The ‘Fake’ Elm Guest House List.

This is absolutely, certainly, definitely, the last time that we’re going to do a post on this… I hope!

Alun Roberts  very *kindly* included me in this twitter exchange with someone claiming to be Margaret Jervis.


Margaret is a former journalist with Social Work Today but now she is a fact checker. I did try to explain privately to Margaret but without much luck.

So this post is to clear up any possible confusion about the ‘list’ or should I say the ‘lists’ because the Mary Moss docs have a number of lists.

On Aug 24th Chris Fay wrote ‘Elm Guest House. Mary Moss Files – Clarification’ in which he wrote:

There are only 3 of the documents that I wanted to put some context and clarification to…

…Document 6. It was drawn to my attention that some people though it was a list of abusers. I only want to clarify absolutely that this is a list of VICTIMS that should never have been made public. They are victims!!

Document 103. This is a list of police officers who carried out the raid. It again was drawn to my attention that some people thought these names were involved in abuse at Grafton or EGH. They were NOT. See my previous post.

Documents 104/6. This is a list of names I scribbled down from the registers, whilst the person I was with was talking to Carol. This was the very first time we had acess to them. They were just names and include by the way, victims!  As you can see from later docs we did go on to identify many of the abusers and also the aliases that were used, not just for the Guest House but also the use of the “facilities”.

Margaret Jervis has chosen to describe this as a “confession” forced on Chris Fay by the Metropolitan Police. Let’s be clear, the Met did not ‘force’ Chris to write anything, nor did they even request that Chris clarify anything. It is difficult to understand how Margaret, “30 years in the field”, would make such a mistake and the twisting of facts and the emotive language she uses might lead some to question her agenda.

Anyway, I think Chris has already clearly explained those documents but when most people think of ‘the list’ they have a different document in mind and although Chris has clearly indicated which documents he was talking about, I’m worried that Margaret Jervis’s comments on twitter might lead to further confusion.

So, I would like to clarify about Document 63, you all know the one, the one with the ‘big’ names…

That list was written by Chris Fay while interviewing Carole Kasir in the NAYPIC office a few months before she died.

I’m assuming that when Margaret Jervis refers to a ‘fake’ list she is referring to this one. Regardless, it is likely that anyone who read the twitter exchange would assume it was that one.

‘Fake’ is rather a pejorative word. It suggests that it is not genuine, that it purports to be something that it is not, that it is deliberately designed to mislead.

To begin with, this list was written over 20 years ago and was never meant to be in the public domain . It is a contemporaneous record of an interview that Chris Fay had with Carole Kasir. So, plainly it was never written to deceive people 23 years later.

Is it accurate ?

No. One of the first discussions I had with Chris Fay back in January concerned that list and he immediately told me that it was inaccurate. He explained to me that even as he was interviewing Carole Kasir he felt that he was being misled and that he felt that Carole was telling him what she thought he wanted to hear.

The list is what it is. It does not purport to be anything it is not, it is a contemporaneous record of an interview and it was not written to be put in the public domain, it is a private note. By no definition of the word could it possibly be described as a ‘fake’.

So, why does this wordsmith of 30 years use that pejorative term ?

There is more, the documents that Mary Moss put online is only a small fraction of those seized by the police. There is another list. This list followed a NAYPIC investigation and some people on the first list, the public one, were eliminated. One name eliminated after talking to the children involved and others was that of a person who has been famous for decades, for fear of associating that person further in this I can not say his name.

BBC Newsnight have a copy of that list. Is it accurate? I don’t know because I’ve never seen it but it is certainly more accurate than the public list.

Margaret, I think it is only fair to give you the right to reply if you wish.


Filed under Abuse, Fernbridge, News, Politics

54 responses to “The ‘Fake’ Elm Guest House List.

  1. Name Withheld for obvious reasons

    Well I was actually there unfortunately and I just want to say that I haven’t seen one “falsely accused” person Yet. What is actually happening is that the guilty are being found innocent one at a time.

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

  3. Pingback: The ‘Fake’ Elm Guest House List. | justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis

  4. As you know, I look like the Mexican Staring Frog.

  5. I hope Margaret Jervis will stop being so shy and let us all have a look at her face. I would just like to see what she looks like, in case she looks like someone else.

