100 Years ago, the daily circulation of The Times was around 5,000. Today it is nearer the 400,000 mark.

You might imagine that the ‘product’ was doing something right – it was once, but today the readers are sadly disillusioned. The ‘Thunderer’ has become the ‘Whimperer’ in the hands of spiky haired young men in shiny suits who sit in Canary Wharf  in front of a PC and type their name onto press association copy and PR handouts.

Where, the subscribers wail, are the Cassandra’s, the Keith Waterhouse’s; the drunken, corpulent, gap toothed, staggering, bleary eyed, bulbous nosed wrecks of the human species normally semi-sentient in the ‘Stab’ that miraculously metamorphosed into literary giants when gently led to a nearby phone and reminded that it was time to talk to the copy room, or face the wrath of the subbie. Forget the image of the Remington typewriter – that belonged to the world of the garret authors; the true reporters were sleuths, not grammatically correct, digitally nimble, typists.

There’s an old fashioned word. ‘Reporters’. For that is what they called themselves; not the new fangled ‘journalists’. They ‘reported’ the news from wherever the editor had had the sense of humour to send them. ‘Timbuktu’? They hired a camel. ‘Baghdad’? Then they hired a bodyguard – and an interpreter too. They didn’t sit in an expensive hotel suite in Beijing offering ‘live updates’ on the situation nearly 3,000 miles away in Kuala Lumpur.

The readers are revolting. Some old hands would say that readers have always been revolting – but keeping them happy is a necessary evil.  Letters to The Times used to be pedant’s paradise, full of outraged complaints that a sub-species of a virtually extinct Chinese magnolia had been wrongly categorised as Tibetan magnolia – and the writer, who invariably held fifteen doctorates in neolithic Tibetan vegetation, ‘was sure’ the Editor would be appalled by such sloppiness.

It was The Times who sent William Russell out to share the Crimean trenches with the young men who gave their lives for us. He was described by one soldier as ‘a vulgar low Irishman, [who] sings a good song, drinks anyone’s brandy and water and smokes as many cigars as a Jolly Good Fellow. He is just the sort of chap to get information, particularly out of youngsters.’ Quite so. The perfect ‘reporter’. Without William Russell we would never have known of Florence Nightingale, nor the true horrors of war.

Now, we have ‘journalists’ who engender comments such as this:

Where was it “reported?” This is the problem with this particular journalist. He is depending on heresay…and in this case, as far as the story about the engine being active for 4 hours, has been proven to be false and in-accurate. At no time during any PC’s in Kuala Lumpur did the team suggest the engines were active for 4 hours…and today, after checking with the RR team who were in KL assisting in the investigations (they flew out there on sunday morning), they also concluded this was absolutely FALSE. Now, I ask you, WHERE is this reported and WHERE is it stated as a fact? I am so sick and tired of this nonsense…of lazy journalism. Won’t be renewing my subscription after this. This is just embarrassing journalism.

Fleet Street in the 60s might well have seceded from the British Isles; it was another land. Licensing laws abandoned for thirsty Smithfield workers conveniently adjacent, it was a place where its inhabitants felt honour bound to reinforce the concrete in their livers on an hourly basis. ‘Sober’ was an insult rarely afforded the opportunity to be aired. Yet we saluted those shambling drunks, we trusted them, we rewarded them by supporting their employers for allowing us the medieval pleasure of watching them poke the most ferocious hornet’s nests with a sharp stick. Hornet’s nests we would be afeard to approach, in places we had barely heard of. 

For some reason Neville Thurlbeck’s robust response to questioning during the Leveson Inquiry comes to mind.

‘Did you give any thoughts to Article 8 rights (privacy) of the women? Yes or no?’

Thurlbeck: ‘There was no discussion of it.’

There wouldn’t have been, I suggest, because Neville himself was ‘old style’ Fleet Street; where ‘reporting the news’ was the agenda – not regurgitating the latest politically correct line. Did anyone give any thought to Florence Nightingale’s Article 8 rights? Should they have done?

I still subscribe to The Times – not because I trust its output as truthful reporting, but because it employs a marginally superior version of copy writer than its shameful competition. I can still enjoy the literary talent of Rod Liddle or A A Gill. That is the only reason.

This train of thought came about today because Moor Larkin reminded me of an e-mail in the Pollard report that I had all but forgotten. The Pollard report into another ‘great’ institution. The BBC. You may have a thousand and one reasons to condemn the BBC today – but once upon a time, like The Times, it was a world class entity with a reputation which still lingers today. An unwarranted reputation. 

This was the e-mail trail:

Liz Gibbons, of the British Broadcasting Corporation, still touchingly confident that The Times ‘of all places’ dealt in ‘news’, not unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.

The BBC has since become an exhibit whose life force is publicly bleeding away in parallel with that of the ‘The Times’. Two proud old warriors of the battle to bring news to the public – now busy stabbing each other in the back. 

The original ‘Stab in the Back’, watering hole of those long dead ‘reporters’ has become a Pizza parlour…

One of the more curious aspects of the silence maintained by the vociferous voices we now hear shouting about Governmental inactivity and  suppression of ‘facts’ to the detriment of ‘vulnerable victims’, is the preponderance of them that appear to align themselves with the politics of previous incumbents – those 13 long years of Labour rule.

I was always puzzled by Meirion Jones’ apparent silence during the long – Labour – years, when he ‘had suspicions’ that Savile was being ‘given’ unwarranted, and unhealthy, access to girls at Duncroft. Why wouldn’t you say something? If lack of proof was the problem, why wouldn’t you say something anonymously? How could you personally witness, as he said he did, actions that even caused you the slightest disquiet, and hold your tongue?

Could it be that Savile’s alleged ‘high level’ contacts intimidated you? But that supposed friendship, or at least invitations to dinner, with Margaret Thatcher hadn’t yet occurred when Meirion saw Savile at Duncroft. So that couldn’t be it. Ditto the fact that Savile had met the Pope. Even if, as an ‘investigative reporter’ he had secret squirrel information that Savile knew Thatcher, I cannot seriously believe that a senior reporter – during the Labour years – would have been intimidated by connections with the ex Conservative Prime Minister. It is illogical.

As illogical as a long serving BBC employee going to not-obviously-left-wing Times with a story designed to discredit the BBC. Something Meirion denies having done – but somebody close to the ill-fated Newsnight programme did. Someone who felt passionately about the ‘Savile story’.

So the story appeared on ITV. As did Mark Williams-Thomas. ‘Their resident training-to-be Criminologist’. Ensconced on the Breakfast sofa, alongside another ITV employee who helpfully gave information to Operation Yewtree in respect of ex BBC employee Wilfred De’Ath…..just to get the ball rolling, you understand.

Also on the breakfast sofa, we have Alicia Alinia, resident ‘legal eagle’ to ITV, and Ali Jackson-Carter, journalist, who now heads up the Media Team at Slater and Gordon, who are handling all the Savile claims. Ali is proud of her new job:

So Ali, who used to work for ITV This Morning, now claims credit for getting coverage on This Morning where Alicia Alinia is resident legal eagle. They must be old friends. Actually they are still colleagues. Because you see Alicia still works for Slater and Gordon. Indeed, she has worked on the Savile case. I suppose it must make organising Liz Dux’s appearances on ITV so much easier when they can just shout across the office to each other.

Liz Dux certainly appreciates their efforts:

Now who is that who has ‘favourited’ that tweet as soon as it appeared? Why if it isn’t Rachael Niklas - digital marketing executive to….Slater and Gordon….

Alicia political leanings are in no doubt;

No surprise that Meirion Jones should turn out to be one of the first ‘followers’ that shows up on her time line…a good investigative reporter would want to know what ITVs legal eagle was talking abut…

The close connection between Mark Williams-Thomas and Liz Dux was evident a few days ago, when Williams-Thomas suddenly took it into his head that the Dame Janet Smith Inquiry which is running at the BBC as they examine their navel in the aftermath of all the claims and counter claims regarding Savile, was not giving anonymity to ‘vulnerable victims’ – something which would, and did, seriously affect the well being of several parties who had information to give the BBC:

No sooner had he said that, than Liz Dux appeared:

Wow! Even Slater and Gordon’s Head honcho didn’t know that vulnerable victims would be ‘unmasked’ by the dastardly BBC inquiry – what could be more off putting to a person thinking of coming forward than hearing from two people so prominently on ITV and (such prominent experts) that the BBC might leave them even more exposed?

It might have been ‘very helpful’ as Ms Dux said – but it simply wasn’t true. As the Dame Janet Smith Inquiry speedily and determinedly made public. In fact the only thing that might conceivably be said to be ‘helpful’ about it was the fact that it put the BBC in a bad light, and also deterred more ‘potential victims’ to come forward – or even people who might have helped to exonerate the BBC.

How strange that this exchange should have occurred on the night of March 9th. Just two days before Justice Sales judgment was due to be published. Not that I am implying for one moment that this date would have any significance to Ms Liz Dux – for she was already fully aware of Justice Sales decision that she would have to reveal the names of the claimants, some of whom are also ‘BBC claimants’, to the Savile Trust so that some scrutiny of their claims could take place – and also that she would have to advertise to ensure that further claimants were aware that they could come forward and ‘share the pot’.

Just because this cosy little ‘tweeting’ circle is comfortably and frequently ensconced together on the breakfast sofas of ITV is absolutely no reason to think that any of them would have the slightest self interest in damaging the BBC.

I do wonder whether Meirion is feeling slightly left out of the ‘magic circle’ though. And Liz MacKean…

Perhaps whoever planted that story in The Times should have approached one of the ‘left-leaning’ newspapers, or even spoken up during the Labour years, because the story has taken on some decidedly political aspects since then and now seems to be a long way away from either helping the victims of child abuse, or even standing much chance of compensating the alleged victims of Savile.

In fact it is only lawyers, and celebrity journalists who seem to be getting much traction out of it these days.

Perhaps it was always so. Maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age.

Empty vessels aren’t the only ones that make a lot of noise; a broken one can fair ring down the ages too. It doesn’t require great skill to smash a pottery vessel, but breaking up the resulting shards of clay is near impossible, as the ancient Romans Greeks!, and many an archaeologist, has discovered.

The Romans Greeks [Ed: Wake up woman!] put those pot shards to good use. Three and four centuries before Jesus was a twinkle in The Holy Spirits eye, they were using them as a handy, and flat, surface to write on.  The potshards, or ostrakon, were handed out to citizens, and every year they were invited to write down their ‘allegations’ as to why any particular citizen should be declared ‘potentially dangerous’ and removed from their society.  In an early re-run of ‘similar facts’ evidence, if 6,000 citizens all named the same man, then he was declared ostracised and ritually humiliated by being kicked out of Athens. Near two and a half thousand years later we eschew the humble pot shard, and 5,998 of the votes and use a suitably supine section of Taxus baccata to achieve the same process.

An important part of winning battles to the early Romans, was the process of deditio, or unconditional surrender. The best the vanquished could hope for was clementia but there was no guarantee that this would be granted. The Romans themselves regarded any surrender as a disgrace – one for which they could expect to be ostraca.  So in demanding surrender of their enemies, they were imposing a ritual humiliation.

Every social group, belief system, political organisation, or army goes through a process of making sure that new members are thoroughly converted to the ‘new’ message. They do this by some form of ritual humiliation; forcing them to execute a humiliating, public act. It pulls the older members into a cohesive group, giving them a legitimate focus to abuse the ‘outsider’. 

It appears bizarre at times, to witness a generation which has never been more sexualised, which calmly accepts the delights of dogging, which upholds sodomy as a legitimate expression of love, which reacts with outrage at the notion that any sexual behaviour should be considered outré, but which is also devouring the spectacle of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons forced to defend himself against claims that he touched another gay man over his clothing and breathlessly reports every last detail of Max Clifford’s penis size to an avid readership.

It can hardly have gone unnoticed that you will not find an example of an intelligent, responsible, middle class white male in any advertising programme – they are flummoxed by their broad-band, unable to figure out that they need a plane to get from Hong Kong to London, and completely adrift when it comes to feeding the kids and answering the telephone at the same time. The only advertisement which features an intelligent middle class male lauded for his rapport with children and his all round incredible accomplishments is a young male of African descent who ‘deserves’ to be rewarded with an outsize mortgage loan. It has been a standing joke for years that in any given American mini-series, it will be the Afro-american or the woman who ultimately gets to save the world – white males bumble their way from disaster to disaster, invariably proving to be the cause of the disaster in the first place.

Clifford may have thought he was on the ‘side of the angels’ in that ostensibly he was the champion of the emerging victorious group – women. He invented the ‘kiss and tell’ genre that allowed them to ritually humiliate discarded males in their life. There are many who have every reason to cheer from the sidelines as he is treated to the ultimate state sponsored ‘kiss and tell’; women of varying senility claim that when they were 15 they were such an expert on the varying degrees of ‘penility’ that they could confidently state that the ‘Mini’ Clifford was of less than standard issue – but laugh at your peril.

We are watching as the potshards are collected. The allegations are sufficient to mark the man out for ostracism for life. Already it is starting to rebound on women.

Last week a 12 month old baby was ‘torn from her Mother’s arms’ as Christopher Booker might well posit, and put up for ‘forced adoption’, by some coupling that is more acceptable to the new moral guardians, were it not for darker ‘factoids’ that emerged in the case. Actually, Mr Booker has been noticeable by his absence from commenting on this latest example of ‘secret courts’ and ‘forced adoptions’.

The Mother’s crime? Being ‘fond of’ and ‘close to’ her own Father. Her Father’s crime? Being accused of ‘associating with known sex offenders’. He was ‘suspected of abusing his daughter when she was a child’. Not that there had ever been any criminal proceedings, nor had his daughter ever made any complaint – indeed, as stated her crime was having a loving relationship with her Father who had had the finger ritually pointed at him long ago.

It is not just the men who are ostracised – it is all who associate with them. Including that baby.

