This is one of those times where I really hope that I am wrong and my suspicions are unfounded.

The following articles all appeared in the mainstream media, which as you may already be aware, are a dubious source to say the least.

I have a nagging and uneasy feeling about the whole thing, especially regarding the subject matter and the possible implications if the truth emerges.

Are the articles I have sourced and listed following the main article true?

If so the credibility of a former child protection officer will be called into doubt and will almost certainly be used against him.

If untrue however, I have to consider the possibility of a smear campaign being used to deflect against the original allegations.

The other explanation is that it is simply a case of mistaken identity and the person involved shares the same name, is of similar age and resides in the same area of London.

Perhaps I am wrong, as not only would it cast serious doubts upon the credibility of Fay, – who could be a key witness to any events that took place (or not) at the Elm Guest House – but will by association, also irreparably damage the reputation of Bill Maloney, the outspoken award-winning film maker and self-styled ‘Child Abuse Campaigner’.

That being said, it would be fundamentally wrong if I did not share my doubts, even though I know it will yet again have the result of me being labelled a ‘Paedoprotector’ which is the standard defence mechanism for the #paedobritain stalwarts.

After all, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation.

A FORMER child protection officer claimed last night a Special Branch detective held a gun to his head to stop him investigating a VIP paedophile ring.

Chris Fay said he was pinned to a wall and throttled before being given a chilling warning to “back away” from allegations surrounding the notorious Elm Guest House in Barnes, south-west London.

Young boys in care were allegedly taken there in the Eighties to be abused by high-profile MPs and other powerful establishment figures.

Mr Fay, who worked for the now-defunct National Association of Young People In Care, accused the Metropolitan Police of acting like “gangsters” when news of the scandal broke in 1990. He revealed how some Special Branch members routinely threatened him and his colleagues and even victims over a three-month period of intimidation.

His shocking claims come as West Yorkshire Police faces accusations that the force protected paedophile Jimmy Savile.

Mr Fay, 67, of south London, said: “It became very dangerous. People seem to forget that Special Branch could do what they liked, they were a law unto themselves.

“At one point they had me up against a wall by my throat with a gun at my head telling me in no uncertain terms that I was to back away if I knew what was good for me.

A colleague of mine had the same treatment, as did a number of the volunteers. Victims who were actually abused at Elm House were also physically stopped from coming to speak to us at the NAYPIC office in north London.

I witnessed Special Branch officers manhandling them and turning them away with a warning to keep their mouths shut. It was blatant, it was open, they were acting like gangsters.

In the end we had to meet victims at a local community centre without the knowledge of the police to hear what they had to say.” NAYPIC was given the identities of senior politicians who formed part of an alleged paedophile ring at the heart of government.”

However, Mr Fay said: “I was told by the police implicitly, ‘We do not want you to come to us with big names’.”

In a sinister twist, he said his kitchen window was shot at, leaving three bullet holes in the glass, although he never found out who was responsible.

In 1982 Elm Guest House was raided by the vice squad but allegations of child abuse were never followed up.

Operation Fernbridge is now investigating the claims and two men have been charged with sexual offences.

Police confirmed that Liberal Democrat MP Sir Cyril Smith, who died three years ago, visited the premises.

Last night campaigner Bill Maloney, of Pie & Mash Films, who has helped raise awareness of abuse survivors and corruption, said: “These police cover-ups to protect the wealthy and the powerful need to stop now.

“Today’s victims are tomorrow’s witnesses.”

The Met Police declined to comment.

James Fielding: Sunday, October 20, 2013


BBC NEWS Feb 2011

BBC NEWS Nov 2010

‘ROBIN HOOD’ CONMAN Adrian Davison fleeced elderly in Boiler Room Fraud

16 thoughts on “AN UNEASY FEELING

  1. It is a bit concerning i agree, especially when you factor in that the MSM have taken it under their wing. This level of infromation is rarely outed in the main stream unless we are being played like an old fiddle. BUT, like you i hope we are too cynical and this is all on the level.

