I published a copy of a letter on this site in December 2012.

The letter was written by Simon Regan Editor of Scallywag Magazine, who’s half Brother Angus James Wilson, co-founder of Scallywag and editor of its sucessor ‘Spiked‘ died in Cyprus around 1996 whilst the magazine was investigating the alleged elite paedophile ring operating in North Wales, via various children’s homes and beyond.

In his letter dated February 2000, Simon documents Scallywag’s investigation into the North Wales Child Abuse scandal and the tragic cover-up by the Courts and the Establishment.

I removed it a few days later, simply because I was persuaded to do so by a former resident of the Bryn Estyn Childrens Home in Wrexham.

This person, who for the purposes of this article I shall refer to only as D, spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to convince me that it was in fact, not worth the paper it was written on.

He, (at great length) explained that he was, in real life, one of those who contributed to the Scallywag article and he and the others, were only doing it for, ‘A day out in London, a few quid and free food and drink’.

He assured me that it was a complete fabrication, the idea had come from Journalists Angus Stickler and Iain Overton, who had been covering the story from the beginning.

“It is complete rubbish, and you are damaging your reputation by publishing it on your blog” was part of one conversation I remember.

*It should be noted that the actual facts of the above revelations should not be considered as anything but the words of one man only, as there is nothing and nobody I have found to corroborate his version*

It has recently come to light that D has been setting up numerous Twitter accounts including @therisingup and the more recent @gimpchimp which then renamed itself @munkeekiller.

*At the time of writing there have been at least fourteen Twitter accounts and three blogs published specifically to personally attack me.!*

I wrote about this then-unknown user in an earlier article, who had been caught obsessively trawling the Internet for personal information about me to use and to pass on to others.

The result of which, was that I had to delete a personal genealogy website with contained over twenty years of family history research, also an online memorial site for my late father, as both websites were attacked soon after the web addresses were published on Twitter to his followers.

He has continued to harass, stalk, antagonise, ridicule and attempt to intimidate both myself and my family, and has also attempted to bully and threaten both myself and some online friends in a manner which can only be described as ‘unrelenting’ and ‘obsessive’.

The excuse he has given for doing this?

‘Bryn Estyn was/is ‘HIS’ and he will continue to attack and discredit anybody who he feels are ‘stepping on his toes’, in regard to ‘speaking publicly about anything that took place at Bryn Estyn’. [his words]

His disturbing behaviour have convinced me there are now two options available to me.

The first is to close down the Outlaw, delete my Twitter/Facebook accounts and to stay offline for the foreseeable future.

To never speak or write about anything to do with Bryn Estyn children’s home or indeed anything concerning North Wales, which he also considers to be his exclusive property and therefore his must be the only voice qualified to speak about it.

The second option is to try and discover why somebody would go to those lengths to try and discredit me and attempt to ‘drive me offline’ in case I ever felt the need to talk about it.

I have chosen the second option.

The more I have looked at the Simon Regan letter, the more I have to assume that it is more accurate and factual than D tried to make me believe.


I do know from my own experience that there were indeed lads in the care system in Wales at that time at least, Bryn Estyn included, who would say and do anything for less than the price of a 1/4oz of rolling tobacco.

D himself, has admitted more than once that he has said things in the media and at various enquiries and hearings that were not ‘Factually Accurate‘.

(The majority of which he has since retracted and/or passed the blame onto others no longer in a position to defend themselves.)

I have also recently been made aware that at least two of the suicides that have sadly occurred following the abuse revelations coming to light, were not a direct result of the stress of giving evidence at the Waterhouse Enquiry, as the media has led people to believe.

Is it possible to have been because of an involvement in certain activities, that could have made their lives unbearable had it became public knowledge?

A fertile ground for possible blackmail attempts would be my first thought, but until more information becomes available it is purely speculation at this point in time.

Or, it could have been simply, that many ex-care residents, from all over the country, not just North Wales, have taken their own lives for various and understandably complex reasons?

Not all of that number were abused in care.

