MY LIFE IN THE DAY - Sally Stevens
« December 2013 | Main | March 2014 »
HELL HATH NO FURY - PART FOUR
Who is Alastair Scott-Johnston and how could he have affected the accusations of abuse on the part of Jimmy Savile by the Duncroft conspirators? (Alastair Scott-Johnston with Frankie Howerd.)
In 1959, the BBC Light Programme aired its first episode of The Navy Lark - written by Laurie Wyman and George Evans, and produced by Alastair Scott-Johnston.
"The Navy Lark" movie was also released in 1959, from the same writing team, and featuring many of the cast from the radio show. "The Navy Lark" was an unstoppable franchise from its beginnings.
The successful series made household names of Leslie Phillips, Jon Pertwee, Ronnie Barker and Richard Caldicot, among others. It ran from 1959 to 1976, during which time Alastair Scott-Johnston was a person of considerable influence at the BBC.
So powerful was Alastair that he changed Ronald Barker's name to Ronnie Barker overnight and would brook no discussion on the subject; what Alastair said was the law of the land as far as the show was concerned. And that remained the case until the series aired its final episode in 1976. He was a rainmaker at the BBC, and powerful enough to begin or end careers. I'm sure that to the end of his life, he could pick up a phone, speak with whoever he wanted at the BBC, and get things done that needed to be done.
Alastair adopted his daughter Fiona around the time the series began, and if one is to believe Fiona, they had a difficult relationship and were mostly estranged. But, we've learned not to believe one word this woman says.
From a reliable source today, it appears that Alastair came to Duncroft 'many times' while his daughter was there, and during the time she was ostensibly going up to London to see Jimmy Savile. She has never mentioned this.
So, it begs the question; if Jimmy Savile, pretty much a new boy at the BBC compared to Scott-Johnston, was misbehaving to the extent accused, then WHY didn't his daughter Fiona go immediately to her father and have Savile dismissed or at least hauled off the road and given a serious talking to? Scott-Johnston could most certainly have made an enormous amount of trouble for Jimmy, given his power position.
But she didn't complain to her father, which suggests to me that nothing went on with Jimmy Savile at the BBC or at Duncroft, except for what has been reported - a drive in his Rolls and some visits to the studio for Top of the Pops. Further, as Fiona always used her father's last name in her Duncroft social media communications and when she was at Duncroft, surely Jimmy, not exactly a slouch, would have put the two names together and steered absolutely clear of Fiona at the very least, let alone her school-mates. Or if he did encounter Fiona, he would have been nothing more than respectful. In fact, that seems like a more likely scenario. She has never once intimated on social media at least, both in public posts and private communications, that she complained to her father and/or that he refused to believe her.
In closing, please take the time to read this excellently-researched blog entry by "Moor Larkin," from last year. Jim Cannot Fix This: The Navy Lark. A lot more to think about.
HELL HATH NO FURY - PART THREE
Since the inception of the Savile/Duncroft allegations, one name has been repeated again and again behind the scenes. Fiona Scott-Johnston. This woman has much to answer for. So far, her tarradiddles have cost the British taxpayer in excess of three million pounds - and if Justice Sales doesn't find against NatWest, tort lawyers will drain the Savile Trust resources, and rob the intended recipients of the charity monies. Further, it could cost the taxpayer an additional thirty thousand pounds per claim. This has to stop.
British television viewers will perhaps remember this face from the ITV show - for some odd reason she retained her real name in the show, i.e. "Fiona." But first, let's review an message that many former Duncroft women received from her via Friends Reunited in December 2011, to wit:
I hope you had a very happy Christnas and that you and your family/loved ones have a wonderful New Year.
I am sorry to contact you like this but as you may or may not know a very emminent TV presenter/prog. maker, has been contacting many girls who are aware of what happened at Duncroft. Many of us were interviewed by Police andJournalists, but nothing has been achieved as not enough people would 'speak out'. Most of us have put those awful years behind us and grown on the experience of being a 'Duncroft Girl''. I know Mark, (W-T) has contacted many people directly, he has spoken to those staff who are still living and as he says he has "dotted the i's and crossed the t's". It is now up to us to help him. Many of us know what happened, experienced it or just pretended it is not our problem etc. well, I think it is our problem as most of the e-mails I get from ex-girls concern the offences of past visitors to Duncroft, spanning many years. I was not at Duncroft for many of the years concerned but I am aware of what happened. Being aware and the person concerned giving first hand reports are two different things. I would therefore urge you to take this, our last chance to get the many people who exploited us. We know who they are and if you would rather contact Mark directly then I think that is correct (if you want his email address or further details then please ask me!). Please, please take this last chance to do the right thing. even if you know nothing then that is important as it puts the timeline in perspective.
