Photo: Roedean, East Sussex (my grandmother's old school).
So, Saturday morning I awake to find three missives/comments from the Duncroft contingent, in the guise of someone called "Anne" from Bolton, whose writing style is reminiscent of another woman entirely. But then, if you don't want anyone to guess who you are, best bet is to ask one your mates to be so kind as to post this from her computer, I suppose. “Anne” in italics. (At one point, I thought it would perhaps be kinder to ignore this, but I would like to have a go, for the sake of veracity.)
"Keep guessing Sally, but you (and others) are so very wrong. Do you want a post made by you stating that YOU believed Savile was a pervert? "
That's fine. At one time, I was prepared to give the women the benefit of the doubt, which others certainly weren't. And if you actually read my posts, you will see that I note I am not sure what happened at Duncroft. That remains my position, but given the nasty behavior of the likes of Fiona and others, let alone the specious lies on the part of Bebe Roberts, which really overturned the apple-cart, followed by more lies about their true identity by others, which ruse was then inadvertently uncovered, my only conclusion is that there is more to this than meets the eye. A great deal more.
"We are all a bit fed up of your dual personality and nasty comments that name and threaten people because you think that you know the truth when you were not there and had left 10 years earlier. "
Well, by their syntax shall ye know them. It's "We are all a bit fed up WITH, bla bla." This is a common mistake that this writer has made over and over again in the past year or so. I do not purport to know "the truth" and being at Duncroft will not provide it either, whatever year you were there. I am casting wider nets at the moment.
"Yes the staff did change and it was no longer an approved school but a Children's Home, so start blogging a few facts instead of assumptions that are wrong based on the faulty memory of others."
The term "approved school" was abandoned by legislation in the late 60s. You can put lipstick on a pig, call it a Children's Home, but it's still exactly what it always was. Except you had what you call “padded cells” in the 70s, which we didn't, didn't need them then. In actual fact, these rooms were known as “soft” rooms, so that girls returning from either home leave or other more interesting escapades under the influence of LSD, could safely recover without hurting themselves. A staff member was on 24-hour watch during those times.
I have been informed many times that there were girls in the 70s who had committed murder, and others who had committed serious crimes. This made some of you, on care and protection orders, nervous, and rightly so. Murderers do not end up in Children's Homes, so let's stop that little fantasy, shall we?
"Please state WHO was paid or made any claim on Saviles estate. This was NOT DONE FOR MONEY and you should not falsely name people."
Really? So why did you do it? Never been any explanation of your motives, but I am sure they were in no way altruistic. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Many of us think it is time that you got a life instead of stating others are lying and it appears that you are trying to protect the reputation of your old school that you describe as "The Roedean of its day".
Actually, that wasn't me making the statement about Roedean, but goes to the same state of mind that has prevailed all along. Just wanted to clear that up.
"It was an Approved school when you were sent there by the courts for theft."
Er - no. Care and protection. Sorry. I don't think you have the foggiest idea who I am!
"... it was very different 10 years after you left with different buildings and staff. Many may wonder why you continue to name others and call other people liars for acts that they have not done."
The staff, with the addition of one member that I did not know, but she sounds like a decent person, who has also had to suffer your (used in a group sense) outrageous lies, were the same staff that were with the school in the 60s. The day-staff do not count in my mind, as they had no real authority and came and went.
"The Anna Raccoon blog has no concrete information and is full of suppositions, so either stop your silly games or we will start to post the truth about you. The photograph here was the one you kept complaining about as you posted it online and yet you try and claim copywrite! LOL."
Er - that'd be copyRIGHT. And yes, that's my photo. The one they have at Barnardo's in the archives is a different shot altogether. They verified that when I sent them a scan of mine, which they have my permission to keep in their collection. Now then, let's not be ridiculous any longer or continue to make ourselves look bad. These are not silly games, you can post whatever you want, I have nothing to hide. You likely may, however. This is the sort of grandiose behavior which got you in trouble in the first place. There are much more serious things afoot than you and your complaints about Jimmy Savile.
In closing, I just wanted to advise you that the 8-part Duncroft/Savile blog posts on Raccoon have exceeded 250,000 views, and it doesn't appear that many of those readers disagree with the points raised.
It's a real problem for you that you didn't get control of Bebe Roberts before she blew your cover by going to the Mail and telling all those lies. Even Carol B noted Saturday on Raccoon that according to her records from Barnardo's, Jimmy Savile first came to the school on February 26, 1974. Or at least she informs her Social Worker, “Guess who’s coming to tea today? JS.” However, nothing that indicates he actually did show up at the school until the official visit in May 1974. Sort of verifies that Bebe is lying, doesn't it? Oooh, Bebe, or is that b.b., or is beef biryani the new synonym for b.s.?