  6. Holly De Winter

    Just because Chris Fay pointed out that a part of the list is names of victims not ‘guests’ and just because the source of this list may have dropped into it in a name or two that might not belong there… some people start screaming that the list is all fake? Whoever makes a claim like that is someone who is either incapable of absorbing the idea that psychopathic grownups have a long and storied history of doing all kinds of nasty and harmful things to other people’s children, or has already decided to help carry the cover-up flag to go back to the old days when everything was nice and we didn’t know about the psychopathic 8% that hide amongst humans, feeding off us and draining us of monetary resources, emotional energy, personal dignity, and physical well-being. I look at that list and I see lots of famous names alongside the names of many paedophiles who’ve been caught and convicted SUBSEQUENT to (not consequent to) the decades-ago writing of the list. Anyone with half a brain can understand this list therefore has substance– it may not be 100% perfect, but it is so far proving to be an extremely valuable record which has impressed on us all the depth of the revolting psychopathy at the heart of great institutions.

    • @holly de winter well said…low level paedos who are just as evil get nicked but if the ones who have well known names and in top professions all seem to be classed as innocent because of who they are..equality before the law? we wish..

      • Anon

        This post reminded me of something Rebekah Brooks said when she was falling on her sword. Roughly along the lines of “in time it will be apparent why the NOTW should have been closed”

        The NOTW did it’s best to portray paedos as the council estate long mac wearing types at every opportunity.

        I think she meant it as a threat, bang me up and I will release hell.

  7. former GMB Branch Officer

    Not the word of just a ‘brothel keeper’. There are two very independent witnesses I and a Trinity Mirror journalist interviewed in 2001. They were quite explicit and gave details such as we virtually bumped into the …… (top tier politican when he was going into nos.27.

    • @former GMB etc its not just the VIP abusers its the old ‘how could such terrible things happen in our posh borough? surely all this is happening because of ‘troublemakers’? where do you want to go with that….its all about reputations eh? just forget about the victims..

  8. reddan

    Chris Saltrese specialises in defending the falsely accused. I know I am one of them , if I have the misfortune to be charged I hope he will defend me. A false allegation can happen to anyone man or less commonly woman. Why don’t you all get off your moral high horses and realise IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANY ONE OF YOU.

    • It already has happened to me, I was falsely and maliciously accused of having PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME, which was invented by a paedophile. Chris Saltrese would never defend any of us PAS accused women though!

      • reddan

        Why would CS be in the business of defending someone accused of PAS he is a solicitor who defends those accused of criminal acts of alleged sex abuse. People who are arrested, removed from their family home’s for months even years at a time with no contact with their children, people that lose their jobs due to the “no smoke without fire ” attitude. All based on the words of a vengeful liar.

      • Let my find my very tiny microscopic violin, so that I can play a tune for the members of the BFMS.

  9. nuggy

    caril kaiser has always been the stated source of this information.

    now obviously the uncorroborated word of brothel keeper shouldent be taken as gospel.

    in people shouldent need chris and gojam to tell them that it should be self evident.

    • Not the information about Margaret Jervis, Bob Woffenden, Chris Saltrese ect.
      Its the same old gang, time and time again. They were all on Mothers-For-Justice, pulling the same tricks.
      They hate me because I found out about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager.

  10. Who is Margaret Jervis? She is a friend of Chris Saltrese, a lawyer who specialises in defending paedophiles: Of Justice

    Chris Saltrese was the one who defended the Operation Ore paedophiles.

    Look at them all on Inside Time, a magazine for people in prison. Bob Woffended, remember him? He was one of those who knackered up the Jersey Haut de la Garenne child abuse/murder investigation.

  11. I’m still waiting for Margaret Jervis to come back to David Hencke’s blog and answer my question about the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse Government report cover up:

  12. Two things.
    1) I just tried to google Margaret Jervis. My computer went blank, and my antivirus has blocked 3 viruses.

    2) I’ve been looking at this:

  13. FTAO Moor Larkin…. Had the relevant authorities done their jobs properly in caring for those kids they had in their charge, had the police properly investigated the claims, despite the political pressure from above then there wouldn’t be these lists. floating around and people wouldn’t be digging around seeking any tiny insight as to just who these “powerful and untouchable” people are. For that matter, had some of those been a tad more open about their sexual proclivities and not been open to what amounts to blackmail, by the establishment,, then maybe their names wouldn’t be appearing on these lists.

