Mark Williams Thomas must be quivering in his boots; anyone reading the full transcripts must be wondering how Surrey Police feel about their ex colleague.

downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insideth.../meirion_jones_1.pdf

Moving along from the Jenkins thread; I know it's not easy to understand but, after reading some of this extraordinary testimony, I really feel a charge against several people for Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice may be on the cards.

JK2006 wrote:
Moving along from the Jenkins thread; I know it's not easy to understand but, after reading some of this extraordinary testimony, I really feel a charge against several people for Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice may be on the cards.

It's seems from the little i've read so far that even we know far more about it than Meirion Jone's and Newsnight did then.

How could they possibly have thought of making and showing a show like that with such little evidence?

And it's obvious one of them, Rochelle Shepherd I think, had a definate aganda to cause trouble with all her misleading and untruthful rants of Friends Reunited (as we can now see what really happened during the 2007-2009 police investigation from the Alison Levitts report).

Cover up? Yeah right. I think these women would love to have us believe that, but the reality is these sick women have had everything twisted and manipulated in their favour and any lies they've told have been completely ignored.

A monkey could work out this is a scam based on, if not nothing at all, something very little, that bares absolutely no resemblance to what it has turned into...

eagerly awaiting la Racoon's take on this.

hedda wrote:
eagerly awaiting la Racoon's take on this.

I wonder what his 'gambit' was, and why we are not allowed to read about it?

It comes across that Meirion Jones is basically a bullshitting ignoramus and Williams-Thomas a thoroughbred charlatan.

Neither of them understand the definition of the word "paedophile" either.

When will this vicious madness end?

# one thing is still not clear..was MWT involved in JK's case ?

I'm picking up from this that Meiron Jones is another creepy hack that was prepared to cut corners for a sensational tale...and his interviewers are intelligently trying to ascertain that..ie : persisting on whether the police actually investigated to any depth...or was it a perfunctory 'investigation' that concluded- there was no evidence in which case it is not a legitimate matter for a TV program.

Note one of these woman was interviewed 'under caution' and Jones doesn't even question this...it means the cops thought she was a liar (and probably a forger).

And when is the BBC or the Surrey Police going to investigate the very serious matter of forged letters on their letterheads ?

after all, who knows what other letters went out ??

## as usual the ghastly media haven't even digested this report and are simply sensationalizing the blocked out bits as though they may prove guilt over something.

Chris Retro wrote:
It comes across that Meirion Jones is basically a bullshitting ignoramus and Williams-Thomas a thoroughbred charlatan.

Neither of them understand the definition of the word "paedophile" either.

When will this vicious madness end?


It's completely crazy.

I thought it strange when he said of most of his 'witnesses' that "they were so scared, they said, of being revealed in any way. They were not even prepared for us to come and be in the same room as them. They didn't trust the media. Therefore, all they -- what they were prepared to do was to be interviewed on the phone, to agree that we could use what they said"

So, bar the two they got on film, had they even met any of them? Or where they just faceless names they got talking to on 'Friends Reunited' that eventually forwarded a number to call them on?

If it is the latter, which he seems to be suggesting, how do they know they were talking to real individuals? How do they know they weren't talking to the same person under various accounts, who put on different voices and got them to phone them at various friends houses or on various sim cards when the time came for them to be 'interviewed'...? I wouldn't put a stunt like that past that Fiona clown...

Also, i've noticed that the two women who seemed to be shouting the loudest about wanting to 'name and shame' Jimmy Savile, that he was a 'perv' and that the police should have done something, Rochelle Shepherd and Fiona, are the two women who most obviously were NOT touched by him.

I don't think Rochelle Shepherd ever claimed to have been in the beginning, and if she is now, which I haven't heard, why believe her...?

And all Fiona officially told the police back in 2008 was that he had asked her for a 'blowjob' when she was 17 (though I suspect in 1978, when she claims this happened, she would have been even older than that - did anyone ask her for some i.d...?) and she made her excuses and went off and "hid in the lavatory". Though she seems to have changed her story quite a bit since then. In 2008 she also seems to have added, somewhere along the line, that he also asked her to 'massage his groin area' (though it is not in her recorded statement). By the ITV Exposure programme she's making accusations of having given him hand jobs in his Rolls Royce and at the at the age of 14 (despite saying to the police in 2008 that she never went to Duncroft until after her 15th birthday), and by the time she speaks to Alison Levitt in late 2012, she is keen to change, what she clearly said in her recorded statement back in 2008, that she was asked to make him a "POT OF tea" to "Tea as in something you eat", despite the fact she said she used saying she had heard the kettle finish boiling as her excuse to leave the room and go and hide "in the lavatory" in her statement back and 2008, and by this time she is also telling Alison Levitt she gave him a "hand job", but had refused to give him a "blow job". The woman has changed her story that much that only a complete idiot would believe any of it and anyway, most of the things shes complained about don't even amount to a crime, so who cares if he asked for a bj? But he didn't.

