Thursday, 9 July 2015


As I said in a previous post, Olivia didn't stand much of a chance with her 'Song for Europe' in 1974. Abba made their debut into our lives that year with their song Waterloo ! Here they are in Waterloo Station shortly afterwards.
 Here's a bit more info that I've picked up about the event online 
Yes, that's Uncle Bulgaria, the Wombles being the guest act as it happens ! The date of the LIVE broadcast was Saturday 6th April a few hours after a recorded episode of Clunk Click. Here's a useful piece of information from a man who knows quite a bit about the industry as it happens
True enough, Savile was back presenting Top of the Pops on 2nd May 1974 introducing Abba singing Waterloo !
OK now, back to business ! I am determined to find out the dates of the recordings of the episodes of CC featuring Glitter and Freddie Starr. WHY ? because the media and press have 
1) Led us to believe that the two were in the same place at the same time
2) The files that have been uploaded by the person/s who made an FOI request are conveniently lacking anything in connection with 1974. But, then I looked at one of the few published and made a remarkable discovery. You see, one of the few that mentions Cluck Click relates to the first series, that is 1973.
Now, look closely, because it just so happens that those dates are not broadcast dates but recording dates. Let me show you the calender for 1973 

 2nd May etc etc are Wednesday nights guys and gals. Now, we don't have a similar chit for 1974 but we can take from this that there was ONE recording per week regardless of when it aired.
More proof required ? The dates above relate to 8 attendances, and there were indeed, eight programs

Series 2 had 12 episodes starting 9th February 1974 (broadcast date). It was due to start the week before (2nd Feb) but Jim's already explained this in my last post. The recordings, I am reliably informed, were on a Thursday so, Freddie Starr's guest appearance should have been recorded Thursday 25th April 1974 and Gary Glitter's 14th March.

Now, according to the Guardian in February 2013, the 'BBC's timeline' states Hannah's tape includes Glitter AND Duncroft girls. BUT, that cannot be because her email suggests that whoever the celebrity is, Karin (R1) is one one side of him and R4 whom I know the identity of, is on the other !
 And here's Glitter

They certainly could be Duncroft girls, a coloured girl had attended the school but the other is certainly NOT Karin Ward.

So what some of you might ask ? Me, I want facts as I'm sure does Freddie Starr who was after all placed in the same room as Glitter by Ward and then NOT, as it happens. Ward changed her story you see !
Then, in her local rag

So, what steps did ANYONE take to investigate the matter of who, what, where or whom ? None by the looks of things and why ? Because the schemer's had achieved what they wanted to achieve. They had created a scenario whereby a convicted sex offender appeared on the SAME show as an alleged sex offender (Savile). Anyone else who fell victim along the way was of NO concern to them ! You only have to read Meirion Jones' tweets to see the axe he's still grinding ! 

I haven't finished yet ! Oh no, I've still got Fiona's take on Karin's story to come. But I thought I'd share with you a little of what I know so far. The truth will come out and those who have misled and/or deliberately lied will face their Waterloo. Well, hopefully that is !

Important Update17.31 GMT 
Frederick Starr v Karin Ward judgement to be announced in court tomorrow !





  1. The process of identification was shambolic throughout, as was the dating of any of the allegations and ages of those claiming victimhood. The whole thing was based on belief, like priests with frightened peasants in the Middle Ages.

  2. Great stuff, Rabbit.
    It worries me that it was so easy to get Mr Gadd. Why him?

    1. It's off topic but one of those involved in Gadd;s jailing this time round was actually a complainant from 1999 that the Crown back then declined to put in court. That's the level of duplicity in the legal establishment just now. The witness and the evidence remain the same but "the process" has changed. If that isn't corruption at the highest level, it's hard to imagine what is.

    2. Why him ? because their MO is quantity not quality Misa. While not charged or convicted as a result of Ward's tales, he was jailed for alleged offences in the late 70's. Must check the details of the charges again as a matter of interest. Some of the Glitter/Savile footage used by the media involves Gadd's appearance on Jim'll fix it years later. 1990's I think !

    3. "Getting Gadd" was actually key in all this, and a lot of time and effort was spent in whipping up hysteria around the man as Jones, Tosspot & co were 'hatching' Savilisation in early 2012. They knew that bringing Gary Glitter into the story was what they needed to kick off hysterical reactions from the moronic public and the Witch Hunt to begin.
      (*the video is from 2012, not 2011 as stated.)

  3. A NatWest sign above his right shoulder - if he only knew!

    1. A Nat West sign in Waterloo Station. We can but hope ! ;-)

  4. Just a quick thought...
    Is the ID of Karin and R4 in the Freddie clip absolutely certain?
    It came from the Newsnight research, didn't it? And we know how thorough their research was. Are we sure this pic matches with others of her from her Duncroft days?

    1. R1 is Karin Ward Misa and I know who R4 is !

    2. Yes, but I mean, are we *certain* that they are the girls behind Freddie Starr in the picture/video? Once told that it was them, I just accepted that someone must be sure. Is Karin in the video clearly identifiable?

      I saw some old pictures from my school days not so long ago and struggled to recognise quite a few people until I was 'reminded' (i.e. informed) who they were.

    3. @Misa
      I once dallied with wondering that
      but one has to assume that if it wasn't her, somebody somewhere would have claimed it. Granted the "mainstream" is tied up with a bow, but there are surely enough dissenters out there for at least one to have at least alleged it's not her, and nobody ever has.

    4. Yes. Very much the way I looked at it. And of course Mr Justice Nichol has now assured us that it is her. I think it's always worth dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on this stuff or, where not possible, at least bearing it in mind in case the opportunity to confirm it comes up.

    5. @Misa
      Check out my question about Dee Coles on Rabbit's very next Post...