Jimmy Savile at Duncroft: who to believe?

Picture of former Duncroft headmistress Margaret Jones, an elderly white woman in a blue and white striped T-shirt and blue drawstring jeans, standing at her door with a person in front of her taking notesThe past week or so I’ve been following a series of posts by the blogger “Anna Raccoon”, who I earlier came across in her articles about the Court of Protection and her championing of Mark Neary’s cause (Mark Neary being the man whose autistic son was wrongly detained for more than a year for “challenging behaviour” by Hillingdon social services). She is a former pupil at the Duncroft school, the locked boarding school for intelligent but disturbed teenage girls which was supposedly used as a “paedophile’s sweet shop” by the late Jimmy Savile, at the same time as the abuse allegedly happened. She claims that the people who are making the claims were not there at the time, and points to a number of historical inaccuracies such as Savile’s Rolls Royce being the wrong model to have been made by the time some of the incidents happened. She also reported that the former headmistress, Margaret Jones, had been doorstepped by someone from the Daily Mail; I saw an “interview” with her in today’s paper, in which she describes the girls making the claims as “delinquents” who used sex to buy favours from men (Anna Raccoon said she did not actually give an interview, but did answer a couple of questions before spotting a hidden tape recorder). The paper describes her attitude as “cruel” and their picture of her is clearly intended to give that impression, though to me it looks like she was annoyed and suspicious at being doorstepped.

As I’ve said before, I always had doubts about the theory that Savile was never brought to book because he was untouchable. He wasn’t all that famous for the last 20 years or so of his life, and during that time, many men were locked up for historical incidents of sexual abuse often on the basis of a volume of accusations but not a substantial volume of proof. Richard Webster and Bob Woffinden had an article published in the Guardian’s Weekend supplement in 1998, Trawling for Crimes, in which they present their evidence that some long-serving teachers jailed for sexually abusing boys were in fact innocent, and that the police had been trawling for accusations and suggesting to old boys from various homes that they might get money if they make an accusation along the lines of those that had already been made. (Former “Prisoner Ben”, now out on licence, gave an account of such an encounter with trawling police here.) I have my own theory about some of these false accusations: that some of these men may be innocent of sexual abuse but are in fact guilty of physical abuse or other forms of cruelty, but their victims accused them of a more serious crime either to ensure a longer sentence, or to circumvent any “reasonable chastisement” or “that was how things were done then” defence. But I have no doubt that some are also completely innocent.

I do not know who to believe in all of this. I’ve been in a special boarding school myself (not a locked unit), as I have written on a number of occasions. I do not expect any scandal of this sort to happen, partly because nobody famous was poking their nose around, but partly because I never got an inkling of any adult-on-child sexual abuse when I was there (there was plenty of physical violence, and some boy-on-boy sexual harassment). There was one member of care staff (sacked in 1990) who displayed an inappropriate degree of favouritism towards a boy in the year above mine (who was himself one of the harassers, and also a minor bully), but the suggestion of a sexual relationship is just something that appears whenever two males get too close in an environment like that, or even in the wider world sometimes. George Michael used the same suggestion to describe the relationship between Bush and Blair in the video to his song Shoot the Dog.

I think it inappropriate that the journalists out to find a scandal at the BBC did not investigate whether the women making the claims are of present good character, because a school of that nature will inevitably take in some who are not, and might well turn out some who are not, and who have one ulterior motive or other for making these claims (a grudge against an unrelated matter, or for their subsequent unhappiness even long after leaving, for example). The former director of Newsnight was roundly criticised for backtracking on an investigation into Savile’s alleged crimes on the grounds that the evidence was “just the women”, but that is actually a good reason to question the veracity of a story, even if not to entirely disbelieve it. A bunch of people saying something is true does not make it true. It should go without saying that the time just after a celebrity’s death is not the right time to run a documentary exposing accusations about their behaviour.

The Mail’s characterisation of Jones as cruelly dismissing the women’s claims indicates that they have no interest in challenging the dominant narrative: that Savile was allowed into places where girls should have been safe (and where they had no way of getting out) and abused them and was protected by staff, and by a perception of him as a saint and perhaps a reliance on his financial largesse. There also seems to be a sense that we should “believe the children”, but it’s not “believing the children” to believe adults who are making claims about things that happened when they were children 30 or 40 years ago. As previous sexual abuse cases demonstrate, we have no problem with that. We have a problem with believing those who say they were assaulted recently, often with much better evidence than in these historical cases.