[Ms R: Forcibly edited many hours later as a result of several e-mails telling me to beware of Roman's bearing gifts and not fiddling wiv' me blog when Greece is burning...]

[Have I got it right now Ed?]

When Susan returned to Duncroft, she gave the records to Ms Jones, the head mistress. She found herself closely questioned about this meeting with a celebrity from the music business – she had, after all, had some previous experience of drugs, and this was not unknown in the world of nightclubs.

She replied quite truthfully that he claimed to neither drink nor take drugs. Her Mother and Father had made enquires amongst the various policemen who frequented Ed’s Barn and found that this was believed to be true – Savile was eccentric, but not ‘trouble’.

Susan’s Mother was happy for the friendship to continue. 

Susan’s Mother had stayed in contact with Savile, and so it came about that Susan and her Mother were invited to the Shepherd’s Bush theatre to see one of the Clunk-Click programmes being made during another home leave. They went together and sat in the 2nd row, accompanied by a group of Savile’s friends, his brother Johnny Savile and his sister-in-law. Later that night, Savile introduced Susan and her Mother to his ‘boss’ – a man she says was known as either ‘The Doc’ or ‘The Prof’ – though both are well known Northern terms for anyone you accept as being ‘superior’ to you, so this may not be an accurate nickname. 

Not long after this evening, Susan’s Mother arranged for Savile to visit her daughter at Duncroft – this was the first time he had ever been there – not ‘parachuted in’ as a result of his celebrity, as the media would have you believe, but visiting because he had taken a kindly interest in a girl who’s parents he had now become friends with. A ‘daughter’ he had always behaved impeccably towards despite temptation being placed squarely in his path by this rebellious teenager.

The staff at Duncroft were dubious; single men were not allowed to visit girls there. Accordingly, the visit was only allowed to take place under supervision – in the Head Mistress’s study. 

Knowing the place as well as I do, I can imagine the scene. Gossip would have been rife, heads would have been peering round corners and hanging over balconies. Not only would there have been intense interest in this visiting celebrity (even a new gardener was enough to get us excited!) but he was coming to see one of the youngest, at 15, of the current girls, not one of the ‘old hands’ now nearing 18. Jealousy would have been flowing through the air like ectoplasm at an exorcism. As with any semi-prison establishment, there is an established pecking order, and the new girl is not supposed to get all the perks…

Worse, Susan had been invited to stand in the entrance hall along with the staff to formally introduce this gilded creature to the head mistress. Why, she was being treated as though she was something special – just who did she think she was? It got worse, one of the ‘old hands’ (I do have the name, but since she now claims to be a victim, I am not free to publish it) was instructed to serve tea – including to Susan, in a cup and saucer, no less…..I can imagine what was being said in the back corridors…

Savile had by this time established that Duncroft was then under the auspices of MIND, the mental health charity. He knew HRH Princess Alexandra through his charity work, and so arranged for himself to arrive during her formal visit to Duncroft to meet Lady Norman. 

Ms Jones, for reasons best known to her, arranged for Susan to have a private lesson in etiquette and curtsying so that she could ‘present her friend’ to Lady Norman and Princess Alexandra. 1973 was still a relatively formal time, so this was no doubt considered good manners at a minimum – but you can imagine how Susan was being viewed by the other Duncroft girls. ‘Stuck up’ or ‘posh bitch’ probably qualified as compliments by comparison to the other comments. Especially when Savile mocked another girl curtsying to Princess Alexandra by hiding behind her long flared skirt – again, I cannot mention the name for legal reasons. 

Sometime later, Savile arrived on a Sunday afternoon, and asked if he could take Susan out to tea. No, he couldn’t! Rules were rules. Eventually four of the oldest girls were allowed to go into Staines with Savile and Susan – and a member of staff as chaperone. Savile, being a true Yorkshireman, took them to the giddy excitement of the ABC cafe…they had a cup of tea in the virtually deserted Sunday afternoon atmosphere of a large working man’s cafe. The staff never left their side. No trip in a Rolls Royce, sorry to disappoint – they walked there and back – though Susan did manage to hold his hand fleetingly – another girl (name withheld) took possession of his other hand…

The girls had heard of Susan’s trip to the filming of Clunk-click, and they wanted to go too. Ms Jones cautiously agreed and with another member of staff travelled there in advance to inspect the venue. Susan and four other girls went there by mini-bus with Janet Theobald, the youngest member of staff, on a Thursday evening in preparation for the Saturday night broadcast. 

Whilst in the theatre, still accompanied by the staff, of all the girls, Susan was the one who managed to collide with Freddie Starr in the corridor. It would have been better for her position in the ‘pecking order’ had it been one of the other girls who met him and informed him that they were there with Jimmy Savile and why didn’t he join them in the dressing room? She was becoming the unwilling recipient of a lot of jealous talk. 

In the event, when they all walked out onto the stage, Freddie stuck close to Susan and they sat together. A BBC female employee handed out 50p coins to everybody and took all their names. On leaving the show, Susan witnessed Freddie Starr winking at one of the girls (name withheld) and looking over his shoulder at Savile’s large glasses lying on the side. 

On leaving the studio, Savile told Susan that his glasses were missing…

Still, ever the generous Yorkshireman, Savile took the girls and the staff to – ooh, the excitement, how their heads must have been turned! – the Shepherd’s Bush Doughnut restaurant, where the 50p coins were collected up again to pay for the doughnuts…

To be continued….

Another afternoon, and the boredom of Duncroft was relieved by a coach turning up (Wot! Still no Rolls Royce? You’ll never get the media to publish this!) – a rather special coach with tables between pairs of facing seats. Susan was getting annoyed with Jimmy Savile – she was taking all the jealous remarks and schtick from the other girls for her ‘special place’ in his heart – but he showed no signs of taking any interest in her over and above a proper one as the daughter of his friend. The coach took them all, and some staff, to the BBC centre for tea in the canteen and a chance to meet some of the celebrities. Susan managed to sulk all the way through a meeting with Una Stubbs. Teenage angst.

But then came an afternoon when Savile called in to see her – or rather to watch the TV in the common room! It was the first showing of the reality programme featuring a Reading family and he was especially keen to see this pioneering programme. He was excited and as the chairs were lined up in the common room to allow everyone to watch this programme, staff included, Susan managed to sit next to her ‘special friend’. No ‘sofas’, no ‘blankets’, just ordinary open sided chairs, and she did sit next to him. As the programme started he grabbed her hand – ‘he was so excited’. At last! We have Savile in the TV lounge, sitting next to a girl, and sorry, he didn’t abuse her in any way…

Savile called on another occasion, this time accompanied by a younger man who had introduced TOTP a few times. The other girls were far more interested in this younger man (name withheld) with his spiky multi-coloured hair and exotic clothing, and Susan was able to sit chatting to Savile unnoticed by the other girls.  Funny, no one has ever mentioned him before. 

I can quite understand that by this time the build up of resentment of the preferential treatment Susan appeared to be getting from the staff on account of her celebrity visitor was getting on everyone’s nerves. Some of the older girls had been there for a long time, and nothing exciting ever happened to them. Here was this little slip of a girl who seemed to be living a charmed life, and it wasn’t fair. 

Ms Jones decreed that in future she was only to be allowed to meet Savile in Ms Jones office, away from prying eyes, but under Ms Jones gimlet eye. It didn’t help; it was still ‘special treatment’.

Susan would tell you that she was badly bullied following these visits, that photographs and other Savile memorabilia were stolen, that she was told to ‘stay away from Savile’ – other older girls had decided that they were more entitled to his attention – indeed had made up their mind that they would have it – or at least ‘him’. 

There were some worrying incidents – at a swimming class her head was held under water repeatedly by one of the girls, when she believed the staff were not observing – they were, and Susan was rescued.  One of the other girls was subjected to an unprovoked attack over an unrelated matter that had ended with her having her head seriously and repeatedly bashed against a chest of drawers – later that night, the perpetrator was moved to what used to be called the London Country Mental Hospital – later St. Bernards in Southall.

Susan had good reason to be frightened of some of the older girls, they didn’t just suffer from ‘emotional or behavioural’ difficulties, some had far more profound mental health troubles. Eventually, the staff moved her into the ‘isolation flat’ for her own protection. She was to stay there for several weeks until some of the older girls (who have figured in media reports, but shall remain nameless here) had moved on to Norman Lodge, the hostel for working girls. She only left the flat for daily lessons, but was still separated from the other girls.

The isolation wing consisted of a lounge, kitchen, and bathroom; it was housed in the new block that had been built onto the old Duncroft Manor to house girls who a decade before would have been in a secure mental hospital, but the law had changed, and now 16 was the school leaving age. There were but two identical rooms with a window, bed, magazines and a bell call. Next door was what has been termed the ‘padded cell’ – a room without any sharp objects, just soft furnishings, for the use of girls who were starting to return from home leave suffering from the effects of drugs such as LSD – very fashionable at the time, but a difficult time for the Duncroft staff.  

Susan didn’t enjoy her time in isolation, even though it was for her own protection rather than punishment; and she wrote to Savile telling him of her unhappiness. He called to see her. 

He had already said ‘Hello’ to the other girls as he passed them in the upper corridor when he appeared at the door of the isolation wing with, she thinks it was Anne O’Niall, a senior member of staff, at around 9.30pm. The girls were all sent to bed ‘en masse’ at 9.30pm, Ms Keenan or Mrs Kellagher would switch off the TV in the common room and announce ‘everybody upstairs’; they slept in dormitories of either four or six, so no one was alone in a dormitory. 

Savile was holding a set of keys with which to let himself out of the isolation wing. Susan told him he shouldn’t have the keys, he explained that he had been told to lock himself in. He gave her a hug and they sat on the sofa watching television. He shared his cigar with her, and explained why he couldn’t give her cigarettes directly – he always gave them to Ms Jones to ensure equal distribution amongst the girls to avoid conflict. He was particularly concerned about (name withheld) who had become, in his words, very ‘clingy’ and demanding of attention. 

Susan told him that she had been told by other girls that this particular girl ‘had fallen in love with him’ and that was part of the reason for the bullying she had been subjected to. Savile concluded that this was no more than a ‘teenage crush’, but that it might be wiser if he didn’t visit her at Duncroft any longer. He would still be a friend though. 

After three quarters of an hour, Ms O’Niall tapped on the communicating door and Savile let himself out and left with Ms O’Niall.

Shortly after this, Susan was called in for interview by Janet Theobald, the most junior member of staff. Miss Theobald referred to unspecified allegations made by girls against Savile. Susan was not told what the allegations were, who they were made by – nor, more importantly, who they were in respect of. Had somebody alleged that Savile had touched Susan inappropriately? Or was it that she was suspected of receiving more than her fair share of the cigarettes? She simply doesn’t know. To this day she doesn’t know. 

Later, Ms O’ Niall told her that (name withheld) had called out to him as they passed that dormitory and asked him to ‘tuck her in’ – she said the girl was acting strangely and she thought that this was where the allegation may have originated from. This was one of the girls who had demanded that Susan ‘stay away’ from Savile, for she was determined to ‘have him’.

Susan would tell you that Savile had never touched her inappropriately from the moment he discovered that she was just 15. He had been a good friend to her – although he had had more than ample opportunity to abuse her, if abusing 15 year old girls was his desire. She was also interviewed by Dr Mason, one of the two school psychiatrists. Again she reiterated that nothing untoward had ever taken place. She was repeatedly pressed on the matter, something that upset her greatly, and left her feeling she hadn’t been believed – but Ms Theobold took other girls to meet Savile in London,  so she felt that any concern was directed towards her position with him, and that, she felt sure, was entirely circumspect.

No other member of staff ever made reference to this matter, and after six weeks or so, the older girls who had been so unkind to her left and moved onto Norman Lodge, and Susan was able to leave the isolation wing and return to the main building and resume her education. 

To be continued…..

Once the older girls had moved onto Norman Lodge, and Susan was back in her dormitory, she wrote to Savile – a ‘come back all is forgiven’ letter in her words, there no longer seemed any reason why he shouldn’t continue to visit her and be her friend. She liked him, he was a straight talking Yorkshireman, and he understood her teenage fears – he was not as far removed from teenage life as perhaps her parents might have appeared to her at that time, although she remained close to her parents.

Certainly there was no objection from the staff, even those who she felt had been disbelieving that he had never touched her inappropriately – perhaps that stance was part of their technique for trying to get what could have been an unpalatable ‘truth’ from her? 

On one such visit to Susan, Savile was told of a young boy visiting Ms Jones, who by then was living in a house in the grounds (Hello? Meirion?) – he was very insistent that he wanted to meet this celebrity. Savile was not best pleased. He wasn’t ‘visiting Duncroft’ and thus ‘on duty’ as a celebrity – he was visiting his friend’s daughter. He reluctantly agreed. Susan looked out the window to see one of the Norman Lodge older girls getting in his car and being driven down the drive to Norman Lodge. Her old feelings of jealousy at the way in which her friendship with him was being usurped rose up again. She was told that the girl was sick, and he had offered her a lift for the short journey. She wasn’t best pleased. 

On another occasion, Savile brought a tape recorder with him; he thought some of the girls might be able to make an intelligent contribution to his radio programme, but only those over 16 and at Norman Lodge were allowed to contribute. The Duncroft girls were to feature in a special edition of ‘Savile’s Travels’ – though they were only identified as ‘intelligent girls’. That recording is out there somewhere, a permanent record of the only time he took his camper van to Duncroft. It was only the older working girls from Norman Lodge who were allowed to set foot in the camper van, the younger girls still resident in Duncroft were recorded inside the building – security demanded that they were not allowed to roam the grounds.

He called to see her on another week-end, unaware that she had gone home on home leave – the staff arranged an impromptu picnic on the front lawn for all the girls – Susan only heard about it when she returned on the Monday. Then she was told by (name withheld) that Janet Theobold had arranged for the girls to go up to London in the mini-bus to see the London Marathon because Savile was taking part in it. Savile wasn’t expecting them – no one had told him, but he arranged for soft drinks for all the girls – and then took off running across the streets of London! 