    The very essence of a certain group of paedophiles is that, they ingratiated themselves with powerful people knowing damn full well that because of this, they were , in effect, guaranteeing their own freedom to commit their crimes and even if caught they would simply be “sent away” to some other place to commit their crimes without the knowledge of those who stood to lose both their reputation and position.

    Those who are media savvy will be able to point you to the identity of half a dozen household names from the 60s and 70s who have seemingly vanished from our TV screens since the revelations about Savile. Not that they were involved with Savile in that sense however, they were duped and attended parties in the 60s and 70s where, in one part of the house celebs, politicians, big money and wannabes, were doing a few lines and the such like whilst, in another part of the house, the likes of Savile were committing their crimes. Oh they had heard the rumours and probably knew some were true and they are avoiding TV and radio just in case someone asks an awkward unscripted question about it all.

    The next time you hear the great and good banging on about how they didn’t know about Savile and how he wasn’t that good friends with the establishment then maybe you should watch this and and ask yourself really???

    • @stardog23
      That at least seems a cogent point of view and there are good lines of reason therein. The fundamental problem between us however would be that the one thing I am sure about is that Jimmy Savile did not do the things he is accused of. My blog will have to speak for me on that point as every matter I have looked at has come up wanting in terms of both evidence and credibilty of basic things like “who, when and where”.
      Use the ‘search’ function to check out any particular “victim” story you might have been persuaded by, when the media presented them, and perhaps you will begin to see how it worked. There is a 12-part unpicking of the Exposure programme made by Mark Williams-Thomas, which lies at the core of it all. The whole project was riddled with deceits and remains so.

      On thing I have come to conclude, and would concur with you upon however is your opening lines:

      “Had the relevant authorities done their jobs properly in caring for those kids they had in their charge, had the police properly investigated… ”

      One thing I have puzzled over is why there is so much human hurt, outrage and sheer screaming frustration within many of my countrymen, such that they would leap onto the Savile bandwagon simply in order to be able to voice some kind of demand for their pasts to be put right. Some correspondents of mine dismiss all of this as “compo-chasing”. I certainly think that is where the original Duncroft thing got it’s impetus from but I just instinctively feel something else must also exist to have then prompted the enormous outpouring of hatred that the media then were able to whip up.

      My only broad conclusion is that, just as within the bureaucracy of the catholic church wicked deeds escaped proper contemporary sanction, so it was in the State-sponsored child-care system that the powerless were exploited. The Seventies was of course a time when corporal punishments still were the norm, and the “sexual liberation” movements of the Sixties had begun to influence people’s behaviours. Somewhere in that Gordian knot of cultural shifts I sense a few individuals became predatory in the way many have been proved to have been and it seems a sad fact that somehow the State systems allowed them to gain access and then flourish for a brief, terrible time. The dysfunctions of the State systems have of course been exemplified again in recent times with their careless allowing of young girls to be exploited for prostitution and drugs. Each generation seems to find it’s own evil. I’m not sure this harking back to a lost past is really doing today’s kids any good at all. But much of this is beyond both my experience and training, and will remain so.

      Ciao, Moor.

      • what is it ..savile was innocent , next it will be cyril smith never harmed anyone, spartacus was just a gay guide..oh please ffs…..

      • I saw some people involved in Spartacus, I mimicked the film I’m Spartacus at the murray royal when Ian/Iain Marshal was there and he said he is ok he was in Spartacus. I though he was tripping so i said nope kirk or tony beat me to it. But the night nurse said don’t give anything away with him he is not like you. I have seen someone like Marshall and this could be him, he takes my picture and he snarls at me like a gay pedophile, Pavlina Kapickova is his friend and alsoreal foods on broughton street and near tollcross employ the occasional if not permanent pedophiles.

        this is him at 0:42 in black and the hat and camera, he has one on his hip belt.

        nd A.C.E. and E.C.A.P. here in edinburgh, he claims to be an anarchist they are failed criminals and work for the government as false flag radicals.