I know what I am asking is very difficult but many have families and have been told to 'Forget'. I am not certain how we can forget until it is corrected, so, I would therefore ask you, and no one else, to do what is right as we will never have another chance.
I am seeing this man in a few days and as I have much memorabilia from those days I would also ask you to sort out your physical memories and contact either Mark or myself. Please remember that NO ONE else can do this for you and we must speak out if we want to correct history. This is really our LAST CHANCE.
Thank you so much for putting up with my ranting and remember all you have to do is press the reply button even if you think it is not important or anything, we still need to know.
Thank you again and Happy New Year,
Fiona (Scott)Johnston..."
Now this Friends Reunited message contains at least a few lies, i.e. Mark Williams-Thomas NEVER spoke to staff members or other girls. I was not a recipient, but a friend was, and she forwarded it to me, expressing disgust with its motives. Williams-Thomas certainly was not an 'eminent' anything. And why a 'round robin' message on social media, instead of contacting these "ex-girls" that she has received emails from in private as she claims?
Fiona has additionally claimed to be a degreed professor, to be suffering from a debilitating disease and was in a wheelchair (the disease she claimed to be suffering from is a skin disease, and very unlikely that you would end up in a wheelchair as a result) and one lie piled atop the other. She called herself "Susan Melling" which may have been her birth name before she was adopted by BBC power-producer Alastair Scott-Johnston. And that family relationship is the key to this whole sorry mess. Along with Meirion Jones' relationship to Margaret Jones, the former headmistress of Duncroft.
Fiona informed another former Duncroft woman that she used the "Melling" persona because she didn't want her 'pupils' (whoever they might be) to find out she'd been at Duncroft, and admitted she was really Fiona Scott-Johnston. I have an email from that woman to that effect, as well as a copy of the email that this woman sent to Scott-Johnston expressing her disgust with the deception. I've got lots of things in writing, unfortunately for Fiona/Susan Melling.
Although this is hearsay, a Daily Mail reporter told me that Fiona's sitting room was lavishly decorated with fake diplomas - maybe that was when she delivered the forged letter from the Surrey Police to the Mail, but the letter was also a clumsy forgery as everyone knows, and the police of course did not write it.
Back when all this was blowing up, I contacted a Duncroft staff member who knows Fiona well, to try and tamp all this down; this staff member told me that she was very angry that her personal telephone number had been given out without her permission.
Fiona also had possession of a database that contained the contact information of many former Duncroft women. This violates the Data Privacy Act. She further claimed to have gotten it from a 60s woman, yet another lie. She then allegedly created a video of herself burning the memory stick. Never saw that, but you can burn any old memory stick and claim whatever you want.
I suspect maybe Fiona had a bit of a 'thing' for our Jimmy, and he likely rebuffed her. She certainly kept photos of them together in her house, and boasted on line that she had been asked by Margaret Jones to contact him for the purpose of having him come to a fundraiser in 1979, I believe it was. He had not been to the school in several years prior to that, otherwise Margaret Jones would have picked up the phone herself, doncha think?
Notice that Fiona even wears her hair a la Savile, but it's flaming red, like the lies she tells. I don't think she can stop at this point, she's in waaaay too deep. She's lied to the police for a start and because of her lies a nation has gone mad and at least one man has been murdered as a result of the ongoing hysteria. I think we've all had enough of Miss Fiona and her fibs. Time to put an end to it.
Many thanks to Eric Hardcastle, blogger and former consultant in the security field, and private investigator, based in Melbourne. All on his own, he figured this one out in July 2013. I have never communicated with Eric, and didn't know of his existence until about a week ago when he commented on this blog, noting that Maddie McCann's family had asked Mark WT to stop insinuating that he was working for them.
I found this entirely by accident today. Except for a misunderstanding about how Duncroft was run, he's spot on. The Family Ties That Bind.
"FOLLOW THE MONEY."
A legal battle for £3.7 million left to charity by Jimmy Savile commenced in the High Court in London on Monday, February 24, 2012. The Savile trust litigation.
Two Trustees of the dead disc jockey's charities are attempting to get NatWest Bank removed as executors of his will. NatWest is well compensated for their administration of the Savile Charitable Trust.