Susan had missed seeing him twice – but she arranged to see him on her home leave; with her Mother on one occasion, and alone on another – she particularly remembers that occasion because he bought her a tin of Sobrannie cigarettes, although he had always been very particular that cigarettes were a ‘treat’ that was only to be shared equally by the other girls and for that reason he always gave them to Ms Jones. 

Eventually, Susan moved on to Norman Lodge herself. Savile visited her there several times, they would sit in the open seating area where people (there were usually six girls and 2 staff in Norman Lodge) would wander past at will. She was working as a telephonist and filing clerk in a local firm, so had access to a telephone and was able to keep in regular touch with Savile when he was working at Broadmoor. She was waiting for Savile in Norman Lodge on one occasion, when she heard of an argument brewing at Duncroft – apparently a new girl, aged 14, was under the impression that Savile was going to visit her! She never heard any more of this argument, but assumed that jealousy was rearing its head once again!

Susan herself points out that Duncroft was a small and intimate atmosphere, no more than 20 girls and at least 15 staff. Had Savile displayed any inappropriate behaviour towards any of the girls, someone would have been only too glad to have told her – to ‘put her in her place’ apart from any other consideration. It would have been seen as a ‘result’ for the person concerned. There was much jealousy amongst the older girls at her having such a ‘special friend’. She is still, to this day, nervous at possible retribution for having spoken out against the prevailing wisdom that Savile was a ‘monster’ who took every opportunity to abuse young defenceless girls. 

She, herself, would have had no hesitation in reporting him to Ms Jones or more particularly her Mother. They were both, in her words, ‘strong women’ with a range of top level contacts, for whom Savile’s celebrity would have held no fears whatsoever. 

Nor were the girls over awed by his celebrity. They quickly got used to having him around and lots of persuasion was dreamt up towards the possibility of being included on a TOTPs outing – but the minimum age had been raised to 16. He gave Ms Jones boxes of cigarettes to hand out to mollify them – which amounted to an extra ten cigarettes per girl on at least two occasions, in addition to the 20 they were allowed to buy from their own money. 

Savile was not the only male in the vicinity of Duncroft. Other men came within its orbit – and also came under pressure from this group of teenage girls. There was a French teacher, hired specifically to help Susan and another (name withheld) with their French lessons. He left after three lessons, complaining that he was being asked provocative questions regarding his underwear and other matters that he considered inappropriate…..

Another man was the local priest, who never reappeared after one of the girls obtained a contraceptive and blew it up in front of him….

The history teacher was a film director, married to one of the doctors. Susan was most miffed to be excluded from a visit to his film studio to meet Sid James on the grounds that she was no longer going to his history lessons….

It was a febrile atmosphere. 

She is mortified that a man she met, who became a friend of her parents, who behaved impeccably when he knew her true age, who she introduced to Duncroft, should have become the subject of so much puerile speculation. She is deeply hurt on seeing phrases in the media such as ‘he treated Duncroft like a sweet shop and took his pick of the girls’ – when in her opinion, the only trouble he ever caused at Duncroft was that he didn’t ‘take his pick of the girls’ and created an outburst of jealousy that she, as the new girl, should have been given this ‘special friend’. She regrets now, that at times she allowed her own teenage jealousy to surface whenever he tried to appear even handed and share records and cigarettes with the other girls. 

She says that her friendship with him came not so very long after his Mother died, when he was feeling lonely – the life of a DJ may be glamorous, but it can be lonely; travelling around the country, constantly working so that others may enjoy the evening, dancing and laughing whilst you are thinking about what to say next to keep the atmosphere ‘happy’; moving from town to town – and that, through her, and her Mother, he came to see Duncroft as a place where he had a substitute ‘family’ where someone was always ‘at home’ and he was always welcome.

She feels guilty and saddened that this has been turned into the making of a ‘monster’ legend. 

You may wonder why you have never heard of Susan before. 

That would be because the girls who made the original complaint to Surrey police in 2007 never mentioned her – it was all about them. They didn’t tell the police that Savile was visiting the ‘new girl’, not Duncroft. The police didn’t interview any of the Duncroft staff, nor contact MIND or Barnardos, so they had no idea beyond the media version as to how Savile had ever come in contact with the place. 

Even Operation Outreach, the latest inquiry into the ‘Savile days’ at Duncroft would not have interviewed Susan had she not made contact with them herself and insisted on telling them the whole story. They have now video-d a three day interview with her. 

She would like to give evidence to the Dame Janet Smith inquiry, in view of all the trouble that has been caused to the BBC by this saga – but curiously, although Surrey Police gave her their blessing to give evidence there, the interviewed was vetoed by the Metropolitan police, in charge of Operation Yewtree, for reasons they haven’t disclosed – they don’t want Dame Janet Smith to hear this version of events in the foreseeable future. 

She stayed in touch with Savile, he would arrive for lunch with her parents – and was surprised when she met him in the 80s to hear that he had been invited back to Duncroft to attend a fete by one of the then current girls. He said he didn’t enjoy it, and didn’t feel comfortable in the atmosphere ‘everything had changed’ he said, although the staff were the same. 

She has said that if there is any truth in the allegations, she would be deeply saddened to hear that her friendship with Jimmy Savile might have been the catalyst for any hurt to anyone – she cannot think of any occasion on which he might have had the opportunity to abuse anyone – other than herself. She never heard, other than when she was questioned by Janet Theobold about unspecified, both in respect of the recipient, and of the nature of the allegations, of any question of inappropriate behaviour. 

And she is adamant, that he never did so abuse her, nor would have done. 

She speaks of ‘emotional contagion’ in respect of the allegations. If one or two people decide it might be a fine idea to rush out of a crowded theatre shouting ‘Fire!’ then the rest of the audience have their own reasons for following them, even if they haven’t witnessed any fire. Some may merely believe they are being helpful and responsible; others may have had previous experience of being in a burning building and truly believe they could see smoke. Some could merely have not enjoyed the show and be hopeful that this event might signify the return of their money.

Large numbers of people exciting the theatre doesn’t signify that there is a fire; nor do they deserve the pejorative term ‘Liars!’ It is considerably more complex than that.

The Savile Scandal has affected my Mother and I.  I have to live for the rest of my life wondering what sort of person I allowed into my heart.

If any Duncroft girl experienced abuse, why did she not warn me or anyone else because she would have been putting others at risk by not doing so?  The girls only had to say something to me and JS would have been OUT.  15 year old girls can be very provocative and it is likely that I was not the only one who tried putting temptation his way, however, he did not fall for it.

I remember talking to JS about the secret cameras at Duncroft which we were never sure about.  Perhaps JS believed he was safe with the cameras although there really was nowhere for him to be alone with anyone.  He wandered between the two common rooms and the office or staff room to use the WC.  Nobody was allowed upstairs and Miss Keenan had silent shoes which meant she could appear at even the slightest whispering of sin.

Hah! The ‘secret cameras’ rumour was still doing the rounds all those years later, eh? We were always paranoid as to how the staff managed to know everything we planned – we never did figure out that they were just that much cleverer than us – no, it had to be secret cameras…

And Bridie Keenan still had the soft shoes…nowt much had changed!

[Picture of Jimmy Savile lifted from Jonathan King's latest hour long epic which contains some interesting reflections on Jimmy Savile]

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that Freddie Starr should not be prosecuted for any offence.

Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said:

“Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Freddie Starr in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by 13 individuals. Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences.

“In relation to one further complainant, we have decided that although there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a prosecution would not be in the public interest. It must be remembered that a determination by a prosecutor that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute under the Code does not mean that the suspect is guilty of the offence. Prosecutors have to consider whether there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial but deciding whether an offence has been committed is entirely a matter for courts and juries and every suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

“All of these decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences. The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision.”

The CPS received initial material from the Metropolitan Police Service regarding these allegations in December 2012. Investigative advice was provided to the police throughout 2013 and the final evidence was submitted to the CPS in March 2014.

Another Yewtree branch drops off….

Inmates place their bets on the unscathed survival of the latest pupil at Grayling’s ‘School for Scandal’.

The Criminal Justice Bill has attracted a lot of attention – not least because of the provisions to amend that most favoured of current charges – the possession of extreme pornographic images. There are other sections of the Bill, however, listed under ‘and for connected purposes’. Hidden in there is a provision so breathtaking in its stupidity that I thought I must be dreaming.

Whilst our media are consumed with the dangers the world might hold for young women, our new Head of the CPS crows that the CPS is now comprised of 60% women, presumably suitably indoctrinated in the dark arts of prosecuting elderly celebrities, and television companies vie with each other to turn damaged middle aged women into light entertainment – Chris Grayling has his own ideas on how to create a society safe from abuse for young girls – in an ‘economically efficient manner’.

Crying ‘Eureka’ from his bath tub, he has reinvented the wheel first thought of by Professor W O Bell in the 60s – the key to helping young offenders is to help them back into education! Duncroft, Ms Jones and Professor Bell, stand up and take a bow – ’tis only on this blog that you will get any credit for having put this revolutionary idea into practice 40 years ago. Grayling thinks it is all his own work…

It does work – and many of us have emerged from Duncroft to live long and useful lives – but I wouldn’t fancy our chances had we had to endure Grayling’s version of this ‘enlightenment’. Read on MacDuff – and prepare to be amazed.

He doesn’t say what his brilliant idea will cost – “we have not provided monetised estimates of costs and benefits where doing so would prejudice the effectiveness of a competition for the delivery of services”. Apparently every area of the costing would be so prejudicial to the free market, but he is certain that it will be more ‘economically efficient’. Estimates of the cost from outside sources suggest around £85 million, and plans are obviously fairly advanced even without the legislation because it is planned to be up and running in 2017.

He is to build a new ‘secure college’ in the East Midlands for young offenders. I like the terminology – ’tis what used to be called an approved school – but most unlike Duncroft.

This one will house 320 children. Whilst you might recognise the 5% of young future female inmates of 12 – 15 year old girls as being ‘children’ – you would have a tough job establishing which were staff and which were inmates amongst the 290 odd 96% of young offenders who are fully grown, 17 year old males.

This particular group of young males have a 76% chance of reoffending on release – they are not ‘all angels’! Throwing 30 12 year old girls into this mix is a recipe for disaster – though I note that Schedule 4, (8(c)) and (10) plans to allow for ‘reasonable force’ [according to rules which have not yet been published] to be used in order to restrain them…in 2008, the Court of Appeal [R (on the application of C) (a minor) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882] ruled that using force (Pindown) to maintain ‘good order and discipline’ amongst young offenders was ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ and contravened Article 3 of the ECHR. Quite how he plans to keep all those hormonally challenged 17 year old males off the 12 year old girls without using force remains to be seen.

Since Grayling is so concerned about not affecting the ‘free market of competition for services’ I am assuming that this hell hole will be privately run and staffed – yet there is no mention in the Bill of minimum training levels or qualifications. These things will be established by Ministerial order once he has got his Bill through parliament. You know, whilst we are no longer looking…worryingly, Grayling says he want providers to ‘innovate’ in the running of this establishment.

Logic dictates that if 95% of the inmates are tough young males, then the regime will cater to their needs, and they will dominate the atmosphere.

Is this really where the millions expended on ‘child protection’ and the pursuit of elderly celebrities has led us? A couple of cheap television programmes, a new ‘King’ of the ‘kiss and tell’, or more prosaically the ‘kiss and felled by Yewtree’ these days, risen to take Max Clifford’s place, and our response is to throw a handful of young girls into a massive new prison filled with young men and say ’tis OK, they are being educated’?

Does anybody care?

The Sunday Express has disinterred Mike Hames this morning – the ex-head of the old ‘Obscene Publication Squad’ before it became the keyword friendly and up-to-the-minute ‘Paedophile Information Section’.

They brought him out of retirement to comment on their astounding discovery of a ‘snuff movie’ – his specialist subject. His delight was tangible – he described the seizure of the “snuff” video as “incredibly important” because it appeared to verify long held suspicions such material existed. Long held – by Mike Hames that is. A theory successfully transferred to the a-gog and cheerfully gullible media over many years of backstage briefings. 

Unfortunately it is still a theory – although there must now be thousands of readers of the main stream media who are under the impression that snuff movies do exist and that many a policeman is condemned to spend his days watching such material. The truth is that despite the Paedophile Information Section spending many a long day watching porn movies, and viewing images – not one of them has yet confirmed that they have ever found a ‘snuff movie’ in their stash.

The latest case is no exception. A 22 year old Latvian man, Andreas Bauminis, was charged with possession of a deeply unpleasant video depicting the rape of a girl which purported to show her being strangled and dragged from the room wrapped in plastic. Simulated rape, murder and disposing of bodies are standard fare on TV these days, even before the ‘watershed’, but one has to assume that this video didn’t discretely conceal sexual organs from display so comes under the heading of pornographic and would have offended Ofcom even more than the playing of the original 40 year old recording of ‘The Sun Has Got His Hat on’.

The information that led to Andreas Bauminis being jailed came from Russia – they had monitored the upload of suspicious material that was traced to his computer. On the computer was found a quantity of Japanese cartoons, commonly known as Manga, which depict the sexual abuse of children and animals – amongst other subjects. The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 brought in by the Labour government after pressure from the NSPCC made possession of such cartoons illegal. Like electronic cigarettes, they are said to persuade onlookers to try the ‘real thing’. 

However, amongst the cartoons was a film, which ‘appeared’ to show a teenage girl, and ‘appeared’ to show her being murdered. Nobody knows whether she was teenaged, nor even murdered, because nobody knows who she was. She ‘appeared’ to be American, but nobody knows where the film was made, so not necessarily in America.

All those ‘appeared’ to be factors were sufficient for the detective in charge to say: “If it was acting, it was better than an Oscar-winning performance: her eyes didn’t blink or move at all.”

This in turn led the Judge to say: while it was difficult to be certain that the girl had died on camera “all the evidence points to the fact that she almost certainly did”.