These are plain facts, there are records and there are statistics to show this if anyone cares to investigate further.

I am not in any way saying here that some of the deaths were not deeply ‘suspicious‘, as there is way too much evidence, however circumstantial, available to support this as a probability as opposed to a possibility, or any often-hinted at ‘Conspiracy.’

The Simon Regan letter, however, is not the only thing, or person, that D has been trying very hard to discredit and make ‘go away.’

I would like you to consider that D would have been ten years old when I was at Bryn Estyn, and using references to his own online accounts and accepted official documentation, he did not even enter the care system until 1978, the same year I left North Wales.

Wrexham Councillor Keith Gregory was at Bryn Estyn between 1973 and 1975, and Steven Messham also had left there by May of 1979.

I have only referred to these people as they have come forward of their own accord.

This would mean that D has been, for more than a year now, also attacking and attempting to discredit (Gregory & Messham) people he was not even in Bryn Estyn with at the same time.

Putting everything else aside and looking at the timescale alone, how could he possibly know with any certainty that any of these people’s accounts are ‘Unreliable and a load of Lies,’¬†[sic] if he was not even there as a witness to what they may have! or not have experienced ?

That being the case, why would he, or anyone feel such an obsessive need to discredit them in such a manner?

(I was at Bryn Estyn for a very short time, alternating between Bryn Estyn, Bersham Hall, Bryn Alyn Hall and Penhill Assessment Centre in South Wales, while on remand prior to a Crown Court trial which concluded in late December 1978. I had to attend a magistrate court on a bi-weekly basis and was remanded back to the care of the nearest local authority who had available places.)

When Steven Messham first appeared on Twitter I contacted him.

We were talking about shared time at Glamorgan Farm School in South West Wales.

It was around this time that D, using the @RyanTanner5 account started attacking Messham and first contacted me.

I now firmly believe that the only reason he even contacted me, was because I was speaking to Messham.

Former North Wales Police Supt. Gordon Anglesea was another person that D insisted was as pure as the driven snow, as they were ‘close personal friends’, who to this day, spend their weekends together on fishing trips.

An admission however, (now denied by DL as is his habit of continually retracting and denying things he has said previously ) which was repeated to another person on a separate occasion who is prepared to swear an Affidavit to that effect if required to do so.

The transcript of the Simon Regan letter I have republished below, can also be found HERE.

It’s worth mentioning that that website has been attacked by D or any his acolytes to any degree if at all.

Maybe D would be so helpful as to explain why nobody sued Scallywag over the allegations, if what they were saying was so far off the mark?

The Waterhouse Report

Simon Regan

20 February 2000

The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a ‘cult of silence’ is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg.

The report suggests there is ‘no evidence’ that Freemasonry had anything to do with the scandal. Yet there were two inadequate and inconclusive police inquiries, including one into a senior officer, by a force in North Wales riddled with freemasons.

There was a consistent lack of initiative on the part of the local Clwyd CC in the face of overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn, ostensibly because the council insurers advised against any action. This in itself insults democracy in a way that borders on the criminal. By a policy of non-action, both the police and the council became embroiled in a blatant cover-up.

Anyone who has even vaguely become acquainted with paedophilia knows very well that they will go to the ends of the earth to keep their activities absolutely secret. They are professional experts in covering their tracks.

In the early nineties, in the now defunct Scallywag magazine, which I founded, we interviewed in some depth twelve former inmates at Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring, which the tribunal acknowledges existed. Most of these interviews were extremely harrowing and disturbing, but were gently and sensitively conducted over pub lunches where the victim could relax. We subsequently persuaded ten of them to make sworn affidavits which we proposed to use as back up to half a dozen paedophile stories we later published.

Two of these young men, who had been 14-years-old at the time, swore they had been not only introduced to the paedophile ring operating in the Crest Hotel in Wrexham but had later been escorted on three or four occasions to an address in Pimlico where they were further abused.

We took them separately to Pimlico and asked them to point out the building where this had taken place. They were both positive in their identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales.

There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names.

Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.

