which really should interest Leveson. I carry them all here-I hope she doesn't mind; access her blog for greater detail.

Past Lives and Present Misgivings - Part Six.
by ANNA RACCOON on OCTOBER 29, 2012
The opening sequence of the Panorama film featuring the alleged sexual abuse of children at Duncroft lingered on a huge and imposing set of Victorian iron gates. Half open, they conjured up an image of a peek inside a forbidden and forbidding world. A world where children were routinely abused in a manner which our intrepid reporters were about to reveal…it was shades of Haute de la Garenne and a dozen Hammer horror films. It was an emotive image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since then, I have been approached by The Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of such slim pickings is a media storm created.

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

Ms Raccoon's writing is precise and illuminating.

There seem to be two threads to this Savile business..one where some teens may have been fiddled with and another where a clumsy conspiracy has been hatched by one or two which has drawn in others to make fools of themselves.

The only reason could be to profit by attaching themselves to a crime in the hope of large compensation.

A bit like when the bank gets robbed and you with the chip shop down the road say you too were robbed.

I say it again : the firestorm created over this business has the capacity to take down many parties including accusers and promoters of pedo hysteria.

**everyone I ask gives me the same answer..a blank stare : why would numerous celebrities rush to Max Clifford with their worries they may have their collar felt..the very man who would cash in on their plight if it were true ?.

Some people have no shame.

I think I said this in another thread. But anyway. I'm not certain that Freddie Starr, was on the same show, as Gary Glitter at all. Glitter was on the 23rd March 74. So, I suppose Karin Ward would of been 3 days short of her 16th Birthday, as I believe Clunk Click was recorded on a Friday evening. In which case , Ward would of been 15. But that's quite besides the point, anyway. It's the rest of the blog, that has some real evidence in it.

Apart from the "Jimmy Savile was barred from Children In Need" today. It's be very quiet, as we were apparently told by the Press "Expect More Arrests Today" & that failed to happen, didn't it? So, it looks like the Police are getting a bit of a turn around of events. Hurray!

The clumsy conspiracy has obviously been hatched, by someone in the media, who got the ball rolling with Duncroft. Masqueraded as a former Teacher on Facebook. Then like most of Facebook, people bulled more & that was the start.

I'd guess this must of started around the time, that Fiona got the forged letter. Which is the strangest thing in this. Jimmy Savile was still alive. The letter said, that he was too frail & old, for it to be taken any further...Though the real reason given was lack of evidence. So, the letter didn't really serve a purpose. Unless the person, that wrote the letter, did not know about the Police answer of lack of evidence. So, the forged note was sent round, to
hush any further proceedings.

Could it be that, whoever wrote the forged letter, wanted it dropped, to postbone it, until after Jimmy Savile had died? How did they know, it might be quite soon, though? In the event he did die, they could really push the story, by fabriacting other stuff & exaggerated materail & make further money from it. So, someone in the media is very very crooked indeed.

There seem to be two threads to this Savile business..one where some teens may have been fiddled with and another where a clumsy conspiracy has been hatched by one or two which has drawn in others to make fools of themselves.

The only reason could be to profit by attaching themselves to a crime in the hope of large compensation.

A bit like when the bank gets robbed and you with the chip shop down the road say you too were robbed.

If it's becoming clear that people are completely fabricating stories of abuse, aided and abetted by the media, children's charities, and the police, then I think we have a moral obligation as civilised human beings to question the assumption that Savile did anything illegal - or at least antyhing more illegal than probably countless celebs were doing in the 60's. So why are we picking on him and presenting him as the anti-christ? As I've said previously, because he was an oddball and a perfect panto paedo scapegoat for the sexual revolution.

A better analogy than the bank and the chippy would be if a Jewish boy swiped a chocolate bar from the sweet shop and the Nazis burn down the Reichstag next door in order to start a holocaust.

I also believe the GG arrest was a put on show to appease the media..someone who has no capacity to fight back in any real way.

trying to colate anything that is 'evidence' in all these claims would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall. So why the rush to get GG?

This could be such a watermark for police behaviour; if they have the guts to stand up and discover the truth - and reveal it - they could kill the false allegations industry off. If they bow to their - our - masters (the media) and just do the expected, arrest a few names, convict some doctors, play to the crowd, they could find this becomes a future Hillsborough (and just wait until that explodes).

More revelations about Mr Jones - this time from within the BBC. Our "Ace Reporter" certainly has a lot of explaining to do now...
www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters...lar&contentID=-1

Many people are starting to latch on to Anna Raccoon and even some wise media writers are beginning to become more than just morons or Spectators.

It has appeared on most forums, I think. And those 'orrible reporters do actually trawl through various forums. There was one on a Missing Episodes" forum posing as a collector. Strangely asking for recordings on the Radio One show "Savile's Travels". Can't for the life of me, think what he'd get from listening to those. They were quite boring & were just snippets of recordings that JS made travelling around opening fetes & shops & stuff. Then (obviously) his R1 Producers just fed music, around the snippets. Easy way to do a show, I thought & JS always carried a dictaphone thing, everywhere he went. Never mind people catching him, I'm sure he must of caught a few people doing things, they shouldn't of their own!

bh wrote:
It has appeared on most forums, I think. And those 'orrible reporters do actually trawl through various forums. There was one on a Missing Episodes" forum posing as a collector. Strangely asking for recordings on the Radio One show "Savile's Travels". Can't for the life of me, think what he'd get from listening to those. They were quite boring & were just snippets of recordings that JS made travelling around opening fetes & shops & stuff. Then (obviously) his R1 Producers just fed music, around the snippets. Easy way to do a show, I thought & JS always carried a dictaphone thing, everywhere he went. Never mind people catching him, I'm sure he must of caught a few people doing things, they shouldn't of their own!

That same reporter was quite snotty about the people on the missing episodes forum, going to Twitter and basically saying 'they were defending Savile' when all they were saying was that the forum didn't allow trades or swaps of material - any material. This same reporter was implicated in phone hacking, so go figure!

Would his name be Gerard, then?

People are catching on in here, too - you're all very welcome!

Interestingly, Mr Tubb is o'er on Twitter claiming the Leeds Infirmary non-story as his own - and also bellyaching that not only are people refusing to speak to him as he pursues his "scoops" and closing doors on him, "they're locking doors on me". I wonder why?

and I note on Anna Raccoon a poster points out the bleeding obvious (except to me and Fleet Street)

the photograph the Daily Mail ran and claims is Savile at Haute de la Geurre in the 1960s carries a clumsy photoshoped sign saying Jim'll Fix It which didn't begin until 1975.!

honestly, we really do deserve a better media than this.

Yes the lock door on him & throw the key away. Then we'll hack his phone & pretend to be someone else.

Whether or not JS took girls to hospital is clearly, immaterial.

I used to give the girls in my office a lift home, most evenings & I probably looked creepy too. Time that was put in the Papers, straight away, then!

I've heard that statement, so much in the last week "I ALWAYS THOUGHT HE LOOKED A BIT CREEPY". What in the name of God, is that supposed to mean?!

My dentist look's quite creepy & comes from Iraq...but he's cheap!

...over on Twitter this evening it would seem Mr Tubb and Mr Williams-Thompson have been analysing JS's Desert Island Discs & the Radio Radio docu from 1986 with material to fill the next volume of "Exposed" on DMTV
This will prove "the BBC knew all along" apparantly.

Wouldn't it be nice to pre-empt these much-awaited "revelations" with a spoof/spoiler>