Swiss-based businessman Luke Lucas and Dr Roger Bodley, clinical senior lecturer at the University of Tasmania and former consultant radiologist at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, are seeking the appointment of an executor prepared to investigate over a hundred claims for compensation for sex offences. Claimants are jointly represented by the Manchester lawyers Pannone and the Australian-owned solicitors Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP who took over Pannone on February 14.
Dr Roger Bodley is a trustee of both the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Charitable Trust, which have together around £5 million in reserves. After Jimmy Savile died at 84, Dr Bodley said, 'He was the cleverest man I ever met, a genius at persuading people to part with money happily for good causes.'
Jimmy Savile raised £40 million for the establishment of Stoke Mandeville's National Spinal Injuries Centre and supported 14 hospitals and hospices.
The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, active in Yorkshire, also took personal donations from other people besides the disc jockey. The Charity Commission says its object is to 'provide funds for the relief of poverty and sickness and other charitable purposes beneficial to the community' and for the 'provision of recreational and other facilities for disabled persons'.
NOT for the purpose of unjustly compensating alleged victims and, worse still, their lawyers.
Liz Dux of Slater is the chief steward of the claimants' interests for both Pannone and Slater. She should be a tad nervous at this time.
If NatWest are relieved of their fiduciary responsibility by Justice Sir Philip Sales, considered to be one of the most able judges of his time, it will be a game-changer for the alleged victims seeking compensation.
Sir Philip, 51, was also the "Treasury Devil", effectively the Government's chief advocate, advising all departments. He was appointed to the job aged only 35 and has been involved in high-profile cases including defending in the High Court the Government's decision not to hold a public inquiry into the Iraq war in 2005.
Justice Sales continues to hear oral argument this week, and if he finds in favor of the Estate, then a compensation arrangement between NatWest and the predatory tort lawyers will no longer exist, and the new executor will require that each and every claim be exhaustively investigated. The BBC and the NHS are supportive of the current scheme now in place with NatWest.
So far, all claims are based simply on allegations, made after the death of Jimmy Savile - no hard evidence of offending has ever been presented other than rumor, innuendo and memories of victims that go back many years, which could be unreliable and influenced by the constant mention of Savile in the media. In the NSPCC report recently released, the claimants themselves say that the constant media coverage was unnerving to them.
If Justice Sales finds that a new executor is appropriate, that will hold up claims of alleged victims for years in the courts, and may actually require Pannone/Slater & Gordon to present all their clients' cases individually. Without Mr. Savile there to defend himself, the arguments against him are severely weakened.
Liz Dux said in a statement on Monday that the High Court hearing involving Savile's £4 million estate was 'important'. "It is not about amounts or cold hard cash, but redress. The victims suffered some horrific abuse, often in silence. It is right and proper that their suffering is now recognised. I urge everyone involved in the process to make it as smooth and pain-free as possible in order to guard against any further suffering." Well, she would say that wouldn't she?
But the fact remains that the entire apple-cart could go over with the appointment of an executor for the Trust, and all those champagne wishes and caviar dreams could simply fade away for the claimants and their counsel.
Best outcome, the money goes where Jimmy Savile intended it to go. NOT to compensating alleged victims and, worse still, their lawyers, who have, thus far, proven nothing.
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH MISS MCGOO?
Over on Twitter there is a very sad person, known as "Pat McGoohan." There is something psychologically wrong with her.
Oh yes, there are plenty of people on Twitter who disagree to a greater or lesser degree with the Savile situation and they voice their opinions as is their right, but Miss McGoo's remit seems to be only to pursue, like a shrieking harpy, myself, rabbitaway, Anna Raccoon, and attorney Margaret Jervis. Her attacks are juvenile, pointless and presumably boring to everyone but herself. I see none of her 'followers' even bothering to respond to her and in fact her bias and viciousness may be putting off even those of a like mind when it comes to Savile, etc.
Why does it matter that three girls absconded from Duncroft in 1964? Lots of girls absconded, most came back, some did not and fell among thieves, so to speak. I was not one of them, despite her innuendoes, nor was anyone I know. I have been accused by this foul hag of being a 'pedo supporter,' and I hope my last blog entry has put paid to that impression. But I will not support the continued pursuit of the Savile charity monies when NO PROOF EXISTS that he did anything inappropriate.
Miss McGoo would likely have put the boot in when Ben Ibrahimi was on the ground. And probably would have lit the fire that killed him, then danced around it.