Did you notice she told Hannah Livingstone that she'd been "interviewed under caution" by the police? Would this have been because of her obvious lying per change...? If so, hats off to them - they should do the same with the rest of them, but it's probably more likely just another example of the fact she talks rubbish, that often doesn't make much sense and therefore most of what she says, regarding anything important, is not to be trusted.


Something Meirion said that really annoyed me, when being asked how he felt about the christmas tribute planned for Jimmy Savile, was that, when they heard about it, they apparently said "well, if we get the confirmation from the police they are going to have to pull the tribute", simply meaning "confirmation" there had actually been a police 'investigation'. But he hadn't been charged!! Why bother with a trial or even bothering to charge a person if they are to be considered 'guilty' just because the case against them was submitted to the CPS, regardless of whether the CPS decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge...?

Is Mark Williams-Thomas actually 'guilty' of blackmail then, even although he was acquitted in 2003, simply because the case went to court...? Would he think that fair...?

Jimmy Savile wasn't even charged with the things he was accused of and the team at Newsnight knew absolutely nothing about the investigation.

They didn't know whether what these women were telling them now matched what they told the police in 2008 (and in at least one case it more than probably didn't) or whether these women had been lying or not (I think they were). And he wasn't even interested in the reason WHY the case had been dropped? It would not matter a jot if the CPS confirmed it had been because of lack of evidence? Or even if they had gone (for arguments sake) even further and said that they had not found the acusations believable? It wouldn't even matter if what the CPS told them contradicted what many of their 'witnesses' or 'victims' had told them? Confirming them, not only as being dishonest, but having colluded together to tell the same LIE...?

All they wanted was confirmation that "there had been an investigation at all", never mind the reasons it was dropped without him being charged or that many of the women have been found to have been dishonest about their reason for that.

That "there had been an investigation at all" is enough to cancel the tribute to him after his death and broadcast a programme declaring him a 'paedophile' on the back of the testimony of "suspicious", "extremely manipulative", liars and people they haven't even met (or can even be sure really exist for that matter).


Just fabulous. Is this for real...?

You spotted the numerous JK mentions Hedda. So did I.
Yes MWT is starting to display the classic "liar" symptoms of exaggerating a false position the longer he gets away with it. Always brings them down in the end.

And your assessment of the lazy media coverage is spot on. If one hack had bothered to read the entire thing over the weekend, they would have some sensational stories.

But most disturbing of all: faced with these stunning revelations, why didn't Pollard come out with a defence of the BBC and condemnation of those damning it?

hedda wrote:
# one thing is still not clear..was MWT involved in JK's case ?

I'm picking up from this that Meiron Jones is another creepy hack that was prepared to cut corners for a sensational tale...and his interviewers are intelligently trying to ascertain that..ie : persisting on whether the police actually investigated to any depth...or was it a perfunctory 'investigation' that concluded- there was no evidence in which case it is not a legitimate matter for a TV program.

Note one of these woman was interviewed 'under caution' and Jones doesn't even question this...it means the cops thought she was a liar (and probably a forger).

And when is the BBC or the Surrey Police going to investigate the very serious matter of forged letters on their letterheads ?

after all, who knows what other letters went out ??

## as usual the ghastly media haven't even digested this report and are simply sensationalizing the blocked out bits as though they may prove guilt over something.


"And when is the BBC or the Surrey police going to investigate the very serious matter of forged letters on their letterhears ?

after all, who knows what other letters went out ??"


Indeed, i've noticed some idiots claiming that thé fake letter is 'irrealvent'. How? It's not just proof of her dishonesty, it's proof of her dishonesty and deception regarding this issue. And if impersorationg a police officer is an offense, surely forging letters, claiming to be from them is just as bad, if not worse...?

