Fact-checking Jon Wedger

When we first began listening to Jonathan Wedger’s stories of life as a cop in the rough underbelly of London, we noticed a few clangers, but given his apparent earnest sincerity we were inclined to think that perhaps he was just confusing a few small details, which would iron themselves out.

However, as his relentless campaign of self-promotion has worn on, with porky piled on porky, it’s become increasingly clear that something is very, very wrong.

For example, yesterday we watched Part 3 of his July interview with Redpill Phil. (Hey, better late than never.)

Starting at about 11 minutes, Wedger describes his work (should we say “alleged work”?) on the canalways of London:

Phil: You basically mentioned how a lot of paedophilia stemmed from canalways, because it was easy, because they’re old, they’re not really manned, I think that was the word that kind of stuck out to me. Do you still feel that now?

Jon: Yeah yeah yeah, I mean there’s loopholes….

Because the canals, I mean, they’re ancient transit routes, I mean [gestures at canal behind them] that thing there, it was 1798 that was set up. And because it’s so old, they go on to become parish boundaries, which then become local authority boundaries. In London, we’ve got boroughs, and each borough is its independent policing district.

Now we only have that in London. If you go to, say, Nottingham, Nottingham itself is one policing district. And to Leicestershire, that would be a policing district, right? So when the Sex Offenders Registry Act come out, someone who had either been convicted or cautioned for a Schedule 1 sexual offence, or had served time for one, had to sign on as a sex offender.

And they didn’t want to do that, for so many reasons. They also knew that at some point it’s going to come clamping down, and maybe they’ll get disclosed. So they were going missing. So they had a vast amount of sexual offenders going off the radar.

Some of them were transient, they would live in cars, and they were driving about, but it’s difficult in a car, you know, the police are going to stop you, it’s not taxed, you’ve got no land address, and it’s an uncomfortable life. But one of them [points to canal boat], they’re a self-contained unit. You can get water from a garage, there’s a garage over there, you get your electricity from a generator, you can buy your petrol over there, and you can move about.

Sounds pretty reasonable so far.

Oh, except that two years ago, Wedger told the Daily Star:  “I found a lot of paedophiles were going off the radar. There was a loophole in the law that allowed them to live on canal boats without being on the electoral register.”

Not the Sex Offenders Registry, the electoral register. A small but important distinction. And funny that in two years it should morph from one to the other.

Canal rules and regs

Wedger goes on to describe how sexual offenders evade the law:

And in London, because of the borough system, that [over there] could be one borough, say that’s the borough of Hackney, and over here could be the borough of Newham. In the middle of that canal would be a borough boundary. And it will be in the middle. So that boat….

A sex offender has 28 days to register, from the policing district where they reside. So on Day 27, that man, all he’s got to do is put his boat over there, and he’s not broken the law. And that is what was happening.

Again, reasonable on the surface of it. It sounds like a clever way to avoid being tracked. Except that it’s not true.

We owe this insight to Twitter user @SouthLondonJohn, who pointed out that Wedger claims that the maximum time for a stay is 28 days. But within London, “short-term berths are in such demand that the maximum time for a stay is seven days’ time, but is usually only one day”.

Even outside London, the maximum time for a stay is 14 days.

Berths are much in demand, and if someone were to turn up at their pre-booked berth and find another boat there, “the Canal and River Trust (CRT) Enforcement Team would be on them”.

SouthLondonJohn also informed us that Wedger’s claim that the boats only had to move from one side of a canal to the other to evade the law is a practice known as “shuffling”, which is much frowned upon by the CRT.

We’re not saying that the CRT would catch every boater who violated this rule, but certainly along the busy canalways of London, they would be disinclined to overlook those who flouted the rules, if only to keep some semblance of order.

By the numbers

Jon: And the other thing about these boats—kids love ‘em.

Phil: I remember you talked about “Rosie and Jim”.

Jon: “Rosie and Jim”, yeah, so what you’d have on the windows of some of these boats, you’d have dolls. One of them is a fleur de lys badge, a Scout badge, so a Scout is taught that if you see that, it’s a safe haven. And again, look how much the scouting system has come to notice. They’re set up with benevolence, to help kids in deprived areas, but of course it gets hijacked, like everything gets hijacked. And of course kids would be drawn to it.

And I was told, ‘Look, there might be one or two on there, go and look for them, we’ll give you a few months, if you can get another two we’re happy’.