Her attacks are so personal that there is no doubt in my mind that she is ex-Duncroft or a relative. Interesting, psychologically, that she takes the screen-name of the actor who portrayed The Prisoner in the 60s TV series. And a prisoner she is - of her own hatred and anger.
She goes to the trouble of obtaining photos of me from unknown sources and photoshops them in ridiculous ways, spends her time poking around the internet looking for anything she can find about her enemy(ies) of the day, and in fact is not interested in the Savile situation at all as far as I can tell, but very interested in 'getting' anyone she perceives as crossing her.
For example, I recently visited the Facebook page for Stonepound House in Hassocks, Sussex, and made an inquiry of the moderator there. I was at Stonepound in 1962, and it was a horrible place. It closed in 1980, and is now remodeled and serving another purpose (see photo.)
I wish good luck to the women who are now trying to obtain their records from East Sussex authorities to prove how badly they were treated. There was a riot there in 1966. By the time all this was going on, the former superintendent, Mrs. Parker, was gone, but she caused a lot of trouble for me with her lies. Her successors sound dreadful. I can't imagine how Mark WT missed this - but then, no celebrities were involved, so not interested. I have not been back to the page myself - the women involved seem to know what they're doing and I don't need to engage in any further drama. I've got enough with the hurly-burly of the Duncroft saga.
Miss McGoo immediately twisted this into alleging that I was trying to show sympathy for them simply to get information. Oh please.
So, I suggest to anyone who believes anything this poor woman writes about Duncroft - she's irrational. If it's who I think it is, this is well-known in police and press circles. They don't take her seriously, you shouldn't either.
NOCENTE!
Los Angeles, the largest Catholic archdiocese in the United States, has already paid out $720,000,000 to victims of clergy abuse. On February 14, 2014, on the courthouse steps, they agreed to pay out another $13,000,000 to settle the last of the outstanding cases, involving a de-frocked fugitive priest who abused 25 boys here in Los Angeles, and over 100 in Mexico. He went on the run in 1988 after being tipped off by the archdiocese with the authority of Cardinal Mahony that the police were going to be notified; he is believed to be alive somewhere in Mexico. His name is Aguilar Rivera. He would now be in his late 60s.
Former Cardinal Roger Mahony (pictured above) devoted a lot of his time trying to shield these serious offenders. When he stepped down in 2011, he was rebuked by his successor, Cardinal Jose Gomez, for his actions.
The authorities have not, as yet, brought Mahony to the seat of justice for his part in condoning the despicable conduct on the part of Rivera and others.Los Angeles Cardinal unlikely to face charges
Retired at age 78, Mahony keeps a low profile these days, though he did go to Rome for the College of Cardinals enclave to elect Pope Francis, and has since met with the Pope in private. I'm sure those were very interesting conversations.
I like Pope Francis, and I wish him health and a long life. He has said he will end this cycle of child abuse within the church. He's been supportive of gays. He's humble, he still lives in the Vatican guest house, carries his own luggage when traveling, all very much in the style of his former life as an Argentinian archbishop; living in a small flat, cooking his own meals, and riding the bus to work. He's wordly, inasmuch as he used to love to dance the tango, worked as a nightclub bouncer, and certainly dated women. His devotion and attention to the poor would have brought him into contact with abused and exploited children. So, the slimy halls of child abuse would be anathema to him, not something he would defend under any circumstances. He's been offered the riches of the world, and he has chosen to reject them. When he was shown the Papal apartments he remarked that 600 families could be housed in them, and went back to his quarters at the guest house.
As someone who endured prejudice because I reported child molestation to the headmistresses of my first boarding school, Langsmead in Pyrford, on behalf of a terrified school mate, I know how those complaints were received in the 50s. Especially from someone as young as I was.
For my pains, at age 8, I was then shunted off to Ascot Priory, and subjected to abuse at the hands of a Sister Florence, who supervised St. Christopher's, the junior school.
