The Fighting Back team explored the template underpinning historic and current child abuse inquiries http://loucollins.uk/2015/05/31/william-hague-coverup demonstrating a pattern of behaviour from the Home Office and Government Officials. We’re now going to transfer that template to a different setting to show that the same pattern of behaviour, the same MO holds true. So we turn to the scandal that opened the door to greater public awareness of the scale and extent of child abuse, involving media and celebrities, though the Home office and it’s sphere of influence is tangible and traceable in the background.
I am, of course, referring to Jimmy Savile.
Pivotal allegations, following Jimmy Savile’s death, led to the exposure of Savile as a prolific sex offender.
The allegations related to his visits to Duncroft Residential School in the South of England in the 1970s, and the accounts of some former residents that he sexually abused them there and while on visits to television studios.
What many fail to register is that Duncroft was established by the Home Office in the 1960s as an ‘approved school’ to give a second chance at education to girls who were identified as intelligent but who, for whatever reason had encountered social and educational difficulties.
The Duncroft Approved School was one of 121 across the country managed and owned by voluntary groups overseen by central government.
The School was run by the National Association for Mental Health (NAMH, known as Mind since 1972)
In 1973, as with Bryn Estyn/Alyn in Wales, the School became an Assisted Status Community Home with Education (CHE) run in conjunction with Hounslow London Borough Council. (note the date)
Duncroft is believed to have closed by 1980 and the building has now been redeveloped. (Like so many homes where abuse took place – it was closed before the revelations became public)
Duncroft puts the Home Office, Charities, Local Government, the Police and the BBC all under scrutiny.
From the report ‘Giving Victims a Voice’, compiled by the NSPCC and MPS, we get a clearer picture of the timeline and scale of Savile’s offending, from 1955 through 2009.
How was it Possible for a single individual to get away with 54 years of abuse? Could it be that investigations were deferred and information withheld?
From the HMIC report, which supposedly covers a period from 1964 through 2012, we find the following information – please note the dates.
An incident of rape, reported in 1963, where the victim was told to ‘forget about it” and ‘move on’ (as echoed by David Cameron?). Then a categoric statement that police knew or suspected that Savile was a sexual offender since 1964.
If you read the extracts you will note that ”they don’t know’ if there was any police investigation as a result of that knowledge………………..oh and records appear to be ”lost’ or ”destroyed. A pattern emerges?
It’s clear from their own reports that police suspected Savile was a sexual offender from 1964.
Again, from the HMIC Report we learn of the existence of a ledger, held by the MPS Paedophile Unit, though little is known of its provenance. However, its existence indicates that by 1964, Savile was known to MPS officers investigating sexual offences against children.
The ledger clearly identifies Jimmy Savile and Duncroft School.
The report also states that:
No evidence was found to suggest that any investigation was carried out as a result of that intelligence. The 1964 MPS ledger is not recorded on INI or the Police National Database (PND) (The Impact Nominal Index or INI is a computer system that enables UK police forces to establish whether any other force holds information on a person of interest. It was created by the IMPACT Programme led by the Home Office in 2006). A classic case of information withheld?
The HMIC report reveals that through 2007 – 2009, the Surrey police officially investigated Mr. Savile’s conduct, but he was never charged.
Alison Levitt QC’s report to the DPP entitled “In the matter of the late Jimmy Savile OBE” reveals the transcripts of some of those interviews.
- From a letter of 27 November 2014, it is now on record that Surrey police advised a victim that any allegation would need to be corroberated and supported before Savile would even be approached. They also advise that it would be necessary to contact her ex-husband and other collaegues from 40 years back. Was it necessary to create such obstacles?
2 Alison Levitt QC states clearly that this was ‘plainly wrong as a matter of law
Reading the detail of the report leaves an unformulated question – were these survivors willfully misled? Willful Misconduct?
There is no question that they were unlawfully advised.
Inevitably,as the MO holds true to form, From a headline of 4 December 2014 the result is a dead end investigation
On screen is part of the Surrey Police exoneration of the CPS Decision. Magnanimously, they do not accuse the whistleblower of being a liar………..
The decision not to proceed is apparently based “wholly on an objective view of all of the evidence available and legal considerations”
Alison Levitt QC’s legal opinion differs:
And one could remark on the coincidence of a J Savell reporting on J Saville?
There are a number of possible underlying reasons that Savile was not prosecuted, whistleblowers were ignored and no prosecutions took place as a consequence of Operation Outreach
Here are some:
In his autobiography Savile wrote: ‘Princess Alexandra is a patron of a hostel for girls in care (Duncroft). At this place I’m a cross between a term-time boyfriend and a fixer of special trips out.’
Princess Alexandra’s husband, Angus Ogilvy was the president of the National Association of Youth Clubs of which Savile was vice-president.
Both were appointed by Sir Harold Haywood, who also happened to have been Prince Charles most trusted charity aide, responsible for the Prince’s Trust.
Less well known is Sir Harold Haywood’s Chairmanship of Albany Trust and his fellow Albany Trustees, members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) (Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll) and the Paedophile Action League (PAL).
Albany were intstrumental in producing a booklet entitled Paedophilia: Some Questions and Answers.
“The Albany Trust also proposed to publish a pamphlet about paedophiles which stated that they “represent no special threat to society”.
There are a number of other questions raised by the allegations and survivor accounts, none of which have been addressed by the State Instutions who failed in their duty of care.
What was Mind’s role at Duncroft School from 1973 onwards?
Mind appointed a management committee of 12 members, with a majority of eight of these being appointed by Mind itself. How were these people selected and who were they?
Duncroft was regularly inspected – by Mind, by the local authority and presumably by the Home Office.
What were the outcomes of these inspections during the time that these abuses were taking place?
Panorama and Newsnight reported that the home was often visited by numerous people, including Jimmy Savile, and that these visits seem to occur sporadically without any checks or questions being asked How this could happen?
Girls were taken, in groups, to recordings of programmes at television centre.
Girls were also allowed to attend the Walton Hop which was within walking distance and were sometimes provided with ‘escorts’
Walton Hop was the hunting ground for convicted abusers such as Chris Denning, Jonathan King and Tom Patten – the latter of Bay City Rollers infamy.
The management must have been aware of this, permissions granted and ‘escorts’ arranged?
How was it that the underage patients knew about the abuses, as did other visitors and yet, according to the statement Mind has issued, it would appear that staff and indeed Mind has no knowledge of this?