« DUNCROFT, JIMMY SAVILE & I - Where's the beef biryani? | Main | REFLECTIONS ON ROLF HARRIS »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Moor Larkin

I have taken the liberty of quoting your blog in this one, of my own. My blog is also about dual identities.


Wendi James Davis

It all ultimately comes down to SO many people finding it incomprehensible that some women who were in what was basically a reform school for girls in the early to mid 70s would decide to go public claiming Savile (and others by unfortunate default) had sexually abused them almost four decades ago! First of all, it turns out that all were over 16 at the time and second, no-one was raped as in 'forcibly penetrated.' So what was the point of this?
Bearing in mind the general laissez faire attitudes of the late 60s and 70s, age of the flower children, free love, peace to the world and all that, it just doesn’t add up.
As I’ve stated before, none of us who attended were little innocents and few were lily-white virgins when we arrived there. We were sent there in the main because our natural or adopted parent/s were either alcoholics, had zero parenting skills or were just plain mean and our ‘behaviour’ was considered, in cahoots with social services at the time, to be ‘out of parental control’ and we were in need of ‘care’. Being emotionally disturbed in your early to mid-teens when you have an above average IQ and lousy parents and inevitably kicking the traces is hardly unusual and a subconscious SOS, with only a small minority ending up in the care system. Those of us who did and were lucky enough to land in Duncroft as opposed to other far worse places where there was no possibility of continuing your education and that were run like gaols, were fortunate. We certainly weren’t badly treated at Duncroft and if we screwed up we were punished, in no severer fashion than one would be in any other normal ‘boarding’ institution. That there were padded cells and heavy sedatives were meted out if necessary later in the 70s surprises me and must have been due to a different filtering system being enforced by the Home Office at that time and therefore presumably considered necessary.
Bottom line is that all this media frenzy and the tainting of many peoples’ lives was begun by a handful of ex-Duncroft girls from the 70s, led by FSJ and picked up and embellished by irresponsible journalists and a self-acclaimed ‘child abuse specialist’ ex-bobby who did not do their due diligence and who seem to view the knicker-fumbling and possible blow jobs of a few girls who were in care and at the age of consent some forty years ago as the scoop of the century. You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

The comments to this entry are closed.