        Colin lives in perth scotland 10 johnstoun buildings

        This is colin McCulloch another pedophile and associate of Max whom you will find in the company of people at

      • Sadly for your argument I was actually there and thereabouts working in the music biz and could list, if I was forced to, a good few names of people known and unknown, who flat out refused to work with King/Glitter/Savile… long before they were outed as the people they truly are.

        As for the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s it was about choice not simply about having more sex or any sort. It was about women having the choice to be sexual in their own right and not merely as some adjunct to a marriage. It was about children having the choice not be interfered with by their elders, simply because it was “traditional”., It was not about sociopaths and psychopaths being able to use young people as a pick n’ mix to dip into as the likes of Jonathan King did at school discos, or Savile did under the aegis of TOTPs. Neither was it about single sex school educated men with deep psychological problems from their experiences, carrying on the abuse they themselves went through, when leaving and joining the ranks of the professional classes. To attempt to even justify it in any way using the banner of the “sexual revolution” is farcical and intellectually bankrupt. It was the sexual revolution and the idea of one choosing to define one’s own sexuality that eventually led to these crimes being openly spoken about and investigated.

        For every false claim there will 10 dead junkies and suicides, by people damaged beyond the repair then available, all caused by both individuals and organised groups, some of whom, sought the succour of political power to mask their activities and where necessary, have those they befriended, guard them from investigation because of both, guilt by association and the threat of their own sociopathic and psychopathic nature being starkly etched in sharp relief, should the light of publicity be shone upon them..

        If one of the most powerful figures in the party that ruled this country for over a decade was a known predatory sexual abuser, then damn the whole rotten edifice and let’s bring it crashing down around the ears of the apologists and those who chose to ignore his crimes for their own political ends.

        This is not about some hunt to “out” teachers that had inappropriate relationships with their pupils and similar sexual trysts by lone idividuals,, this about the systematic organised abuse and trafficking of 100s, if not 1000s of kids,, its about the murder of some of those children to keep them from speaking out about it. It’s about a political agenda seemingly, forced through parliament by whips, sic using and it would seem at times actually encouraging and facilitating that abuse, for their political masters ends.

      • @stardog23
        @Sadly for your argument I was actually there and thereabouts working in the music biz and could list, if I was forced to, a good few names of people known and unknown, who flat out refused to work with King/Glitter/Savile… long before they were outed as the people they truly are.@

        I guess the guys who are alive are best-placed to reply on their own behalfs if they happen along by.

        Insofar as Jimmy Savile is concerned, I have had a fair few folks comment on my blog as to their personal knowledge/experiences. Two of the most recent are these:

        “there were rumours about most celebrities, especially ones that people were a bit jealous of. As it happens… I had friends working on the Fix it show back about ’80, and other friends who worked in the Beeb, and I never heard any such rumours about Jim. ”

        “Used to commute from the burbs to my gig with Screen Gems in 1965, then moved up in 1966. I was lucky in that my brother – also a muso, trad and country, from Newcastle – lived at The Adrian, a place you also might remember. He was 6′ 5″ and a former boxer for the RAF. You didn’t mess with him and consequently me! But, as you can imagine, I saw some sad stuff going on. Nobody was immune from the top to the bottom. But, I never heard a word said wrong about Jimmy Savile. Everyone wanted to be on his good side, as he could really do your career a lot of good if he wanted to.”

        This is the trouble with always believing the person giving witness is it not? What do we do when the stories clash? The intriguing thing is that these folks are given a voice on my blog but entirely denied one in the mainstream media.

        Perhaps the most telling is Nick Vaughn-Barrett of the BBC. His email about Jimmy’s “dark side” was made much of by the mainstream media. Later, In the Pollard Report, this is where Vaughan-Barreatt clarified what that email he had written was all about:

        “I had never heard any accusations of illegal activity…. underage girls…. I had never heard those stories or rumours”

        Needless to say, the mainstream media entirely ignored this diametric contradiction of their previous reports’ meanings, just as they generally glossed over the entire Pollard Report, whose Appendix 12 reveals much of the entire original newsnight story to be a collaborative fake concocted between the journalists and the folks they were cultivating as “witnesses”, on Friends Reunited.

        The Pollard Report contained far too much evidence for the media so they reprinted one or two pages where redactions were visible and screeched headlines like “cover-up”. I recommend Appendix 12 – that’s where most of the bodies are buried, and it seems that’s where they’ll stay because nobody is interested in the truth.

