‘It’s all the fault of the Internet’, cries the dead tree press. ‘We have to compete with them, and their wild landscape, and that has driven us to excesses we would never have thought of without their insane ramblings’.
Remarkable then, that Leveson has devoted 1973 pages to how the dead tree press should be behaving, and the nature of the naughty step that he thinks they should sit on when they fail to behave, and a mere 12 pages to the Internet that they claim to be aping in their rush to compete. The Internet is, Leveson says, an ‘ethical vacuum’, and as with the Curate’s egg, that is surely true in parts. Like Catholic priests, he believes the media should remain celibate, and foreswear the cyber pleasures. Theirs is a higher calling – that to inform, educate and entertain.
This morning, they are doing their best to do just that. To a man, they have eyed the excesses of ‘Rolf’ trending on Twitter, made their excuses and left, in time honoured fashion, pausing only to confirm that ‘an 80 year old man from Berkshire was interviewed under caution by appointment on matters not directly related to Savile’. Perfect – the Internet can do their dirty work for them, and they can merely slyly confirm that actually ‘it’ is on the right track, giving lofty credence to the rumours.
At a stroke, Leveson has ensured that in future the newspapers will behave – or face strict regulation to ensure that they do so. He has also ensured that it is the Internet which will be seen as the villain in the piece; the child that was left standing on the doorstep after the big boys had run away. Leveson claims that he was only mandated to look at the print media, not the Internet. Once the print media is behaving, assuming that this continues to happen as it has today, there will surely be renewed calls for a similar Inquiry into the Internet. Divide and Conquer.
That being said, we should look at who and why is busy fanning the flames in the Internet. Yesterday, whilst the Police were being suitably circumspect in giving information regarding the fact that ‘an 80 year old man’ had attended ‘an interview’ by appointment – which could be anything from, for instance, their role as Landlord of premises that might be of interest, to an allegation that had been made directly about them – ‘under caution’, which merely means that whatever they said was being formally recorded. The media followed in similar fashion.
However, someone, who self evidently didn’t get their information from either the media or officially from the Metropolitan Police, was very keen that the Internet should be given a new football to kick around. That someone was an ex-policeman.
Mark Williams-Thomas. A police constable who had finally climbed the greasy pole to get away from pounding the streets after 11 long years, and made it to Detective Constable - only to pack the job in a brief 12 months later. Mr Williams-Thomas claims to have ‘15 years in child protection‘ – the obvious inference from this statement, if not read in conjunction with his police record, would be that this was within a formal, professional environment such as the police. But he was only in the police for 12 years, and some of those would have been as a probationary PC. So a self made expert then?
When Mr Williams-Thomas first emerged from the police service, he described himself as a ‘freelance investigative journalist’. A much misunderstood ‘investigative journalist’, certainly misunderstood by one of his first subjects who was under the erroneous impression that Williams-Thomas was trying to blackmail him rather than document wrong doing within his organisation, a matter happily discharged by a jury.
A man who has since reinvented himself as a ‘child protection’ expert and talking head of choice to several TV stations whenever the issue of child abuse comes up. Madeleine McCann, Tia Sharp, Ashleigh Hall. A man who says he is all too well aware of the dangers to children posed by the Internet…and the need for, in his view, ‘policing’ of the Internet.
For the internet is full of people with sexually deviant desires – the level of danger goes way beyond even the most worried parent’s imagination.
Now why would someone who wants to see the Internet more effectively regulated and policed, ignore the restrained and professional behaviour of his ex-colleagues and the new found restraint of the print media – and, surely unintentionally, surely, be the cause of much possibly libellous chatter, speculation and gossip on the Internet by naming – and ‘hash-tagging’ with ‘Savile’ and ‘Sexual’ the mystery 80 year old as Rolf Harris?
The cynical amongst us, including myself, could almost believe that it was in such a persons interests to fan the flames in the ‘Ethical Vacuum’. Either that or he is a complete dipstick.
I can feel only sympathy for Rolf Harris – and his wife. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever why he was interviewed. It could have been as tenuous as having been named as an ‘alibi’ by someone else. At 80 years old though, at the end of his life, when he should have been reflecting with some satisfaction on his legacy, he is now subject to endless speculation on the Internet that he may be connected with such a vile practice as Paedophilia. Responsible people in the police and media gave him the benefit of the doubt pending concrete information, and chose not to link his name to Savile and the various allegations.
Mark Williams-Thomas didn’t.
‘Why not’? – is a question I shall ponder more over the coming weeks.

{ 144 comments }
Be fair:- It is wrong to cast up an allegation against Mark Williams-Thomas that was dismissed by a jury. I am otherwise in agreement with you.
Surely it would be wrong to mention the allegation without mentioning the jury’s verdict? Otherwise this is just stating a fact, he was charged but found not guilty. His reputation remains intact (at least as far as that allegation goes).
XX he was charged but found not guilty. His reputation remains intact (at least as far as that allegation goes).XX
Except you can not mention his name, without mentioning that he “was charged with…xyz”…..??!!
“Reptation remains intact” means that his name is never brought up in the context again.
But as we see, “innocent” means bugger all, once it reaches the media.
It is correct to expose Williams- Thomas’ background because he presents himself as an ‘expert’ on serious matters.
His background and ways of operating must be looked at in detail particularly as he inflames claims and presents bogus ‘facts ‘ : such as the lie in his second program re Savile had been exposed as a pedophile when no such thing has happened.
: Williams-Thomas approached an undertaker and declared he had proof of the (bogus) claim that more than one body was buried in a casket and on the receipt of money he would sell that story to that undertaker rather than the media. The jury found that he was ‘not guilty’ of blackmail but Williams-Thomas operates in the court of public opinion..he has placed himself there and we are entitled to find a different verdict.
