8 comments on “WITNESS D….

  1. Hmmmmm very clever, very clever indeed ! Shroud part of the enquiry in obfustication and double talk, with the old old story of subtly discrediting ‘viable’ witnesses and showing others to be obvious liars; whereas genuine witnesses with genuine grievences were not even given a voice to be heard and were just ignored. It’s back to Lord McA’s book again. Also methinks that they are doing this all over again with Fernbridge, whilst appearing to be ‘open and honest’ with the current investigations. And it shows. It’s like the spoils of war – History being written by the winners.
    PS. The 13.8 million ‘costs’ of Waterhouse – where did that money actually go, and who actually paid it ? To the Members who sat on the Hearing’s Panel, to the Lawyers for each side in each of the named protagonists/accused/witnesses. Certainly not that much to each of those found to have been ‘wronged’.

    • You have both a keen eye for detail and valid questions which deserve answers Sophie.

      A cover-up that cost millions with the ones that most deserved to be heard, out in the cold yet again.

      An enquiry is not the place where the truth is of the highest priority it seems.

      Liars however, will always be given a hearing.

  2. That right there my friend, is the money shot – “back of the net” – as some would say. ; )
    All there in black & white and there can be no denying it. The official story for all to see, if only they stopped believing the hype & frantic Tweeters & re-Tweeters & actually started reading the official words for themselves.

    All this info right in front of their noses, yet the panto ensued, right there in the public domain.

    Leading us to where we are today, the bit part actors shouting the odds & forcing their lies & dis-info on everyone – desperately trying to cover the facts.

    But as you say, you were told many times by he who shouted the loudest to look at Waterhouse – it’s all in there – & so you did and indeed it is. The back up being somewhere within “200 interviews” or so the shouters “own words” proclaim. Probably some of the few truest words shouted.

    What next I wonder? Guess we’ll soon see.

  3. P.S. £13.8 MILL is big money even today – imagine how much bigger it would have been back then. £10k would have been a decent whack too, especially for suing someone for saying something that had been officially documented.
    As you say, lots of people made a lot of money out of it, but not the genuine survivors of abuse – the same one’s who get to keep on paying for it, every time someone decides to dig this all up & the usual suspects employ ‘Operation Damage Limitation’, for the sake of careers, politics, secrets & lies.

    I don’t think it’ll be quite as easy this time around. The www is a wonderful resource, as long as you be careful who & what you trust.

  4. So, Witness D told the enquiry that he had sexual encounters when he was about 16 years old with a female student member of staff but then sued a newspaper for saying that he had been sexually abused. Although, if he was over 16 and it was a female he was technically ‘of age’, it would still be an abuse of her position as a staff member. So, he gives evidence to the tribunal and police, which indicates that he believes that it was sexual abuse but then sues a newspaper for saying the same? Says a lot for his credibility as a witness doesn’t it? Surely, he can not have it both ways. If his evidence to the tribunal was correct, then surely he would have to pay back the money he received from the newspaper?

  5. He also was waiting in the wings to defend Gordon Anglesea in the libel trial after it was alleged by the press that GA was a paedophile, but strangely enough, last year he declared in writing that GA was involved with some ‘dodgy child molesters’ along with the North Wales Police.

    The press would have known all this, so why did they pay him off? Was it all part of the plan or is he just 1 of the biggest victim jockeys that has leeched off genuine abuse survivors for decades or both? Both I think.

  6. I see No.1 scum bag VJ is back with veiled threats. Ah well, at least the evil scum bag won’t get to ride off the backs of GENUINE survivors ever again. Do not pass go, do not collect £10k for being a lying, cheating, plank thick piece of scum.

    Poor kids, what hope do some have with such mongrels as parents?

Comments are closed.