I was singled out by this woman for absolutely no reason. She would steal gifts that were sent to me by mail, thereby making it seem that I was ungrateful because I had not thanked the person who sent me the gift, took money from my Post Office account, put me in coventry for an entire term - meaning none of the other girls were allowed to speak to me and vice versa, only my teachers, and other abusive behavior. The whole school knew, and were talking about it, and though I complained to my mother, she brushed it off as drama, and it took nearly three years for her to understand I wasn't lying. (Eternal thanks to family friend Kay St. George and her daughter Mirabelle - a senior at Ascot Priory, who asked her mother why my mother wasn't doing something - for convincing her). I left mid-term, after profound apologies from Reverend Mother, and went to day schools after that - Sarum in Walton on Thames and Oakfield School in Pyrford. No more boarding schools, thank you. (Unless you count Duncroft, of course, who have indicated in my file that they believe something bad happened at Ascot Priory. Well, they got that right!)
I've been accused of being a 'paedo defender' because I've expressed serious doubts about the veracity of accusations against certain elderly celebrities in the UK. All I can tell you about celebrities is that I felt safer around them than I ever did around clergy. Not a one that I met ever behaved inappropriately in any way.
I can only add that if a child comes to you with a complaint of abuse, please take it seriously, and waste no time looking into it. Contact licensed professionals, and keep it out of the press. Do not go to self-proclaimed "child protection experts," or television producers or, worse still, journalists looking for some titillating scandal to whet the appetite of certain members of the public. These matters are best left in private - they are not for entertainment, profit, fifteen minutes of fame, or the News of the World. Real victims shrink from such exposure.
So, will Cardinal Mahony pay the price for his gross negligence and conspiracy against the many victims of scum of the earth such as Aguilar Rivera, who is still out there, in all likelihood still molesting young boys in Mexico? Someone needs to pay for this and not just with money. Rivera is a fugitive on the run - surely his co-conspirator Mahony should face a jury of his peers? Something tells me he won't, but one thing is for sure, he's as nocente as hell in the eyes of heaven.
IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD
Unlike the UK, the US is all about self-examination and therapy via television and radio programming, so for many years our airwaves have been rife with psychology-based shows featuring professionals of greater or lesser ability.
Nobody comes close to the popularity and expertise of genial Texan Dr. Philip McGraw aka Dr. Phil, who was first discovered by Oprah Winfrey when he worked on her legal team as a forensic psychologist during a case brought against her by the Texas Cattlemen's Association, who were suing her for making statements against eating beef on her television show, thereby potentially causing severe financial damage to the beef industry.
Dr. Phil went on the air twelve years ago, and every weekday afternoon he interviews people who run the gamut from teen murderers to child abuse to cyber stalking to addiction to you name it. Show archive for 2014.
This week, as serendipity would have it, the show featured False Memory Syndrome in connection with sexual abuse. False Memory Syndrome is described by experts as follows:
"A false memory is a fabricated or distorted recollection of an event that did not actually happen. People often think of memory as something like a video recorder, accurately documenting and storing everything that happens with perfect accuracy and clarity. In reality, memory is very prone to fallacy. People can feel completely confident that their memory is accurate, but this confidence is no guarantee that a particular memory is correct.
Factors that can influence false memory include misinformation and misattributing the original source of the information. Existing knowledge and other memories can also interfere with the formation of a new memory, causing the recollection of an event to be mistaken or entirely false.
Memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus has demonstrated through her research that it is possible to induce false memories through suggestion. She has also shown that these memories can become stronger and more vivid as time goes on. Over time, memories become distorted and begin to change. In some case, the original memory may be changed in order to incorporate new information or experiences."
This may explain why the Duncroft accusers were silent regarding Jimmy Savile for many years. Indeed, one of them was on social media, i.e. Friends Reunited, back in 2004, trying to organize a reunion, singing the praises of Duncroft, what a wonderful place it was and how great her life had been thereafter - all thanks to the now evil and vilified staff. She even went so far as to write a letter to former headmistress Margaret Jones to that effect. In fact, this particular person was very close to one of the staff, had been for years. Said staff member was godmother to this woman's child, they had even lived under the same roof at one time. And then this woman suddenly morphed into a vicious accuser of Duncroft, her former friend and other staff members. A complete one eighty.
Pioneer Duncroft accuser, the troubled Karin Ward, had been under the care of a psychologist who suggested she write her Duncroft 'memoir.' Karin also went onto social media, looking for friends who were at Duncroft with her, because she said she didn't remember much about any of it. So, armed with the recollections of other women, she published and is now damned. Many of the women who were at the school at the same time have relentlessly torn this book apart as a work of fiction. Comedian Freddie Starr is suing Ward for defamation.
Meirion Jones, trawling the internet, found the Karin Ward work of fiction, and then, using social media, reached out to others he hoped would cooperate with his idea to expose Jimmy Savile and Duncroft, a place he had visited in his youth, as his aunt Margaret Jones, his father's sister, was the headmistress.