    1. Absolutely.. My uneasiness should not be taken as definitive proof as I still believe that there are many twists and turns still to come in this still-unfolding story..

  2. And I have an uneasy feeling about this article.

    The facts have already been established. Chris Fay “admitted a single count of money laundering”. Yes, the Chris Fay of Elm Guest House “fame.” Why would you offer three possibilities for the situation (that it is true/untrue/case of mistaken identity) when you undoubtedly already know that it is the former?

    I apologise for making such a negative first post, but as a long term watcher as this story has unravelled, and as somebody who has tried to keep an open mind regarding infighting between the various factions, I’m at a loss as to understand what you could hope to achieve with what you have written here.

    By the way, if you read my comments below the following article you will see that I am by no means blindly swallowing whatever is fed me, but your article has left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope you can clarify your intentions a little.

    Chris Fay: NEEDLE BLOG

    1. Thanks for your comments Bandini, but unfortunately as you use the Needle as your source of reference I am afraid I cannot accept it as the absolute truth.

      If you read the article properly, I said that “I hoped I was mistaken”.

      If somebody would like to reassure me 100% the mainstream media would not attempt to discredit somebody because of a ‘possible criminal’ past, then of course I will be more than willing to amend this article.

      I look at all sides of a story, my only objective is to find the facts and see past the spin and disinformation, of which there is masses of concerning this issue.

      Please prove me wrong, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever and I would welcome a definitive answer that leaves absolutely no room to doubt the motives behind this story.

      I do not ‘hope to achieve’ anything with this article, I merely wish to point out the possibilities of a probable smear campaign being used.

      One very similar to the David Rose/Daily Mail ‘assassination’ of Steven Messham, which as a long time ‘watcher’, you should remember only too well..

      BTW: I have just read the article you posted the link to, and being referred to as a ‘Monkey’ by ex-Southampton City councillor Sawyer is the last straw.

      1. Thanks for the reply, but…

        I did read the article properly. I read it several times.

        Your reply seems to be answering a question I didn’t make. Of course this information will be used to discredit Chris Fay. What possible doubt can there be about that? (Any half-way decent defence lawyer representing someone accused partly or wholly based on Fay’s testimony would do their utmost to have his conviction raised in court.)

        But I wasn’t commenting on that point. I was specifically asking you why you would offer three possible readings of the situation when you knew for a fact that the story was true. You want to “see past the spin and disinformation” but muddy the waters by suggesting that the story might be untrue or that it may have been a case of mistaken identity. You knew, didn’t you, that it was true? I would simply like to know why you would write an article raising doubts about a known fact (Fay’s conviction).

        I can see that this again might seem aggressive or negative, and again I apologise. But to say that you can’t take my comment seriously as I use the Needle as my source is to skirt around the issue. I use many sources, as we all do.

        Please, could you confirm (or deny, although this would be slightly bizarre) that you accept that the story about Chris Fay’s conviction is true?

        1. Ah, I get it now.

          I raised the possibility earlier in the year, but the Needle issued a pretty emphatic denial of the money laundering conviction, quoting a simple case of ‘mistaken identity’.

          I shall locate the original source if needed, as it may have been removed by now from the blog.

          I am merely quoting what people are freely able to see from the various sources out there, my private thoughts however, will remain that way until I find ‘Absolute’ proof.

          1. Again, thanks for the reply, and yes, if you could dig out a link it would be appreciated. Gojam offered an explanation to the “mistaken identity” confusion in the article I linked to. I merely mention this, I pass no judgement on its veracity.

            I think you are setting the bar a little high if you are searching for Absolute Proof. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’, for all its flaws, has its merits too.

            One other thing: are you editing your replies without mentioning it? That doesn’t seem very fair, regardless of the intent behind it. Just sayin’.

          2. Well, I shall have to reply to myself as for some reason the option to reply to your answer of 3:28pm isn’t available.

            Specifically, your reply of 12:47pm changed. For example, in the first sentence, ” I cannot accept it as the absolute truth” was not the wording when I replied at 1:21pm. Also, the last sentence regarding Rose & Messham was not present when I replied. It could be due to a glitch in whatever software is being used, perhaps an earlier draft being submitted than intentioned. But your reply, at least on the screen in front of me, changed.