Well said. Mark needs to be careful that this doesn’t turn on him. He is milking this ‘paedophile under every bush’ thing to death for his own gain.
Here in the States, we had the Jerry Sandusky scandal and he has gone to prison. Our media here, much to my surprise, has not drummed up suspicions against every college football coach they can find. We moved on, at least in terms of exploiting pedophilia.
Mark wants to keep this flame fanned for his own gain, far as I can see. If he’d shut the f-k up, instead of making pompous announcements on Twitter and elsewhere, the police could quietly get on with it, the various inquiries could go on without his constant harping, and the British public could stop suspecting every celebrity over the age of 65.
I’ve actually spoken to Mark in the past. He would have enjoyed a job on the Spanish Inquisition, imo.
Yes, Mark made a full risk assessment, on me, on-air, after a few minutes, on The John Gaunt show
He is special.
WM
MacBeth: “Vaulting ambition, which o’er leaps itself and falls on the other.”
This man is a disgrace. His tweet message is reverberating around the web and no doubt by now is being hailed by David Icke as further proof of the Zionist/Royal family/Freemason/ etc pedo/one world govt conspiracy. Australian newspapers are quoting him which basically urges readers to click on his Twitter account.
He has linked the man with Savile without proof and when the police obviously had good reason to not release his name. He is a menace. I’d like to see him in the libel courts one day.
He’s chosen his targets too well for that..
So Mark Williams Thomas is an Internet Investigative Journalist then, is he? Is this to be the new face of Journalism? How will they make their money? They can’t all be talking heads. Perhaps people will have to pay to access his Website, and the rest. And then The Government can have another Inquiry about The Internet.
Me? I’m all for Independent Regulation of the lot of them. Sorry about that. But those who don’t advocate Lies and Libel won’t need to worry.
It seems that Mark Williams-Thomas likes hearing the echo in the echo-chamber that is twitter, either that or he is proving he is a twit.
Interesting to compare the UK press to the US press. A story that has got some attention concerns an obviously out-of-control 11-year-old girl who had sex, willingly it seems, with as many as 19 men in a kind of orgy that was inevitably filmed on cell phone cameras and circulated at her school. Some of the defendants were schoolboys and some of them adults with criminal records. Defense lawyers have pointed out in mitigation that the girl appeared much older than her years and may have lied about her age.
The interesting point is that although there has been a fair bit of discussion about issues of (inability to ) consent and “statutory rape” (which is the legal name of the offense of having sex with someone underage), I have not seen the work “pedophilia” even mentioned in any discussion of the case.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201109/texas-gang-rape-11-year-old-girl-story?currentPage=1
And yet that is undoubtedly paedophilia – not because of the nature of the offence, but purely on age grounds. Unlike those in the UK who have been subjected to the term for ‘breast jiggling’ of a just under age girl.
It seems no soap actor is safe:
“The alleged offences are believed to date back to when he was a trainee actor called Andrew Watkinson.”
And when the age difference was not so great, either…
Does the case of the 80-year-old man have anything to do with “two little boys”?
I haven’t missed the point you are making – but we have absolutely no idea why he was interviewed. None whatso-remotely-ever!
Newspapers (The Daily Mirror reflects) are now reporting:
“The arrested man attended a South London police station by appointment where he was quizzed for around five hours on suspicion of sexual offences.”
“His Berkshire home had already been searched by officers on Saturday after they obtained a warrant.”
“His Berkshire home had already been searched by officers on Saturday after they obtained a warrant.”
Did they find two little boys? Perhaps they went to untie a kangaroo – it was needed as judge in the court of public opinion.
Can you tell who it is yet ?
“Did they find two little boys?”
I imagine the two little boys would now be grown up men, but they may have been looking for two little toys for corroborative evidence.
The police are not fools.
It’s not wrong to point out that MWT offered the director of a cemetery an “opportunity” to have the story he had developed go away. The fact that the matter even ended up in front of a jury is worthy of remark. It shows what sort of character he was and is. It’s all about Mark.
“It’s all about Mark.”
Oh, that’s the crux of it, isn’t it?
It may be fair to summarise the Levenson Inquiry and Report as being largely undertaken through the rear-view mirror.
Looking back over 300+ years of ‘free’ UK press, encompassed by flattening dead trees and smearing them with ink-stain, then pontificating on its future control whereas, as we all know, the front windscreen gives a view of an emerging publishing world which, due to its flexible geo-location and almost infinite range of sources, becomes impossible to police, manage, control or regulate.
Probably the most significant feature of the Levenson Report will be its complete irrelevance to the world of publishing as we see it emerging. Whether Cameron is eventually beaten into legislating or not is unlikely to impact one jot on the next generation of factual, or fact-free, output from that future world.
The Interweb an “Ethical vacuum?”
Hmm. That may well be, but some of us in the outer obscurity have higher standards than the lamestream.
Couldn’t agree more Bill.
The problem is with the term “ethical vacuum”: it’s more of an ethical no-man’s land.
‘The cynical amongst us, including myself, could almost believe that it was in such a persons interests to fan the flames in the ‘Ethical Vacuum’. Either that or he is a complete dipstick.’
Might your ‘either that, or’ be superfluous?
The problem with legislating the press is the same problem that exists with legislating everything. There are laws which, no matter how exactly formulated, are open to interpretation* and there are lawyers, for hire at better-than-minimum-wage, whose job it is to wring every last interpretation out of them.
Of course, slot-gobbed lawyers will benefit from the increased business generated and as numerous politicians are lawyers of some sort then it is comforting they can make a living when their constituents vote them out at a future date, at least if Europe doesn’t offer them a cosy job first.