And I love the suggestion (not), to try and make excuses for her and absolve her from her dishonesty and misdeeds, that the forged letter must have been a 'hoax' from the BBC. Good one. Given that Karin Ward never started writing about Jimmy Savile in her online misery 'memoir' until after June 2010, Meirion Jones claims not to have discovered it until 2011, no one at Newsnight or Mark Williams-Thomas appears to have known about the police investigation until the women told them and the CPS confirmed it in late 2011 and, according to the Daily Mail right enough, that stupid cow claimed to have been sent it in 2007 (i.e had it since 2007), but anyway the case was dropped in 2009, and she seems to have claimed to have been sent a letter to the staff at Newsnight and was ranting on Friends Reunited that the case against Jimmy Savile had been dropped for the false reasons stated in that forged letter. As the BBC and Newsnight staff seem to have had no idea there had even been a police investigation into Jimmy Savile until 2011, it could hardly have been a 'hoax' from them, could it? I'm fed up with people so willing to make excuses for these horrible women.


I think the police should interview Karin Ward "under caution", take her down to the station and make her sit and watch the 'Clunk Click' recordings featuring Gary Glitter until she points out the girls she claims she seen being 'abused' by Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile, and if she can't, they should do her with wasting police time - which is a lot less than she deserves.

It weakens your argument to use personally impolite expressions; please keep to the facts which are surely strong enough without having to resort to bad manners.

JK2006 wrote:
You spotted the numerous JK mentions Hedda. So did I.
Yes MWT is starting to display the classic "liar" symptoms of exaggerating a false position the longer he gets away with it. Always brings them down in the end.

And your assessment of the lazy media coverage is spot on. If one hack had bothered to read the entire thing over the weekend, they would have some sensational stories.

But most disturbing of all: faced with these stunning revelations, why didn't Pollard come out with a defence of the BBC and condemnation of those damning it?


"faced with these stunning revelations, why didn't Pollard come out with a defense of the BBC and condemnation of those daming it?"

He was probably told what he was to say he thought, or else. Or knew that if he didn't he might face the public wrath and feared his job could be at risk.

Same as what probably happened with the Yewtree report, the police knew from the start the only story they woud have been permitted to tell, no matter if it had no basis in reality. If they didn't they'd get idiots screaming cover-up!! And the likes of Mark Williams-Thomas calling for them to lose their jobs.


Nick Pollard, like the police, was frightened he'd loose his job I think (the police definitely were), the truth doesn't come into it. Their being more or less blackmailed.

It's funny that despite the final out come or 'finding' of the Pollard review, in his interview with Meirion Jones he (and his assistant) appear to be asking all the questions i'd like to ask him and making all the points i'd like to make - I was rather surprised.

So it seems what these people think and what they are permitted to say publicly are two different things, which I suspected all along...

Incidentally I really like the point (above) about MWT being considered a blackmailer if he hadn't been allowed to defend himself successfully in court. Isn't it ironic, as Alanis once sang.

JK2006 wrote:
It weakens your argument to use personally impolite expressions; please keep to the facts which are surely strong enough without having to resort to bad manners.

True...

Jones was clearly wishing it all to be true (despite some misgivings)..desperately wanting it to be true and shifting 'burden of proof' upon MWT which is laughable considering MWT was ready to run with a forged letter.

Interesting as well how little MWT was paid..500 quid for his 'expert' advice. My how times have changed. 10 years ago it would have been 5 grand.

which makes MWT quite a pathetic character as he will have Buckleys Chance of making a career out of pedo exposing so I guess he has to rely on giving lectures on "how to protect your child" but that career will have a limited shelf life as well.

Re : the forged letter- the report suggests she may have been "paid a brick load of money" to produce the forged letter which is clearly obtaining a pecuniary interest by deception but tabloids rarely dob someone in (they are often taken in my con-men and paid out big sums in the old days)...but she's involved the police.

Of course the forged letter may have been sent by someone else but she claimed other women had them (and they obviously denied it) ...I reckon that matter is yet to run it's course...doubt police will let that drop.

And if MWT exagerates his past....true..it will unravel one day.

The forged letter - this is the massive, enormous, stinking elephant shitting in the room and I predict, soon, the ramifications of this pathetic attempt to strengthen a false allegation will bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Have I mixed my metaphors?

But seriously - who did it? Why would anyone do it? How could anyone not spot it? What motives are revealed by those who knew or suspected but chose to accept it?

