Jo wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Rumours of affairs. Rumours of the theft of a top of the range imported luxury car. Rumours of blackmail evidence on top cops.
It's surprising, especially since he seems to have a knack for getting people's backs up, that no-one seems to have revealed anything publicly about him. As he's so critical of the police, one would think that someone such as an ex colleague would be motivated to reveal something about him if there was anything to reveal, e.g. leaving the police for reasons other than personal choice. He surely can't have blackmail evidence on everyone, assuming there's any substance to the rumours.

The Police are a big, secret and protective family and they never tell tales about one of their own.

pip2456 wrote:
Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page says "During his time with Surrey Police he was a specialist in major crime and child abuse"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas

If he did specialise in major crime he would have been involved in investigating serious, dangerous and violent criminals.

So why has he then chosen to seek so much publicity and, with his unusual name and home address easily found with a simple Google search, why would he put himself and his family at considerable risk of retaliation from those criminals.

That does not make any sense either.


You quote Wikipedia as fact. People can write anything they want on it!

It's for naive idiots and has zero factual scrutiny or editorial analysis!!

Most contributors are idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks.

pip2456 wrote:
Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page says "During his time with Surrey Police he was a specialist in major crime and child abuse"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas

If he did specialise in major crime he would have been involved in investigating serious, dangerous and violent criminals.

So why has he then chosen to seek so much publicity and, with his unusual name and home address easily found with a simple Google search, why would he put himself and his family at considerable risk of retaliation from those criminals.

That does not make any sense either.

What we do know is that neither Mark Williams-Thomas nor his wife, who was also a Police Officer whose name is also in the public domain, as is their address, have no obvious fear of retaliation by the Serious Criminals he says he specialised in investigating, and no apparent desire to keep their details secret

What we also know is that there have been no public reports of any retaliation attempts against Mark Williams-Thomas or his family by these "Serious Criminals"

It therefore does make sense to say that he probably did not work in that area of Police work during his time serving as a Constable with Surrey Police.

Simpson wrote:
pip2456 wrote:
Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page says "During his time with Surrey Police he was a specialist in major crime and child abuse"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas

If he did specialise in major crime he would have been involved in investigating serious, dangerous and violent criminals.

So why has he then chosen to seek so much publicity and, with his unusual name and home address easily found with a simple Google search, why would he put himself and his family at considerable risk of retaliation from those criminals.

That does not make any sense either.


You quote Wikipedia as fact. People can write anything they want on it!

It's for naive idiots and has zero factual scrutiny or editorial analysis!!

Most contributors are idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks.

Why are you so cross?

He has said it in lots of other places too

pip2456 wrote:
Simpson wrote:
pip2456 wrote:
Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page says "During his time with Surrey Police he was a specialist in major crime and child abuse"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas

If he did specialise in major crime he would have been involved in investigating serious, dangerous and violent criminals.

So why has he then chosen to seek so much publicity and, with his unusual name and home address easily found with a simple Google search, why would he put himself and his family at considerable risk of retaliation from those criminals.

That does not make any sense either.


You quote Wikipedia as fact. People can write anything they want on it!

It's for naive idiots and has zero factual scrutiny or editorial analysis!!

Most contributors are idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks.

Why are you so cross?

He has said it in lots of other places too

Hi Simpson,

Do you have evidence that Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page has been written by "idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks."

If so please post it here as I am sure everyone here, including Mark William-Thomas, would want to know who was posting untrue information and get it corrected.

Many Thanks

pip2456 wrote:
Jo wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Rumours of affairs. Rumours of the theft of a top of the range imported luxury car. Rumours of blackmail evidence on top cops.
It's surprising, especially since he seems to have a knack for getting people's backs up, that no-one seems to have revealed anything publicly about him. As he's so critical of the police, one would think that someone such as an ex colleague would be motivated to reveal something about him if there was anything to reveal, e.g. leaving the police for reasons other than personal choice. He surely can't have blackmail evidence on everyone, assuming there's any substance to the rumours.

The Police are a big, secret and protective family and they never tell tales about one of their own.

You point out a "problem" Pip in that police are guaranteed confidentiality once they leave the force which is understandable but it's also why total fuckwits ex-cops can claim they lead an investigation (even just as a PC which Williams-Thomas was for 98% of the time) and no -one will correct them.

We see all sorts of ex-coppers like that odd Satanic enthusiast Jon Wedger who reckons every UK canal is riddled with Pedos On Boats making claims as he does that he "led the Baby P" investigation- odd as any such investigation is led by a Superintendent at least and perhaps 20 other DC / DS working on the case. It's a collaborative effort.

You can imagine the feelings of many cops who have worked on say a vile murder case and then ex-PC Blogs says in the Daily Screws "it was me wot caught Jack the Ripper".

## Honey..gumshoe..too funny

Mark Williams-Thomas was in the Murder Squad too! - What a busy chap he must have been in his 11 year Police career, and all before his 30th birthday.

www.tvnewsroom.co.uk/news/itn-reporters-banned-7512/

So why did that Yorkshire Post article of 19th March 2002 (which Jo mentioned earlier) about Gumfighters disappear? Did they just have a clear-out of older articles or did someone request that it be removed?