Well, within the first month I found 90. [1] And it was getting bigger and bigger. But then it started expanding onto the River Thames, and the boats on there, and then it started having links to, erm, all sorts of people.

And one of them became quite high profile. I think it was Charles Napier, that was linked into Peter (Hayman) and very high up people, [2] and you could see where it was going.

And I went into work one day, and the chief inspector said, “Jon, it’s closed”.

And I went, “Why?”

It was just unbelievably successful. And I was getting backing from the Paedophile Unit. [3] So much so, was my success on this unit, they actually took the legislation for judicial review, and got the initial registration for the first 28 days reduced to 14 days. [4] And then every month after that was 28 days, because of this problem that I’d highlighted. So that shows the impact it had.

Having established his basic lack of understanding about how the canalways of London operate, Wedger dives headlong into a series of bloopers. We’ve numbered them for easy reference.

[1] “Within the first month I’d found 90”.

90 what? 90 paedophiles? 90 unregistered sex offenders living on the canals? He doesn’t say. From the preceding paragraph, it seems he’s referring to paedophiles, but we can find nothing about gigantic canal-based paedophile rings on Google…except Wedger’s own claims.

However, assuming that he meant “90 unregistered sex offenders”, surely that would only have involved going to the CRT and asking for access to the names of licensed boaters. Possibly a day’s task, and hardly a brilliant bit of detective work.

[2] And one of them became quite high profile. I think it was Charles Napier, that was linked into Peter Hayman and very high up people.

The Charles Napier/Sir Peter Hayman link first became public in 2014. If Wedger is trying to claim that he had something to do with discovering this, we’d question how truthful he’s being.

By his own account in the Daily Star article, it was following his amazing success at catching (paedophiles and/or unregistered sex offenders) on the canals that he was transferred to the Vice Unit, which took place prior to 2010:

DC Wedger then said he was transferred to the Metropolitan Police’s clubs and vice unit but was told not to arrest underage girls.

He said he then found a magistrate who used to let off a specific pimp if she was pulled in by police, and he wrote a report on it in 2010 but was summoned to a senior officer’s office.

So perhaps we’ve misjudged Wedger. Maybe he’s really Dr Who, and we just didn’t recognise him without the TARDIS.

Incidentally, and we’ve pointed this out before, when a person is sent to magistrates court, they don’t have a choice of judges. And the judges there don’t choose their cases; they take what’s assigned to them. So how that “specific pimp” was consistently let off by one magistrate we really could not say.

[3] “I was getting backing from the Paedophile Unit”.

According to Wikipedia, “The Paedophile Unit is a branch of the Metropolitan Police Service’s Child Abuse Investigation Command, based at Scotland Yard in London, England. It operates against the manufacture and distribution of child pornography, online child grooming, and ‘predatory paedophiles online’, and organised crime associated with these”.

The focus of the Paedophile Unit seems to be online child sexual abuse, and nothing to do with the registration of sex offenders.

[4] “…they actually took the legislation for judicial review, and got the initial registration for the first 28 days reduced to 14 days”.

Wedger is referring here to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. In fact, the time allowance for initial registration under that Act was originally 14 days. Sex Offenders Act 1997 original

In 2003 that was revised to three days:Sex Offenders Act 1997 revised

So it went from 14 days to three, not from 28 days to 14. Given that Wedger seems to think this was quite the achievement on his part, you’d think he’d remember that little detail.

It’s difficult to say whether Wedger’s factual errors are deliberate on his part, or whether they stem from mental illness, or a combination of the two. He has stated that he was put on sick leave with PTSD, and since we don’t know the details of that, we can’t comment on whether it could have left him with an inability to recall basic details in a coherent manner.

Unfortunately, though, he’s put himself in the public spotlight, and is fundraising on the basis of the stories he tells. Given that people have and will continue to donate to his various crowdfunding efforts, we believe that it’s important to fact-check his statements. His donors deserve at least that much. Jonathan Wedger 2018-08-15 fact check

105 thoughts on “Fact-checking Jon Wedger

  1. Dubious claims from a very questionable man. The degree of confusion and almost complete separation of his cobblers and actual facts are disturbing. That he openly knocks around with skilled boxer and garden gnome witchcraft enthusiast baloney Maloney is a definite nail in the coffin as far as his credibility goes. The crap he talks and his dismissal are most likely linked.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Anyone who is promoted by Maloney is either as manipulative as he is or others really want it all to be true, or are vulnerable and don’t know any better. Some so called anti child abuse activists, are so manipulative, they know the art of grooming better than any paedophile. They are anti abuse activists in reverse, they are totally unable to debate anything and their only argument in defence of them selves to use the word paedophile protector

    Liked by 6 people

    • Indeed, the ex-copper in the Savile matter and the recent King discarded prosecution is renowned for calling anyone who dares to question his motives or actions a “pedophile protector”. And that includes senior Barristers who may question his methods. It’s the fall-back accusation of choice.