Which led Tom Watson MP to say: “If the view of the judge and the police in this case is true, then Britain’s police have sat on evidence of a child murder for over a year’. (At least he qualified his statement.)

Tom Watson’s appearance in the story brought Mike Hames out of his 20 year retirement as a ‘police officer specialising in child protection’, (the year he left the Obscene Publication Squad was the year it was disbanded and denuded of its ability to chase homosexuals round the west end of London demanding they cease nailing their nipples to bread boards and that its 17 officers concentrate on child porn –  a strange time to have retired for a child protection expert) and go on to pursue a career making ‘documentaries about child abuse‘ and commentating on the McCann case for Sky (he was Martin Brunt’s preferred successor to take over in Pria da Luz when Mark Williams Thomas departed) criticising the Portuguese Police as incompetent, and setting up a series of companies carrying out background checks on potential employees for child protection purposes.

Why would Tom Watson have any connection with Mike Hames? That would be because Mike Hames was the metropolitan police officer involved in a ‘raid on a gay brothel’ where ‘one of those interviewed’, when asked who he was, replied ‘I’m a Cabinet Minister’. He passed this information onto Tom Watson…

Mike Hames tenure as head of the Obscene Publications Squad marked an increase in pursuit of illegal homosexual activity from 5 investigations a year to nearer 40. By 1990 the new unit was requesting an average of one new search warrant every week.  Paedophilia at that time seemed to mean homosexual activity with an ‘under-age child’ – which meant a man below the age of 21.

An early example of media manipulation is Operation Spanner, which Hames was in charge of, which originally spoke of  the ‘Child Protection Act’ (Times, September 16 1989) and listed an array of charges that made it seem as though the 16 men from different countries ‘arrested as a result of a two year investigation’ were part of the fabled ‘paedophile rings’ – but Operation Spanner ended as R v Brown – the afore mentioned four men and a bread board. No children involved, just four consenting homosexual sadomasochists – the only mention of children was in connection with a few indecent images found at one of the premises.

Hames was at one point married to Jackie Hames*, who left the police force to take on the lead role in ‘Crimewatch UK’ – one of the first programmes to use crime as light entertainment by presenting ‘fictionmentaries’. She later went on to figure largely in the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign against phone hacking, complaining that her phone was hacked, a subject close to Tom Watson’s heart.

Hames was to go on to make ‘The Hunt for Britain’s Paedophiles’ – at the end of the first episode, the audience was gravely informed that ‘the Scotland Yard Paedophile Unit had received further information’ as a result of the programme which had ‘led to the discovery of a body’ - the audience were kept on the edge of their seats throughout this subsequent episode by a detective commenting that the flat they were searching (on camera) of a ‘known child sex offender’ had a strange smell, like ‘that of a dead body’. Was a child’s abused body about to be discovered? No. As the credit’s rolled and the nation’s kettles were set to boil, it was revealed that the dead body which had earlier been discovered was that of the ‘prior offender’ who had committed suicide on discovering that he was to be featured in this new ‘crime/fiction/reality show’.

Mike Hames left the Obscene Publication Squad in 1994, just as it was turned into the Paedophile Information Section in 1994 to follow a familiar media career path for ex-policemen. Even 20 years later.

*Mike Hames then went on to marry Caroline Bullen, an actress who interrupted the tedious hours of viewing on line porn by turning up “at Harrow Road as a Polish interpreter, wearing hotpants and thigh-length boots.” (No, I am positively not going there…..) 

*Has anybody yet discovered how that ageing ledger from the ‘Paedophile Investigation Unit’ 1961/1981 made its way to the NSPCC and Operation Yewtree?

Across the globe, a new variety of ‘spiritual’ leader is arising to cheers from the grim faced populace. The ‘moral’ guardian. We have no truck any longer with men in long black dresses, with books full of unbelievable factoids and fantasies, as guides for what is right and wrong. They cannot be ‘trusted’, they cannot be believed.

In their place, we have a new variety of celebrity ‘spiritual’ leaders. We are encouraged to accept everything they say; they ‘know more than they can reveal’, they are privy to the innermost secrets of dark and dangerous practices that we must be protected from. We cluster round them, anxious to hear more of their factoids and fantasies, as guides for what is right and what is wrong. Can they be any more believed than the men in black dresses? Does it actually matter if their claims are any more believable than that of feeding the five thousand on five little fishes? Surely the ‘good’ that they are achieving in righting wrongs matters more than whether the back story that led them to prominence is accurate or a flight of fantasy?

When you appoint yourself the ‘moral guardian’ of a ‘vulnerable child’ or ‘vulnerable adult’ by the very label of ‘vulnerable’ you have undermined their ability to think or act for themselves.  You have invalidated whatever decisions they made in life in a manner that they can only escape by going along with your solution. The ‘moral guardians’ have a veritable lexicon of emotive words – trafficked, enslaved, trapped, abused, disempowered – that they use to place their chosen victims in a trap of the guardian’s choosing.  Is that trap any better than the one they are apparently being rescued from? If we are to believe that it is, then it is important that we have total faith in the ‘rescuer’, the moral guardian. We cannot have that faith if they are not truthful.

Is there any difference between the qualitative value of a priesthood that takes the spare cash, to support itself, of a deprived population on promises of a better future in the hereafter, the lawyer that takes a chunk of charity money, to support itself, from a damaged population on promises of a better future with ‘compensation’ or the NGO who takes government money, to support itself, from a damaged population on promises of a better future working in a sweat-shop? The NGOs, the lawyers, the priests, the moral guardians, all have a similar ability to prey – or pray – on people enslaved by their chosen labels.

It has taken us hundreds of years to question whether the victims of the priesthood (and though I use the term priesthood, I actually refer to all organised religious groups) might actually have been better off without their tender ministrations; fortunately, there are still a few determined journalists who are questioning the morals and motives of those NGOs who support their lifestyle by claiming never ending grants for saving ‘vulnerable adults’ – in the latest case, that of the ‘victims of sex trafficking in Cambodia’. Simon Marks, his name is, and a brave man he is too; he will no doubt be labelled a ‘rape apologist’ for daring to question the behaviour of those who seek to ‘rescue trafficked women’ from a life of ‘enslaved prostitution’, for it is out of the question that any mere woman could have chosen to let herself be so ‘abused’ by evil men, nor that any sort of life would not be better than ‘selling her body’.

Simon has been following the progress of Somaly Mam as she rose to prominence on a tsunami of emotive credentials built on her back story of a tragic survivor of sexual abuse in a mysterious world of tribal villagers and sacred spirits. It was a world as unknown to most of us as is the hereafter – we had to trust the story teller. Mam was able to escape her alleged life of servitude by her own efforts – she met and married a Frenchman, Pierre Legros. It is strange how often the moral guardians are themselves untouched by the supposedly inescapable evils that others must be protected from. 

Mam and Legros formed an NGO, one which appealed to the media. They were going to rescue the helpless, hapless Cambodian girls from a lifetime of being forced to sell their bodies. The very idea that this might be a choice for some of the girls was a heresy; that they may chose to ‘escape’ of their own volition unthinkable. A moral guardian on the warpath is a near unstoppable force. Only a rape apologist could possibly voice such a thought.

Somaly Mam produced victims with excruciating stories for the media’s delectation. Long Pross, who ‘had an eye gouged out by an angry pimp’; Meas Ratha – ‘sold to a brothel and held against her will as a sex slave’. Mam herself claimed when she was invited to speak at the White House that she was ‘sold into slavery, aged 9, and spent a decade in a brothel’. Money and resources poured in to defeat this evil, these stories that ‘any journalist would want’. The focus of the US State Department shifted from counterterrorism to anti-human trafficking – many of the staff transferred from one department to another. Same people, different funding source. There is big money in fighting the good fight.

This good fight was little more than a Chimera; Meas Ratha has admitted she fabricated her story; Long Pross has suffered the indignity of being proved a liar when her medical records were unearthed and it was seen that her damaged eye was the result of a childhood tumour; Somaly Mam has resigned from the foundation after publication of more of Simon Mark’s meticulous journalism finding her old school friends testifying that she not only finished secondary education but then went off to teacher training college with them…

Now a few lies in the back story of those who are apparently doing so much good in the world might not matter, were it not for the inconvenient truth that those apparently ‘saved’ by Mam are then implanted into sweat shops – working for low wages for men producing cheap t-shirts worn by college students studying ‘gender issues’ in the US. It is just possible that some of those rescued had actually escaped from the sweat shops to a chosen lifestyle of sex worker. It’s scarcely progress is it – except for those carefully positioned in the middle, who pick up awards and grants along the way.

[Mam] was named a “Hero of Anti-Trafficking” by the U.S. State Department in 2007, Glamour’s “Woman of the Year” in 2006, and one of Time’s “Most Influential People” in 2009.

The counterpart to Mam’s evocative stories is Thomas Steinfatt, a professor of statistics at the University of Miami, who has done several reports on sex trafficking for the U.N.’s Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking.

In a 2008 study, for which he spent months conducting surveys in all corners of Cambodia, he estimated there were no more than 1,058 victims of trafficking in Cambodia and has said the situation has improved markedly since then.

The number of children, both those observed as sex workers and those mentioned by management or by sex workers in the 2008 data, was 127, with 11 of the children verifiably under age 15 and six under age 13. The high-end estimate for the number of children likely involved in sex work in Cambodia in 2008 was 310 children.

There is money and resources out there for those willing to do or say the right thing. Like the young women who lied for the media at Mam’s urging. 

“A large number of organisations get sucked into using children to raise funds: making them talk about the abuse they survived in front of a camera, having their picture in a pitiful situation published for everyone to see. In worst cases, the truth is distorted or the stories invented to attract more compassion and money. The impact on the lives of these children is terrible: If they come from an abusive situation, such a process re-traumatises them and in any case it stigmatises them forever.”

In my last piece I tried to set out something of the origins and psychology of the original “witch hunt” in early modern Europe, and tried to identify the aspects of the psychology. May I thank the readers for the many insightful comments.

Let us then jump forward and look at a modern-day “witch hunt”. I could pick many, but I am particularly interested in the current frenzy which surrounds allegations of so-called “historic” sexual abuse.

I think it is important to be aware that from the 1970’s certain new theories began to gain currency in academia and social science worlds, to do with the amount of “hidden” but endemic child abuse and incest as part of a patriarchal society. Very broadly one could analyse these as growing out of a radical “feminist” agenda. I do not have time to set out the whole story here, and I am not sure I am qualified to do justice to it at the moment, but I think it is significant that such theories were, in the ghastly modern parlance, “gaining traction”.

With that in mind, two immediately spring to mind concerning alleged sexual abuse on a grand scale.

Between February and July of 1987 121 children on Teesside were taken from their families and placed in care. Dr Marietta Higgs and her colleague Dr Geoffrey Wyatt believed a controversial diagnostic practice called RAD – reflex anal dilatation – indicated abuse had taken place. Briefly, this involves gently parting the buttocks and observing the anus for half a minute.  Usually, the sphincter on the outside of the anus will contract and then dilate, as pressure is maintained.  Sometimes the inside sphincter will then also relax giving a view right into the rectum.  It is this response that has been named RAD. Pausing there, I have to say that if someone started messing about with me like that not only would I probably exhibit the symptoms of “abuse”, but very shortly afterwards I would deploy my fists and any nearby object such as a chair which could be used as a weapon with extreme ferocity.

Drs Hobbs and Wynne reported that RAD was present in 42% of anally abused children they examined, and claimed that it was an important indicator of abuse. They stated that they had not witnessed RAD in non-abused children.  They also claimed that splits or fissures around the anus are very rare in the non-abused child.

In just five months Dr Higgs had diagnosed 78 children as having been the victims of sexual abuse. Many had come to hospital for complaints such as asthma and there was no other evidence of abuse.

On July 9, 1987 the Secretary of State for Social Services ordered that a public inquiry be held into the scandal. It was 12 months later when Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – the chair of the inquiry – published her report.

In her final conclusions Baroness Butler-Sloss stated that the problems of child sexual abuse had become more recognised in the early 1980s which caused “particularly difficult problems for the agencies concerned in child protection”.

Baroness Butler-Sloss went on to state: “In Cleveland an honest attempt was made to address these problems by the agencies. In Spring 1987 it went wrong.”

I should add, by the way, that whilst I might perhaps rather disagree with the content of “The Hammer of the Witches”, or even the sanity of its author, I have no grounds to impugn the honesty of his attempts to address a perceived problem. No doubt he made an honest attempt to address his concerns too.

The public inquiry found most of the allegations of sexual abuse were unfounded and all but 27 children were returned to their families. The two doctors were criticised for “over-confidence” in their methods. I should imagine Rebbeka Kemp’s husband would have said the same about the town council in Nördlingen.

Whilst researching this piece I found a fabulous article in the Institute for Psychological Studies Journal by (now) Professor Felicity Goodyear-Smith, whom I understand to be a doctor, author and academic hailing from New Zealand. It is interesting that my brief research has revealed that both she has written criticising techniques such as RAD and on the topic of false memory syndrome, and also that she appears to have received a great deal of nasty allegations on the web. The full piece can be found here.

Since it is on the web anyway I hope the good Professor won’t mind too much if I set out a little bit of it as an example. Here she was dealing with allegations based on a theory to do with hymenal damage rather than “RAD”:

“Unfortunately, the belief that hymenal diameters greater than 4mm indicate sexual abuse has permeated the field.  I have examined a number of medical reports of vaginal examinations where hymenal sizes less than 10mm have been reported by the examining physician as indicating probable abuse.

In one particular case, a woman doctor in Christchurch, New Zealand, examined three sisters and gave the opinion that they had all probably been molested.  She claimed that her examination of the 5-year-old revealed “a transverse vaginal diameter of 5mm, and no evidence of a hymen” which she found “highly suggestive of penetration.”