In the usual nature of all this, yet more legislation and even more regulations merely provide a temporary barrier to be overcome and any costs incurred will, as usual, be passed on to the public.
*Years ago, I seem to recall a Sunday trading law that said it was illegal to sell fish and chips on a Sunday. Oh dear, it was the little ‘and’ that was the get out clause. Shops duly sold fish but gave the chips away free on a Sunday, thus neatly avoiding the ‘and’ part of the law and continuing almost as normal.
possibly : but electricians and builders and all other ‘for profit’ entities are legislated and thankfully few of us are electrocuted or have the ceiling fall in because of it.
the Big Lie pedaled by the media is that it is a Public Service when it is no such thing.
Hmmm… Perhaps, but there is plenty of evidence that despite all the legislating there are still a few ‘cowboy’ electricians and builders who don’t follow the codes or laws laid down for their (and our) safety. Those that happily follow the safety guidelines and laws do in fact pass on the costs to the purchaser; approved cabling comes at price, for example, and even experienced practitioners have to take certificated courses insisted on by the government, sometimes to tell them things they already know. Those costs have to be passed on to the consumer.
My point is that with the media it comes down to an argument not over material and measurable things but opinions and words. As such they are perfect for ‘interpretation’ and protracted argument. Lawyers will win in any dispute, even those settled ‘out of court’
But the poor cannot afford lawyers as the McAlpines can (and I applaud him).
Lord Leveson made a very good point during the inquiry but not followed up unfortunately : that there needs to be a sort of libel tribunal accessible by the common man that could by-pass expensive lawyers.
Anna: I have said it before but whatever was in that breakfast, at that unnamed UK golf club, that you and ‘himself’ devoured a short while ago, it seems to have re-endowed you with your unparalleled journalistic and investigative powers.
MWT has, very evidently, fallen into the same trap as the idiotic Bercow woman, and others – for if it is indeed the case that a national icon has been smeared in this way, by linking them in such a crass and unprincipled way to an ongoing investigation, without a shred of evidence on which to base this vile slur, then he can look to get himself sued… I hope.
This is all getting out of hand! Who is next??
Bacon, Eggs, Sausage, Fried bread, Tomato, Baked Beans, fresh Mushrooms, Grilled homemade bread, butter, marmalade, I dream of it still…
Aaaaaaargh. What a thing to read on a Monday lunchtime.
I’m salivating, thus corroborating those who consider me to be a drooling idiot…
Just for the record, Anna,. Paedophilia is not a ‘practice’, whether one deems it ‘vile’, or not.
One may be a Paedophile, without any action being carried out.
Such an action, being being carried out, does not, alone, make one a Paedophile.
Pays to be accurate, on such things … medico-legally speaking.
WM
Thank you Sir, and one cannot be a paedophile from accepting a blow job from a 15 year old either – though that small detail seems to escape the MSM.
Yup.
WM
Surely by today’s definitions it can?
What ‘definition’?
WM
One could go further. Paedophile means, simply, a lover of children.
Paedophilia should still be illegal, of course: I cannot stand the brutes myself.
It ‘means’ a great deal more than that.
WM
Might I quote the late lamented W. C. Fields who, upon being asked by an interviewer how he liked children, is reputed to have replied “Fried or boiled”.
Class.
And surely because a person has a sexual encounter with an under aged person it does not automatically mean they are a pedophile. They may break the law however and pay the price.
Or are the publishers and owners of The Sun and it’s Page Three nudes-Murdoch, Brookes, photographers and readers pre: 2003 all pedophiles ?.
WM, your website, which you link to here, troubles me greatly. I believe you are attempting to hijack the issue, which is that people are being accused and publically vilified of terrible crimes without evidence or even trial, and slant it towards peadophilea being kinda ok. Peadophilea is not ok.
Being in possession of indecent images of children, and being rightly convicted as a sex offender is not the issue at hand. Just to be crystal clear: children whose images of being abused are circulated are victims of the original perpetrators, AND anyone who chooses to view/own/download these images. Doing this makes the person a sex offender. It’s really very simple. Your use of semantics does not change this.
… and I claim my prize, that you are an anti, agent provocateur
Easily solved …
We have posted your comment, on The OSC site (http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk) … continue your mission, there.
We will allow you 24h, so as to comment, further, before we respond.
You will, now, not be replied to, here. TY.
WM
Ummm I do apologise as clearly I’m being a tad thick but what exactly do you claim your prize for?
I am a secret “anti” ?
Well if you mean I am anti child abuse then yes, you’re right, well done! Only I wasn’t aware it was a secret. I am also anti murder, drink-driving, trial by Media and cruelty to puppies if that helps?
I read an article in The Mail this morning, by Quentin Letts, and I am still trying to figure out if it is some sort of Spoof, although I cannot for the life of me see what would be the point of that. Anyone able to do better than I?
I can provide a Link if you want, but it is easy to find.
No Elena, I failed too, and the comments below it indicate even his regular readers aren’t clear. What I took from it was, he supports the Tories, likes Cameron, and despised the inquiry. But then I’m a bit thick.
Best commentary I have seen so far is Dan Hodges-Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100192335/the-vichy-evening-news-formerly-known-as-the-guardian-has-gone-bonkers-over-leveson/
Great piece as usual Anna.
My own view of MWT’s antics yesterday was just that in his never ending quest for self aggrandizement he simply backed the wrong horse, as it were. He thought his adoring fans would be thrilled to bits – and after all, one gossip deprived follower was recently on DS bemoaning the fact that no more famous people were being arrested after ‘they had been all excited about it’. That thirsty fan ought to have perhaps qualified that by including the words ‘people we don’t much care for’ after the word famous.