Meirion had seen Savile at the school on one occasion at least - a fund-raiser. Meirion's mother, herself a headmistress, and Margaret, reportedly had an uneasy relationship, which later deteriorated over family issues. It was at this occasion that Jimmy Savile allegedly took a few of the girls for a short ride in his Rolls, while Meirion and his mother allegedly tut-tutted at the very thought.
The discovery of the Karin Ward work of fiction was the perfect opportunity for Meirion to get back at Aunt Margaret plus produce what was at first intended to be a very short segment for the the BBC.
Then, enter self appointed 'child protection expert' Mark Williams-Thomas, who had been involved in the search for Maddie McCann, thereby gaining some traction with television audiences. Having heard of the Savile project, he talked his way onto the team, and became the contact for the Duncroft accusers, speaking with them at length, grooming them for their appearance on the infamous television show. This is where, I believe, the false memory syndrome came into being. Either way, it was a perfect storm.
I spoke with Mark at the onset of this situation, because he was looking to speak with women who had been at Duncroft. We had a long, cordial but cautious conversation. I told him I didn't believe what was being alleged regarding Jimmy Savile could have occurred at Duncroft, based on what I knew at the time about the school and the staff; he was respectful but obviously disagreed with me. I was obviously not the sort of Duncroft woman he wanted to talk to!
So, I have to consider that Karin, and all the rest, to a greater or lesser degree, were unduly influenced by outsiders with a vested interest in creating something out of almost nothing.
The British media also has a great deal to do with the possible implanting of false memories, resulting in a flash flood of accusers against Jimmy Savile the like of which hasn't been seen since the Salem witch trials. Jimmy Savile became The Great Satan, with sexual powers that would intimidate even the satyrs of Greek mythology. Of course, a lot of that has been disproven, and the only remaining accusers are represented by well-known ambulance-chasers, looking to make the whole thing the BBC's problem.
I'm starting to think this truly is false memory syndrome, initiated by Meirion Jones and Mark Williams-Thomas, and then perpetuated over and over on the television, in the newspapers, on-line, here, there and everywhere. All to the detriment of the British tax-payer, in bucketloads of loot being spent on police investigations which haven't come to anything much. And a British public that seemed to have lost the ability to reason clearly. Just as every Muslim was once a terrorist, now every elderly celebrity was a child molester.
The juries in the LeVell trial, the Roache trial, and the Travis trial, who listened to testimony that was the result of questioning by skilled lawyers, fortunately realized that something was pretty wrong. And decided accordingly. Given this, things may all go sideways for those who want to profit from false accusations.
Freddie Starr has been arrested yet again, but has been denied habeas corpus. That should get sorted in March.
A question that goes unanswered is why this happened in the first place. Why did what initially appeared to be fairly normal women from a highly-respected approved school in the mid-70s, who started out simply looking to find friends from those days for no other reason than to reminisce and have a couple of beers, turn into a gang of harpies who will not brook any denial of their claims?
Yet another unanswered question, what exactly is it that these accusers want? Revenge? Money? Fifteen minutes of fame? All of the above?
Mark Williams-Thomas opined recently that none of the 'victims' were in it for the money, which sort of made hash of accusers who are represented by high-profile tort lawyers, presumably not in it for the benefit of their health.
When asked what on earth he was talking about, he quickly switched it to none of the 'victims' he had personal contact with. The man does more tap-dancing than Fred Astaire.
Last unanswered question, and perhaps the most significant - why have the Surrey police failed and refused to respond to an appropriately-submitted Freedom Of Information inquiry regarding Mark Williams-Thomas? Just saying.
HELL HATH NO FURY - PART TWO
I don't like Twitter much. It's not designed for writers, a bulletin board, rather than a real social exchange like Facebook. But, necessity being the mother of invention, I got involved over there recently.
It's good for letting interested parties know that I've made a blog post, following their posts or, as is becoming tiresomely routine, finding the Duncroft70s lot up to no good.
Whole lotta libel goin' on!
To the following twits "PatMcGoohan", "round_hay three" (and others), your statements on Twitter about myself and my family are untrue and legally damaging.
However, as usual you've revealed yourselves, i.e. mentioning posts I made on "your" Facebook timeline in 2012. I only posted to a Duncroft page, ergo, you're a former Duncroft inmate. You were even obliging enough to provide a screen cap.