Anyway, I knew I had a copy of it somewhere and have now located it.


The national chewing gum removal specialists, GumFighters, has been hired by Sheffield Council city centre management team to clean-up the main retail areas.

GumFighters director Mark Williams-Thomas said: “We are pleased to be working to create a cleaner and healthier environment for everybody in Sheffield. However, it is very important that people realise the damage caused by discarded gum and dispose of it correctly.”

He added the best way to dispose of chewing gum was to return the used piece back to its wrapper, secure it within scrap paper or, if you insist, swallow it.

“Don’t worry, it won’t collect in your intestines. It will just pass through your system in one piece, because gum base can’t be digested.,” added Mr Williams-Thomas.

Here is an interesting article from the BBC dated 10 March 2010

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycel...ok_v_daily_mail.html

The Mail's coverage of this story featured a front-page report, an editorial and a big spread which included an article by a child-protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas. The opening paragraph read:

"Even after 15 years in child protection, I was shocked by what I encountered when I spent just five minutes on Facebook posing as a 14-year-old girl. Within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me."
He went on to describe how a series of men approached him and made sexual suggestions, painting a chilling picture of the dangers for teenagers using Facebook.

It has to be said the story never sounded very convincing - unlike some other networks or instant messaging services, Facebook is actually place where it's rather difficult to conduct random chats. If you were to set up a profile and just wait for "friends" to arrive, you would be likely to have to wait for days, not minutes. What's more, the company says that its privacy settings mean that a 14-year-old girl could not receive a message from someone unless they were a friend or at least shared a school network.

Facebook says when it contacted Mark Williams-Thomas, he had a rather different story. He had been contacted by the Mail which had provided him with the material about the fake profile, but he had corrected it to make it clear that it involved not Facebook but another social network. By late yesterday, the story on the Mail's website had been amended; although it still featured a Facebook picture, it included this apology:

"In an earlier version of this article, we wrongly stated that the criminologist had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight."
I contacted Mr Williams-Thomas to check a few facts, and he confirmed that the story had indeed been "ghosted" by a Mail reporter. He says he got back to the paper with a number of changes before publication, but although they acknowledged receipt of his alterations, they were not acted on.

This morning the newspaper carried a apology on page 4, quite a rare occurrence for the Daily Mail. So does the matter end there? I've seen a very strongly-worded letter from Facebook's lawyers saying their clients are considering what further action to take in relation to the "false and defamatory statements in the article".

And here is an update to the original article dated 10:44 12 March - 2 days later

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycel...ok_v_daily_mail.html


Update, 1044 12 March: Well, it seems I might be wrong: Facebook is not stepping back in its battle with the Daily Mail. Last night the company challenged the paper to name the social network used in the experiment:

"We should all be concerned that their refusal to name the network they did use for the experiment is not helping to expose the real places where people are vulnerable online. We are in discussions with them and have not ruled out legal action."
I've just spoken to the child-protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who conducted the experiment, and he says he did not tell the Mail which network was involved, though he made it clear it wasn't Facebook.

So why wouldn't he identify it? "It would be irresponsible to name the network," he told me. "It would generate the wrong kind of traffic to the site - and could endanger attempts to improve its security." Mr Williams-Thomas went on to tell me that he thought Facebook's security, while not perfect, is among the best of the social networking sites in this regard.

Sheba wrote:
So why did that Yorkshire Post article of 19th March 2002 (which Jo mentioned earlier) about Gumfighters disappear? Did they just have a clear-out of older articles or did someone request that it be removed?

Anyway, I knew I had a copy of it somewhere and have now located it.


The national chewing gum removal specialists, GumFighters, has been hired by Sheffield Council city centre management team to clean-up the main retail areas.

GumFighters director Mark Williams-Thomas said: “We are pleased to be working to create a cleaner and healthier environment for everybody in Sheffield. However, it is very important that people realise the damage caused by discarded gum and dispose of it correctly.”

He added the best way to dispose of chewing gum was to return the used piece back to its wrapper, secure it within scrap paper or, if you insist, swallow it.

“Don’t worry, it won’t collect in your intestines. It will just pass through your system in one piece, because gum base can’t be digested.,” added Mr Williams-Thomas.
That's interesting, Sheba. Thanks for posting.

It looks as if no articles for that date are available in the Yorkshire Post archive.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/archive/2002-03-19

Sheba wrote:
So why did that Yorkshire Post article of 19th March 2002 (which Jo mentioned earlier) about Gumfighters disappear? Did they just have a clear-out of older articles or did someone request that it be removed?

Anyway, I knew I had a copy of it somewhere and have now located it.


The national chewing gum removal specialists, GumFighters, has been hired by Sheffield Council city centre management team to clean-up the main retail areas.

GumFighters director Mark Williams-Thomas said: “We are pleased to be working to create a cleaner and healthier environment for everybody in Sheffield. However, it is very important that people realise the damage caused by discarded gum and dispose of it correctly.”

He added the best way to dispose of chewing gum was to return the used piece back to its wrapper, secure it within scrap paper or, if you insist, swallow it.

“Don’t worry, it won’t collect in your intestines. It will just pass through your system in one piece, because gum base can’t be digested.,” added Mr Williams-Thomas.

you could just do as the luscious Sharon Stone did..looking sensational on this year's Cannes Film Festival red carpet, take it out of your mouth and hand it to her companion who quickly continued munching on it .

Very Hollywood.

pip2456 wrote:
pip2456 wrote:
Simpson wrote:
pip2456 wrote:
Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page says "During his time with Surrey Police he was a specialist in major crime and child abuse"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williams-Thomas

If he did specialise in major crime he would have been involved in investigating serious, dangerous and violent criminals.

So why has he then chosen to seek so much publicity and, with his unusual name and home address easily found with a simple Google search, why would he put himself and his family at considerable risk of retaliation from those criminals.

That does not make any sense either.


You quote Wikipedia as fact. People can write anything they want on it!

It's for naive idiots and has zero factual scrutiny or editorial analysis!!

Most contributors are idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks.

Why are you so cross?

He has said it in lots of other places too

Hi Simpson,

Do you have evidence that Mark Williams-Thomas's Wikipedia page has been written by "idiots and/or conspiracy artists, or freaks."

If so please post it here as I am sure everyone here, including Mark William-Thomas, would want to know who was posting untrue information and get it corrected.

Many Thanks

I'm probably an idiot but I "updated" MTW's Wiki page years ago to include his arrest from blackmail (and acquittal) and he was furious.

I even got Jimmy Wales on Twitter to agree that his past history was relevant.

But I decided not to keep torturing him..

He wasn't a specialist in much..a PC for most of his time except the last 18 months as an acting DC in victim liaison.

## Read his Brazil tale where he says in 2012 - updated twice so no mistake-:

"As a former detective and with ­nearly 30 years of experience in ­investigating child abuse,"

30 years? He was born in 1970 which means he started "investigating child abuse when he was TWELVE YEARS OLD !!!

And if he specialized in investigating child abuse for 30 frigging years how come he never investigated Jimmy Savile until years after he was dead?.

The man is loose with the truth which doesn't bode well for any investigation he might have been involved..which would be probably be none!

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/child-p...cash-in-fans-3660354

hedda wrote:


I'm probably an idiot but I "updated" MTW's Wiki page years ago to include his arrest from blackmail (and acquittal) and he was furious.

I even got Jimmy Wales on Twitter to agree that his past history was relevant.

But I decided not to keep torturing him..

He wasn't a specialist in much..a PC for most of his time except the last 18 months as an acting DC in victim liaison.

## Read his Brazil tale where he says in 2012 - updated twice so no mistake-:

"As a former detective and with ­nearly 30 years of experience in ­investigating child abuse,"

30 years? He was born in 1970 which means he started "investigating child abuse when he was TWELVE YEARS OLD !!!

And if he specialized in investigating child abuse for 30 frigging years how come he never investigated Jimmy Savile until years after he was dead?.

The man is loose with the truth which doesn't bode well for any investigation he might have been involved..which would be probably be none!

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/child-p...cash-in-fans-3660354[/quote]


He is loose with the truth and I am sure that the Police know that even if they will not say so publicly.

However it would affect their decision as to whether or not to use his experience and expertise in any cases that they were investigating.

It would be very interesting to make a Freedom of Information request to the Crown Prosecution Service to ask whether they had ever used the services of Mark Williams-Thomas as either a normal Prosecution Witness or as a Professional Witness or as an Expert Witness in any of their cases since he left Sussex Police and if so, how many cases and in which years.

They would have a record of this information as they would have had to pay any fees due to him and I doubt whether they could refuse to answer such a simple request.

I don't think MWT is the kind of person who does anything "officially". And I suspect police find very useful people who are prepared to leak, "tip off" and similar, under the woodwork. Off the books. Let's imagine a major celebrity is falsely accused of something. Police quickly spot it's false but need publicity to get more credible false accusers to come out of the woodwork so they can investigate, prosecute and get brownie points, promotion, increased budgets. But they cannot be seen or proven to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. That's when they need the likes of MWT.

Go view "to catch a Paedophile" on youtube you will find that most if not all the persons shown in that series would all come back to an MWT involvement.
Lets say a hell of a lot of groundwork had been done for the Mets "paedophile unit" ( no such thing exisTed)
MWT prior to this had shown himself on TV portrayed as young girls touting for fish to come for the bait or 'Jail Bait' as everyone refers to it back in the 70s 80s.

It would be interesting to know how much background evidence MWT brought to the table to convince the child protection unit to go with a TV doc, mind you it made great telly as all cop progs do and a direct copy of ear lier American TV entrapment shows (no entrapment laws in UK though) so an easy set up to make would you not say.
I think you will find MWTs preferred place was MSN pretty 2012

Ask Suzze, Suzzy, Susan, lil Sue, Hels, hells, missy helen the list could continue.