One thing which puzzled me about that last tv program of his was, why certain people would even agree to be on it. Alan Franey for instance. After considering the blackmail business I’m suspecting that it went along the lines of; On the program we will say that JS recommended you for the Broadmoor position, and the viewers will make of that what they will unless you want to appear and explain the position.
I’m still trying to figure out how to interest the right people in investigating just what that alleged 2009 tape recording of JS talking about Gary Glitter really was.
can this recording be heard anywhere ?. I was a recording studio technician for many years. I can tell if a tape is spliced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xSCqZ5G06U
Here is a link, Observer. To me it does sound like it is JS, although I guess an impersonator is not out of the question. But it does sound to me as though there is a cut. Fore instance he says ‘they did nothing wrong’ when the use of ‘he’ would have been the appropriate pronoun if still referring to GG.
It just doesn’t make any sense for MWT to claim this is a recording by a journalist in 2009 because that begs questions such as, which journalist; why hasn’t he or she been named; why didn’t they publish it; how did MWT know of its existence?
What Savile is saying (if it’s him) is not at all that outrageous. He is simply stating the facts. Sounds like he is commenting on today’s tabloid mentality.
But I will run it through my system. It takes some time.
MWT is weaving and spinning disparate items to produce a whole that isn’t necessarily there. Not unusual of course but I believe it will be found the BBC made the correct decision when they didn’t run his show.
But your point about : who was the journalist and what is MWT’s source ? is very valid. This is most odd. There isn’t a hack in existence who wouldn’t fall over themselves today to claim ownership of the item. And it isn’t good enough for MWT to just say “I have obtained a recording etc etc”. This could easily be a forgery. And such an easy one to produce and it helps kick along the story.
Apart from that.. I have some Hitler Diaries here if anyone is………………………
@Mina -”he simply backed the wrong horse”- Hope you don’t mean to imply anything relating to “Climb up here right behind me”?
“The cynical amongst us, including myself, could almost believe that it was in such a persons interests to fan the flames in the ‘Ethical Vacuum’. Either that or he is a complete dipstick.”
I suspect that he is a complete dipstick.
So Mr Thomas was a police constable, sort of adds yet more credence to my thoughts during the 90′s of the channel 4 move to coincide with the rebirth of the Templars. And speaking of Templars….two little boys and the wooden horse…Mmmm
Only two celebs live in Bray in Berkshire. One is Val Doonican who is 85, the other is Rolf Harris, who is 82. So whoever the 80 y.o. is it’s neither of them.
I hope it isn’t Rolf Harris but the police statement actually refers to “a man in his 80s”, so it could be him.
I’m afraid it is, especially as it’s all over the Oz news. I can’t imagine a more unlikely candidate myself.
I started looking about for more information, and saw that someone actually believes that Tie Me Kangaroo Down is somehow suggestive. Pity they never actually listened to the lyrics, but what can you do? Next thing we know, Harry Lauder, who actually made the song Two Little Boys popular back in the early 1900s, will be tried in the emdia, or his gravestone will be smashed, or lord knows what other rubbish. All Rolf did was cover the song – he didn’t write it, and he didn’t make it popular.
Dear God, the mania spreads…http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1130/breaking33.html
Some interesting comments from the Judge.
Wow. Sensible judge, but wouldn’t have minded if he had been less diplomatic than he was and made the accusers weep a little more.
Motive, money again I presume.
“…and saw that someone actually believes that Tie Me Kangaroo Down is somehow suggestive.”
Maybe they got it confused with that old rugby classic, ‘Bestiality’s Best, Boys”?
Anna, this rolling “paedophile under every gravestone” scandal is a bit convenient. There are a couple of scandals brewing. One over the links between Vince Cable and a Gordon Brown ‘ethical banking’ (Derisive snort) think tank which was reported in the Scotsman as being under Police investigation. Said article has since vanished, but the Times has this:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Finance/article1167647.ece
In the Torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9709823/Suspected-fund-embezzlement-puts-financial-think-tank-into-administration.html
Interesting n’est-ce pas?
Bill, I was seriously concerned when I heard they had dug up Yasser Arrafat last week – turns out they were only worried that he might have been poisoned…..huh! is that all?
The Duncroft women would be well-advised to listen to the Sligo judge in his opinion before ruling as well. Let alone that ex-flatfoot.
Well, if they find he was poisoned – and traces of the substance were found on a toothbrush and some garments – then the Palestinians will start accusing the Israelis, and off we go again.
Since there are no outside observers they will ‘find’ whatever they want to find. Foregone conclusion anyone?
The exhumation and investigation is being conducted by an outside forensic team – some are Swiss. They are there as neutrals. Far as I know, no Palestinian is involved.
Yasser Arrafat is nothing to do with this nonsense, which smacks of keeping the fires burning on non-stories., by any means. Relevance is important.
But I am banned. So…
Also, do tell ‘Mewsical’ that she needs some attention to spelling because she felt compelled to point that out to me. But you know, people like ‘Mewsical’ don’t care for the rules that she catches out others on. We’re supposed to be admiring of a play on words…hmmm.
Anna. you can allow, disallow, argue, mock, and claim offence. I make a comment. If you don’t like it, it must be powerful in order to warrant censor, because otherwise you would let it stand and have a laugh.
The power of wordpress is an illusion when it stiffles debate.
Did you mean ‘stifles’..?
Well Julia, really, it’s just a trifle.
Actually, it’s piffle.
Perhaps Jim was ‘Getting a stiffle’ when he wrote that…
Here is another victim. 38 years ago when she was 15 and her pop star idol 27 years old, he put his hand in her knickers after a few drinks together. She has still not completely recovered. No doubt the police will be on his doorstep tomorrow with a warrant to search for evidence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2241107/BEL-MOONEY-My-pop-star-idol-just-used-sex-object.html
Well, I’m sure that MWT will figure it all out and tweet, tweet, tweet.