You continuously accuse me of making a U-turn on my opinion of the allegations of abuse at Duncroft. That'd be true, never denied it, but NOT because of any "falling out" with the "victims," it was because I discovered evidence of lying at a level that was absolutely unacceptable; if you lie to me once, it's all lies from there on out.
We've all familiarized ourselves with Bebe Roberts' lies to the Daily Mail regarding visits by Jimmy Savile to Duncroft in 1965. It's now firmly established he was never there at that time. I was, for a couple of months, though I left in mid-1964, for those who are taking notes.
Then we get the forged letter (an ex-Duncrofter of the era posted elsewhere that doing that was "silly"), which stated, on forged Surrey Police letterhead, that the police declined to further investigate Jimmy because he was" too old and frail." No - because they couldn't find evidence to proceed futher, after interviewing him under caution with a witness in the room. Silly?? That's lying to the police at the very least.
Anyway, I've got something interesting. Concerning a visit that never happened. Discovered purely by accident - well, serendipity I guess - but the truth has this pesky habit of coming out. It establishes that at least one of these ex-Duncroftians were capable of fabricating the truth to an astonishing level.
So, this to those 70sDuncroft women. If you'd had the smarts to make something of yourselves in life, you wouldn't have cared one iota about this Savile business. The Duncroft women of the 60s, we turned our lives around.
We didn't seek compensation, we didn't need a hand up or a hand out, we had the sense to realize we'd been survivors of an unfair deal, and we moved on, until we were dragged back into the mire, thanks to you. Other women who went to Duncroft in the 70s, who also went on with their lives, likely don't appreciate your efforts either. You're cowards, and we aren't.
Listen up.
Life isn't fair, the world doesn't owe you a living, you have to take whatever tools you were handed, stop blaming and attacking other people, make the best of it, help others. Stop thinking about yourself all the time.
That's called character. Something you, so far, notably lack, which distracts from and doesn't further the cause of bringing real pedophiles to justice.
HELL HATH NO FURY
First off, congratulations to Dave Lee Travis (Griffin) and his wife, for the successful outcome of his trial on ancient allegations of 'abuse.' Two charges were left in the balance, but unlikely that the CPS will re-open the matter.
The allegations of the 'victims' were not convincing enough to persuade a jury of his peers that anything he was accused of was in any way true. And he went home, in time to spend Valentine's Day with his wife, in their little bungalow. Their beloved farm was sold to cover legal fees. Mrs. Griffin went through breast cancer while all this nonsense was raging about their ears.
Did the accusers give one iota of thought to what they were doing? Of course not, they were groomed to not consider the long-term implications or the cost - both financial and emotional - to the defendant and his family. It was all about them.
However, the jury went un-groomed, despite the looming presence of Mark Williams-Thomas in court every day. Was this supposed to intimidate them?
His little coterie of followers were pretty upset when the jury actually did their job. Blimey, that's a turn-up! Nothing like justice being done.
Though the jurors were unable to save the Griffins from financial ruin, they did the right thing. They sent a strong message to other jurors that might or might not be empaneled in upcoming (or not) legal proceedings.
Some dubious women of my acquaintance are not liking this finding, and it's been a joy and delight to be in their cross-hairs for a couple of days! Shades of the Duncroft70s forum, in fact. Same cast of character(s).
So, I want to give a high five to yet another jury for paying no attention to the MSM, or the MWT, or those of similar ilk, and actually using their own common sense.
And to Freddie Starr and family, I wish you the very best. I know the scorned women you're up against. All too well.
COMPENSATION STREET
I am in a hopeful frame of mind today. Could be dashed at any minute, but the jury in the trial of actor Bill Roache delivered swift justice in the money and time-wasting trial he has endured, after being accused of molestation by a bunch of grifters looking for a hand-out. He has been acquitted of all charges. Bill Roache not guilty: high-stakes gamble backfires for CPS.
One of his 'victims' couldn't even recall how old she was at the time the alleged (and obviously imagined) offense occurred.
I hope that these slimy types are learning that British juries are not as stupid as they thought, and that a skivey lot of solicitors, 'child protection experts,' and other creatures that go bump in the night are learning a smart lesson here. Knock it off. We don't believe you. The judge didn't believe you, and told the jury as much before they deliberated.