      This fanatical mob who have ramped up the notion of protected SRA cults and so on have really thrived during the internet era where it’s spread like a wildfire. I’ve always thought that at some stage they will come a cropper. They are now attacking IICSA who have the unfortunate task of separating fact from fantasy and
      collectively they have driven expensive lunatic investigations like the Ted Heath rubbish ( much of it is a hatred for the Tories) and disgracefully attacked a great war hero who is worth 1000s of these wretches.

      Liked by 3 people

    • People say Baloney works for Ian Puddick.

      I think Baloney and his group are far more dangerous than people assume. They targeted Brian Harvey deliberately causing paranoia which could have led to Harvey comitting suicide.

      Plus it would not surpise me if people who did that to Harvey also used the old cult tactic of spiking Harvey with LSD.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Very illuminating and I’m going to be kind here and say Mr. Wedger is either somewhat confused or perhaps suffered from stress due to his work as he has made some very odd claims here and factual discrepancies.

    I had a friend in The Met who for several years was in charge of one district for registering & monitoring those who had signed on to the Sex Offenders Registry. Areas all over the country are broken up into districts and each one comes under the supervision of one officer.

    Now, these officers are chosen very, very carefully because they must be extremely discreet as the whole idea is to encourage those who have to sign on to not be afraid to liaise with that officer and place their trust in him/her as they ONLY deal with that officer during their term on the Register.

    While details of registration, address etc are obviously recorded on the police computer these details ARE NOT accessible by just any other police officer except those at a very senior level such a chief inspector and even then they cannot access all details, they must, in turn, contact whichever officer is in control of that district. The whole notion of that register is for it to be confidential and in fact, the complete opposite of the USA system where the public can look people up.

    ONLY that officer can access details although he may deputize another officer/s to make one of those discreet and unannounced calls upon an offender. Even then the officer in charge will only choose a PC who can be trusted to not reveal details to anyone else (and this is an offense in the force).

    And no matter how many times fanatics ( I’m putting Wedger in this category) or politicians looking for a cheap newspaper headline (like the infamous Geoffrey Dickens MP who was all bluster and wind when waving his so-called “dossiers” in the air that proved to be nonsense) for a public style register ALL senior police have nipped that in the bud as being the very opposite of good policing which would make their job ten times harder.

    So unless Wedger was at some time one of these officers in control of a certain area he could not possibly know the details of any registered offender or where they did or didn’t live. He could not access that information on the police computer or if he did, that is an offense in itself. There is no way he would know if one or 100 offenders lived on canal boats, or in Spain or in a barn and he could only know the names of those in a particualr area.

    Speaking of Geoffrey Dickens: Wedger seems to be in this category. All Dickens so-called ‘evidence” was largely from fanatics writing him letters saying there was a Satanic Cult in the local Anglican Church or Mr. Blogs down the road had ten children hidden in the basement and so on. Dickens wasn’t stupid. He lived in a time when tabloids would run any old nonsense without proof. He waved his thick dossiers around as though they were real (another MP peeked in one once and said it was all blank paper) and the only time he was basically forced to hand over his dossier to authorities it proved to be just that- a compilation of gossip.

    But in a sense that just fuels the imaginations of fanatics as when police or a Minster looks at the stuff and conclude there is basically nothing they can pin down, it’s then called a Cover-Up by The Mob.

    # My friend was in that position for 5 years before he left the police to emigrate to Canada. Those in charge of Registers also are on general duties and he found the Register work pretty dreary as 95% of those on the Register comply with their obligations and it ends up being a lot of form filling and going back over old ground.

    I can see Wedger probably formed these notions in his head without facts or evidence and it became an obsession which is the opposite to good policing as calm and considered minds are needed.

    Liked by 4 people

    • This is most definitely a fantasy:
      [3] “I was getting backing from the Paedophile Unit”.

      Once again that is a specialist unit that is also very discreet for obvious reasons and they do not share information with other units unless there is some sort of crossover while investigating a suspected crime. An example may be a suspected drug dealer is also a suspected child sex offender. It’s a fantasy to say they would “give backing” to some other officer.
      Wedger must think people are complete fools if they also don’t know units in The Met are very protective of their own turf.

      Wedger keeps giving away clues that his time in the force must have been at a reasonably low level. While he may have been a DC he is exaggerating his position as senior officers from specialist unit s only deal with similar rank if they need to speak to another unit.

      Liked by 3 people

    • That’s fascinating info about your police friend. I had no idea that this is how the list is regulated, but it makes sense.

      So he couldn’t have gone looking for offenders who weren’t on the list, as he would not have known who was or was not on it in the first place! In other words, his story is completely 100% made up nonsense.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the way it works as my pal explained to me one night it actually makes a lot of sense. Remember most of the police are sane & sensible and understand that despite the media’s hyperventilated promotion of “pedos” offenses etc, the coppers just want the whole system to work.

        The vast majority of those on the Register tend to be one-time offenders ranging from extreme offenses to relatively minor but nonetheless- they have to sign on. And the police have a job, under the legislation. to monitor these people. But they do understand it’s best to deal with them in a civil matter and to encourage them to fulfill their obligations under the law. Apart from the fact most police deal with some pretty sick stuff in their time so they don’t want to make their job any harder.

        Mistakes happen but in reality, there is little reason for any offender to go ‘underground”. Why?. It just makes them vulnerable to further arrest and more punishment. The police actually prefer neighbors etc don’t know someone next door has a conviction (unless there is some child involved under the legislation) as it’s just another headache for them if locals start harassing them.

        And furthermore, Mr. Wedger’s claims re canal boats etc is pretty wacky stuff. The vast majority of those on the Sex Offenders Register tend to be working class or at best middle class. They either live in council housing or their own homes and the notion of upping stakes, for no reason, is a real complication. They have jobs etc and moving is a big deal.

        One of my pal’s real beefs was that he thought all the monitoring, in the end, did not prevent crime as he thought a real determined pedophile could be so cunning he could plot and plan a crime and no-one could really stop him (her) or at the other end of the scale, someone could commit an on-the-spur offense and all the monitoring in the world could, sadly, not prevent it.
        Mr. Wedger seems to have come up this quite wacky thesis and perhaps drove his superiors mad.
        # the cop who manages the register is usually the Crime Manager.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The “standard” baseline for being on the register is 2 years for accepting a police caution; minimum 5 years for a guilty plea/court verdict; 10 years for middling offences and usually lifetime for anything involving contact with a minor (grooming and upwards).

          Employment legislation and Universal Credit rules also makes it pretty tricky to “disappear” unless an offender can magic up a new National Insurance number and if they can do that then they are most likely to be the sort where a register wouldn’t be a deterrent anyway!

          Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, assuming the person either has to ‘sign on’ or receive some kind of state benefits it would be difficult for them to disappear wouldn’t it. That’s a good point.


          • And that’s what makes his claim so bizarre.
            Even being on the Register won’t stop a person offending if they are determined. How could it?. They don’t keep tabs on them 24/7. Just their address, if they move, contact details, car rego, perhaps social media accounts, their job, if they travel abroad or elsewhere for more than a certain time and so on. But none of that is going to stop a person abusing. They only “sign on” once a year but can have spot checks.

            I reckon Wedger has dreamed up a scenario and convinced himself Britain’s canals are awash with pedos inviting kids aboard. Maybe a tugboat captain was mean to him when he was young and it’s festered away over the decades. Kids are pretty savvy these days. Can’t see them being enticed aboard a big barge by some gentleman.

            Isn’t that where he took his famous bike ride? Along the canals?. Maybe it’s still a real obsession. Why didn’t Baloney go with him and film Wedger’s covert detecting of the Pedo Barges? Make a good film. With any luck, they’d get attacked by a huge hideous rat that lives by the canal which would make fab filming.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I can just see Maloney investigating boats in his inane histrionic manner . . . Look at that, they’ve got a flower painted on the side, the sick nonces. This one here has a nodding dog in the window, that’s to attract kids. There’s one there with a brush. That’s representative of the brooms witches use to fly, that’s evidence of witchcraft. This one here is black and has red stripes, that a nazosadist paedomaniac color scheme.

            That Muppet can find evidence of satanosexual abusery with the flimsiest of excuses, err I mean evidence.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. 19:51 – “Don’t talk to me like I’m a conspiracy theorist, coz I’m not.”

    Hmm. I’m starting to understand why Wedgie fell out with his superiors.

    Liked by 3 people

    • LOL yes, I had to stop before I got to that bit, as this post’s word count was getting out of control. But I love how deeply sincere and stern he looks as he claims not to be a conspiracy theorist, right after having delivered a truckload of invented conspiranoid nonsense to his viewers.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Well, that’s the proverbial hit the fan.. it’ll be interesting to see what Angela makes of that video.

      Angela will probably say that Flo D. is working for GCHQ or she was ‘honey-trapped’, or something along those lines. 😀

      Great video.

      Liked by 4 people

    • For anyone who missed the Angie-Heather video last night:

      Good luck trying to find one single thing they say that’s true. And that’s not a joke – I mean that literally.

      And as well as an abundance of bullshit, this one also contains a number of death threats to Steve Keys and his wife. Yup

      Liked by 3 people

        • I’m sure Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders would be delighted their images have been used as the thumbnail on such a nasty video…NOT.

          Are they on Twitter? Maybe they should be told.

          Liked by 2 people

      • He’s acting out the video of when the Police came to his home and warned him a death threat regarding him had been received by the Police. He wouldn’t let them in and made them stand behind the bins and read it to him.

        In this though, he’s implying the Police told him a lie. Not sure why though.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You know, I wonder whether commenters like this are just religious nutters looking for a place to indulge their fantasies of being able to say all the filthy things that come into their heads? It’s almost as if they save them up and unload them on videos like this one.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. I find the most effective way to stay off the Electoral Register is simply not to register. It’s how I dodged the Poll Tax and I certainly didn’t have to live on a canal barge to do it.

    The home owner/renter used to be responsible for ensuring that all those living there were registered, but guess what, nobody ever came into your home and checked. Now the individual is responsible to ensure they are registered, so it’s even easier not to be on it.

    Are we really to believe that paedophiles on the run would allow or put themselves on the Electoral Register?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I wouldn’t recommend to anyone not to register, as it would wreck their credit rating. They’d struggle to get credit cards, loans or mortgages if they weren’t on the register.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. Michael Hames’ “The Dirty Squad” details the initial development of a dedicated Pedophile/ Child Sexual Abuse Images investigations unit within the Obscene Publications branch, which he oversaw & directed. I recommend it! But he retired in 1993, so it only covers the early history.

    The “Spotlight On Abuse” archive of historic CSA reporting covers many dozens of cases & operations over the years. You can look for yourself, but I don’t recall ANY cases that involved unregistered offenders living in canal boats:

    Certainly, the recent football coach abuse tragedies don’t mention boats, nor the grooming gangs that exploited teen girls through fast-food outlets, nor the pedophilic clergy and boarding school cases.

    I’d say Mr Wedger is full of crap, personally.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I call BS on Wedger. We only have his uncorroborated word for any of his claims and, being nice, that has proved time and time again to be suspect.

      In keeping with not letting the nut jobs trying to harass contributors to this site have more personal information than is necessary, I’m not going to reveal how but I have experience in regards to canal management.

      Just try being an itinerant on a canal boat and see how far you get!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Fred the Weather Man Tolbot abused boys on a boat, on a trip to Scotland, and a former Head Master of a Prep School in Harpenden sexually abused boys on a canal boat, but it wasn’t any kind of ring or anything. What is this about the fascination with these Bullshiiters about abusing kids on boats? Certain people including Baloney have gone on for years about boys being raped on boats then thrown over the side, really? Where are the witnesses? Where are the bodies? If this was a true fact why isn’t/wasn’t anyone searching for these alleged boys drowned in the water? Even Baloney managed to tiie it in with the Hollie Hoax saying that Downs children where raped and drowned at sea. He said that on Lou Collins Radio thing, when he used to come on all out of breath blah blah blah. Seriously they are all full of shit.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that sexual abuse has taken place on canal boats (and boats in general), but Wedger’s fantasies are just made-up nonsense. Good question about why the nutters are so fascinated with this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I had a friend who lived on a barge on the Thames in Chelsea but he had to move eventually because of the huge, humongous, frigging great rats that would emerge at low tide that frightened the life out of his small children (his- not kidnapped ones). It’s not the romantic lifestyle it’s cracked up to be. Pedo or not.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I noticed that Wedger brought up the subject of Rosie and Jim from Tots TV he just happen to name drop them in for good measure, what a load of old bollocks. I have a suspicion he will eventually disappear like the rest of em in the end, five minutes of fame, mugs and tee shirts and all that.

          Liked by 3 people

      • @Farmer Giles

        In addition to those cases you mentioned involving abusers acting alone involving abusing kids on boats, there is unfortunately evidence of at least two organised networks who abused kids on boats or yachts – I speak of the Azimuth Trust cases, and the abusers who infiltrated the Jersey Sea Cadets (see links below).

        That is not to say I take the likes of Baloney seriously. If he has any evidence of such activity encompassing not just kids being abused on boats, but thrown aboard also, then he should go to the cops. Blabbing about it on social media as he does actually is worse than useless, as it essentially tips off the perpetrators (if indeed there are any) to destroy any evidence (if indeed there is any).


        Click to access R.59-2017%20Independent%20Jersey%20Care%20Inquiry%20Report%20%20-COMPLETE-.pdf

        Liked by 2 people

        • Btw, are Baloney and Wedger bringing Ted Heath into all of this?

          Fwiw, I downloaded all the contemporaneous reports from the Daily Mirror regarding the drownings of two yachtsmen when Morning Cloud 3 went down. The conspiracy theory that Heath was throwing kids over-board from his yachts after abusing them SEEMS to have arisen because there was some understandable confusion initially over how many yachtsman were lost, and one of the bodies was never recovered.

          The yachtsmen weren’t kids, they were stout hearty yachtsmen in their thirties who died tragically. I am no expert on boating, but as I understand it, there simply wouldn’t have room to stash kids in the galley in the types of yachts that Heath owned. It simply wouldn’t have been logistically possible, even if Heath had wanted to.


          Regardless of whether one liked or loathed Heath’s policies, to bring all this up again is an insult to the families of the yachtsmen, and the people mounting the conspiracy theory should stop it. If they have any actual evidence of a cover-up, and if they genuinely believe what they are saying, they should go to the cops.

          Liked by 3 people

          • The series of yachts ted heath owned, all called morning cloud, were state of the art racing yachts designed for speed. she spent every spare hour when not being prime minister with his various crew members and other yacht enthusiasts. Such boats are stripped down bare bones affairs and never had the additional kit to sail single handedly so always needed at least 3 crew to properly sail. plus heath always had close protection operatives around him. anyone saying he had kids smuggled aboard is talking crap. A performance racing yacht with a crew of burly sailors and an ex sas team always in the vicinity plus the massive crowds of nosey blazered yacht types at the marinas and bays is a virtually impossible place to sneak kids around. whatever you feel about heath’s politics is fair comment but him being a Pederast who murdered kids under the noses of his crew while people on land including the media flocked to watch through binoculars ? the most important politician in the country had zero privacy yachting.


          • The series of yachts ted heath owned, all called morning cloud, were state of the art racing yachts designed for speed. He spent every spare hour when not being prime minister with his various crew members and other yacht enthusiasts. Such boats are stripped down bare bones affairs and never had the additional kit to sail single handedly so always needed at least 3 crew to properly sail. plus heath always had close protection operatives around him. anyone saying he had kids smuggled aboard is talking crap. A performance racing yacht with a crew of burly sailors and an ex sas team always in the vicinity plus the massive crowds of nosey blazered yacht types at the marinas and bays is a virtually impossible place to sneak kids around. whatever you feel about heath’s politics is fair comment but him being a Pederast who murdered kids under the noses of his crew while people on land including the media flocked to watch through binoculars ? the most important politician in the country had zero privacy yachting.


        • Just to correct myself, one of the yachtsmen who tragically drowned was 23 – Heath’s godson, Christopher Chadd. Not in his thirties, but not a juvenile either.

          El Coyote, I have emailed you the contemporaneous news reports from the Express.

          Liked by 2 people

  7. Good luck with that, Neelu. Sigh

    By the way, her allegations about that police officer being involved in child porn is way over the line, imo.

    Liked by 2 people

    • So Neelu is now adding serious defamation to her list of transgressions.

      My advice to Sergeant **** of Barkingside is: get your solicitor now to send her letter notifying her you reserve the right to take legal action against her libels and that you will pursue her for legal costs.

      As she now has a property undergoing repossession and she undoubtedly has several £100Ks tied up in equity your solicitor can always get a lien on the balance due to her until the matter is settled.
      I’m not the foremost fan of the British police in its current state but no innocent officer deserves to be traduced in this manner or be defamed by some nutter on the internet.

      You deserve REMEDY!

      Liked by 3 people

  8. It’s unfortunate (but understandable for mental illness) that the police can’t issue statements about why people “leave”, specifically when they go on to make claims such as this.

    Members of the public generally hold the view that police officers tell the truth, so when one says they “left” because of [insert whistle-blower story here], being an ex-copper adds weight to their story.

    Look at how troofers salivate over Ray Savage being an “ex-detective” during the Hampstead hoax.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Interesting thing to hear from someone who frequently promotes Aangirfan, Butlincat and Lift the Veil…

    Liked by 1 person

  10. LOL, I see Malcolm and Belinda have kissed and made up:

    I wonder whether Belinda condones Malcolm’s slander, death threats, bullying and misogynism.

    Liked by 3 people

    • She doesn’t want Arthur to post on her family profile, would that be her public profile that she posts all her conspiracy rubbish, false flags, etc. on!

      That’s not being a very nice friend Angela, do you think Arthur isn’t good enough for your personal family profile? Tut, tut, tut!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Eddie seems blissfully unaware that it was his hero Nathan Stolpman who got his dear leader arrested.


      • See the boat…. what boat ????? It’s normal isn’t it, for a boat to go alongside a swimmer ????? So where’s the films of actual swimming ? Maybe someone should let the Jersey press know and check with their lifeguarding people, if they are aware of this swimathon, for his safety and success ! LOL.


        • Oops, Scilly Isles for his silly swim, if it’s as real as the bike ride……….. unless all those people who waved and shouted and cheered for him along the way, can share their photos, please ……..surely they are all over Facebook, no ?


  11. Anyone know what Blabberpsycho’s banging on about here?



    Liked by 1 person

  12. I don’t get the problem above with Wedger not getting all his facts right. He’s a copper after all.


  13. Pingback: Citizen Journalists, beware of whom you believe – Beware of hoaxers, entryists, exploiters and conspiracy theorists – Fahrenheit211

  14. Jonathan Wedger is a bizarre fantasist and a useless actor. I think he is a fake Christian with a shady Police background. No one has seen any film footage of his Scilly Swim Challenge around the Scilly Isles. He is scared of a confrontation with Brian Harvey because he knows Brian will ask him some very direct questions that will immediately expose Jonathan Wedger as a fake, a fraud and a subversive nasty individua who hangs around Bill Maloney because they are psy-op shills. Many people are now questioning whether Wedger actually worked for the Metropolitan Police for 25 years. In one interview he did, Wedger mentioned he ‘retired’ from the Police in August 2017. Yet he states he met Bill Maloney from Lewisham, 8 years prior to his retirement. So does that mean he has known Bill Maloney since August 2009? Wedger says he met Bill Maloney in 2010. Something does not make sense in his statements because his backstory is bullshit and because his memory is so bad he cannot recollect information correctly. Maloney sure is worried and has gone underground again and many think he and Maria Maloney are hiding out in their caravan at Leysdown-On-Sea on the Isle of Sheppey in East Kent, whilst Wedger has become his replacement and is doing an even more useless job than Baloney did.

    Something else that most people should know about Jonathan Wedger is that he is an alcoholic and a heavy smoker. Now if he was a devout Roman Catholic Christian, he would not drink or smoke. Frankly his usage of the Christian moralizer persona is both pathetic and silly. He comes across as humble but under the surface is malicious and likes to blame people like Brian Harvey for his own personal dysfunctionalities. In reality Jonathan Wedger is an evil lunatic who has caused all his own problems concerning the negative criticism he has brought upon himself. Wedger stated he was ‘taking on the might of the British Establishment’ in that pompous and arrogant video he did. The British Establishment is the British Royal Family, the House of Windsor. So if he is getting alot of flack, then that is because he has inferred that they are basically Satanic paedophiles. What a joke. Both him and Bill Maloney should be prosecuted and sent to prison for the sick psy-op they have created. Andrew Ashworth was bullied and verbally abused by Bill Maloney. Jonathan Wedger used to pick Andrew up from Kings Cross Station after he had traveled from Kingston-Upon-Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Wedger would then drive Andrew to Bill and Maria’s ex-council flat in Lewisham where Maloney would script Andrew.