“He obviously thought teenage girls were there for the taking. ”
Possibly got that impression because you were in his room in your underwear.
He would have been born around 1947, the same age as David Bowie, Marc Bolan, and Elton John (nah!), with most of Pink Floyd being a tad older. “See Emily Play” was a hit single in 1967.
To be fair to Mooney, she does rather tell her some home truths – ‘It wasn’t pleasant, I don’t condone it and I’m really sorry you were upset — but I honestly don’t think you can call it ‘abuse’.
I read that, no offence I know she was young, but she sounded like a bit of a delusional stalker (bear in mind she’s in her 50′s now).
I was pretty clueless when I was 15, i’d never have had the balls to follow a famous singer to his hotel let alone think he’d want to talk to me, I knew guys like that were busy people and had lots of women after them. But when I was a bit younger than 15 I did sometimes have a few crushes on celebrities and imagine what i’d like to happen if I was ever in the unlikely position of getting to meet them – and it wasn’t holding hands or getting married (they wouldn’t of been my first priorities anyway, lol) I can tell you, sorry…
She did note that he was in a ‘glam rock band,’ so I’m thinking David Bowie had better lawyer up! LOL! Doesn’t he show up in the Karin Ward’s book as well?
with my weary old age wisdom I perceive that MWT may have done a Tweet Too Far.
The tone of this report in an Australian newspaper (owned by the American R.Murdoch) has changed rapidly since this morning :
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/police-interview-of-bbc-entertainer-a-shocking-slur/story-e6frfkp9-1226528126245
This line stands out :”Is everyone who has ever worked with that man Savile going to be hauled in? He is being tainted with guilt by association.”
I always thought this may happen : that someone overwhelmingly popular (despite being as corny as hell) would become entangled in the net and turn public opinion.
I believe MWT will pay dearly for his Tweet and attempt to be the first to break the news. An arrest like this would not remain a secret for long but MYW has tried to stake his claim to an ‘exclusive’ and it’s worked : he is the one quoted. I believe it will backfire.
You could be right, Observor. MWT has been silent on Twitter for almost 24 hours now. Looking at his timeline this appears to be very unusual. I read up a little on the ACPO guidelines about naming people that have been arrested, and gathered that it can be dodgy as it can only have a derogatory connotation, and unless charges ensue then it is defamatory. I suspect it was safe enough to name DLT, FS and GG because the public was aware pretty much of what they appeared to have been accused of by alleged victims. But this other chap was not even arrested and there was no gossip or accusation about him at all. So, hugely damaging and defamatory to make it public, and the press completely properly didn’t do so.
MWT possibly having to deal with chap’s lawyers today.
Thank you for your reply about the JS recording and I appreciate your taking the time to consider what a mysterious thing that is. I agree with you also that in any event it does appear to be more about the relationship between media and police than anything else.
Apart from being a bit of a selfish bastard to his wife and daughter at one time – such a shock for a popular entertainer, of course – Rolf Harris is probably above reproach otherwise. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/317846/Lust-for-fame-that-almost-destroyed-Rolf-Harris-s-life
This is particularly slimy thing for Willliams-Thomas to do, and I hope he gets his from Rolf’s lawyers.
I’m with Mewsical on this one. MWT is a slug for doing this to RH.
IF the investigation is going to trawl through every living acquaintance of Sir Jimmy Savile then they’ll have their work cut out. It is doubly significant that MWT did not tweet that RH had been arrested, merely that he had been interviewed. The two do not necessarily follow, one from another, nor is this evidence, in and of itself that he is a suspect. MWT has, very evidently, ‘jumped the gun’ in tarring him with the same brush used on Saville. RH may have been interviewed as a potential witness. No one, except those persons in a position to know for a certainty know the truth.
Smearing all the people that were celebrities when I were a ‘nipper’ without the accompanying evidence seems to be a national pastime for ‘Twitterers’ and their ilk, but I think it will ultimately prove to be an expensive game.
“MWT has been silent on Twitter for almost 24 hours now.”
Ahhh, blessed relief!
Over 36 hours now. Marvelous. If I were a twitter user I’d be tempted to tweet
‘Is Mark Williams Thomas being interviewed under caution’ Using the hashtags ‘#savile and #child abuse of course so that people would know I meant that these are his specialist interests.
or
‘Is Mark Williams Thomas’s sorry arse being sued’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241628/The-deputy-head-teacher-falsely-accused-child-abuse-ambulance-chasing-lawyer-advertises-victims-prisons.html#top
Not sure if this is pertinent here. My apologies if not.
No Comments allowed, but at least they printed it.
It is more than pertinent here Elena, and thank you for finding it. Quite horrifying.
They probably wouldn’t have printed my comment anyway, Anna. I am still having trouble on that score. Although they are more than happy to post my insane ramblings on Stone Age Man being a bit more smart than first was thought.
Thanks for the link, Elena. The one thing that this JS business has done for me is to develop my interest in this false allegations, compensation, and trawling malarkey, and its this aspect and the suffering of the falsely accused that is horrifying me.
The Daily Mail has done a pretty good job of getting this story out. It does a great job of undermining the current barrage of approved school claims and goes a long way to explain why so many of the plaintiffs lack the kind of credibility one would expect, especially when the accusations are against people in the public sphere or media personalities.
Pedophilia is a very real thing and hardly a day goes by without reports of someone somewhere being sent to prison for terrible sexual offenses against children, but these 40-year-old allegations made by prisoners, drug addicts, and ex-cons are getting to be a bit of a joke. Hopefully the whole thing will soon implode and that will be the end of it.
Trawling should be outlawed, although I have no idea how. Perhaps it would be easier to subject police officers to an operation whereby ‘common sense’ could be applied as an implant at the same time as their credulity chip is removed.