            I wasn’t accusing you of editing others’ responses, by the way. I was just surprised to see that your initial response had changed after I had responded to it. A little disconcerting. But there’s always the trusty PrtSc button, I suppose.

            Actually, while I’m “here”, and on a semi-related matter, I was reading about David Icke’s exposure-that-never-was of Jimmy Savile. (Yes, for my sins I have spent and/or wasted an incredible amount of time reading ‘that’ thread, although I’m not a member).

            Icke seemed to play with words to suggest that he had been exposing Savile since the 90s. Your friend (I think) Sonia Poulton, reinforced this view in an article in the Express stating that:

            “…David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.”

            The trouble is, he didn’t, or at least not as far as I can find. He claims to have known since 96 or 97, and that he “told those who would listen about Jimmy Savile” having received information from unimpeachable sources. Presumably he would have mentioned this to the authorities, but there is no record of any mention until AFTER Savile had died. i.e. He was as silent on the matter as people such as Esther Rantzen, berated – rightly, in my opinion – for her failure to raise the alarm.

            I mention this as I have just re-read your reply of 3:28pm:

            ‘Editing my replies?’ That does sound familiar, but no, of course I do not edit the responses.

            And I have realised that you might be having your cake & eating it too here. It sounds familiar, but of course you don’t edit the responses… To be clear, are you here affirming that you DO edit your own replies (not those of your readers), about which I originally enquired? A simple “yes” or “no” would have saved me scratching my head for the last thirty minutes.

            (You may have posted it up already between me reading your response & writing this rather-too-long reply, but if not, if you can, I still would like to see the ‘original source’ that you offered.)

          3. I apologise, I should have said I do not ‘edit my responses’ as a rule, (unless I spot a spelling or grammatical error, which of course give those with nothing better to do, a weird thrill) they remain as originally written.

            I just find your responses however, strangely similar to someone else who was playing games with people for reasons known only to themselves a while ago 🙂

          4. ‘Editing my replies?’ That does sound familiar, but no, of course I do not edit the responses.

            In fact, I am not even allowed to comment on certain other blogs, so I am afraid I do resent that implication.

            Be well, and keep asking questions though, it’s a healthy response to all the conflicting information out there. 🙂

          5. Thanks for the reply of 4:48pm. Okay, that’s cleared up then. It’s just seemed as though I had answered a point that had changed, albeit subtly, and I thought it was a little unfair. That’s all. I value good writing. And you write well. It’s only a suggestion, but when you DO alter something you have written, and when it goes beyond spelling or grammatical errors, I think you should add a note.

            Ignore at will.

            Regarding this: “I just find your responses strangely similar to someone else who was playing games with people for reasons known only to themselves..”

            I am no one else. Until the comment I placed on the linked article I had refrained from sounding off. (Once got half-way through Icke forum registration but came to my senses). I have no direct knowledge or involvement with any of this. Just a life long hatred of power, corruption & lies.

  3. Let us not forget that he has openly named Leon Brittain in that video with pie n mash. If nothing else the police should either question the former home secretary or arrest Chris Fay. Any inaction will speak volumes to me.

  4. Amazing revelations about VIPs decades later, and apparently with no ‘evidence’ of VIP involvement other than handwritten notes, and no photo, just a claim to have seen a photo. Now the dramatic claims above. If true, no explanation as to why the source should suddenly feel safe enough to speak out. If untrue, however, the story doesn’t lose anything in being made more dramatic. Nor is it clear why the police/CPS should be happy to allow a supposedly key informant to speak publicly about events they are investigating if his evidence could be of value in a court case.

    The only proven fact in this seems to be that this guy has a conviction for laundering the profits of a boiler room scam.

    1. I tend to agree with you Gerry.

      There are few things more dramatic than bullets from an unknown source coming through your window..

      No evidence of this either as it goes.. I have looked for any accounts of this ‘warning’ or ‘attempted murder’ attempt, but so far nothing.

Comments are closed.