On the other hand, Jones maintains that the girls could have come to her at any time and told her that Savile had abused them and that the fact that they didn’t do that at the time proves that the claims they make now are not true. The problem is that many children and adolescents fear people in authority, and may have been under the impression that to complain about an adult in a tone of distress, or displaying the level of respect appropriate for a common criminal, would have been taken for rudeness or insolence and been brushed off equally rudely, or they would have been punished. I don’t know if that was ever put to Jones, but it may have been in the girls’ minds if they had thought to complain. She also says that she does not remember the names of some of the girls alleged to have complained of the abuse (and Anna Raccoon said Jones had told her on the phone that the interviewer presented a list of first names, but not full names). I also hesitate to believe anyone who says that a school where there has been a scandal was really a good school and the complainers are lying or whatever, because I was at a bad school, I said so publicly, and I was called a liar myself (and a “f**ked up little Islamist”, a “waste of space” and various other things) by other boys who had better memories, by virtue of being further up the pecking order. Bullies often don’t think they’re bullies, just that their victims really are little shits, and they don’t like it if someone tries to kick their house of cards down, even decades later. I wasn’t at Duncroft, and I don’t know why it worked out better for Anna Raccoon than for some of the other girls who were there at the same time or later.

Of course, the Savile story is now bigger than the Duncroft aspect, and there are a large number of people both in the media and in the parts of the health service he patronised who have come forward to say that he used to grope women and girls he came into contact with. The claims, of course, will never be tested in a court of law, so the media will work on the natural assumption that at least some of them are true. Some good has come out of this scandal, such as an exposure of the “gropie culture”, as Janet Street-Porter called it, in the light entertainment section of the media in particular, but an awful lot of bad, including the closure of two charities Savile founded (they said last week that the publicity about Savile had led to a surge in appeals for their money, but perhaps that was not matched by a surge in donations), and possibly the rise in suspicious attitudes, particularly towards men when they are dealing with vulnerable people of any sort (and more so when they are well-known or not doing it for money). I read a blogger yesterday calling this one of the biggest paedophile scandals in British history, but so far, it’s just a farrago of unproven accusations about things that happened decades ago, mostly at the hands of a now dead man. These kinds of accusations can easily lead to unfairly broken reputations and to innocent people spending years in prison. It would be good to see media culture reformed to get rid of the sexism and exploitation, rather than to drag people’s names through the mud on the basis of rumours and unproveable accusations from people with a grudge, or who want money.

Possibly Related Posts:

  • Jonathan Mason

    Lot of good points here, although I would give some credit to the Daily Mail, because while not overtly challenging the dominant narrative, they certainly gave public space to the notion that the current accusers may not be of good character—a notion that I suspect is much more widely held by the general public than by the journalistic community.

  • ” rumours and unproveable accusations from people with a grudge, or who want money.”

    See, I really doubt this is the issue.

    I think there may be some truth in your suggestion that victims of physical and psychological abuse sometimes add sexual elements to make heinous cruelty taken seriously (especially among boys - even now, there’s a vein of belief that boys should be able to cope with a bit of physical violence and verbal bullying). I also think - and there’s some evidence of this happening in some cases when an accused person has been exonerated - that adults who experienced sexual abuse as children can sometimes transfer the guilt from someone who was too close to them - like a father or brother - onto someone more psychologically expendable, like a teacher or social worker. So they may remember real things, and speak the truth exactly as they remember it, but they’ve put a different face on the perpetrator, because the truth of their identity is too much.

    This may especially be the case with Saville because all this news coverage will have really stirred it up for sexual abuse victims everywhere, and becoming one of Saville’s victims and getting help for that - support from friends and family, acknowledgement, medical help, no thought of money - may be a thousand times easier than trying to tell people that you’re forty years old and are having immense difficulties coping because your father (who perhaps you still see on a regular basis and may be a pillar of your community) sexually abused you as a child.

    So this is what I suspect when I see these inconsistencies. After all, as you know, troubled children aren’t randomly troubled. You were in that school because you hadn’t got a a proper diagnosis and appropriate support, but others will have been there because of behaviourial problems that came from home - some will have certainly been responding either to abuse or seeing abusive behaviour and thinking that was normal. “Delinquent” girls even more so - teenage girls don’t do sexual favours for money because they’re just badly behaved like that; life experience has taught them a twisted values system where their own sexuality is all about other people.