The 9-year-old had a transverse vaginal opening of 3.5mm, with hymenal remnants, which she concluded was “suggestive of some interference to the vagina,” and the 10-year-old had a transverse opening of 6mm, with no definite hymen, which she believed was “strongly indicative of vaginal penetration.”

The three girls were then subjected to a number of sexual abuse assessments.  In her first interview session, the eldest girl was told that the doctor’s examination showed that she had been the victim of “bad touching” and had a “hurt between her legs.”  Despite being repeatedly questioned about who had caused the “hurt,” she continued to deny any molestation.  Even after two counsellors performed a role play with her about a “father who hurts kids between their legs” she was adamant that nothing like that had happened to her.  Sadly she was not believed and all three children were placed in a foster home.  Their father was charged with sexual violation of all his daughters, especially the eldest.  It was a year and a half before his case was heard in court, where he was acquitted on all charges.

Now I can’t verify the details of the case, but assuming that this account is correct then it displays all the classic elements of the witch hunt – especially a fixed belief in pseudo science and questioning designed to reach the pre-ordained result – bar, fortunately, the penalty of the accused. On a personal note, I used to date a woman who worked for a particular medical centre for vulnerable people. She told me that she would never let her children go there; it was regular practice to separate children from their mothers and apply probing inquisitorial techniques, often observed in secret via a two-way mirror, seeking out “signs” of abuse.

But I digress. Another scandal followed. In the late 80s there were stories of abuse which broke first in Rochdale and the Orkneys and in a TV documentary claiming to have evidence of “satanic” abuse. This resulted in children being seized in dawn raids and taken forcibly into care. It was, of course, utter nonsense.

Four years later an official inquiry by Jean La Fontaine, emeritus professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics, concluded there was no corroborating evidence that satanic ritual sexual abuse existed. And anyone who knows anything about real satanic ritual would have known that anyway.

And then on a slightly different but related tack there was the work of Professor Roy Meadow. He rose to initial fame for his 1977 academic paper on the now controversial Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. He was knighted for this work. He endorsed the dictum that “one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proved otherwise” in his book ABC of Child Abuse and this became known as “Meadow’s Law” and at one time was widely adopted by social workers and child protection agencies (such as the NSPCC) in Britain. He came up with a mathematical theory to add weight to this evidence, namely that the chances of three children dying of unidentified natural causes were 1 in 73 million.

He appeared as an expert witness for the prosecution in several trials, in at least one of which his testimony played a crucial part in a wrongful conviction for murder. The British General Medical Council (GMC) struck off Meadow from the British Medical Register after he was found to have offered “erroneous” and “misleading” evidence in the Sally Clark case, although later re-instated. Clark was a lawyer wrongly convicted in 1999 of the murder of her two baby sons, largely on the basis of Meadow’s evidence; her conviction was quashed in 2003 after she had spent three years in jail. Sally Clark never recovered from the experience, developed a number of serious psychiatric problems including serious alcohol dependency and died in 2007 from alcohol poisoning.

In offering statistical evidence of this type Meadow had stepped well out of his field of expertise. As I understand or recall it, it was finally trashed when the enterprising defence counsel wheeled out an eminent professor of maths and statistics who explained exactly why. They should have just called Dr FJ.

Dr FJ is friend of mine from college days, formerly a research fellow at one of the most eminent Cambridge Colleges, and is now Head of Science for one of the world’s leading science and technology companies, based in the USA. I told him about “Meadow’s Law” and his statistic, and he just rolled his eyes in instant disdain. As for the statistics, he had a lot to say about random theory, and the actual probability of the results of the toss of a coin or roll of a dice. He put it this way:

If you roll, a dice the probability that you will get a “6” is 1 in 6.
If you roll the dice a second time, the probability that you will get a “6” is…the same. 1 in 6.
But if you roll the dice several times and keep getting a 6, the reasonable indications are that the there is some anomalous force which is excluding the other numbers. But you can’t say how it has been fixed; it could be a magnet, a weight or sleight of hand, the decree of the Sky Pixie or an alien ray, or anything else.

Now in terms of Meadow’s law, it was just rank wrong maths and bad science, he said. The best that you could say was that there could be some external extra feature operating, but without more it would be impossible to say what it was; it could be anything from genetics, to environment or smoking, or yes, even murder. In fact on the basis of two or even three events it could even be a random aberration but not statistically conclusive of anything. But of itself, Meadow’s calculation and conclusions were simply, in scientific terms, balderdash. He used another word, actually.

Well, that was that sorted then. But there were a number of convictions that had to be quashed and lives wrecked.

I do not think I can identify the psychological factor of concerns about taboo sexuality in Meadow’s work, but one can see moral panic and the demonisation of a vulnerable group: bereaved mothers alleged to have committed a social taboo, namely infanticide. Again we see a strongly motivated “expert” or power figure, one might also say with an agenda, and advancing a seemingly iron cast theory as fact. That theory was then accepted as sound without question by a legal profession which, away from the TCC and Patents Court, often flounders with scientific method.

Meanwhile, in 1991 stories began to be published saying that Bryn Estyn, a home for adolescent boys on the outskirts of Wrexham, was the hub of a network of a paedophile ring. Many allegations were levelled, including that senior members of the Police were involved and covering up the abuse….

©Gildas the Monk

After the idea of anyone under the age of 18 engaging in any form of sex, nothing excites the British quite so much as the idea of paying for sex. Paying with money that is. We have never made up our mind whether it is paying money for sex or receiving money for sex that is the greater crime.

You note that I stipulate ‘money’; in the current act payment is defined as ‘financial advantage’ or the provision of ‘goods or services’, but the idea that the expensive bauble draped round your neck over dinner might be exchanged later that night for sexual relief doesn’t seem to upset people to quite the degree that using dirty pound notes to establish consent to a contract for a mutual exchange of bodily fluids does. 

The increasingly pessimistic view of the male of the species which is currently infecting the Feministas on the left as brutish hordes who must be restrained before they violate even the Lesbians amongst them has long had a problem with prostitutes. They renamed them ‘sex-workers’ to give them due dignity as liberated women, but then realised that this still left men with an outlet for their ‘darker side’ as it is now known. ‘We can’t be having that’, they cried.

And so, for 2014, ‘sex-workers’ are being re-cast as ‘victims of Human Trafficking’. Such an evil, redolent of the chains of slavery, must be extinguished, banned, outlawed. Across the nation, worthy moral guardians have girded their loins and pontificated at length on the perils that befall vulnerable females who have been forced into deciding to have sex – not by the man with the filthy lucre, but by even more evil men who have terrified the poor mite into doing so.

Where did we first begin to lose the sense that these were intelligent women who had made the decision that they would support their children – or their drug habit, let us not be picky – by taking the cash rather than the diamonds?

I would suggest that the first sign was the 2008 publication of the report by the Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield. Now being a Libertarian, rather than a Feminist, I do question the wisdom and cost of establishing the Human Trafficking Centre before setting them the task of finding out whether there was any Human Trafficking going on in Great Britain. It does make their conclusion less than surprising; of course there was, and they were just the people to tackle it!

Jackie ‘the bath plug’ Smith announced to loud cheers that ‘Operation Pentameter Two’ had been a ‘great success’ – ‘arresting 528 criminals associated with one of the worst crimes threatening our society’.

Oh dear; the truth dissolved into mere assertions faster than ‘Operation Yewtree’ claims of more ‘celebrity arrests next week’. The Guardian, to its credit, dug deeper and discovered an embarrassing shortage of sex traffickers, despite the six months of trawling by 55 different police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together with the UK Border Agency, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Foreign Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish government, the Crown Prosecution Service and various NGOs in what was trumpeted as “the largest ever police crackdown on human trafficking”.

Those 528 arrests vaporised into just five men convicted of trafficking – all five of whom had been arrested before Operation Pentameter had commenced. The police had raided – and disrupted a business which contributes £5bn to the UK economy – in 822 brothels, massage parlours and saunas, and failed to find a single new victim besides the two they already knew about. 

Cambodia is not the only country where you wait in vain for the appearance of the ‘Lesser Spotted Sex Trafficked Victim‘. 

The Moral Guardians are not dissuaded by mere facts though. Reason can be buried under a tottering pile of speculative claims and crushed by hysterical allegations. Perhaps a country with two trafficked sex-workers was not in need of legislation to outlaw prostitution – but surely a country that had arrested 528 ‘criminals’ associated with one of the ‘worst crimes threatening society’ needed to protect their ‘victims’? Truth fled in the face of moral outrage, reason shook its head and departed the scene. The Moral Guardians drew up legislation…

Across the UK, variations of Human Trafficking acts came into play; though where the International definition of trafficking in the UN Protocol defines it as a person ‘trafficked for sex against their will or with the use of coercion or force’, the UK version says simply arranging air tickets for someone intending to work in the sex trade – of their own free will – means that you will have contravened the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. 

The drive was on to see all women, everywhere, as victims of beastly men. Harriet Harman was pressing to be allowed to outlaw ‘paying for sex’. She didn’t succeed.

What she did succeed in doing was to make independent women more vulnerable. She hid them away, banned them from the streets or operating out of cars with other people around. The strumpet house which had operated since Shakespearean times has always been a bone of contention; it is probably the safest way for prostitutes to operate – with a maid, and other girls around, or even God forbid, a man for security – but has been illegal since 1956. Isolated in this way, they are more vulnerable to the attentions of a pimp. It is a curious way in which to protect women, should that be your intention.

“Sex workers, for good legitimate reasons, choose to work through agencies or brothels. These agents offer sex workers security, anonymity and general companionship. It would be considered an abuse of our human rights if the government were to force every worker in the land to work alone and without contact with fellow workers.”

Now the attention is turning to the customers. Sweden has had ‘tremendous success’ following criminalisation of those purchasing sex services – ‘since 1999 the number of women working the streets has halved’.

Advertising of prostitution through the internet has increased in Sweden. This is not due to the law, but to the development of online technology generally.

So lone women, advertising on the Internet, working alone in apartments, scared to let the neighbours know to ‘keep an ear out’ in case their customers are prosecuted, is considered an advantage, a success, a model we should be following?

It’s not as simple as that, naturally – and tomorrow I shall be looking at the economics surrounding the ‘rescue’ of this new variety of ‘vulnerable victim’ that is being created out of the oldest profession.

The sex-workers are not taking it lying down.

So often, what you are not told in court cases proves more interesting than what you are told.

Down in deepest Ceredigion, where the Teifi and the Dulas merge in a damp and noisy embrace, sits Lampeter. It has long been a refuge for those, who, how shall we say, wish to live an alternative lifestyle.  It is cheap, and they are used to people smelling of goats rather than Chanel No 5. Just as well, since there are rather a lot of ladies who live with other ladies and prefer mating goats and wearing elderly second hand Peruvian sweaters. Inevitably, there is not a lot of money around.

There it was that Ms ‘X’ chose to rear her son. As her son grew into a fine young 15 year old – but still a child, he became aware of two things. Other people ate MacDonalds, and Chicken Nuggets, and Kebabs and everything; and there was a new wave of understanding for victims of child abuse. ‘They will be believed’. It was a turning point in his life.

So it was that he reported his Mother to Social Services. ‘Why, she feeds me nothing but oats and carrots’, he said. ‘Nooo’, cried Social Services, ‘that is horrific’. ‘And she makes me sleep on the floor’.

We can presume from the ensuing court case, that neither Social Services nor the Police ever set foot in the house to check what food might be in the cupboards, or whether there were indeed beds available. Why should they? Every allegation must be taken seriously these days, a ‘child’ has spoken.

And so they arranged for kindly foster parents to care for the boy, at taxpayer expense. They hired lawyers and wrote reports, and eventually turned up at Aberystwyth Magistrates Court in January where the angry Mum declined to enter a plea for herself, and so they played fair and entered a ‘not-guilty’ plea. The magistrates at Aberystwyth decided that this was far too serious a case for them to hear, and so they sent the case for trial at Swansea Crown Court.

Crown Court meant that Barrister had to be hired for both sides, and this was duly arranged. Six months later, after more reports, and case conferences, the great day arrived. Mum turned up in the regulation Lampeter sweater – and no shoes.

The boy turned up, along with the regulation social workers and ‘victim support’ and all the paraphernalia required to ensure that a child felt free to speak in the intimidating atmosphere of the mighty judicial system, and was invited to tell the court of the horrors of being fed carrots and oats. Was it just the once? Every Day? Were they broke that week?

He declined.

What was interesting is that the Crown had no other evidence to put forward. Not a social services report on the house, nor a report on the Mother. No investigation. Nothing. Just the ‘child’s allegation’.

So they had no choice other than to tell the woman she was free to leave the court. We will never know whether a genuine child abuser walked barefoot from court that day – because such is the strength of the ‘You will be believed’ mantra, we don’t investigate any longer. We just believe them.

As far as I know, the boy with the pristine colon and exceptional eyesight returned to his foster parents for a slap up supper…

The notion that sex in some circumstances is degrading harks back to ideas of racial purity, eugenics even. Some sexual acts can be degrading, both to men and women – but it is never the act that moral campaigners refer to as degrading – it is the circumstances preceding it, and those partaking of the act. You hear little of male prostitutes, nor of whether women are their clients; but the Feministas are obsessed with female prostitutes – despite evidence that some of their clients are women!

According to those indelibly stained by years of Gender and Equality studies, if a woman consents to sex after a man has handed £75 to a suburban pub chef newly installed in an East End refurbished warehouse – that is the enviable product of years of intense lobbying to give women the freedom to say ‘what they want’. However, if he cuts out the middleman, and hands the money directly to the woman, that is an act of degradation; in Northern Ireland, it is an act that they wish to see criminalised.

Yesterday saw the anniversary of International Whores Day, which marks the 2nd June 1972 when 100 French prostitutes occupied the Église Saint-Nizier in Lyon to protest against their working conditions. Campaigners had successfully lobbied the government to force the women out of sight, off the streets – and this had resulted in the murder of two of them. In Dublin, the Monto district was once reputed to be the largest ‘red-light district in Europe’; campaigners successfully engineered The Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 1993 which forced the largely ‘independent’ and feisty sex workers off the streets – and equally resulted in the murder of two young women, forced by the law into the disempowering shady network of brothels and massage parlours. 

