successfully sued the organisation.

This would have helped no one who deserved help. I note the distress of many on social media, ‘disappointed’ that no evidence could be found of intelligent caring folk deliberately ignoring ‘truly awful, dreadful abuse’.

Now that I’ve gone through ALL the allegations of abuse by Savile at the various Children’s Homes dotted around the country – you might imagine that there would be a collective sigh of relief, an outpouring of ‘at least our Children were safe in the Children’s Homes’. There hasn’t been.

It is a strange world when people would prefer that children had suffered.

But the cost of intervention in chaotic families – at least at the last resort stage of removing children – looks increasingly unsustainable. I looked at the latest reported figures for five local authorities in England: in Birmingham, the forecast overspend this year in children’s social care is currently £10m; in Salford it is £5m; in Sheffield it is £2m; in Liverpool £3m; in Kent it is currently £8m. In all cases the cost overruns are attributed in the main to higher than expected increases in the numbers of looked after children.

We blew 7.3 million on investigating media hype, instead of looking after current children.

You will be relieved to hear that Ms Raccoon is now going to shut up for at least a week….

Barman! Give me hand back up those stairs!

↧

Savell on Savile.

April 29, 2015, 6:33 am

≫ Next: Starr Wars.

≪ Previous: Grim Fairy Tales…The Savile Allegations.

Detective Superintendent Jon Savell has finally spoken, albeit briefly. After 3 years of investigation into the allegations regarding Jimmy Savile at Duncroft, it amounts to 17 pages. 17 pages that are notable as much for what they don’t say as for what they do.

Operation Yewtree recorded 11 ‘accounts of crimes’ said to have been committed by Savile at Duncroft. 5 of which were reported to have happened in the years 1970 – 1973.

Operation Outreach has now conclusively decided that Savile didn’t set foot in Duncroft before the 21st January 1974.

8.1 The evidence reviewed by Operation Outreach shows that Jimmy Savile first visited Duncroft on 21 January 1974, and ceased visiting when the school closed in 1979 for a restructure of management.

We now have incontrovertible proof that Bebe Roberts, or Beryl Shaw as she was then, was lying – along with four other girls…

Five false allegators; who-da-thunk-it?

We also have incontrovertible proof that Susan was telling the truth in her account of introducing Savile to her life at Duncroft. I never doubted her, and applaud her courage in standing up to the wave of hysterical allegations that sought to silence her.

What more do we know? Difficult to evaluate, since Surrey Police have not chosen to impartially investigate these allegations, but rather acted as judge and jury and taken them a ‘true’:

Operation Outreach has taken the same approach, to the joint NSPCC and Metropolitan Police report, Giving Victims a Voice published in January 2013. Operation Outreach does not regard accounts provided by Duncroft victims as unproven allegations, and as such they are referred to throughout this report as ‘victims’ rather than ‘complainants’.

Further, they have expanded, during the intense media coverage, the original 6 allegations which could have occurred during the proven timeline, to 46 using some nifty footwork which will be greatly appreciated by a media keen to publicise scandal. First they took the 22 allegations they now had, and turned them into:

Operation Outreach confirmed that at least twenty-two pupils and one visitor were victims of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile at Duncroft.

Then they added up the number of times allegations had been made that Savile had engaged in:

non-consensual kissing, touching of breasts over clothing, touching of breasts under clothing, vaginal touching, vaginal penetration with hand, forced masturbation, forced oral sex, and other sexual touching.

and counted each allegation of ‘multiple times’:

if a victim states a range e.g. ‘this type of abuse occurred four-five times’ the lowest figure has been counted with the consideration that the abuse occurred at least this number of times.

as a separate offence. Finally arriving at the magical headlines which will dominate the press of:

‘Savile carried out 46 sexual offences at Surrey girl’s school, say Police.’

Of these ’46 offences’ – two were offences contrary to Section 4(1) Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and Thirty-eight offences contrary to Section 3(1) Sexual assault – and that is only if they were able to be charged under the current 2003 Act.

At the time, i.e 1974, all 46 ‘offences’ would have come under the heading of Section 14(1) Indecent assault on a woman – as could kissing your Aunty Marge without first getting her permission…

– and these are ‘offences’ that have never been investigated…because ‘nobody ever lies about sexual abuse’ – except the five that reported being abused at Duncroft years before Savile set foot in the place…but we’re hoping you won’t notice that…

Something else of interest. Much was made in the Exposure programme of a victim being ‘dragged screaming’ to a padded cell after trying to report being abused by Savile.

The ‘very secure room’ is what pupils sometimes refer to as the ‘padded room’. It is clear from Duncroft documents that all the rooms were built for ‘security and safety’ whilst aiming to also be ‘pleasing and domestic’. The security aspect meant built-in furniture, non-glass mirrors, and limitation of edges, ledges, hanging rails, hooks, pipes, and consideration about the weight and nature of every moveable object in the unit. The documents also specify a ‘separate single suite of room and lavatory, all with total security and safety’. In a manager’s report from May 1978 there is reference to a ‘padded secure room’. From the documents it can be seen that this was simply a single room with extra safety precautions including some ‘padding’ where necessary.

In practice, pupils would most often be admitted to the ICU on ‘return from absconsion’. This could be due to them being under the influence of drugs, or having self-harmed whilst away, or simply in a distressed state. ‘The unit was designed and set up at a time when a lot of girls were referred who were serious drug-takers and who needed at times a quasi-hospital type care – hence the unit look and feels more like a sick bay or isolation unit’. The report goes on to discuss how the need for the unit had almost entirely disappeared, with the secure room being used so little that it was obsolete.

There is no discussion of the events said to have taken place at the BBC:

Offences of abuse against Duncroft pupils that occurred on BBC premises do not form part of this report.

‘That occurred‘ eh?

No discussion of how Savile came to visit Duncroft, no attempt to discern whether there was any truth in the allegations – merely a trawl for more allegations undertaken that was so comprehensive they even managed to track down seven pupils that Barnardos didn’t realise they had…

Barnardo’s supplied Operation Outreach with details of pupils and staff present during the years 1974-1979 inclusive. In the course of the investigation some pupils were identified as having been resident during the relevant time frame but were not present in the pupil list. In total seven pupils were identified in this way.

All in all, 17 pages that only inform by omission – but give the media the headlines they crave. Precisely as the NHS reports did.

Those of us who have waited three years to know the truth, are none the wiser. It may come as a shock to others to realise that almost 50% of the original Yewtree allegations, were, as we have always said, false. Lies, plain and simple.

The other 50% remain allegations. Untested, un-investigated.

Millions of pounds later.

Edited to add: Statement from Barnardos who managed the school 1976 to 1979 is interesting.

“We know that Jimmy Savile visited Duncroft on two or three occasions during the three years Barnardo’s managed the school. Six former pupils told the investigation that they were sexually assaulted by Savile over this period.”

So, 16 of the remaining allegations relate to 1974 – 1976.

↧

Starr Wars.

June 24, 2015, 1:01 am

≫ Next: Class and the Common Girl.

≪ Previous: Savell on Savile.

Monday, I managed to slip loose from the protective cordon that has been thrown around me – “for my own good” – and take the train down to London. It has been frustrating sitting here, behaving myself, whilst the Starr v Ward libel case played out in the Royal Courts of Justice.

It was the words, spoken and/or implied, by Karin Ward that became the foundation stone of the tottering edifice we know as ‘Operation Yewtree’. Contrary to popular belief, Karin never appeared in the infamous ‘Exposure’ programme that led to a mad clamour of allegations regarding Jimmy Savile. Yet without Karin Ward, that programme would never have been made. If you are not up to speed on that, start reading here, and come back in a month or so when you’ve caught up!

I had been getting regular reports as to the goings on in court – not from the media, who arrived to report on the initial lurid allegations, but haven’t been seen or heard of since. Pesky details like someone proving that ‘x’ allegation simply couldn’t be true, are just soooo boring to your modern media man.

I was intrigued to hear that part of the proceedings had included a line by line reading of my ‘Savilisation’ blogs – to the point that Mr Justice Nicol had said ‘we’ve heard quite enough about Jimmy Savile’ – quite, the current case is concerning what Karin Ward said about Freddie Starr…even so, I shall be framing the transcript when I get it. Not often a blogger gets to feature in a High Court libel case without being sued themselves!

I’m not going to discuss what was said in the court before Monday until I have the transcript – I wasn’t there and my notes have come second hand; in a libel trial where every word counts, it would not be right to do so. That may be doubly frustrating for you – because by order of Mr Justice Nicol, some of what occurred on Monday I cannot tell you.

Monday was of particular interest to me, because the one and only witness speaking in support of Karin Ward who was allegedly at the infamous Clunk-click filming when Freddie Starr was appearing was due to appear. I have long been aware of the names of the girls on that trip, and was as interested to see who was speaking up to support Karin’s allegations as I was to be able to discern who wasn’t prepared to speak up.

I can’t give you the name of the one girl who was prepared to speak to Karin’s version of events – not because she has anonymity by virtue of being a victim of sexual abuse, but because of lengthy legal wrangling, and the intervention of Mr Bunting, a barrister who was working pro bono, on her behalf. She wanted anonymity because:

1. These events took place 41 years ago, she was now employed, her life had changed, and her children and grandchildren didn’t know of her past as a ‘Duncroft girl’.

2. She feared she would be subject to harassment on social media.

3. Weighing Article 8 against Article 10 – the right to a private and family life versus freedom of expression.

4. Proportionality.

5. The knowledge that the media will continue to report indefinitely should she be named in open court for having done her civic duty by giving evidence.

It was stated that this witness was not prepared to co-operate willingly, and had been subpoenaed to appear.

Powerful arguments as to why section 39.24 of the Court procedure rules should be invoked to protect her identity. The court thus ruled that she should only be identified as Miss ‘C’.

You must be agog to hear what exceptional revelations Miss ‘C’ had to make that the court, and Karin Ward’s solicitor-advocate (it is noticeable that neither party is using a barrister in this case) should go to so much trouble to protect her?

Hold onto your seats.

Miss ‘C’, Karin Ward’s sole contemporary witness and supporter, “Doesn’t recollect anything in particular”. In fact her memory is “Quite hazy”.

She explained that she was not present in the famous picture of the ‘Freddie Starr appearance (the ‘bean bag’ photograph) “because she was in the audience”. She didn’t explain why.

She confirmed that she was only present on ONE trip to Clunk-click. However, she ‘did not recollect’ the name of the show.

She “doesn’t recall” Gary Glitter being on that show.

She doesn’t recall “How many went to that show”.

She doesn’t recall “which girls” went to that show.

In fact she “wasn’t sure” whether Freddie was there. Leading Mr Dunham to comment that there seemed to be a lot that she didn’t recall. Her response was “Not a lot, No”.

However, there was one detail of which Miss ‘C’ was abundantly clear. Despite having given evidence that she ‘had never asked a celebrity for an autograph’, she told how she was ‘standing in a doorway with another girl’ – neither the girl nor the doorway, nor the occasion was identified – when Freddie Starr came to the door. She asked him ‘for something to remind her of the trip’.

He said -‘You can have a lock of my hair’. Put his hand down his trousers and produced a pubic hair. She said “I thought ugh!”. Then he disappeared. She stated that Jimmy Savile was in the room at the time.

I do have e-mails written by Miss ‘C’ stating that she did not witness any abuse of Karin Ward, but obviously cannot now release them since that might identify her. Since I am also aware that Mr Price has the same e-mails I am slightly bemused as to why he went to so much trouble to introduce her evidence. There were at least three other Duncroft girls who he could have called in evidence, and it is impossible to believe that he couldn’t trace them since they have all been prolific on social media and in forums, including the shy Miss ‘C’.

Another girl on that trip to Clunk-Click was, of course, Susan. All of the reasons advanced above in favour of anonymity even for people who were not sexually abused applies to her – but no such protection was afforded to her. I continue to hold her bravery and sense of civic duty in high regard.

Susan gave evidence for five solid hours. A large part of that time was expended on taking her through a line by line reading of my blog posts – posts that related to Savile – eventually Mr Justice Nicol said ‘we’ve had quite enough of Jimmy Savile’ and reminded Karin Ward’s solicitor-advocate that this trial concerned the comments his client had made about Freddie Starr.

Not before David Price, said solicitor-advocate, had entered onto the court records my married name, rather than my maiden name which I use for professional purposes as the author of the Anna Raccoon blogs. I understand that yesterday he also identified me as having been sitting in court on Monday – for what reason I do not know. Perhaps he was mindful of the noisy group of ‘CSA’ activists who were clustered outside court taking photographs of everyone leaving the court.

I further understand that yesterday he also labelled me a ‘Savile Denier’ – notwithstanding that I was not a witness in court and have no right of reply nor to qualify that comment by saying that I have only decried those claims which I personally knew to be untrue – the claims prior to 1974 which Operation Outreach has now confirmed could not have occurred.

There is a lot of further evidence to be digested, but that will do as a first dispatch from the murky trenches. For the benefit of doubt, Freddie Starr was not in court, nor were there any journalists in the press box. Apparently both parties had decided to spare themselves the agony of listening to Mr David Price speaking for eight solid hours trying to score points, an experience akin to watching your pet tortoise mate with a reluctant female.

I realise that the many Duncroft girls who read this blog will quickly figure out who the hapless witness ‘C’ is – any attempt to name her will result in your comment disappearing into cyberspace without ever appearing in public. I have set the spam filter with her name as a swear word.

↧

Class and the Common Girl.

July 29, 2015, 12:25 am

≫ Next: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

≪ Previous: Starr Wars.

Reading one of Moor Larkin’s excellent posts the other night, an excerpt from the Pollard report caught my eye. I had seen it before, but in isolation; now I was reading it again in conjunction with the memory of an except from Jimmy Savile’s autobiography (I confess I neither own a copy nor have read it – excerpts only!).

It was Meirion Jones making his disingenuous background notes to Mark Williams-Thomas and talking about the Duncroft girls:

4.5 In the 1950s, Duncroft was an elite institution where only the most intelligent young criminal girls were sent. If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft. As a result, the pupils at Duncroft included individuals who were connected to fairly influential and high profile families.

And again, in Savile’s autobiography a similar sentiment was expressed – that somehow parent’s could influence the result of a court case and ensure that their ‘well connected’ daughter ended up at Duncroft and not one of the many other similar Approved Schools dotted across the country.

It is cobblers. Cobblers on stilts as it happens.

First, and most important, any girl arriving at Duncroft in the 1960s, as I did, had been through the criminal justice system via the local Magistrates Court. The resulting ‘Care and Protection Order’ counted as a criminal record at the time – it barred future employment in the Civil Service or Armed Forces – both still bastions of upright God fearing citizens serving their country.

In fairness, some of the reasons why you might need to be criminally sanctioned as in need of ‘Care and Protection’ would seem laughable today. There was one girl, whose parents had upped and disappeared, who had maintained herself and her young brother by stealing food until caught – unthinkable today that she should be so punished, today social services would be running in circles furnishing a flat for her.

1960 was a different country, and it pays to remember that.

Other girls had played truant from school – today their parents would be punished. Another girl had taken a raincoat from a school coat rack on a rainy Friday night – when she returned it on the Monday morning she was charged with theft. Today you have to ‘intend to permanently deprive’ before being charged with theft. Without doubt there were some girls who had taken to prostitution at an early age, and one I shared a dormitory with, who proudly boasted of her starring role in early blue movies.

The point being that every single one of us had done something that was considered to be against the law at that time. I have detailed my own path to Duncroft. The notion that we were merely ’emotionally disturbed’ and that well-heeled parents had opted for this palatial manor house known as Duncroft to avoid us getting into more trouble is to seriously misunderstand what was going on here.

The courts, having sentenced us to (normally) a three year ‘Care and Protection order, we were then moved to an ‘assessment centre’. The first criteria for Duncroft was IQ. Here again, the thinking was not to isolate some well-heeled elite, but to ensure that the experiment of seeing whether further education, still in its infancy, would help us to return to normal life. The IQ element was not rigid. (I was later amused to find, when some fellow Duncroftians arrived on this site and commenced a conversation about IQ results, that I was the Dunce of the class of ’65. Their Barnardo’s notes revealed IQs of terrifying heights, unlike my own more modest score!). The IQ result was coupled with an assessment of ‘likely to benefit from further education’. That in turn meant that those who hadn’t played truant, and playing truant is far more difficult at a boarding school than it is for those at day school in their home town, had a head start here – they hadn’t missed so many lessons.

Parents, well-heeled or otherwise, had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

Readers under the age of 60 may not be fully aware that back in the 1960s, ‘being at boarding school’ didn’t necessarily mean that your parents were well-heeled as it does now. The world map was still coloured pink, and boarding school was a sort of gentile fostering service for the children of the army of sometimes quite lowly civil servants and military that were stationed in the outposts of the British empire. I went to boarding school at 3 (Froebel’s in Guernsey) and I wasn’t unusual in having gone at an age that would be considered abuse in itself nowadays. I also wasn’t unusual in being part of the band of children that didn’t go home at Christmas or Easter holidays, simply because the journey to ‘home’ – Australia, Hong Kong or wherever – was really only ‘do-able’ in the longer summer holidays. B.O.A.Cs nanny service for ferrying such children to their parents is a fond memory for many. The more lowly the parent’s overseas occupation, the more likely boarding school rather than a private tutor in the ambassador’s residence…

So, was Duncroft only for the children of the well-heeled? Stuff and nonsense. I did a quick phone round of other Duncroft girls the other night, and between us, spanning 1965 to 1973, we can only come up with a total of two girls who were ex-boarding school, and only one of them (not I, that’s for sure) could remotely be described as ‘middle class’ let along ‘upper class’. The rest of our class mates were defiantly ‘working class’. One was the product of ‘fairground employees’. Two we can think of, had parents who had never been nor intended to be, gainfully employed. Again, as Moor has so painstakingly researched, some had no family home to return to. No parents to speak for them. Nowhere to go on the occasional home leaves. That was why people like Professor Bell took us on camping holidays to Norfolk. (*Waves to Ellen*).

The ‘celebrity connections’ that people make so much of, came about (mainly) because the school psychiatrist, Dr Mason, was married to an Elstree film producer, and the fact that the school and its ethos was a liberal experiment, an early exponent of the idea that neither your cultural background, nor your past, should count against you in ‘life chances’. People, especially the liberal elite, were fascinated by this notion of ‘bad girls’ being given a second chance. Little doubt that there were some who found the notion positively offensive.

The raising of the school leaving age to 16, and the concomitant requirement that everyone received a full time education, posed a problem for the mental health services. Young people are as prone to mental illness as adults. Schizophrenia can strike alarmingly early. Autism, though not a mental illness, can lead to behavioural problems that were not readily understood at the time. Psychiatric hospitals didn’t even have ‘young persons units’ and they most definitely didn’t have educational facilities.

One of the important changes brought about under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was that central government divested itself of direct responsibility for the former Approved Schools. Many were closed. Duncroft, already a ‘secure unit’ and with residential psychiatric facilities, became a ‘Community Home with Education’, administered by the Local Authority, and for the use of those with mental health issues who could not, because of the requirement for secure accommodation, utilise mainstream education. I have taken a straw poll of 1975/78, not as comprehensively as I did for the 1965/73 period, and girls from that period don’t remember anyone who would qualify as coming from a privileged background.

It is curious how this myth of a financially privileged elite has taken root. Initially from Savile’s idea that somehow parents were ‘clamouring’ to get their ‘gals’ into Duncroft; then from Meirion Jones’ comments to Pollard, and possibly the news that ‘Fiona’ was parented by a highly placed BBC apparatchik. On the one hand we were ‘poor little vulnerable waifs’ and on the other hand we were the ‘spoilt offspring of wealthy parents’ trying to avoid the court system?

Neither is true. We were an egalitarian experiment in what is now a very modern idea – that neither your past and nor your birth circumstances should preclude you from having a second chance at making a life for yourself.

↧

Exclusive – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

September 1, 2015, 6:44 am

≫ Next: Collateral Damage.

≪ Previous: Class and the Common Girl.

Meirion Jones has long been an advocate of ‘Mandatory Reporting’ – a system of criminal sanctions for those who have care of children but have failed to report allegations of abuse made to them regarding those children. He frequently takes MPs to task if he thinks they are not doing sufficient to bring this law into being.

@SarahChampionMP Are you pushing mandatory reporting or do you think OK for covering up child abuse not to be crime? @mandatenow #Savile

— Meirion Jones (@MeirionTweets) January 14, 2015

Do you see the subtle assumption at play there? – without ‘Mandatory Reporting’, the assumption is that a child WILL have reported abuse in the past, and the carer WILL have ‘covered it up’. It completely discounts the possibility, and I put it no higher than that, that a) such abuse genuinely occurred, and b) that it was reported. It leaves a carer, perhaps 30 years later, being criminally sanctioned for having ‘failed to report’ a crime he may have known nothing about, simply because there was no report in the day book – yet a jury have accepted that abuse did occur and the child, now middle aged, claims to have reported it to Mr ‘X’.

It is the ultimate Christmas gift to those who run legal firms specialising in bringing claims for compensation against institutions.

Interestingly, there has never been any question of ‘Mandatory Reporting’ applying to the now legion of journalists who claim retrospectively to have known ‘irrefutably’ that Savile was a predatory paedophile – but were unable to stop him ‘because of the libel laws’. The idea of accompanying their supposed ‘credible sources’ to the local police station and ensuring that their claims were investigated, as any decent human being would have done, never seemed to have occurred to them, once the ‘story that every journalist would want’ had been spiked…

Meirion’s source for his Newsnight documentary that was never shown due to lack of credible evidence, centred round Karin Ward, a girl who had been at Duncroft in 1974. Karin and the other girls that were sent in Meirion’s direction, were marshalled by another girl who had been at the school in 1978, and bolstered by a forged letter claiming that Savile would have been prosecuted but was ‘too old and infirm’. Their paths had never crossed in person, only on the Internet. The ‘2007’ police investigation into Savile’s presence at Duncroft showed one remarkable fact – that not one girl had ever claimed to have reported Savile to any of the staff. Nor was ‘Clunk-click’ ever mentioned to them. That was why the Police had never interviewed any of the staff, nor were they aware of the events in 1974 regarding the origins of Savile’s connection with the school.

Which made Meirion’s desire to muddy the waters and make it appear as though – had the staff reported these ‘dreadful allegations’ – then Savile ‘could have been stopped’ all the more intriguing to me. For I was aware that the Head of the staff, the person most likely to have been criminally sanctioned, was none other than Meirion’s Aunt. Ms Margaret Jones.

After many months of lengthy investigation, police visits to the home of this 94 year old lasting for hours on end, the usual papers and mementoes of her long career removed for forensic examination, questioning which included allegations made to them ‘by BBC journalists’ regarding the innuendo laden ‘she likes a drink’ – turning the christmas sherry into something that sounded as though it might include alcoholism! and ‘she invited him to stay the night with her, you know’ – turning Savile’s stay in Janet Therobold’s empty staff quarters the other side of the school block, several secure key locks away from the girls, the night before the Fete he had agreed to open the following day, into something that sounded like an invitation from a ‘cougar’ female!

I can’t imagine (yes, I can!) who those ‘BBC journalists’ could have been who gave that evidence to Operation Outreach, nor where they might have gained such scurrilous gossip but eventually the Police discovered that claims of having ‘told the staff’ had only emerged in time to catch the ‘Mandatory Reporting’ campaign, and all the staff were cleared of any complicity or knowledge. Sadly too late to put Ruth Cole, the equally elderly deputy headmistress’, mind at rest. She died a few days before the final Police decision.

They were not the only staff at risk of criminal sanctions – there were many other staff on the premises that would have been targeted by the Mandatory Reporting. One of whom I had no knowledge of, since he had commenced work there after my time, when the school leaving age was raised to 16 and the ‘school’ element of Duncroft was made full time. He was the History teacher in the 1970s.

‘Jones the History’ – or ‘Mr’ Jones as the girls would have had to refer to him. A distinguished lecturer in Local Government, he had been drafted

in to help fulfil Ms Jones’ dream of giving the girls the best ‘second chance’ at education that she could possibly muster.
I heard rumours that there might be a family connection between Mr Jones the History teacher, and Ms Jones the head mistress, but aware that she had once had twin brothers, I thought perhaps this was the twin who had died tragically early?

Not a bit of it. This Mr Jones was none other than the Mr Jones who had once had carnal knowledge of Meirion’s beloved ‘Mumsy’, the Mother he was so close to that he only deigned to marry recently – in late middle age.

Mr Jones the History Teacher was none other than Meirion’s Father. A fact that Meirion could not fail to be aware of. The man who went to work every day to pay for young Meirion’s school fees at Colet Court and its ‘senior’ version St. Paul’s School – two of the most prestigious, and expensive, establishments for nurturing the future opinion makers and shakers. Strangely, both those schools have been beset by allegations of paedophile gangs at large. (The gangs must have been at work during the period Meirion was suspended for ‘hooliganism’ for Meirion has never attempted to make programmes about those schools….)

Meirion’s desire to force the BBC to carry a programme on the flimsiest of evidence that would ruin the life’s work of both his Aunt and his Father, and make it appear that his Grand-mother lived in a den of iniquity (Duncroft was her home as well) is beginning to make Lizzie Borden look like a competent family relationship advisor.

Did he tell the BBC of these other family connections? We should be told.

Legal? Decent? Honest? Truthful?

↧

Collateral Damage.

October 17, 2015, 5:47 am

≫ Next: The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

≪ Previous: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

I woke last Sunday morning with a particular image in my mind, that could be aptly described as ‘collateral damage’ to the continuing #CSA saga. Within an hour, I had dismissed the thought as being unsuitable subject for a blog post. Too lightweight, I said to myself. Yes, these people have been unfairly damaged, but I doubt that anyone other than I will care.

A couple of hours later, a perusal of the Sunday Times, a lengthy conversation with someone intimately involved, and then catching up with a radio programme that I have been meaning to listen to for a couple of months now – and I had changed my mind. The collateral damage runs far and wide. Unfairly so.

The image in my mind was this staircase. A prime example of medieval craftsmanship. Part of a gracious home that few of us could aspire to, let alone afford.

You can imagine the owner of this home feeling good about themselves as they climbed the stairs to bed. A home that was a reward for – perhaps years of hard work, perhaps skullduggery? Either way, a reward that they were happy to pay for. Pay dearly too. Such homes don’t come cheaply.

I can imagine climbing that staircase too, have done so once or twice. It is of course the main staircase at Duncroft Manor. The blocked off doorway on the left was the door to Miss Jones’ office. How do you think the owner of that apartment feels now? Pride as his visitors arrive to possibly one of the most blighted properties in England? Do you think he shivers every time he hears the name Jimmy Savile and wonders how he managed to sink his hard-gotten gains into an unwelcome piece of history?

What about the proud owners of 27 Rock Lane, Barnes? Forever immortalised as ‘the Elm Guest House’. Rarely out of the news. Flat C has changed hands numerous times – overlooking the common, in an area where average property prices are £805,395, its value stubbornly sticks around the £400,000 mark . Visitors still have to fight their way past news crews.

Dolphin Square? Do you think the householders there feel a frisson of pride as they give their address to taxi drivers? Do they cringe at the inevitable sniggers when they call the printer to ask for party invitations to be drawn up. It used to be a mark of pride to live in Dolphin Square – not any longer, the name blighted for ever.

As I said, given the trauma suffered by some, these homeowners hardships are lightweight by comparison. I don’t intend to draw any direct inference, merely that they too, are innocent bystanders in the media’s meddling in matters that should have been left to the police.

Within the hour, I found myself in conversation with someone who can legitimately call themself a ‘survivor’. In a far ranging discussion, I asked ‘what on earth persuaded you to offer yourself up to the media, what did you think it would achieve’? The answer came that they hadn’t ‘offered themself up – their name had been leaked, all they had done was make enquiries about counselling’. Why had they suddenly, all these years later, decided that they needed counselling? ‘Because you couldn’t pick up a newspaper or listen to the radio without hearing Jimmy Savile, Sex Abuse, Paedophilia…40 years later, old memories that had been quietly put away – not ‘buried’ – but put away in the box marked ‘past experiences’ and an ordinary life enjoyed, had been jolted back into life again. A life that has been turned upside down….

Whilst I was still contemplating all this, I listened to a radio interview I had been storing for some months. Becky Milligan’s hour long ‘investigation’ of ‘David’s’ allegations of VIP abuse. In many ways, an exemplary piece of fair and balanced reporting – a spine chilling account of one young man who came to London for three months, was robbed off his meagre funds, raped by a new found ‘friend’ and subsequently coerced into working as a rent boy on pain of the graphic photographs of his rape being sent to his Mother. But why was the BBC ‘investigating’ – shouldn’t that be the province of the Police?

I have no reason to doubt David’s account. I doubt that any rent boy went into that work with a desire to be treated like a piece of meat – all will have had their reasons. Nor do I doubt that among their customers will have been men from all walks of life – and probably more skewed towards the top end for financial reasons. The same holds true for female sex workers. It doesn’t take a sinister ‘ring’ being ‘protected’ from criminal sanction to see under age females the subject of criminal sexual abuse…just your average ‘John’…nor are all under-age victims coerced. Some have no alternative, no opportunity to ‘get a job in MacDonald’s’. Some coerce themselves, thinking the MacDonald’s option too much like hard work.

David too, had the same reason as my earlier conversation – the airwaves were full of talk of abuse, it had woken old memories. He didn’t want compensation, recognised that it was unlikely given how many years ago it had all occurred that there would be any chance of prosecuting anyone – most were now dead.

Yet he too was being re-victimised by a media that couldn’t leave the subject alone. Tormented by thoughts of events that he had long put in the box marked ‘past experiences’, events that his wife and family had known nothing about, events that he now spent every waking moment researching, reliving, and yes, possibly reinventing – we mustn’t discount that option.

I thought of all the Duncroft girls who have written to me – many pleading not to let anyone name them on this blog – they now have useful and respectable lives and families that know nothing of their ‘past experiences’. How many others like ‘David’ and my caller this morning, now find themselves in the eye of a media storm because of yet another media story ‘investigating’ VIP abuse, reminding them of events they had been happy to forget?

I have no problem with the Police investigating historic abuse, there is no reason why a crime should ‘lapse’ because of the passage of time (though I have a different view in respect of compensation – another matter altogether). I have no problem with MPs, journalists or Uncle Tom Cobbley reporting allegations to the Police, that is right and proper.

I do have a major problem with the publication of these stories, with the arrogance of a media that believes it is qualified to investigate such a sensitive matter, and with the pretentious hubris of the abysmal amateurs that have set themselves up as ‘support mechanisms’ seeking to debrief (for the benefit of their favourite media organ) or ‘handle’ those for whom past memories have been awoken.

They are doing untold damage to people who deserve better.

↧

The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

February 26, 2016, 3:32 am

≫ Next: Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.

≪ Previous: Collateral Damage.

100 years ago last year, a bitter little man, a man who hoped to be ‘somebody’ one day, a man with his head full of the ‘injustices’ of his life, but who, despite his poor background had had an excellent education, albeit rusticated from his posh school for hooliganism, was filled with a revolutionary fervour – he would ‘topple the toffs’, he would remake the world as he wanted it – and so he became a small bit player in cataclysmic events that would reshape the world for ever, cause untold misery for millions, bankrupt countries.

His name was Gavrilo Princip, a name that has sunk into well deserved obscurity, not the fame he desired. We remember only the devastating effects of his actions. He shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, an act which historians accept begat World War One. (The pedants have got me already – the 100th anniversary was two years ago not one!)

The ripples from that human conflagration shaped a generation; divided families; brought entire sections of society opprobrium and demonisation. Destroyed lives, careers, families, reputations.

I was reminded of those events yesterday when the final report of the Savile saga was published; as the media exploded in an orgy of claims and counter claims; apologies demanded and refused; colleagues eyed one another with suspicion, nay entire families did.

It was just such an uninspiring, obscure and bitter little man who set this chain of events in motion. Expensively schooled despite his humble background, albeit rusticated for hooliganism, he too would be filled with revolutionary fervour – he became one of the army of faux-socialists.

He enjoyed privileges many of us would have given our eye teeth for; loving parents to help him through his exams at the country’s best schools, a university degree entirely paid for by the tax payer, and a securely pensioned job travelling the world for one of the great British institutions. Enraged by bitterness over a family will that had failed to enrich him? A mummy’s boy who took on the mantle of his mother’s bitterness towards her sister in law? Who can begin to understand the workings of that tortured mind?