    Meanwhile, being seen to make a false accusation - or any accusation at all - is not without consequences. You’ve described the abuse you’ve experienced just for telling your story. Even when people are believed, often sexual abuse victims in particular as seen as fundamentally damaged people (some figures in the Catholic Church, in trying to defend or downplay its paedophile problem, spoke as if its victims had become needlessly obsessed with what had happened to them as children). Now that money is potentially involved, there will be a lot more scepticism about the numbers coming forward and that in itself is extremely problematic for the individuals involved; adults who were victims of abuse as children tend to be riddled with far more guilt and self-doubt that adult victims of abuse.

    So I’m inclined to believe any adult who describes childhood abuse - at least the fact that they were abused. But although I am quite convinced that Saville was a prolific abuser, I think it is almost inevitable that some of those hundreds of accusers were abused by other men.

    Sorry for such a ramble - I guess your post helped clarify something that has been forming in my mind about this case for a while.

  • Moor Larkin

    I was interested to read of your knowledge about the way a “volume” of accusations can be taken as some kind of “proof”. One of the strangest things about the Savile case is that the police publicly referred to him as a “sexual predator”, and yet if you read the Met website about Operation Yewtree it says,

    “As we have said from the outset, our work was never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile. What we have established in the last two weeks is that there are lines of inquiry involving living people that require formal investigation.”

    This seems to indicate that they have carried out no investigation at all and yet they effectively have acted as a judge delivering a verdict on the man’s life. This “volume of accusations” approach might make sense for a private individual (arguably) but it seems a deeply flawed approach for a very famous person - especially in the modern celebrity-based culture of the UK.

  • Caval

    Excellent article. Just a thought….Since compensation for these type of crimes is no longer allowed in France & Germany accusations have dropped by 90%.!!!

  • Duncroft was a prison for delinquent children who were sentenced by the Court and removed from their parents. Anna Racoon is a child abuse debunker. I think these old ladies who were not even at Duncroft in the 70’s when Saville frequented the girls prison have selective memories. They want to believe it was a school for young ladies when it was as far removed from that as Prncess Diana is from Myra Hindley.

  • Anne

    Very well written and please remember NO DUNCROFT GIRL has made any financial claim or requires money from the Savile coffers. People should make up there own minds but realise that the Anna Raccoon (AKA Susan Nundy), as well as other Duncroft Girls who attended Duncroft PRIOR to Saviles visits, only have their personal experiences to rely on and they are bullying all of the accussors stating that they are lying and trying to turn ‘Their School and Staff’ into a scandelous place. Ask yourselves why is there film eveidence of Savile at Duncroft, why did he go there and what are these elderly pupils so scared of as very few of the staff are still alive (I believe).

  • OscarM

    Coming in late to this but it’s a story the evolves. Note : the recent report claims some Duncroft girls were working as prostitutes for ‘black’ pimps In West London.

    I haven’t got a clue what the truth is except it appears to be malleable but I do know this : to accept inflammatory tabloid (and include the ‘serious’ newspapers) tales is a danger to us all.

  • OscarM

    and also this : Anne “Very well written and please remember NO DUNCROFT GIRL has made any financial claim or requires money from the Savile coffers.” How would Anne know? Even if she was a former Duncroft girl she wouldn’t know what the others are doing as any such claim si strictly confidential. Unless they have all conferred which implies a co-ordinated plan.

  • Yip Nundy is a proven liar,she has retired twice because of people being nasty tae her AND LIKE GREG LANCE Watkins IS CONSTANTLY DYING,but never dies!