I can comprehend and sympathise with the aims of those campaigners who wish to support women who chose to leave a life of prostitution; what I cannot comprehend is those who wish to criminalise women who chose of their own free will to support themselves and their families and drive them into the arms of such campaigners. Working in a battery hen farm is unpleasant, there are various people who find their very existence disgusting, some workers may be exposed to illness or danger working there – but we respond by improving working conditions, demanding minimum wages, offering health cover; not by banning the sale of chicken. Nor do we cheerfully believe that every battery farm worker has been ‘forced’ to work there, or ‘trafficked’ to do so.

The power of message manipulation is intoxicating to a moral guardian. Readers are transported to a literary dimension where stifling old school journalistic rules do not exist. The message is ideologically driven – reason tells you that not all prostitutes are victims, of anything or anyone – but the bias translator is a powerful tool, and in small groups that suppress any dissent, they transport a far from homogenous group of individuals into their client group of vulnerable victims. 

Sex-work prohibitionists have long seen trafficking and sex slavery as a useful Trojan horse. Some of the biggest and most vociferous groups in Ireland have surprisingly generous funding from even more surprising sources. There is ‘Ruhama‘ named after the Hebrew for ‘one who was spared’, which immediately conjures up an image of someone who could not help themselves, rescued from a modern form of slavery which fits with the radical feminist view of sex being a form of subordination and gender inequality. 

Ruhama’s funding is 70% from the tax payer – a variety of sources, including The Human Trafficking Unit at the Department of Justice and Equality, the Health and Safety Executive, and if they have their way, and manage to get clause 10a installed in the proposed legislation to criminalise prostitution, there will be an open ended figure to finance the ‘rehousing and on going support’ of those they rescue.

Who are these kindly souls that wish only to house and support sinners vulnerable victims of human trafficking? Well it turns out that the Trustees of Ruhama bear a marked resemblance to representatives of the Religious orders once known as the Magdalen Sisters – who ran the infamous Magdalen Laundries .

“The bottom line is these four religious orders, and the State, were responsible for the effective wrongful incarceration of girls and women who were forced to work for no pay within a brutal regime.

The Magdalen Order refused to pay compensation to the girls so degraded by their ‘saviours’ – so the Irish government stepped in with £34m of tax payer funds. Now they are funding the same orders to ‘rescue’ prostitutes from a ‘brutal regime’?

The other big player in this battle for the souls of sinners sex trafficked vulnerable victims, is ‘Turn Off the Red Light‘. They are an umbrella group of 56 charities who wish to end prostitution, and append ‘sex trafficking’ to their aims these days. Why? In its 2010 “national action plan,” for example, the activist group Demand Abolition writes, 

“Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilise similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.”

‘The Turn Off the Red Light’ group is exceptionally well funded,  they have received a whopping £24 million pounds so far to fight the good fight against prostitution, sorry, ‘prostitution and sex trafficking‘, from Atlantic Philanthropies, billionaire Charles Feeney’s foundation. That is a whole tump of money in search of the lesser spotted sex trafficked victim. 

The Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU), established in the Department of Justice and Equality in February 2008, is working diligently to ensure that the Irish response to trafficking in human beings is coordinated, comprehensive and holistic. 

In addition to the AHTU there are 3 other dedicated Units in State Agencies dealing with this issue, the Human Trafficking Investigation and Co-ordination Unit in the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), the Anti-Human Trafficking Team in the Health Service Executive (HSE) and a specialised Human Trafficking legal team in the Legal Aid Board (LAB).  These Units have been set up as a response to Ireland’s international obligations to provide services to victims of human trafficking. Dedicated personnel in the New Communities and Asylum Seekers Unit in the Department of Social Protection are assigned to assist victims of trafficking in the transition from Reception and Integration centres to independent living facilities.  Furthermore, dedicated personnel in the office of the Director for Public Prosecutions (DPP) are assigned to deal with the prosecution of human trafficking cases.

I haven’t got the energy to track down the governmental budget for all this activity – but the Department of Justice’s Annual Report of Trafficking in Human Beings in Ireland for 2012, some four years later, says only 16 alleged victims of sex trafficking into prostitution were identified in 2012, all of these being adult females. 

Only ‘alleged victims’ too. But those 16 ‘alleged victims’ are a valuable commodity. They are being used to bludgeon into silence an unknown number of women who believe that it is ‘their body, their’s to do with as they please’. A sentiment normally music to the ears of Feminsitas – but not if you take the cash rather than the diamonds….

Like all other workers, sex workers need access to the full range of services that are targeted at the general population including housing, health and social support services. Unlike other workers, they need labour rights, and the right to work in an environment free from violence, harassment or intimidation. They also need equality, social inclusion and the right to self determination and the right to legal protection as workers.

There isn’t likely to be the funds or the inclination to give it to them whilst they are tied into emotive words like slavery and human trafficking. It is reminiscent of the situation with child protection in the UK,  with millions being spent on headlining show trials of ageing celebrities and exploring ‘stranger danger’, but no money to fund true child protection at the sharp end.

I met a lady in Scotland recently. Her job is finding emergency homes for children waiting to be collected from nursery school but whose Mothers had been sent to jail that day….she operates out of a Portacabin, and had spent the day desperately filling in grant applications so that she could keep going. Nobody is going to give her £24 million pounds.

“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence”. Leonardo da Vinci.

Post-Leveson, the Dead Tree Press has been keen to show that, unregulated, they can expose much wrong doing in our world that could protect us from evil. The departed Jimmy Savile has been the poster child for this movement. His name attached to unsubstantiated facts used to drive business to the failing web sites of the previously all powerful news conglomerates. The airwaves are full of elderly journalists telling us that they ‘knew all along’ but were too frightened of his ‘power’ to say anything. So many fearless journalists, so much fear!

What they mean, of course, is that their editors wouldn’t publish unsubstantiated gossip, for fear of getting sued by the irate subject.

Paul Connew of the Daily Mirror is fond of retelling the story of how he was approached by two girls from Duncroft with the tale of the horrendous abuse they had allegedly suffered at the hands of Jimmy Savile. He couldn’t publish it – because the girls refused to sign an affidavit exonerating the Daily Mirror if they were required to substantiate the story. It, apparently, didn’t occur to him to run the story without naming anyone, nor campaign for an inquiry into abuse at an unnamed children’s home, nor walk into his local police station and place the information there, nor accompany the girls and support them whilst they did just that, nor anything actually; just wait until the man was dead and he could get a ‘good story that any journalist would want’ – free from fear of libel, and the need to substantiate the story.

There was a newspaper, or rather magazine, that was famous for being fearless. It was Private Eye magazine, presided over by Richard Ingrams. They took on the mighty and powerful, and were frequently sued – Jimmy Goldsmith comes to mind. Journalists would give them tit bits of stories that their papers wouldn’t run, and Private Eye thrived on publishing them. I am forced to believe that not one journalist ever took his concern regarding Jimmy Savile to Private Eye – for they never so much as hinted of concern regarding him until he was dead, in fact he featured on their front cover. Either that, or they were more frightened of Jimmy Savile than they were of Jimmy Goldsmith, which I do find hard to believe.

Journalists who have worked under Richard Ingrams at Private Eye and The Oldie described him as “brilliant”, “extraordinarily brave”, “reckless” and “kind” after he announced his retirement on Friday. He is on the record as saying that he never suppressed any stories about Jimmy Savile. 

In what turned out to be Ingrams’ last Oldie editorial he paid tribute to freelance journalist Miles Goslett who brought in what was arguably one of the 22-year-old magazine’s greatest stories – the BBC’s cover up of the Jimmy Savile scandal, for which it jointly won scoop of the year at last year’s London Press Club awards.

So, the BBC is ‘guilty’ of covering up something that even the fearless Private Eye knew nothing of?

What of the BBC journalists who ‘knew’ of Savile’s alleged offending? Probably the most famous is David Icke. Sports commentator turned Lizard spotter. Now David is a ‘proper’ journalist – started life on the old Leicester Mercury, where he shared a desk with Tom O’ Carroll of Paedophile Information Exchange fame.  David is fearless and brave – doesn’t mind accusing the Duke of Edinburgh of murder, or Ted Heath of illegal homosexual activity.  Surely David Icke would have been exposing this alleged wrong doing so ‘widely known’ in journalistic sources?

Erm, in the interests of research, I have painstakingly ploughed through all 300+ articles David Icke has written about Savile – not even confining my search to ‘Jimmy Savile’ – and the only time the word Savile has flowed from his keyboard, before the lurid Exposure programme, was in respect of a 23 year old graffiti artist called Paul Savile, and a murder suspect wearing a Savile Row suit. Once the programme had been broadcast, Icke was straight out of the blocks with a deluge of ‘I was right about Savile after all, I’ve been telling people he was a paedophile for years’ articles.

Who on earth had he been telling? Not his own readers, that is for sure.  Surely the Police or Childline was who he should have been telling – but no evidence that he did that either. His old colleagues at the BBC maybe?

Today we learn of another alleged paedophile ring. Colet Court and its ‘senior’ version St. Paul’s School – two of the most prestigious, and expensive, establishments for nurturing the future opinion makers and shakers. For 50 years anything up to 18 teachers are alleged to have hideously used and abused their pupils, which we are helpfully told include George Osborne and Dominic Grieve. The dark hint on the Icke site is that this is how they have managed to ‘get away with it for years’ – it is those top Tory toffs again – protecting paedophiles! Obviously they must have known what was going on, it just wasn’t possible in a school with 18 teachers allegedly fondling and buggering pupils with gay abandon. The victims might not have had the courage to come forward to the police, but it is inconceivable that other pupils wouldn’t have been aware that there were ‘dark’ goings on (dark is the new fashionable word in these matters) therefore those who became ‘top Tory toffs’ must have known and were complicit by their silence…let loose the political hounds!

Did all those silent Colet and St Paul’s ex-pupils become top Tory toffs? Not a bit of it. Some of them became left-wing firebrands. BBC journalists even. BBC investigative journalists. BBC investigative journalists with a penchant for publishing stories regarding child abuse. Still we never heard a word of this suspected abuse. Amazing. They must have been busy on other programmes eh?

Perhaps there was an element of not wanting to reveal their own highly privileged background – it is so much easier to rant about privilege and corruption amongst those who have had an elite education from a perceived image of ‘son of the welsh valleys made good’.  Do meet another recipient of the elite education provided by Colet Court and St Paul’s throughout the years allegedly presided over by paedophiles – Meirion Jones.  The fearless investigator of historic sex abuse allegedly carried out by dead celebrities at his aunt’s school.

Just lurve that t-shirt Meirion – have you still got it?

Today there is a cross-party call for a National Inquiry similar to the Royal Commission in Australia, to investigate historic child sex abuse. It is an excellent idea. I suggest they start by demanding mandatory reporting by anyone who is approached with a tale of historic sex abuse. Not just the authority figures who could conceivably be sued – anyone. Especially journalists. Because if they are to be believed, there has been an evil conspiracy of silence regarding historic sex abuse, not by top Tory toffs, but by journalists hanging onto the story ‘any journalist would want’ until the alleged perpetrator is dead.

It’s called putting the children first – not your career.

In other news, a cash starved child protection division in Peterborough was too late to save little Amina Agboola from her ‘known to be violent’ new ‘step-dad’ – 19 year old Dean Harris.

And Operation Yewtree costs have now topped £3,000,000.

Legal?

Decent?

Honest?

Truthful?

The lusty screech from survivors of sex abuse around the world begging for money and their equally vociferous legal advisors and champions bellowing for their share is becoming deafening. It is a multi-million, nay multi-billion pound, industry.

To suggest that these claims be closely inspected and verified is tantamount to heresy. ‘There is no such thing as a false allegation – why research suggests it is less than 0.000000001% – they must be believed’. The false allegation figure bandied about is for prosecuted false allegations. These are surprisingly small. There is no appetite amongst prosecutors for bringing a case in respect of a ruined life, a decimated career, nor for refunding the costs of proving that the allegation was false. The focus is on the ruination which apparently occurs when you parade around a man’s office naked to the waist down in an effort to boost your non-existent career.

Hollywood has got in on the act, needless to say. Two years ago they poured millions into a glossy film called ‘Eden’. It was carefully crafted from the ‘True-life’ story of Chong Kim. These days, Chong Kim is a ‘writer and conference speaker’ thrilling audiences across the US with her tale of dramatic escape from enslavement by the sex traffickers and crusading against the evil sexual desires of men.

The film makers hired the well known MTV presenter, Jamie Chung, to play Chong Kim. Her high profile made it seem as though the acts she portrayed could happen to someone you know – albeit through the medium of television. Although Chung is in her early 30s, her Korean ancestry gives her what might be described as a pre-pubescent body – the desired effect of making you think that we are talking child abuse here was helped along by dressing her in the sort of virginal white underwear that a nine year old might wear under her school uniform – in the middle of what was supposed to be a Las Vegas whore house. Add in a pot-bellied US Marshall who turns out to be not her protector but another of that species known as evil man driven by dark desires and you have the makings of a Hollywood success.

The film was released in 2012 to mass acclaim: “Eden is a miracle. Not only is it an ‘Issue Film’ that could feasibly inspire real-world change [...] it’s a veritable master class in how to make humane art out of inhumanity. Reviewers question whether ‘anything’ will ‘offset Eden‘s lessons about the depravity of man’. ‘It offers its most terrifying fact before the action begins: “Based on a true story.”

It won a string of awards. The Producers were lauded at red carpet events. Money poured into the various organisations who were committed to ending the ‘degradation of sex trafficking’ – after all, it could happen to a small town girl just like you! 