        Just one other point: Have you any explanation why “Glitter” has never been in court yet? He was part of the exact same scenario that led to the lynching of Savile’s corpse. Remember that story? You should, it was the front page of the Mirror the morning after the Exposure broadcast. Last I heard Freddie Starr, who also was caught in that sting operation, was launching a suit for Defamation. Life is full of surprises and have the living defence counsel. Dead folks have no voice and keep their own counsel. I think they deserve a voice too.

      • Owen

        Moor, as one of Anna Raccoon Nundy’s core followrs you know very well that the last you heard Freddie Starr was not him launching a suit for Defamation. You know perfectly well that Freddde Starr lost his suit against Karin Ward, lucky target of Susanne Nundy’s affectionate concern), because you were one of the witnesses to her speechless consternation when the judgment went against Starr. To do you credit your input to the general tooth gnashing and carpet chewing was a satisfied obseervation that Starr had got his come-uppance for earlier denying St Jimmy’s innocence. from the start.

        So, thanks for providing us with one more example of the Raccoon approach to inconvenient facts, giving the lie to your and Suzanne’s holier-than-thou analyses of the mainstream media’s finger-pointing at Savile and other high and low profile paedophiles.. I salute your recent attempt to convince me that Graham Ovenden hadn’t been convicted of paedophile offences using a superseded version of Wikipedia.

        Anyhow, for anyone who’s got this far and remembers that the comments started with puzzlement over Margaret Jervis’s tweeted opinions, you can read comment after comment in support of Anna Raccoon Nundy’s defence of the “falsely accused”. She makes her social work agenda quite plain.

      • Owen

        Moor, I certainly owe you an apology for this one. I reached here via a roundabout route and didn’t spot the date. I though this article and the series of comments were contemporary, hence ,my challenge to you over the Freddie Starr case. Obviously when you wrote your comment you had no idea of the outcome. I should have looked more closely, I reacted too quickly in the wake of our dispute over Ovenden..

  14. This Post is so absurd and yet so unfunny.

    [Q][the first discussions I had with Chris Fay back in January concerned that list and he immediately told me that it was inaccurate. He explained to me that even as he was interviewing Carole Kasir he felt that he was being misled and that he felt that Carole was telling him what she thought he wanted to hear.”[/Q]

    [Q]”The list is what it is. It does not purport to be anything it is not”[/Q]

    It seems the dustbin is the best place for all of it.
    Shocking descent into inflated ego’s and lack of any conscience.
    Truly the descent of Man

  15. Pingback: The ‘Fake’ Elm Guest House List. | scoobuss

  16. sweetie

    The fat chequer strikes again.

  17. kd

    Oh not Margaret again!

  18. nuggy

    Chris explanation seems like an honest one im just slightly surprised he dident come forward with it at an earlier date.

    • chris46

      sorry mate, I can only point to my post.I did it as soon as I brcame aware of what was being said. I think its important given what we are all trying to do, that any info put out is accurate and in context. Also that victims and innocent people are protected.There was nothing “fake” about those lists. As gojam says, they are what they are, working notes I never expected to see in the public domain.

      • nuggy

        i except that you wrote those notes in good faith so its not fake in that respect.

        but i dont believe mrs kaiser was you telling you the truth or anything like it so fake in that respect.


        • chris46

          Yes, thats fair comment. I wrote down what she told me and Mary Moss whenever we spoke. But no, I did not trust her, we checked everything she told us with victims, witness’s, etc. Thats why these notes got revised and we found out on a number of occassions she did lie to us. Also please bear in mind that only a small number of these working notes were put on line by Mary Moss. Over the course of the 18 months or so that we knew her there would be hundreds more made by Mary, myself or others. I assume these were all seized by Fernbridge and contary to what Margeret Jervis says I have no inside connection with the Met, nor do I act for them. My views on police cover ups are well known!!

  19. nuggy

    well it depends what you mean by fake i suppose.

  20. And the person who has been famous for decades is the same one who, for the first time ever, appeared with the person of the same sex, who is quite obviously their partner on film and in public after the list was circulated?

  21. @gojan damn right mate we have enough to deal with on here what with disinfo and wotnot else….CF sent me another list ..the telly erm..ok as long as we keep to the plot we’ll be ok (he said)..