  • The ghost of Benny Hill

    Anna Raccoon – taken at face value? Posted on April 16, 2011 by IanPJ There has in the last few days been the most despicable and revolting blog post that I have read in a long time. I am ashamed, not for who I am or what I believe in, but for the disgusting display of pack animals on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations by Susanne Nundy (Anna Raccoon), especially from those who claim to be libertarian. I am disappointed to the point of being disgusted. Disgusted that so very few indicated that every story has two sides, and that not one single person said the words ‘prove it’, or ‘where is the evidence’, and it says more about the hive mentality of the audience than the delusions of the writer. Susanne Nundy, aka Anna Raccoon has decided to air some of her dirty washing in public, yet when we delve deeper into her past and her possible motives, it creates a very different view to her latest story line, because Susanne Nundy has been acting to destabilise the Libertarian Party since its inception, creating problems for the Leadership of the party at every opportunity. But before we get too far into the Nundy past, let me refute completely her version of events with regards to myself and the actions of Rohan Kapur. The very first I had heard of this ‘incident’ was when I received a late night telephone call at 11pm on the day that Rohen had left her home. She recalled that she had been in touch by email with Rohan over a period of time, that online conversations led on to the matter of property, that Rohan was looking to buy such a property and that she had a second property that she had for sale. As such she had invited him to France to look at it, and as he had not booked any accommodation for his visit decided to put him up at home for the 2 days he was to be there. She then explained the ‘events’ of the food eating, the photo’s and the computer use and asked of me ‘what are you going to do about it’. My response was that if true, such allegations were somewhat serious, but what would she like me to do about it, because as far as I was concerned this was a private matter and nothing to do with the party and I didn’t understand why she would call me over his behaviour. At this point she then demanded, and I mean demanded, that because Rohen was a Libertarian PPC it was my business, that he was unsuitable as a candidate, that I should discuss this with Andrew (who apart from being Chairman at that time was also acting as the candidate selection officer) and if necessary call a special NCC meeting to have Rohen deselected. She also demanded a full and unreserved apology from Rohen Kapur, because her husband was ready to start legal proceedings unless LPUK did something about him. It was at this point that she advised me of Rohen’s mental health problems, told me that she had seen his medical record and actually read back to me a list of conditions that were in that file, along with a series of matters that were before the GMC. (that is the first time that my alarm bells began to ring with regards to Susanne Nundy). When asked how she had access to these files, she indicated that some former colleagues had advised her of Rohan’s unsuitability… which if she had known beforehand… would never have invited him to France… Yet she had this information to hand to read to me on the day he left… Her apparent ability to gain access to private and confidential documentation is something that I will come back to later in this post. What she didn’t know, and I didn’t tell her was that Rohan had actually approached me 2 months earlier, had advised of his ongoing legal problems with the GMC and had voluntarily agreed to be deselected. The following day I did speak with Andrew about this, who in turn called Susanne Nundy. I also called Rohan, repeated the allegations, many of which he absolutely denied (and still does), and suggested that he should produce a full apology in order to end this matter. At no time was her telephone call remarked to be ‘in confidence’. She wanted action and wanted it NOW. As a result there was a special NCC meeting, the outcome being that Rohan Kapur was suspended from the party, a decision I have to say I now regret. With hindsight I should have stuck to my original line of ‘nothing to do with the party’, and I put this down to set-up #1. As with her post about Andrew Withers, there was no evidence, only her allegations and again she manages to conflate what are private matters with party business. I would call this a set-up simply because Susanne Nundy has a history. Wherever there is a story of abuse by officials, especially when it relates to children or paedophilia, up pops a swathe of names including Anna Raccoon, Susanne Nundy or under her maiden name Susanne Cameron-Blackie , all ready to ‘assist’, yet strangely the outcome is never the one that those originally abused, or their campaigners envisaged. More often than not they are ripped apart, labelled as nutters and thrown to the pack in the manner we saw with her post about Andrew Withers yesterday. Its almost as if she is a professional Trojan Horse. Susanne’s own career in the Lord Chancellor’s department is not necessarily what you imagine it was. Whilst she continually presents herself as a lawyer, she can call herself a lawyer only insomuch as she has a law degree, but I can find no records that she ever qualified as a solicitor or barrister and was never called to the bar. (if I am wrong perhaps she has some physical evidence to the contrary, such as certificates or photos that can be published). No, Susanne Nundy was a ‘Lord Chancellor’s visitor’, as such she was little more than a glorified social worker, but with special powers. The Lord Chancellor can appoint a Court of Protection visitor to a panel of special visitors or a panel of general visitors. These visitors replace the current Lord Chancellor’s visitors under Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1983. To be eligible for appointment as a special visitor a person must be a registered medical practitioner or appear to the Lord Chancellor to have other suitable training or special knowledge. However, a general visitor does not need to have any particular medical qualifications. Visitors have the power to carry out visits and produce reports as directed by the court or the public guardian. They have the power to examine and take copies of documents or records held by authorities that relate to the protected person, and also have the power to interview the protected person in private. Special visitors also have the powers to carry out medical examinations if necessary. The Code of Practice indicates that visitors have a role to play in investigating possible abuse and also to check on the general well-being of a person who lacks capacity.(source) A lot of power, especially if the person concerned is slightly unstable (as per the Mental Health Act). Susanne claims to have moved to France in 2005, either 5 years or 2 years after having left the Lord Chancellors office (depending on which of her versions you read), yet here is her LinkedIn profile showing her as a Lord Chancellors visitor (DCA) located in erm… Aquitaine, France. (It is worth noting that the DCA was only added after the Tony Blair shake-up of that department, with the Dept of Constitutional Affairs added to it in 2005), and it is my understanding that her career with the Lord Chancellors office came to an end when she put in a claim under the Mental Health Act for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and walked away with a cool £250,000 of taxpayers money in compensation (her original claim was reported to be £500,000). That her investments in property with that compensation money have gone awry, leaving her in a parlous financial state must give cause to consider that doing ‘favours’ for the department is a financial motive worth considering. That Andrew Withers is winning his battles where they should be won, in court, would not stop the more unscrupulous from using smear campaigns to discredit where the attempted legal avenues have been discovered to be littered with lies, perjury, forgeries and malfeasance. It was after discovering these elements of her past that I perhaps wondered if she was still doing ‘favours’ for old colleagues. Consider that Rohan Kapur was also winning or at least holding his own in his legal battles with the GMC, how better to dispose of a thorn in their side than a public discrediting of him. Also take her post on the Hollie Greg campaign which was also beginning to gain traction, another public shredding from Anna Raccoon. Earlier I referred to her access to private and confidential documentation, because in each case she seems to have obtained or at least had sight of private or confidential documentation that is certainly not in the public domain, and in the case of Hollie Greg documentation that was sealed, not even available to the family. Just how does Susanne Nundy gain access to such confidential documentation unless she still works for government, or it is being fed to her. As others have said “let’s face it, there’s no more cruel a kick than the kick of a Trojan Horse”. Never forget, that there are always multiple levels to politics. What the public see and read in the press and media is a very sanitised end presentation, what goes on in the background and in dark corners is what some of us have been dealing with and exposing every day for many years. We have always been aware that there would be attempts to destabilise the Libertarian Party, to stop it forming into a coherent political force in the same way using similar methods that were tried on UKIP in its early days, and the biggest beneficiary to that destabilisation would be the DCA as I have written about in the past. Could Anna Raccoon really be a trojan horse for the DCA and other government departments? Because it’s certainly beginning to look like it from where I sit. But please, all this information is in the public domain, so take your own time to look it up to satisfy yourselves that this is real, and to give you some further insight, here are some observations on the contradictions that are Anna Raccoon, from a black ops watcher, Blackwatch from September last year. Susanne Nundy is just as baffling a proposition. For those unfamiliar with the story, Susanne Nundy is the name used by British Libertarian blogger, Anna Raccoon, more popularly known for her posts about the Madeleine McCann and Hollie Greig stories and a favourite of the Nbrado-run, Chaos Raptors website (who seem to have blocked my IP this week, from what I can gather). Nundy and Greg Watkins are alleged to have co-managed a disinformation campaign around the Hollie Greig case by an equally dubious set of Greig supporters (the kind that give Andrew Marr all the amunition he needs to make sweeping generalisations) Why did ‘Susanne Nundy’ or whoever she is – use the email address courtofprotection.co.uk? The Court of Protection as it exists now, was set up by Jack Straw and New Labour in 2005 (created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005). In the Inexorable choices‘ post Nundy says she was in office in 2003 (just as Blair ditched the office of Lord Chancellor) and yet in an email she sent me yesterday, Raccoon insists she had resigned the office in 2000 (which I’m happy to forward to anyone who requests it). But even Chris Carter, her replacement in 2004, insists she was working at this time. Interestingly the email address alleged to have ‘outed’ Anna Raccoon (and I use the term cautiously) was left on a website for Old Scholars at St Christopher’s School in Letchworth, Hertfordshire – an old and respected boarding school set up by Beatrice Ensor – a close friend of Fabian Socialist and Freemason, Annie Besant and sponsored by Helena Blavtasky’sTheosophical Society – a weird and slightly extreme religious group influenced by new age and Aryan mysticism (imagine David Icke with some serious political backers and a decent night’s sleep). But all this sounds a bit too good to be true in my opinion: leaving a breadcrumb trail to some weird theosophical preparatory school with links to Freemasons and Fabian Socialism? Throw in a few references to the Lord Chancellor and working for the Court of Protection? No, something just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s all too neat. Like my Christmasses have all come early. Things like this don’t just fall into your lap so easily, do they? On the otherhand, its seems unlikely that the email address was left deliberately (as breadcrumbs) as it appears as far back in the wayback records as January 2004 so she must have been using it around the time. Why Nundy was using an email address that alluded to a governmental role but which clearly hadn’t been registered through any formal government department remains unclear (the domain name doesn’t have the expected TLD .gov.uk - like that of the Supreme Court, for instance). A parking page for the courtofprotection.co.uk website from March 2003 suggests the original courtofprotection.co.uk site was set up and maintained in France. The domain makes one appearance in 2003 and then disappears – so make what you will of the credibility of the site ro her claims. I’m also finding it difficult to reconcile Susanne Nundy’s celebrated ‘Libertarian’ ideals with the idea of her working with such a crudely draconian, insidious and cheerfully Orwellian institution as the Court of Protection. I’ve seen her attempts to address this fairly awkward little paradox in her blog. She says it wasn’t an invention of ‘Nu Labour’ and Jack Straw – but that’s just being pedantic. It had existed in one form or another for years, but New Labour extended its powers and its reach exponentially in 2005 (whilst simultaneously incapacitating the power of carers and relatives). It was rebranded, relaunched. According to a Daily Telegraph report, the Court of Protection’s expansion had been controversial’ not only for its extensive powers but also for the fact that almost all of its hearings take place in private‘. My guess, is that like Shrimpton and Bennett the character going by the name of Nundy doesn’t know whether she’s extremely right or extremely left. However, I suppose the distribution of any ideal can be skewed and uneven on occasion. Just look at the blogs she claims to read – they don’t get more skewed than that. If I was being pedantic (now heaven forbid) I’d say the miscellaneous nature of it made it look more like a webring or a linkfarm of sorts. But what better way to manage opinion than by managing both sides? Could Susanne Nundy really be a protector of paedophile rings inside government institutions as is alleged by some of Hollie Greig’s supporters? Was the use of her LinkedIn profile, the fake court of protection email address & website in France a prelude to something more sinister? Further discrepancies are investigated by BW in the comments. Not too impressed with this ‘Anna Raccoon’, I have to say. She was tripping herself up left right and centre in emails we exchanged yesterday. One minute she was saying she hadn’t placed her name and email address on the St Christopher’s Old Scholars page – that someone else had – (susanne.nundy@courtofprotection.co.uk) the next she was saying she had given permission afterall (after I’d pointed out that I’d been in touch with David Curzons who manages the Old Scholars page and he said old scholars MUST request it themselves). She says in her ‘Intimidation and cooercion‘ post that “the e-mail address given is not and has never been a genuine e-mail address.” But if it was not a genuine email address: how could St Christophers contact her using that address to add her to the list as she told me yesterday? She also says she never used the courtofprotection.co.uk address after retiring in 2000 but the domain is there in the wayback archives in 2003 – under construction in France – where she lives. Raccoon’s site is down for ‘maintenance’ at the moment so I can well imagine she is altering some of her posts as we speak in the event the Office of the Public Guardian start looking more closely at her claims. Here’s what she says in her ‘Inexorable choices‘ post: “I worked in the Lord Chancellor?s Office the last time Labour (under Tony Blair) made one of their knee jerk attempts at reforming the constitution to suit themselves. Blair got up one morning and ?abolished? the Lord Chancellor. Chaos ensued.” – nb: this was 2003-2005.And here’s what Ms Nundy says in an email to me yesterday: “I most certainly was not working as a Visitor after 2000. I let the domain lapse. I have no idea who re-registered it. I didn?t move to France until 2005 so the fact that it was someone in France has no suspicious connections with me.”And again, in a previous email: “Mrs Nundy ceased to use the courtofprotection.co.uk address in 2000 when she retired from work. What has happened to it since then is of no interest to me, nor relevance.”Does she always talk about herself in the third person? Here’s another of Ms Nundy’s ‘out of body experiences’ (or travels in the third person narrative) – a rather flattering report she did about ‘the blogger’ Anna Raccoon. Herself by any other name. She’s not lying exactly. She’s not telling the truth exactly. In one breath she says she retired in 2000 – and in another breath says she was working in the Lord Chancellor’s Office in2003. That she’s been involved in this work seems certain in many respects but she seems to have lied about all the timings. Why? And how does one balance her propensity for lying with her devotion as a Quaker (anyone remember the ‘testimony of integrity’ and such like)? Has Raccoon just been impersonating Ms Nundy? Sounds dumb, but who knows, given the lies thus far. I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions. . UPDATE 19/4/11 After having received several comments purporting to be from ‘different commenters’ using the same IP address, the comments on this post are now closed. The IP and user information relating to those comments will be passed to the police.

  • Dr Rohen Kapur

    If you want to ask me I can be contacted at any time. Happy to say my piece.