    Both Maloney and Wedger are psychopaths and as usual Shill Baloney has gone to ground again and this time has left his protege Nathan Numnuts in the limelight. Bill Maloney has friends and contacts in Chatham in the Medway Towns in North Kent, Margate and Cliftonville in Thanet, South Kent and hangs out in the Isle of Sheppey alot. Like many other people I believed in Bill Maloney but he is a traitor to the real UK Truth Movement who has destroyed the credibility of real CSA survivors and now Jonathan Wedger is doing exactly the same. Where are the other 299 Police Whistleblowers then John? Where are their testimonials? What has the ITNJ achieved? Why don’t you phone Brian Harvey and make amends for the way you have treated him? Your a fake Wedger and you know it.


    • My apologies for not approving this comment sooner. It got stuck in the spam filter and I only just saw it.

      Thanks for your views on Wedger. I agree that he’s a poser and a hypocrite, and that Maloney has done more harm than good. However, I’ve had to remove a statement in which Wedger is accused of an illegal activity, since we have no evidence that this is so, and we don’t make this sort of claim against people, no matter how much we disapprove of them.


  15. Pingback: Belinda McKenzie & Jon Wedger spotted at D&V Party conference | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  16. Jon Wedger?
    If someone threatens to expose the criminal activity of evil doers they will do their utmost to discredit that persons credibility..
    I wonder how many of Jon wedgers attackers have canal boats and or indulge in the vile sexual abuse of young children.


    • Ah, there it is. I’d wondered how long it would be before we got the inevitable “you disagree with him so you must be one of the people he’s ‘exposing'”.

      It’s an old trick, well-worn but apparently durable.

      But since you’re here, perhaps I could ask you to tell us exactly which of Wedger’s critics have canal boats or have been convicted of child sexual abuse? This would be very useful and enlightening information, I’m sure.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I did like their use of “and/or” which implies they think that merely owning a canal boat is the epitome of criminal evil! 🤣🤣🤣

        P.S. As a former canal trustee, that accolade is only awarded to those who leave lock gates open and drain a section. 👹

        P.P.S. I have never owned a canal boat! 😏

        Liked by 1 person

  17. When Jonathan Wedger mentions canal boats being shunted across the canals to the other side, this is total B.S. Firstly canal boats are usually narrowboats. In a huge city like London the nature of the canal networks means that it is viitually impossible to shunt a narrowboat across the other side of the canal because most parts of the canal networks have the boats moored upon one side whilst the canal traffic uses the other side as the waterway. Shunting a narrowboat across the canal would cause an obstruction and also other boat owners would either politely confront the boat owner or report them to the UK Canal & River Trust (CRT) which took over from British Waterways in 2012. They would then take their details anyway and regularly did that in the 1970s and 1980s because the boating community is actually very close knit and therefore anonymity would be out of the question. Jonathan Wedger has largely fabricated his ‘canal boat story’ and it is badly researched. If Numbnuts had done his research he would know that anyone who owns a narrowboat or a widebeam boat on the canals must have a canal licence with the CRT which they have to renew every 12 months. Hence their details would be recorded and they would lose their anonymity.

    Another B.S. aspect to Wedger’s waffle is the idea that the canal networks in London were somehow discreet hideaways and the Metropolitian Police didn’t go near them. Actually there are regular police patrols along the towpaths in London. If there were paedophiles sexually abusing children on narrowboats then the police would increase their presence in those areas. Jonathan Wedger comes across as arrogant and yet I do not think he is actually a very intelligent man. Again that is another sign something is wrong because a man who apparently worked for the police at New Scotland Yard for 25 years would be alot more savvy and intelligent than he has shown himself to be and would recall facts with far more accuracy. He seems to be a very bad judge of character and also he cannot take criticism very well. Where are all his police buddies who were apparently going to become valiant police whistle blowers? He sure is desparately wanting to be noticed and obviously wants to reinvent himself. At least Bill Maloney attended the Rose Bruford College in Sidcup, Kent and learned his rather average acting and film making skills there. Wedger does not even have any of these ‘talents’ and yet he tries to pass himself off as constantly being credible when in reality he is a ridiculous individual.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.