I hope that from this point forward, the British public understands that just because someone says they were 'molested' by a celebrity, doesn't mean it happened. The very fact that these celebrities are presumed to have money to throw at their victims should cause immediate suspicion. Come and tell me about your wicked Uncle Ernie and I'll listen. Tell me about a celebrity from the 70s and before and I'm going to raise an eyebrow, before showing you the door.
The CPS should now worry about the prospect of trying Rolf Harris, Freddie Starr (who has countersued Karin Ward for libel, after being falsely accused in her fantasy book about her time at Duncroft), Max Clifford, Paul Gambacinni and others, given the verdicts in both the Michael Le Vell case, and now Bill Roache, who will return to Coronation Street forthwith, while his 'victims' can return to whatever hovels they emerged from, with empty pockets, sadder but wiser. No joy on Compensation Street.
Timed perfectly with the findings by the Yard that exonerate Jimmy Savile by virtue of DNA testing, the signals couldn't be clearer. Maybe the Daily Mail believes you, my friends, but the juries do not. And ultimately, they are the only people who matter. That's what justice is all about.
This writer believes that the time has come to put an end to this sorry circus. Nothing has been proven thus far against any of the accused in the celebrity witch-hunt, up to and including Jimmy Savile. We can't have any more incidents like the suicide of David Smith, or the murder of Ben Ibrahimi. Stuart Hall shouldn't have taken the plea deal, imo.
Perhaps the CPS should realize that discretion is the better part of valor, and simply drop the cases involving celebrities, unless they wish to continue to look stupid. And go after real molesters, who are most definitely out there.
The brilliant Victorialucas has put another great video clip up on Youtube, couldn't have put it better myself. Hartley Hare not guilty! The day British Justice died. Featuring our fave 'child protection expert' of course. He didn't get an award at the British Broadcast shindig last night, btw. Coronation Street got a lot though! Justice of a different kind, but justice nonetheless.
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
At about 4:30 p.m. GMT on February 3, 2014, Scotland Yard sent a press release to all British media, annoucing that DNA tests had been conducted in connection with numerous accusations of serial child molestation by former BBC host, Jimmy Savile. The results exonerate him.
The DNA provided by the Savile family is Mr. Savile's DNA, which was obtained before his death, during the paternity challenge. It took a lot of courage for the family to do this, but they felt that it was one way for him to speak out from the other side, to defend his innocence.
Scotland Yard has made their official position known. At this time only two news sources have run with the story Savile no match to any unsolved crime say Scotland Yard - the Lancashire News, ironically published by Bill Roache. Roache jury has the case. The Leeds Star has piled in as of this morning, but the rest of the MSM remains very quiet on this stunning revelation. It's as if this irrefutable evidence just doesn't exist.
The exclusive originated from the Anna Raccoon blog, who had the story a few hours ahead of the MSM. Exclusive - Jimmy Savile's voice rings out from the grave.
In the meantime, the Daily Mail prints more rubbish - Jimmy Savile may have camped on school grounds. Well, and so?? England is a pretty small place - Jimmy could have parked in Land's End, and somehow they would have tied him to egregious doings in John o' Groats.
And can someone tell me exactly who is reading this ridiculous nonsense? Are they all smoking crack? This is the sort of inflammatory bullshit that got Ben Ibrahimi killed.
Yes, it's going to be hard for the MSM to trim their sails to this prevailing wind of truth. DNA doesn't lie, unlike people. But, to recoup any small shred of dignity and credibility, they MUST run with the Scotland Yard release. This is in the public interest. Let the public do what they may with this truth. And let the MSM move on. If they lose readers, what have they lost really? Those of the type who would set their neighbors on fire because the neighbor likes to keep himself to himself?
It's apparent that some elements of the media wish only to pander to the lowest common denominator for the purpose of arousing prurient interest. Sex sells. But didn't they learn anything from the Murdoch mess? Did they really think this was going to run on unchecked forever?
There's a lot of money at stake here, and the Daily Mail's muck-raking has upped their bottom-line very nicely thank you. All they have to do is put 'Savile' in the headline, and enough fools will read it to keep the Mail staff in buttered buns. But when will the woolly-minded British public wake up to the fact that what they've been reading is a load of bollocks?? That it wasn't Jimmy Savile who was grooming anyone, it was the MSM all along, in concert with dodgy self-proclaimed 'child protection experts' and a slew of characters from the bottom of the noxious pond that passes for society these days.
Please leave it to the police to do their job, and when they do and try to advise you via the MSM, have the respect to believe them. Thank you.
Sally Stevens
A LIFE IN THE DAY