Sadly, today, Chong Kim joins Somaly Mam on the ever lengthening list of false allegators. In an act of honesty rare amongst the ranks of hysterical sex-obsessed survivors keen to change the law – the NGO, ‘Breaking Out’ have spent a belated year investigating their figure head creation of Chong Kim.

After thorough investigation into her story, people, records and places, as well as, many interviews with producers, publishers and people from organisations, we found no truth to her story. In fact, we found a lot of fraud, lies, and most horrifically capitalising and making money on an issue where so many people are suffering from.

I do question whether they might have been quite so keen to investigate her, had the money been rolling into their bank account – but it wasn’t. It was unaccountably sticking to Chong Kim.

We have found several other organisations, other than ours, who have been defrauded by Chong collecting money in their name, using their 501 c3 status for her benefit while none of these organisations have seen a dime. I ask if anyone has sent money or goods to Chong Kim for another organisation to please contact us as we are leading the legal pursuit of the issue.

Oh dear, oh dear – it seems that amongst the ranks of fanatical ‘paedo-hunters’ even those involved in the game are scared to question the wisdom of #Ibelieveher.

Through our investigation we have found many other good non-profits (NGOs) who were afraid to speak out for fear of backlash.

As Lady Bracknell might have said: To lose one sex trafficking ‘victim’ in a week, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness.

Or the end result of a carefully crafted campaign to discredit anyone who seeks to investigate claims of sexual abuse. My congratulations to ‘Breaking Out’ for having the courage to question the back story of one of the endless queue of ‘survivors’ now trading on their emotive story. Shame about their motives, but you can’t have everything.

I am the very model of the Paedo-finder General,

I love investigating celebrities, and I’m chastely puritanical,

I twat on Twitter and with privacy I’m economical;

I’ve learned to speak at conferences, colloquia and seminars

I’ve even sent impassioned pleas to European commissars

I never miss a tv slot because it’s free publicity

I cough, name names, tell tales and say it’s all for probity.

[Chorus:]

He is the very model of the Paedo-finder General,

He coughs, names names, and says it’s all for probity.

There is no universal proof, that celebrities lived a life of sleaze

Nor is there proof the world is fair, nor that they should do as I would please.

I know the Child Protection Law and what evidence is optional.

I’ll bolster your claims with fabrications risible

Of kiss and tell, and witnesses invisible.

Those claims are valid; the Misri-lit book’s revelation

Are all I need, and there’s no prevarication.

[Chorus:]

Those claims are valid; the Misri-lit book’s revelation

Are all he needs, and there’s no prevarication.

You’ll get nowt from Criminal Injuries Board if you can’t show your claim to it

But I’ll show you the way to get your hands on it.

We wrote the rules, that’s why they’re lax

E’en tho’ your claim’s devoid of facts,

We”ll publicise it right to the max.

In short, I’ve a smattering of elemental strategy,

‘How to cash in on the lives of geriatric celebrity’.

[Chorus:]

In short, He’s a smattering of elemental strategy,

‘How to ruin the the lives’ of geriatric celebrity.

My financial pursuits have caused a few to call me cynical

I say I’m not – tho’ a tad hypocritical.

When wreathes are laid, I’ll cough and clear my phlegm

I’ll maintain it was the sleaze that did for them.

I serve on committees, none of which do anything

I formulate agendas and debate them with the rest of them

But of current abuse – ’tis not my anthem.

[Chorus:]

He formulates agendas and debates them with the rest of them

But of current abuse – ’tis not his anthem.

I’ll guard my bank balance by self-interest most astute:

My pursuit of celebrity has become resolute,

On the thinest of facts ‘evidence’ I’ll impute.

I’ll spin the tale with arguments convolute

Until my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous

Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

[Chorus:]

Until his lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous

Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

I love to say at any chance that innocence is relative

And urge you to believe the claimant’s cries aren’t speculative -

About this act I haven’t even moments of remorsefulness

I have the utmost confidence in the law’s resourcefulness.

So though I have run quite amok, and you, the taxpayer, will have to pay,

For the children now abused, I am not fussed - 

In short, you won’t see me for Monkey’s Dust.

[Chorus:]He is the very model of the Paedo-finder General,

He coughs, names names, and says it’s all for probity.  

Setting the scene – Bryn Estyn and North Wales care home allegations; anatomy of a Witch Hunt?

I’m sorry if this is a bit long and dry, but I wanted to put some later comments in a proper context. Here, in outline is the continuing story of North Wales Care Home Abuse scandal. 

Beginnings  

Bryn Estyn Hall is a large and rather forbidding mansion, which was built in 1904, in the style of an Elizabethan manor house, by a successful Wrexham brewer to replace a previous house. It lies in ample grounds, which earlier formed part of the large Erlas Hall estate on the outskirts of Wrexham. As an approved school, Bryn Estyn remained the responsibility of the Home Office until 1 October 1973, when it became a local authority community home with education on the premises. Responsibility for it passed to the former Denbighshire County Council until 1 April 1974 when the new Clwyd County Council took over. In the mid 1980’s it began to be the centre of allegations being made about abuse of its residents.  

This from Wikipedia: 

“In the mid-1980s Alison Taylor, a residential care worker and then manager of a children’s home in Gwynedd, began hearing stories from children coming to her home from across Clwyd and Gwynedd about a series of child sexual and abuse incidents in various care homes. On investigation, she found that several reports of these incidents had been made by both care and social workers, but that no procedural or disciplinary action had so far been taken as a result.

Creating a file around cases involving six children, Taylor made a series of allegations against senior social care professionals working for the authority which she raised with her superiors at the council, but again no action was taken. Taylor then reported her allegations to North Wales Police in 1986. The council suspended Taylor in January 1987, alleging that there had been a “breakdown in communications” between Taylor and her colleagues.

On two subsequent occasions, the council offered Taylor a financial termination agreement, subject to her signing a confidentiality agreement. After refusing to sign the confidentiality agreement, Taylor was dismissed. With the help of her trade union, Taylor took the council to an industrial tribunal, which was quickly closed after the parties came to an out of court financial settlement. In September 1989, Taylor accepted the agreement, which did not include an associated confidentiality agreement. In a later Inquiry, Sir Ronald Waterhouse publicly vindicated Taylor. He stated that without Taylor’s campaigning, there would have been no inquiry. Taylor was awarded a Pride of Britain award in 2000, and since 1996 has worked as a novelist.” 

In 1991 stories began to be published in the press that Bryn Estyn lay at the hub of a network of a paedophile ring which had worked its way into the care homes of North Wales. Many allegations were levelled, including that senior members of the Police were involved and covering up the abuse, and that shadowy powerful “establishment figures” were involved.   

Ultimately, the allegations of child sexual abuse were referred to North Wales Police who undertook an inquiry in 1993, taking some 2,600 witness statements and 300 cases were subsequently sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. As a result, seven people including six residential social workers were prosecuted for abuse, three of whom had worked at Bryn Estyn. One of these was Bryn Estyn’s Deputy Principal, Peter Howarth. 

The libel action 

Whilst this was going on, in 1993 serious allegations were made against a senior Police Officer, Superintendent Gordon Anglesea in the press, by amongst, others The Observer, The Independent and Private Eye. At the heart of many of these allegations was the testimony of one Steven Messham, a former resident of the Bryn Estyn the home. Anglesea felt he had no choice and risked all by suing for libel, with a million pounds in costs on the line. The libel trial was heard at the end of 1994, and in the trial Messham’s evidence was taken apart. 

Here is a quote from one of the author’s of The Observer’s article, journalist David Rose, given in a speech to a FACT conference in 2013. Rose has undertaken much lauded work in respect of miscarriages of justice as a crime correspondent, including into the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. He was initially convinced there were real problems at Bryn Estyn. In hindsight, he regrets this. This is what he had to say: 

“It became quite apparent when the case went to trial…that Messham was a fantasist; and not only a fantasist but an extremely aggressive and dangerous fantasist who, when challenged would do almost anything rather than confront the reality of his lies….

In fact, what happened during the libel case was that while giving evidence he took an overdose of tranquillisers, collapsed in the witness-box saying it was all too much for him…but to his great credit the Judge insisted that he come back to court the following day when his story further collapsed” [My emphasis]                   

Messham was later to distinguish himself by physically attacking a QC in the Waterhouse Inquiry referred to below, and more. Anglesea won £350,000 in damages plus costs, and we will return to Steven Messham later on.   

The convictions

Here is a list of the convictions which resulted from the police inquiry. I have taken it more or less verbatim from the so-called “Waterhouse Report” entitled “Lost in Care”, ultimately published in 2000 at a cost of £13 million:

(1) 1 July 1993, Mold Crown Court Norman Brade Roberts was convicted of an assault occasioning actual body harm on his foster child. He was acquitted of cruelty to the same child and he received a conditional discharge for a period of two years in respect of the assault. Norman Roberts’ son, Ian Malcolm Roberts received the same order for a common assault on the same foster child. Both offences had been committed between 1980 and 1985. Evelyn May Roberts, Norman’s wife, was acquitted of a charge of cruelty towards the child. 

(2) 11 November 1993, Knutsford Crown Court Stephen Roderick Norris, who had been released at the end of his 1990 sentences on 2 February 1993 to a bail hostel at Warrington on various conditions, pleaded guilty to three offences of buggery, one of attempted buggery and three of indecent assault committed between 1980 and 1984 against six boys, each of whom had been resident at Bryn Estyn at the time of the offence. All these offences had occurred when Norris was the Housemaster of Clwyd House at Bryn Estyn. Two other counts of buggery, seven of indecent assault and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm were ordered to remain on the Court file, as was another indictment alleging six further offences of buggery. All 16 counts left on the file referred to offences alleged to have been committed at Bryn Estyn against other boys in the same period. The total sentence imposed on Norris was 7 years’ imprisonment. 

(3) 8 July 1994, Chester Crown Court Peter Norman Howarth, a former Deputy Principal at Bryn Estyn, was convicted of an offence of buggery and seven offences of indecent assault committed between 1974 and 1984 against seven boys who were resident at Bryn Estyn at the time. One of the victims of indecent assault took his own life on 21 May 1995 by hanging himself from a tree. Howarth was acquitted of two other counts of buggery and two of indecent assault involving three other Bryn Estyn residents. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in all for the eight offences of which he was convicted but he died of a heart attack in Pinderfield Hospital, to which he had been moved from Wakefield Prison, on 24 April 1997, Paul Bicker Wilson, a former Residential Child Care Officer at Bryn Estyn, was acquitted in the same trial of three alleged offences of indecent assault involving two Bryn Estyn boys, one of which offences was alleged to have been committed jointly with Howarth. Wilson faced a second trial, however, in November 1994. 

(4) 28 November 1994, Knutsford Crown Court Paul Bicker Wilson pleaded guilty to three offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of common assault committed between July 1980 and March 1984 on young male residents at Bryn Estyn, for which he received a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. A not guilty verdict was entered in respect of another count because the complainant in respect of that alleged common assault in 1984, Y, had committed suicide on 6 January 1994, when he had been found hanging from a door at his home. One other count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two alleging cruelty to a child, involving three other Bryn Estyn boys, were ordered to lie on the Court file. 

(5) 12 January 1995, Knutsford Crown Court David Gwyn Birch, another former Residential Child Care Officer for six years at Bryn Estyn and subsequently for four years at Chevet Hey, was acquitted of an alleged offence of buggery against a complainant X and of an alleged indecent assault against another boy. X’s evidence against Howarth of indecent assault on him by the latter alone had been accepted by a different jury but had not been accepted by that jury in respect of a joint charge of indecent assault on him by Howarth and Wilson and a separate charge of indecent assault on him by Wilson alone. In the light of the jury’s verdicts in respect of Birch, the prosecution decided not to offer any evidence against him in respect of another count of buggery on X, alleged to have been committed in the same period between 1981 and 1982, four counts of alleged cruelty to children and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, two of which involved Y, who had died a year earlier. 

(6) 9 February 1995, Chester Crown Court John Ernest Allen, the founder of the Bryn Alyn Community residential schools, was convicted of six offences of indecent assault against six young male residents at the schools between 1972 and 1983. He was acquitted of four other counts of indecent assault involving four different residents. Allen received a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment

It can be seen then that there was one person (Norris) who pleaded guilty to indecency charges, although he maintained a stout defence to some others – that is the reason they were left “on the file”; it was not considered worth while continuing. (Wilson appears to have been overly physical and prone to bullying or thumping the kids).  But it does not seem to add up to a paedophile ring on a grand scale – consider the number of staff who must have been employed in these institutions (in the scores if not hundreds) and the number of children (in the hundreds if not more).              

However this was not the end of the matter. The problem was that the swirl of rumour that the extent and nature of abuse went beyond these convictions and still hung over North Wales care homes. In particular the rumour that there was an organised paedophile ring operating and abuse by the “rich and powerful.”        

In March 1994 Clwyd County Council commissioned a further inquiry, the Jillings Report, undertaken by a panel headed by John Jillings, a former director of social services with Derbyshire County Council. 

The Panel were required to “inquire into, consider and report to the County Council upon (1) what went wrong and (2) why did this happen and how this position could have continued undetected for so long” and their attention was specifically directed to such matters as recruitment and selection of staff, management and training, suspension, complaints procedures etc [My emphasis].

However, the remit or style of inquiry appears to have varied. Originally a private internal report, then changed, and then expanded.  

Soon after their appointment the panel decided they would advertise for former residents in Clwyd Care Homes to come forward to them. 

The panel took some two years to prepare their report. They concluded that abuse had been widespread and they either endorsed, or noted without comment, a number of the more sensational claims. The Jillings Report stated that allegations involving famous names and paedophile rings were beyond its remit, and something best addressed at a potential later public inquiry. It found a child care system in which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying, to indecent assault and rape. Children who complained of abuse were not believed, or were punished for making false allegations. The report stated that the number of children who were abused is not clear, but estimates range up to 200; in the early 1990s, around 150 had sought compensation. At least 12 former residents were found to have died from unnatural causes. The report states that some staff linked to abuse may have been allowed to resign or retire early. The report concludes that its panel members had considered quitting before publication, due to: “…the considerable constraints placed upon us.” The final report’s appendices included limited copies of the key witness statements taken by North Wales Police during their earlier investigation. 