I don’t think it is the fault of The Police. They are never right no matter what they do. And believe me, I have no great love of The Police, on a personal level. In the end The Public Prosecutors have to decide, and even they get it wrong on occasions.
It’s Lawyers and the likes of Mark Williams Thomas who do most of the trawling. But The Police most certainly should not.
I don’t really know what to think. But no one has yet explained to me just how much damage can be done by a Groper, if any at all.
I was once groped by the mentally retarded son of The Cleaner in the lovely Children’s Home that I had the good fortune to be placed in, and I must have been about 13 at the time. I didn’t tell anyone because I thought his mother would lose her job, although I could have done without fear of being misbelieved. I just avoided him like the plague after that. But haven’t we all got a similar story to tell. He actually did me no harm at all, and I had completely forgotten about it, along with several other groping incidents as the years went by, In fact I was groped here fairly recently by some silly old fool.
But for certain sure I would have felt dreadful if his poor mother had lost her job.
But I am outraged by the headlong rush to name all and sundry without a scrap of proof. Possibly my Lame Dog attitude, but it’s the sort of person that I am, which is actually no credit to me. It is just so.
Perhaps I should sue The British Legion who more than adequately cared for a lot of children of War Torn Families. Most of what is going on at the moment is no worse than happened to me. I got groped, oh my God.
The thing is though, nobody has yet been proved to be a groper or anything else.
No, I know they haven’t. And it is virtually impossible to prove anyway. So why are reputations being trashed and acres of money being wasted on something that isn’t actually Sexual Abuse, and generally does no great harm. But perhaps I am old fashioned. Of course women don’t like it, but half the time you can’t even be sure that any intent was there in the first place.
I kiss a lot of people around here, and some of them are men who get a bit familiar, probably because they aren’t getting enough, but I am hardly likely to shame them by making it obvious. I put up with it in exchange for a better life style, and the knowledge that most of them would help me if I needed help. Not one of them has ever made a real nuisance of himself, or given me any need to fear. And who knows? Perhaps it’s a mating dance.
I just can’t get off on outrage about it. And I didn’t when I was young.
No you are right. When I was 11-years old, I was groped by a bigger boy of 12-years old. By the next day I had forgotten about it. The bigger boy is now a respected legal figure in the northwest of England. Shall I out him on Twitter?
Well, I don’t know, Jonathan Mason. Is there likely to be any Compensation in it for you? e.g. has he got more than you’ve got? If so, then deff on Twitter. The Twits will have it all over the place in five minutes, but only if he’s got a Hashtag.
Mind you, you could get sued, but the way things are going at the moment you will be absolutely believed by the hoi poloi.
The up side for him is that he can be a Litigate in Person, which seems to be popular just now, even if you have been, “Disgraced” by Legal Bodies.
If you win can you let me know, and then I will go for the snotty nosed little brat who tried to have sex with me in the bushes when I was nine, and he was the same age. He failed miserably, but he INTIMIDATED me which was much more scary and damaging.
Oh My. It’s only just occurred to me of what a fascinating past I had before I reached the age of consent. Perhaps I should write a Book. What has happened to me since then will have to wait. But that will definitely be a Gob Smacker.
I think we should begin a movement towards a national ‘accuse your groper day’ upon which we all (and we need a good few thousand to get behind this) flood the police and the press with our allegations and demand immediate action, compensayshun, and inquiries.
DAMN! NOTHING happened to me!
One could start too feel left out and/or abnormal. (Could I sue for that?!?)
You can just pretend. Nobody is allowed to doubt you if you say you’re a victim. Tell you what, you can borrow the name of my groper. The more of us that name him the more it proves its true.
Well, I never got groped by Jimmy Savile or anyone even remotely famous, so shut up and stop complaining.
However, I did once get chased through his Orchard by Old Mother Riley when I was scrumping his Apples, and I am certain he would have groped me if he could have caught me.
Old Mother Riley was a Man, by the way. And he lived in Neasden. But not many people know that. No one in their right mind admits to ever having lived in Neasden.
I hope no one thinks I am making light of the problem, but there deffinately appears to be a “ME TOO, ME TOO” element to all this. of course, I would by showing my cynical side if I dared suggest it was “Compo band wagon jumping”.
But then…. I was BORN cynical, and it went up hill from there.
What a very good idea, Mina Field. I can come up with several thousands of my own, and All Troo. Not to forget the entire Female Population of Planet Earth, presuming we can get them to talk about these deeply traumatic experiences, which most of us thought were pretty pathetic at the time.
Oh, and all that groping in Public Schools. Although I have to say that none of my sons were ever groped in The Dormitory or on The Rugby Pitch. But then groping on Rugby Pitches is endemic, and all part of the jolly old game.
I would just like to add that I am well aware of the real sexual abuse of children, and I would not like my apparent sarcasm to be construed as acceptance of this. I believe that it does happen, or did happen, and should be punished and eradicated. But I do not see how trivialising it by often false accusations is going to help anyone. Or if indeed it can be eradicated.
I know without doubt that my carers would have believed me, and it would almost certainly have been dealt with without recourse to The Courts of Law. So perhaps The Carers should be held more accountable. They are not “In Charge” alone.
Of course it happens and for some : the feeling of powerlessness must be devastating and have long term effects.
But I think the ‘private’ aspect of this is a worry-such as the ‘self appointed’ experts and advocate groups who have a financial interest in promoting child abuse figures.
We are all different and cope in different ways : for some mental , physical and abuse by neglect nay be far more soul destroying than a sexual encounter particularly if the encounter was in some ways mutual. And I know if the person is underage it’s always illegal.