History will soon forget Meirion Jones’ name, but the ramifications of his desire for fame and glory back in 2011 will live with us for decades.

I was suffused with unspeakable anger last night, after reading Dame Janet’s report. Not, I hasten to add, at Dame Janet. I think she has achieved something remarkable; she has clawed her way through the bitterness, the grievances, the gossip, the alleged ‘benefit’ of hindsight, the score settling, the posturing of journalists, the strictures of legal definitions – aye, and the arse covering – and arrived at something approximating to the closest to the truth we will ever get.

Nobody ‘knew’ anything, but the picture they all drew of their impression of Savile as a working class miner, an insecure little man who had learnt how to devise this new persona – the disc jockey, the centre of attention – by the most vulgar of gimmicks. The gold lamé suits, the bling jewellery, the cigar – symbol of the toffs! – the grandiose gestures; hand kissing, arm kissing – courtly behaviour copied from another age. He was a ridiculous, laughable, socially inept, irritating little creep, that I would have loathed – and loath him the Reithian guardians of a bygone age did. But they needed him, he had become the Pied Piper of that burgeoning audience – teenagers.

Men who had once donned a dinner jacket to be properly dressed to read the news on the radio gulped back their distaste, and picking him up by virtual tongs – deposited him at the top of the BBC hierarchy – a star, their new talent. You could say ‘they took one for the team’ – the influx of disc jockeys saved their bacon, saw off the pirate stations that were threatening their world order – and they could retire to an ivory tower and await their pension.

Do you wonder that Dame Janet had to devote an entire chapter to the rumourmongering and gossip that was rife in the lower orders? The canteens and bars must have been stuffed to the gills with lurid tales shored up by jealousy – behind his helpfully absent back; one of the complaints was that he never used the bars, didn’t buy them a pint like a proper man….

He was a ‘gang-enforcer’, there was ‘something dark about him’, ‘what do all those girls see in him’, ‘yeah, young girls too – just the ones I wish were screaming for my attention’!

Today we are told that the report is a ‘whitewash’.

Ask yourself, should you be working today in some large organisation – how likely are you to pop into the CEOs office and pass on that choice piece of gossip you heard in the loading bay that old Arthur in accounts had his leg over the young girl in reception? You wouldn’t, simply because it would be gossip – but now that Yewtree has apparently blessed that gossip with the gloss of ‘truth’, the cyberwaves are full of people raging that it is inconceivable that those rumours were never passed onto senior managers. That it could only be that they lived ‘in fear’ of losing their jobs, that the system is ‘rotten to the core’.

No. What is ‘rotten to the core’ is the intention of some to transform Britain into a country where mere gossip, rumour, hearsay, is enough to banish an enemy, an outsider, a misfit, to the outskirts of society. There be dragons there.

I was angry because I read through page after page, 792 of them, looking for the evidence that would uphold Meirion Jones’ actions – before everyone had the ‘benefit of Yewtree hindsight’. Before a nation had been groomed to believe every last allegation anyone threw at the Savile name. Before the media picture desks groomed us to believe that he always had receding hair, a red nose and bulging eyes throughout his entire life. I wanted to see what Dame Janet made of the very building blocks of this saga of the Pantomime Paedophile.

I already knew that Operation Outreach had concluded that Susan was telling the truth – that Savile first visited Duncroft school on the 21st January 1974. That instantly knocked out five of the allegations made by girls who absolutely ‘must be believed’ that they were assaulted there in the years before that. Sadly Dame Janet didn’t manage to establish the precise transmission date of the Clunk-Click episode where Karin Ward said she saw ‘a Duncroft girl having sex behind a curtain with a celebrity’ in Savile’s dressing room. She did manage to establish that this was a crowded room where no one else apparently noticed this extraordinary event take place.

The Starr v. Ward case legally established that Freddie Starr ‘behaved inappropriately’ – but not criminally – towards some of the girls. Specifically that he managed to put his hand down his tight trousers and extract just the one pubic hair which he ceremonially handed to the lying toe-rag I am forced by law to refer to as Miss ‘C’.

I would encourage the gentlemen amongst you, even the ladies, to repeat this feat. At best you might grasp half a dozen hairs, pull the skin painfully upwards – and extract none of the hairs. You can barely move your hand inside tight trousers, certainly not with the precision required to remove just one hair….

Whilst we are on the subject – another experiment for you. Please, please, only try this with your wife – I don’t want anybody getting arrested. Sit on a bench, place your hand palm upwards on the bench next to you, and invite your good lady to sit on your hand. Now with her weight on your hand, even if she is an anorexic dwarf, please force her skirt upwards, move her knickers to one side, and ‘digitally penetrate’ her. Don’t worry, she won’t be offended – you won’t be able to do it.

These are just some of the allegations that have been accepted since hindsight hove into view – sheesh! I nearly forgot – for full investigative authenticity, I need you to don a hot and heavy Orinoco ‘Womble’ outfit, film a ‘Christmas Special, and minutes later rape two young children, having carefully separated them from their family in a crowded environment, and so terrorise them by saying ‘this will be our little secret’ that you can return them to said family within minutes without anyone suspecting a thing. Well, if you say you can, I’ll believe you, but its not easy.

Anyway, back to the building blocks of the Duncroft allegations, before lawyers started putting advertisements for ‘victims’ of this ‘prolific paedophile’ in foreign newspapers.

Dame Janet interviewed three Duncroft girls who claimed to be victims of Savile at Duncroft. Karin Ward and the two that ‘dare not bare their name’. The Police and Dame Janet between them have interviewed a hundred or so other Duncroft girls and staff, who saw nothing, heard nothing, and were unable to reinforce Meirion’s blockbuster tale – so we are stuck with the three of them to account for World War l breaking out in the wake of his wails that his bestest ever story was being suppressed, censored by those evil toffs at the top.

One claims that Savile brushed his hand against her breast as he was fixing a ‘Clunk-Click’ badge to her clothing. One claims that Savile – after she had sat on his knee voluntarily – put his arms around her and also brushed his hand against her breast. Dame Janet accepts them both as truthful – and so do I.

Technically, any ‘touch’ of that nature, even over clothing, could be charged as assault, if no consent had been granted. So guilty as charged Mr Savile, you do seem to be the sort of embarrassingly octopus ‘uncle’ that most of us avoided at family parties. It doesn’t make you a dyed in the wool paedophile of course, and certainly doesn’t justify Merrion figuratively shooting the Archduke!

Perhaps Karin Ward will prove me wrong – but no! She now claims that Savile’s crimes amounted to her realising that he had an erection when she sat on his knee.

Perhaps the day will come when it becomes a criminal offence to have an erection – but for the sake of the human race – it ain’t here yet.

That’s it folks. That is what Meirion huffed and puffed and blew the walls of the BBC down for. He was lucky, it happened to coincide with the Winsor report saying we didn’t need as many policemen as we had; with Leveson threatening to silence the media; with the Murdoch press under attack for hacking; with the decline and near bankruptcy of some of our previously revered children’s charities.

Meirion fired a shot at just the right moment to ignite a powder keg. I will probably be the only person who remembers his name – everyone else will just remember the magnitude of the damage caused by the explosion.

I am quite prepared to believe that Savile had a lot of negative attributes – I would have run a mile from such a fake personality. I am quite prepared to believe that he was sexually as well as socially inept, might well have been a thoroughly unpleasant and selfish ‘lay’.

I’m quite prepared to believe that in common with half the younger members of ‘swinging London’ he didn’t stop to check whether 16 really meant 16 or ‘will be in a few months; meanwhile I’m here on a plate for you’. I’m quite prepared to believe that he thought hugging and kissing strangers was what was expected of ‘celebrities’ when those strangers had been queuing up at his door for hours screaming his name.

I have followed this story more closely than most – and I’m still not convinced that Savile was a paedophile. I’m even less convinced than I was before I read the Dame Janet Smith report.

Damn you Meirion, I should have punched your nose, not wiped the snot off it.

4 years ago, I wrote this – I haven’t changed my mind a jot.

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

Did anybody else notice that Operation Elvedon snuck out its death notice yesterday undercover of all the excitement?

↧

Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.

July 24, 2016, 1:18 am

≫ Next: Why Ms Raccoon is howling at the biggest moon since the year she was born and taking no prisoners.

≪ Previous: The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

It started with a lie; a false allegation; a mendacity, a calumny, a canard. However you dress it up, it simply wasn’t true.

40 year-old Georgina Ray decided that the only possible reason as to why God should have chosen to burden her passage through life with the appearance of a bleached and careworn Yorkshire miner/nightclub bouncer with a broken nose, was that Jimmy Savile was indeed her Father.

Sadly for Georgina, it transpired that her appearance was merely God’s warped sense of humour, and nothing to do with Jimmy Savile. However, Georgina’s understandable belief that genetics might be responsible for her woes was enough to stay the hand of Jimmy Savile’s executors from handing over the £4.3 million that he had left to a selection of charities – ironically including at least one that specialised in providing support for victims of abuse.

Savile’s family, already beset by a million wild theories merrily flaunted in the media that he had been responsible for every unsolved crime since Jack the Ripper, were understandably in two minds about agreeing to hand over his DNA for forensic testing. DNA results can be unclear – what if they were merely making the situation worse? In the event, they did hand over his DNA – and the Georgina Ray claim was shown to be false. Savile’s DNA was checked against a host of heinous murders, robberies, rapes, child abductions, crop circles, missing aircraft, alien sightings, and lost elections and to the great disappointment of the media, it was shown that he was responsible for none of them.

However, whilst that false claim was investigated, the firm of Slater & Gordon were happy to announce that they had ‘hundreds’ of other plaintive plaintiffs queuing up to take their shot at the estate. A policeman stood on the steps outside the NSPCC offices to claim that Savile ‘spent every waking minute of the day’ planning further paedophilic adventures. Liz Dux stood with open arms ready to welcome those for whom a share of the monies intended for charity was the only thing that could put right the wrong that had been done to them. The sort of money that could buy you a south coast seaside caravan to wipe away the memories of the abuse you said you suffered at the hands of Savile in, er, a south coast seaside caravan.

Slater & Gordon’s share price soared as investors calculated the value of the ‘work in progress’ – the value of acting for the ‘thousands’ that were now beating a path to the media claiming to have been abused by Savile. Other firms of solicitors happily accepted Slater & Gordon shares in return for their business assets, only too willing to give up a lifetime’s hard work in return for a share of these fabled profits.

By the time of the first court case for lawyers to squabble over the estate, it had already been whittled down to £3.6 million. £700,000 had mysteriously disappeared in ‘expenses’. Those expenses had nothing to do with compensation for any claimants, nor with payments to any charities; they had vanished in the course of some perfectly legal transaction between the Executors – Nat West Bank and Osborne Clarke, the solicitors they had hired to ‘advise’ them. It would presumably have included the £70,000 expended on Savile’s funeral – as befitted a wealthy man lauded by the nation for his charitable fund raising.

Soon the claimants, none of who had spoken up before, were claiming that this sum ‘deprived them of possible compensation’. Fortunately there is an ancient piece of medieval law which allows ‘for the coffin, ringing the bell, and the fees of the parson, clerk and bearers; but not for the pall or ornaments.’

One of the ornaments on the grave turned out to have been placed there by a ‘lady’ related to Savile, whose own children claimed that she hadn’t met him until some 30 years after she claimed he had abused her…

Neither Nat West nor Osborne Clarke was prepared to discuss the matter with the ‘beneficiaries’ – the trustees of the charities.

Since Nat West made a statement on Thursday, no doubt after a firm prod from their public relations advisors, that they would not, had not, taken any fees from the Savile estate for acting as executors, that leaves the finger pointing at Osborne Clarke as being the recipients of a no doubt totally justifiable 16% of the available ‘trough’. They had only just got started…

I say ‘no doubt totally justifiable’ because in fairness (and in secrecy) Osborne Clarke have been dragged kicking and screaming into the world of ‘scrutinising claims’. Whilst it might have appeared to the outside world that they were prepared to hand out money from the estate to anybody, anywhere, on production of a wild and sufficiently lurid allegation, they did agree to use a wide circle of qualified individuals – ie those who were actually there at the times of alleged assaults, as opposed to keyboard warriors – to determine which claims could not possibly be true.

It’s not lipstick you see on my face; Ms Raccoon’s lips have been hermetically sealed with oxblood legal sealing wax, stamped with the mark of what became a number of lawyers acting for claimants.

Of the 200 or so people bringing claims against Savile’s estate, more than 170 are represented by the law firm Slater and Gordon.

Justice Sales, at one hearing said:

I emphasised to all parties the importance of trying to minimise the costs of resolution of disputes in respect of the various claims, so as to avoid what counsel had described as ‘a feeding frenzy for the lawyers’ and to preserve as much of the money in the estate as possible to meet the claims of those with entitlements in respect of it.

Feeding frenzy was an apt description of what was occurring. At one hearing there were no less than 17 barristers and juniors present, representing the BBC, the NHS, the claimants via 10 different firms of PI lawyers, and lastly, the trustees, fighting for the money that should have gone to charity.

I value the roof over my head, so sadly I cannot tell you which of the weirdly imaginative claims have bit the dust along the way. I have had to learn the art of keeping quiet even when blog posts that would have written themselves have arrived on my doorstep. Grrr!

I have had to keep quiet since last Thursday too; Up until then, all the dealings between the lawyers for the claimants, and the lawyers for the Nat West have been conducted under a cloak of total secrecy. On Wednesday, the Trustees for the Savile Charity received an e-mail from Mr Justice Warren indicating that it would be ‘helpful’ if they could attend the final hearing on Thursday. This was a new development – they have been barred from previous hearing as ‘having no standing’. They were assured that ‘this’ hearing would be public. I can’t possibly imagine how this information reached the ears of James Gillespie on the Sunday Times, some mysterious alchemy no doubt.

It meant that after some argy-bargy between barristers and the judge, it was ruled that he could remain. Justice must be seen to be open above all…

So, we now have his excellent report in today’s Sunday Times detailing the expenses incurred by the ‘legal feeding frenzy‘. I commend it to you. If you don’t happen to have a copy of the Sunday Times, I shall spell it out for you…

The hearing on Thursday – lasting a matter of two hours, cost £61,000.

The estate has now been whittled down to £2,042,000 from £4,300,000.

Osborne Clarke have received £1,800,000.

Only 78 cases remain from the ‘hundreds of abused victims’ – the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim. They said they were in ‘x’ spot in ‘y’ year when ‘z’ occurred at the hands of Jimmy Savile and there is no evidence to show that either Savile was elsewhere, or the claimant hadn’t been born yet, or the premises didn’t exist at that time, or any of the other myriad ways in which claims have been dismissed.

The lawyers, the ten different firms representing these ‘can’t be disproved’ claims will share £689,000. A poke in the eye with a sharp stick for those whose share price is dependant on a healthy ‘work in progress’ estimate….

The 78 ‘victims of alleged abuse’ will receive an average £13,000.

The total legal bill of £2,500,000 is more than double the combined £1,033,000 shared out amongst the claimants. All 78 of them.

That leaves just £141,000. No, that won’t be going to Help the Heroes, or abuse charities, or any of the other causes Savile fundraised for.

It will be split between the BBC, NHS and Barnardos to defray their legal expenses. Less than 50,000 grand a piece.

One fraudulent claim – Georgina Ray’s – and over £3 million quid goes up in legal smoke…

↧

Why Ms Raccoon is howling at the biggest moon since the year she was born and taking no prisoners.

November 15, 2016, 12:28 pm

≫ Next: Starr Wars.

≪ Previous: Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.

Other than a couple of days last week, I have been in hospital for the past three weeks. First Sepsis, then the effects of the attempts to cure me of that. I am now the original Christmas Turkey – being fattened up so that I can die comfortably of the cancer. The irony is not lost on me.

Last Tuesday, I sat in a wheelchair in the hospital, waiting for a bed to come free. Unable to stand or walk, unable to move from facing the wall in front of which I had been put, unable to reach the bottle of water which was in a bag behind the chair, and in gob smacking pain, pain at a level of which I had no idea existed…

The TV behind me was on loop with the headlines every fifteen minutes. I couldn’t see the faces, but I could hear the voices. The world was spontaneously combusting; Corbynista babies were having their names put down for Dignitas not Eton; media leviathans were mopping their tears and, voices choking with emotion, announcing that democracy had gone terribly, irretrievably, life threateningly – wrong.

Hillary Clinton packed her bags and said good-bye to the caucus,

Off she went with a Trumpety-trump, Trump! Trump! Trump!

©Anna Raccoon (since someone has enquired!)

Interspersed with this earth shattering, apocalyptic, termination of civilised existence – was the Henriques report.

I learnt, as I sat on a shattered and bloody bowel, on a bone hard wheelchair (do not try this at home children) waiting for a horizontal surface in the ‘envy of the world’ that:

‘Victims’ and ‘Survivors’ had magically morphed back into ‘claimants’. Not even a capital ‘C’.

Allegations were to be investigated before letting the media loose on the reputations of innocent men and women.

Liz Dux had crept out the door and sidled off to ignominy where she couldn’t further damage the reputation of Slater & Gordon.

Hogan-Howe’s one year extension contract will terminate in three months – just as soon as everyone has thrown rotten eggs at him.

IICSA has ditched the Savile Inquiry; the Janner Inquiry; and will spend their £110 million budget over which no one has oversight, as they choose, when they choose, if they choose.

Lol Goddard is happily chuckling to herself in New Zealand and laughing at the preposterous Mrs Balls talking bollocks while her husband lumbers round the dance floor like an out of control dustcart – entertaining the plebs.

Even with my condition being as it was – I can but laugh uproariously. Passers-by must think I am nuts.

You see, I have spent five years now, keeping my mouth shut. Only Jonathan King and my husband are aware of just how tightly I have been wound into the entire shebang. Not because I am ‘clever’ or even ‘brilliant’, which I am neither, but because of who I am, and what I am, and an entire network of people from my past who had reason to trust me. I have ended up being the confidant of more celebrity names than you could shake a hat at; of policemen and forensic computer experts – and even, God help me – in the end, of ‘Survivors’ and ‘Victims’. All I had to do was keep my mouth shut, and do nothing more than pass them along the correct path at the back of Raccoon Towers – and write 1,000 odd words every day or so on whatever came to mind to keep the AR show on the road. It has been the most extraordinary juggling act, a monumental strain and an exercise in keeping your mouth shut in the face of daily provocation, and all conducted against a background of terminal cancer. Do excuse me if I seem a tad irritable at times….

On Tuesday, it came to an end. I was free. Need never re-open Anna Raccoon again, can slip quietly into the twilight of my life. No fuss, no bother.

However.

On Tuesday, various people finally woke up to the fact that Kat Ward had published another book in August – ‘Victim Zero’.

Two of them pride themselves on being the ultimate experts on Savile, all things Duncroft, and keeper of the Holy celebrity flame.

They both started life as commentators on my blog, but have subsequently established their own home base, quietly nicking several ideas, and phrases.

One of them, Moor Larkin, I have expressed some admiration for in the past; his positively autistic ability to worry away at the same loose thread for hours, days and weeks, has actually come up with some useful information. Since Friday night he has lost every brownie point I ever awarded him.

The other one, rabbitaway, I have never had an ounce of respect for. She is a useful idiot. She fell out with me over her foul-mouthed habit of sending round robbin e-mails littered with anglo-saxon language into my inbox and also that of several working barristers in chambers. She took great exception to being asked to desist. She took further umbrage when, on sending me an e-mail telling me ‘it wouldn’t hurt me to support the Savile family more’, it transpired that I also spoke fluent anglo-saxon and was just in the mood to take her head off verbally and ever so neatly at the shoulders. We have never spoken since.

She went off and established her own blog. So be it. The rift occurred just as I fell ill again, and simultaneously suffered a rift with the Savile family – a vital piece of information that I could have encompassed in what I was doing, had been decided too toxic to share, which left me temporarily embarrassed. I understand the whys and the wherefores now, and have long since healed the rift. Quietly, not publicly. There was neither need nor point in continuing to write about Savile – he had been appointed poster boy for a juggernaut called ‘there’s a paedophile under every bed’ and nothing was going to change that. Too many vested interests, too far down the rabbithole.

The Savile family have my undiluted admiration for the dignity with which they have conducted themselves, against a tsunami of allegations and prurient speculation of the most intimate kind – of their brother, their uncle, their flesh and blood – even from money grabbing members of their own family; it has been death by a thousand cuts for them from the most painful, twisted, jagged, dentated, knives that cyber anonymity could conjure up.

They are real people. Flesh and Blood. They have real lives, births, deaths, marriages, illnesses that have had to be subsumed beyond the fact that their family name had now become synonymous with the most heinous evil. No hiding behind an avatar and nickname for them – not even to collect their dry cleaning.

Think about that for a moment. They have done nothing to deserve what has happened to them. Not that anyone cared.

I will include Barbara Hewson in that admiration too – she also has stood proud, in her own name, and been subjected to intolerable interference in her working and private life – for holding to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Good Lord! That a Barrister should hold such a concept dear! Oh, I nearly forgot – and having the sheer temerity to suggest that we might have a debate concerning the age of consent…

Sadly rabbitaway appears to have a messiah complex. As she postured and pranced across cyber space, talking herself into a belief that she was an expert on Duncroft, Savile and all points in between, she rarely entered the periphery of my vision – the pouting princess had taken all the usual cyber steps of disapproval, blocking me on Twitter (thank God!) using my material but never linking back to me (Good!); I’m surprised that we didn’t have ‘block Anna Raccoon’ wristbands; at one point chairing a meeting with a reformed crack addict, an out of work car mechanic, and a selection of cyber characters and declaring that she was offering herself to the Nat West Bank as arbiter of the Savile claims. I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Sometime on Friday night, she ceased to be a joke, or rather became the sickest joke in existence, and is now the reason this post is being written.

By God I will take no prisoners.

The prattling prima donna rabbitaway has finally woken up to Kat Ward’s latest abysmal opus. Do keep up Ducky.

Kat, in the face of mounting legal expenses, is yet again re-adjusting her story to fit with proven facts. This time she is covering her court case with Freddie Starr. She has declared her ever dying love, ‘crush’ and lifelong admiration for Susan who gave evidence against her weird and wonderful story of the 75th man in her short life who had said she had small tits.

Well, that caused some cackling in Raccoon Towers, I can tell you.

In order to give evidence; Susan had to declare her real identity. Unlike “Miss C” who had been raked up, much against her better will, to bolster Kat’s tale of pubic hairs being removed at what may or may not have been the same event – who was a ‘protected witness’, allegedly terrified of reprisals from the army of the insane that follow the VIP abuse circuit; from the exposure of her past to her family and friends; from the destruction of her carefully rebuilt life as a good and honest citizen…da dum, da dum, ad nauseum and in recognition of all that, she shall, by order of the court, remain “Miss C” From now to eternity. (Yeah, but we know who you are, don’t we tweetie-pie?)

Susan, and I, had no such protection. We were dastardly individuals daring to doubt the word of a multi-time fraudster, proven liar, and need I go on? We must be named and shamed at every opportunity.

Susan’s evidence, (accompanied by every possible occasion being taken to ensure she was identifiable) was no random event. It took hours, it was a line by line hermeneutic examination of every word that Susan had authorised to be put on my blog. There were no ‘off-piste’ questions. Every question posed had appeared and been answered on this blog.

You’d have known that, turnip brain, if you’d been there. You’d have known it if you’d stumped up £900 for a transcript – but you didn’t, of course. You rolled up on the last day – but there you are now, an expert on the Freddie Starr case. Voila!

You have no idea what it is like to be publicly identified on the internet – on the wrong side of an argument. Total strangers sit down and write the most incredible, unbelievable lies about you. They make up fantastical tales of how you are transgendered, with full details of the surgery in Tunisia; or an MI5 agent; they track down your former colleagues, your former employers, your family, your friends. They steal pictures of you and transform them into monsters. One sent me an e-mail every effing day for three years saying ‘Aren’t you dead yet’ – charming when you are in the middle of chemotherapy. They post disgusting items through the post. They do because they can. (And when you live in France, you have to go through Interpol. Ever tried phoning Interpol to report a turd in your post? Neither have I! What is the point?) They are the cyber army of the insane, and you just have to do your best to ignore them.

Until Kat’s book appeared, there was no mention of Susan’s full name anywhere. It didn’t appear in the judgement**** (see addendum) nor did mine. Nobody else had picked up on the reference. Susan had been spared all that, thank God – she lives alone, a very respectable and happy life built up over 50 years; she had chosen to put it all at risk for the sake of telling the truth.

Truth backed up by a trunk load of documents. Acht! Sorry, you didn’t know about that either, did you – your cohort Moor did, but you were too untrustworthy and gossipy to be included. Moor is ‘building a database’ of the documents apparently, swotting away over his computer. Only Andrew Rosthorn had the good sense to pay for his own petrol, drive to Susan’s house and photograph every last document. Old fashioned respect for facts, you see. Thank you Andrew.

Unbeknown to you all, there was a sense of urgency, as you will see.

So now you have your hands on Kat’s new book – and it gives Susan’s full name. Wheee! A new bone for you to pick over. Yap, yap!

Two little cyber puppies wagging your stumpy tails with excitement. You can show off your knowledge by using her full name, over and over again. Kat Ward has named her – why not you? You and Moor can discuss Savile’s non-existent masturbatory habits – why not? Are you not the keepers of the eternal flame and the ultimate obsessive fact diggers?

And so, you prattling pair of pretentious posturing pygmies, you gave yourself permission from behind your cyber names to speculate, based on that inveterate liar Kat Ward’s rendition of the court case, to start the process by which Susan will be exposed to the speculation, as I have been, of her neighbours, friends, nurses….

Did I say nurses? Yep. What you two obsessive corpse twiddling know nothings don’t know, is that Susan, like me, is in her final days of terminal cancer. So far she has lost part of her left leg, has a large hole in her pelvis that used to contain bits and pieces that held her upright, tumours growing in her bones – and that is the most painful version of cancer that you can have – bone is unyielding. It has invaded her lungs – about the only thing that beautiful girl, who has more truth, honesty and courage in her toenail clippings than you two and a hundred like you, hasn’t lost – is her sense of humour.

Neither of us know what tomorrow may bring – and as for the day after, we don’t even think about it. Since I am in the same mental space as her, we have howled laughing this morning, to the consternation of both our nurses. Hundreds of miles apart, but on the same wave length.

Other people, cyber strangers, will dissect and discuss her on the internet. They will speculate, and the nonsense will accumulate. That cannot be stopped now. Thanks to you two drawing attention to that bloody book and her full name. I can forgive, if not forget, the army of the insane that will now pick up and repeat Susan’s name and every last detail of that turgid book that had only sold 9 copies.

But you two? Two of the few people who claim to be on the side of the falsely accused? You are beneath contempt. Coming from you two it has finally tipped me over the edge.

I have spent the day dreaming up imaginative back stories for you Moor, or should I say David H. and you, rabbitawayendlessly aka Mary T. I know your full names and addresses; I chose not to identify you further right now.

Your new backstories are all cobblers of course, no more a word of truth than the stuff that has been written about me over the years. Or Jimmy Savile, come to that. Pretty lurid stuff. I’m particularly proud of my efforts for Mary. That deformed labia was a stroke of genius. All rubbish.

That won’t matter when your children’s friends look at Facebook, or you want a new job, or perhaps you get cancer and need the support of your community.

‘Cos let me tell you from experience – at least half the people who read it, will believe it.

Welcome to our world.

One more effing word out of the pair of you, one last remaining hair (sorry Susan, couldn’t resist that one!) trembled on Susan’s head, one iota of worry or distress caused to her – and even Mr G ‘old tin can fingers’ himself knows where to find the ‘destruct button’.

That is a threat. A direct and heartfelt threat. So feel free to call the police. Tell them we’ll need a fully equipped ambulance each – and they’d better hurry up. With any luck we’ll land up in the same police station – and we can give each other a last hug.

We’re taking bets on which of us will go first.

A plague on all your houses.

****Edited to add – I am reliably informed that Susan’s full name does appear once in the judgment. Just goes to prove that no one ever reads original documents – they take their news from the internet or the dead tree press.

↧

Starr Wars.

June 23, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Class and the Common Girl.

≪ Previous: Why Ms Raccoon is howling at the biggest moon since the year she was born and taking no prisoners.

by Anna Raccoon on June 24, 2015

1. These events took place 41 years ago, she was now employed, her life had changed, and her children and grandchildren didn’t know of her past as a ‘Duncroft girl’.

2. She feared she would be subject to harassment on social media.

3. Weighing Article 8 against Article 10 – the right to a private and family life versus freedom of expression.

4. Proportionality.

5. The knowledge that the media will continue to report indefinitely should she be named in open court for having done her civic duty by giving evidence.

It was stated that this witness was not prepared to co-operate willingly, and had been subpoenaed to appear.

Powerful arguments as to why section 39.24 of the Court procedure rules should be invoked to protect her identity. The court thus ruled that she should only be identified as Miss ‘C’.

Hold onto your seats.

Miss ‘C’, Karin Ward’s sole contemporary witness and supporter, “Doesn’t recollect anything in particular”. In fact her memory is “Quite hazy”.

She explained that she was not present in the famous picture of the ‘Freddie Starr appearance (the ‘bean bag’ photograph) “because she was in the audience”. She didn’t explain why.

She confirmed that she was only present on ONE trip to Clunk-click. However, she ‘did not recollect’ the name of the show.

She “doesn’t recall” Gary Glitter being on that show.

She doesn’t recall “How many went to that show”.

She doesn’t recall “which girls” went to that show.

In fact she “wasn’t sure” whether Freddie was there. Leading Mr Dunham to comment that there seemed to be a lot that she didn’t recall. Her response was “Not a lot, No”.

{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 9:17 am

One thing that has not been mentioned so far is the complicity of the legal system in all of this. The reason Ms.Ward never made the Exposure Show is quite simple. Freddie had an injunction from the courts at that point in time. This probably explains why the actual Exposure show was almost anodyne in comparison with all stories that had appeared in the mass media prior to October 3rd. That injunction was overturned a day or so after Exposure had been broadcast. So far as I can make out, that overturn was primarily made on the premise of “public interest”, but it was immediately followed by Channel 4 broadcasting BBC Archive footage of Clunk-Click that could only have been supplied by someone with BBC access. This thing has more “angles” than a rhombicosidodecahedron.

Anna Raccoon June 24, 2015 at 9:26 am

Could not agree more, Moor. Main angle of defence is that although Ms Ward claims she was given a verbal assurance by BBC that Freddie would not be named, they had her agreement to broadcast her interview – and therefore no further agreement was required by other broadcasters. Therefore other broadcasters covered by Qualified Privilege.
Ms Ward has ‘no idea’ how the BBC got the impression that she was 14. Also confirmed that broadcasters (‘investigative journalists’) made no attempt to verify her age. She confirmed that she was a few days short of her 16th birthday. Miss ‘C’ also confirmed that she was 16 at the time.
No mention was made of the supposedly 13 year old Duncroft girl having sex in a cupboard!!!

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 9:37 am

Her actual age must be easily confirmed by comparing her birth certificate and the production date of the Clunk-Click shows, so it’s hard to know why this even needs to be explored in the proceedings; the judge must have the facts, and if he hasn’t then the system is inept.

Peter Raite June 24, 2015 at 11:36 am

A bit like the age of the girl in the Cambridge case relating to Rolf Harris. Both prosecution and defence went into court thinking she was 14, when even a smidgeon of cursory TV-related research would have shown that she was 17 or 18 at the time of the event in question.

James June 24, 2015 at 4:21 pm

Ah, but this was because Cambridge girl had possibly misidentified her assailant and was in court to condemn the wrong man. She herself was convinced she had been attacked at a charity event at the age of 14, but in order to place the accused even in the same city as the alleged crime, it had to be moved to a different place, under different circumstances and her age changed accordingly.

In historic abuse cases evidence is a pliant, malleable thing that can be adjusted and squeezed to suit the desired result. In any other criminal sphere – say homicide or larceny – proof that the accused was not in the place where the crime is identified as taking place is sufficient grounds for demonstrating mistaken identity and thus innocence. Funny old world.

Peter Raite June 25, 2015 at 2:18 pm: Oh, yes. I think it’s very possibly that she was touched up in 1975, and in her memory conflated the event with seeing Harris at a similar event in 1978.
Reply

Ellen Coulson June 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm

I would have thought if the staff let her drink alcohol (which I very much doubt) that she was over 16

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 9:19 am

but that will do as a first dispatch from the murky trenches

You, Girl, are an awful tease….

No, of course you’re not. One of the many things that I and others so respect about your reporting is that you stick doggedly (raccoonerly?) to The Rules….when others don’t.

stephen lewis June 24, 2015 at 9:24 am

I had noticed that information regarding this case was noticeable by it’s absence. It’s the most telling thing about media control that when the shoe was on the other foot the media were making daily stories about it for a public eager to feast on innuendo and assumption.

Anna Raccoon June 24, 2015 at 9:29 am

Oh, be fair, Stephen, the media attended the first day when the lurid allegations were read out in court – they just didn’t hang around to report the rebuttals!!! You can’t expect them to report the boring truth.

Major Bonkers June 24, 2015 at 12:18 pm

I have to say that that’s quite usual; the hacks turn up for opening statements by both sides, setting out the allegations in the most lurid terms. The actual cross-examination is quite tedious (as you have discovered). The hacks will be back for the closing arguments – more character assassination, I’m afraid – and the judgment.

I read somewhere that in the old days the Daily Tabloidgraph had three hacks just covering the Courts, but now they are down to one part-timer and reliant on specialist wire-services; I don’t know whether this is true or not, but certainly the quality of informed Court reporting is very poor nowadays.

Anna Raccoon June 24, 2015 at 12:23 pm: No jury, so judgment will be reserved – could appear at any time.
Reply

Bill Sticker June 24, 2015 at 3:22 pm

“You can’t expect them to report the boring truth.” Nailed.

stephen lewis June 25, 2015 at 10:53 am: Didn’t stop them from running a story about Freddie Starr seemingly daily, with no facts to report .
Reply

windsock June 24, 2015 at 9:29 am

Just when you think the law cannot look more like a donkey, someone from the legal profession uses the term ‘Savile Denier’ in open court. Who knew alleged victims of Savile were up there with those of the Holocaust? The Top Trumps of piety are too complicated for me.

Anna Raccoon June 24, 2015 at 9:32 am

I find that comparing someone giving first hand evidence witnessed with their own eyes to those who wish to deny that 6 millions jews died, offensive beyond belief. Did you think that claimants referring to themselves as ‘Survivors’ was accidental?

windsock June 24, 2015 at 9:41 am

To be honest Anna, it had never occurred to me until I read your post today. I share your sense of offence.

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 9:53 am

ditto.

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 10:16 am

The entire approach of the CSA lobby copies the spreading of irrational fear and hatred, based on lies and half-truths. Much of their ouput is akin to the style and approach of Der Ewige Jude; including notions of genetically-predisposed paedo families. They have become truly vile people and their vileness is never writ so large as when you also take into account that many amongst their number are patently homophobic and anti-semitic, all at one and the same time. The Politics of Hate. That the British Establishment has danced with this devil in disguise demonstrates the levels to which that Establishment, that arose on the back of liberal values, has degenerated into just another fascist oligarchy from the Left, rather than the Right. Nothing corrupts like power.

Petunia Winegum June 24, 2015 at 12:33 pm

Too true. The establishment of the 30s flirted with fascism, only then it came from the right. It would seem gamekeeper is the toppermost of the poppermost for all poachers.

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 5:41 pm: There do seem to be a few old-time Right-wingers who seem quite keen on hitching a ride with a “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” angle, but the real energy seems to be coming from those embedded in the bureaucracy of the Establishment; viz NHS/ACPO and such places. Their Reports are shockingly irrational.
The turnout of MP’s for an actual Parliamentary debate was pitiful and oddly rightward-biased in terms of numbers but the blues just about had a majority.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/secret-seven-politics-of-paedophilia.html
Dame Dawn Primarolo as Speaker
Sir William Cash
Sir Paul Beresford
Tim Loughton
Paul Danzcuk
Zac Goldsmith (promotes Exaro heavily)
Julian Smith
Mark Reckless (arrived late)
John Hemming (says as a fact that children were sent to Jersey from London to be abused)
Diana Johnson
Karen Bradley
Ian Lucas
Jeremy Corbyn (seemed to be a disinterested member)
Reply

macheath June 25, 2015 at 9:31 am

Under the circumstances, it is interesting to note that there have been several cases of authors of widely-published ‘Holocaust memoirs’ whose graphic first-hand descriptions of life in the ghettos and concentration camps of Europe have been later proven to be complete fabrications. One of them, unmasked after ten years, was unrepentant; “It is not the true reality but it is my reality”.

‘Toxic Sentimentality’ by Theodore Dalrymple – a very good read – cites, among others, the case of a writer from Switzerland, praised for his ‘courageous’ descriptions of horrific violence, whose book turned out (after it had won several prizes) to be a work of complete fiction. In a surreal episode, this ‘survivor’, was brought together with Laura Grabowski, a woman from California who claimed to have been placed in a gentile household and banned from mentioning her Jewish roots. During the meeting, filmed by the BBC, they played a musical duet and claimed to ‘have been together both in the Majdanek extermination camp and in the same orphanage in Poland immediately after the war’.

In an interesting – and possibly revealing – twist, ‘Grabowski’ turned out to be one Lauren Stratford, formerly author of both a lurid autobiography detailing her escape from a life of satanic abuse and pornography from the age of 6 and a self-help book entitled ‘I know you’re hurting’.

Moor Larkin June 25, 2015 at 11:13 am: Beverli Rhodes impersonates a 7/7 survivor with the full connivance of the Mass Media.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/newspaper-colossus.html
Reply
Arnold Frampton June 29, 2015 at 1:59 pm: Lauren Stratford was one of the first SRA victim imposters.
She was VERY influential in creating the ‘survivors’ genre which was honed in the U.S. and then imported here into the U.K. in 1988 in various guises. Her million-seller pot-boiler ‘Satan’s Underground’ is still quoted as required reading in the bibliographies of thousands of ‘survivors’ groups and pro-SRA websites even though it has been utterly and comprehensively discredited in every respect.
Almost all the later gushing recollections of ‘victims’ of ‘organised’ or ‘group’ abuse incorporate Stratford’s imagined experiences as a template.
In particular the idea that an abuser ‘smells’ in some way different – a recollection which features heavily in the Savile accusations and, in
relation to the evidence given in the Starr v Ward hearing above.
The fact that after her fictional biography had been incontrovertibly discredited in relation to SRA she then went on to successfully establish herself under a new identity as a ‘Holocaust Survivor’ speaks volumes about the attention that pathological liars seek and the willingness with which therapists and health professionals fall for their stories. Another patient – another dollar.
Stratford’s story can be read here:
http://saff.nfshost.com/latenews.htm
Excellent blog Anna
Arnold
Reply

Joe Public June 24, 2015 at 12:06 pm

The implication of the perjorative ‘denier’ has been deliberately diluted by its application to the millions / hundreds of millions who dispute the wilder predictions of (catastrophic) anthropogenic global warming & climate change computer programs.

Even the Oxford Dictionary has been updated.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/denier

Misa June 24, 2015 at 9:39 am

Presumably, a Savile denier is one better than ultra sheer. Indecently translucent?

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 9:53 am

That wins the coveted “Dwarf snorks coffee and snot over laptop screen” prize of the day. Mind you, I share Windy’s disgust at labeling people ~~“Christ Killers”~~ “Savile Deniers”.

Misa June 24, 2015 at 10:16 am: Humbled, dear Dwarf. I’m not likely to achieve more than that today, so I think I’ll open a beer.
I too am disgusted, but having read ‘scarcely credible’ reports about a man ‘hiding in plain sight’, I’m not surprised.
Reply

Alexander Baron June 24, 2015 at 10:30 am

Same old story, media fantasies exposed by court testimony as bland truth, but will it make any difference?

No one appears to have mentioned the fake Surrey Police letter, but there is more than enough fake everything else to go around.

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 10:33 am

Ms.Ward had nothing to do with the 2008 shenanigan, so was never involved with Surrey Police.

Silo Management of the news will of course keep all discussion limited, so in that sense none of this will make much difference – except to Freddie Starr, but since all this has literally cost him his home, his wife and his child, perhaps his is the only truth that matters just now.

Jonathan June 24, 2015 at 12:33 pm: Ah yes that fake Surrey Police letter. That’s a massive story bursting to emerge. Who gave the forger the old letter heading? Somebody who was once a Surrey Police person, perhaps? Meanwhile Alexander, how about rewriting your awful record reviews?
Reply

Chris June 24, 2015 at 10:34 am

I imagine the transcripts to all of the post-Yewtree trials include all the “buzzwords” from the CSA lunatic asylum – Price is following in the footsteps of the likes of Miranda Moore (who repeatedly assured the DLT jurors that the BBC was a proven hotbed of sexual abuse & debauchery, with the British Public of the time regularly watching broadcast ‘assaults’ and that somehow running order of the acts on editions would support this!).
It’s true that “Jimmy Savile” and “Top Of The Pops” are being regularly thrown into non-celebrity historic trials too – the “victims” often recounting that dirty deeds were done whilst TOTP was on. Not that I’m getting cynical about it all….

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 10:49 am

The lack of any rigour was never writ so plain as when internet trickster “Susan Markham” ended up being quoted in the Daily Mirror as if it was an actual person, telling an actual story. I’m convinced some of the Yewtree victims that remained anonymous because the person was never heard from again, were just idle pranksters, who were probably scared to death when they realised their bullshit was being taken seriously.

“JIMMY Savile’s own brother told charity workers to beware of him and even warned: “He’s a dirty little s***.” Johnny Savile, who died in 1997, once told social worker Susan Markham he was so disgusted by his younger brother that he refused to have anything to do with him.
COPYRIGHT 2013 MGN LTD

Susan is an internet game, as much as a fantasy. The man pretending to be Susan even told everyone who he was before he started making his “funny” forum posts. Maybe he would be thought of as an internet Anarchist in some circles. The point was, the Daily Mirror transformed his fantasy-fun into “mainstream news”.

Susan Markham’s comment 29-Sep-2012 7:08 pm
Hello Chums Firstly I would just like to say “Hello” and that I am definitely not a female! No – not me…. I have got ‘bits’ that girls don’t have. I understand cricket, I fart in bed, urinate standing up (on any available surface) I go “Corrr…” at a sight of a ‘hot-totty’s’ legs and everything else that boys do. My name is Bob ”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/masked-men.html

Diplobrat June 24, 2015 at 1:28 pm

According to someone, Dan Davies, I think, Jimmy and Johnny Savile were estranged for some years after Johnny lost his job at Springfield.

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm: But his story makes no sense because within the same story he says the NotW phoned Jimmy about Johnny and Jimmy is quoted as replying, “It’ll take more than the news of the World to come between me and my brother.” and Jimmy put the phone down. I can say that I did not speak to my brother for fourteen years; and I never fell out with him once; how’s about that then?
Reply

alan1803 June 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm

Similarly see the way in which in the last few days Emil Kaminski managed to fool most of the world’s press that he was one of the Malaysian naked mountaineers. The Daily Mirror and the Torygraph both printed pieces as gospel in which he praised the wi-fi connection in his cell. Wi-fi. In a cell. In prison. In Malaysia.

Anon June 24, 2015 at 7:56 pm: Jimmy loved his brother, there were times of disquiet and a small amount of jealousy, but they were there for each other – just two ordinary brothers!
Reply

Jaundiced View June 24, 2015 at 11:22 am

And, check KingOfHits 2 years ago.

NB: JV was then, both ‘WholeTruth’ and ‘ZeroTolerance’.

http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=98817

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 11:56 am

If you posted like that in here, I’d be an avid reader…

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 6:35 pm: Indeed…and it makes me wonder what happened to him in the last couple of years because there is a ‘Norfolk Mile’ difference between the posts back then and his recent ones here.
(BTW a ‘Norfolk Mile’ goes back to the time of the Black Death and later the Enclosures Act. Here in Norfolk you will often find a road sign informing you that the village of, say, Upper Nosebleed is but one mile distant…which turns out to be about 3 miles).
Reply

DtP June 24, 2015 at 12:34 pm

Crikey – blogging the high court – kudos! I used to be a half arsed Conservative Party Returning Officer and Caucus Sec and my notes of my minutes got used in a high court libel case. I didn’t exactly go in for SB said and JS retorted but more like Numbnuts blethered and Shitstain bullshitted!! Fortunately, i’d left by that stage but it was pretty embarrasing!

All power to your elbow, Mizz Raccoon, or rather joint above your front paw xx

Chris June 24, 2015 at 12:54 pm

Urgh. That slimeball Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 is currently interview “The Detectives” and on about how “victims must be believed”.
Is there anything worse than The Liberal Elite intellectualising their Jeremy Kylisation of Society by insidious police state propaganda?

adrianS June 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm: Vine is a slime, off course if someone alleged something about him, you would see the whole left wing machine coming into support him.
It’s a bit like Julian Assange, he is alleged to have committed sex crimes, but it was quite unfair for him to go back to Sweden to sort it out.
Now imagine what would happen if it were a footballer that the allegations had been made about
Reply
The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 6:23 pm: Is there anything worse than The Liberal Elite intellectualising their Jeremy Kylisation of Society by insidious police state propaganda?
No. Next question? (and I shall be 1/2″ing that sentence of yours…’Kylisation’ *Hah!* ).
Reply

Alex June 24, 2015 at 3:51 pm

Just got home after spending the day working in my dad’s garden. What an interesting post. I’m not at all surprised that the MSM only attended day 1. Is there any indication of when the judge will give a verdict? How long is the trial likely to take?

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 4:17 pm

* He said -‘You can have a lock of my hair’. Put his hand down his trousers and produced a pubic hair. *

A shame the judge didn’t ask Price QC himself to demonstrate that this was even humanly possible before allowing this evidence onto the record.

Jimbob McGinty June 24, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Indeed. Even if it was possible, I’d imagine it would be quite fiddly and quite painful (horrible when you get a straggler or two caught doing up your fly carelessly). It would be less trouble just to knock one out, which at least would count as sexual harrassment. As far as I’m aware the on-the-spot producing and gifting of a pube is not specifically proscribed by law?

Moor Larkin June 24, 2015 at 5:24 pm: I see the Male describes it as “a piece” …. it’s all getting a bit Jigsaw5 now…..
“Mr Price also questioned Starr about the evidence of another 15-year-old girl who, like Ms Ward, was a pupil of Duncroft Approved School at the time. The girl claimed that Starr gave her a piece of his pubic hair as a ‘souvenir’ of the evening.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3124943/Freddie-Starr-denies-claims-groped-teenager.html
Reply

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 6:28 pm

Obviously the Duncroft Senior Girls’ Common Room Sewing Bee were kept busy sewing Pube-Pouches for Celebs. I mean, a man what wore the eyeballs of the dead or what ate a hamster, surely collected every fallen pube after his morning shower inorder to pass them on as Love Tokens to his fans. Stands to reason dunnit?

Petunia Winegum June 24, 2015 at 6:44 pm

Apparently, Byron’s female fans often sent him a lock of their pubic hair as a keepsake.

The Blocked Dwarf June 24, 2015 at 7:44 pm

Apparently, Byron’s female fans often sent him a lock of their pubic hair as a keepsake.

His fans did…no doubt because Byron’s Loversdidn’t , yet, have pubic hair to give him a lock of….

Petunia Winegum June 24, 2015 at 8:21 pm

Time to prosecute?

The Blocked Dwarf Sans Spell Check June 24, 2015 at 9:15 pm

Time to prosecute?
That would certainly put the “historical” in the “historical Celeb abuse”. Mind you with his love of animals I always thought Byron should have been a Norfolk man. A some point someone will discover some lost works – ‘Ode to the sweet, virginal flesh of a sugar beet’…

I didn’t know that there was a public Outcry against giving Byron a burial in Westminster and it wasn’t until 19something or the other that he finally got a tasteful plague in Poets Corner. Made me think of the disgusting ‘hoohah’ around JS’s tombstone…and public perceptions of celebs (byron is sometimes refered to as the 1st “Celeb”).

Petunia Winegum June 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm

Yes, Byron probably was the first ‘celeb’, which is why I guess he became the role model for the reckless chemical and sexual adventurer thereafter. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at his Lake Geneva shindig with the Shelley’s!

The Blocked Dwarf Sans Spell Check June 24, 2015 at 9:36 pm

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at his Lake Geneva shindig with the Shelley’s!

The concentrated absinthe and laudanum fumes would have any fly off the wall…and out of their tree.

Mudplugger June 24, 2015 at 9:38 pm

But absinthe makes the heart grow fonder, as they say.

The Blocked Dwarf Sans Spell Check June 24, 2015 at 10:11 pm: Not if you’ve Ricard that stage when you’re pastis caring , you Prat
Reply

Petunia Winegum June 25, 2015 at 12:35 am

Indeed. As I said, oh to be there…

Carol42 June 24, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Thank you for keeping up with all this Anna, you restore some of the faith now lost as nothing in the media can be believed any longer. Take care.

AtticusFlinch June 24, 2015 at 6:26 pm

Point of law which I came across a few months ago in front of a hugely experienced, sensible, smart and polite judge (a rarity). You aren’t allowed to make allegations against a person who is not there/party to defend themselves. He put his foot down on that hard, That may be a poor or unsophisticated statement of the law, but it made sense to me at the time. But I am not an expert. My expertise lies elsewhere. Meanwhile, we see the nonsense unravelling…
Best wishes, Boss.

Cloudberry June 24, 2015 at 8:20 pm

Re “tottering edifice”, if the world has enough dominos for every word you have written on this subject, it would be interesting to watch them when they finally fall.

Was just wondering there who had done the illustration at the top of your blog. It looks like the job of a professional illustrator.

Misa June 25, 2015 at 3:21 am

Off topic, sorry, but just had to share this re: Janner and the charming Mr Danczuk.

The ongoing scandal further deepened this week when Labour MP Simon Danczuk used Parliamentary privilege to claim Janner had ‘violated, raped and tortured’ children inside the Houses of Parliament, molesting a nine-year-old boy, Paul Miller, at the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft in the Palace of Westminster.
Miller, who has given a signed statement to police, believes he was targeted after Janner began visiting his school, Braunstone Frith Primary, in Leicester.
He says he was then abused when the MP invited eight of its pupils to visit him at the Commons in 1969.
The Janner family — who have always proclaimed the peer’s innocence — would doubtless respond to Miller’s claims by pointing out that Janner was not elected to Parliament until 1970.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138264/Lord-Janner-paedophile-ring-son-s-elite-school-Labour-peer-s-link-institution-teachers-abused-boys.html#ixzz3e2IscjgK

“…would doubtless respond…” hahahaha.

Peter Raite June 25, 2015 at 2:26 pm

A grim-faced (i.e. normal) Alison Saunders was on this BBC this morning. Even I was somewhat shocked to hear her say that there has been a recent change in the law, so that now a single – yes, just one! – “posting” counts as “internet grooming” now. Apparently it was previously “two or more,” which seems an only marginally less ludicrously low threshold.

Moor Larkin June 25, 2015 at 4:10 pm

* there has been a recent change in the law *
Or did she mean a recent change in the CPS interpretation of the law… ?

Peter Raite June 25, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Yeah, probably that. I wonder when they’ll extend single-instance threshold to harrassment and/or stalking….?

Ho Hum June 26, 2015 at 2:49 am: 99.99999% of the British population, male and female, breathed a huge sigh of relief on thinking ‘Thank goodness that it would never even cross my mind to ask her out just once’
Reply

eric hardcastle June 25, 2015 at 7:33 pm

That is the new low that Britain’s tabloids have now reached : the attacks upon family members of the accused or the convicted.
They did it to Bindi Harris for supporting her father and saying he was ‘kind and generous man’. She has been derided as ‘naive’ and ‘deluded’ and ignorant about the monster she calls Dad.
They did it to Lord Brittan’s family with the inference they were cowardly burying their father secretly (ignoring that it was Jewish custom) in an unmarked grave and denying the gutter media of their pound of flesh photos at his funeral.
Now Janner’s family must be derided in similar fashion ( as above) for not aiding in the media’s interest and delivering up their dad( possible dribbling by now in his bed) for persecution and for having the temerity of accepting his property many years ago (when it was always going to be theirs) and thus depriving ambulance chasing lawyers of fat fees as they tries to decimate Janner’s estate for ‘victims” (as Liz Dux tweets that “not one Savile victim she represents was after compensation even though she adveritses that she is the sexual assault compensation specialist.
What a mad sick world is being created.

Mrs Grimble June 25, 2015 at 10:08 pm

He says he was then abused when the MP invited eight of its pupils to visit him at the Commons in 1969.
The Janner family — who have always proclaimed the peer’s innocence — would doubtless respond to Miller’s claims by pointing out that Janner was not elected to Parliament until 1970.
“Oh wait – did I say 1969? I meant 1970 of course! It was such a traumatising experience at the time, I’ve had terrible memory problems ever since…”

Betty June 28, 2015 at 2:40 pm: That’s one signed statement with zero credibility then.
Then we now have this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lord-brittan-police-failed-to-tell-dying-peer-he-would-not-face-prosecution-despite-legal-advice-10350596.html
Leon Brittan denied he had ever met “Jane”. Despite “Jane’s” claims about the flatmate, and her claims about being at a party with him and that this was not the only time they crossed paths, not one person could verify that he had. Well, except “Jane” of course.
Leon Brittan denied that he had ever lived in a basement flat, a fact surely easily checked by detectives.
Then, assuming that she is correct in her claim to have been at his flat, the revelation that “Jane” took her own clothes off in his bathroom and then went and laid down on his bed.
It’s no great, startling surprise that the case failed the evidence test is it. Yet another massive Exaro #fail.
What with this, and the CPS statement on the matter, it just hasn’t been Exaro’s week has it.
Reply

Lucozade June 25, 2015 at 8:25 pm

Peter Raite,

Re: “Oh, yes. I think it’s very possibly that she was touched up in 1975, and in her memory conflated the event with seeing Harris at a similar event in 1978”

And where does that leave poor Rolf Harris? What ever happened to making sure you were absolutely sure someone did something before you go bandying about accusations? Gee wiz…. :/

Was he found guilty or not guilty on that one?

Ellen Coulson June 26, 2015 at 2:30 pm: Not according to an earlier draft of her book she wasn’t!
Reply

Grandpa1940 June 26, 2015 at 8:40 pm

I am reminded of the story of the Frenchman travelling on a train with an Englishman. Every so often, he would produce a small silver box from his pocket, open it, sniff deeply, then quickly close it upmand return it to his pocket. Eventually, the englishman diffidently asked “Excuse me, Monsieur, but what, might I ask, is held in that small box?”

“Ah,” the Frenchman replied, This box holds a pubic hair from my latest ‘cher amie’ my girlfriend. When I travel away from home, all I have to do is to sniff the small memory in the box, remember my love, and I can remain satisfied of my love. It is the ultimate in ‘L’amour’, Monsieur.”

The Englishman reached into his own pocket, brought out a matchbox, and offereed it to the Frenchman, saying “I have the same idea, but not so fine a box.”

The Frenchman sniffed, sniffed again; and then replied, “Very nice, Monsieur, but a little too near the arse for a Frenchman’s taste!”

Gladiatrix July 11, 2015 at 3:55 pm

Re David Price

Anna, have you considered reporting Mr Price to the SRA? It seems to me that you have grounds.

↧

Class and the Common Girl.

July 28, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

≪ Previous: Starr Wars.

by Anna Raccoon on July 29, 2015

It was Meirion Jones making his disingenuous background notes to Mark Williams-Thomas and talking about the Duncroft girls:

4.5 In the 1950s, Duncroft was an elite institution where only the most intelligent young criminal girls were sent. If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft. As a result, the pupils at Duncroft included individuals who were connected to fairly influential and high profile families.

It is cobblers. Cobblers on stilts as it happens.

1960 was a different country, and it pays to remember that.

Parents, well-heeled or otherwise, had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

↧

Exclusive – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

August 31, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

≪ Previous: Class and the Common Girl.

by Anna Raccoon on September 1, 2015

@SarahChampionMP Are you pushing mandatory reporting or do you think OK for covering up child abuse not to be crime? @mandatenow #Savile
— Meirion Jones (@MeirionTweets) January 14, 2015

It is the ultimate Christmas gift to those who run legal firms specialising in bringing claims for compensation against institutions.

‘Jones the History’ – or ‘Mr’ Jones as the girls would have had to refer to him. A distinguished lecturer in Local Government, he had been drafted

Did he tell the BBC of these other family connections? We should be told.

Legal? Decent? Honest? Truthful?

↧

Exclusive – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

September 15, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Class and the Common Girl.

≪ Previous: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

Post image for *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

by Anna Raccoon on September 16, 2015

@SarahChampionMP Are you pushing mandatory reporting or do you think OK for covering up child abuse not to be crime? @mandatenow #Savile
— Meirion Jones (@MeirionTweets) January 14, 2015

It is the ultimate Christmas gift to those who run legal firms specialising in bringing claims for compensation against institutions.

Meirion’s source for his Newsnight documentary that was never shown due to lack of credible evidence, centred round Karin Ward, a girl who had been at Duncroft in 1974. Karin and the other girls that were sent in Meirion’s direction, were marshalled by another girl who had been at the school in 1978, and bolstered by a forged letter claiming that Savile would have been prosecuted but was ‘too old and infirm’. Their paths had never crossed in person, only on the Internet. The ‘2007’ police investigation into Savile’s presence at Duncroft showed one remarkable fact – that not one girl had ever claimed to have reported Savile to any of the staff. Nor was ‘Clunk-click’ ever mentioned to them. That was why the Police had never interviewed any of the staff, nor were they aware of the events in 1974 regarding the origins of Savile’s connection with the school.

‘Jones the History’ – or ‘Mr’ Jones as the girls would have had to refer to him. A distinguished lecturer in Local Government, he had been drafted in to help fulfil Ms Jones’ dream of giving the girls the best ‘second chance’ at education that she could possibly muster.

I heard rumours that there might be a family connection between Mr Jones the History teacher, and Ms Jones the head mistress, but aware that she had once had twin brothers, I thought perhaps this was the twin who had died tragically early?

Did he tell the BBC of these other family connections? We should be told.

Legal?

Decent?

Honest?

Truthful?

{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }

Misa September 16, 2015 at 9:12 am

That is a gem, Anna!

What a plonker. I think it was all part of an elaborate smoke screen to give him cover to elope with MWT… a British Thelma and Louise, perhaps?

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 9:19 am: Nothing would surprise me any longer…
Reply
JuliaM September 16, 2015 at 11:24 am: I’m happy to provide directions to the nearest cliff…
Reply

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 9:26 am

* … Mr Jones who had once had carnal knowledge of Meirion’s beloved ‘Mumsy’, the Mother he was so close to that he only deigned to marry recently – in late middle age. -*

Meirion married his own mother?
I think we should be told.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 9:27 am

Ha! No he married Kate, the long suffering mother of his daughter.

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 9:35 am

Meirion’s father was Meirion’s wife’s boyfriend before Meirion?
I’m really struggling to keep up here aren’t I.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 9:36 am

Yes. You are. See me after school.

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 9:41 am: I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
I must learn to pay attention and master my subject
Reply

Rocky Racoon September 16, 2015 at 9:44 am

As Merion said…”It was a very strange place…filled with all sorts of people, very very strange….everything about that place seemed very odd to me.”

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 9:48 am

Hmmm, my Aunt, my Father, my Grandmother….

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 10:40 am: Wales is the land of my fathers but do they keep a welcome in the tales?
Reply

Alex September 16, 2015 at 9:54 am

Another great blog Anna.

“Interestingly, there has never been any question of ‘Mandatory Reporting’ applying to the now legion of journalists who claim retrospectively to have known ‘irrefutably’ that Savile was a predatory paedophile”

Also to be added to that list should be Esther Rantzen and a host of other BBC employees who claimed to be “in the know”.

I got shot down a bit the other day for suggesting that there should be a five year limit on bringing charges of sexual abuse. At the time, I was thinking more about those who have brought claims that they were abused when they were in their middle teens and older. Of course I wasn’t suggesting that an abused four year old would be confident of bringing a claim before their 9th birthday, and I agree that some other limitation should apply in those cases. I also suggested that false claimants should be named, another idea that was pooh-poohed. However, I do think such persons should have their names added to a register along the same lines as convicted sexual offenders.

That Merion Jones does seem to be a very strange individual. I wonder if there might not be a bit of “he protesteth too much” involved?

Misa September 16, 2015 at 10:12 am

Alex, mandatory reporting seems a very silly idea born of the need to have a rule for everything. I fear setting time limits is not much better. If corroborative evidence was required and accusers’ anonymity removed, the Law could get on with doing what it’s good at, and I suspect this whole furore would die down.

MWT has always protested too much. I think May was just besotted with him. Poor fool.

Eric September 16, 2015 at 10:24 am: It has been debated endlessly in NSW & Victoria with the result that social workers are saying it will simply add to their burden of already trying to investigate over 100,000 suspected child abuse claims each year in each state, of which they are lucky if a quarter get looked at.
Reply

Don Cox September 16, 2015 at 2:09 pm

“such persons should have their names added to a register along the same lines as convicted sexual offenders.”

It seems to me that making false claims of abuse is a form of sexual offence.

John Bull September 16, 2015 at 10:15 am

Last night I watched an interview (Newsnight) with Paul Gambaccini. I think he suggested that the current harassing of celebrities is as a direct consequence of the the police failure to pursue Saville. Is he implying that he knew something about Saville? Is he implying that Saville was guilty of something? If so, would ‘Mandatory Reporting’ allow the police to reinvestigate him for non disclosure?

Eric September 16, 2015 at 10:22 am

Paul said he knew Jimmy screwed dead bodies so perhaps Mandatory reporting should include the deceased as well.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 10:27 am

Quite. The man is a twat.

John Derbyshire September 16, 2015 at 11:44 pm

Please can you refrain from such language, I find it offensive, and shows limited intellect.

Amfortas September 17, 2015 at 6:01 am: Anna’s pub: Anna’s rules.
Reply
David September 17, 2015 at 8:04 am: Yes I agree, people with limited intellect seem to be pushing their views on everything these days.
Reply

Eric September 16, 2015 at 10:20 am

Thanks for the update as Mr Meirion Jones has blocked me on twitter.
I suppose the only person who would avoid charges under Mandatory reporting would be Dan “the man who knew him best” Davies who said after Jimmy died that he “had a heart of gold”. Obviously oblivious to Jimmy’s claimed offending.

theyfearthehare September 16, 2015 at 11:07 am

You could have knocked me down with a feather. If this wasnt so serious, it would be hillarious

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Aye oop! Meirion’s awake….

Chris September 16, 2015 at 12:02 pm: He must be going easy… or is “eccentric” now an insult to match “apologist” and “denialist”. Jimmy himself was a ‘Great British Eccentric” was he not….
Reply

Little Black Sambo September 16, 2015 at 11:13 am

I expect he wears a camera on his bicycle helmet. In which case perhaps some kind motorist will soon run him over.

Jonathan Mason September 16, 2015 at 11:20 am

I am a mandatory reporter in the state of Florida. Our law does not work in the way described above. It is the vagaries of the UK legal system that are the problem. Also the law does not apply here to journalists. They are supposed to write about what they know, or if the information is too libelous to publish, then advise informants to go to law enforcement.

Jonathan Mason September 16, 2015 at 11:25 am

Anyway, there was nothing to report on Savile that is in the public arena except the grope session with the underage “Susan” that may have already crossed boundaries before Savile realized she was out of play.

I recently watched the Theroux documentary on Savile. Ugh, the elderly Savile was obnoxious.

Misa September 16, 2015 at 1:48 pm: I’ve watched the Theroux documentary again recently, and am struck by what a lovely portrait it is. Not particularly flattering, but nonetheless endearing in its own way. Obnoxious…yes, kind of. Probably less obnoxious than he might have been thirty years earlier, I guess. I think Theroux has a real knack for getting something from people, and it’s genuinely interesting, if not essential, viewing.
I had no particular affection for Savile at all before this thing kicked off. But the more I read and hear, the more respect I have for the man. And all the bullshit, the patter, the talk of his ‘policy’ for this and that, the turns of phrase, are utterly familiar from people I knew in my youth. The persona is not particularly endearing, but there’s a real heart there.
Reply

Bandini September 16, 2015 at 11:31 am

What an interesting article!
Are we ever likely to hear an answer to the question: “Did he tell the BBC of these other family connections?”

In an email (referring to the claims within that blasted “web memoir”) sent to Peter Rippon & Liz McKean, October 2011, Meirion states that:
“…the Head in this was my aunt. My folks suspected at the time this was going on.”

He doesn’t seem to mention that one of his ‘folks’ had also been employed at Duncroft, though. Later, in an email to Stephen Mitchell & Helen Boaden, Rippon states that:

“Meirion Jones spotted the story from an anonymous blog of a woman from Duncroft soon after his death.
He was keen to pursue because he had a family connection with Duncroft. An Aunt had been the head there.”

Again, no mention of the paternal link; I was a late-comer to dissecting Savile but I’m sure others will be aware of whether or not he did disclose this.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 11:47 am

No mention of grandma being resident there either. In fact, about the only members of the family not resident and watching over those 20 girls like hawks, were Meirion and his Mother.

Rocky Racoon September 16, 2015 at 11:59 am

In his evidence to the Pollard Inquiry he only mentions his aunt.

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm

@Rocky
He does mention his Granny lived with his aunt, which rather makes the absence of daddy a slum-dunk.
As Conan Doyle might have it, The Dog that Didn’t Bark.

He also says he visited Duncroft between 1960 and 1970, which makes me think he never did meet Jimmy there and is just a fucking liar.

Moor Larkin September 16, 2015 at 2:37 pm

Beg pardon. I’m an idiot. he says he visited between 1960 and 1970 but then much more frequently between 1970 and 1976.
My bad.
Boy, this guy makes me cross.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 2:57 pm

You might note that between 1960 and 1970 he was between 3 and 13 years old, so might not have had an ‘adult’ view on the advisability of visitors even if he had seen him, which he wouldn’t have done since he wasn’t there…..
It was 1975 when Meirion left school and he still had his teenage years to go at Cardiff Uni.
Susan describes Savile getting a message that a teenage Meirion was in his grandmother’s house in the grounds and desperate to meet Jimmy in the main house, which would have to be when Meirion was either 16 or 17 – probably desperate for an autograph. Susan was rather pissed off at Savile being summoned in this way.

Gaye Dalton September 19, 2015 at 9:59 am

Here is a very small odd thing.

I was in Duncroft for 4 months in 1972, admittedly through the summer (when things were not in a normal pattern) and admittedly in a rather detached way…but gossip is a high speed sport and I heard a lot of it…but not a word about a nephew, visiting or not, and it is both the kind of thing that was gossiped about and the kind of thing that would have caught my attention.

Also, just for the record, I was the first year for whom the school leaving age was 16, and I was 14 at the time. I caught the last 3 or 4 weeks of the school term and left at the start of the september term. I never heard tell of a male history teacher, in fact it would be my distinct recall that the absence of even a single male member of staff had a dramatic effect on the behaviour of all present, and it wasn’t good, which has informed my opinion of single gender groups ever since, so it seems logical to assume Jones began there in September of ’72 or ’73 when the raised leaving age would be making an actual difference? Is it possible that, for some reason, at least for a while Meirion did not visit at all until his father was there?

Anna Raccoon September 19, 2015 at 10:31 am

Meirion definitely visited there before ’72. It is the source of my long standing grudge against him….
Mrs O’Sullivan had bought us a copy of ‘It’s a Hard Days Night’ and we were in the Senior common room about to hear this wondrous thing, when Meirion was shown in to ‘sit with us and listen to the record’ (he being about 7 or 8 at the time). Sadly Meiron was the possessor of a large bogey hanging from his nostril, so I was despatched to fetch him a suitable handkerchief – and missed hearing the Beatles opus magnum…..
You are one of the few people who would fully appreciate the depth of my angst in the direction of that snivelling snotty nosed kid…

Petunia Winegum September 19, 2015 at 11:55 am: Hope this helps…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJE3yWqh6j4
Reply
Gaye Dalton September 20, 2015 at 2:33 am: :o)
So, perhaps he was not around for a while…between about ’66 (pulling that out of thin air, but why not? Everybody else does.) and ’73 ? Would that work?
Reply

Rocky Racoon September 16, 2015 at 1:26 pm

Update: Merion during the Pollard Inquiry (Page 338) did mention his parents but not whether his father taught at the school.

After being asked if he considered interviewing his aunt and whether she was interviewable Merion was then asked if he formed a judgement whether his aunt knew what Jimmy Savile was doing at Duncroft…

“No, I mean, I think my feeling is that she was like a lot of other people…who were swept along by his celebrity and glamour and all this, and partly by the fact that everyone else accepted him as okay….(next 3 lines redacted).
You know, at the same time I’m aware that my parents were there saying “This isn’t right”. So some people were able to see that, and they were saying (3 lines redacted). That’s how I put it.”

johnS September 16, 2015 at 2:12 pm

“You know, at the same time I’m aware that my parents were there saying “This isn’t right”.”

I wonder if this is a deliberately slippery form of words. Most people would think in context that “there” wasn’t to be taken as meaning literally there full-time, given that Jones hadn’t given any indication that his father worked at Duncroft or that his parents were anything other than occasional visitors. However if later questioned into a corner he could say “Look I said they were there!”

It’s also very possible that the parents felt that “This isn’t right” without any real suspicion of impropriety. Many people of an older generation in the 1970s would have thought that schoolgirls having any contact with a DJ in a school setting just “isn’t right”, however innocent. A classical music figure fine, but that ghastly downmarket trashy pop!

Bandini September 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm: I think he’d be pushing his luck a little, JohnS, trying to pass-off “my parents were there” as in any way analogous to “my father was actually employed there”, but I see your point.
It wouldn’t really explain his failure to declare the familial employment-link, though, if that is indeed what he did; Peter Rippon, for example, would surely have felt a little hoodwinked if he later discovered that Jones hadn’t thought to mention the fact.
Reply

Engineer September 16, 2015 at 2:20 pm

There is a ditty about the peoples of the four nations that runs thus:

The Welsh pray on their knees on a Sunday,
And on their neighbours for the rest of the week.

The Scots take what is rightfully theirs,
And anything else they can lay hands on.

The Irish don’t know what they want,
But they’ll fight anybody to get it.

The English claim to be a self-made race,
Thus relieving the Almightly of a terrible responsibility.

At least it’s equally rude about everybody, so I’ll not have to answer any charges of racism! However, the thing about the Welsh is interesting; there is something in the Welsh character – not quite sure why – that leads some of them to be very quick to take offence and to harbour grudges long and deep, sometimes for quite trivial sleights. Feuding among themselves was something of a feature of Welsh affairs even as they tried to defend Wales from English incursions, and there’s a parochialism in modern Welsh politics that is often counter-productive.

Could it be that Meirion harboured a grudge for some minor perceived family sleight, and that the whole ‘revenge’ blew up far more than he’d anticipated? Or is he really so warped that he’d try to have his aunt arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned?

Ellen Coulson September 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm: Meirion’s mother and his aunt have not spoken for many years and indeed Margaret always said Meirion’s mother was jealous of her job at Duncroft and its celebrity visitors. She was headmistress of a grammar school in Surrey. However, I believe she often visited Duncroft, presumably when she took Meirion there when he was younger.
Strange that Fiona’s husband was a Jones – makes one wonder!
Reply
Gaye Dalton September 19, 2015 at 10:01 am: A curious thing, I first heard that in Duncroft from a girl called Janice…with a degree of reference to Maggie Jones :o)
Reply

The Blocked Dwarf September 16, 2015 at 4:54 pm

beginning to make Lizzie Borden look like a competent family relationship advisor.

Meirion Jones took an allegation
and gave his Aunt 40 writs.
When he saw what he had done,
he gave his Dad 41.

No, I know it doesn’t scan , but then again, nothing in this whole tale of courageous journalistic endeavour does…

Major Bonkers September 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm: Germany has closed her borders, you know.
Reply

IlovetheBBC September 16, 2015 at 6:06 pm

Wow. Just wow.
The untold Duncroft story.

Carol42 September 16, 2015 at 6:36 pm

I am utterly lost, certainly sounds as though Merion Jones carries some strange grudge against his family.. You really couldn’t make this stuff up! I also watch the Gambucini interview, I was quite sympathetic until he started on Savile. If he and all the others ‘knew’ so much why didn’t they report it? Nothing about the whole story hangs together.

Reform78 September 16, 2015 at 9:05 pm

Anna,
I have found reading these posts extremely interesting. They give a lot of insider information against which to measure other versions of events. This is a serious comment: I know that girls at Dunscroft had high IQ’s, and that a lot of the commentators on here are very intelligent. I am not stupid myself, but when people use “insider language” and “insider jokes” I get a bit lost, as my IQ is much more modest.. I really want to understand what the comment below means. What exactly is being said about Merion’s father and mother (at least that is what I assume is meant)? Is it that they had sex long before marriage? Also, what was the status of their relationship when Merion’s father taught history at Dunscroft? Were they in/out of a relationship then?
* … Mr Jones who had once had carnal knowledge of Meirion’s beloved ‘Mumsy’, the Mother he was so close to that he only deigned to marry recently – in late middle age. -*
It would also help me if you could give the full names of all the family members mentioned: Merion’s mother, father, aunt, grandmother etc, then when “people in the know” mention them by their first names, there can be no mistake about who they mean.
Thank you.

Anna Raccoon September 16, 2015 at 10:01 pm

It won’t help you to know that they were all known to us as either Mr or Mrs Jones, will it? Apart from the Headmistress who was Ms Jones….in fact since Meirion (or Master Jones) got married, there is yet another Mrs Jones….

Gaye Dalton September 19, 2015 at 10:08 am

Ms Jones??? *MS* Jones???

WASH OUT YOUR MOUTH.

It was always a very firm MISS Jones to her face…and Maggie behind her back. In fact I recall my mother saying relatively recently that if anyone was a “Miss” rather than a “Ms” it was Maggie Jones. :o)

Anna Raccoon September 19, 2015 at 10:34 am: You are absolutely, irrefutably, right – and I certainly wouldn’t dare call her Ms Jones to her face!
She is now mobile again after breaking her pelvis recently – her brain as sharp as ever. 94, and little changed. A remarkable woman.
Reply

Owen September 17, 2015 at 12:18 am

Is this the sort of thing they mean by a witch-hunt?

Ed P September 17, 2015 at 9:31 am

Is the picture actually of Kenny Everett? Or do all weirdos look the same?

sally stevens September 17, 2015 at 11:53 pm

I have to note that the entire time I was on Careleavers, and I think Ellen can bear me out on this, nobody ever mentioned a History teacher called Jones. Odd. They did however go on and on about a Spanish teacher (male) called Mr. Nieto, who apparently had a bad case of wandering hands, but was never reported because his attentions, I assume, were welcome.

Miss Jones (headmistress) told me that Meirion was all agog to meet Savile, and that she, Miss Jones, had a photograph of them both at a fete at Duncroft. This could have been the one Savile came to in the summer of 1974, not long after his first visit in May of that year. Mrs. Jones – mother of Miss Jones and this elusive History teacher brother – was living at the school at the time.

Jones family grudge? Yes, over some real estate. Being Welsh (on my Dad’s side) I can attest that there is extraordinary amount of ridiculous grudge-holding that goes on in families, at least in my experience. But I don’t think that’s necessarily exclusive to Welsh people!

I’ve been gratified to learn the depths of deception Fiona stooped to. She wasn’t at Duncroft when Jimmy was visiting, at least not with Susan, and not with Karin Ward. Probably didn’t show up until 76, and he was gone, to all intents and purposes, by then.

And Karin Ward, btw, was a hideous little bully, according to information I received lately.

This whole tale takes the most extraordinary twists and turns. Just when you think you’ve heard it all, this sort of information comes out.

Moor Larkin September 18, 2015 at 8:57 am: That dad was a history man only makes the whole thing more hilariously apposite.
“Most people then on campus knew a Howard Kirk. He was the easy-going left-wing lecturer from the Swinging Sixties who had seen it happen, seen it fail, and had to live through what came next: the Sagging Seventies. Always radical, always seductive, always seducing, he was eternally on the side of the students against the fascistic institution that paid his salary, and always against those who were over thirty, even if he was himself 35.”
http://malcolmbradbury.com/fiction_the_history_man.html
Reply

sally stevens September 19, 2015 at 5:37 pm

Just for the record, when I was there, Oct. 62 to August 64, with a brief recall in 65 (July-August) for a couple of months, Miss Jones was generally known as Jonesy. As far as her being ‘swept away’ by Savile’s celebrity status, she was dreadfully uninterested in any of that. I think she found him mostly annoying, but admits he was very knowledgeable about law and order, and they had some interesting discussions about that. Otherwise, she could take him or leave him, preference for the latter. She can still do a good impression of Savile, according to Russell Myers of the Sunday Mail, who interviewed her for the second time. Mrs. Jones thoroughly disliked him, and when he went to kiss her hand, she jumped backwards, saying “Get away from me!!” Now, that being the case, you’d think she would at least address those issues with her daughter and, presumably, her son, the mystery History teacher. But, it is remarkable that this is first mention of him.

sally stevens September 20, 2015 at 1:28 am

I think I got my attendance dates wrong. Oct. 62 but must’ve been gone by early 64 – February I think. I was working for Laurence Harvey at his offices on Park Lane, and Walter Shenson, producer of Hard Day’s Night, was a couple of doors down. I kept looking out the door, to see if any Beatles were hanging about in the hallway! The best I could do was see Lennon and Cynthia standing outside the Dorchester.

The album came out in June 64.

Rocky Racoon September 26, 2015 at 9:52 am

Meiron Jones made it to the front page of The Sun this week who repeated his claim made in July that executives at the BBC had called him a traitor. This time though a particular executive was named, who it was reported Merion had been told by another person had said Merion was a traitor.

Meiron’s evidence to Pollard… (Nov 2012)
“I’m already talking about it with Mark Williams-Thomas and Liz MacKean as a Newsnight from July. (2011)

We might already have had a phone conversation. I mean, certainly obviously he would have been aware. We’d discussed this in depth in July when we were at Interpol.”

Mark William-Thomas (Statement: Oct 3 2012)

“Approximately 12 months ago I presented a report on TV about child protection and as a result of this programme I was contacted by a person who asked me if I had ever had any information or concerns about Jimmy Savile in regards to child abuse. I have worked in the area of major crime and child protection for over 20 years so I get to hear a lot of information. I had heard rumours but up till then that is all I had heard. At this stage he was still alive and even though the person who wanted to talk to me had information about someone who claimed to have been abused by Savile, I was sceptical, because for all the years Savile had been alive, no newspaper or journalist had ever found evidence to support claims of child abuse.

Sadly by the time I got to speak to this person Savile had died. I was also aware that a BBC Newsnight programme was looking into allegations of child abuse but no programme was broadcast for editorial reasons.”

Was there someone else making enquiries other than Merion Jones, or is someone telling porkies? Because if at it seems Merion Jones made contact before the other person then Mr William-Thomas would have been fully aware of claims about Jimmy Savile. strangely Mr William-Thomas makes no mention of his £500 involvement with the Newsnight investigation.

Moor Larkin September 26, 2015 at 9:59 am

So, tugging all those dots into line: “MWT told Mei that a geezer at the BBC had told him that Mei was a traitor.”

It doesn’t take many people to make a conspiracy fly does it…

Rocky Racoon September 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm

Jimmy Tarbuck was the subject of a police investigation, separate to Operation Yewtree, relating to allegations of historical sexual abuse. Mr Tarbuck said on television the main one was from a woman who claimed in 1964 she went to Wood Lane, London (BBC Television Centre) where at Top of The Pops Jimmy invited her along with his 4 road managers to his dressing room where he asked her to do certain things.

Jimmy asked the police if they had they checked it out the woman’s story, the police told him they had looked into it and he was on TOTP’s in 1964 at Wood Lane. Jimmy pointed out that in 1964 was made in Manchester not London.

↧

Class and the Common Girl.

September 22, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Collateral Damage.

≪ Previous: *Exclusive* – Mandatory Reporting and Meirion Jones.

Post image for Class and the Common Girl.

by Anna Raccoon on September 23, 2015

It was Meirion Jones making his disingenuous background notes to Mark Williams-Thomas and talking about the Duncroft girls:

4.5 In the 1950s, Duncroft was an elite institution where only the most intelligent young criminal girls were sent. If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft. As a result, the pupils at Duncroft included individuals who were connected to fairly influential and high profile families.

It is cobblers. Cobblers on stilts as it happens.

1960 was a different country, and it pays to remember that.

The courts, having sentenced us to (normally) a three year ‘Care and Protection order, we were then moved to an ‘assessment centre’. The first criteria for Duncroft was IQ. Here again, the thinking was not to isolate some well-heeled elite, but to ensure that the experiment of seeing whether further education, still in its infancy, would help us to return to normal life. The IQ element was not rigid. (I was later amused to find, when some fellow Duncroftians arrived on this site and commenced a conversation about IQ results, that I was the Dunce of the class of ’65. Their Barnardo’s notes revealed IQs of terrifying heights, unlike my own more modest score!). The IQ result was coupled with an assessment of ‘likely to benefit from further education’. That in turn meant that those who hadn’t played truant, and playing truant is far more difficult at a boarding school than it is for those at day school in their home town, had a head start here – they hadn’t missed so many lessons.

Parents, well-heeled or otherwise, had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

Readers under the age of 60 may not be fully aware that back in the 1960s, ‘being at boarding school’ didn’t necessarily mean that your parents were well-heeled as it does now. The world map was still coloured pink, and boarding school was a sort of gentile fostering service for the children of the army of sometimes quite lowly civil servants and military that were stationed in the outposts of the British empire. I went to boarding school at 3 (Froebel’s in Guernsey) and I wasn’t unusual in having gone at an age that would be considered abuse in itself nowadays. I also wasn’t unusual in being part of the band of children that didn’t go home at Christmas or Easter holidays, simply because the journey to ‘home’ – Australia, Hong Kong or wherever – was really only ‘do-able’ in the longer summer holidays. B.O.A.Cs nanny service for ferrying such children to their parents is a fond memory for many. The more lowly the parent’s overseas occupation, the more likely boarding school rather than a private tutor in the ambassador’s residence…

So, was Duncroft only for the children of the well-heeled? Stuff and nonsense. I did a quick phone round of other Duncroft girls the other night, and between us, spanning 1965 to 1973, we can only come up with a total of two girls who were ex-boarding school, and only one of them (not I, that’s for sure) could remotely be described as ‘middle class’ let along ‘upper class’. The rest of our class mates were defiantly ‘working class’. One was the product of ‘fairground employees’. Two we can think of, had parents who had never been nor intended to be, gainfully employed. Again, as Moor has so painstakingly researched, some had no family home to return to. No parents to speak for them. Nowhere to go on the occasional home leaves. That was why people like Professor Bell took us on camping holidays to Norfolk. (*Waves to Ellen*).

{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 9:50 am

1960 was a different country, and it pays to remember that.

Those of my generation , such as Meirion, tend not to realise, just what a social STAIN even a minor criminal record, especially for women, was still in the middle to late sixties. Very much akin to the leprosy of being an unmarried mother or her bastard. In my own family, one of my myriad of London Aunts was caught shop lifting in the early 60s (infact in true Dwarf style, she’d been heading up an amateur ‘ring’, had a flat full of hooky gear and was only convicted for one item of clothing -the only item in the flat she hadn’t actually stolen). Throughout my childhood her CRIMINAL RECORD (she got a non-custodial sentence before the JP) was paraded by my parents and Grandparents , and how it had RUINED HER LIFE and how she had to declare it at every Job Interview. It was regularly trotted out as an admonishment and salutary tale for young errant Dwarfs….and how she ‘would never get a decent job nor husband’.

I am pleased to report said CRIMINAL Aunt went on to out earn, legally, more than all her familial naysayers combined and married well. Her own son is a top flight lawyer.

If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft. Don’t hold back now Meirion, tell us what you really think of your social betters. Dear God, Chip-on-shoulder much?

Ted Treen September 23, 2015 at 2:29 pm

Meirion Jones’s “Social betters”?

That would include slugs, snails and all sorts…

Bill Sticker September 23, 2015 at 6:11 pm: And other creatures, all of whom would need a telescope to look at the belly of a snake.
Reply

Moor Larkin September 23, 2015 at 10:05 am

Worth mentioning that R2/Fiona makes a similar claim about the girls being from well-to-do circumstances.#
She herself was the daughter of a BBC Producer – solid middle-class certainly.
Of course she also says many were prostitutes and one even a murderer, so who dares is believed.

Given Jimmy’s main understanding of “Duncroft girls” must have come from Susan. What were her circumstances?
He did say in his interview for Ornament that the girls were very well-spoken, so his 2009 testimony is at least consistent.

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 10:19 am

I would say that Susan, the same as me, just about tottered into the middle class niche….just. A generation beforehand, neither of us would have stood a chance of being mistaken for middle class, but both our parents were the product of that great social mobility after the second world war. As it happens, two of my Uncles were bank managers for Barclays – before the war, neither would have had a prayer of attaining such a position, but post war, and post ‘officer class polish’, (and the Quaker background helped) both found themselves part of the new middle class. Their Mother was an Irish maid come over to work in the London hotels as a chambermaid….

Moor Larkin September 23, 2015 at 10:24 am

Perhaps the nub here is that “criminals” were anticipated to be working-class untermensch, so the very fact that Miss Jones only took “intelligent” girls meant that the gals were bright, chatty and quick-witted. Thus, an impression is created of “class”, even if the girl was simply upwardly mobile because she was a bright kid.

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 10:30 am: On the button, Moor.
Reply

Ted Treen September 23, 2015 at 2:35 pm

“…bank managers for Barclays…”

That would be classed by many as a criminal occupation these days…

Gaye Dalton September 24, 2015 at 11:21 pm

In ’72 I would have said the majority were lower middle class…pretty much the same social mix as my previous direct grant KEHS Birmingham (now THERE’S POSH for you!) selected on academic ability and the will to enter the exams alone. Working class was quite unusual. One might have teetered on mediocre upper class…but nobody of importance or influence.

My own social class cannot be fully disclosed until negotiations with my mother concerning my fee are concluded…but I am optimistic about being able to throw my full weight behind:
“Duncroft was an elite institution where only the most intelligent young criminal girls were sent. If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft.”

…and go on a 4 star cruise. :o)

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 10:14 am

He did say in his interview for Ornament that the girls were very well-spoken

Given that JS was born in Leeds, any English accent would have sounded ‘posh’ to his ears. No doubt the Duncroft girls were , by and large, brought up to speak RP in public if they weren’t native speakers…that was the ‘polite’ thing to do. Even in the late 70s I can recall our Welsh-but-taught-himself-RP-as-a-boy-listening-to-the-Home Service teacher telling children to ‘speak properly’ .

Moor Larkin September 23, 2015 at 10:17 am

Yeah, but by 1974 Jimmy was rubbing shoulders and had been to the Palace. He was also a millionaire, not a hick from the Yorkshire stick.

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 11:13 am: I know ML, I was merely pointing out in my facile way the incongruity of someone obviously from Yorkshire praising the well -spokeness of anyone.
Reply

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 10:22 am

Good point BD, and one that I should have included. My Liverpudlian Father had taken himself off for elocution lessons (much to the disgust of the remaining Scouse brigade) simply to improve his career prospects. Jimmy’s voice must have been one of the first ever heard on television which wasn’t solid RP.
How soon we forget.

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 11:18 am: Good point BD, and one that I should have included
Nah I was just making a ‘funny’ , you’re giving credit where none is due.
Reply

Moor Larkin September 23, 2015 at 10:46 am

* I was reading it again in conjunction with the memory of an except from Jimmy Savile’s autobiography (I confess I neither own a copy nor have read it – excerpts only!). *

Just for the avoidance of future confusion, you must have been “remembering” his Ornament testimony because Jimmy makes no mention of Duncroft in his autobiography. It is an historical curiosity that he must indeed have been writing/publishing that very book at the same time as he was beginning his Duncroft associations. It crosses my mind that this would gel very well with Susan’s impression of a man reaching a minor crisis in his life, feeling the loneliness since his mother died. Jimmy’s writing of that book was very out of character generally as he otherwise shunned the personal limelight (until he became aged), so his opening-up by writing that autobio when he was approaching 50 seems indicative of a man reaching out to others (his 60million friends?) and trying to make sense of his own mid-life crisis, and trying to put it into some kind of order at the time. He is said to have been unemotional generally, but very logical.

Chris September 23, 2015 at 11:41 am

His career/on-screen persona changed at this point too – compare the dynamic, at-ease and genuinely funny host of TOTP etc before circa 1976, with the over-formulaic and often wooden gift-to-lazy-impressionists after that does seem to suggest some kind of mid-life crisis and change in perception/priorities. The second big ‘change’ was after the heart surgery, when he seemed to play on his perceived eccentricities with the return of the long hair, bad clothes & the like, which was a gift to lazy posthumous demonisers.
His “rise” now is seen as being wholely inexplicable as ‘stage 1 Jim’ (the quick-witted, wisecracking, up-to-the minute-compere) and ‘stage 2 Jim’ (the be-suited elder statesman tirelessly working for good causes) are overshadowed by the liability that was the worn-out eccentric ‘stage 3 Jim’ – which is, as most things are with *all this* utterly deplorable.

Misa September 24, 2015 at 5:35 am

It might be a silly question, but any chance the book could have been ghosted?

Moor Larkin September 24, 2015 at 4:28 pm: Jimmy does say he wrote it because some in the media asked him if they could write one and he,
a) couldn’t see why they should make money out of him
b) knew they wouldn’t [couldn’t?] write the true story
There’s a photo of his hand-written first drafts in the book. He did it in school exercise books.
Reply

Ho Hum September 23, 2015 at 11:40 am

Surely he knows that in the ’60s/’70s the posh peoples’ borstals were, for girls, Roedean, and for boys, Gordonstoun, with the really really difficult ones being transported to Geelong Grammar’s Timbertop Campus in Ozland?

Mudplugger September 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm: No doubt we will reap the full benefit of that conditioning process when Brenda finally keels over and Brian gets his wish.
Reply
Cascadian September 23, 2015 at 6:45 pm: I am pretty sure those institutions were for the mentally disadvantaged. We should not mock the afflicted.
Royals favourite course of study at university-history of art, only marginally less rigorous than PPE.
Reply

Wanda September 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

I would absolutely confirm that it is total bs that parents had any influence as to which approved school you were sent. In the first instance, prior to being sent to your designated school, in virtually all cases, girls were sent from the juvenile courts to at LEAST one remand home (in my case, it was two, for several months and then on to a ‘Classifying School’ (the infamous Magdalen being one) where, with reports from the remand homes & assessment at the classifying school/centre, the powers that be decided which reform/approved school you would be sent to, ergo the moniker’Classifying School’. My father had been posted back overseas by the FO shortly after I entered the system anyway, it would have been difficult to influence anyone! He came from a working class family, was born in the East End and went to evening classes to get his degree while working in a printer’s and then applied and got into the FO – not wealthy nor ‘upper class’, just a hard-working civil servant. I had the plummy accent, acquired at boarding school where I was sent at 11 (very young but not nearly as young as Anna was) not him and the boarding school was full of girls whose fathers were destined overseas working in banks, the FO or similar and was hardly ‘upper class’. Said plummy accent causing me much grief (and physical fights) in the subsequent remand homes etc… My classmates at Duncroft came from all ‘social’ backgrounds – and accents! And, if my memory is correct, most of the girls were there for pretty minor demeanours like shop-lifting and, amazingly, bunking off school (I forget what the terminology was at the time) no heavy-duty adolescent criminals that I recall, so stop lying Meirion!
I should also point out that, despite being told the contrary and that our juvenile records would be destroyed some 5-7 years after leaving, the ‘mark’ or ‘mar’ remains insofar as no ex-reform/approved school person can appear in a UK Court and declare they are ‘a good man/woman and true’ as the CPS will have done their homework and quickly reveal you as a one-time ‘juvenile delinquent’!

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 2:51 pm

My classmates at Duncroft came from all ‘social’ backgrounds – and accents!

But I assume the ‘gals’ of whatever accentage were encouraged/reminded to ‘put in their best plum’ or ‘telephone voice’ when speaking to visitors to the school? I’d wager your ol’ Dad from Befffnal Grween didn’t jelly eel his vowels whilst in the FO…can you imagine that, Parker eat your heart out, “H’excuse me Mister H’ambasSODDOR, ‘is Royawl ‘Ighness d’ King hovv Darkyland is on the dawg n bowne…” .

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 2:54 pm

It was known as a ‘telephone voice’ at the time – the ability of girls, and some men, form varied backgrounds, to sound exactly like a BBC announcer when answering the telephone. A required knack if you wanted a job where answering the telephone was a necessity.

Bandini September 23, 2015 at 3:08 pm

My mum’s still got one of those! Went with the shorthand lessons, I suppose.
Despite the Dwarf’s cruel jibes at the expense of the Leeds-accent, my grandmother – from Leeds – managed the most magnificent pronunciation of the word ‘book’.
It drawled its way all around the room before coming to a halt… “booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhk.”
(A single primary-school teacher of mine tried to get us to speak proper, too, but the idea had been abandoned by secondary. A shame, really, as being understood by those you are speaking to should surely be included on the curriculum.)

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm

understood by those you are speaking to should surely be included on the curriculum like, innit ayyy

Bandini September 23, 2015 at 4:10 pm: Me old gran’d box yer ears, TBD!
Reply

Mudplugger September 23, 2015 at 4:20 pm

I’ll see your ‘telephone voice’ and raise you ‘telephone smile’ – my late mother had one of those, which only came into use when speaking on the phone – it was the sort of forced rictus grin that you’d never like anyone to see but, on the phone in those pre-Skype days, they couldn’t.
In her later life, she had two pairs of false teeth – one pair of which was functionally better for eating: the other, much newer pair, she believed gave her a better smile. She would even swap to her ‘smiling teeth’ before making some phone-calls, in order to maintain her telephone smile ! That’s true dedication.
I do sometimes wonder about my genetics though ……

Bandini September 23, 2015 at 4:24 pm: I concede defeat, Mudplugger! That is dedication above & beyond…
Reply

Ho Hum September 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Fit fur? Kennin’ fit it is y’re sae’ing disna mean thit ony o’ th’ dafties fae doon sooth ‘r gaein’ tae hae ony notion fit it mins

Bandini September 23, 2015 at 5:49 pm

I’d insert one of those little yellow fellows here, scratching his head, if I knew how!

The Blocked Dwarf September 23, 2015 at 6:12 pm

And people wonder why I refer to anyone north of Watford Gap Services as ‘geordie’ or ‘orcs’. That has to be the most unintelligent and unintelligible thing i have heard today…and I live in Norfolk.

Ho Hum September 23, 2015 at 9:02 pm

Strangely enough, this week sees me in Norfolk for the first time ever. I had been truly disappointed until now. The local shops are devoid of wide fit socks for my 14 tootsies, and no rows of bargain priced 12 digit gloves are to be found. There are no bodies piled up at the roadside straights forming piles of ‘car kill’ . Even the bookshops that stock classic tomes that appeal to my specialist interests are not as daft as sell them for a pittance.

The only signs of strangeness have been a load of people still dressed up in their WW2 surplus outfits at the weekend, and the fact that everyone seems to be insanely chained to driving at 10 to 15 mph less than whatever is the prevailing speed limit

I was getting quite depressed about the dashing of my expectations, until you chipped in, as a representative true Norfolkman, to equate the notion that you considered that your lack of comprehension of some form of speech, which may well be intelligible to others, as being a sign that the one that expressed the same is necessarily unintelligent.

That’s much more like what I had thought I might encounter, so thank you for restoring my faith in East Anglian culture :-)

Mudplugger September 23, 2015 at 9:18 pm

Now there’s three words you rarely see together “East + Anglian + Culture” – well done, I thought that had all died out with ‘Sale Of The Century’.

The Blocked Dwarf September 24, 2015 at 12:27 am

the fact that everyone seems to be insanely chained to driving at 10 to 15 mph less than whatever is the prevailing speed limit

Actually they are probably tourists, genuine Norfolkers tend to drive at 40 mph whatever the speed limit…..40 on a 60 and 40 through the Village 20 and if they are over 80 then 40 when they try and park.

as a representative true Norfolkman,
In my younger more violent and alcoholised days that would have earned you a punch in the mouth. I was NOT born in Norfolk, I only share about half my DNA with my ancestral village (Grandma Dwarf fell in love with a furriner and moved down south to be with him….mind you he came from a little Berkshire village that also only had a single DNA sequence & IQ score between them) and I live here under protest….loud and frequent protest.

that you considered that your lack of comprehension of some form of speech
No that’s just because I’m English, nothing particularly Norfolk about that little bit of cultural prejudice.

Ho Hum September 24, 2015 at 8:30 am: My bad on the ascribing of ‘Norfolkman’ status to you
But, going back to the original point, are you then saying that, as a representative Englishman, that their lack of comprehension of others is something which apparently determines that those others lack intelligence?
Reply

Moor Larkin September 24, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Seem to recall Hilda Ogden was still adopting hers in the 1980’s.

Eric September 24, 2015 at 12:47 pm

I was watching an Oz TV show from the early 1960s the other day and I noticed how everyone had a sort of mid-Atlantic accent and commented same to a friend watching as well. He tells me everyone had to have the same and especially on the ABC where they were advised to mimic BBC accents. Long before Kylie came on the scene.

Mudplugger September 23, 2015 at 12:05 pm

In Meirion’s defence, the quote does define the catchment of Duncroft in the 1950s, all the other recollections relate to the 60s and thereafter. It may actually be accurate that a decade before, and before the radical new experiment, Duncroft did indeed house a disproportionate level of the well-to-do’s fallen female offspring.

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 12:08 pm

Meirion wasn’t even born until 1957. He was 3 years old by the end of that decade.

Can you name any other 3 year old that you would quote as a dependable source for analysing socio-economic trends in the educational world?

I would suggest that it was at least, at least, 1970, before Meirion could even pull together an intelligible statement on the subject.

Mudplugger September 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm

All true, but he may have been reporting what he had been told by others about its 1950s population, leading his audience to assume that the intake in later years had not changed. Is there are corroboration or otherwise from those who were at Duncroft in the 1950s ? That could be interesting, although not relevant to the later accusations.

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm: I cannot for the moment recall the exact year that Ms Jones took over in the late 50s, someone will no doubt come along to remind me – prior to Ms Jones it was Chris Barber, the Jazz musician’s mother in charge.
Prior to Ms Jones’ arrival, Meirion, even a three year old Meirion, would have had no cause to visit, nor would his Mother. I can think of only one girl who was there in the 50s, who came back to visit us (I have her name, but obviously won’t mention it) because she had ‘done well’ in later life, from a most unpromising start. so on the basis of one second hand example, it would seem to discount the, as you put it, possibly second hand example, of evidence from Meirion…..
Reply

Gaye Dalton September 24, 2015 at 11:34 pm

Wasn’t Meirion Welsh?

And mightn’t a very small Welsh boy regard anyone with an English accent as “posh”?

GildasTheMonk September 23, 2015 at 3:43 pm

Fascinating. Thanks Boss.

susie September 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm

I’m catching up with this fascinating story and trying to fill in the details. Can someone please tell me if the original Newsnight report has ever been broadcast or if it is available to view in any form?

Anna Raccoon September 23, 2015 at 6:18 pm

The answer to that is NO, and No!!!

susie September 23, 2015 at 6:36 pm

Thank you.

Moor Larkin September 24, 2015 at 4:30 pm

In Pollard the rough drafts of the script are available.

G September 26, 2015 at 8:21 am

Ok, now here’s odd, v odd I think. Can anyone – landlady, Moor, someone – explain the sentence in this week’s article by Jones in The Spectator (magazine supplement, £4 all in)?

Jones writes:-

>>The Newsnight film I had made with Liz MacKean exposing Jimmy Savile as a paedophile a year before he died.

I don’t understand this, whichever way one reads his broken English. There never was “a film” (only a proposed film, some filming, some draft scripts, some rough edits)? And the date…surely the point is nothing was “exposed” before Savile’s death? And Newsnight didn’t start work “a year before he died”?

Could it be Jones is just lying in this article, hoping no one will remember the chain of events? Or have I got it all muddled?

G September 26, 2015 at 9:36 am

PS Forget £4, the Jones piece is online for free:-

http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/alan-yentobs-crumbling-empire/

Anna Raccoon September 26, 2015 at 9:37 am

That is the usual chain of events, propagate a lie, keep propagating it; eventually, like ‘Johnny Rotten banned from the BBC for exposing Savile’ it will get accepted as the truth by some journalist somewhere.

Moor Larkin September 26, 2015 at 10:01 am: Liz for instance.
https://twitter.com/moor_facts/status/644446603164676096
Reply

Lilith September 23, 2015 at 7:59 pm

Of course the girls were well spoken. Estuary didn’t get fashionable until the 80s. At boarding schools the accent normalises to whatever the general populous agrees is OK. That’s why Jacob Rees Mogg sounds as he does, yet his older sisters sound like Amber Rudd.

Gaye Dalton September 24, 2015 at 11:31 pm

Another curious fact, at a tangent…

My father made a vocation out of controlling where I was sent – not so hard as both sides of the family were masonic (the only class that counts in the West Midlands) and my father could be a truly terrifying pest besides. I saw some of the letters. His aspiration (after Duncroft) was to get me (14, 6 feet tall, premature development syndrome and all) into a place called Saint Charles in London that was only for kids up to the age of 13. The implication was that I was to be taught to be “a proper child” who would hang off his every infantile word.

HE GOT SWEET FANNY NOWHERE…

Even though Sir Keith Joseph (then relevant minister) sanctioned three closely typed pages that attempted to introduce sanity, reason and the facts of life to my father’s outlook. When I found it it was genuinely touching to me how well the writer simply “got it”.

Bluntly, if there was a way for parents to specify placements, he would have done it…he didn’t…though he later came to pretty much control the local social services approach to me.

Anon September 25, 2015 at 6:57 pm

Those very same exercise books that Moor refers to are the very same that the Police ‘mistook’ for his diaries – the ones they lost! All very strange as I have these hand written notes! Confused? The diaries were just normal hard backed diaries and are STILL missing :-0

↧

Collateral Damage.

October 16, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: The Divine Ms Raccoon’s Annual Beanfeast….

≪ Previous: Class and the Common Girl.

by Anna Raccoon on October 17, 2015

The image in my mind was this staircase. A prime example of medieval craftsmanship. Part of a gracious home that few of us could aspire to, let alone afford.

They are doing untold damage to people who deserve better.

↧

The Divine Ms Raccoon’s Annual Beanfeast….

November 1, 2015, 4:00 pm

≫ Next: The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

≪ Previous: Collateral Damage.

Post image for The Divine Ms Raccoon’s Annual Beanfeast….

by Anna Raccoon on November 2, 2015

I said we’d organise something, so here’s a very important date to put in your diaries – 19th November 2015. Previous get togethers have been in London, generally organised round Old Holborn’s annual Guy Fawkes walk to Parliament, but we’re going to give that a swerve this year and go for something much more grown up – and based in George Osborne’s ‘northern powerhouse’ – Manchester.

I’ve discovered that there is an organisation after our own hearts called ‘Anotherway Now’. Their directors appear to be the man who so convincingly sold Bank of Scotland to the public (Hypnotist and copywriter Phil Brisk) and one of the partners in a New Delhi firm of architects (???). Their business manager is an ‘Ettie Brisk’ who I am presuming is a relation?

They believe ‘it takes bravery to tell the truth‘ – it is one of their founding principles.

For us, integrity captures the spirit of truth and honesty in which we aim to work – even when acting with truth and honesty requires courage. It also expresses our intention to adhere to our founding principles at all times.

Another of their founding principles that they intend to adhere to at all times is reconnecting people who have stopped communicating:

If your people have stopped communicating … yes, you’ve guessed it, we’ll reconnect them!

which is why they have decided to give us all a wonderful opportunity – not to be missed (and you get a Christmas drink with Ms Raccoon thrown in).

Yes, Anotherway.com is hosting a question and answer session with Meirion Jones who says he is ‘the former head of investigations at BBC2’s Newsnight, – an investigative journalist best known for revealing the years of ‘child abuse Savile got away with’. He says he could have exposed Savile in 2011, just as soon as he was safely dead…

“It is an opportunity for us to talk to some very interesting and inspiring people.
“We want to share that.”

Gosh, what could be more inspiring than to talk to Meirion Jones in person, surrounded by ‘trainers’ who specialise in ‘reconnecting communications’? A two-way conversation that anyone who is ‘brave enough to speak the truth’ can be part of? I daresay even Mark Williams-Thomas might be there, given that Mr Jones’ un-broadcast programme ‘also sparked the still ongoing Operation Yewtree’.

Interestingly, this session with Meirion Jones is to be held at the International Anthony Burgess Foundation in Chorlton Mill. Burgess, although a fine and distinguished writer, is best known for his Clockwork Orange book; a novel whose hero is a sociopath who destroys everything around him for his own amusement – along with his bestest friend, a sometime policeman called ‘Dim’…of course in the book, the government give our hero a well paying job rather than leave him to scratch his way round the rubber-chicken circuit.

So, the venue for the Raccoon Annual Beanfeast is to be the International Anthony Burgess Foundation, 7 for 7.30pm on the 19th November 2015. Tickets are £12 each, available HERE – and worth every penny! I have already spoken to a number of journalists and interested parties who intend to be there, it should be a night to remember.

Would one of you be kind enough to buy me a ticket in your name – I will reimburse you of course, but the postal service being what it is, I am concerned that an application in the name of Anna Raccoon might go astray, or perhaps the tickets go astray on their return journey, and you can’t have a party with the Divine Ms R on the missing list can you?

Tickets are available from Ettie Brisk; by phone 07889 834706 or she has an e-mail ettie@anotherwayassociates.com

There is a small, very small, fund behind the bar, left over from the last lock-in, that could be applied to the purchase price of a ticket for anyone desperate to be there and genuinely in financial difficulties – wouldn’t want you to miss the chance of a lifetime.

This is Question Time for Raccoonites…see you there!

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris November 2, 2015 at 9:07 am

Mad for it!!

GildasTheMonk November 2, 2015 at 9:10 am

Right on my doorstep!

paul rubert November 2, 2015 at 10:22 am

dear anna raccoon

I can get you a ticket if you email me today and indicate that you still need one. I would be really interested to hear this discussion.

Davidsb November 2, 2015 at 10:46 am

You do realise, I hope, that 19th November is in fact International Men’s Day – perhaps Mr J Savile could be one of the men celebrated in Manchester? Also, of course, Mr R Harris, to add that essential ‘International’ flavour…..

Have an enjoyable get-together – perhaps a report of the evening’s proceedings might be posted around here?

Bandini November 2, 2015 at 11:27 am

“Due to unforeseen circumstances tonight’s performance has been cancelled. The organizers wish to apologize for any inconvenience caused but hope that the public will join us in wishing Mr Jones a speedy recovery from what doctors assure us is “an impromtu attack of yellow fever”. Refunds are available at the bar.”

Have fun ‘n’ mischief!

Moley November 2, 2015 at 11:51 am

“We create trainings.” WTF?

Misa November 2, 2015 at 12:01 pm

Any thoughts of having some T-shirts printed for the occasion?
Legal? Decent? Honest? Truthful?

Anna Raccoon November 2, 2015 at 12:50 pm: Brilliant!
Reply

Petunia Winegum November 2, 2015 at 5:52 pm

I predict a riot!

right_writes November 3, 2015 at 12:37 am

See ya there droogs…

Not sure whether we will learn anything though, TV people (barring Clarkson), are of a type.

Esther Rantson November 3, 2015 at 1:03 am

Back in September, over 50 people attended our first Anotherway Now event. We were bowled over by the support! It seems we’re onto something. The enthusiasm that bubbled following the talks showed us that we’ve created a fresh and exciting new event in Manchester.

With this success, we’re busy gearing up for the second in the series of Anotherway Now talks. It will be held on Thursday 19th November at 7.30pm. Once again, we’ll be using the wonderful space at the International Anthony Burgess Foundation.

Continuing with the theme of ‘Brave Choices’ we’ll be hearing from Meirion Jones, the man who led the way in breaking the Jimmy Savile story back in 2011. It goes without saying that it will be another thought-provoking evening.

We’re already gripped.

Working as a top investigative producer, Meirion handed the BBC what would have been a massive scoop. He had a whole film ready for BBC2’s Newsnight, exposing Savile’s crimes, until Peter Rippon, then editor, decided to pull the programme in December 2011. It was just weeks before a celebration of Savile, including a Boxing Day ‘Fix It’ special, was broadcast on BBC1. As I’m sure you can imagine, his is an incredibly important story to tell.

Tickets are available now and cost £12 (£6 for students and concessions). They can be bought on the Anotherway Now website here: http://www.anotherwaynow.com

Move fast! We’re anticipating that this event will be even more popular than the first.

http://www.anotherwayassociates.com/?cat=7

Gaye Dalton November 3, 2015 at 11:47 am

Almost good enough to break my vow of “no UK till after the revolution”…should be a blast.

You must be Joe King November 3, 2015 at 2:20 pm

Much obliged, Madam. What a wonderful opportunity.

Jonathan King November 5, 2015 at 8:05 am

Is this organisation based in Nigeria? I’ve had several wonderful notifications from that country promising me untold wealth and the language has always seemed similar to that used in Jones and MWT’s ground breaking epistles.

↧

The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

February 25, 2016, 4:00 pm

≫ Next: Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.

≪ Previous: The Divine Ms Raccoon’s Annual Beanfeast….

by Anna Raccoon on February 26, 2016

The ripples from that human conflagration shaped a generation; divided families; brought entire sections of society opprobrium and demonisation. Destroyed lives, careers, families, reputations.

History will soon forget Meirion Jones’ name, but the ramifications of his desire for fame and glory back in 2011 will live with us for decades.

He was a ‘gang-enforcer’, there was ‘something dark about him’, ‘what do all those girls see in him’, ‘yeah, young girls too – just the ones I wish were screaming for my attention’!

Today we are told that the report is a ‘whitewash’.

Anyway, back to the building blocks of the Duncroft allegations, before lawyers started putting advertisements for ‘victims’ of this ‘prolific paedophile’ in foreign newspapers.

Perhaps Karin Ward will prove me wrong – but no! She now claims that Savile’s crimes amounted to her realising that he had an erection when she sat on his knee.

Perhaps the day will come when it becomes a criminal offence to have an erection – but for the sake of the human race – it ain’t here yet.

I have followed this story more closely than most – and I’m still not convinced that Savile was a paedophile. I’m even less convinced than I was before I read the Dame Janet Smith report.

Damn you Meirion, I should have punched your nose, not wiped the snot off it.

4 years ago, I wrote this – I haven’t changed my mind a jot.

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

Did anybody else notice that Operation Elvedon snuck out its death notice yesterday undercover of all the excitement?

{ 212 comments… read them below or add one }

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 11:42 am

Think the Dame is as crooked as the rest of them I’m afraid.
https://twitter.com/moor_facts/status/702979583876972544

Joe Public February 26, 2016 at 11:55 am

Pedant’s alert:

“100 years ago last year …… an act which historians accept begat World War One.”

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm: Thank you Petal! xxx
Reply

Gaye Dalton February 26, 2016 at 11:55 am

This rings true to me too (I haven’t read the report yet, but I will when I have a minute or so) it rings very EXACTLY true…

Except you got one thing wrong:
“he had become the Pied Piper of that burgeoning audience – teenagers.”

Not exactly…he had rather become the Pied Piper of the parents of that burgeoning audience – teenagers. Because they could not conceive of him as a threat…to teens he was Cerberus…every kind of tacky yeuk you had to get past to get to the hot stuff…he was the vile gatekeeper, nothing more, nothing less.

(Freddie Starr might consider relaunching his career with that pubic hair trick?)

Having spent how long? FOUR YEARS being half the stereo speakers trying to rewrite chunks of my past, the full report now concludes that my past was probably pretty pretty much as I remembered it after all.

OY VEY!!!! I need HARD LIQUOR…

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 12:02 pm

But that’s just nonsense Gaye. Savile was not a gate-keeper at the BBC and seems to have flitted in and out in as short a time as possible. The Dame even comments to this effect in her reportage.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 12:08 pm

I took what Gaye said to mean that Savile – as a disc jockey – was gatekeeper to the rock stars and their music. I don’t think she meant to the BBC – I might be wrong.

Gaye Dalton February 28, 2016 at 1:46 pm

…of COURSE I didn’t mean gatekeeper to the BBC….Moor, have you totally forgotten what the BBC was like in the 70s?

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 3:59 pm: @Gaye
Well, Jimmy knew his place…
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YpDVTxg-61s/UVMTIbRDLRI/AAAAAAAABjQ/O5hMM8Il6pY/s1600/image002.jpg
Reply

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Gaye, I said somewhere yesterday that Dame Janet’s report will be of interest to social historians for years to come – she has got the atmosphere of the 60s and 70s absolutely right, beautifully done. The report is worth reading for that alone.

Mr Ecks February 26, 2016 at 2:03 pm

I have only read the first bit of the report so far –but already this:

8. The third complaint was made by A6, a sound engineer who, at some time in the mid-1970s was responsible for a young trainee (see paragraphs 5.169 and 5.351 of my Report). One day, the trainee went into Savile’s dressing room to fit his microphone. On his return, the trainee was upset, saying to A6 that he was “never going in there again”. The trainee was reluctant to speak about the incident but A6 gathered that Savile had asked the trainee to fit the microphone whilst they were both on a bed and had appeared to want to fondle the trainee. A6 made a report to the sound supervisor and then to the sound manager (the next level up the management line). A6 heard nothing more and the reports seemed to have fizzled out. The reason for this is unclear. The evidence suggests that, if the trainee was approached, he would probably have refused to speak about the incident.”

So if the trainee was younger then he is still likely to be alive. Does the Dame mention making the slightest attempt to ask who this person was, find him and ask him if this incident is as recounted–or if it happened at all? No she bloody well does not.

She has not INVESTIGATED this claim AT ALL. Her entire report of this incident–which she puts at the front of her report- is an exercise in Brothers Dim folktale gathering.. Is there a report in the BBC files–No. End of “investigation2.

Now it may be that she is not quite as dumb and as credulous as the previous leftist nitwits but this is not how an INVESTIGATION should be run. It is some Judges opinion on tale that she seems to have taken no steps to check out whatsoever–even when there is a good chance that the actual participant in these events might still live.

I will reserve judgement until I have gone thro’ the rest but the above is not a good start.

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 2:07 pm

Well, this is Savile the omnisexual. Male or female, young or old, dead or alive, it made no difference to Jingle Jangle Jimmy’s insatiable urges.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm: Savile quite literally ‘jingle jangling’ while he worked here:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com.es/2016/02/bridging-credibility-gap.html
Reply
Gaye Dalton March 1, 2016 at 9:23 am: That is another telling point…bearing in mind I was a sexworker for years and an “enthusiastic amateur” before that…there may even be academic corroboration for this somewhere. At least every male (I have no idea about women but suspect that we are still too “conditioned to please” for it to be so clear) has a distinctive “erotic footprint” that tends to be a potted synopsis of his personality traits and the only variation on that is perhaps an inversion (eg from sadism to masochism, but in the same style). Even when the allegateurs (is that a word?) were still all adolescent girls, even allowing for subjectivity, the sheer variety in his sexual preferences, tastes and style defied nature.
For me that was the point at which I was certain some of the “truths” being shared were not as cartesian as they could be…
Reply

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 2:24 pm

Perhaps a tad unfair?

Might be worth skipping to 1.45 to 1.52 and having a read of that before delving into the claims made?

Mr Ecks February 26, 2016 at 3:12 pm

145 to 152–The report of an alleged un-minuted meeting which a woman remembers without notes but the man (dec’d 2015 but was asked by “the Saville investigation”) could not even remember taking place. The woman was asked to observe but not take notes. No record of these events exist outside of the woman’s memories. No statement is made in her account that in any way contributes to “proving” Saville’s alleged paedo crimes.

No statement is made to this effect but I will assume that Dame J has done checks on her interviewees and that the woman was at the time a BBC employee at a high enough level to have been likely to have been called in to sit as an observer of a meeting, which, if her account is believed, amounted to a BBC manager questioning one of the entertainers about possible sexual misconduct. I take it on trust that she (DJ) has checked the claims of employment, rank etc of all those contributing to her report who claim to be BBC employees or ex-employees.

Mr Ecks February 26, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Sorry 145 and 1.45 not the same.

Will get back to you.

Mr Ecks February 26, 2016 at 3:27 pm

Read it–it is apologetics.

*Civil Standard of proof–should not be used for criminal matters.
*Acknowledges loads of possible sources of confirmation/denial no longer with us
*Acknowledges that the coppers have fired enough crapola into the air to concoct God knows what tales of abuse.
*More or less said she is deciding who to believe by –what? general-feeling-about-the-person–even to extent of ignoring glaring inconsistency in details and accounts. In effect starting with the presumption of guilt.
*Acknowledges that some stories are so bogus she can’t stomach them but can’t actually bring herself to say I don’t believe these tales.

That is not very encouraging and despite how she says she has questioned in-depth–I am not inclined to believe her. I have no doubt she could have reached out for corroboration or otherwise and has not done so. As in the “young trainee” account several posts above.

In short “the will to believe” is there but at least she is mildly embarrassed about it.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 3:52 pm: “Acknowledges that some stories are so bogus she can’t stomach them but can’t actually bring herself to say I don’t believe these tales.”
She does acknowledge the outlandishness of some tales that had neither root nor branch that resembled reality – can’t find it right now, but at one point she says that only the ‘most plausible’ made it into the appendices. The others she left out altogether……
Reply

Gaye Dalton February 28, 2016 at 1:49 pm

That is important in and of itself…

It seems so strange to me to realise I was living an adult life in a time far enough past to be fading into mythology.

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm: Yes, it took a while for me to twig that half the people commentating had no idea of life in the 60s – they simply weren’t born then.
I think it was some discussion about how it was amazing that Manchester wasn’t full of Savile’s children given so many claims of unprotected sex in the 60s clubland and Mecca halls, and someone else replying that we were all on the pill, adding knowledgeably for good measure that abortion was legalised in ’67 if the pill didn’t work!
I just thought – ‘Jeez, you really have no idea do you’!!!!
Reply

Phil February 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

I’m not sure. I saw Radio 1 DJs on their roadshows a couple of times and out of the large audience you would always get two or three girls that were obviously totally star-struck and would absolutely throw themselves at whatever celebrity DJ was present. Back in the 80s Saville was known to be stinking rich, famous and he was charismatic – I think some girls would have offered themselves to him on a plate and he would have taken advantage of that. Were they underage? Who knows – probably not even Saville. Were they consenting? Definitely – why would he push his luck when celebs like that don’t need to? He wasn’t Max Clifford – Saville was rich and famous and generally adored by the public. He didn’t look like that decrepit freak you see in the Daily Mail back then. The pictures of what he looked like in his prime, his image to the public back then, are difficult to find, but if you Google “Jimmy Saville Rolls Royce” you can find a few.

Gaye Dalton March 1, 2016 at 9:36 am

There was a huge gulf of difference in the “rideability” factor of Saville and the rest of the Radio1 DJs. For one thing he was a generation older than most. Saville was not considered remotely attractive (let alone charismatic) he was universally considered weird and creepy (and he most definately DID look like “that decrepit freak” to young women, even in his earliest Juke Box Jury days.

Moor Larkin March 1, 2016 at 9:50 am: @Gaye
Freak? Decrepit? False memories.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-toql6YanlsQ/UiijwPZDDiI/AAAAAAAAC8U/e1Xh7hExpns/s1600/image002.jpg
Reply

The Blocked Dwarf February 26, 2016 at 11:55 am

Gavrilo Princip

As with the Serbs and St.Gavrilo one can only hope that Exaro’s mob will soon get to build a chapel over Meirron’s mortal remains. Hell, i would even contribute to a bust ….

David February 26, 2016 at 11:56 am

A friend told me that his sister worked at the BBC in those days, and the place was always full of unaccompanied minors , running around the corridors. contrast that with my visit to Broadcasting House recently to give an interview with Tom Symonds their Home Affairs Correspondent, about the abduction of Martin Allen in 1979.

I was made to wait for him to come down and collect me. While I was waiting I was given a ‘visitors badge, which was checked by the guard as tom escorted me through the locked doors into the inner sanctum.

No doubt if it had been in the 1970s/80s, and I had been fourteen years old, I would have been waived through into the building, no questions asked!

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 12:07 pm

and here you have ‘another’ friend – me – telling you that your friend’s sister is lying. I was there in the 60s and 70s – and no there weren’t swarms of chidlren running round the corridors, and yes, you did have to get past doormen and security and have an escort – all ex-military types and very strict – to get in.

David February 26, 2016 at 12:19 pm

And you are saying there were not’ unaccompanied minors’ in the building. My friends sister was named ‘Ward’.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 12:22 pm

Ward seems to be quite a common name for liars.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 2:24 pm

Possibly also where David’s ‘friends’ live – the ones whose words he hasn’t cut ‘n’ pasted from forums on the ‘net, that is!

David February 26, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Bandini, Even Dame Janet Smith knows you are talking nonsense. It appears that, until 1971, the lower age limit for admission toTop of the Pops was 15. I think that this was stated on thetickets. However, I do not think that at this time it was enforced with any determination. Several members of staff did not recall an age limit; others thought it was always 16; one thought it was 14. There is evidence that girls younger than 15 were allowed in, without being asked their age or having to lie about it. A2 is a case in point. She went on the show about three times in late 1970 and early 1971. She had a ticket the first time but not thereafter. She says that she was not asked her age. She was in fact 13.
There is also evidence that, if asked, young people would lie about their ages. I have the impression that it was almost a badge of honour to get in underage.

The premises at Television Centre were not easy to secure. As well as the main entrance on Wood Lane, there were other
entrances which were not so well-manned with commissionaires. Also, parts of the perimeter wall could be scaled by an agile and determined young person. Several witnesses described scenes which sound quite amusing. From the upper windows of Television Centre, one could sometimes see quite elderly uniformed commissionaires trying to catch young girls who had managed to get under the barrier without permission.

There was no document in general use which could prove age and identity. I see the force of that and accept that there was no easy answer, given that the programme, as designed, required the participation of a young audience.
http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/chapter_9.pdf

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Does DJS read my comments?!?
I’m not sure what your point is, to be honest. And not for the first time, either.
You confused people by conflating the age of consent with the minimum age to be permitted entrance to TOTP (further down the page).
No one claims that young people did not appear – you can watch the bloody videos to see that they did!
(Claire McAlpine was said to have lied about her age, claiming to be 23 instead of the 15 that she was. She certainly looked like an ‘old’ 15-year-old.)

Still, the idea of a 10-year-old boy going unnoticed seems like a bit of a push. But the Dame says it happened – so there!

Gaye Dalton February 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm

Just saying…getting into Top of the Pops was such a dream for my generation that if security wasn’t fairly tight they would have had a major riot on their hands every week from those within easy travelling distance…

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 1:59 pm

The notion that the doors were unlocked between Theo’s bedroom where Savile slept one night in the 70s and the girl’s dormitories always makes me gurgle with delight.
There would have been nothing left of him by morning had those doors not been padlocked and bolted!!!!

Gaye Dalton March 1, 2016 at 9:11 am: That is true…but of course someone significant like David Bowie, or, perish the thought, Marc Bolan, would never have made it in through the front door intact…
Reply

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Ooh, very quick. Well done!

Carol42 February 26, 2016 at 2:33 pm

I agree Anna, I was there too and even on one of the shows and a couple in Glasgow before that, far from running around we were pretty tightly corralled, it was a much smaller space than it looked on TV with all the huge cameras and cables everywhere. I simply can’t see how these rumours can be true and even if they were, they seem to be trivial touching which was not unusual at the time. Didn’t like Savile but most of us would have climbed over him to get to the real pop stars of the day. I don’t imagine it’s a lot different now with teenagers and current pop stars though they will have to be a lot more careful these days! I wonder why none of the revered pop stars of that time have never been accused of anything, quite sure not all the groupies were of age.

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

The underageness of some groupies is and was well known. And yet there is a deafening silence. I think it is pretty clear here that the targetting of the BBC and other “institutions” is related to the extraction of compensation from a well-funded source. It also taps nicely into antipathy towards the “leftie” BBC by many right-wingers who are rejoicing in its humiliation.

Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 5:46 pm

I imagine there are many pop stars from the 60’s onwards who are still alive and in healthy funds. Plenty of wealthy targets to be had, so why no targeting?

IlovetheBBC February 28, 2016 at 10:40 pm: I have a horrible feeling that’s yet to come.
As soon as Bowie was dead the usual suspects came out to start a whispering campaign about him and underage groupies. The most famous of which, to her immense credit, fondly remembers her first experience of sex (with him) as the greatest night of her life.
Reply

The Blocked Dwarf February 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm

No doubt if it had been in the 1970s/80s,

I can assure you that, thanks to our Irish friends, no one was waved into any ‘public’ building, especially not unaccompanied teenagers.

The Blocked Dwarf February 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm

edit * public building in London.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Excellent point Dwarf, had forgotten that.

The Blocked Dwarf February 26, 2016 at 5:00 pm

Also not forgetting that ‘door men’ and ‘in house security’ men anywhere tended to be on ‘high alert’ because of pickets, strickers and radical duffel coat wearing students.

I seem to remember someone in the ‘trade’ telling me that BBC Door Men HAD to be ex-forces/ex-police as the government liked the idea of Broadcasting House being able to repel a Coup (although one wonders how they would have held off armed insurgents without any firepower of their own…maybe by blasting Esther Rancid at them at full volume?)

Mrs Grimble February 27, 2016 at 1:19 pm

You’re right about ex-military being in demand for door keeping, BD. My late stepfather was a big, burly ex-RSM with decades of military experience; he could stand ramrod-straight for hours and his voice could carry the length of Oxford Street in the rush hour. Back then, he could always get a doorman’s job when he needed one in spite of being an exceedingly unreliable alcoholic. Provided he hadn’t started drinking too early, he could probably have repelled a small coup single-handed!

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

I’ve got half an idea lurking at the back of my mind that there was some sort of agreement? regulation? convention? that all Hotel, in particular, doormen had to have a certain NCO rank – and that the jobs changed hands for money and you couldn’t even bid for one of those jobs without the right RSM rank?
Can anyone enlighten me? Or am I dreaming it?

InLikeFlint February 27, 2016 at 4:32 pm

I worked for the BBC at Bush House in 1978/9, with the odd foray into Broadcasting House – the idea that ‘unaccompanied minors’ (or indeed anyone) were able to run around the corridors is pure fantasy. We all had ID cards – no ID card, no entry. I can’t speak for Wood Lane, but find it difficult to imagine it would be any different.
Remember, it was not just the continual threat of the IRA that kept security on their toes – when I started working there, Georgi Markov was assassinated and consequently security was very, very tight.

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 5:14 pm: I find it impossible to believe that an organisation with thousands of pounds worth of highly specialised equipment, gantries, all manner of things on wheels that one could push down a corridor, all manner of electrical sockets of high voltage that one could push something into, would even, for one millisecond, let just one kid roam unsupervised, never mind scores of them running around the corridors!
I don’t think the people who say these things have ever set foot inside the high tech environment of BBC TV Centre!
Reply
Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 5:51 pm: It was also a place with lots of very stealable stuff.
With the exception of hospitals I have never known any government owned property that has been ‘easy’ to enter outside of the public accessible areas. There was always some sort of security, even in the 1970’s.
Reply

Eric Hardcastle February 28, 2016 at 9:08 am

One of my first jobs was as a ‘security’ guard at the BBC TV Centre although I lasted less than a year. Little training given but one thing was drummed into you : no member of the public was allowed to wander freely in the building for 2 reasons : 1. the public were regarded as being light fingered and could steal something and 2 . if a member of the public tripped over equipment which an insurance claim could result. Obviously rules were meant to be broken but in the days of “more than my job’s worth (including me) the old timer security guards were as strict as hell.

David February 28, 2016 at 11:47 am

All evidence was that most of the security officers at the BBC were old, retired ex service alcoholics, who were drunk, and disappeared a lot to smoke cigarettes. security at the BBC was a farce because the man in charge was a drunkard. The place was full of paedophiles, and was visited by paedophiles from the 1950s onwards. Lionel Gamlin had a flat round the corner where he and another BBC producer used to have young boys. Derek McCulloch, the producer and presenter of Children’s Hour,Uncle Mac, (Larry the Lamb). ‘Children from all over the country would win competitions to visit the BBC and meet Uncle Dick. He would welcome them, show them round, give them lunch, then take them to the gents and interfere with them.
Gilbert Harding, who used to watch schoolboys bathing in his house, Jimmy Edwards, who did actually cane real schoolboys, the list goes on and on. The BBC was a hotbed of paedophilia, with no ‘security’ worth it’s salt.

InLikeFlint February 28, 2016 at 12:20 pm

David, please could you point me in the direction of your ‘evidence’?

David February 28, 2016 at 12:28 pm: What didn’t come out in the report, was the ‘other man’ . Robin Nash, from 1973 to July 1980 Nash was producer (later executive producer) of Top of the Pops,
A friend of Gamlin’s remembers going to see him in a flat in All Souls Place in the 1950s, just round the corner from Broadcasting House. A man from Light Entertainment used the flat during the working week and Gamlin often stayed there with young boys. It was clear to the friend that both men were renting the boys, and that the boys were young:
‘They were boys with the kind of good looks that would seem very lewd in a woman.’ He also remembers going for a coffee with one of the boys from the flat. ‘The boy was nice,’ he said, ‘very young. He thought he might get a job or something of that sort. And it was clear the men were using him for sex. Broadcasting House was well stocked with men interested in sleeping with young boys. It was a milieu back then. And people who sought to be sexual predators knew that. It wasn’t spoken about.’
Reply

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 1:37 pm

Fantastic, some first hand evidence! Can you corroborate David’s story that your Boss was an alcoholic ex-serviceman who smoked a lot of cigarettes – or even one cigarette? How many paedophiles did you let in on average each week, or by day if you prefer. How many children did you allow to roam the corridor at any one time?
I only ask, because a lot of the ‘evidence’ that David brings to us seems to emanate from the friend of his wife’s hairdresser, which I am loathe to take at face value – however, if you as a genuine ex-BBC security man, particularly since I know perfectly well who you are in real life, could confirm some, or indeed any, of this, then I will accept it to be true….

Chris February 26, 2016 at 11:56 am

And what of the “Womble Rape”?
It’s “credible” that, on the watch of Robin Nash on Top Of The Pops at Television Centre, Jimmy Savile – whilst still in a prototype Womble suit made and designed by Mike Batt’s own mother – “raped” children ‘from the audience’. There were no children at Top Of The Pops, all of whom had to at least pass for 16 and I have it on the authority of someone who worked as a ‘studio audience supervisor’ on tens of editions of the show that, post-1971, the age requirement was policed very strictly (and no-one got in without a ticket, no matter who they claimed to know).
Here’s the last quarter of “I Love 1974” from the year 2000 – Mike Batt recollects that the suits made by his mother made going to the toilet impossible, never mind “raping kids”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i7PYO1gclM

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

Seems VictoriaLucas38 put ideas in victim’s heads. I daresay they don’t know their Bulgaria from their Orinoco.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Chris, I was hoping you’d pop in yesterday when we were looking at this claim:
http://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/25/the-dame-janet-smith-review/#comment-18205726434427115

I know you are very knowledgeable about all things TOTP, and other than the Womble-suit (possible to self-extricate?) I wondered about the footage available of the episode in question. The two children (10 & 12-year-old) do not appear on film, DJS states, but a quick search showed that OTHER footage apparently exists (out-takes, etc.). Given that much of this material seems to be in the hands of private collectors & enthusiasts such as yourself – rather than the Beeb itself – I did question how much research had taken place by the ‘team’.

I was wondered if those floor staff who DJS thinks wouldn’t have noticed a 10-year-old boy getting in the way might not still be around – and feeling either angry (if they don’t believe it all) or very guilty (if they do).

Cloudberry February 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

What a ridiculous farce this whole thing is. Womble suits? Seriously mad!

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm

I don’t find a Womble suit fumble in 32 seconds with two 10 year olds too far fetched for a man who could walk through walls…!

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 3:34 pm

Of course, if there had been an actual trial at the time, a womble suit could have been produced and a person dressed in it to demonstrate the capacity or otherwise of anyone to get their tackle out while wearing it.

Gaye Dalton February 28, 2016 at 1:59 pm

I should think the womble suit would have been quite soothing compared to some of the things he was supposed to have got up to in Lloyd loom tub chairs at Duncroft.

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 2:09 pm

Did you not know that the tub chairs had mated in the night and joined up to form a comfortable sofa? Amazing place Duncroft. Miracles galore.

David February 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

Someone opened a very good Voy Forum site, that had a lot of first hand information on Duncroft / Jimmy Savile, Female Juvenile Detention Institutions in the UK, at the same time I started the Voy Forums Approved Schools and Borstals. I exposed Barnardos in my Training Ships Site as well. Sadly the other Voy Forum owner did a runner, and left the site a Marie Celeste

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 3:47 pm

@David
Fiona before she turned to the dark side:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PMNE_jCWBzw/VbfIyPwiS4I/AAAAAAAAH5s/5o49p2EPeeA/s1600/image002.jpg

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Somebody opened a very interesting Facebook page too about which we now know more.

The fat lady hasn’t warmed up yet – but I confess to being awfully bored with it. ‘It’ being Fiona. Very last year.

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 6:35 pm: remains unexposed by the mainstream, unlike Nick/Stephen/Nick
Odd how Generals still inspire the loyalty of the British public whereas Lords and Knights seem less fashionable.
Help for Heroes influenced more folks than just Jimmy perhaps.

IlovetheBBC February 28, 2016 at 10:57 pm

So in 2010 Fiona had very fond memories of the place. How things change.

Gaye Dalton March 1, 2016 at 9:41 am

I am sorry…the image of an animated womble suit striving for a threesome in a Duncroft tub chair had me paralectic with laughter for hours there…

Eric Hardcastle February 28, 2016 at 9:09 am

But it’s a good story.

Chris February 26, 2016 at 5:19 pm

Bandini – the “Womble Suit” edition (20th December 1973, recorded the day before) is one of a select few pre-76 editions to still exist as nature intended at the BBC – and was repeated on UK Gold in 1993, and up on YouTube for ages – plenty of time for people to think in more recent years “Jimmy Savile dressed as a womble, haha”.
The only ‘out-take’ is a rehearsal take of Roy Wood (with Rick Price) doing ‘Forever’, with no audience present, so is no use in this case.
I have a decent copy on dvd if you want one.

Bandini February 27, 2016 at 4:52 pm: Many thanks for the kind offer, Chris, but I’m already snowed under with stuff I’d like to look through (plus I don’t own a DVD-player!).
The ‘other footage’ I referred to was spotted here, but it may well be a mistake (or of no use – like Roy Wood – if it does exist:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/e.watkins/musictv/fullshows3.htm
“Survives as a ‘Studio Master’. Was re-edited and shown on UK Gold.
Features outakes, alternate versions of Roy Wood, Faces, Clifford T Ward, Golden Earring.”
Reply

Joe Public February 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

“Perhaps the day will come when it becomes a criminal offence to have an erection – but for the sake of the human race – it ain’t here yet.”

But that time can’t be too far away (especially for cyclists) ….

http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/31/cyclist-removed-from-nude-race-after-getting-an-erection-5223118/

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-lycra-with-erection-hunted-10664094

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 12:37 pm

days of men being cock o’ the walk are over

Eric Hardcastle February 28, 2016 at 9:11 am: Tell it to Simon Danczuk.
Reply

English Pensioner February 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

I don’t accept that if anything was happening, senior management wouldn’t have known.
When I was working, I was in a reasonably senior post and I believe that I knew most of the gossip of any importance, fortunately I heard nothing of a serious nature that warranted investigation. I am convinced that if there had been anything serious, I would have know and also been formally told, if only because those staff below me would have been anxious to pass the buck to someone more senior, as indeed I would have done if necessary.
If anything serious was happening, those at the top of the BBC would have known; no number of reports will convince me otherwise.

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm: It wasn’t an investigation. It was a report. Contra-testimony explicitly excluded.
https://twitter.com/mscjervis/status/702915555142012928
Reply
Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 5:57 pm: Yes, there is always someone who wants to climb the slippery pole by using his colleagues as a handy ladder. Dropping other people in it is a time honoured method of promotion …
Reply

Jonathan King February 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm

I was on Top of the Pops from the first London show in 1965 until the 1990s (then as producer of The Brits, which I named). Security was always tight; the public were strictly kept away from the stars and back stage, herded like cattle and often run down by speeding cameras. The atmosphere was fantastic with the fans desperate for any contact (I cannot remember how many times I had to sign a bared breast, which worried me if I held a biro) but very rarely allowed onto the hallowed corridors except to get a signed photo (“Mum it was fabulous; Jimmy signed a photo and gave me a kiss!”), strictly marched by minions in and out. We all heard that Jimmy “liked young girls” which we assumed meant 16+ and nobody thought he would ever have been so stupid (he was anything but stupid) as to do anything. The News of the World and others would have been onto the slightest indiscretion (as covered by Dame Janet). This was the era when most found Benny Hill hilarious. When nudge, wink, innuendo was considered funny. Don’t people exaggerate? Don’t memories fail? Don’t people want cash compensation? If the answer is No, No, No, then I’m on another planet. Or the moon.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 1:15 pm

Not only forgotten the Irish troubles – but completely forgotten that you were an integral part of early TOTPs Jonathan.
Thank you – perhaps you should be writing more on the subject, at length, and not just a book! You are probably the only one of that clutch of pop stars and disc jockeys left to have the guts to stick your head above the parapet and ‘speak truth to the power of rumour’ – though it might be at high cost to yourself. The world is full of people who would prefer to believe that dreadful things happened to young children. They do – but not in this saga. The 6.5 million that this navel gazing cost could have protected an awful lot of chidlren from serious harm.

ivan February 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Hear. Hear.

Sad Lassie February 26, 2016 at 1:43 pm

Not if spent on Kids’ Club!

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 1:50 pm

Mitchell And Webb did a series of sketches in their series (available on YouTube) featuring a pair of lazy TV/movie writers who know nothing about what their writing about, you see an interview with them and then the result (a medical drama, a police procedural, an “underdogs” sports movie about cricket) all of which are hilariously bad representations of the actualite.

I get that feeling from many of the stories in these allegations. I have not worked in TV, but I did spend many years working in West End theatre and a bit of rock’n’roll, so have some experience of the entertainment business and knew many people in the industry. And these descriptions do not ring true; they read like stories written by people about how they think things were, rather than having the personal experience to write something accurate.

In particular, popular actors and entertainers don’t want fans arbitrarily milling about backstage, it’s something of a private space. It’s also a working space. Fans, especially besotted ones, can cause all kinds of chaos. When you have people of pop star calibre, fans will try to sneak in and everyone tries to keep them out. In theatre, the meeting of fans is normally done at the stage door.

None of this makes any sense to me as a description of the BBC as a working environment.

JS February 27, 2016 at 3:13 am

Ian B
Completely agree. My experience is more of film sets/studios and a bit of theatre. People on the outside don’t realize that the studio is very much a factory – especially TV studios of the period in question. Time is and was money – a huge amount of money. The pressures are enormous. The idea that the average working studio is some sort of bacchanalian orgy or Airy-fairy wafty commune is the stuff of fevered fan fantasies.
Most of the people on a set aren’t Oscar Wilde clones. If they weren’t riggers, grips or sparks they’d be working in construction, if they weren’t script supervisors or 3rdADs they’d be working in an office. The idea that these people would knowingly put up with industrial-scale child abuse in a studio for years, even if such a thing was remotely likely, is absurd.

ivan February 27, 2016 at 12:09 pm: JS
We can’t have the facts spoiling a ‘good’ ambulance chasing lawyer’s profits or a national ‘paper’s’ witch hunt. After all you have to give the plebs something to replace the old flaming brand and pitch fork – all for profit.
Reply

Ed Butt February 26, 2016 at 8:58 pm

Unfortunate choice of pseudonym for one protesting there was no dirty deeds involving minors going on in the pop music industry Jonno.

I mean, Jonathan King defending Jimmy Savile? Even Spike Milligan couldn’t have made up anything as surreal as that. So I’ll assume Savile was guilty as charged, the BBC senior management knew every detail and orchestrated the cover up and this blog is sponsored by The Illuminati. actually given the efforts made by denizens of Anna Raccoon blog to exonerate Savile and the BBC (but not Stuart Hall or Rolf Harris? Why?) the last part could well be true.

Now the Savile scandal is dead I wonder what nonsense the Anna Raccoon blog will come up with next, telling us all that Saddam Hussein did after all have Wespons Of Mass Destruction and we have all be unfair to Tony Blair in riduculing him for the past decade?

The Blocked Dwarf February 27, 2016 at 12:20 pm: Actually Ed Butt, it is the REAL JK not a pseudonym and whatever else you may think of him, think you know about him, he was indisputably there at the time and his account has to have far more weight than ‘a friend says’.
Reply

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 1:20 pm

I was surprised to hear DJS resolutely reject the call for mandatory reporting during the Q&As yesterday.
Was it in response to that sycophantic waffler, Pete Saunders of NAPAC (but possibly now also a journo, as it was “for accredited press only”)? I can’t remember.
Whatever, she was adamant that she did NOT want the criminalisation of ‘refusing to report a piece of gossip’.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Interesting how mandatory reporting is never suggested for all these journalists who claim to have ‘known’ – Paul Connew was out on the cyberwaves yesterday claiming to have been ‘thwarted from exposing Savile’ – I did reply and ask what stopped him taking those girls to the police and supporting them whilst they reported, but he ignored me….

‘Thwarted from publishing a story he couldn’t stand up’ more like.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm: Ha! The number of times I’ve wanted to mention that to David Hencke – decades spent scouting for rumour in Westminster itself, listening to the well-oiled MPs bitch about one another – and yet he never heard a thing?!? Former MP Jerry Hayes even got to watch a grainy recording of some sort of homosexual schenanigans rumoured to involve… well, ’tis just a rumour so I won’t say, but possibly involving ‘boys’…
Doing the rounds, it was! But the Parliament gossip-hounds were deaf, dumb & blind. They should all go and mandatorily toss their press-badges in the Thames, before turning themselves in at the nearest clink. What a shower!
Reply
Phil February 26, 2016 at 11:52 pm: I know my sister was a reporter for one of the local newspapers near Stoke Mandeville. She wanted to do a report on Saville but it wasn’t so lurid – Saville was groping nurses bottoms. The paper wouldn’t print it. They were concerned that the nurses wouldn’t back up the story if it went to court. The tabloids wouldn’t touch it either – not enough juice to justify taking down a top celebrity that did a hell of a lot of work for charity.
Thing is the nurses were happy to get together and tell my sister that Saville was groping them and for that story to get in the local press. They weren’t telling her that rapes and molestation of comatose kids was going on. I’m pretty sure that if they had known any of that was going on, they would have collaborated and gone straight to the police. They weren’t afraid of Saville really – as individuals perhaps but they were all talking about him in a group so they were supporting each other. If a group of nurses at Stoke Mandeville had gone to the police to complain about him they would have been believed. They just didn’t think it was worth it – they obviously felt that scandal in the newspapers would be punishment enough for his behaviour.
Reply

David February 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Remember the age of consent was 18 for females, and 21 for gays. Steve Firth My wife, her sister and one of my best friends from Uni were all Top of the Pops regulars and were aged from 14 to 18 during their attendance at recordings. The guff that was talked about tickets was also not accurate. Just about anyone could get them at short notice.

There was at least one Top of The Pops producers, whose orientation was more towards boys. Many BBC Producers, Managers and Controllers were ex-the forces. They had a wide variety of drink, gambling and sexual quirks.

Top of the Pops did have a lower age limit below which they would not allow someone to be in the audience and that age was 16 in the 70s and 80s before they raised it at some point to 18. The BBC never asked for ID so it was easy to just give false details when applying for a ticket and then to get into the studio.

Kenny Everett, one being an episode of Top of the Pops from 1973, there were two boys in the audience who were clearly young, possibly even as young as 12, so I have no doubt that there were also girls of a similar age.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

No, I don’t remember the age of consent being 18, don’t remember that at all.

David February 26, 2016 at 1:39 pm: Quite right, but as I have said, people of 14 and fifteen were getting in. There were no proof of age cards then, they were brought in much later.
Reply

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 1:36 pm

The age of consent has never been 18. It was raised to 18 for “power relationships” and adult photographic purposes in 2003. In the 1970s it was resolutely 16 and that was routinely flouted. As it still is.

According to government statistics, about 1/3 of the current population lost their virginity before the age of 16.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm

David was confusingly referring to the ‘age of consent’ for obtaining admission to TOTP, or rather he was cutting & pasting bits of other people’s comments about same.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/uk.legal/bj_vViRNQO8/7Rs7OGv0CzEJ

David February 26, 2016 at 1:59 pm

Yes proof of age cards, with photo’s, were not used in those days. people on the internet have said they got into Top of the Pops at 14 years of age onward. The BBC did not require boys or girls to bring passports, or identity cards with them.

Phil February 26, 2016 at 11:44 pm: I vaguely remember the DJs that presented TOTP complaining in the press that girls were flouting the age restrictions for the audience and getting in. I can’t find any information about it though. The age limit was 15 apparently.
Reply

Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 6:41 pm

According to government statistics, about 1/3 of the current population lost their virginity before the age of 16

… or, at least, say they did.

Bandini February 26, 2016 at 1:47 pm

Please make an effort to differentiate between the parts of your comment which are your OWN words, David, and those that you have found on the internet & inserted haphazardly into your outpourings. Quotation marks help, as do links.

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm

Regarding “brushed his hand against her breast”…

I have a confession to make. About thirty years ago, in my local newsagent, I did not brush, but rather managed to basically “thump” the Indian lady behind the counter, on the breast. I remember it because I was so embarrassed, and that I was in a somewhat awkward mental state at the time because I was buying a magazine aimed at, you know, gentlemen, of the type that real gentlemen don’t buy (I think they send a servant to make the purchase or something).

It wasn’t deliberate, just bad coordination by a young man in a flustered state. But I did, I really did, punch her in the boob. In fact, just repeating this tale has made me feel emotionally agitated. Maybe it’s PTSD.

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 4:31 pm: @Ian B Did you notice Matron was appalled that well-known photographer Harry Goodwin did “porno” too? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcJhGF3W0AAz9DO.jpg
And yet the BBC continued to employ him *shock-horror*
God help Channel 4 when they ask why “Queer as Folk” had a storyline about a 15 yr-old boy bedding a 30 yr-old man.
Reply

Fat Steve February 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm

Dame Janet. I think she ……..arrived at something approximating to the closest to the truth we will ever get.
But Anna HOW close? …..adequately close? and if so for what purposes? to guard against the future I can see but to accurately establish the past I tend to doubt.
How adequately contextualised is the report? and seen through what prism ? of current social mores? of current notions of evidenc?
One can ascertain something did not happen because it could not have happened empirically but not necessarily that it did or did not happen if there is inadequate empiracle evidence
I concede immediately its almost certainly more accurate than Meirion’s version of events at Duncroft appears to have been but how accurate CAN it or COULD it ever be ? And isn’t it dangerous to think it may be more accurate than it probably is? and I observe that could cut both ways
It is about limitations that must be intrinsic to it and it is a mistake not to acknowledge those limitations.
I woke this morning wondering if my intellectual entertainment during the day between attending to matters of more personal importance would be browsing the report. I thought a little reluctantly I probably would but after your post above I decided against since I doubt it adds much to the sum of human KNOWLEDGE……it was unlikely it ever could.

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 1:59 pm

“I doubt it adds much to the sum of human KNOWLEDGE”

The sections dealing with allegations probably don’t. However, for anyone not around in that world in the 60s and 70s, then the section on social history and the BBC history should be essential reading – it is a magnificent rendering of the monumental changes that occurred in that world post war – and the section on rumours and gossip more than adequately exposed the petty jealousies, grievances, and disappointments that the collision of post war and brave new world created.

Fat Steve February 26, 2016 at 2:09 pm

@Anna Raccoon
Gaye, I said somewhere yesterday that Dame Janet’s report will be of interest to social historians for years to come – she has got the atmosphere of the 60s and 70s absolutely right, beautifully done. The report is worth reading for that alone.
Hadn’t picked up on your post before my observation immediately above.
Gotta disagree with you Anna …..notions of atmosphere or ‘vibe’ are subjective and subject to personal notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and all the more so when coloured by hindsight ……dare I venture like all evidence?

Fat Steve February 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Yes Anna as always I know I would be foolish not to read something you recommend …..actually deconstructing the 1960s and 70s ….something I certainly didn’t understand at the time …..was what attracted me to your blog. Savile both in life and death strikes me as a perfect metaphor for that period but let me see what the report says

Fat Steve February 26, 2016 at 2:59 pm

I had a browse through what I believe to be the relevant sections but it hasn’t changed my view greatly (though the section on Radios 1 & 2 being male preserves was something of a personal surprise but subjectively being married to someone more than my professional and intellectual equal I don’t greatly understand issues of gender inequality) but whilst the report addresses some of the general issues at large at the time and some individuals response to them I am not sure it quite captures the zeitgeist of the age. Jonathan King’s, much shorter and considerably less dry post above however does……at least for me which leads me back to trying to classify a view that is essentially subjective being mistaken for pure objectivity. Which prism does one pick up to view the past with 20/20 vision?

Fat Steve February 26, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Just one final observation on subjectivity/objectivity with hindsight.
Jonathan king observes in his post above ‘ The atmosphere was fantastic’ ….a subjective value judgement but actually leaving aside issues of value it does convey zeitgeist …..the point to which one sector of Society were striving to reach ….leave aside notions of good or bad ….I happen to think they were less than good but that is subjective …..Jonathan king appears to think otherwise given hios language but both our judgements are irrelevant to establishing fact which is about intensity of emotion at the time …..and perhaps a certain abandonment of reason.
Trying to deconstruct the age using reason alone is bound to be inadequate . A reasonable equivalent failure to satisfactorily deconstruct the zeitgeist of an age can be found in competing value judgements of the Weimar Republic

Chris February 27, 2016 at 7:28 am

The frontline may have been short on ‘stars’ – ie lots of bloke dj’s to one lady dj, a similar ratio to pop stars in reality – but the truth is Radio One was run, day to day, not by men like Mugless Dougeridge but by Doreen Davies & a huge ‘pool’ of women (officially ‘secretaries’) who were the stations engine. Top Of The Pops had ‘star’ dance troupes, women on the production team, in-house singers and more BBC female staff than you could shake a stick at, years before Janice Long became the first female host of the show (at the end of 1982). The picture being painted now is entirely unfair in that respect too.
And taking of women, Janet Smith doesn’t seem to have been interested in what the ladies from Pan’s People (1968-1976) or Legs & Co (1976-1981) would have to say about the show they were so happy and proud to be part of. Odd, that eh… I recently discovered that dancer & choreographer Flick Colby (conveniently dead, as are all the TOTP executive producers) who worked on the show for 16 years until 1984 and founded Pan’s People and all the subsequent troupes was the lover of producer Stanley Dorfman (for many years too). Dorfman was the driving force behind the colour ‘relaunch’ of colour Top Of The Pops for 1970, and the man responsible for placing 4 things centre-stage – Jimmy Savile, Tony Blackburn, Pan’s People & ‘dollies’ (or the studio audience). If Jimmy Savile – or Harry Goodwin for that matter – were making women feel ‘uncomfortable’ there is no way the feisty Flick Colby would have let it rest with Stan Dorfman, no way at all.

Aren’t actual ‘facts’ great !

Fat Steve February 27, 2016 at 11:47 am

@Chris in what the ladies from Pan’s People (1968-1976) or Legs & Co (1976-1981) would have to say about the show they were so happy and proud to be part of. Odd, that eh…
Absolutely spot on ….more than spot on …..if one thinks a bit about it such would be likely to be a fairly reliable source of evidence . Certainly not carried away by ‘the atmosphere’ and equally not intimidated by ‘celebrity’ since they had adequate status of their own.

Eric Hardcastle February 28, 2016 at 9:52 am

But which ‘Pan’s People’? At one stage their agent had 6 Pan’s People troupes touring not just the UK but Europe. Perhaps there was more than one Jimmy Savile.

Fat Steve February 28, 2016 at 12:16 pm: @Phil above re Stoke Mandeville nurses They weren’t afraid of Saville really – as individuals perhaps but they were all talking about him in a group so they were supporting each other.
This i think is a valuable observation about the nurses and more generally about the milieu in which Savile would have had to operate. There is a presumtion that he was this all powerful figure amongst disparate individuals who he could ‘pick off’ . in fact there must have been groups of individuals whose first loyalyies were to their peers…..they were observers and group participants rather than individuals to be picked off one by one.I don’t dispute Savile could have identified an picked off the vulnerable individual if that was his bag but he would have had to do so against a background groups of observers who knew each other
@Eric Hardcastle ‘their agent had 6 Pan’s People troupes;
All the better evidentially I would have thought if the troupes rotated
I haven’t read much of the report but if as Chris says no evidence was taken from the dancing troup or troups then its a flaw in available sources of evidence and to be blunt one that is not easily explicable save oversight deliberate or otherwise. …..the same would go for a failure to take evidence technical staff who were there not to chase after Savile or have contact with him but to practice their profession which whilst obsorbing nevertheless gives ample opportunity to observe.
The issue is allied to Jonathan King’s observation about a fantastic atmosphere …..professionals do not partake of atmosphere….they are there to construct it and that gives them some measure of dispassion and insight..
Hats off Chris and if you are one and the same as retrochris I would have enjoyed practicing law with you if you had entered the profession and practiced …..lese majeste to the good and the great in the legal profession kept me going sometimes when the going was tough
Reply

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 2:42 pm

I have to agree with you, Anna, as to the lack of significance attributed by her to the Duncroft saga. My first thoughts on reading her conclusions on that, though presented very eloquently, conjured up a vision of her throwing her hands in the air as if auditioning for ‘I’m sorry I haven’t a Clue’.

But, from a more sideways perspective, in the report’s evidence, is there any real discrepancy between the account that “We went to Jimmy Savile’s dressing room. Every week we would go there….”, which sounds like an ongoing process, and Ms Figgins account in which she appears to have said that she thought ‘they went about four times’. From what you have researched in the past, are these in some way compatible?

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

All the Duncroft girls I have spoken to said three or four times. Susan went twice.

I have to say I find extraordinary the claim that anyone from a common or garden boarding school would be transported ‘every week’ to a treat like a visit to the BBC and to see a celebrity. Quite unbelievable.

For Duncroft, where let us not forget, we were supposed to be being punished for our transgressions against society – it is utter down-the-rabbit-hole tosh!!!!

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Thanks for that

My other thought was that perhaps it was the only way she could very very obliquely state that she didn’t trust a word of it but, as she couldn’t say so directly, laid down what had been claimed with a much irony as was politely possible. But as that could possibly be considered as unworthily scurrilous, I shall, and duly have, unthinked it, as certainly for myself as I would for her, and also for everyone else who might possibly read this.

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 4:10 pm: if she had any honour, she would have handed back her fee and walked away.
Reply

Jim February 26, 2016 at 2:50 pm

This article is a perfect obituary. Excellent analogy.

Alexander Baron February 26, 2016 at 3:02 pm

The Tony Blackburn affair will be interesting. Don’t rock the boat or you’re gone.

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 3:04 pm

BTW, is there any report, anywhere, in any form, of JS having had any consenting sexual relationship with anyone of the male gender?

It’s always bothered me slightly that I cannot recollect ever seeing, or finding, one

David February 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm

Jimmy Savile raped 10-year-old boy after dressing as a Womble to film Top of the Pops http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jimmy-savile-raped-10-year-old-boy-after-dressing-as-a-womble-to-film-top-of-the-pops-a6897591.html

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 4:12 pm: David, if you ever do get round to ‘English as a Foreign Language 101’, I would recommend starting with ‘The troll consented to be eaten by Big Billy Goat Gruff’
Reply

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 3:18 pm

The hysterics are basically believers in a very simple and old-fashioned model of human sexuality in which once you’re a pervert, you’ll do anything with anyone regardless of gender, age, species and indeed alive or dead, and do so relentlessly, without pause.

David February 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm

‘consenting sexual relationship with anyone of the male gender’, that would be difficult, as he was a ‘confirmed paedophile’ ?

Mr Ecks February 26, 2016 at 3:38 pm: David–circular argument.
Accused of having sex with the under aged therefore a paedo
A paedo therefore only has sex with the under aged
Reply

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Cops said Jim enjoyed having a 99 with the 20 stone Jaconelli.
At least nobody can say Jimmy was a fattist.

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 4:14 pm: He was a Squashtist?
Reply

Jonathan King February 26, 2016 at 3:35 pm

Ian B – you are so right; the tales read as though they are made up by people who have read stories. Reality was – we HATED those ghastly fans. Most of them were monsters; once I had almost all my clothes torn off after leaving the stage door as I ran away from a mob of Rolling Stones fans (Cambridge 1965 or 66) and only escaped by jumping over a wall into a college. And all that guff about fans “seeming distressed” – fans are easily distressed. Last year the worst thing in the world for a teenage girl was not hundreds dying in a boat off Italy or thousands being killed by the Ebola virus but Zayn leaving One Direction. It was always so and “backstage” at the Pops (as everywhere) was heavily policed to keep fans out. I remember the horror once when £20 was stolen from my trousers in my dressing room when I was on set at Ready Steady Go. How could a thief have got in there, past security? ITV could not believe it. Shock Horror – fan gets backstage!

Eddy February 26, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Thank you for all your work Anna, you really are a beacon of light and hope.

(One minor point ‘I should have punched you on nose, not wiped the snot off it.’
on the nose or your nose. )

Barry Cook February 26, 2016 at 4:11 pm

Pardon me for asking (and not reading the report in full) but is there any documented evidence referenced in the report dating from the time of the alleged complaints against of any sort about Savile or is it all decades old grey matter being dusted off and re-remembered?

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

‘decades old grey matter being dusted off and re-remembered’

er…and adjusted downwards to avoid inconvenient facts that have subsequently come to light, like ‘it wasn’t filmed in TV centre’, ‘oh, I remember now it was the BBC theatre’…..and adjusted upwards to take account of changes in sexual offending law, so ‘he slapped me on the bottom in a light hearted way’ becomes ‘and then he shoved his hand down the back of my pants and digitally penetrated me’.
Christ – when did they all learn the phrase digitally penetrated’? Perhaps Slater & Gordon write out a glossary of legal terms on the back of their share certificates – wouldn’t want to waste valuable paper after all.

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 5:13 pm

‘when did they all learn the phrase digitally penetrated’

There must be some body called OfCum….

Anna Raccoon February 26, 2016 at 7:09 pm: We are all very quick off the mark today!!!
Reply

Bill Sticker February 26, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Okay, what in reality do we have here? A couple of ‘brushes’. An unsolicited hand here or there, a truncated blowjob when he found she was under age? All this hysteria and circus for that? Clucking bell.

David February 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

Bill sticker- Dame Janet Smith’s independent review highlighted the report of a boy of ten who was raped at the BBC by Jimmy Savile, wearing a womble outfit. He then went to to molest a 12 year old girl straight after.

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 8:19 pm

He was just making good use of the the things that we find, things that the everyday folk leave behind.

Jimbob McGinty February 27, 2016 at 1:10 pm: A predatory nonce-womble, roaming west London hungry for nubile flesh would surely have been prime suspect in the Rachel Nickell murder, yet the Met still went to huge lengths to frame an innocent bloke.
Reply

Eric Hardcastle February 28, 2016 at 9:57 am

Did neither child go back to Mum or their guardian and say “a Womble just raped me”?

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 10:16 am: Not Now Bernard
Reply

Bill Sticker February 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm

Yes, a Womble suit that had no opening in the front. That might have proved problematic don’t you think?

Don Cox February 26, 2016 at 4:41 pm

“All this hysteria and circus for that?”

It’s not for that at all. It is for moving Savile’s money away from the charity he left it to and into other pockets, and for extracting money from the BBC, the NHS and any other organisation that might have any.

Cloudberry February 26, 2016 at 4:50 pm

I was about to post a sarcastic comment about the womble allegation, but have now read that part of the report. Could it really be true?

“5.162 In April 2014, C46 saw an advertisement in a UK paper, placed by a firm of solicitors, inviting victims of Savile to come forward
for advice. She contacted them and it transpired that C9 had instructed the same firm. Their cases were linked together. She was interviewed by the Savile investigation in July 2014.
5.163 The accounts of C9 and C46 are, in some respects, different, but, forty years on from the sexual assaults, that is not surprising. In addition, the account of C46 has clarified certain details provided by C9, which has helped me to address some initial concerns I had about C9’s evidence.
…
5.166 The Review’s interviews with C9 and C46 took place 18 months apart. I met C9 in person but, as I explain at paragraph 5.155 was unable to interview C46 in person; she was interviewed by a senior member of the team, who travelled out to meet and interview her. He found her evidence credible. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of some obvious mistakes in their evidence, I think they, in effect, corroborate each other and I accept their accounts as true.”
http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/jimmy_savile_investigation.pdf

Moor Larkin February 26, 2016 at 5:03 pm

yeah, coz the internet hasn’t been invented yet

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Possibly.

But of late, ‘credible’ and ‘true’ have had a slightly unhappy co-existence, in a sort of ‘I agree with Nick’ way

And, with regard to the linking of cases, it might be wise to read paras 18 and 19 of this, and see if what is said there may, or may not, temper your own assessment as to how the balance of probabilities might, or might not, stack up

http://www.cloisters.com/news-pdf-downloads/2013-od-and-pje-ela-paper—final-version.pdf

Bottom line is that, while I am sure that LJS is making her own best shot at it, probably nobody will ever know for absolutely 100% certain

Moor larkin February 26, 2016 at 7:33 pm

LJS is a fraud and I’m baffled why you make this sort of crass statement in support of an Establishment fixer. She is no better than a 9/11 Truther or someone who says the Moon Landings never happened. LJS is exactly like the flat earthers. Anything that doesn’t fit her prefigured story, she excludes and ignores. This is even done xplicitly and you all sit and applaud the Dame. FFS.

Ian B February 26, 2016 at 8:23 pm

Indeed. This is basically a “sober” endorsement of a lunatic conspiracy theory.

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

Can you clarify that a little? Are you saying that

– everything she has written is untrue, or

– some of what she has written is untrue, or

– you think that I believe what she has written is all true, or

– something else, and if so, what?

Moor Larkin February 27, 2016 at 8:23 am

The key thing is that she cannot possibly believe that what she has written is true. She has become a liar.
As my first comment on this article makes clear, she did not check any of the available facts.

Eddy February 29, 2016 at 8:48 pm: She’s a judge, she sits in state and people present their version of the facts to her. Then she sifts through the evidence and decides on the truth. She is not proactive, she doesn’t send people out to check stories or to look for inconsistencies. No one searches for possible witnesses who might shine a light on what really happened. The result of that mind set is the report you are reading. It might be fine in a trial but it doesn’t work in the situation you have here.
Reply

Ho Hum February 26, 2016 at 8:49 pm

@ Ian B

To save time, I repeat the landlady’s words/quotes from her post yesterday. You really believe that that’s to be read as an unmitigated ‘“sober” endorsement of a lunatic conspiracy theory.’?

‘She (LJS) is aware herself of the danger of bias – that in only calling for witnesses who had ‘witnessed or experienced abuse’ she was carrying a loaded gun:

I was acutely conscious that our method of finding witnesses might well result in bias. There was a possibility of bias towards those who had a serious grievance against Savile or the BBC and against those who had something they wished to hide.

She was also aware of the inherently unfair nature of an inquiry into the activities of someone who could not defend themselves:

I have read in the media expressions of concern that it is quite unfair that Savile should be accused of sexual crimes and immoral behaviour at a time when he is no longer able to answer the allegations. Concern has been expressed that anyone who comes forward and makes an allegation of abuse against Savile is believed without there being any real investigation into the truth of the matter. There are some who believe that the allegations are driven by a wish to receive compensation. I acknowledge the views of those who feel that Savile is being condemned without proper investigation, especially when these views are expressed by those who knew Savile and who honestly believe that the allegations are untrue.

She was also suitably aware of the temptation for ‘bandwagon jumpers’ to approach her with tales of abuse for their own reasons:

There are a few cases where I have not accepted the evidence of a complainant or have felt unable to reach any conclusion. I have not included those cases in this Report. I am not saying that I have rejected their evidence because I have concluded they are dishonestly seeking compensation; just that their evidence was, for a variety of reasons, unsatisfactory.

Finally, she makes plain her views on the police (non) investigations and the ensuing media feeding frenzy:

The police have simply recorded the nature and circumstances of the various allegations and, as I understand it, have designated them as crimes for the purposes of their records. I do not for one moment criticise the police for collecting this information.

However, I do think that it is unfortunate that the impression has been given that every allegation was in fact true.’

Definitely not the real Moor Larkin! February 27, 2016 at 8:39 am

@Moor

We were lied to about wepons of mass destruction in order invade Afghanistan. Building 7 of the world trade centre went down in just the same way (like a controlled demolition) and no plane hit that, and there is no precedent for steel buildings going down in such a fashion through fire alone anywhere else in the world, and the twin towers themselves suffered extensive fires in the 70’s and the damage was limited to those areas. These buildings were built with the possibility of a collision with 1 or more boeing 747s (the largest planes at the time) in mind, and although damage would still have been tragic, should not have fallen the way they did. There’s too much more to this, I won’t put it here because it is off topic, but I don’t dismiss people with serious doubts about what we’ve been told about 9/11 as loonies at all, I do too. Even some of the guys who were hired to do the 9/11 commission claimed that it was ‘set up to fail’:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM

Also, knowing what we know about our dishonest governments and intelligence services, and Americas, I can’t say i’m prepared to say I completely discount the possibility that the moon landings didn’t actually happen either, but this is a far less important issue than 9/11 and the invasions in other countries that have ensued since (although are nothing new)….

Possibly Moor Larkin’s crazy Uncle? February 27, 2016 at 8:41 am

(Sorry for naming myself Moor Larkin there Moor – still a bit tired this morning)…

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 9:33 am

@ Anna

For once, could you please amend someone’s post, ie the one above attributed to Moor

I might not agree with Moor about exactly what it is possible to say, or how it might be expressed, but I’m pretty sure he’s not a any sort of raving lunatic

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 10:18 am

Thanks!

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 9:57 am

I was wrong all along anyway.
https://twitter.com/moor_facts/status/703656976639729665
Before I jump to any more conclusions, is it the case that C30 is Fiona?

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 1:31 pm

I haven’t seen any evidence that would make C30 Fiona. No idea who has dreamt that one up.

Moor Larkin February 28, 2016 at 4:06 pm

People putting ideas in my head. Whoever she is, she’s not happy. Less believable than a Womble must be quite an ignominy https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcPvKTrW4AAbV-F.jpg

Seems odd that the adopted daughter of quite a well-known BBC Producer felt she had nothing to tell the Dame, but I cannot see any other cipher that seems even applicable by guess-work. Plus you’d have thought the Dane would have wanted one of Best Magazine’s Women of the Year on the record.

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 4:52 pm: Perhaps she may have felt that another court case had persuaded her that she was to be believed?
I take it you’ve seen the compensation figures – 14,000 grand a piece. I’d have wanted a damn sight more than that for having claimed ‘anything’ to do with a womble!

Anon February 27, 2016 at 10:19 am

Em, no.

Putting Moors name in the name box thinking I was writing in the main section and not noticing until I posted it was a mistake, which I explained and apologised for in my next post.

I’m not even going to ask why you find my views ‘crazy’ or ‘lunatic’, they’re not.

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 10:33 am

OT, I know, but what caused the damage at the Pentagon?

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 10:49 am

Do keep up – it was Savile who walked through the wall ‘cos he didn’t have his special spook pass for the satanic rituals that night…

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 11:12 am: You’d have made a great ghostwriter…
Reply

Anon February 27, 2016 at 12:42 pm

I don’t know what caused the damage at the Pentagon but some people have doubts that it was a plane.

My point is we’ve been lied to before to justify the invasion of another country, I meant Iraq, not Afghanistan, but why did they invade Afghanistan? Did Osama Bin Laden get a trial before he was (allegedly) killed in 2011?

There is a lot around the events of 9/11, especially the world trade centre, that is suspicious and the explanation given by the u.s government doesn’t seem satisfactory. Why should we believe without question what the governments of the u.s and u.k tell us when they’ve been caught lying and using propaganda tactics on us before? They frequently back ‘rebels’ in other countries, with little regard for the welfare of the people of those countries, in order to try and overthrow goverments that do not serve their interests. Iraq, Libya and Syria are just recent examples, they did it in Afghanistan in the 80’s by funding and training the mujahideen, some of whom went on to become known (to America) as Al Qaeda.

The Jimmy Savile business has shown that the media and authorities can sometimes lie to us to serve an agenda, I don’t know what that agenda is, I suspected it might be to divert our attention from other things and Anna has given some good probable reasons in her post above.

But as it stands I don’t see why critics of the u.s governments take on the 9/11 terror attacks should be considered any more looney than the government and media themselves when they’ve already been caught knowingly lying to us about weapons of mass destruction to gain support for an invasion of a country and some of the people who conducted the inquiry into the 9/11 attacks have criticised it as being ‘set up to fail’ as well.

Plus false flag operations have been planned and carried out in the past:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

Operation Northwoods was not carried out, but it is interesting that some in the u.s government considered doing this:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 6:57 pm

Oh dear.

You forgot to blame the Jews.

No prize for you!

Anon February 27, 2016 at 7:54 pm

I don’t think i’ve said anything that’s not been acknowledged or admitted too by the American government itself.

Moor Larkin February 29, 2016 at 8:23 am: @Anon
I have watched more than one presentation of the mysteries of 9/11 and none of them have seemed persuasive at all once I’ve sat past the claims and headlines and waited for the meat. In some cases they were idiotic. I especially recall one that was recommended to me and it was obvious that the claim that a plane that passed in front of a building that was plainly in front of the plane, was merely a trick of perspective and no mystery at all. I could see it with my own eyes. In a similar way one of the favourite mysteries of the moon – the shadows in different directions is a phneomenon that can be seen on on earth every day, especially when you have a low sun and omni-directional light.
However, it is plain from the way the mantra of “join the dots” and “I want to believe” have infected the Establishment of the UK judiciary that your approach to things is gaining credence, so be patient and I daresay you will get what you wish for soon enough.

Chris February 26, 2016 at 5:31 pm

The tiresome Jeremy Vine had the first half hour of his show on TOTP today – invited Mike Read on, who was a regular host for a decade or so, to give his opinion. When Mike said that (in so many words) although most people thought Jimmy “weird”, the show was a fantastic experience for all involved as was Radio One, he was shunted off and then condemned by the usual idiots by text and Twitter.

Phil February 26, 2016 at 11:22 pm

My sister was a reporter for one of the local newspapers near Stoke Mandeville hospital. She heard rumours from the nurses much along the lines of what you re-tell here – that he was a groper. Liked to slide his hand over nurses bottoms. If the nurse objected then he would stop – but not all the nurses objected of course. No rumours of him ever touching the patients back then. They were only rumours of course – my sister was never touched by him though she met him many times – too skinny perhaps.

As you say, Jimmy Saville wasn’t always the decrepit 80 year old with strange pink glasses and a bloated stomach. During the time he was allegedly behaving as an out-an-out paedo he had a liking for sharp 3-piece suits, gold jewellry and big cigars. He was striking with his bleached blonde hair and charismatic. He had a Rolls Royce with the number plate JS 24 7 when such things were very rare. He did a lot of work for charity and at the time the public adored him. I’m quite sure some young girls absolutely threw themselves at him. They certainly threw themselves at Mike Reid when he hosted a Radio 1 Roadshow I attended – busty young women pulling their T-shirts tight and giving Mr Reid that “Take me I’m yours” look. Difficult to find photographs of Jimmy Saville at the height of his powers now, though, the media have used the pensioner-Saville pictures so often that Google is overrun with them when you do a search. There are some videos of Jim’ll Fix It on YouTube however.

Jimmy Saville was a groper, I’m sure of that. But he also did an immense amount of work for charity. I’m pretty sure that his misdemeanours do not outweigh the immense amount of good he did. Perhaps it is time for libel laws to extend beyond the grave. This legalised “bitching about someone behind their (dead) back” needs to stop.

Smoking Hot February 27, 2016 at 1:56 am

I find the much bandied about reason that Savile was protected by various establishments totally ridiculous. Even if true, Savile was always at the mercy of the public. He was often in public with no bodyguards and its inconceivable that with all these supposed assaults by him not one father (and his friends) took retribution. He would certainly have ended up in hospital for quite a period of time … and that would take some explaining. lt certainly wasn’t difficult finding out where his next ‘gig’ was. He worked venues in working class areas that pre 70’s were big mining communities. Am l to believe that he was such a magician that none of his ‘victims’ told their parents? Bo**ocks! l come from a Deep Sea Fishing community and retribution often came from the community … not the police.

The Blocked Dwarf February 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

Am l to believe that he was such a magician that none of his ‘victims’ told their parents? Bo**ocks! l come from a Deep Sea Fishing community and retribution often came from the community … not the police.

I made the same point not so long ago here:

This is what kinda bugs me about the whole ‘Savile Thing’-the fact that he died peacefully of NHS care aged 84 years and 363 days and not from some distraught dad slashing his throat with the rough edge of a Jim’ll Fixit Badge.

Years ago, Crippled Son fell off the mini-bus lift of the Cripple Kid’s School Bus because the driver, a family friend, forgot to secure his wheelchair. Crippled Son was quite badly hurt and had to have plates, nails and screws inserted in various limbs to stick the bones back together. When I got the news my first, second and third instincts were to go round and kill the man responsible for accidentally HURTING MY CHILD. I’m not exaggerating, I would have grabbed my 6 Cell maglite and beaten the guy to death. Fortunately for all concerned it was the Polizei, with guns drawn, who came to tell me the news and they calmed me down.

Ok I have ‘issues’ and am perhaps not typical of Dads everywhere but are you asking me to believe that not one of the hundreds of Savile’s alleged victims told their Dads and that not one of their Dads didn’t tool up and go and hunt the kiddy fucking bastard down?

Captain, that is illogical even for humans. Youngest Son, and Father to youngest Granddaughter, was recently quite shocked by the flash of homicidal anger he felt when the ‘nasty doctor man’ jabbed a needle into his precious baby and made her cry.

Smoking Hot February 28, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Whether you be Grandfather, Dad or Son … in my world you don’t just simply shrug your shoulders if your family are threatened/assaulted. Mind, our womenfolk are no shrinking violets either. Mess with my family (and friends) at your peril … and we don’t give a rat’s arse who you are!

l hear that the BBC are to bring back Jackanory … 1st episode will be DJS’s Report.

Smoking Hot February 28, 2016 at 1:46 pm: BD … another thing is the public were not unarmed back in those days. One ‘tool’ l remember a number of females carrying was the aluminium comb with a long thin handle … sharpened to a point … all for protection of course
Reply

David February 27, 2016 at 9:10 am

“From the 1950s onwards, Broadcasting House was well stocked with men interested in sleeping with young boys”. There’s something creepy about British light entertainment and there always has been. Joe Orton meets the Marquis de Sade at the end of the pier.

It was a milieu back then, and people who sought to be sexual predators knew that. It wasn’t spoken about.’ Lionel Gamlin, producer of the Light Programme’s Hello Children, was one of them. A friend of Gamlin’s remembers going to see him in a flat in All Souls Place in the 1950s, just round the corner from Broadcasting House. A man from Light Entertainment used the flat during the working week and Gamlin often stayed there with young boys.

It was clear to the friend that both men were renting the boys, and that the boys were young: ‘They were boys with the kind of good looks that would seem very lewd in a woman.’ He also remembers going for a coffee with one of the boys from the flat. ‘The boy was nice,’ he said, ‘very young. He thought he might get a job or something of that sort.

And it was clear the men were using him for sex. Broadcasting House was well stocked with men interested in sleeping with young boys. It was a milieu back then. And people who sought to be sexual predators knew that. It wasn’t spoken about.’

Gamlin and his friend at the flat in All Souls Place were not alone in what they were doing. There was at least a third person:

Derek McCulloch, ‘Uncle Mac’, (Uncle Dick), the man in charge of Children’s Hour, and the voice of Larry the Lamb in Toytown. A veteran of the Somme who lost an eye there, McCulloch lost his left leg in a motor accident in the 1930s. He was famous at the BBC for nearly forty years and can still be heard in the archives introducing young Princess Elizabeth as she delivers her wartime address to the children of Britain. ‘Goodnight children, everywhere,’ was Uncle Mac’s catchprase.

Auntie Gladys said, ‘children from all over the country would win competitions to visit the BBC and meet Uncle Dick. He would welcome them, show them round, give them lunch, then take them to the gents and interfere with them. If their parents complained, she said, the director-general’s office would write and say the nation wouldn’t understand such an accusation against a much loved figure.’ Auntie Gladys was Kathleen Garscadden, who worked for Children’s Hour for a number of years and died in 1991.

Gilbert Harding, a refugee from the culture of the Light Programme – a man who made his way into TV memory by weeping on John Freeman’s television interview show Face to Face – was a stalwart of the milieu inhabited by Gamlin and company. A man can’t help whom he fancies, but Harding seems to have differed from the other BBC paedophiles only inasmuch as he kept it mainly to himself. He had spent his childhood in a Wolverhampton orphanage and maintained he wanted to die long before he actually did, stepping out of Broadcasting House after a radio recording on 16 November 1960 to collapse on the pavement. A writer who knew Harding told me he was another of those, like Gamlin, who liked to enter into correspondence with schoolboys.

On one occasion the writer was taken from school to visit Harding for tea (the headmaster was dazzled), whereupon Harding insisted the boy take a bath and scrub himself with soap while the gameshow veteran sat watching him. ‘Harding was a rather disturbed individual’, the BBC presenter Nicholas Parsons told me. ‘Nowadays a man with troubles of that sort would be in therapy.’

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 10:12 am

David,

Could you TRY to understand the point being discussed here?

It is NOT whether there was ever anyone gay in London who may or may not have had anything to do with the light entertainment business.

It is whether Meirion Jones held sufficient verifiable information at the time that he wanted to make his Newsnight film that justified him labelling Jimmy Savile a paedophile.

The fact that hundreds of allegations have come in SINCE the police appeared to confirm that Savile was a paedophile as FACT has no bearing on whether Jones was justified as claiming this as FACT on the basis of rumour and gossip.

Had Savile been alive – as he was when Jones first claimed to have knowledge – he could not have stood this story up against libel – and he knew it. That is why he let what he believed to be a dangerous paedophile continue to walk around Britain….

It was ‘the story’ that he was interested in, not protecting possible victims, by using his reputation to take them to the police and give them credibility to report. That is what has always been under discussion on this blog.

I am simply not interested in your ability to copy and paste yards of material concerning gossip about every gay in London – if you have hard evidence of sexual offences – take it to the police. If you want to join this discussion – keep to the subject.

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

‘We are all very quick off the mark today!!!’

David February 27, 2016 at 11:21 am

My sincere apologies , I am so used to talking to students who are usually five steps ahead of me, it has made me lazy! I was trying to show the culture of child abuse that had been accepted at the BBC since the 1950s, and, as you said, children were not believed, and Jimmy Savile would have sued anyone who accused him in public, and got away with it, such was the cult of celebrity.

Meirion Jones did not have film footage of Jimmy Savile abusing children, but paedophiles are very careful about their activities. even today. In my recent experience, someone who is in the public eye, a celebrity, works with children, is still fairly safe from prosecution, even if they are involved in child murder.

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 11:46 am: Maybe I should apologise too. Because I’ve never, before, met anyone who taught rocket science
Reply
Eddy February 27, 2016 at 2:22 pm: ‘In my recent experience, someone who is in the public eye, a celebrity, works with children, is still fairly safe from prosecution, even if they are involved in child murder.’
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Reply

Ho Hum February 27, 2016 at 10:13 am

@ David February 27, 2016 at 9:10 am

OK, very good! That’s CNTRL-C and CNTRL-V sorted

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment

Now, how about pressing the keys in sequence to form a word of your own?

Mrs Grimble February 27, 2016 at 1:54 pm

David, please learn to use quotes. Also please attribute all your quotes. Or are we to believe you’re actually Robin Aitken?

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm: You must be telepathic Mrs Grimble – though I was thinking Johann Hari……
Reply

Fred Karno February 27, 2016 at 9:18 am

From Guido Fawkes, in case you hadn’t seen it:-

A former BBC employee who worked on Jim’ll Fix It gets in touch with his experience of Television Centre in the 1970s. Here is his account of drugs, glory-holes and widespread corruption:

“I worked there through part of the period. Everyone knew. But the culture was highly sexist, phobic and ignorant. Sex was common currency in most aspects. There was a notorious “cottage” with glory-holes etc in one of the three “assembly” areas in TV Centre. Drugs were commonplace. Favours were sought and corruption was open. That’s the context. That’s why nobody screamed blue murder.

He was far from being alone! I worked on “Fix It”, albeit obliquely. Provided props and and support for the design team. You just avoided the ‘talent’ because he had a famous temper. His predatory sexual creepiness was the least of our worries. He was just a nasty piece of work who enjoyed getting people sacked or in all kinds of trouble. He had few friends amongst the staff. Dressers hated him and the famous cigars were bought in crates at the licence payers’ expense. Horrible man, but not the only one…”
And according to Dame Janet Smith’s report, not a single member of the management knew…

http://order-order.com/2016/02/25/jimll-fix-it-staffer-alleges-drugs-glory-holes-and-bbc-corruption/

Mr Ecks February 27, 2016 at 12:51 pm

Much as I hate the left I wouldn’t trust Guido to tell me the time of day.

You are trolling.

Read the post and try some intelligent comment–not just parroting the same old garbage.

Anna Raccoon February 27, 2016 at 1:02 pm: “try some intelligent comment”?
Methinks you ask too much of a Guido commentator. Even Guido won’t read his comments – he told me so.
Reply

Mr Wray February 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

That’ll be the Guido ‘owned by Murdoch’ Fawkes is it? Wouldn’t trust a Murdoch stooge as far as I could spit him.

ivan February 27, 2016 at 12:36 pm

I have to wonder if all these reports that are written after massive press ravings are nothing more than an Exercise in Futility.

From a public awareness perspective it is very easy for peoples memories to be ‘changed’ by what they have read in the papers and what they have heard on TV and from people, especially with the police not investigating any claim and accepting everything a truth – this gives an aura of authenticity to outright lies and half truths.

I can only assume that this report serves the purpose of showing that ‘something has been done’, gives the press some more column inches and click throughs – the modern equivalent of the Roman circus to keep the ‘plebs’ happy and quiet and adds absolutely nothing the actual facts of the matter.

Chris February 28, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Here’s the thoughts of three ex-BBC staff:

“Dame Janet seems to have got some of her facts wrong.
She talks about a climate of fear at the BBC, which may still be there. True, but it didn’t begin until the 1990s, with John Birt took control. Previous managers of the BBC had had the respect of their staff, and were capable of leading from the front. They didn’t need to resort to bullying and intimidation. There was no fear of management in the 1970s. Both John Henshall and I, at different times, took our queries all the way up to Alasdair Milne, without fear of reprisals. We both found him capable of listening, understanding and acting upon our concerns. If all the creepy-crawlies, who are now claiming that they knew about Jimmy Savile, had done the same, the issue would have been sorted early.
She also says that people were in awe of celebrities. Again, the cult of celebrity didn’t really get going until the 1990s, with the advent of ‘O.K.’ and ‘Hello’ magazines. Back in the 1970s, the attitude to celebrities was – “Stand on your marks and say your lines!” They were expected to be professional like everyone else. When most programs were live or as-live, there was no time for faffing about, or pandering to celebrity foibles.
I also resent the idea that there was a ‘culture’ which made Jimmy Savile’s behaviour more acceptable. It’s almost as if she’s making excuses for an alleged evil predatory paedophile. How dare she! Nothing could ever excuse such behaviour! There may have been a culture of sex and drugs amongst rock stars (I wouldn’t know), but it never extended to the hard-working, low-paid people who made BBC programmes.”

“Having just skimmed the report, I’d like to know where this big dressing room with sofa’s was at TVC and a curtained off area…I really do feel that they come at this with the approach that he is guilty as charged. I showed the Dame and her team where we filmed Jim’ll Fix It, the dressing room area and explained the set-up for every show. They declined my offer of making a statement, not interested. The age limit for TOTP was 16 – the age that a chaperone was not needed – I did a great many TOTP’s (around 40 to 50) and the Studio Audience Supervisors were very strict on it and nobody got in without a ticket.”

“Legal people tend to believe written ‘evidence’ as fact. I very much doubt that Bill Cotton Jnr instructed Tony Blackburn to be in his office, together with a legal representative, at a certain time on a certain day for a formal interview. Much more likely, as I know from my BBC experience, is that, if anything, it was a casual chat in the side bar of the 4th floor Television Centre BBC Club which Bill then wrote down to satisfy HIS bosses. Tony Blackburn would hardly be likely to remember that. So it’s semantics – ‘never happened’ – ‘couldn’t ‘remember’ – ‘evidence’ – ‘lied’. People involved in the legal profession often feel that the system we have in this country is ‘justice’. It’s not, it’s a ‘legal system’. Robert Buckland, the Solicitor General for the UK, told me when he visited me, that it’s the best system we have. I had raised with him what I believe was the injustice meted out to Dave Lee Travis. When he later spoke of the ‘guilt’ of Jimmy Savile I had to remind him that, according to his system of justice, Saville was NOT guilty – he was never arrested, charged or tried by a jury. Of course, they are trying to make up for that now he isn’t around to defend himself and, in doing so, are affecting many innocent people, including poor Tony Blackburn. Disgraceful.”

David February 28, 2016 at 10:20 pm

Billy Cotton was a Paedophile. ‘There may have been a culture of sex and drugs amongst rock stars (I wouldn’t know), but it never extended to the hard-working, low-paid people who made BBC .”; The ‘Lower Paid People’ at the BBC were off their heads with celebrity spotting, and drink. The BBC staff were not a representation of the general population, they were bohemians, combined with paedophiles. I was talking to the artist, celebrity, Molly Parkin yesterday, and she confirmed that alcohol fueled the BBC. Jobs were given through word of mouth, it was a ‘closed shop’. They lost touch with the general public.

IlovetheBBC February 28, 2016 at 11:36 pm

Billy Cotton was not a paedophile.

You just made that up. There are no allegations against him, except in your febrile and uncritical mind. You also make sweeping claims about the lower paid workers at the BBC which are completely at odds with the knowledge of people who were actually there. I’m pretty fed up of your nonsense.

Moor Larkin February 29, 2016 at 8:25 am

@ilovethebbc
To be fair, if you accept the Savile Premise, Cotton must also be a paedophile; it is the only reasonable conclusion.

IlovetheBBC March 3, 2016 at 12:04 am: These BBC types are not only paedophiles, moor than that they are BOHEMIAN paedophiles – evudently the worst kind of all.
Reply

David February 29, 2016 at 8:34 am

Sorry to upset your fantasy, but children were abused by these people. Russ Conway was having a homosexual affair with Billy Cotton , the band singer was Alan Breeze, another paedophile. . All three picked up young boys for sex, some were take to the toilets at the BBC as well.

windsock February 29, 2016 at 6:27 pm

David:

I have not posted on any Savile threads because I do not have the knowledge to make a decent contribution. I have taken part in occasional discussions about abuse of children generally because I have experience of both working with teenagers who were abused as children, and also with the rehabilitation of those convicted of committing child sexual offences, with the aim of preventing re-offending.

May I just say at this point, nearly everything you write is damaging to your own cause.

So:

Not all homosexuals are paedophiles. If Russ Conway was having a homosexual relationship with Billy Cotton, so what? They would have hardly made it public as all homosexuality at that point was illegal. Therefore – and this may amaze you – there was no age of consent for gay sex because all gay sex was illegal. The fact that anyone got anything at all would make people unlikely to ask for an age – just whether they were up for it, or willing to do it for money. Not exactly the most moral approach but them were the times, eh?

Not all paedophiles are homosexual. Some really are not fussy. You do, however, seem to focus on those who are.

Not all abuse leads to murder, which is something that crops up in many comments you make. That is not to excuse the abuse at any level, but it makes those comments that include it read like hysterical prurience.

That’s it, had my say. It was just really getting on my tits. Radio silence will be resumed.

David February 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm

I have not said that homosexuals are paedophiles. I understand the areas you have worked in. I do not generalise, the people I say were paedophiles, were paedophiles, and that includes Billy Cotton, and Russ Conway. Maybe I should not have said they were having a gay relationship, they were not, they were two paedophiles living together, who included another into their group.

The reason I mention murder, is because I now know that this can lead to murder, having found paedophiles, living in a group, who did commit murder. However they are celebrities, which makes it complex for the police.

Ian B February 29, 2016 at 8:20 pm

Billy Cotton was not only married, but a well known womaniser who had a long term affair with a singer called Doreen Stephens. Where are you getting this gay paedophile stuff from?

Eddy February 29, 2016 at 9:55 pm

That’s a rhetorical question, right.

Ian B February 29, 2016 at 10:12 pm: No, it’s an actual question.
Reply

Ho Hum February 29, 2016 at 10:45 pm

Public vote, possibly, on the gay bit.

http://www.vipfaq.com/Billy%20Cotton.html

Ho Hum February 29, 2016 at 10:50 pm

Russ Conway? And paedophiles? Possibly from some bloke in Sri Lanka…

https://pcolman.wordpress.com/tag/paedophiles/

Or maybe he’s even better informed. Maybe Molly Parkin told him. Or maybe some lookalike rat from Wimbledon with a rolled up trouser leg.

Take your pick.

Anna Raccoon February 29, 2016 at 1:55 am

Poor, poor Molly, pretty Molly.

Ian B February 29, 2016 at 11:02 am

So okay, I’ve never worked at the BBC. But I do have a lot of experience of the entertainment business and I’ve never seen anywhere where the people working in it are “off their heads with celebrity spotting”, and I say this having worked with quite a few celebrities myself. Just to name drop, Simon “Hi De Hi” Cadell once went to the theatre management on my behalf to get a warning retracted after I screwed up. Lovely bloke.

Nowhere can work if people are “star struck”, in fact such people would be a menace in an industry that requires shielding the famous from the attentions of fans which, as Johnathan King said previously, are mostly seen as a pain in the backside. It’s an old cliche, but behind the scenes is not glamorous, it’s just work. The glamour is artifice for the punters. It’s all about just getting the job done, to tight schedules and budgets.

I daresay alcohol did “fuel” the BBC, in the sense of a drinking culture. Same in theatre, at least used to be. It’s a long way from there to paedophiles. Billy Cotton? Good grief. It’ll be revelations about Mrs Mills next.

Frankly I seriously wonder how many of these allegations are from former screaming teenage girls who fantasised about being part of an “entourage” when all they could actually get was a signed photo or boilerplate reply to a fan letter.

Eddy February 29, 2016 at 9:53 pm

I think David does a service by showing the batshit crazy lunacy that is out there. In happier times David and his ilk would be in lunatic asylums but with care in the community they roam our streets. Read and worry.

Miss mildred February 29, 2016 at 5:03 pm

Who said what to who 45 years ago. If in your fifties or early sixties…..too young to have roller ,motor home . If in your later sixties. Seventies or early eighties. So easy to say someone is telling lies when asked what was said or done practically a lifetime away! Generals of high regard can be denigrated by fanciful allegations and tarnished by lesser mortals. Do those who are younger find it so difficult to cope with ancients who are whole minded and still working and earning, that they have to resort to scurrilous accusations of telling fibs when an oldie is asked to remember what was said 45 or 50 years before. Times were different then. The accusers were not mature enough then or even alive to experience the difference between then and now. Some of these old men were high earners with prosperous lifestyles. Why not knock them off their pedestals and shut them away and share the spoils of a lifetime of hard work. Ha ha, great news about that Ozzie law firm, see how they like being probed and prodded. At least they do not have to recall what was said or done a lifetime ago.m

David February 29, 2016 at 5:48 pm: What has ‘still working and earning’ got to do with child abuse, and murder?
Reply

David March 1, 2016 at 10:00 am

Overheard conversations – The spirit of Savile

Two men sat at a bar in Kensington chatting. One asked the other if he was Catholic. “Yes”, came the reply. The first man then enquired about how many brothers the other had and looked strangely delighted when he was told: “Four”. “They’re hot?” was his next question. The somewhat shocked second individual, plainly disgusted, then stated: “They’re aged eight to fourteen”. “Oh…” exclaimed the first man who then added: “Oh yes, they’re definitely hot”. Jimmy Savile would have been proud.

http://thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/overheard-1st-march/#more-28637

windsock March 1, 2016 at 10:16 am: That’s what I like about the humour in England – droll, dry and very gallows-like.
Reply

Ms Mildred March 1, 2016 at 10:12 am

Well hello David. I am thrilled be trolled by your good self. How did you get so absorbed in this huge response that you make a response to little old me? By 1965 I was thirty and amazed at the huge revolution that had occurred in such a short time. THE PERMISSVE SOCIETY suddenly erupted out of nowhere. Pop groups formed and re formed. Drugs came in to common use. I was a jive bunny in the fifties and owned a succession of scooters and then a bubble car, I was avant guard in the fifties. Left standing in the sixties.Politicians aided and abetted this shattering revolution. The truck girls who ‘befriended’ long distance lorry drivers, then morphed into pop fans, some of them. Some went to approved schools too. Got gaberdines and ankle socks and buckle sandals and chaperoned to the VD clinic in the early fifties! Naughty girls. Saw them attend when I was in Nurse training then. In the sixties 1963 onwards I was a district midwife. 14 year old mums just got on with it! I heard tales of incest , flagged down in the street with some stories.

David March 1, 2016 at 10:55 am

I hope you are writing it all down, as it sounds as if you have lead an interesting life. I started out on an Enid Blyton, Famous Five type adventure, about six years ago, before ‘Jimmy Savile’, ‘Nick’, etc were heard of. the adventure suddenly became dark about a month before we all heard about ‘nick’, and Operation midland was launched. I was led to France, Titled People, and Murder, not at all what I was expecting when I started out, or indeed what I ever expected to come across in my life. Then, Jimmy Savile, mysterious disappearances, and more murders started turning up.

Anna has just written another blog on here about how the French seem more obedient, and fearful of the police. Would you say that was your experience of life in the UK in the 1960s? And would you say that most kids in the 1960s, were going out and doing things in THE PERMISSVE SOCIETY, ‘mostly, ‘without’ the knowledge of their parents?

Anna Raccoon March 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

No! David. The French are not fearful of the police. You are making the same mistake as the media. The CRS are not the Police.

David March 1, 2016 at 11:18 am

sorry, I actually meant ‘authority’.

Fat Steve March 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm: @Anna Raccoon The CRS are not the Police.
I took this statement at face value but having browsed the web a bit I believe them essentially to be a branch of the Police specifically Riot Police…..they certainly don’t deal with enforcement of civil judgements as I thought must be the case from your observation above hence my confusing them with Court Bailffs but they deal with civil disorder (and a few other matter such as some traffic control)…..they seem to lie midway between the Police and the Military rather than mid way between Criminal and Civil jurisdictions. I am sure they are effective but the British are always a little queasy about relying on military or quasi military to enforce perhaps because they can be monopolised and used by interest groups (the Established Political Power/Government of the Day/ The Established Opposition) as was the worry with communist entryism in the late 1940s in the CRS.
Reply

Bandini March 1, 2016 at 12:40 pm

David, no one ‘led’ you anywhere – you lead yourself & as many people as you can fool into taking you seriously.
You have a history of latching onto anything involving the death of children (especially boys) – if you recall you leapt to the totally erroneous conclusion that a schoolboy killed in a scrap had really been the victim of some sort of murderous paedophile ring, even managing to insert that other strange obsession of yours – public toilets – into the mix.

Another case had you publicly stating precisely where a ‘boy murdering paedo ring member’ had worked & indeed where he lived (you gave a radius of a hundred metres or summat, I can’t recall exactly & won’t be wasting my time following your baloney again). In the exceedingly unlikely case that you HAD discovered anything of any import you would, of course, have been alerting the culprit (or his accomplices) thereby giving them plenty of time to do a runner or cover their tracks.

Now, I haven’t seen that ancient leaf that you claim to possess & which will, with the help of Timmy the dog, lead somehow to some toffs getting banged up for buggering boys several decades ago, so perhaps I’m being unjust in considering you to be a perverted prankster – but I honestly don’t think so.

David March 1, 2016 at 2:34 pm: You are quite right of course. However I think if you are very wealthy, and in your eighties, you have, to all intents and purposes, ‘got away with it’, and prison is pointless. I do think that people who have, ‘got away with it’, though, should at least say what happened. Operation Midland will, I suppose, eventually, reach a conclusion on this.
Reply

Ms Mildred March 1, 2016 at 11:42 am

The Worth lady got there before me with ‘Call the midwife’. Now we have ‘One born every minute’ on not the beeb. Mums did not scream so much then and you NEVER heard any effs until the Good old nineties. Along with those things called writs….shudder. Lawyers latched onto obstetrics like you never could imagine. I think nearly every one I know in midder has been dragged into a writ threat of some kind, if they stuck around long enough! They waste hours of your time doing long expensive interviews, long silence, then call it off, after they tortured a friend into vascular dementia. This was because the complainants did not like her! I had an apology from someone recently for what they put her through. About 25 years out of date, nice historic event, for a change. I despise money grubbing, truth bending lawyers and those who hang on their coat tails. Believing amazing tales of long ago happenings, in entirely different times of dramatic social change. In the bad old days folk knew when to be silent and discrete, but they liked to gossip too. No twitter mobbing thank goodness.

Anna Raccoon February 28, 2016 at 6:39 pm

I was surprised to see this article in a far corner of planet Murdoch….two niche stories – that have evaded the main stream media but we both know – rolled into one and comprehensively rubbished. There is hope!

↧

Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.

July 23, 2016, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Why Ms Raccoon is howling at the biggest moon since the year she was born and taking no prisoners.

≪ Previous: The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

by Anna Raccoon on July 24, 2016

It started with a lie; a false allegation; a mendacity, a calumny, a canard. However you dress it up, it simply wasn’t true.

Neither Nat West nor Osborne Clarke was prepared to discuss the matter with the ‘beneficiaries’ – the trustees of the charities.

Of the 200 or so people bringing claims against Savile’s estate, more than 170 are represented by the law firm Slater and Gordon.

Justice Sales, at one hearing said:

I emphasised to all parties the importance of trying to minimise the costs of resolution of disputes in respect of the various claims, so as to avoid what counsel had described as ‘a feeding frenzy for the lawyers’ and to preserve as much of the money in the estate as possible to meet the claims of those with entitlements in respect of it.

It meant that after some argy-bargy between barristers and the judge, it was ruled that he could remain. Justice must be seen to be open above all…

The hearing on Thursday – lasting a matter of two hours, cost £61,000.

The estate has now been whittled down to £2,042,000 from £4,300,000.

Osborne Clarke have received £1,800,000.

The 78 ‘victims of alleged abuse’ will receive an average £13,000.

The total legal bill of £2,500,000 is more than double the combined £1,033,000 shared out amongst the claimants. All 78 of them.

That leaves just £141,000. No, that won’t be going to Help the Heroes, or abuse charities, or any of the other causes Savile fundraised for.

It will be split between the BBC, NHS and Barnardos to defray their legal expenses. Less than 50,000 grand a piece.

One fraudulent claim – Georgina Ray’s – and over £3 million quid goes up in legal smoke…

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

right_writes July 24, 2016 at 10:11 am

And for years we were led to believe that the “unions’” desire for a “closed shop” was something alien.

Here is that closed shop operating in all its terrible beauty, it has been merrily doing this since the days of Charles Dickens.

Brexit… means er… Brexit.

Dr Evil July 24, 2016 at 11:01 am

Lawyers are disgusting troughers. They would be curbed if there weren’t so many in the House of Commons and House of Lords.

penseivat July 24, 2016 at 11:27 am

What do you have if the lawyers of Slater and Gordon are stood neck deep in sand? Not enough sand!

The Blocked Dwarf July 24, 2016 at 11:30 am

the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim

I always thought that in English Not-So-Civil Law that The Claimant/Allegator has to prove or rather ‘show on the balance of probabilities’ that his claim is righteous, not the person/estate being claimed against? Why would the Estate of JS, or the Lawyers acting for it, need to ‘disprove’ any claim? Or have I misunderstood what I thought was a basic corner stone of our legal system…always possible as until I started reading here I thought ‘Torts’ were German cakes?

If that sealing wax doesn’t prevent you, can you say if you have knowledge of one single claim that appears to be true?

Anna Raccoon July 24, 2016 at 12:02 pm: If that sealing wax doesn’t prevent you, can you say if you have knowledge of one single claim that appears to be true?

I wish I did have. I would feel a lot more comfortable about the squandering of his estate, and tax payers funds, if I could find just one claim that was more than ‘can’t be disproved’.
Reply

Lisboeta July 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm

And the 78 claims, all evidence-less (should I insert ‘allegedly’ here?) won’t just benefit the canny claimants who hit on a set of circumstances that could not be definitively disproved. Even worse, the rabble-rousers will now be able to point to “78 irrefutable claims against Savile”.

All in all, a disgusting, underhand, money-grubbing, travesty of justice. Oh, and if Georgina Ray had had, let’s say, brown hair, would anyone have seen any familial likeness? Nay, the eyes don’t have it.

Mrs Grimble July 24, 2016 at 12:53 pm

“and if Georgina Ray had had, let’s say, brown hair, would anyone have seen any familial likeness?”
Funny enough, brown *was* Savile’s natural hair colour – he really was a ‘bleached blonde’.

Lisboeta July 24, 2016 at 4:57 pm: Oops! I hadn’t realised that.
Reply

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Aaargh, I was looking forward to a day far, far away from the keyboard but fury compels me to angrily hammer this out:

The first claimant to appear on television – even before the transmission of the programme responsible for so much madness – was the ‘Queen of the Caravan’, Dee Coles. Of course it ‘wasn’t about the money’ & she really ‘didn’t want to be there’ but after becoming a public endorser of Slater & Gordon (even accompanying Liz Dux to the theatre to see a play about Jimmy Savile, speaking about it at length in yet another round of media interviews) she had a change of heart & was recently seen to be celebrating the judgement going in her favour – bingo!

She soon overcame her ‘reluctance’ to speak about Savile in the media too: endless interviews in newspapers national and local, television & radio. Despite her accusations having absolutely nothing to do with the BBC (the ‘attack’ took place in Jersey) it was to Dee Coles that ‘Woman’s Hour’ turned to discuss the Dame Janet Smith Review. (And it wasn’t the first time Dee Coles had appeared on the same show talking about Savile.)

The good thing about having a ‘talker’ is that if they are ‘misremembering’ they are likely to trip themselves up sooner or later. For this reason I started to pay a fair amount of attention to her utterances – as did others at a couple of blogs (Moor Larkin’s and, er, that ‘other one’).

I have a bit of a fuzzy head this morning & a beast of a dog is waiting to be taken for a walk, so I’ll be quick(ish):

– the recent BBC documentary from ‘award winning journalist’ Olly Lambert – ‘Abused’ – once again featured Coles. Rather stupidly they allowed us to catch a glimpse of the original email sent to ITN News (and discussed by Lucy Manning). The ‘attack’ took place when Coles was 15.

– Lucy Manning (now ‘promoted’ to the BBC) made heart-rending interviews with Coles who had somehow lost a year along the way and was now 14. (There was much confusion over this rather important point, with local ITV news saying she had been 15 while national ITV claimed she was 14, despite using the exact same footage.)

– Ordinarily the ‘vagueness’ over the age might be excused but the claimant had the good fortune to have in her possession a series of three photographs which showed her with Savile in the moments leading up to the ‘attack’. A fantastic aide memoire.

– Thanks to the media onslaught we learned of the devasting results of Savile’s simultaneous sexual assault of two 14 [sic] year olds: Coles dropped out of school at FOURTEEN and descended into crime, drink and drugs as a direct result of Jimmy Savile.

– The photographs (and other material) suggests that she can not have been 14 and that the ‘attack’ took place in 1972 and not 1971 as claimed. If she wasn’t 14 she can hardly blame Savile for ending her schooling – but that is exactly what she does.

– Odd-ball Olly Lambert made a series of media appearances to support his documentary in which Coles figured so heavily; she had been so damaged by Savile that a journey on a bus could provoke vomiting & for this reason flights were absolutely out of the question, he said. Olly Lambert will be relieved, I am sure, to see that Coles has now managed to overcome this 40+ year problem! How he kept a straight face while recounting this nonsense is anyone’s guess. A well travelled gal…

– Thanks to the eagle-eyes of commentators we also see that the third photo – supposedly taken just before being ‘attacked’ by the shirtless Savile – was actually taken quite some time after the first two pics, or perhaps after the campervan had been moved (or both). The story falls down at every turn.
http://es.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10qkjfo&s=9#.V5SkThXhDIU

– God, I have no time and no stomach. There is so much more to be said about this load of old rubbish but what’s the point if it’s one of the 78 “where no one could disprove the claim”? They could easily have disproved this one and in doing so they would have made a lot of people look very bad: Manning, Lambert, Dux, ITV, BBC, every ‘paper in the land, etc..

Friend: So we’re not sure yet how ‘massive’ the party is gonna be!!!!
Coles: exactly ! [GRINNING FACE]

Ted Treen July 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm

I bet the Great Train Robbers were kicking themselves for not becoming solicitors:- all the proceeds but not the hassle of doing time…

Carol42 July 24, 2016 at 5:59 pm

This makes me so angry I can’t even think of a good comment! How do these people live with themselves lying and depriving charities of what was rightfully their? It would have helped if even one case was believable but looks like there wasn’t even that.

The Blocked Dwarf July 24, 2016 at 6:46 pm

Don’t get mad, get even!

A nasty malicious person might surmise that the terrible, life changing, damage inflicted by JS on his VICTIMS would mean that a large percentage of those 78 claimants are in receipt of Benefits (Income Support/ESA/DLA). A nasty malicious person with access to those Allegators’ names and addresses might , if they were devoid of any sympathy for the SUFFERING of Savile’s victims and truly evil, might anonymously contact the Compliancy Department of the DWP.

As far as I know that £13K has to be declared and if it isn’t then it is Benefit Fraud-which we are constantly told is a CRIME (thank you Herr Dominic von Kleinholz!). I doubt very much if those Savile Survivors realise that not only do they have to declare their compo payment but that if that payment leaves them with capital of more than £6k then they will have their benefits adjusted accordingly. (for ‘adjusted’ read ‘cut by £1 for every £250 over 6K).

Like I said, only someone who was truly despicable might consider hurting abuse survivors in such a way. Heaven forfend that anyone here might stoop so low *shudders*

Mrs Grimble July 25, 2016 at 10:32 am: You’re laregely correct, BD. If you have capital above £6K, your non-NI related benefits are reduced; capital above £16K renders you ineligible.
I know a woman who was claiming disability allowance for a (gwenuine) back problem; she got married to a man who not only had a comfortable private pension but also £100K+ from his share of a house sale. She carried on claiming nevertheless and actually complained to everybody when the DWP found out about it! (No, it wasn’t me that snitched; but I bought a nice bottle of wine for somebody…) Amazingly, she then declared her intention to get their savings down to a level when she can start claiming again and is now blazing through hubby’s money with expensive house refurbishments, new cars and the like. I hope nobody tells her that the DWP will want to see all the receipts…..
Reply

tdf July 24, 2016 at 8:12 pm

For comparison purposes, it might be interesting to examine Ireland’s Redress Board figures:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/redress-board-pays-out-average-of-63000-per-victim-26633856.html

One abuse survivor claimed that survivors who were prepared to go to court actually did a lot better in terms of compensation.

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 9:03 pm: “They want to be taken seriously, they are not interested in the financial compensation at all…” – Liz Dux 12th October 2012
Be that as it may, there were some top-tips on how to boost the winnings if anyone WAS interested in the financial compensation (which was obviously no one at all):
“She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives to hundreds of thousands if their lives had been wrecked, for instance if they had been unable to have a career or form relationships.”
(The S&G cheerleader was unfortunate enough to meet both of these criteria: a future career as a teacher ruined & an inability to form ‘intimate’ relationships.)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court
Reply

tdf July 24, 2016 at 9:21 pm

As a non-CSA survivor, who can I sue for my alcoholism, depression, and anxiety? (all factors probably linked, in a kind of re-inforcing cycle). Ireland has no NHS, so I do even get my doctor’s appointments or prescription SSRI’s for free.

tdf July 24, 2016 at 9:23 pm: ^ typo above – should have read “do NOT even get….”
Reply

tdf July 24, 2016 at 9:22 pm

Re the Liz Dux quote: “She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives to hundreds of thousands if their lives had been wrecked, for instance if they had been unable to have a career or form relationships.”

I don’t personally have a problem with this, on principle, the issue is how much is left after legal fees are paid out of the pot. It is often less than people seem to think.

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 9:50 pm: The problem is that there is a financial imperative to lie. Lawyer to client:
“We are interested in taking on your case. If you feel that you managed to move on with your life after the brief incident you could expect to receive a few thousand pounds; if you feel that the brief incident impacted on your later career or had a negative influence on future relationships then you could be entitled to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do you feel that the brief incident could be said to have impacted on your future career or had a negative influence on future relationships? As I said, this would greatly increase any compensation payout. Take your time…”
An adult woman who was ‘attacked’ live on TOTP (a hand up the skirt she claimed, despite wearing trousers…) would like us to believe that this fleeting moment caused her divorce many years later! It’s a common theme. And remember that the clarion call for compo claimants to come forward was already likely to attract chancers & grifters sat at home watching the daytime telly – having caught the last few minutes of Jeremy Kyle the This Moaning coach is filling up with Dux and her ilk, and you fancy a holiday. Hey! Why not make it a new home? Take your time…
Reply
Mrs Grimble July 25, 2016 at 9:53 am: “She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives …”
Really? So have3 you got a contact number for S&G? I want to claim for at least three dozen minor sexual assaults on me between 1966 and 1972; yes, I’ve put it all behind me and go on with my life, but dammit, if there’s cold hard cash to be got out of it…..
Reply

tdf July 24, 2016 at 9:54 pm

“An adult woman who was ‘attacked’ live on TOTP (a hand up the skirt she claimed, despite wearing trousers…) would like us to believe that this fleeting moment caused her divorce many years later!”

It would certainly seem a stretch if she claimed that.

But I note you put attacked in inverted commas. As I keep pointing out to the sceptics, if he was brazen enough to grope girls on live tv (granted, not offenses on the more serious end, but still offenses, at least technically, surely?) , is it entirely inconceivable that he did a lot worse off camera?

Anna Raccoon July 24, 2016 at 10:03 pm

Of course it is ‘conceivable’. He was a man after all. But discussion of whether something is ‘conceivable’ is involving ‘belief’ – we are reduced to the level of ‘I think he did it’ or I think he didn’t’ and that really isn’t the point is it. This isn’t a religious cult. The fact that the claims were reduced to 78 – out of the, what was it, 450 that Spindler was claiming, tells you that a lot of claims were just hot air, and that was without the defendant uttering a single word in his defence.
The only defence that the man has had, has come from work colleagues saying things like – ‘but that building wasn’t built until ten years later, and Savile never appeared in it’. And the Gallant Duncroft girls who came from around the world and demolished some of the Duncroft claims – in particular those which occurred before 1973.
Not many court cases manage to demolish 80% of the evidence before the defendant even says a word. And never will say a word.

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 10:31 pm

I put the word in inverted commas as I do not believe it merits the word ‘attacked’. What did that old fusspot Smith make of it?

“Although B8 does not show any visible sign of distress, it is clear that Savile is doing something to her and that he thinks it is funny… …This incident can be seen on video. We can see B8 jumping about in a most uncomfortable way, although she kept a smile on her face.”

No visible sign of distress, kept a smile on her face, beamed directly into millions upon millions of homes. What does Smith conclude?

“Savile sexually assaulted B8 on camera during a recording of Top of the Pops. She told a BBC employee what had happened.”

tdf July 24, 2016 at 10:42 pm

@Bandini

Smith’s conclusion seems entirely reasonable to me in this case.

tdf July 24, 2016 at 10:46 pm

Or, to elaborate, Smith’s conclusion seems reasonable, but I don’t know how she goes from ‘although B8 does not show any visible sign of distress’ to ‘we can see B8 jumping around in a most uncomfortable way’ in the same sentence.

I thought when I looked at that clip B8 did look uncomfortable and distressed, but was doing her best to hide it from the cameras and not create a fuss, given it was a live show.

Anna Raccoon July 24, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Personally I think it entirely possible that he pinched her bottom. I have certainly pinched a gentleman’s bottom in my time – though I suspect he was somewhat older.
IF he didn’t have prior consent from her to do so, then it would constitute assault, actually assault and battery – but I don’t think that sort of thing is what anyone has in mind when they hear phrases like ‘the assault ruined my life and cost me my marriage’…..

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 11:25 pm

I wonder if Tony Blackburn obtained consent before this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_Aw0jYFMM&feature=youtu.be&t=40
Another promising career – though perhaps not as a dancer – ruined!
* WARNING: The above video contains music which music lovers may find objectionable *

tdf July 24, 2016 at 11:37 pm: ^ For some reason I am reminded of the old tale of the scissors-wielding Lothario.
He did not of course use the scissors to commit gross acts of violence, he merely ‘whipped it out’, as it were, to snip a hair, as a souvenir, after performing the act.
Reply

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Different sentences, TDF. Wouldn’t want to be accused of ‘quote manipulation’. Check the full report if you want full context.

tdf July 24, 2016 at 11:09 pm: ^ Will do.
Reply

tdf July 24, 2016 at 10:15 pm

“The fact that the claims were reduced to 78 – out of the, what was it, 450 that Spindler was claiming, tells you that a lot of claims were just hot air, and that was without the defendant uttering a single word in his defence.”

It tells us that some claims did not pass whatever tests were required. That does not, in itself, mean that the other claims were hot air. It may mean anything from that all the other claims were hot air, to that none of them were hot air, but that they just didn’t provide enough evidence to go forward for the civil compensation claims.

“The only defence that the man has had, has come from work colleagues saying things like – ‘but that building wasn’t built until ten years later, and Savile never appeared in it’. ”

Not entirely correct, there are several blogs that have also offered defences.

Anna Raccoon July 24, 2016 at 10:57 pm

‘Blogs’ weren’t part of the scrutinising committee.

Bandini July 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm

If only!

tdf July 24, 2016 at 11:08 pm: @Bandini
“If only?”
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
Reply

Ho Hum July 25, 2016 at 1:05 am

Not been able to read the ST article, or do more than really just skim through the comments here but I’m a bit puzzled that there seems to be some perception in the comments that the original 450 was reduced to 78 on the basis of the majority being rejected

I thought that the 78 was the number left at Thursday, where no one could either say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to whether or not anything had been done that merited payment as there was nothing available to support either conclusion

That’s not the same as saying that all of the other 372 were rejected. I thought that previous reports had said that some of those were rejected, and others accepted, and paid on the tariffs agreed at the outset. If true, then one assumes that what was left by Thursday would still had to have been sufficient to meet the remaining 78 at the same rate, should that have been the final determination, but the figures mentioned above seen a long way short on what my memory says the initial ones were. Does anyone have an overall tally that can be properly vouched for??

I appreciate that both my memory may be playing tricks, and that I haven’t necessarily seen all today’s detail, but the general assumption that by Thursday only 78 claims remained unrejected, and that there was no evidence for or against any of those either, seems a bit tenuous

Bandini July 25, 2016 at 12:01 pm

I won’t post the full article, Ho Hum, but someone who did was none other than Mark Williams-Thomas (feigning outrage at the lawyers taking the lion’s share).

Those 78 cases were of “abuse made solely against the estate (without a joint defendant such as the NHS or BBC”.

The total number is 166 sharing a pot of £2,396,636, figures representing “all accepted claims made against the estate, NHS, BBC, Barnado’s, and the mental health charity MIND – not those solely against the estate.”

Anna Raccoon July 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm

Here you go: Full article. Written by the man who was actually in the court room! The estate of Jimmy Savile has run out of cash after lawyers claimed costs of £2.5m — more than twice the amount that will be paid from the estate to the sex abuser’s victims.

The law firm Osborne Clarke has, according to court documents, claimed £1.8m for its work for NatWest bank — the estate executor — and the running of the compensation scheme. Lawyers working for the claimants will be paid a total of £689,000.

For the 78 cases of abuse made solely against the estate (without a joint defendant such as the NHS or BBC) a payout of just over £1m has been agreed, meaning an average payment of around £13,000 and a long way short of the totals claimed from the estate by the lawyers.

The legal fees were condemned by child abuse survivors’ representatives and a Labour MP who said judges should take a stand against lawyers’ charges.

The figures were revealed on Thursday at the High Court in central London, where NatWest Bank applied to be allowed to make the payments to the claimants and their lawyers under the compensation scheme and then for the bank to be relieved of the role of executor.
“The effect [of making the payments] will be to exhaust the estate,” Mark Cunningham, QC, appearing for NatWest, told the court.

Cunningham told Mr Justice Warren that the current balance in the estate was £2,042,000 — with £1,033,000 due to be paid to claimants and the £689,000 to their solicitors. Other costs meant that the amount left would be around £141,000. This would be divided among the defendants such as the BBC, the NHS and Barnardo’s, which had already paid out damages.

When Savile died in 2011 his estate was reported to be worth around £4m.

The claimants and their solicitors have to wait for the written judgment expected next week before payments can be made, although Justice Warren said he would grant the application.

Peter Saunders, the founder and spokesman of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: “Arguably the only people who really win in these situations are the lawyers — they take the lion’s share of the money in estates such as Savile’s. It does seem iniquitous that the bulk of the estate ends up in the pockets of people who least need it.”

John Mann, the Labour MP who has campaigned on the issue of VIP child sex abuse, said: “It is an absurdly large amount for the lawyers. Yet again it is lawyers who are the big beneficiaries. Judges should be refusing these amounts of costs.”

NatWest is not claiming any fees for its role as executor.

The High Court was told that Osborne Clarke’s costs for Thursday’s High Court hearing — which lasted for less than two hours — were £61,000.

However, a spokeswoman for the firm said later that the “£61,000 does not represent Osborne Clarke’s costs for a two-hour hearing. Osborne Clarke’s fees comprised less than half of this figure. These fees were incurred not just for a two-hour hearing, but for the necessary work to make the application . . . ”

The firm also said: “Under the scheme, 166 claimants will be receiving a total of £2,306,636.” This figure represents all accepted claims made against the estate, NHS, BBC, Barnardo’s, and the mental health charity MIND — not those solely against the estate. The total payout is still less than that claimed by all the lawyers involved.

The law firm added: “The £1.8m figure is inaccurate as taken out of context, and does not represent only Osborne Clarke fees. Osborne Clarke fees are only a proportion of the overall figure.” It included third-party costs.

Liz Dux, of Slater and Gordon, who represents most of the claimants, told the court that the fees paid to the claimants’ lawyers were fixed and had been approved by the Court of Appeal. She added that the firm’s clients had been told.

Osborne Clarke said it had charged NatWest “significantly reduced standard rates” that had been incurred over four years. “Five judges have ratified Osborne Clarke’s fees,” the company added.

Moor Larkin July 25, 2016 at 4:28 pm

* Lawyers working for the claimants will be paid a total of £689,000. For the 78 cases of abuse made solely against the estate… *

At the time of Sales adjudication I recall it being said that the solicitors would be paid £16k per claimant on a flat fee basis.
78 x £16k = £1,248,000
Have the claimants lawyers taken a haircut?

Anna Raccoon July 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm

A short back and sides. Most satisfying to watch.

Anna Raccoon July 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Though don’t forget, they will still have their little stubby snouts in the trough for the BBC and NHS claims.

Moor Larkin July 25, 2016 at 5:01 pm: The BBC have already settled. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/dame_janet_smith
A total of £907,000 has been paid out.
This includes:
£526,000 for damages
£381,000 for legal fees
Reply

Bandini July 25, 2016 at 2:51 pm

A decent piece in the Mail from Dominic Lawson which weaves together the tale of the recently exonerated former-fireman (including the extraordinary letter sent by his accuser: “At 6 o’clock tonight I am going to the police station to report what went on and at 7 to the national papers. I think it is time you and me had a chat”), Op Midland, the Goddard Inquiry (“only beginning the first of its preliminary hearings this week … expected to postpone by six months… latest delay seems to have been caused in part by the fact that the Janner family lawyers have produced evidence that his accusers have numerous convictions, including for fraud, sexual offences and obtaining property by deception”) and, inevitably, Jimmy Savile:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3706229/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Hero-fireman-jailed-fantasist-s-lies-never-ending-farce-sex-abuse-witch-hunt.html

Alexander Baron July 25, 2016 at 6:05 pm

Just a thought but would it be possible for say Moor Larkin to get his hands on the witness statements of a few of these victims? I don’t think the court would allow this but the estate perhaps?

Moor Larkin July 25, 2016 at 7:23 pm: Not sure we need such illegal activity. One of the most media-documented cases seems to have been paid out. (check out rabbitaway’s current blogpost). And we all have seen the fate of Freddie Starr in the burning brightness of recent English justice, so I cannot see much more needs to be demonstrated. This is Der Process. Resistance is futile.
Reply

Fat Steve July 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

Ho! Ho! Ho! Anna
Just back from a break and nice to see one small corner of Norfolk continues with its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Sanity from an increasingly crack pot country .
So much in your post …..why does your comment about legal costs seem ad idem to Sir Philip Green’s alledged financial ‘rape’ of BHS which was the main news I heard from the ‘Mother Country’ when abroad? Why do legal outcomes seem such a paradox to Just (as in Justice ) outcomes ? (Answers please in legible manuscript on A4 paper of no more than 2000 words)
Still no sure of the magnitude of Savile’s offending but the multitude appears to be diminishing despite what appears to be the rather low threshold required to get home and dry ……is it I wonder that marvellous overarching legal principle of looking at everything ‘commercially’ to save costs that makes any allegation save the most egregiously dishonest pass muster? ….though of course a fair chunk of costs are incurred to reach that such a ‘legal’ conclusion.
But in legal work the Devil (or should that be the Delight ?) is in the detail and just such a hoot to see some of the preliminary detail about Goddard (not just your earlier post on one of her assistants) but the link to the Mail on Line which comments (I do hope accurately)
Unfortunately, she is not so highly regarded in her own country as she obviously is by the British Home Office. In an unofficial recent survey of New Zealand’s 63 judges, Goddard came in . . . 63rd.
Those responsible for the judicial survey cited a trial over which she had presided, which was condemned by five law lords from our own judicial committee of the Privy Council with these words: ‘It is impossible to imagine a clearer example of a trial that has gone off the rails.’
Ho! Ho! Ho! I chuckle once again ….a safe pair of hands in my lifetime was originally a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) who had gone to the ‘right school’ …..then some Apparatchik who attended a left leaning University that gave him adequate patination of being able to undertand the concerns of every day folk ……now its the likes of Goddard ……flown in almost exactly from the other side of the globe with the credentials essential to ascertain the ‘truth’ or what passes for it nowadays.
If the report in the Mail on Line is correct I imagine her fellow members of the Judiciary in New Zealand opining that that was an excellent ‘export deal’ …..will Brexit provide more opportunities?

The Blocked Dwarf July 26, 2016 at 11:32 am

Hmmm ‘sanity’ and ‘Norfolk’, two words not normally happy bedfellows in the same sentence.

Anna Raccoon July 26, 2016 at 11:54 am

I was under the impression that ‘Norfolk’ was none too choosy about its bedfellows…

Fat Steve July 26, 2016 at 3:43 pm: @tbd and La Belle Raccoon(e) …..time you two went abroad to clear your minds …..the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only Norfolk appears to have Norfexited
Reply

↧