When their report was completed, however, Clwyd County Council was advised by a leading barrister that its contents were potentially libellous, and might also jeopardise the council’s insurance cover. On 26 March 1996 a collective decision was taken not to publish the report, in spite of the fact that a number of councillors had urged that its publication should go ahead. It is also possible that the members of the panel – or the Council – felt that the report had never been intended or was suitable for public view in any event.   

However, the “suppression” or failure to publish the Jillings’ Report fuelled the rumour mill still further – giving rise to the suspicion that there was a cover up of powerful interests, sinister establishment figures and so on.   

It was assumed until November 2012 that all publicly held copies of the Jillings Report had been destroyed, and hence it could not be published. In light of the re-emergence of the scandal that month, one of the few legally held remaining copies was sent to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, Keith Towler.

In November 2012, Anne Clwyd MP called for the legal archive copy of the report to be published, claiming that she was shown a copy in 1994: “I would say please get the Jillings report published because it shows… rape, bestiality, violent assaults and torture, and the effects on those young boys at that time cannot be under-estimated.” BBC Wales subsequently spoke to Jillings about Ms Clwyd’s claim of bestiality, but Jillings said his report did not unearth any such claims. Jillings also commented that public figures were not among names given by victims, and that: “The people the investigation focused on, because these were the people who the children spoke to us about, were staff members.” 

However, Jillings commented to other media: 

“What we found was horrific and on a significant scale. If the events in children’s homes in North Wales were to be translated into a film, Oliver Twist would seem relatively benign. The scale of what happened, and how it was allowed, are a disgrace, and stain on the history of child care in this country.”

The Waterhouse Inquiry –“Lost in Care” 

Not least because of the non publications of the Jillings Report, in 1996, the then Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague, ordered a Tribunal of Inquiry into what were now allegations of hundreds of cases of child abuse in care homes in former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd between 1974 and 1990. Sir Ronald Waterhouse, a retired High Court judge, was appointed to head the inquiry. It may have been that the rumours linking the allegations of organised sexual abuse with repeated allegations of organised abuse by “senior conservative figures” had something to do with this. 

The Waterhouse Inquiry was vast. I understand it was originally scheduled to last one year with some months for drafting, but ran for three years from 1997 – 2000. 

The Inquiry received evidence of 259 complainants, of whom 129 gave oral testimony in public. The findings of the Waterhouse Inquiry were published in February 2000, as “Lost in Care – Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Care in the Former County Council Areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974”

The conclusions are largely set out paragraph 55.10 and following at pages 606 – 608 insofar as most material this piece. The report concluded that:  

“(1) Widespread sexual abuse of boys occurred in children’s residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990. There were some incidents of sexual abuse of girl residents in these establishments but they were comparatively rare.” 

It continued:

(2) The local authority community homes most affected by this abuse were (a) Bryn Estyn, where two senior officers, Peter Norman Howarth and Stephen Roderick Norris, sexually assaulted and buggered many boys persistently over a period of ten years from 1974 in the case of Howarth and about six years from 1978 in the case of Norris and (b) Cartrefle, where Norris continued, as Officer-in Charge, to abuse boys similarly from 1984 until he was arrested in June 1990. 

(3)The Tribunal heard all the relevant and admissible evidence known to be available in respect of the allegation that Police Superintendent Gordon Anglesea committed serious sexual misconduct at Bryn Estyn but we were not persuaded by this evidence that the jury’s verdict in his favour on this issue in his libel actions was wrong. 

(4) In addition to the abuse referred to in (2) there were other grave incidents of sexual abuse of boy residents by male and female members of the residential care staff between 1973 and 1990 at five local authority homes in Clwyd, namely, Little Acton Assessment Centre), Bersham Hall, Chevet Hey, Cartrefle and Upper Downing. 

(5) There was widespread sexual abuse, including buggery, of boy residents in private residential establishments for children in Clwyd throughout the period under review. Sexual abuse of girl residents also occurred to an alarming extent.

(6)The most persistent offender in the Bryn Alyn Community was the original proprietor himself, John Ernest Allen, who was the subject of complaint by 28 former male residents and who was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in February 1995 for indecent assault on six former residents. One other member of the staff was convicted in 1976 of sexual assaults on boys and another was under police investigation for alleged sexual abuse during the Tribunal’s hearings and until his death in August 1998. The Deputy Headteacher of the Community’s school was also convicted in July 1986 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl resident under 16 years and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. 

(7) Richard Ernest Leake, formerly of Bersham Hall, who was the first Principal of Care Concern’s Ystrad Hall School from 1 July 1974 and later Director of the organisation, is awaiting trial on 8th November 1999 on charges of indecent assault on boys between 1972 and 1978. The Tribunal is aware of 16 male former residents of Ystrad Hall School who have complained of sexual abuse by members of the staff (six have been named). The Deputy Principal, Bryan Davies, was convicted in September 1978 of three offences of indecent assault against two boys and placed on probation. We were unable to hear the evidence in respect of Leake because of the continuing police investigation and the evidence that we heard in respect of other members of the staff was insufficient to justify a finding, except in respect of Davies. 

(8) There was persistent sexual abuse, including buggery, of not less than 17 boy residents at Clwyd Hall School between 1970 and 1981 by a houseparent, Noel Ryan, for which he was sentenced in July 1997 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Richard Francis Groome, the former Officer-in-Charge of Tanllwyfan, who was Head of Care and then Principal at Clwyd Hall School between November 1982 and July 1984, has been committed for trial on charges of sexual offences against boys, some of which relate to former boy residents at these establishments. His trial will take place early in 2000. 

(9) There was yet again persistent sexual abuse of boy residents of Gatewen Hall, which was a private residential school prior to its sale to the Bryn Alyn Community in 1982. The abusers were the two proprietors from 1977 to 1982, Roger Owen Griffiths and his then wife, now Anthea Beatrice Roberts, who were convicted on 4 and 5 August 1999 in the Crown Court at Chester. Griffiths was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and Roberts to two years’ imprisonment.

Voluntary homes

(10) There were complaints of sexual abuse from six former boy residents of the only voluntary home that we investigated, namely, Tanllwyfan. They were directed against a former care assistant at the home, Kenneth Scott, who was there from 1974 to 1976 and who was sentenced in February 1986 to eight years’ imprisonment for buggery and other offences against boys committed in Leicestershire between 1982 and 1985. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the two complainants who gave evidence of indecent assaults on them by Scott during his period at Tanllwyfan There is one charge against Richard Francis Groome in respect of his period as Officer-in-Charge of Tanllwyfan.

Gwynfa

(11) Allegations of sexual abuse during the period under review at Gwynfa Residential Unit or Clinic, an NHS psychiatric hospital for children, were made by ten former residents to the police and involved four members of the staff. One former member of staff was convicted in March 1997 of two offences of rape of a girl aged 16 years committed in 1991, when she was a resident but not in care.  Allegations against another member of staff, Z, were being investigated by the police in the course of the Tribunal’s hearings and some of them were made by former children in care but the decision has now been taken that Z should not be prosecuted. We have not attempted to reach detailed conclusions in relation to Gwynfa for reasons that we explain.

Physical Abuse

(12) Physical abuse in the sense of the unacceptable use of force in disciplining and excessive force in restraining residents occurred at not less than six of the local authority community homes in Clwyd, despite the fact that it was the policy of Clwyd County Council throughout the period under review that no member of staff should inflict corporal punishment on any child or young person in any circumstances. It occurred also at most of the other residential establishments for children that we have examined. 

Local authority homes

(13) Such abuse was most oppressive at Bryn Estyn, where Paul Bicker Wilson was the worst offender. There was a climate of violence at the home in which other members of the staff resorted to the use of impermissible force from time to time without being disciplined for it. Bullying of residents by their peers was condoned and even encouraged on occasions as a means of exercising control. 

(14) Physical abuse was less prominent in the five other community homes referred to in (12), namely, Little Acton, Bersham Hall, Chevet Hey, Cartrefle and South Meadow, but was sufficiently frequent to affect a significant number of residents adversely. The use of force was often condoned and its effects were aggravated by the fact that some Officers-in-Charge from time to time, such as Peter Bird, Frederick Marshall Jones and Joan Glover, were themselves the perpetrators. 

Ysgol Talfryn and Gwynfa

(15)Physical abuse occurred also from time to time at a local authority residential school, Ysgol Talfryn, and at the NHS residential clinic for children, Gwynfa.  

Private establishments

(16) Physical abuse was prevalent in the residential schools/homes of the Bryn Alyn Community in its early years and to a lesser extent at Care Concern’s Ystrad Hall School

Abuse in foster homes

(17) There were comparatively few complaints of abuse in foster homes in Clwyd but the evidence before the Tribunal disclosed major sexual abuse in five such homes, in respect of which there were convictions in four of the cases (the fifth offender hanged himself before his trial). 

The Report concluded:

“The evidence before us has disclosed that for many children who were consigned to Bryn Estyn, in the 10 or so years of its existence as a community home, it was a form of purgatory or worse from which they emerged more damaged than when they had entered and for whom the future had become even more bleak.”

The report found no evidence “to establish that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care”, but did recognise the existence of a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester area. 

The public version of the report named and criticised almost 200 people, for either abusing children or failing to offer them sufficient protection. Although it identified 28 alleged perpetrators, many names were redacted due to either pending prosecutions or lack of evidence. 

By the way, it was before the Waterhouse Inquiry that Steven Messham gave evidence which involved attacking a QC when confronted about his evidence.  Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service. 

According to my Wikipedia source, the Report led to settlement of 140 claims for compensation based on child abuse. But matters did not end there. 

Operation Pallial 

On 2 November 2012, following the revelations in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, the BBC current affairs programme Newsnight aired an item about the “scandal” in which one of those who had suffered abuse in care homes in North Wales in the 1980s made further allegations that there had been a much wider circle of abusers, including businessmen, members of the police and senior politicians, extending beyond the immediate area to London and beyond. The victim said he had been taken in a car to the Crest hotel in Wrexham and abused more than a dozen times by what Newsnight termed “a prominent Thatcher-era Tory figure“. He called for a further investigation to be carried out.  

This resulted in the allegations which swirled around the internet about Lord McAlpine. These were proved to be absolutely untrue, and the whole matter proved shattering for Newsnight, the BBC and the hapless Director General of the BBC George Entwistle was duly forced to fall on his sword in an (albeit lucrative) act of Hari-Kiri. The “victim” himself was forced to offer an unreserved apology to Lord McAlpine.       

Nevertheless, such was the panic before all this became clear, by 6^th November what has become known as Operation Pallial had been initiated, as well as a judicial investigation into the original Waterhouse Report and whether it had been too narrow in its terms, the Macur Review.     

I take the gist of the following from Wikipedia: 

The report of Phase One of Operation Pallial was published on 29 April 2013. It set out a total of 140 allegations of abuse, involving girls and boys between the ages of 7 and 19, at 18 children’s homes in north Wales between 1963 and 1992. During the inquiry, 76 new complainants came forward, and the police reported allegations against 84 individuals, of whom 16 had been named by more than one complainant. Some of those named were deceased. The Chief Constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, said: “Offenders quite rightly should have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.”  

In November 2013, the police stated that, since November 2012, 235 people had contacted them with information about alleged abuse in care homes in north Wales. Detective Superintendent Mulcahey said that over 100 names of alleged offenders had been put forward to Operation Pallial, and said that the police were “currently pursuing a large number of active lines of enquiry”. A fifteenth arrest, of a 62-year-old man from Mold, was reported on 20 November. Further arrests, bringing the total to 18, were reported on 12 December. Indeed, one of the persons who has since been arrested is none other than former Superintendent Anglesea. 

And the trigger for Operation Pallial, the complainant to Newsnight, was none other than…Steven Messham, who’s reliability has already been discarded by the Waterhouse Inquiry. In fact, this is what the Waterhouse Inquiry actually had to say about Steven Messham who was referred to in the report as witness “B”:   

“9.33 One of these matters, which inevitably leads to prolonged cross-examination, is the sequence in which his complaints of abuse have emerged. It is not unusual for a complainant of sexual abuse or a child complainant generally to deny at first that any abuse has occurred but in B’s case we have had before us a plethora of statements. These included eight main statements made to the police between 30 March 1992 and 8 February 1993 but B alleges that the police have failed to produce six other statements that he made to them. Rightly or wrongly, he complains also of insensitive behaviour, and in some cases, downright misconduct on the part of a small number of officers involved in interviewing him. In view of the potential difficulties, B was permitted exceptionally to draft his own statement to the Tribunal rather than be interviewed by a member of the Tribunal’s team. The statement runs to 48 pages, in the course of which B alleges that he has been sexually abused by 32 persons (eight of whom are not named) and otherwise physically abused by 22. It is not surprising in the circumstances that B’s recollection, in a limited number of instances, was shown by contemporary documents to be incorrect.

9.34  In the light of these and similar difficulties it was decided in March 1993 by the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with counsel, that reliance ought not to be placed on the evidence of witness B” 

And here is a rather interesting article on Mr. Messham published by the Daily Mail. 

Now it is true that recent investigations have resulted in convictions which seem to me to be sound and just, and I suspect they will do so again in the future. However, the clear concern is that they have moved into a realm in which the culture of investigation has become one in which there is a real risk of fostering unjustified allegations and resulting in unsafe convictions of care workers, teachers and the like, arising particularly in terms of a culture which trawls for accusers, and in which the truth of the accusations and the guilt of the accused is being consciously or subconsciously assumed.

The practice of “trawling” for evidence – inviting complainants to come forward – and the cross-fertilization of accusations by clumsy and credulous investigation techniques are also to the fore.  There is also the driving force of claims for compensation. I will analyse these in another piece dealing with the North Wales sage.

To be continued. 

            ©Gildas the Monk