The great danger of the self appointed ( and I include Williams-Thomas in this as I believe he is a dangerous person) : constantly telling people that “their lives have been ruined by child abuse”. Say it enough times and it becomes self fullfilling.
I agree about MWT. He has become a real nuisance, at the very least. The public accepts every word he says as if he has years of experience in the field of forensic child psychology, when in fact he’s a former constable, who more than likely had limited exposure to child endangerment issues, who suddenly decides to take up a career in ‘investigative journalism’ without a journalism degree. He seems only interested in the sexual aspect of child abuse, although as Observor noted, there are other components to abuse, including mental and emotional abuse, but Mr. WT is not interested in such mundane matters. One has to wonder exactly what motivates his interest is in the sexual component of child abuse.
However, if he’s no longer tweeting or planning any further television shows, or having an opinion on naked men dithering about on statutes in London, we can maybe count ourselves well rid of him, thanks to his vaulting ambition which landed him squarely in the cross-hairs of the lawyers retained by a certain gentleman of Bray.
I like the idea of a National Report Your Groper/Abuser Day myself. It could be celebrated on MWT’s birthday, perhaps. After reporting, out to celebrate by dancing around a bonfire with a suitable figure atop to be consumed in the flames. It could be called a “Jimmy.”
I see the Berkshire 1 has been released and not asked to return…
“A Metropolitan Police spokesman said he was interviewed under caution by officers working on Operation Yewtree and had not been asked to return for further questioning.”
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Man-80-released-after-speaking-to-Jimmy-Savile-case-officers-04122012.htm
And I should think so. Absolutely ridiculous that he was ever bothered at all.
‘…I see the Berkshire 1 has been released and not asked to return…’
However, by contrast, another, famous 80 ‘odd’ year man has been arrested and charged with historical sexual abuse against three girls aged 9-16…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/stuart-hall-charged-indecent-assault
Official sources have denied any connection to Operation Yewtree, but…
Does anyone know what age Meirion Jones would have been when he visited Duncroft with his parents?
In college we think. It was 1974 at the very least. No idea when Meirion was born though. Margaret Jones was living in her own house on the grounds when Meirion was visiting in the Savile days.
He just said, ‘as a teenager’. My take on that is, perhaps just 13 or so, given that kids aren’t so amenable to being dragged off to visit fairly distant aunts and uncles much past that age. I don’t know his current age though.
Don’t think he would have been a visitor to an approved school until he was a bit older than that. In those days, Margaret and her sister were not on the outs, so not distant. I’d say more like 18 myself. Margaret Jones has photos of Meirion at the school with Jimmy Savile, during one of the famous “garden parties” which were generally fund-raising events.
I’ve established that Meirion was the paid editor of the Cardiff University newspaper – Gair Rhydd – in 1980. Given that the average student at university is 18-20, and that it’s unlikely he was a freshman editor, plus giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his age, I’ll say he was 20 in 1980, give or take. Therefore, taking that into consideration, as well as Savile’s visiting period at Duncroft as being most prevalent in the mid-70s, he would have been around 12ish. Therefore, Mina is right, but his young age makes rubbish of his claim that he saw something inappropriate at 12 years old. Nonsense, Meirion, you saw nothing because nothing happened, especially at a garden party with a fair amount of outside visitors including, more than likely, cadets from the local police academy, who were always invited to events at the school.
Good research Mewsical – well done.
Meirion is remarkably coy about his biographical details, I must say.
I wonder if he and his mother weren’t invited to the event in May 1974, which also featured Princess Alexandra, etc. I think that was quite a do. PA was and is the main patron of MIND, who probably had some connections with Broadmoor as well as Duncroft in those days. Margaret Jones told me that JS made his first ‘official’ appearance at this event, which was also verified by a poster on DS. That’s more than likely when M Jones got the photograph of Meirion and Savile together. She did say that PA gave Savile a very enthusiastic greeting, to the complete horror of Lady Norman, who was Chairman of the Board for Duncroft, and quite the proper Edwardian lady.
In the Panorama programme on what the BBC knew about Savile, Meirion said….
“It was a very strange place and it was filled with weird celebrities coming along (or around) , film stars, all sorts of people, minor royals, very, very, strange.”
Would he think the same of Great Ormond Street Hospital?
If he was quite young and only at Duncroft when there was an event, would that leave him with the impression the school was filled with celebs & Royals?
I would have thought the tabloids would gone to town listing famous names that dropped into Duncroft in the 1970′s but so far there’s only Savile, Princess Alexandra & her hubby?
Don’t forget Princess Marina, James Robertson Justice and John Gregson in the 60s. One of the former pupils has said she thought she remembered Nyree Dawn Porter visiting on one occasion. I heard from some press types wanting to know what other celebs visited, and were obviously disappointed to learn that there really weren’t that many. Far as I know, that’s the lot.
Meirion was just trying to make something out of nothing, to bolster his theory that Duncroft was a nest of pedophile vipers, and to get back at his Aunt Margaret for beating his side of the family out of some real estate. Really disgusting, when you think about it.
A few more logs to the fire, it seems
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas
I can confirm Max Clifford arrested by detectives from Operation Yewtree as ‘Other’ http://itv.co/TLNEGP
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-12-06/max-clifford-arrested-jimmy-savile-police-operation-yewtree/
BBC just added name too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765
Been doing a bit of research into Mark Williams-Thomas as a PC…but got diverted by this from 2009….
“Anthony Gormley’s One and Other live artwork has apparently been a good excuse for several people to strip off. In plinth performer Justin Holwell’s case, at least one person in the crowd took offence at having to view him unclothed. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former Surrey Detective constable, was so upset he asked the police to intervene. But far from arresting the pink poseur, the police refused, saying it’s not a crime to appear naked in public.
