Quantcast
Channel: Duncroft – The Anna Raccoon Archives
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 21

The Savile Memorial Celebrations…

$
0
0

by Anna Raccoon on February 26, 2016

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 thisI 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

Reply

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.”

Reply

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…

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

Moor Larkin
February 28, 2016 at 3:59 pm
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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

Mr Ecks
February 26, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Sorry 145 and 1.45 not the same.

Will get back to you.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

Moor Larkin
March 1, 2016 at 9:50 am
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 ….

Reply

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!

Reply

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.

Reply

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’.

Reply

Anna Raccoon
February 26, 2016 at 12:22 pm

Ward seems to be quite a common name for liars.

Reply

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!

Reply

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

Reply

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!

Reply

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…

Reply

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!!!!

Reply

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!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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

edit * public building in London.

Reply

Anna Raccoon
February 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Excellent point Dwarf, had forgotten that.

Reply

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?)

Reply

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!

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

InLikeFlint
February 28, 2016 at 12:20 pm

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

Reply

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….

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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).

Reply

Cloudberry
February 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

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

Reply

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…!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

Moor Larkin
February 28, 2016 at 3:47 pm
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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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…

Reply

Eric Hardcastle
February 28, 2016 at 9:09 am

But it’s a good story.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

Moor Larkin
February 26, 2016 at 12:37 pm

days of men being cock o’ the walk are over

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

ivan
February 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Hear. Hear.

Reply

Sad Lassie
February 26, 2016 at 1:43 pm

Not if spent on Kids’ Club!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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’.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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

Reply

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?

Reply

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

Reply

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 !

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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!!!!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

David
February 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm
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.

Reply

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’ ?

Reply

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.

Reply

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!

Reply

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. )

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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….

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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”?

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

Moor Larkin
February 26, 2016 at 5:03 pm

yeah, coz the internet hasn’t been invented yet

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

Ian B
February 26, 2016 at 8:23 pm

Indeed. This is basically a “sober” endorsement of a lunatic conspiracy theory.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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.’

Reply

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)….

Reply

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)…

Reply

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

Reply

Ho Hum
February 27, 2016 at 10:18 am

Thanks!

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

Ho Hum
February 27, 2016 at 10:33 am

OT, I know, but what caused the damage at the Pentagon?

Reply

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…

Reply

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

Reply

Mr Wray
February 27, 2016 at 6:57 pm

Oh dear.

You forgot to blame the Jews.

No prize for you!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.’

Reply

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.

Reply

Ho Hum
February 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

‘We are all very quick off the mark today!!!’

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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?

Reply

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/

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.”

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

Eddy
February 29, 2016 at 9:55 pm

That’s a rhetorical question, right.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

Anna Raccoon
February 29, 2016 at 1:55 am

Poor, poor Molly, pretty Molly.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

David
March 1, 2016 at 11:18 am

sorry, I actually meant ‘authority’.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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!

Reply


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 21

Trending Articles