And funnily enough, The Mail On Sunday may come out of this absolutely smelling of roses. We all know the Mail is the nastiest paper in Britain but it's also far and away the best. And when it is genuinely campaigning for the truth - even if it appears to conflict with "a great story" (exposing the fake Satanic Abuse claims for example) it is a magnificent example of the very best in media.

JK2006 wrote:
Incidentally I really like the point (above) about MWT being considered a blackmailer if he hadn't been allowed to defend himself successfully in court. Isn't it ironic, as Alanis once sang.


Well by his and Meirion Jones's reasoning, he should be considered a 'blackmailer' now, whether he was acquitted or not, as it wouldn't have made it as far as that if their wasn't any truth in it... lol

That seemed to be their reasoning with the Jimmy Savile case making it as far as the CPS - i've heard that argument before, which made me wonder, well why bother with a trial, then if he's already to be considered 'guilty' by that stage...?


I don't know, lol...

It smacked of a media conspiracy from before the MWT Show was even aired - and there was nothing on that programme that rang true to me anyway, nothing but dubious allegations. Resorting to Gary Glitter on Clunk Click was the obvious sign there was no substance. It was obviously garbage, pure and simple.
That George Entwistle then felt to issue an immediate "apology" for those involved in this awful television programme over on ITV told me this was a conspiracy to pervert history and defame a dead man. I've not seen anything to change my mind - the question is why. And that runs deeper than BBC bashing, MWT filling his pockets or even Tabloid headlines.

[b]hedda wrote:[/bquote]Jones was clearly wishing it all to be true (despite some misgivings)..desperately wanting it to be true and shifting 'burden of proof' upon MWT which is laughable considering MWT was ready to run with a forged letter.

Interesting as well how little MWT was paid..500 quid for his 'expert' advice. My how times have changed. 10 years ago it would have been 5 grand.

Which makes MWT quite a pathetic character as he will have Buckleys Chance of making a career out of pedo exposing so I guess he has to rely on giving lectures on "how to protect your child" but that career will have a limited shelf life as well.

Re : the forged letter- the report suggests she may have been "paid a brick load of money" to produce the forged letter which is clearly obtaining a pecuniary interest by deception but tabloids rarely dob someone in (they are often taken in my con-men and paid out big sums in the old days)...but she's involved the police.

Of course the forged letter may have been sent by someone else but she claimed other women had them (and they obviously denied it) ...I reckon that matter is yet to run it's course...doubt police will let that drop

And if MWT exagerates his past....true..it will unravel one day.[/quote]


I think, unless the Daily Mail made the whole thing up, it has to have been Fiona that faked it, or had it faked by someone (imo). Unless the Daily Mail made it up, they claim it was her that handed it too them and she claimed she was sent it in 2007 (which implies she was claiming to have had it since 2007), even if that was a miss print, a letter like that would probably have been sent around 2009 so anyone wanting to do a 'hoax' on her would have have to done it back then, Meirion Jones or anyone at Newsnight hadn't heard about the police investigation police until late 2011 it would seem and the letter, according to the Daily Mail, did contain the (false) statement she was claiming, that the Jimmy Savile wasn't charged because he was too old and infirm.

So unless one of the other women involved in the investigation sent her it as a 'hoax' or the Daily Mail just invented the story, I think Fiona is the prime culprit of that one...


£500 seems like a ridiculously low budget, it seems they weren't actually taking this 'investigation' seriously at all, I mean, what did they actually really find out...?

Very little...

JK2006 wrote:
The forged letter - this is the massive, enormous, stinking elephant shitting in the room and I predict, soon, the ramifications of this pathetic attempt to strengthen a false allegation will bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Have I mixed my metaphors?

But seriously - who did it? Why would anyone do it? How could anyone not spot it? What motives are revealed by those who knew or suspected but chose to accept it?

And funnily enough, The Mail On Sunday may come out of this absolutely smelling of roses. We all know the Mail is the nastiest paper in Britain but it's also far and away the best. And when it is genuinely campaigning for the truth - even if it appears to conflict with "a great story" (exposing the fake Satanic Abuse claims for example) it is a magnificent example of the very best in media.


My suspicion is, she was offered a bit of money if she could provide this letter to the Daily Mail so they could write a story around it, she wanted the money, all she needed was the letter - so she faked it (just a guess )