So Justin completed his allotted hour, as naked as the day he was born, and Mr Williams-Thomas was left to lodge a formal complaint.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/surrey/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8234000/8234509.stm
Max Clifford is potentially an extremely dangerous man to involve in this situation. He knows where ALL the bodies are buried. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Clifford
Represented Freddie Starr, and was responsible for the “hamster sandwich” stunt, btw. He also represented Simon Cowell. Let alone the alleged ‘cover up’ involving MP Alan Clark and two 14 year old girls. Imo, this is a frame-up to get him to give up more ‘others.’
Mewsical, that isn’t how the English police work, and MC is frankly the last person they’d treat otherwise than strictly by the book.
Speaking as someone who is British and was raised in the UK (I was at Duncroft in the 60s) you may take my word for it that the British police are hardly a bunch of choirboys. I’ve had personal experience with their complete lack of integrity when it comes to accomplishing whatever goal they think they have. In my case, it backfired on them. If they’ve changed in any way, I’m dubious.
Policing today bears no resemblance to policing in the last century. Johhny Crackhead Scumbag has his lawyers suing if there is even a whiff of error about his arrest and 2 hour detention. There is more chance of me walking on water than there being what you are calling a ‘set up’.
Sadly, you are right. I had my own run in with our wonderful Police , who let me down wholesale. and then tried to stitch me up, mainly because my apparently very wealthy husband had offended them. My husband wasn’t actually all that wealthy, and I grew up in the gutters of London, so I saw them coming. To this day I would have absolutely nothing to say to them. Not even a “No Comment.” I have long been very sad about this. But thar you go. I know who these people are, and most of them don’t give a shit about Justice. I could go on, but there would be no point.
I cannot get my head around this. Has The World gone mad? These people should not be named unless and until they are charged. We simply do not have the right to know the names of everyone who is questioned by The Police.
A Set Up? I really don’t know. But it stinks.
Allegations made may or may not be true. But, unlike the Savile case and the views able to be expressed here, that the women involved in these later cases may never be identified also means that the chance of any of their compatriots coming forth, even after all this time, as contrarians, is limited, and that there is some potential for the application of justice to be unfairly skewed
I’m starting to see the upside of it now, Elena. The more farcical it gets, the sooner it will be acknowledged and admitted that the original JS witch hunt was very foolish. Lots of these people now arrested were happy to go along with the ‘guilty without evidence’ flow. Until now.
This is true, Mina. And I would fall about laughing, if I thought it was funny.
I don’t actually believe in Karma, but it doesn’t half bite you on the bum when it gets going.
Perhaps someone should accuse mark Williams Thomas and Martin Brunt. They must be worth a few bob.
Well, Elena, there just might be someone in their past who is short of cash and eyeing up those tempting lawyer’s adverts. We can live in hope.
Find me a man of their age who never inadvertently groped a young girl, and you will find me a Saint who saw this coming. This is Feminism and Political Correctness gone mad. In a minute no man will dare to chat up a woman, no matter what age, or ever to be nice to a young girl.
This could be the end of The Human Race. But I’ve had my day, and been groped a few times here and there, so I don’t really care all that much anymore. It was fun while it lasted.
It would be a good thing for this Yewtree business to be shut down, imo. You’re right that the JS witch hunt was not only ‘foolish’ but dangerous and damaging, beginning with unsubstantiated accusations from a woman at Duncroft, which remain unsubstantiated, as do all the others, apparently. Mark WT coerced these women to come up with these stories for his own benefit, imo, with the collusion of Meirion Jones, who has a grudge against his aunt. Not a ONE of them complained to the staff, and the same would be true of those who claim they were abused elsewhere. There is no legal basis for ANY of this.
Anyone else think it a bit odd that there are no ‘credits’ to be seen on any of the newspaper still pics of the police at MC’s house? – unless anyone has seen some I that have missed. After getting hammered for ‘stealing’ pictures that appear online, most are now getting quite punctilious about at least putting some name to those, even if they have still been just ‘lifted’. Otherwise it does beg further questions as to how the press got his identity so quickly, and their maybe having been tipped off in advance, one of the sort of bad practices that was supposed to have been curtailed by now
Something I discovered today was that a PC Karen Williams-Thomas was with Surrey police in 1997.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/80182_thirtyfour_cars_vandalised_outside_showroom
Just about everything surrounding this Yewtree thing stinks to high heaven.
According to a 1997 newspaper report there was a PC Karen Williams-Thomas in Surrey.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/80182_thirtyfour_cars_vandalised_outside_showroom
I see from a twitter by Mark Williams-Thomas he is looking to expand his empire?
“I believe strong opportunities exist where police can work with the media to a common goal- catching criminals.”
That would appear to be his wife – 192.com – and business partner – ‘wt associates’ – although she has other interests in the area – Greyshott nursery – so I doubt that she is still a full time WPC.
The police and the media working together?? No thanks.
I have read occasionally in the last weeks comments about the stifling nature of British Libel Laws wherein secret deals are done and the truth held hostage to money. Clearly, if this is a feature of UK Law, it is by no means unique to British Legislators.
“Now that there has been a settlement, we will probably never know exactly what transpired between the head of the IMF and the immigrant hotel maid from Guinea at the hotel Sofitel in Manhattan. There was forensic evidence of a sexual encounter of some kind. Mr Strauss-Kahn insisted it was consensual, Ms Diallo said he attempted to rape her.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20671916
“Mr Strauss-Kahn had previously admitted to a “moral failing”, but insisted their sexual encounter was consensual.
In the wake of Ms Diallo’s accusations, other women came forward with sexual assault allegations against him.
Details of the 63-year-old’s agreement with Nafissatou Diallo will remain confidential, the judge added.”
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }