Fernbridge: A Critical Look At The ‘Mary Moss Docs’

Several months ago some documents, known by many as the’ Mary Moss docs’ found their way onto the internet. These documents were soon afterwards seized under warrant by the Operation Fernbridge police, following a raid. One particular document appeared to show a list of prominent visitors to Elm Guest House in Barnes, a place where boys from care homes, including Grafton Close, were taken and abused by men.

I’m going to look at three men named on that list in an effort to demonstrate why people looking into this need to be extremely wary about how they view these documents.

First, we’ll look at ‘Person A’. Like all of the three men, ‘Person A’ is well known.

‘Person A’ is gay though he has never come out of the closet. It is extremely likely that ‘Person A’ did visit the Elm Guest House, it was after all a gay guest house, a safe place for gay men to be themselves at a time, in the late 1970s, early 1980s, when social attitudes to homosexuality were markedly different from today. But I’m unaware of any evidence that ‘Person A’ ever abused young boys and I know people have looked very hard for evidence.

It must be very difficult for ‘Person A’. Not only has he lied about being gay in the past, he also would have to explain what he was doing at Elm Guest House, a place that has become synonymous with the abuse of boys.

So, problem number one when looking at those documents is that they may contain the names of men who had nothing to do with child abuse and who were unaware of what was going on at Elm Guest House.

Now, let’s look at ‘Person B’. ‘Person B’ almost certainly never visited Elm Guest House because, as I’ve already said, it was a place where young boys from care homes were abused, and ‘Person B’ was known to NAYPIC as a man who sexually abused young girls from a care home in a completely different part of London.

Two residents of the care home in question, and who are witnesses to abuse by ‘Person B’ at a ‘party’ in Brighton, exist but both have “moved on with their lives”. This has to be entirely respected and I hope those that read this will join me in wishing them well in the future. I only mention them in passing to demonstrate that ‘Person B’s’ abuse of young girls is not in any question in my own mind.

Patently, Operation Fernbridge, which seems specifically concerned with abuse at Elm Guest House is unlikely to arrest someone unconnected with their investigation. Nevertheless, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for ‘Person B’ being named on that list. It does, however, demonstrate another problem with the ‘list’, that it is not a definitive or even exclusive list of men who visited Elm Guest House.

The third man is ‘Person C’. ‘Person C’ did attend Elm Guest House and did abuse young boys there. Someone I trust without any hesitation has seen a photograph of ‘Person C’ in an extremely compromising situation with a young boy taken at Elm Guest House during a ‘Kings and Queens’ party. There is not anyone who I have talked to who has any degree of knowledge about what was going on who questions that ‘Person C was involved.  ‘Person C’ is a child abuser and if there were any justice in this country he’d have already been arrested.

Anyway, I hope this helps people to understand that the ‘Mary Moss Docs’ should be looked at critically. In some areas they are misleading but in others they are correct.

Advertisements

67 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Fernbridge, News, Politics

67 responses to “Fernbridge: A Critical Look At The ‘Mary Moss Docs’

  1. Pingback: Fernbridge: A Critical Look At The ‘Mary Moss Docs’ » Alternative News Network

  2. gw

    May I ask why you have not included names? I only ask with reference to your naming the dead / living posts.

    I too will not mention names but am I to take it that Person A refers to a man of whom rumours started in 1984 – rumours that paul foot described as “vile” and “completly untrue”?

    Not sure if this is something that you are able / willing to disclose and apologies if it has already been answered: is there anything else concerning the “fernbridge 7” which does not come from mary moss documents?

    regards

    • I only named people as being on a list seized by police under warrant. That is a statement of fact.

      If I added names to this, I’d be naming two people as child abusers.

      I’ll say that Person A is not who you think but I’m not going to be drawn on who people are any more than that.

      • gw

        Completely understand – there is a significant difference. Thank you for clarifying this and person A.

        I’d be interested in your thoughts on the man I referenced in my post – especially with reference to a smear campaign. if you feel you have the time / can be bothered my email is included.

        Regards

      • Gilly

        Gojam you were happy enough to name Person A in January. Why Not now? Seems odd to me!

      • There are people trying to claim that the whole CSA thing has been cooked up by ‘hard leftists’ or terrorists who are claiming millions in welfare benefits thats how nuts It has been getting

  3. Bishop Brightly

    Interesting post. Not one I expected to see!

  4. Bishop Brightly

    A nod in the direction of stopping the tainting of the innocent can only e a good thing,

  5. nuggy

    i was allways a bit suspicios about this list.

    even if it fits with the guest list how do we know people dident under false names.

    i cant imagine that important people who are up to know good would be stupid enogh to use though some might be.

    theres also the posibilty that someones name could have been added out of malice.

    not by mary moss but by others

    • gw

      This is my concern and I am grateful for Gojam for approaching this subject. One of those on the list was smeared extensivly on the basis of his ethnicity during the 1980s as Paul Foot refers to in his Colin Wallace book.

      Regarding names did Blunt not use a pseudonym?

      I am keen to find out if there is anything ascertainable that does not come from Mary Moss. This is not a slight on her character – I have never met her – but simply a case of multiple sources

      regards

      • There are victims/witnesses.

        I am aware of Paul Foot’s assertion in the book he published in 1989. That certainly must have been his view at the time of publishing. I believe he hadn’t at that time discovered the source of the ‘rumours’ and possibly attributed them to anti-Semitism.

      • prior to the raid on elm guest house there were sightings and reports about odd things going on barnes common..stuff was reported in 1984..and stories involving an MP and a kidnapped boy running way…

  6. dpack

    well put.
    sorting forensic quality truth from a variety of raw and cooked data,facts and lies is never simple.
    as shown by recent legal judgment jumping to a conclusion can lead to a fall as well as aiding those confusing the hunt for truth.

    a and c seem to have a simple explanations but how and why did b get on the visitors list?
    i can think of several;
    by mistake or by use of a false name by an impostor.
    or that b also liked men and/or abusing boys and this is first evidence of that.
    or it was added as a red herring to confuse matters by false implication.
    im sure there are other possible reasons.

  7. nuggy

    i do believe that Paul foot there was a smear campaign by the security services against a certain home secretary i wont name but we all know he is.

    this could have been one of there dirty tricks.

  8. @gojam, fine except that one can almost join dots..eg start with righton..(named as convicted paedo in tom watson) you get PIE..from PIE you get spartacus which leads to Elm Guest and person who seems to be on list, who’s relative connects back to righton…

  9. @nuggy yeah but what happened to the geoffrey dickens dossier? and why was home sec’s approach so weak willed that it was criticised in the media?

  10. nuggy

    i don’t know why not all decisions the home secretory makes alone they rely on advisers a lot.

    what i do know is that dickens was hardly likely to have handed him the document if his name was on it.

    obviously dickens sources hadent named him.

    and dickens obviously never suspected him.

    • @nuggy maybe but it was noticed that home sec approach to the PIE /paedo stuff was less than lukewarm to the degree that it was criticised at the time by the media….

  11. In the case of person B, who apparently abused young girls, I’m not sure one can so easily dismiss their visiting Elm Tree. It’s wholly possible they met and used the place in order to further their abuse by hooking up with others who might be of mutual assistance and in the, what were seen as as, safe confines amongst like minded others, of Elm Tree.

    Given Elm tree was a “hub” for such activities, then it’s perfectly possible to postulate that, Person B might have been blackmailed by others into providing details and access to young boys through fear of exposure.

    Some of the people involved in the abuse were “well connected” and must have known almost 100% their activities were being monitored by the Secret Services. That is the very root of this problem that, powerful people were protected and at times, even encouraged and given the means , to continue their abuse. Plus, there is growing evidence from many sources that the Secret Services were using this abuse in order to further their own agendas.

    Furthermore, so wide spread was this sort of abuse and let’s be honest, the abuse of illegal drugs etc etc, it now seems that, if you stepped out of line “politically”, that certain sections of the Secret Services were quite happy to quietly let it be known, you could easily be “fitted up”.

    That all said what is becoming apparent is this. A far right wing section of the Secret Services were indulging in their own agenda and that meant “bringing onside” members of the centre and left by blackmail.

    I suggest people read this article. It might seem to be completely unrelated and yet, consider the time frame and then look at the “organisation” that quickly moved into gear in order to promote what a section of the “elite” had decided, was the “truth”. The ask yourself if the stories about the Secret Services involvement in abuse are really that far fetched? http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/95/flying_saucers_from_hell.html

    • @stardog wilson plot/kincorra/colin wallace/royal persons/peter right today i looked at BBC info on this subject based on the investigation by bbc journo who interviwed wilson at the time which concluded that wilson wasnt a fantasist with a grudge after all and there was evidence of a plot against him and military take over…nothing has changed as these days i am reading “MI5 out of control “…

  12. So much for the British Lion!

  13. Bishop Brightly

    “what i do know is that dickens was hardly likely to have handed him the document if his name was on it. obviously dickens sources hadent named him. and dickens obviously never suspected him.”

    I would suggest that is highly unlikely. The connections to, if not the names themselves, must have been evident to Dickens and he would have had a nod and a wink from many people.

    I would say it was more of a direct challenge to that person by sending the message that silently said:

    “we both know this list is incomplete but what you don’t know is what other evidence I have withheld”.

  14. Reblogged this on Tell About Abuse and commented:
    reblogging this

  15. nuggy

    if you had evidence of high profile conspiracy would then hand that evidence to someone you knew was part of conspiracy.

    by doing that you would forewarning them making it much easier for them to cover there tracks.

    i don’t believe dickens was that stupid.

  16. Claire

    I understand all points made Gojam. But what I’m puzzled about is why are we only hearing this now? Wouldn’t it have been better to point this out from the start and avoid unnecessary hearsay? Or was this unfeasible for some reason?

    • Hi Claire,

      ‘Person A’ could have ended the speculation but in doing so he might have caused further problems for himself. I’m not sure but I think he may have sued somebody for saying he is gay. If so then it could cause legal problems for himself as well as prompting others to ask awkward questions about EGH.

      • Claire

        Hi Gojam,
        (it is me by way with different e mail-probs with wordpress etc).
        Yes I understand this, thanks for clarifying. I do find it a bit hard to believe though ‘A’ could be there without knowing what else was going on there, given many celebs and figures of renown were also! It surely must have had a reputation on ‘the circuit’? Just not so ready to give him total absolution from any wrongdoing through at least complicity of knowledge.
        Totally understand and agree however the docs have many contexts and meanings.

  17. Figment

    I’m glad to see this clarified as I always thought one important point about the Elm Guest House list was that no differentiation was made between those who might have been visiting a gay guest house for activities between consenting adults and those who were abusing children. An assumption seemed to be (wishfully?) made that you couldn’t be doing the former without being involved in the latter, but I didn’t think Mary Moss was ever claiming that.

    I may be wrong, but pretty sure I can guess that who Person A is. If I’m right, he’s someone a lot of people online have taken a lot of delight in accusing of being a pedophile solely on the basis of his name appearing on one of these lists and the fact he is quite famous and famously wholesome. That seems dangerous for a whole host of reasons, ranging from undermining legitimate claims as more baseless accusations to encouraging people to take justice into their own hands against individuals seen to be getting away with horrible crimes. Guilty people definitely should be named and shamed without being able to use power or privilege to avoid suspicion or paying for their crimes. Running after the wrong people without evidence, though, risks giving credence to the idea of an irrational witch hunt.

    • Figment

      I think you make some very good points there.

      • heres where a problem lies for me ..CSA is turning up a lot and i mean a lot…so the claim is that ”surely there cant be so much of, therefore something is wrong ie liars fantasists people out for political / monetary gain ete etc…fact is its poss we are dealing not with a wave but a tsunami of CSA as its more than people can cope with..

    • @figment you mean richard webster ‘witch hunt’?

      • Figment

        Thanks, Gojam :)

        I haven’t read Richard Webster’s book so can’t really give any insight into what he said, but in a general sense I do think that due to the seriousness of these crimes that accusations should be treated seriously. If it gets to the point where people are being accused of pedophilia just by virtue of being famous during certain decades and maybe being a closeted homosexual (in an era when there were probably quite a few!), then that will help shield those who really are guilty. The guilty will get lost in the shuffle as the public tunes out and law enforcement is able to treat accusations against celebrities as a baseless grab for money or the work of fantasists. In my mind, tying low-grade celebrities from the 70s and 80s to the Savile case for inappropriate sexual behaviour involving adults at the time similarly obscures the focus on child sexual abuse, but that’s another issue…

        If Person A is who I think it is, there has been a lot of anecdotal “evidence” thrown around that is very easily refuted as well as assertions made about past associations with no proof offered whatsoever. Despite this, people have with some glee made pictures and youtube clips accusing him of being a pedophile, coined a nickname and written endless things online about how he’s about to be arrested or at least should be. That discredits the whole cause. If there’s proof or at least a strong case to answer then fine, but I haven’t seen it…

  18. Gilly

    Well you have changed your tune gojam. Talk about back tracking. Person A who you had no difficulty in naming in January has suddenly become innocent in Operation Fernbridge. You obviously have a strong dislike for this person and you and numerous other people have fuelled rumours and set out to destroy someone who I have always believed innocent. Anyone could have written that list and put it on the Internet. We all know who the person is that has had terrible things said about him on this site and many others. Even a previous employee came onto a thread in January to defend him. I hope all of you that have made these false accusations get arrested for slander. Also if person A is gay which I also don’t believe what business is it of yours, the media or anyone else. Long may Person A live. I love him.

    • @gilly coming next CSA is a communist plot cooked up by the ‘hard left’ to wreck the economy and to destroy the hard working responsible people in authority.

    • The pro paedo professor ralph underwager reports on ritual abuse of children

      http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Assessing_Crediblity.html

    • All credit to you gojam for allowing detractors or those who might be doubtful of all csa matters to express themselves. My point is simple . If there is a concerted attempt to discredit or derail such a serious charge of csa and rsa shouldnt we or others be allowed to see that stuff and to challenge It? By dont using the old your comment is awaiting moderation’ as an attempt to block any discussion serves no one and allows those who want this matter of csa to be silenced Only fuel their claim that csa is some kind of anti establishment plot. I hope other blogs on csa take note .

      • Gilly

        Credit to gojam for what? Accusing and fuelling rumours about innocent people. I think not

      • Well gilly your posts are on here so Whats your problem ? You have made your point about your love interest so Now what? Maybe no one is or has been abusing anyone and Its all made up…is that what you want said ?

  19. Gilly

    No bobchewie what I hate is in January the statement on here that said ‘I can confirm that Person A is a person of interest to the police regarding Operation Fernbridge. That statement was reblogged on numerous sites and vile things have been posted about this person which are totally untrue. I want the truth to come out and the vile creatures that are guilty of any child abuse to be brought to justice. There is far to much name calling without proof. How would you feel if you or one if your family was called a paedo falsely

    • Hi Gilly,
      The posts I made in January were factually accurate. Person A was on a list that was siezed under warrant as evidence. That was common knowledge and others have mistakenly gone further than I did.

      I’ve known for over 3 months that Person A was likely not involved, as has most of the MSM BTW.

      I’ve at least tried to set the record straight in the only way I can, and I stuck my head out by doing so.

      Don’t forget that Person A has sued people for saying he was gay. I’m not sure if he has perjured himself by doing so.

      In the end it’s up to Person A to set the record straight, if he does so i’ll support him but I didn’t put Person A on a list, I didn’t seize it under warrant, I didn’t lie about being gay, and I didn’t visit Elm Guest House.

    • @gilly i would be wondering who i has been living with for several years …they keep It quiet…for obvious reasons.

  20. Gilly

    No one has proved this list to even be genuine yet! Why should he have to say whether he is gay or not. Who are the media to even question it. It is not their business. We are going round in circles here so I am not posting anymore as we obviously have different opinions. Gojam you and many others have fuelled completely untrue rumours without foundation. I hope you can all live with yourselves.

  21. Figment

    To be fair, I don’t think “Person A” ever actually sued anyone for suggesting he was gay, but he did repeatedly deny it. I don’t know the truth of the matter, but I’m inclined to be reasonably forgiving of people who came of age in the 1950s/60s and weren’t “out and proud” despite the fact they might have been gay. A lot of people lived in denial and ended up getting married, having kids, etc. Many even underwent electro-shock therapy to be “cured”. It was a different time and hopefully we now live in a world where consenting adults can be more open and less tormented about such things.

    In general, though, maybe it’s time to just move on. The “Kitty” talk likely won’t stop, but all sorts of things float around the Internet. I doubt he’s even aware of it and Russell Brand, himself a household name, named two rather high profile people not too long ago as suspects and, as far as I know, tickets to The Lion King on Broadway continue to sell at a brisk pace!

    • Gilly

      Well said Figment. I totally agree. I can’t find anywhere on the net that this person has sued anyone for saying he is gay. Would like to know when this was supposed to have happened. There was a court case years ago which this person won damages for but I am sure it wasn’t about being accused of being gay.

  22. Gilly

    No he sued IPC Magazines for criticising him for his religious beliefs. He won the case and promptly donated the amount he won to charity

  23. Gilly

    Well it got interesting again! Gojam you say in your thread at top Person A lied about being gay. When was this? Also what about the time he has sued people for saying he was gay. When was this?
    Bob don’t give a toss if he is gay or not. Personally I don’t think so. It was gojam who said he has lied about it not me! I am looking for proof behind these statements that’s allWell it got interesting again! Gojam you say in your thread at top Person A lied about being gay. When was this? Also what about the time he has sued people for saying he was gay. When was this?
    Bob don’t give a toss if he is gay or not. Personally I don’t think so. It was gojam who said he has lied about it not me! I am looking for proof behind these statements that’s all

    • It may have become interesting for you but it ceased to become interesting for me quite a while back.

      • Gilly

        Well please answer my questions then I will go away but you keep making statements and when challenged wont back them up

  24. Tim Sanders

    Gojam, Gilly has asked you a question and it is rude not to answer.
    So please tell Gilly if you consider person “A” to be a raving poofter or not.

    • Tim,
      I was inclined to disengage from this but as you’ve asked so nicely I’ll reply.
      Poofter ?- Yes!
      Raving ? – I think he was well past his sell-by-date before the ‘rave scene’ began.

  25. Gilly

    Ha ha you have to resort to insults because you have no actual proof for any of your statements. You make out you know everything when really you know nothing. Also I think you are homophobic!

  26. A could have been an abuser, B could be bisexual and C could also be an abuser, yes

  27. Pingback: Elm Guest House: Vigil, September 15th, 2014, and Links to Newspaper Reports | Desiring Progress