I believe that the secrecy the Establishment wraps around itself easily equals that of the paedophiles. They really do look after each other and quite professionally cover their tracks.

The real trouble about exposing paedophiles is that former victims of child abuse make lousy witnesses. By the very nature of the abuse, when they are rudely shoved out into the wide world (one of the witnesses, Stephen Messham, for example, was released on his sixteenth birthday on Christmas day after two years of abuse, and had to sleep rough on the streets for four and a half months), they are often deeply psychologically disturbed.

Some of the extreme cases commit suicide, many more were sexually disorientated in the worst possible way. Some became gay prostitutes, others drug addicts, and in nearly every case, at some stage, they needed lengthy counselling. Marriages quickly disintegrated in psychological turmoil and a lot of former victims had real difficulties raising their own children.

There are very few victims of child abuse who come out of it without deep scars.

It was all very well for us to take statements from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

I watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesey and Private Eye (and others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesey had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own notebooks, the ‘other side’ subsequently tore the five main prosecution witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment.

Like the whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my heart.

Simon Regan (deceased) was editor of Scallywag Magazine


Before the online attacks by D and his online cohorts on me began, my recollections of the Bryn Estyn Children’s Home were limited to say the least.

The short time I spent there were mainly uneventful, tedious to the point of boredom as I recall.

Any difficulties I encountered in the care system happened elsewhere, so the lurid tales of VIP Paedophile rings and systematic maltreatment were not in evidence during my brief stay.

That is not to say that abuse did not occur.

What I am saying here is that personally, I was unaware of anything significant in regard to VIP abuse happening during my limited time there.

Nonetheless, it does seem that there are concerned parties who still feel the need to try and discredit anyone who shows anything more than a passing interest.

*It should also be noted, that D, has at one time or another tried to discredit and ridicule every survivor who has spoken out, whether in the media or to the police. Included among those he has tried to discredit, are people from different parts of the UK and those who have spoken about events that occurred before he even entered and after he had left care. It almost seems to be a full time occupation. Which would also help to explain his boast that he ‘gets his food and fags bought for him.’ Worth thinking about I would think.*

As I was housed away from the main building, I am only qualified to write about my experiences there, not elaborate on what is already third or fourth hand anecdotal ‘evidence’ that the mainstream media have printed and filmed.

I firmly believe that everyone has a right to speak about their life experiences, however insignificant and ‘un-newsworthy‘ they may appear during the telling.

It is now plainly obvious that there are some Bryn Estyn ex-residents who have spent most of their adult lives regurgitating their tales of ‘Life at the Big House’ to anyone who cares to listen.

And if they are getting paid for their stories?

Even better I would imagine.

Have you noticed how very few reliable accounts are online ?

The truth about what really happened at Bryn Estyn will probably never see the light of day.

It’s self-appointed spokespersons are so determined to steamroll their personal versions of the story over everything, even up to and beyond the point where they destroy everybody else in the process.

For some, it may well be the most interesting thing about them and without it, have nothing else to offer.

Using the most underhand and despicable tactics, they seem determined to drive away and/or discredit anybody but the most gullible and subservient types who hang on their every word.

Is it simply jealousy?

Or is there a further layer yet to be revealed that can only be to their personal benefit that it remains forever in the shadows?

NOTE: “I will be writing about my time in the welsh care system at a later date. More than likely by way of an altogether different platform than this blog, based solely on my experiences, not embellished or over-dramatised at the hands of a scandal-seeking Journalist or a compensation hungry pseudo ‘abuse’ victim”.


  1. Pingback: Outside The Box
  2. Excellent piece as per usual. So well thought out & put together. Really admire your skills. What a tangled web of lies & deceit.

    Always felt that Regan & Wilson were on the right track, they were dogged in their determination to investigate things, back in the day when journalism involved all leg work & no internet. The whole rent debacle, that if I remember rightly was over such a pittance, seemed strange that they would be taken to court over it.

    The seized documents that subsequently were leaked by the pro Tory media. Their research papers on the paedophile element missing when they were allowed access to the seized files. Someone really wanted them out of the picture & that evidence would have been very damning to the Waterhouse Enquiry – someone wanted it off them & they succeeded by the most underhand means. The denial that Freemasons was not involved, when so many of the accused & people involved were Freemasons. They weren’t wrong about Major either, he was having an affair – they just got the wrong woman & she herself stated that she felt Major had used her in a scam to set them up. Wilsons murder which was obviously to shut him up once & for all in my opinion.

    The libel trial with Gordy – despite his evidence not tallying with his own notes, which you’d imagine would cast huge doubt on the man, seemed to be totally disregarded – Freemasons again. It was a done deal – I feel that he would have won no matter what.

    Ah & Mr Boggins being such a close personal friend of Gordy’s, waiting in the wings ready to give evidence for his precious one. Was Gordy the daddy figure he never had? Was it a case that he would do anything for his father figure? Was it the case that because of his fawning devotion, he would do whatever his beloved friend told him to do, to protect his beloved Freemason friend/father figure? A useful patsy like any other a pawn in the game being used.

    I fully believe Boggins was waiting for anyone from BE to rock up on Messhams page. Another favour for ‘daddy’ to save him from this latest round of investigation & the truth from coming out? I imagine Gordy must have been fretting some when this reared it’s ugly head again. It’s obvious to me that Boggins made a bee line for you when he saw your kind messages of support to Messham. He then set about muddying the waters to make you believe that he was in the know, which on face value you may have accepted for a while until you gave it more thought & dates & his accounts of things & people involved didn’t add up. Like you say, he was 10 years old at the time you left – how the hell would he know what happened when he wasn’t even there.

    Messham stating that when they had been told what he had done, they dropped him like a brick. Solicitors setting up a business for him, that is well odd to me. Would they trust such a person with his background? Find that highly suspicious. Was Doddsy part of it or did he owe favours to someone himself? Would e risk his reputation for someone with such a history? Hmmm seems well odd. Didn’t last long after all that & died a few years after taking on the Boggins stuff – only in his early 50’s.

    Seems like a desperate attempt to protect someone, Gordy & himself maybe? And as he states, he is being protected by someone & he’ll be ‘finished’ if that should end. He has stated (in writing) that he makes no money, ‘others’ supply his food & fags. He seems to do much better than just having food & fags. Better than anyone I know who relies on 1 wage that’s for sure, most struggle with 2 wages coming in. But not Boggins curiously.

    When he didn’t get his own way in stopping you from delving into all this, he became very pushy & bully like. Resorting to digging at you with insults until he felt you had been dissuaded. When you still didn’t fold, well he went on an all out mission to try to destroy you. Now having totally failed in his mission, he resorts to the same tactics he did with Messham, setting up multiple accounts to attack, abuse & discredit you, but these attempts are so lame & childish, it’s pretty clear that he has lost the plot & is resorting to crazy tactics to try to put you down – sad as sad can be & quite pathetic to watch. Posting up pictures of monkeys etc??? I’d expect that from a small child, not a bloke knocking 50. Laughable if it wasn’t so sad & pathetic.

    Whilst you continue to produce evidence, he continues to produce insults – the ‘evidence’ he produces is his own words, nothing substantial or real, not evidence at all in reality.

    He continues to taunt & threaten. Trying to draw others in that he knows you converse with on Twitter etc. & when they give him the flick, he starts on them too. Playground bully stuff. He really is a very weak, sad little creature & a nasty piece of work. Think this is more than just jealousy, though I think that plays a part.

    Fortunately people can see what he is & what dirty low down tactics he resorts to. Going off his head in his venomous vendetta in the most ridiculous ways, whilst you stay perfectly calm, reasonable & polite. Think we can see who the real decent honest man is here & it ain’t him.

    You have every right to express your view & speak about your experience & knowledge. Way more than he does in my eyes. He is a desperate man, clutching at straws, in a right old panic & making a right old pigs ear out of it. All his own less than sub standard work. Keep on keeping on my friend. The good folk are behind you all the way. : )

Comments are closed.